The Discernment of Dar

Jaymes and Natalia - May 2015

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Mon, 18 May 2015 20:33:00 +0000

The Ignorance of Religion: Applying the 80/20 Rule

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:31:00 +0000

In 2008, an American TV political commentator/comedian produced and starred in a documentary called, Religulous, in which he examined and attempted to point out the ridiculousness of organized religion.

His point is show how religion and faith seem to foster ignorance in that “faith makes a virtue out of NOT thinking.” And although his attempts were meant as a negative, as we’ve discussed here, faith is a part of who we are, it influences our instinctive character and therefore does make a virtue of not rationalizing, of reacting spontaneously, and exactly as he stated… of not thinking.

But where there is good, there is also bad, and Religulous aims to point out the latter.

It’s true; there is much ignorance in faith-based groups because faith is about trusting beyond reason and logic. But where is the line between discernment and faith? Or how can we avoid the ignorance of faith and NOT live in a constant state of doubt?

Discernment starts at the acquisition level, before knowledge becomes a part of core beliefs. However, a lot of our core beliefs come from our childhood, and how discerning are we at 5 yr old, or 8, 12, even 16?

We all start somewhere with something. Yet at some time in our lives, we all need to leave the “faith of our fathers” to forge our own. It’s not a path many choose to take willingly. That takes the ability to accept a core part of who we are is…. well… could be… possibly… wrong.

For some… reality hits them hard in the face, and they are forced to re-evaluate things. For others, it begins with a choice whether to even consider the possibility of going through the anguish of re-evaluating.

This is the first step at becoming truly discerning. Some have their lives accustomed to change and applying new information, others have set their lives firmly around what they have grown know and therefore any change in that core is quite dramatic. Regardless of how difficult it may be, it needs to happen, in order to continue developing productively. That is where the 80/20 rule comes into play.

To explain this point, I’ve re-cycled an older article about the 80/20 rule to World Peace which applies to the development of personal discernment.

The 80/20 rule to World Peace.

Three’s Company was popular TV comedy that ran for 8 years in the early eighties about 2 women and 1 man living together to share rent. The basic plot for each show revolved around a misunderstanding, mis-communication and crazy attempts to get out of situations caused by the conflict. Phrases like, “It’s not what it looks like,” and “If only they would listen to my side of the story,” made their lives more interesting and their conflicts laughable.

But in real life, too many times, the situations that result are far from comedic: Families torn apart, relationships severed, communities uprooted, lives destroyed, even war. Imagine how much conflict could be avoided in relationships at work, politics, even international affairs, if the rush to judgment would be replaced with patient discernment?

This is the basis for the 80/20 rule to World Peace.

The 80/20 rule to World Peace implies that 80% of world conflicts can be resolved if everyone accepted a 20% chance that they COULD be wrong.

Have you ever been in an inter-personal conflict and NOT think to yourself, “I’m right.” Have you ever continued conflict thinking, “Maybe, I’m wrong?”

The problem with conflict is everyone believes they are right, or everyone else is wrong, which is, in fact, true, from their own perspectives. Everyone believes they are right because that is the basic way we know how to interact with our world. Every decision we make is a reaction to what we believe to be true. So not only are each of us right, but everyone does what they believe to be in their best self interests.

Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews all are right from each of their own perspectives. Russians, North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and Americans; conservatives, liberals, progressives, each believe likewise.

The “I’m right,” culture leads to a world of absolutes causing people to stop listening, stop learning, and refusing to look at other perspectives. This leads to ignorance, intolerance, and eventually conflict.

Therefore the 80/20 Rule to World Peace asks that since EVERYONE is right, in order to give peace a chance, simply adopt an attitude towards conflict that accepts a 20% chance that MAYBE you’re not. Or, for the especially proud, like myself, an adjustment to the rule would be to accept a 20% chance that MAYBE you don’t have all the information.

From a psychological perspective, people are uncomfortable with lingering questions. We prefer to live in conclusions and certainty. Therefore judgment is quickly made based on the information that is known or perceived. The information that is not known or even in conflict is then assumed to be what is the most common or logical based on our experience so a conclusion can quickly be made. And because we are “always right,” those conclusions usually become beliefs. This is what causes misconceptions, misperceptions, and miscommunication. This is what draws out our impulsive physical and emotional reactions to events.

By consciously acknowledging a lack of information, “Huh?” and a willingness to linger in uncertainty for a little while, we avoid the automatic judgments, “I can’t believe you did that,” which then turns on the inquisitive side of our psyche, “What the hell are you doing?”

This is called, discernment.

It is the difference between trained and untrained, mature and immature, educated and uneducated. It is, or should NOT, be the difference between primarily logical and emotional decision-makers. But it should be included at the base of curriculum principles within ALL formal learning.

Should everyone accept the 20%, the result is at least 80% of the world’s conflicts could be resolved or even avoided from playground arguments, to marital conflicts, even world wars.

Most conflicts occur from one of three reasons: Pride, Desire, or Resources, translated into, “I’m right,” “I want,” “I need,” or any combination thereof, and each of them driven by absolutes.

What this is NOT is an abolishment to faith. Rather it is a willingness to accept an attitude of humility that MAYBE I don’t know everything. This provides the opportunity for an openness to seek further information, to gain a broader perspective, and to make more informed decisions.

The truth is, conflict will always exist. But reducing it would be a huge help. With discernment comes a life where conflict, like a comedy, can be a lot more laughable. But, don’t take my word for it, there is a 20% chance I could be wrong…

Folly of Faith: Reaching Through the Darkness

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:00:00 +0000

In my early days of working in Eastern Europe, I noticed in one town a good number of people walking around with patches on their eyes. my translator explained it was from corrective eye surgery.

I looked into it and realized it was a fraction the price from the western world. At the time, with all my traveling, sports, and the fact that I needed to change my prescription, it made a lot of sense to simply get my eyes cut. But could I trust the local doctors with my eyes? Images of walking into a dirty moldy room with a rusty bed, paint falling off the walls and just one single light bulb in the middle of the room spark doubts.

One of my local friends jokingly told stories of doctors being drunk, and I could only imagine a fat doctor smelling of slivovica climbing on my bed and cutting my eyes manually with a scalpel.

I told a friend of mine, and to my surprise, he immediately said, “ok, I’ll do it with you.” “Wait,” I stuttered, “I didn’t say I was doing it.” “I know,” he replied, “but I’ll do it with you anyways.” And before we knew it, we had an appointment.

The stress and fear at the risk I would be taking, were quickly erased as soon as we walked into the doctor’s office. No rusty bed, no paint falling off the walls. The staff were friendly and we had good rapport with the doctor. She explained that we would do only one eye the first time, then come back for the second. Reassured, we decided to go through with it.

The surgery went well. My friend and I actually had fun joking with the doctor and staff about our earlier fears. When it was done, she explained we may feel some pain for the next days and gave us each 1 pain killer.

We decided to use it only when and if necessary.

For a while, things were fine.. only minor discomfort. Slowly, the pain cycles began, it started with feelings of sand in our eyes, which progressed to sharp pain, but for only a second. So we decided to lay down and try to sleep through the rest of the night. The pain continued with regular shots of pain, but as trained athletes, we felt we could handle it.

At some point in the middle of the night, I woke to incredible pain. It felt like someone jabbed my eye with broken glass then started twisting it. And as soon as it stopped, it started again, then again and again. This isn’t right, I thought. Something is seriously wrong. I’m losing my eye. The doctor made a mistake, I made a huge mistake. I panicked. The pain struck again, and this time I screamed.

My friend, who was sleeping in the bed next to me, spoke through the darkness, “Wow, did you feel that too?”

“..Too?” I thought. “How could he feel my pain?”

I asked him, “Did you just feel someone stab your eye with shattered glass?”

“Mine felt more like a rusty saw…. But yea.”

Since both of us were feeling the same type of pain at the same time, we concluded that this was part of the process. I calmed down; we took our pain killers, and went back to bed.

The rest of the healing went without incident. And soon after, went back for my second eye. The amount of pain for the second happened as before, but because I now understood what was happening, it was much more bearable than before.

Living by faith works the same. It is faith because we don’t know, it doesn’t make sense, and senses tell us that the complete opposite may be true. And if we are not careful, we start to question if we made a mistake.

It is at those times that many of us need someone sitting with you in the darkness, sharing your pain, doubt, fear; someone who is taking the same journey, or better, someone who has taken that journey before. Most first time experiences follow the same pattern. We do because those more experienced show us how, and when things start to feel wrong, we need to decide to trust them… or fail.

And when that journey is without experience, we seek out others who will take that journey with us.

Such is the original purpose of “faith groups,” or religions; the gathering of 2 or more in support of their shared beliefs, for encouragement, support, development, etc.

It’s been said that religion is a crutch for weak minded people who find strength in numbers. Although the statement was intended as negative, that’s exactly what it is, in fact all support groups are.

Whether you’re trying to live life according to the tenants of a faith, or losing weight, training for a sport, over-coming addictions, pushing through a political agenda, or even trying to become a better more consistent writer. J If we didn’t have weaknesses, we really wouldn’t need others at all. But the fact is, we are fallible, we do have weaknesses, everyone has periods of weakness. And it is at those times that we need the strength of others to pull us through.

Weakness isn’t accepting support, because in that we are stronger, and can accomplish what we set out to do. True weakness is allowing our pride to reject support to succeed.

Religion, or rather churches, has its place in society…. when used in support of faith. Where it starts to go wrong is when it starts determining it; which is what we’ll discuss in our next article.

In our effort to live by faith, it can seem more noble to take it all alone. But when you find yourself at your limits, don't hesitate to reach through the darkness and find someone who will share that pain. There really is strength in numbers.

Folly of Faith Part 2: Faith vs. Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:47:00 +0000

“When you have come to the edge of the light of the known and are about to drop off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen: There will be something solid to stand on or you will be taught to fly” Patrick Overton

Recently, a friend of mine asked if I was religious. I mentioned that was not religious, but I was a was a person of faith. He was confused and asked again, looking for a simple yes or no. So I asked if he wanted to know if I was a part of a church, or what I believed in. He as many have equated the two to be one in the same. But there is a dramatic difference between faith and religion.

At one point during the ministry of Jesus, he and his disciples got into a boat to cross the lake. Tired from the journey, Jesus fell quickly asleep as the fishermen for once took control. Soon afterward, without warning, a storm came so that the waves swept over the boat, tossing it back and forth at will. The disciples, including the professional fishermen panicked. They rushed to Jesus and woke him saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown.” Jesus got up and reprimanded them saying, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then rebuked the wind and the waves, and all was calm.

The disciples were fully devoted loyal followers of Jesus. Not only were they first-hand witnesses to his teaching and miracles, they were participants. They had broken bread, passed out fish, carried the sick, and led the crowds. Yet, when as soon as they seemed to be out of sight of their master, as soon as it came to relying on another sense than tangible reason, they lost control. All that teaching, all that experience, all they had learned was still overcome by panic and fear.

Faith is not just a tradition, not just what happens on the day you attend church, but something that affects the very being of who you are. As mentioned in the previous article, faith is about believing in something to the point of action. I plop on my bed, ride in a car, eat Mom’s food without hesitation, without questioning, without fear. Faith is how we make decisions. Without it, we couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. How we act, react, our perceptions, feelings, and reactions are all results of our faith.

Religion is about a set of actions to build, perpetuate, support or most often demonstrate an assumed “faith.” Religion creates a predetermined set of actions for members and if you are a “member” your faith and the extent of that faith is defined by your adherence to to actions.

The disciples in the story followed Jesus, did what he said, did what they did because they believed it was the right thing to do. They believed in the actions. But when it came to core beliefs, that which affects our decisions and reactions, they failed. And in the end, their "good deeds" proved to be useless and ineffective in influencing their faith.

Sure, according to religion, we should believe in certain things, and to demonstrate that, we do certain things. But that’s the point. Religion is a set of actions or acceptable behavior we do to demonstrate or express beliefs, whereas faith itself determines our behavior.

This is another example of a problem of labels. I remember walking into a church one hot summer day and hearing members whisper to each other, “He sure doesn’t love the Lord.” This was pretty conservative church, and apparently, my dedication to my beliefs was expressed in wearing pants, rather than commitment to love, charity, and the other virtues I thought were paramount.

Truth starts with observation, Religion starts with assumption.

It is the Religious that prefer tradition over trust, ritual over reality, and liturgy over love.

But this is more than churches, it is the organization of any belief: Political parties, social groups, movements. All share the fundamental adherence to express belief by a predetermined set of actions. And followers of those specific beliefs are faithful, when they follow those traditions.

But if it is real faith, why would someone need to tell you what actions you should do?

Is there any wonder that a majority of the world claims faith in some god, but most of the developed world prefers to remain secular? Society has lumped religion and faith into one category and therefore, either you accept the traditional form of religion, either you fit into the right boxes, either you do what is expected and accept the tenants associated with your label, or you don’t believe in God.

After finding the following traditions fruitless, I decided to explore faith on my own terms. I started with the tenants of my faith: the existence of God and the Bible as his word. If God promised it, I would allow the boat to sway and trust Him for the outcome whatever that would be. For some reason, among the spiritual leaders of my church and even family, that was radical and extreme, so much so that one of the Pastors from confronted me and told me I was being irresponsible and would live to regret it.

Funny, being “good” was acceptable, following “faith” was not. Following the traditions, was tolerable; behaving according to beliefs was radical.

To those who are sincerely searching, to those looking for more, refuse to stay in the comfort of traditions, and explore your own faith to take you on the adventure of your life. And when the winds take you beyond your control, you’ll start to see what’s really there.

The Folly of Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:52:00 +0000

On a warm summer day in the mid-1800’s, then well-known daredevil Charles Blondin, had decided to cross the Niagara falls over a tight rope. With the wind blowing and the water roaring as it cascaded over the falls, Charles stepped up to the wire and raised his hand to silence the roaring crowd of thousands who came to see this daring feat. With his usual flare, in dramatic fashion, he explained the danger that awaited him. He then gazed through the astonished crowd and asked, “Do you believe that I can do this?” There was a pause, so he asked louder, “Do you believe that I can do this?” “We believe!” the crowd roared back. “Then OK…let’s go.” And he turned to begin his quest.

The crowd went silent as they watched ….step, step, step, pause, then again step, step, until soon he reached the other side.

The crowd cheered.

He then explained to the crowd on the other side, “Now, I will go back across, but this time I will go … backwards!” And he pointed to the crowd and asked, “Do you believe?” The crowd shouted back with an enthusiastic, “We Believe!” He turned to the US side and yelled, “Do you believe?” And from across the river came, “We believe!”

So he proceeded back across the river backwards, step, step, step, pause, step, step..and eventually landed back on the US side unscathed. “Amazing” roared the crowd. “Unbelievable,” roared even more.

Yet instead of taking his customary bow, he again pointed to the crowd and yelled, “Wait, there’s more. I will again cross…. But this time, I will carry a man on my back!” And the crowd roared.

He asked, “Do you believe?” The crowded yelled back, “We Believe!!” He asked again, “Do you really believe?” “Yes, yes, we believe!!” they responded. “Ok” blondin replied, “who will volunteer?”

Immediately crowd fell silent, and hands went down.

Such is the folly of faith.

It’s easy to say “I believe,” while standing on the side with nothing to lose. Yet the power of faith does not show itself when things make sense, with guarantees, when there is little to nothing to lose. Its power and usefulness arises when the opposite is true, when we could lose everything.

Faith, is not a religious rite, it is a fundamental part of who we are as conscious beings. Our belief system gives us the ability to make decisions. It would be impossible to interact with the world without believing in something, right or wrong. Simple things like sitting on a chair, walking down the street, eating food without stress is possible, because of what you believe to be true, conscious or not.

What clothes you wear, people you spend time with, where you live, what you do, how events are interpreted, your opinions of people, even how you feel about yourself, all products of faith. It determines not only how we see the world, but more importantly how we react to it.

Faith is therefore, one of the major influences of our character, our perspectives, reactions, even our purpose. It is the essence of who we are…and the foundation in determining what we become.

Our ability to be good, self-controlled, to persevere, be kind… even to love, in the agape sense of the word… manifests itself in the strength of our faith.

Yet, as the crowd at Niagara realized that day, simply saying you believe, doesn’t make that true.

Faith shows itself in action. If we really believe it…we do it. Therefore we sit in the chair without testing if it can hold us. We walk down the street without watching our feet, we eat without inspecting, we can sleep at night when our loved ones are away.

Just as evident it is to see someone’s lack of faith by their inaction. So it is to recognize where their beliefs lie by what they do.

And as much as faith can work for us, it can also work against: a bias against a person or group, jealousy, paranoia, the types of things that make us ill from stress, and even create unhealthy relationships.

Faith is not static; it is something that evolves. It is something that grows and needs nurturing. But unfortunately, something that is often ignored.

There are those scoff at the notion of faith, but with all that is at stake, rather I scoff at their nonchalance to it.

On that summer day in Niagara, there was one who did more than claim a belief, he put feet to faith when he risked it all by jumping on Blondin’s back and riding that tight rope to the other side. Yet, that’s just it, with faith, there is no risk.

Everyone does, what they believe is in their best self-interests. Is what you do consistent with what you claim to believe?

Are you aware of what you believe in and why?

A culture of crabs

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:01:00 +0000

There’s a metaphor about crabs in a barrel, a phenomena where individually or even working together, they could easily escape their temporary prison, but for some reason they choose to ineffectually grab and pull each other, thus assuring that escape is not possible for anyone.

It is a metaphor about competition and jealousy. It is one that needs to be understood, because as silly as the crabs seem, that is exactly what is happening in cultures all over the world, and it may be happening in yours, or worse, you are a part of it.

There are jealous and non-jealous cultures in the world. First let’s define them.

It is said that Bono was once asked the difference between Ireland and the US. He said, “In the US, a friend gets a new house, invites me over, gives me a tour, and I leave thinking, ‘I’ll get a house like this someday,’ or ‘just wait, mine will be better.’”

“In Ireland, I visit a friend’s new home, look it over, and when I leave, I start throwing rocks at the windows.”

The former can be called Envy, the latter Jealousy.

I experienced this first hand, when I got a new home, I invited a number of friends over for a house warming party. I was very surprised when a few of my friends started criticizing whatever they could find: “the elevator is old,” “the building smells musty,” “the paint on the walls could be better.”

It was then confirmed when another friend got a new home and even his family was not celebrating with him, but complaining about a million little things that really didn’t matter.

While supporting the development of a sports league in Europe. There were some organizations that started to succeed, to prosper, yet instead of learning what they did right, the league would change the rules handicapping the successful teams to make it in their words, “more competitive.”

Here’s the issue…the crabs end up not escaping and all die as a result. In jealous culture, when time and energy is spent pulling others down, no one prospers, no one grows, nothing gets better.

It’s one thing, when it is a personal issue and another when it is a cultural one. In my experience, there are more jealous cultures in the world than non-jealous. Those cultures that are known for opportunity and prosperity are few and far between.

What kind of culture do you live in?

Here are some questions to consider:

Is more time spent complaining or competing?

When neighbors or friends find success, are people happy or suspicious?

When you visit a friends new home, or see their new car, is there more criticism or compliments?

Do you feel an overwhelming sense of inequality?

Do you feel successful people “don’t deserve it?” or “didn’t earn it?”

Do you spend more time complaining about what others have, or focus on ways to succeed with what you’ve got?

I remember when I was running, I was a sprinter, but I didn’t have the ability to truly compete in the short sprints, it wasn’t in the genes. I could’ve complained, did what I could to bring the other competitors to my level, or cheated. Instead, I found what I was good at, what I could improve on and where I could compete and ended up competing at the state level, even held the #1 spot in my event for a while.

The US, has historically been a non-jealous culture. Case in point is the phrase, “keeping up with the Jones’s,” or “everyone looks for their time in the sun.” Whereas in Jealous cultures they have phrases like, “the tall grass gets the blade.” I am a 2^nd generation immigrant, my father like many immigrants to this day, came to the US for better opportunities, and finding them.

So the question comes, why are people in the US fighting about inequality when people from all over the world come there for opportunities and finding them? Why the focus on the top 1%? Are there truly no opportunities in the US for people not in the 1%? Is there another culture in the world where new millionaires are created on an almost daily basis? Is there really inequality because of what the 1% get or because the rest are restricted from finding their own success? And if the latter, what are those issues?

Are there really people in the US culture who are oppressing me from getting a good education? From getting a job? From getting experience? From being creative? From finding my own niche in the marketplace where I can be successful?

The truth is, the US as a whole is one of the few non-jealous cultures in the world. Although there are factions of the US that are jealous and function, make policies, and do those things that jealous cultures do… to, in their minds, create “equality.”

Do you want to live in a culture where there is equal opportunity or manipulate the system to foster equal results? Because either we spend our energy aspiring to be the best we can, or we turn that energy, as crabs, against anyone else who tries.

An American Identity Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:19:00 +0000

One of the purposes of this blog is to present various sides of issues so we can see different perspectives, and from that insight, hopefully, become better decision makers.

Below are two popular perspectives recently posted by Bruce Walker posting on the American Thinker .

“…Some believe that America is a unique nation, a nation built upon extraordinary and good moral values, and a country which is a microcosm of what the world should be. These people need not be Americans. Churchill, for example, was an unabashed admirer of America.

Other people believe that America is simply a very arrogant country, a nation inhabited with bumpkins who believe too much in God, and because of its religious faith and confidence, the antithesis of what the world should be. This animus flourishes outside America, but it also has a strong camp following in America.”

It certainly explains the differing approaches in policy we’ve seen over the years, including foreign affairs, economic policy, national defence, even on issues of health care.

Which one reflects our current leadership?

Which are you?

The Message from Fort Hood: Remeber the Balkans!

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:18:00 +0000

The massacre at Ft. Hood has been labeled as the first terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. As more information continues to build about the influence of his Muslim faith and ties to terrorist sympathizers a message that must ring out more clearly is, “Remember the Balkans.”

Yugoslavia, the former dominant country of the Balkan Peninsula, was once one of the great nations of Europe. In the 90’s the country imploded becoming a killing field of neighbors that turned on and did the most horrific things to each other.

Take for example the country of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A country made up primarily of Croats, Serbs, and Bosnians and now governed by not one but 2 (TWO!) governments. Where once they shared the land, co-existed, shopped together, shared coffee, schools, playgrounds; in an instant began killing and torturing each other. A quick visit to the capitol Sarajevo, once a proud Olympic city, one will notice amongst the rich diversity of the Central European and Middle Eastern architecture, shops, restaurants and churches, a number of fresh cemeteries as a lingering reminder of their past.

What happened there that would not only turn neighbor against neighbor, but also turned people into less than animals, was among other things, paranoia.

The leadership and warlords knew exactly what to do to raise up the minions, to divide and conquer. There was an enemy, and that enemy was within, only not clearly defined, only an ideal, a culture, and they were going to kill you and your family unless you did something about it.

What followed was chaos and mayhem. Who was right and who was wrong became quite difficult to determine and therefore incredibly difficult to stop. Even those who tried not to get involved, not willing to give in to the craziness, got pulled in by either becoming victims or eventually victimizers out of need from protection.

This is the very definition and goal of Terror, the ultimate destruction of a society from within propagate by fear.

The US, like former Yugoslavia, is a land of many cultures. It is a country that celebrates its diversity accepting people of all cultures, races, and creeds. It is the most successful country in the history of the world, the most diverse, and the most progressive in integrating that diversity. Of course, it hasn’t always been that way, and it still has a long way to go, but it is very difficult to name a close competitor.

And although that diversity makes it unique and strong, it also, as in the Balkans, makes it vulnerable.

The US is not without internal conflict. As with most societies there are sharp divisions between political and ethnic groups, religions, schools, towns, families, even conflicts between music affiliations, genders, and pet owners. Yet these conflicts, regardless of their intensity remain isolated and controlled under the strength of the social fabric that holds the overall society together.

That social fabric has held the country strong for its existence, strengthening during times of external conflict, weakening during times of internal. Regardless, it has held strong, last being tested in the LA Riots and again on 9-11. Sadly for the former Yugoslavia, that net was proven to be fragile and therefore completely obliterated by paranoia/terror, the result of which was the physical and moral destruction of their once proud country.

In the recent aftermath of the Ft. Hood tragedy, information continues to pile up about the assailants ties to Muslim radicals and enemies to the US.

Most frightening is that an al-Qaeda leader published in an on-line magazine not a week before the attack calling for jihadists to conduct easy attacks on targets in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, as well as in Western nations "at war with Islam." They were to use easily accessible weapons and explosives and to not "waste a lot of time finding the materials."

Even if more information comes out about Maj. Hasan’s relationship to the Muslim world, terrorism and those seeking the destruction of the US. Even if the Ft. Hood incident is followed up by other’s like Hasan, who sympathize with the United State’s enemies, and even if more American-Muslims take up that call to attack, remember what happened when the Balkan people allowed that social fabric to wear down, to give in to paranoia, to let chaos take over.

How can this be avoided?

The social fabric of any society is held together by a sense of security and rule of law. The populace needs to know that they have a law that protects them and more importantly that law enforcement is on their side.

Therefore after each and every incident needs to be followed by swift and decisive action taken to restore order. Secondly, to restore a sense of security, the populace needs to believe that this was an isolated incident meaning: 1) steps are being taken to prevent this disaster and 2) The leadership of the affecting parties needs to speak out against the action.

In the case of Ft. hood and any “Terrorist” Action , 1) immediate action needs to be taken by law enforcement to not only deal with the incident, but to act strongly and swiftly against any criminal acts that take place in retaliation. 2) That needs to be paralleled with immediate words of assurance from both the US and Muslim leadership.

A lack of both will foster paranoia unfortunately against the Muslim community in the US and also in Europe and cause chaos in all respective societies. These steps have been the immediate response to all incidents from all US and UK leadership till now. If it doesn’t continue, terrorism wins. The leadership in Yugoslavia wanted their wars and took the LACK of steps necessary to see that happen. How has the current leadership responded?

Be warned, remember the Balkans.

A Nobel Acceptance Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:21:00 +0000

The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to First Term US President Obama has made the Nobel committee an international laughing stock. The decision for the President to accept the award has done the same for him, especially directly following the Olympics fiasco.

Yes, it wasn’t his decision to be named as this year’s award winner. But it was his decision how to respond. With it, he was given a great opportunity to win political points at home and abroad for both him and the US.

Here is what he should’ve said:

“I’d like to thank Nobel Committee for acknowledging the efforts WE in American have been making to encourage peace and democracy within America and around the world. This for the most part has always been our understood mandate.

Since it is apparent that both the Nobel Committee and the US share these similar values, we would like to recognize those who have not only strived and sacrificed, but also succeeded in their efforts.

Therefore we will accept this award in the name of …….”

At this point, the president could name any number of deserving people at his discretion and who embody issues he would like to raise attention to. Here is an example with the person who many believe really should have won:

“Therefore we will accept this award in the name of an incredible accomplished woman fighting for the well being, rights, and democracy of her own people in Afghanistan, Dr. Sima Samar. Dr. Samar, the Chairman for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Dr. Samar was forced to flee after her husband was arrested. He was never heard from again. In Pakistan, Dr. Samar worked to set up medical services for Afghan refugees. In 1987, she helped open the first hospital for women, staffed by women in Quetta, Pakistan. In 1989, she established the Shuhada Organization, a non-governmental and non-profit organization committed to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan with special emphasis on the empowerment of women and children.”

Now he would have been in a position to win points AND create support to do what he needs to not only conclude the war in Afghanistan but also attack its corruption.

To outright reject the award, although appropriate since it was undeserved, would have been greatly damaging and embarrassing the Nobel people. Instead, simply deflecting the award to worthy candidates would not have only boosted his dignity but also the issues that are dear to him.

It would be nice to see Obama's administration take a page from Reagan's who kept as a working principle: There is no limit to what can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit.

But alas, it seems the NOBEL has lost its nobility

A Sickness of Change Revealed in the Healthcare Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:16:00 +0000

The US is currently debating health care reform. And after listening to the President’s national address on the issue, realized a common ailment that exists in most change initiatives.

Although, it is widely agreed that there is a need for healthcare reform in the US., Americans are generally happy with the healthcare they receive. Which in fact is among the best healthcare in the world.

So, the problem and therefore the focus of reform should not be in the service, but in access.

Access to healthcare is primarily limited by cost. The very little that we know about the Health Reform Bill that the President is pushing is that it will increase access to healthcare by lowering cost to the public.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is a sickness that pervades most development/reform/change programs around the world. There is an addiction in development in treating the symptoms, rather than working on cures. Is it not about WHAT will be done, but about HOW.

The symptom in healthcare is high cost. Therefore the solution should include ways to deal with the REASONS for those costs. The current bill does not. It merely addresses the issue by simply finding more creative ways to pay for it. In other words, a glorious way to simply throw money at it.

Problem solving, healing, and real change means getting to the core of the problem, and dealing with it at its source. Can one deal with poor education by lowering test standards? If one gets a rash on their skin, should they just cover it with make-up? If there are problems at home, is it solved by drinking? You and your spouse are fighting a lot, is the answer simply not speaking? If you’re over-weight, should you just take a pill? (although, that would be nice)

Once, I was involved in a program to deal with drug problems among teens in a local community. After research, I proposed a program that dealt with core issues: a lack of role models, a lack of future prospects, lack of constructive activities and support in which to develop strong social skills, coupled with cooperative law enforcement. It was cost affective, used resources currently available in the community, sustainable and therefore long term. However, the plan was rejected because the quota was for an anti-drug program rather than a community development program which mine appeared to be.

On a separate issue, I was asked to work on development for a crime-laden area. After research, the proposal came back as a socio-economic development program for the entire region. But again, rejected because the quota was slated for dealing with the “problem people” and my program dealt with the community at large.

In working to improve educational standards in another developing country I was met by resistance from educators who simply didn’t want to do more work.

Recently, a friend kept complaining about her weight, yet refused to do anything about it that constituted sacrifice or sweat.

Change is a good topic, but the sickness lies in the denial to do what is really necessary. Why? Because real reform takes work, real growth comes from pain, real change means removing that which currently holds power. It is not always nice, it is not comfortable, it is never easy.

If the President is really serious about Health Care Reform, it should address malpractice lawsuits (tort reform), rising insurance costs, separating medical insurance from work, and encouraging healthy lifestyles.

Want to increase an economy? Encourage companies to invest and grow and limit government to regulation.

Want to improve education? Deal with the teacher/education unions and keep teachers accountable.

What to lose weight? Adjust your eating habits and EXERCISE!

Involved in community development? Do the research, instead of simply copying a program from another culture.

Unfortunately for most development, instead of doing the work, it’s a lot easier and more popular to take it easy and just throw money at the symptoms.

The Importance of "k"

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:25:00 +0000

Imagine playing in a league where wins and losses are not determined by performance but by the size of bribes for referees and players.

Imagine going to a school where grades are given not by competence with the material or completion of assignments, rather on the teacher’s feelings toward the student.

Imagine running a business in a market where agreements are not respected and success is determined, limited or usurped.

Imagine being in a relationship with a daily fear of being abandoned.

Imagine living in a country where the rule of law fluctuates on the whims of the powers that be.

This is the reality for many in the world today which is caused by the lack of a quality constant.

The constant is basic principles from which values are made, that determine right from wrong, fair from unfair and most importantly, no matter what happens and regardless of what powers have influence, does not change. And on this, development and progress can be based.

Without the constant, there is no order, there are no standards, and values, performance, rewards and success are arbitrary. People without a constant are reduced to hedonism, which leads to anarchy, which leads to chaos.

The constant determines the identity of a person, organization, culture, or nation, and therefore is the basis for decision-making.

The Constant varies in different situations. The following are constants for healthy societies:

· For a school, the constant would be the catalogue registered under.

· For a business it is a contract.

· For competition, a rulebook

· For a nation, it’s constitution

· For Christianity, the Bible

· For Catholicism, the Pope

· For Capitalism, the local market regulations under the principle of profit over loss

· For a couple, a commitment to the bond

· For a person, that constant rests in faith, family or community

Because of the importance of the constant, it is usually held as sacred and therefore protected and nurtured and explains why there is such outrage and reactions when people’s constants are threatened.

This is why appointments for the US Supreme court are taken so seriously and why conservatives are questioning whether Jud. Sotomayor will treat the constitution with respect or be an activist judging on racial issues. This is also why the US is wrong to not support the Hondurans in removing their democratically elected President who tried to unlawfully change their constitution.

It explains why there is uproar with U.S. Government playing and involving itself in the markets beyond regulation.

It explains why referees typically get most of the negativity in sports.

Since the constant controls decision-making, values and opinions, real change happens on two levels. The strength of an entity is a direct result of the quality of its constant. So the first level regards the constant itself. Documents like the Bible and the US constitution are held as solid and therefore sacred, so changes to either are met with incredible resistance. Sports rules and school catalogues change all the time, but require consistency of those rules at minimum through the end of the term. Faith and Commitments are on a personal level and subject to education, maturity, and accountability.

The constant is a set of principles, not issues, on which one chooses to exist. Therefore change on this level is the hardest thing to do, and should be done carefully and rarely. It is not something to be done on a whim or urge, in a 5 minute conversation with a stranger on the street, based on a political agenda, or done just because it feels right.

The second level of change then builds off the principles included in that constant and regards the entity’s ability to live according to that constant.

This is why a nation the role of a supreme court and law enforcement, why there are managers, why people follow religion, why we hire coaches and trainers and why, for many, a wedding is much more than a piece of paper.

This is also how we can measure and keep in check those who are in charge of our development, (educators, pastors, politicians, leaders) to make sure they are leading us according to our established principles and prevent manipulation, indoctrination, or being misguided.

Therefore, a stable entity, be that anything from a person to a nation, needs to ask itself a few questions:

Do we know what our constants are?

Are they solid and based on firm principles?

Do we believe in them?

Are we actively protecting and nurturing them, or even prepared to defend?

And finally, are we living or attempting to live according to them?

Vision vs. Change

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:00:00 +0000

Bob went away on a weekend Men’s Retreat. While there, he engaged in discussions about work, family, relationships, on being a good father, husband, co-worker. He came away from the weekend, refreshed, energized and ready to be the man he decided he wanted to be.

Alice is finishing up her last week at the rehab center. Alcohol had controlled her life for almost a decade and is now preparing a new life with a new perspective.

After two weeks working with Street Children in Romania Claire and Tom return with a new vigor on life and a new perspective on what is important. They walk in their lavish middle class home, disgusted at the plethora of clothes and shoes in their closets, the abundance of food sitting in their pantry and begin to clean house. Meanwhile a group of Romanian kids gather in the playground trying to recreate the games they played with foreigners over the past two weeks.

Significant events have happened in each of the lives of the people above. But did change happen?

Learning occurred, perspectives influenced, but in each case, more times than not, there will be a change in behavior for a short time, a few days, maybe, but rarely a couple of weeks. Then behavior will return to what it was before. Bob will go back to old habits, Alice will continue to struggle against her temptations, Claire and Tom will replenish their clothes and the street kids will return to the streets.

What is happening here is not change but learning. Each were given a new perspective, insight, or a vision of what could be and for some reason, we accept that as change.

Yet, unless the conditions that helped create the former situation are dealt with; unless support structures are put in place to guide the change from vision to reality; unless discipline is instituted which provides accountability to reinforce the change, change will NEVER happen.

Everything is the way it is because conditions support it to be that way. Your special relationship claims change, the government claims change, even you claim change for yourself, but unless steps are taken to destroy the infrastructure that created what is, and replaced it with a new one to support what will be, it will never work, regardless of intentions.

That change would be seen in severing relationships, creating a new social network, changing daily routines, giving new authority to existing relationships, and committing to new behavior until it becomes habit.

Whether your change is personal, relational, organizational, communal, or even national, don’t fool yourself; vision is not change, but a pre-cursor to it.

Change is not merely a decision, it is a full restructuring process.

On Growing Up American

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:17:00 +0000

The United States, the most successful economy in the history of the world, is THE Land of Opportunity. It is different, not because of money, not because of military, but because of people.

The US by make-up is a nation of immigrants who left their homes, their lives, their comfort, venturing out into an unknown in order to seek a new life, a new path, a better opportunity.

Most have come with little to nothing, and built one of the most successful nations in the history of the world. We grew up with stories like “The Little Train that Could.” “The Bad News Bears”, “The Mighty Ducks,” stories of the common and non-special doing the extraordinary. We cheered with “Rocky,” and the “Karate Kid” and dared to share their dreams.

We dreamed as kids of being sports stars, astronauts, presidents. We grew not afraid of risk nor failure.

We are resilient, competitive, progressive. We don’t think of ourselves as the best, but compete as if we were.

We don’t wait for someone to tell us what we can do. We go until we’re told we can’t

We look for opportunities; we don’t wait for hand outs.

The US is a country where:

· Dreaming is encouraged

· Creativity is seen as a blessing rather than a lack of discipline

· We are motivated and put energies into rising above the competition rather than bringing it down

· Discrimination is confronted and dealt with rather than ignored and suppressed

· Opportunity is limited to your performance not your station, certification or special relationship.

· We learn to compete from an early age, and understand chance, loss, and winning.

· Performance outweighs relationship in competition.

· People are not afraid to hope, not scared to shoot for the stars, and willing to raise the bar.

· Culture supports opportunity, because if we don’t take it, someone else will.

· Individuality is celebrated.

So when our leaders create policies of penalty rather than opportunity; when they believe the people serve them, rather serving the people; when they believe the people want hand outs rather than choice, when they believe were satisfied with arbitrary distribution rather than fair competition, when they think we will simply give up after failure rather than push on and persevere, and when they think we NEED them…

It is clear….they are not American regardless of what their passport says, they don’t think American, and don’t understand the American spirit.

Climate Change Bill: Moving America to...

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:40:00 +0000

Under the cover of all the hoopla happening on Friday, the House of Representatives slipped in an hour to vote on and pass the historic mammoth 1500 page Climate Change Bill, of course, which almost no one had read.

A big win for the environment, which speaker Pelosi calls “A move to the future.” But as we learned, or hopefully learned, from the Kyoto Accord, the promise of the bill needs to match the process designed to meet that promise, which was its weakness.

Amidst the craziness that some are calling “Cap and Trade” include:

· A mandatory 20% reduction of fossil fuels by 2020 replaced by yet unknown alternative energy (nuclear not included)

· US companies buying an allotment of Pollution Permits from the government, let alone being forced to also purchase Al Gore’s venture capital invested carbon measuring software.

· A doubling of many household’s utility bills

· Other oddities added to the bill, probably in the 300 pages added at the last minute:

· All houses must conform to California housing standards

· Houses but be pre-approved by a federal energy efficiency inspection before it can be sold.

· And even something about shower police??

· Bottom line, it is, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you lie, the biggest tax hike in US history.

After the historic victory Obama said, “It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil."

So obviously there are more questions:

Does the US need the Government to create new markets and new jobs?

If dependence on foreign oil is such a big deal, why don’t we just use what we already have and are not using?

Since government will create the market and therefore these jobs, who will pay for it? Is this another FORCED distribution of wealth, opposed to consumer driven consumption?

The allotted permits are determined by what and who? Isn’t this simply more government getting involved in economical matters? One could assume more arbitrary carrots to dangle in front of corporations to do the bidding of the government. “Sure, we’ll give you more allotments, if you…..” But I’m SURE that would never happen…

Why is the government pushing through MAJOR legislation that drastically affects the future of our nation without letting not only the public at large, but even those voting the chance to read it?

How will US companies, already fighting an uphill battle against foreign competition do better? What is to keep them from just moving? For example in the last 8 months, AT&T cancelled up to 12.000 US jobs at about an average of 38,000 USD per year. Many of those went to Slovakia where they pay less than 1/3^rd that amount.

A couple insights, first, if you’re not into day-trading it wouldn’t be a bad idea to get familiar with it, as more and more companies move operations overseas to stay competitive, meaning less work available, day-trading I predict will be the best option for self-employment .

There is a strange desire to emulate Europe. This is the US, which has led the world in most things developmentally since its inception. It is European to imitate, while American style is to innovate. Our government today acts more like older European leadership then even the current European leadership.

A previously White House suppressed EPA report has recently surfaced claiming that the Earth temperatures since 2001 have stayed the same or cooled while CO2 emissions have gone up. An investigation has already been called in the Senate.

The US is unique in that is truly is not only the land of opportunity, but the ONLY land of opportunity.

That being true, the US as the strongest most successful economy in the history of the WORLD, should just take advantage of that which made us strong, which is opportunity through potential, not this limitation through penalty.

The president believes he can FORCE change on Americans rather than simply incentivize them, provide opportunity and potential in the direction you want to head, and American will COMPETE to get there first. But you would need to be raised American to understand that. Clearly, the administration doesn’t get it, or just doesn’t care.

I agree with Pelosi in that this bill is a move…maybe not to the future as she foresees it.

If you haven’t experienced other cultures (outside of US boarders of course) I’ll explain in detail what this last point means in the next blog.

Above the Law?

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:08:00 +0000

More facts about the Honduran ouster of former President Zelaya have emerged today, and tell us a lot about our current administration.

According to the Wall Stree Journal:

After the supreme court denied Zelaya the allowance to seek a constitutional referendum (Honduras has a history of dictators) he went ahead anyway with the vote getting ballots from ….Venezuela.

When ordering the military to carry out the voting logistics, the commander felt obligated to follow the supreme court’s ruling and not comply.

Mr. Zelaya fired him.

The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated, Mr. Zelaya refused.

He broke into the military installation with a mob stealing the ballots and having them distributed regardless of the attorney general making it clear that anyone carrying out the referendum would be prosecuted.

Under court order, the military arrested Mr. Zelaya and exiled him to Costa Rica, which means this was not a military coup as the international media is promoting.

The response from the President of the United States, the world’s leader and protector of democracy, liberty, and freedom. ”We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there.”Later, he added ”It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections.”

I’m still at a loss here, Honduras defended their own constitution. A country whose history is riddled with tyranny and dictators, now threaten by a coalition with Chavez and his boys. They react according to the law of the land against their elected leader who blatantly tried to defy the law.

What exactly is illegal about it? What other options did they have?

Why stand against those who followed the law and with those to openly defied it?

Yes he was the democratically elected president and in democracies, the people's chosen their leaders are not changed by militaries. But this isn’t freshmen level politics. Although democratically elected, it doesn’t give carte blanche to do anything or does our President believe that? What amazes me is that he was a constitutional lawyer.

The 80/20 on the matter, is that possibly Obama is using politics to deal with Latin America on a larger scale. However, I don't see how going against EVERYTHING we as America stands for to soothe the problem children of the South benefits us.

In short, the President’s response to this matter is telling, scary, and quite revealing. It shows the possibility that he believes, he has four years to do whatever, and there's little anyone can do about it.

American’s better start paying better attention.

Is the President above the Constitution?

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:46:00 +0000

Unless you haven’t overcome the shock of the tragic death of the king of pop, you know the Honduran Military has ousted the sitting President. Condemnation has poured in from leaders around the globe, even President Obama expressed immediate deep concern.
Here are the facts as I currently know them:

1. The now ousted President Zelaya has been in office since 2006

2. According to the Honduran constitution, presidents are allowed only one term of four years

3. Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum to change the constitution giving him the potential to extend his hold of power

4. The Supreme Court of Honduras had deemed the referendum illegal

5. Despite this, Zelaya pushed for the referendum

6. Hours before the polls were supposed to open, the military stepped in and removed Zelaya from office

If I have my facts wrong, please feel free to correct me.

If they are correct then there are a lot of questions:

President Obama urged Honduras to “respect the rule of law.” Isn’t the constitution of a nation and the Supreme Court which rules on it THE rule of law for a land?

The European Union called for a “swift return to constitutional normality.” Isn’t that what the military move was attempting to do?

Is the president of any land above the law? Above the Supreme Court? Above the Constitution?

If any sitting president in power can simply change the foundation of a land to suit his/her individual needs, on what foundation can the land exist?

Why was it so important for Mr. Zelaya to force his country into chaos simply for one more term? Who is to blame here?

Is this about ousting a democratically elected president, or saving the nation and dealing with what was deemed by the supreme court to be a criminal act?

What would happen in the US or any country, should the president, with congressional power, decide to change the Constitution to fit his/her agenda?

Are we familiar enough with our constitution to know when it is being attacked?

Which do we defend? Which takes precedence, the President or the Constitution?

Perspectives: Understanding Fairness

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:50:00 +0000

The current US debate on the use of torture, what it is, and when or IF it is ever appropriate, demonstrates the differences that exist in how we make decisions. The torture issue involves the same questions as war, the death penalty, law and judgment. It is less about what is humane and more about understanding fairness.

A teacher gives an assignment in school and explains what is expected and when it is due. He also explains that any late papers will be docked a grade for every day it is late. When due date comes a student asks the teacher for extra time because of a family emergency, to which he agrees, but explains that it will be lowered a grade for every day it is late.

When one of a team’s players tests positive for steroids before a playoff game, the team is forced to forfeit its entire season according to the league’s no tolerance policy.

A 19 year old university student who had sexual relations with a 17 year old is charge with statutory rape.

An illegal alien (I guess now called “immigrants without documentation” by those who have a POOR understanding of English) who had been living and working in the country for 5 years, is now married and involved in the community, is seized by officials and immediately deported.

A doctor driving home drunk from a company Christmas party, hits another car and the driver is killed. It is the doctor’s first offense and is charged and given the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison in accordance with the local laws.
Would the execution of the above be considered fair or unfair? How was it determined?

Fairness is about following the laws without prejudice. Therefore the people are protected by law instead of arbitrary judgment. A policemen tops you and charges you for speeding, but cannot provide proof, or refuses to show the measured speed on the radar. The judge denies the charge. Few would disagree that this was a fair judgment.

However, is fairness based on the same judgment when the result is less favorable?
In each of the above, the law/regulation was set and known, each were guilty, and the penalties/judgment given according to those laws. Since the result is less favorable, does that make it less fair? To not attribute the penalty to the offense, to “give them a break,” would actually be UNFAIR according to the definition, which when it benefits is called mercy.

Those who list the above as FAIR make decisions that are just and detached. Those who believe any of the above to be UNFAIR tend to make decisions that are sympathetic and involved. There lies the difference. Meyers-Briggs labels the first group as THINKERS and the second as FEELERS.

Although neither is all right or wrong, thinkers view justice through logic while Feelers through emotions. This difference goes a long way in explaining the divide between most judgments based actions such as war, penalties, and the use of torture. It even explains the differences between Conservatives and Liberals at least in the US.

Those who base their decisions on fact and figures regardless of emotional reaction seek out thinking decision-makers and supporters. These decisions are more about right vs. wrong, best vs. worst, and view pain and suffering as a negative consequence of a justified and necessary action. In fact, in most cases, pain and suffering is the responsibility of the offending party, rather than those who execute the action (in terms of the death penalty, violators force state action).

Those who explain their decisions more about emotion and less about logically seek out more sympathetic voices, which is why groups like Affirmative Action, ACLU, NAACP, and the Teacher’s Union lean more liberal. Thinkers view mercy then as a benefit, while Feelers see it as a right. These decisions are about feelings, pain and suffering, and consequence and view the negative not the responsibility of the offender, but of the executor (in terms of death penalty, violators are victims of state action).

It should be noted that THINKERS and FEELERS can come to the same conclusion. It isn’t the answer that makes the difference but the process.

In terms of “Torture” (whether you consider loud music, caterpillars, and cold floors torture or not), thinkers will consider the cost versus the return (pain of enemy vs. saving American lives), and balance that with the responsibility of the offender who choose to attack the US. The Feeler will consider how they would feel if THEY were the ones being tortured and balance that with responsibility of the victim defending themselves against a US aggressor.

Can you guess what type of decision-maker is the UN?

When approaching these types of decisions, it is important for those involved to first determine an agreed upon definition of fairness before making judgment or distributing mercy.

The Games Women Play: The Appeasement Approach Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:07:00 +0000

What started out as a simple conversation over breakfast finds you spending the night on the couch. Your earlier jovial attitude has out of nowhere now turned to rage and you wonder how in God’s name your parents lasted so long.

These are the ups and downs any relationship, however they are intentional in the appeasement approach taking advantage of the principle that those who are strong take responsibility in the relationship when the other is not. The sly gamer assumes the weaker role in attempts to get the other to approach in appeasement which is normally good conflict management, but in the game, it is counter-productive manipulation.

Why do they do it? Dare I assume the mind of a female? There are many reasons that have been mentioned, insecurity of the relationship, lack of self-confidence, needing attendance, or simply boredom. But for now, it’s less important why, but understanding what.

The first step is recognizing the game.

The appeasement approach, used in the context of conflict, is a series of levels each intended to illicit submission. Like torture, the more resistance the more intense the pain.

Let’s say, you and your better half start a discussion which suddenly turns into an argument and the games begin. Depending on how “stubborn” or “tolerant” you are, here are the stages you’ll experience:

1. Denial
Withdrawal makes the heart grow fonder. She’ll start of by stopping, shutting down, taking things away. This can be observed as the short one-word answers, the dreaded silent treatment, or the removal of physical contact. It is the first signal that you did something wrong and are expected to find out what. If not, then you cause the next…..

2. Crying
“Real men don’t cry,” but more, don’t can’t stand it when their women do. For some men, this is pure torture. It may start out as a pout, a whine a complaint, but then can turn into shouting and actually crying. This is a favourite ploy in public for your 4 year old. If it worked on her parents, it should work on her man. You may have had the endurance or ignorance to last through denial, but only an insensitive jerk would make a girl cry. But sometimes jerks we are, so the game goes to another level.

3. Repetition
Still trying to win, the strategy of this stage is to just wear him down by repeating the complaint endlessly until he just gives in. The sly gamer may say the same thing, or say it in different words. Either way it is a continuous barrage of darts sent regardless of your answers. What makes this so frustrating, is that while you’re trying to solve the rationally solve the problem, for her, if you continue, now YOU are the problem and causes stage 4.

4. Distraction
Ever get into an argument and find yourself in a completely different area than where you started? It started by choosing which movie you wanted to see and now you’re defending yourself about something you supposedly said about her mother 2 months ago. This is the “What does that have to do with anything?” part of the fight, changing the argument from the topic she was losing, to something she can hold you to. This is also what turns a simple problem-solution 2 minute talk to a 3 hour drag out fight. This usually entails a combination of crying and repetition, but if you continue to stay rational, you’re obviously not listening at all and need some help, so….

5. Attack
This is a more advanced form of the distraction. There is where the rubber hits the road, the final straw, where they pull out all the stops. You’ve ignored her on every stage thus far and therefore she needs to know if you’re still alive and involved in the relationship. She knows you well, your buttons and hot points. This is where intimacy is scary, because now it can and will be used against you. Her intention is to hit you where it hurts. And when she wields that knife, it hurts, it’s supposed to. It’s designed to get a reaction. And if you don’t, then it time for the…

6. Chase
….and now, she’s gone. She’s left, but I’m sure not without another zinger, a finger, one last gesture of displeasure. She’s left the room, maybe left the house altogether. But as the door slams behind her, careful, don’t start celebrating your survival, or breathing a sigh of relief. Although it appears to be over, it’s still a part of the game. Remember, every step here is about getting you to approach. And as crazy as it seems, the same is expected here.

A couple had a fight which ended up with the girlfriend leaving. Before she got to the door, he grabbed her arm and asked her to stay give it one more try. She said no. So he let her go. Door slammed. End of discussion. End of relationship. It was clear, and regardless of how he felt, there’s no point in saving a sinking ship. A few days later he met her girlfriend who blamed HIM for ending the relationship. He explained to her that SHE left. Then she explained to him, that I LET her leave. Apparently after she slammed the door, she waited by the elevator for a few moments, then went to the parking lot and waited by her car.

It’s not over. Maybe she rolled to the other side of the bed, stormed into the other room, or even left the building. That’s not the end of the argument, that is the start of the chase. She is expecting you to be her knight in shining armour to come to her aid, comfort her, hold her, tell her it’s okay. Yes, she just offended you to the Nth degree, blew through your limits, but if you REALLY loved her…..

There you go, that is the game.

I’ve talked to women in many different cultures, and although there are subtle differences, it’s been found to be generally the same.

Of course not every woman plays the game, but when you find yourself completely turned upside down, you’re probably caught up into it.

Now that you have the map, next time, we’ll look at examples how this plays out.

It's Not About Winning

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:33:00 +0000

Upon hearing the defection of Sen. Spector to the Democratic Party, a friend contacted me to gloat. Cheers and catcalls of “you’re going down!” “you guys suck.” “chalk another victory up for the blue!” reigned in. Sure it was in friendly banter, but I felt like I was back in school. And that is the point, this isn’t a game, this is about life, it is about how we live. My frustration wasn’t about a blow to a party, it was about how off base we are.

Red vs. blue, donkey’s vs elephants, right vs left. We talk about the dumbing down of America, but I guess that also includes stunting the growth of maturity. We’ve reduced life’s decision to a game of votes. And somehow, we’ve allowed ourselves to be distracted by that instead of focusing on how we live. And from the information floating in the media and in blogs throughout the ‘net, most of those are more interested in sides than solutions, on “who” said what, instead of “what” was said, on “positions” rather than on “principles.”

In following the President’s press conference the other night, I heard a lot of great answers, but not details. I heard about success, I heard about overcoming, I heard about winning. But I didn’t’ hear HOW. Those already enamored by the President, didn’t care about the details, just happily appeased with the proposed end result. They didn’t’ care about the direction, just the euphoric vision of how he interprets that vision to be. It seems discernment among the public is seriously lacking.

Am I saying this because “my side” is losing? I don’t care which mascot gets the prize. I care about having a fulfilling life. I care about the opportunities for me and my family. I care about the safety and well being of those close to me. I care about making the world a better place when I leave then when I came. As I sit back and watch the current administration take public money to buy power, I have to ask if my concerns above are threatened.

I tend to ask questions based not on what I hear, but on what I don’t. Maybe you can answer it for me?

• How will be pay off the debt we’re incurring to pay for all these programs? And who will do that?

• How will the government, which hasn’t run a successful program (both profit or non-profit), run the auto industry? And if you want to “get out as soon as possible” when and how?

• Why is it good to raise so much money that we don’t really have, to make drastic changes to a healthcare program which is currently already covers over 90% of the population?

• How will “being nice” and appeasing keep us safe against enemies that are ideologically opposed to “who we are?”

• When dealing with enemies caught on the battlefield, those who risk death to kill as many Americans as possible, are caught. Why is it EVIL to get life saving information through techniques that: don’t leave any marks, don’t leave any scars, create NO permanent damage physically or psychologically, and never put the subject into life-threatening situations? And what other ways do you propose to get that information from those people that are trained and willing to die anyway for their cause?

• How is capping the success of one person, to give to another who isn’t, empowering and better for society rather than enabling and creating an even bigger burden?

...because the only win I'm interested in, is life.

Looking for a Party

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:48:00 +0000

No I didn’t teabag, but like many other Americans, I share frustration with the current state of affairs and concern for the future of a great nation. So I’m looking for a party that shares, not defines, my principles. I don’t care about the name, I don’t care about who is endorsing, I don’t care if it’s COOL, or if it’s new. I care about results. The following 15 points describes the type of leadership I will support in order of priority:

1. National Defense –The number one privilege is to live life in safety and liberty. Any governments’ #1 priority is to keep its member safe both at home and abroad. Being the Nice guy has NEVER stopped or prevented aggression on the contrary, it encourages it (ever deal with a bully problem at school?). Fear of not being liked in my opinion is not a good policy for defense or leadership. Preventive is always best, but we need to be in a position to do so. Was it a coincidence that renegade leaders in Libya and mad nuclear sceintiests fell in line shortly after the attack on Iraq?

2. Freedom – we are who we are because of our rights. The constitution is timeless and the Rights differentiate us from the rest of the world. If you’ve spent any time in Russia, especially outside the tourist areas, you’ll notice the reality between real freedom and suppression.

3. Law Enforcement – Freedom without Rules is chaos. Try playing a game without rules, without parameters, without disciplined skill. Not very fun and not very safe. There may be the freedom to play, but what you can actually do is limited to your abilities and knowledge of the game. Although we have freedoms, there are limits, and there are consequence when we test and go beyond those limits, regardless of intentions. There is a way society works, and law enforcement is there to make sure of that. Again, prevention is best, but when not, enforcement should be swift and with resolve in a way that supports prevention.

4. Opportunity – I’m a second generation immigrant. My parents with little but their education, and my father learning a new culture and language, they were able to build a very successful life and impart those values in their children. America should return to a performance based culture, which gives EVERYONE opportunity, not handouts, regardless of status, culture, religion and any of the other ways people segregate. Like any good game, the value is offered, the qualifications set, and rules enforced. The results belong to those who choose to participate. The only real failure goes to those who choose not to. Government should only participate if it plays by the same rules. Inefficiency should never lead.

5. Government – the constitution is clear, the government is divided into 3 branches with 3 separate powers for balance. The legislative legislates, the executive – executes, and the judicial JUDGES. Problems arise when they extend or ignore their roles. Judges should NOT legislate or execute. Legislature or Executive should not be judging. And none of them should be running companies, unless they play by the same rules as everyone else.

6. Society - the US is by the people for the people not by the government/power/corp for the government/power/corp. We project and protect the liberty of the people. We’ve lost that. A high percentage of the social programs that are supported by the government, and not equally so by the people are…wait for it…corrupt! Why are the people paying for in taxes these organizations that don’t represent the values of the American people? Let the markets decide who succeeds in the market and likewise the people decide what affects our society. Why does this work? The American people are #1 in the world for giving and charities both home and abroad.

7. Responsibility – how can the government of the largest and one of the best economies in the world be SO inefficient and irresponsible with performance? It makes no sense. The only one remotely close that was serious about it was Ross Perot, that would’ve been interesting. Is it really so hard?

8. Education – there’s no reason for a country with the best universities in the world producing such poor education k-12. No reason. And there’s no reason that getting there demands more tax payer money to do so. In the world’s most competitive society of bigger, faster, stronger, our education is top-heavy, limping, and weak.

9. Legal – the US is the joke of the world in terms of legal compensation. Of course there needs to be law, and civil law creates societal balance but it’s out of control and ruining our economy. It adversely affects the costs of Healthcare, Education, and Production. The Legal system in the US currently runs as extortion, and it needs to be reined in.

10. Healthcare – only after frivolous civil lawsuits are under control can we begin to tackle healthcare. But tackle it we must. However the solutions must be fiscally responsible. There are many great proposals. Throwing money we don’t have into a system we can’t afford is NOT a solution. Simply copying another country is sophomoric, since we have some of the best and most creative minds in the world.

11. Taxes – another huge waste. Let’s have a policy that makes sense, that encourages growth, and competition both home and internationally. The best minds in the world are NOT in government, they are competing in the markets. We should be using living organizational principles to take advantage of that, not tax it. This is part of Efficiency (#7) Step 1: reduce government, Step 2: institute a responsible fiscal policy: a flat tax or fair tax. Step 3: reduce spending.

12. Corruption – corruption exists when there is a lack of regulation enforcement, a lack of transparency, and an arbitrary distribution of value/wealth. We need leaders who are not afraid to step up.

13. Accountability – in light of #12, strong leadership regulates itself firmly, not waiting for it to hit the press, or wait for a crisis event, but knows what it is doing and takes care of it. I would expect nothing less from the companies I invest in, why would I expect less from my government?

14. Moral Issues - I’m not a fan of government dictating moral stances, rather give it up to popular votes and state management.

15. Candidates - I don't think it's too much to ask to have the best most qualified candidates to choose from, not just the ones that have legacy, fill quotas, or are simply the "next-in-line."

Any suggestions?

The Games Women Play: The Appeasement Approach Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:00:00 +0000

The world of dating and relationships is a lot of strategy, movement and coercion as we seek to find ourselves, our mates, our satisfaction, while at the same time protecting our vulnerabilities to get to that ultimate place called intimacy.

In the hunt for serious relationships, I've never really understood why GAMES were so much a part of the recipe, especially if intimacy is the goal.

I once dated a girl who told me that she knew how to manipulate men. It was the beginning of our relationship, she was absolutely beautiful, strong-willed, and very confident in her abilities. She claimed that she could get men to tell her and eventually do whatever she wanted.

I told her, I doubt she could with me and feel free to try.

She smiled as if to say, let the games begin.

Of course, the relationship didn’t last, but I have to admit, it was a very good attempt. She had me absolutely confused a majority of the time. My emotions were all over the place. She had me completely out of my element. I was amazed at the limits she would go through to compete.

I once heard a theory that most women get the exact relationship they want. If what happened is not what she wanted, I don’t understand how she would’ve gotten anything else out of it.

What I got out of it was a lesson in the games women play. Maybe not all women do it, but if yours does, be careful!! :-)

I intended to show men why, if you really care about your partner, you just can’t seem to do anything right. And maybe help understand how that amazing women you fell in love with sometimes shape-shifts into this irrational emotional train-wreck propelling you to call your local exorcist.

As we begin we need to understand the Appeasement Approach . To appease means to get rid of or eliminate anger or pain, usually by concessions. In terms of relationships it means everyone ultimately wants to have a peaceful loving relationship and will appease their mate to any extent possible to keep the relationship amiable.

A strong tool in the game is to take advantage of people’s uneasiness with conflict. Displaying extreme and/or irrational emotion puts the responsibility of the relationship in the other’s hands mostly through guilt and therefore sets them up to be controlled.

Many have seen or experienced a child in a store who has been denied their immediate desire quickly resort to tantrums on the floor waiting for a prize of appeasement. To the placating parent, denying a simple candy bar is definitely not worth this embarrassment, so concessions ensue and an abusive relationship is established.

In adult relationships it gets a bit more complicated because it is no longer the risk of public embarrassment, but anger, emotional withdrawal or guilt. In an effort to be responsible and to create the best relationship possible, many adults accept the need to compromise. Some will be willing to compromise too much. In any case, it is extortion.

The abuser in this case is usually the one who is not willing to solve problems, make concessions, compromise, and talk it out. They tend to be blamers and avoid any responsibility thrown their way. In fact, in the effort to “workout” problems, the abuse only intensifies.

The communication between men and women is known to be difficult. The sly gamer will take advantage of that fact and make it incredibly difficult to realize when the problems are real or fabricated. So, if one is found out, she can always claim innocence, denial or even betrayal of her loving partner.

The game involving the Appeasement Approach is a series of levels designed to get her man to approach her in terms of appeasement. Because, when you are the one approaching, they win. "Baby, I'm sorry..I don't know why or what I did, but obviously I did something wrong and promise not to do it again."

The levels are used in succession depending on the extent of stubbornness or tolerance to pain you’re willing to endure.

Since we're in the habit now of publicizing secrets and torture techniques, next week I'll share the details of the appeasement game...if I live long enough to tell it.

Change without Transparency leads to Rebellion

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:05:00 +0000

People spend a majority of time adjusting to circumstances in pursuit of comfort. And once there, our natural inclination is to resist change until a new opportunity justifies it. Yet, even in the process of change, there are comfort levels, be it pace or degree, and forcing people beyond those limits regardless of intention will be met with resistance. In times of radical change, the onset of rebellion can be thwarted by transparent leadership.

Good leadership articulates an inspiring vision and guides the formulation of a strategy for its pursuit. Transparent leadership then at minimum shares that vision and the strategy to get there with constituents.

This is what encourages the athlete through the struggle of training, the patient through the pain of rehabilitation, even the student through school. This is how Winston Churchill was able to bring the English through WWII.

The lack of which has lead to the coup’s in Africa, the potential revolt in France and the tea parties recently in the United States.

Why?

In terms of understanding, the world is divided into two groups, How and Why. “How” people are focused on the here and now, they take information as is, they are more satisfied being told what to do and where to do it, then the reasons behind it. They can easily focus on their tasks. They are people of the present.
“Why” people are focused on the big picture. They interpret information and seek meaning, they don’t break information into its parts, but seek relationships between the information, and focus less on the what is and instead try to project on the what-will-be, they are focused on the future.

How people are satisfied with what is happening and their role in it, why people simply can not move unless they know where they are going.

I once worked with a development group that was quite successful. I had a good relationship with the leader and the staff and enjoyed growing with the group. One day the leader returned from a convention and started to change everything. Which startled the staff, but we followed. However, the changes being implemented didn’t make sense, and in many cases were not only against what we had done in the past, but were simply wrong. I started to ask questions and wasn’t getting answers. Our relationships started to split and my resistance was seen as a threat. I wanted to follow him, but I for some reason just couldn’t and didn’t understand why. Eventually, I quit.

Years later, I came to realize that it wasn’t some adolescent rebellion against authority or sophmoric resistance submission. But very simply, I needed, information and was paralyzed without it. I am a “why” person, and have a natural need to understand the big picture, to see the vision, the strategy to get there and how I fit in to it. Radical change was happening and I couldn’t find the rhyme or reason for it. Therefore I could not find my place, so I could not support it, could not be a part of it. And since the direction seemed to be off, I could not just blindly follow.

Radical changes are happening the US, and many people are demanding information, not because they are from another party, not because they are not the same color, but because, it is mentally impossible to move without that information. People are seeing steps that are inconsistent with their former path. There are things being done that are against what they had been living for, in some cases it just looks wrong, and in interpreting the decisions to where they are heading, the direction seems off.

No one seems to know the vision (Change is not a destination). So it’s no wonder no one knows the strategy to get there. The transparency that was promised is partial, which is actually propaganda. And unfortunately platitudes and diplomacy also don’t work because people NEED that information, regardless of which party is holding that office.

In history, radical change without transparency has ALWAYS led to either rebellion or oppression. Either the people will react out of need, or the authorities will subdue with force.

Let's hope the Transparency promised the US comes soon.

The Dumbing Down of America: A Capitalistic Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:42:00 +0000

I was once invited to help a school in Thailand to upgrade its curriculum. The school had few books and little money, which is common in the less affluent areas of northern Thailand. With a little bit of creative resourcing, we were able to create curriculum that met core skills necessary for the area including reading, writing, mathematics, local trade and science. The trick was not buying new books, not investing in new technology, but very simply finding and motivating teachers that could teach.

In most professions is it common to compete for positions, undertake annual performance evaluations and punish for mediocrity. As important as education is to our society, why would we demand any less?

The most effective education institutions in the US and also in the world, are private, those whose survival is based on performance and meeting market demand. Sounds like capitalism.

So adopting the success of those schools, a simple solution is to allow market principles to drive school development by instituting the following:

1. Allow a school-of-choice voucher program. The US invests an average of seven-thousand dollars a year per student for education. An effective program would cover costs for attending the local public school or allow other choices to be subsidized.

2. State sanctioned standardized tests at grades 4, 8 and 12. Students in any system (public, private, home-school) must pass to receive recognition and continue. Grade 12 is equivalent to a GED. Each state has the authority to determine the measurements and standards of what is deemed acceptable at each of the grades as long as it meets the national minimum set by the Department of Education. It should be stated the negative implications of schools continually just meeting the national minimums.

3. Top performing schools/programs may be eligible for expansion funding. Incentives for top performing teachers and principles.

4. Probation for failure – failing students will go under a probationary period for assessment until a secondary test is under-taken. A repeating failure will put the student under advisory to determine the necessary steps to rectify the learning problem. Schools reporting high failure rates will also go under a probationary period to rectify the problem. After which time, if an acceptable solution is not found, the school will lose funding, accreditation or force the school to replace the administration.

A true capitalistic approach is outcome based, fiscally responsible, and fair. Not a lot of costs in this program, whereas the No Child Left Behind for some reason claims over 24 Billion in federal funding annually. And still the teacher’s Unions and critics are demanding more money, less regulation, lowering minimum standards, and plenty excuses for failure.

I guess that’s what you get when Government gets involved.

Travel Log: "Not Arrested" in Slovakia

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:40:00 +0000

After getting settled into my first apartment in Bratislava, I contacted a couple friends to party in the capital for the weekend. They were old American football buddies that played with me in Europe. We spent the weekend going through the center, visiting pubs, clubs, and even knocking ‘em dead at the karaoke bar. We were out late every night. Sunday night, my friends decided to stay out late, so since I had to work in the morning, I decided to head home early. As I left, I turned to my friends and said half jokingly, “Be good.”

Slovakia isn’t the most civil place in the world, and if a couple of drunk foreigners want a little mischief, well, it usually turns into nothing little. Plus I was new in the country and just starting my visa process, so getting in trouble was not an option.

In the morning, I awoke to a knock on my door. I got to the door and paused, I didn’t know anyone that would actually knock on my door, so I waited to open it. There was another knock, and I asked who it was. “Po-leet-sia” came back the reply. I opened the door to see a police officer who blurted something in Slovak. I told him in English I didn’t understand. He motioned as if he was putting on a coat and said, “Sako!” the pointed down the stairs, “You, Me, Go, Now.” I shrugged, “Why?, Where?” He replied, “You have Friends?” I turned around and realized that the apartment was empty, my friends hadn’t returned.

So I grabbed a jacket and went outside. They put me in the back of a police car and sped away. I asked the officer in the car where we were going. He said, “Police house.” I asked why. He said, “you have friends?” and smiled. I was scared. What happened to my friends? Where they ok? Where they alive? The officer looked at me, motioned like he was drinking and said, “Friends!” And laughed. My relief that they were ok, quickly turned to anger.

We got to the police station and in direct line of sight from the door was a small damp jail cell built under the crumbling concrete stairs. Standing inside with his hands on the bars and head hanging low avoiding my gaze was one of my friends. My blood started to boil. The officer led me past him to a small room. The room was empty except for a single chair and a radiator. Handcuffed to the radiator sitting on the floor was friend number two. The officer asked, “Friend?” I said, “Not Friend!” The officer looked confused, “Not friend?” I paused, took a breath and complied, “Yes, I know him.” So the officer uncuffed him, then let my other friend out of the small cell, and asked us to sit in the hall and wait.

No one said a word.

Eventually the officer called me to an office and gave me the phone. On it was another officer that spoke English, “Hello, you speak English, yes? “ “yes I replied. Why are my friends here?” The officer then explained. “You know these men? They say they know you, they are staying with you and their things are in your flat.”

“That’s true, “ I replied. “What did they do? What is wrong?”

“Oh, no problem,” the officer assured me. “There is no problem.”

“But you arrested my friends.”

“No, not arrest. No problem.” He replied.

“Then why did you lock them up like animals?”

“Oh, a little drunk. No problem. We just need to make a small report and everyone can go. It will take a little time to get a translator to you. Just wait. Not arrested. Everything is fine.”

“Wait, so you arrested them because they were drunk? They did nothing wrong? No problem, just drunk?”

“No, no problem. Not Arrested.“ replied the officer. “A little time and you can go. Wait please.”

So I gave the phone to the nearby officer and went back in the hall.

My friends looked at me, I was still angry, but calmed down and actually started to smile. “No problem, they said, just that you were a little drunk.” I turned to one, “What the hell happened?”

My friends looked a bit peeved, and started to explain the story.

They stayed in town til early in the morning. When they got back to my apartment, they realized they forgot a key. So they rang the door buzzer hoping to wake me up. I didn’t. So they went around the building, and since I lived on the first floor, started to throw small rocks at my bedroom window. I still didn’t wake. So eventually they went back to the front door and tried the buzzer again. All of a sudden, a police car jumped the curb, lights flashing on them and police officers jumped out and pulled their guns. Immediately after, another police car showed up followed by a SWAT truck with more bodies and guns and now dogs jumping towards them. My friends froze, still ringing the doorbell, shocked, scared, wondering if this was the end. After a minute, one of the officers said something, and realizing it was a mistake, got everyone to calm down. The officer asked them in broken English what was happening and my friends tried to explain to him that they live here, forgot their keys and just wanted to get inside and go to bed.

It turned out that a neighbor had called, we’re guessing thinking they were mafia and making a hit. After arriving the police quickly realized it was a mistake.

So with the other officers leaving, the one cop started to ring my buzzer. I didn’t wake. Then he walked around the building and started throwing things at my bedroom window. Nothing. The cop then said to my friends,

“He not here.”

“No,he’s here.” My friends explained. “He’s sleeping.”

“He not here.” The cop replied, “He is….at….police.”

Confused, my friends looked at each other, looked at the cop, “No, he’s not at police, he is here, he is sleeping.”

The cop said, “No, he is at police, we go.” At that, one cop car pulled up, one friend was thrown in the back seat, and the car sped away. Then a second car came, my other friend was thrown in the back, and they sped away as well. When both arrived, they police took all their things and locked them up til I came.

“What time did you get here?” I asked. “about 5 am.” They replied. So they had been locked up in the jail now for over 2 hours, for nothing.

Just then one of the officers pulled me in the back room and started to ask me questions. Where I was from, how long I had been in Slovakia, why I was here. Then he confiscated my idea, wallet, phone and all my possessions and told to wait in the hall with the others. I was being “Not Arrested” as well for some reason.

The translator did not come til about 12 noon. 5 hours after I arrived, 7 since they “not arrested” my friends, tired, hungry, a little hung over. Finally, we could file the report and get out of there. When the translator arrived, they took me in a back room, and started to ask me what happened. As I explained, an officer was typing my response through the translator pecking with two fingers on an old typewriter I swear had DDR engraved on the side.

As we finished the report, I asked the office if this would affect my visa application. He said, “not arrested.” I replied that I understood that, but they were making a formal report, and how would this affect my visa status. To which he just shrugged his shoulders and replied, “vee vill see.” Nice response. After which, he pulled the paper out of the DDR manual typewriter and threw the paper on a stack of other papers in the corner of the office about a meter high. I started no to worry about it.

I left the room, they took us to pick up our things and we left. My work day was shot, my friends missed their planes, we were tired, hungry, and a bit frustrated from an incredible ordeal of being, “not arrested.” As we left, the cops called to us, waved, made drinking gestures, and said in their best English, “Have a nice day!”

Welcome to Slovakia.

The Dumbing Down of America

noreply@blogger.com (Jaymes) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:04:00 +0000

Working with international education, I’ve helped a lot of foreign students prepare for international exams and exchange programs to the US. On average, most European students function 2 years higher than their American counterparts at the same age.

A 2003 international study ranked the US students 25th among participating OECD countries including those in Eastern Europe which fund schools and teachers at a fraction of US spending.

Internationally, the US is in the top 3 in per student spending, yet students continually score only average among developed nations in terms of basic skills in math, science and reading.

The issue of improving US education is not new, and recently started the rise of outcome-based education, which requires an expected level of performance as a result of investment. Not dissimilar to business and sports.

In 2001 GW Bush passed the No-Child Left Behind (NCLB) act which is built off the principles of outcome-based education. The key premise to the act is a standardized test measuring the acquisition of skills and learning at various levels set by each state. Basically it means a student passing the 4th grade should be able to demonstrate basic and minimal 4th grade level skills. Makes sense, right?

Critics, primarily coming from the Teacher’s Unions, complained that new curriculum was necessary and held out for more money. Weird. If what they currently did wasn’t good enough for meet minimal levels, it begs the question of what they were doing in the first place.

Another solution also introduced in the during the previous administration was the voucher system. This gave students the choice to choose the school they wanted to attend, lifting the burden of being locked into a poor school system based on where you lived. The federal funds for that student would then go with the student. It is a hybrid between private schools. Schools that have a large exodus of students basically close down for lack of funding.

A schooling system which polices itself through market-demand, a system that thrives on competition? Sounds like the US collegiate system, which is the best in the world. Sounds like capitalism.

This program had seen great success in Washington D.C. which is notorious for the worst schooling systems in the US. Yet, despite that success, despite the fact that the program cost 7500 USD per student vs. the public system which costs 15000 per student, the program was recently killed by the Democratic congress in passing the Omnibus-bill, questioning if the voucher system was a “good-use” of federal tax dollars. Ironic.

Michigan recently began a similar voucher system. However, this program has been showing different results.

Many of the teachers I interviewed had left or were in the process of leaving. Not because of competition, but because they claimed they couldn’t teach. Competition among schools, which normally motivates and drives performance, had changed focus from increasing quality to quantity. The schools were catering to students’ felt wants, instead of market needs.

In so doing, the schools changed marketing from the best education to the most pleasant experience. If you’re a 16 year old kid, what do you want? Less homework, easier classes, more free time, fewer annoying teachers. I was shocked. The teachers were left with little to no authority, no recourse for discipline and thus effective classroom management, and in some cases were forced to pass failing students.

Yes, this area does not support NCLB and therefore does not submit itself to statewide comprehensive exams. So, their only accountability is enrolled students measured by meeting costs.

We can only assume that the school administrators are either ignorant and irresponsible or intentional.

Ignorant and irresponsible capitalism focuses on the short-term bottom line, money, ignoring the long-term gains from running a quality program. In this case, the corruption in the system comes from the lack of measuring minimal standards, what NCLB was meant to do.

But what if it is intentional?

When talking about change and development, it is naïve to assume the current situation is unknown. That means, things are the way they are, because the powers to be benefit from keeping it that way.

So the question is, who benefits from a lack of standardized measurement of school performance? Who benefits from keeping Americans dumb, ignorant, unquestioning, and undiscerning?