Thursday, August 23, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Censorship, Our Enemy
Censorship, Our Enemy
by: Andy Carloff
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves." -- Thomas Paine, On First Principles of Government (1795)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821)
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -- John Morley, On Compromise (1874)
If we want to know if someone believes in freedom and liberty, the prophets of creativity and passion, we may simply tell them, "When I told a person my opinion, they resorted to threats and physical violence." If the person we are telling this to believes in freedom, they will express their absolute horror at such a situation, but if the person does not believe in freedom, then they will ask, "What was the opinion?" As true liberty and freedom does not have borders or restrictions, unless another's liberty is at risk. If a man becomes the chorus of freedom and sings the songs of happiness, but states it ought to be illegal to express some opinion they believe to be heinous or ghastly or an abomination, then this man is nothing but a hypocrit and a traitor to the advancement of civilization. When a leader says, "You can say anything you want, but you may not say this or this or this," then it is the beginning of Censorship and the devaluation of opinion. And as they make it illegal for us to open our mouths, they make it illegal for everyone else to open their minds. Shackles attached to the strings of the heart as much as they are bondaged to the sentiments of the mind, and civilization, and its institutions of art and love and community and peace and freedom, as Censorship advances, civilization becomes crippled and debilitated. When we can no longer sing the song which has enchanted our hearts, unless we are rigidly following the notation of a biased authority, then we are no longer living in freedom, but in the foul chambers of Censorship.
There is nothing more obscene when the cry is made that literature is obscene in nature and should be censored. What can honestly be said of a person when they say we are not allowed to think a certain way, or to express our opinions in a way they dislike? What can be said when a Conservative states all Liberal texts should be banned, or when a Christian states all heretical texts should be banned, or when a person states that a radical opinion should be supressed and not heard? If a person wishes to prove that a theory is correct, they should do so openly and using evidence. To silence your opponent and not allow them to argue their case is to disable the advancement of truth and liberty. Those who are desirious of learning the truth and expanding their knowledge of both sides will be disheartened to find that they cannot find a text of anyone who opposes one theory. The government which approves of Censorship does a disservice to society.
The crime stipulated by Censorship is not one of action, but one of knowledge. It is in knowing that we become criminals. And in all of the Totalitarian nations where Censorship is in full force, artists and writers and comedians and musicians and thinkers, or any individual that is part of a creating class, will find themselves to be criminals. Not criminalized because they are the source of some evil, or that they cause misery or distress, but solely because they hold opinions, that they have thoughts, that they are capable of judgments. The members of the criminal class then are not only the poor who have no means of production, but the thinkers, the geniuses, the researchers, the scientists. And as Censorship masquerades as protection, as it continues its love affair with ignorance, all classes of men who find themselves allured to liberty, will detest Censorship against any group, in any form.
There have been thousands who have been persecuted for holding an opinion, let alone expressing the opinion. The church has been notorious for killing heretics all the way into the 20th century, with the death of Francisco Ferrer. The Red Scare and Senator McCarthy spent his political career by destroying others. And there came to be no more smug and cruel an institution as the Unamerican Activities Committee in our modern world. Lives were destroyed and futures were crushed, as the persecutors gained in fame, glory, and wealth. As the bog-god, terrorist machine of government crushed more souls into consumerist fodder for its never-ending goal of control and oppression, the world was thrown into a madenned craze. Even investigation of theories of Communism was tantamount to being recognized as a Communist in the eyes of the government.
What have our lives come to, when there are laws and regulations that say we cannot read certain things, that we cannot think certain things, that we may not question and understand certain things? Can there be any ideology, any belief system, any religion, or philosophy that is so taboo or foreign, that we must not permit anyone to know about it? The idea that is so dangerous that it must be banned from the mind is the idea that does not exist. Censorpship of an idea proves nothing. It only proves that someone must resort to physical force to put down their opponents. When someone cannot disprove their opponent with argumentation and evidence, they will resort to Censorship. And it is true that the censor-morons have been responsible for Censorship in all its forms, whether it is the destruction of the printing presses or killing those who hold an opinion.
The gluttonous beast of tyranny will do all in its power to disable and handicap the progression of civilization. It may try to crush our hearts, destroy our desires, and fill us with the idea that hope is vanity, truth is vice, and lust is sin. But before the cruel servants of brutality do anything -- before they construct their prisons, before they enforce compulsary education, before they force us to work in dangerous factories, before they tax us so they can support their luxurious lifestyles, before they massacre us in the streets -- before the cyclopse of iniquity raises his fist to take a blow at civilization, the first thing he will do is to put a clamp on our lips and our minds. He will burn our libraries, control all means of communication, and will make it punishable to hold or express a taboo opinion. And once Censorship is in place, all sorts of injustices and unfairness may be committed upon the tender flesh of innocense, upon the crying infant of life.
Can it not easily be predicted that these with enough brazen attitude will be met with healtfelt sorrow when they discover tha their questions are illegal? What kind of country would we be living in if questions and their answers are illegal? There may be those in full support of Censorship who will claim that we should remove obscenities from books, and allow only material to be published that respects sacredness. There can be nothing more sacred than liberty and freedom, the mother of inquiry and justice. Among the cruelty of the Censor-morons, there is the villification of the human body. The Fig-Leaf Campaign is notorious for this. In their never-ending quest to destroy freedom and creativity, only the greatest artists, be they Renassaince men or pornographers, have been persecuted. And by what writ can they claim that our bodies are obscene? Of all things, it is the least obscene! We are all born into this body, this bundle of loosely connected nerves, given the hormones of lust, allowed thought and contemplation. Such a magnificent machine and such a wonderful experience, but upon inspection of this spectable, the Censor-morons claim it is an obscenity! There is no expression more sincere in its cruelty and outright ignorance, when it claims that we are obscene, disgusting, vile, terrible, horrible, based on the way our bodies look to others. Perhaps if it were humanly possible, they would pass laws making it ilegal to see our own nudity.
The question really presented to us is this: can any idea, based on how radical or altrenitave, be so dangerous that we must silence it? If our means of communication and thought are free, then the journey to truth is only given permission to pass. When we can question everything, present ideas, and express evidence, only then will we have a free nad clear view of everything. The just courts of the world will not supress evidence. By what writ can a just society supress a view? It is not a question as to who is right or wrong. Many who censor Racists may say it is because they cannot be right. But if it is true that Racism is wrong, then allow it to be observed and investigated. If it is untrue, it's publication will be detrimental to its cause. But to supress the opinion, disallow investigation of any opinion, is slavery off thought and destructive to truth.
As the noose around our mind tightens, with government regulation, we will find that our liberties in all areas of our lives are degrading. With excessive harshness, trying to govern what we are allowed to think and what we are allowed to say, we will become indoctrinated into a drone-like trance, without humanity, with creativity, with love or hate. Becoming mindless fools following a set path determined by an unjust power, the ability to carry out justice and fairness will be severly debilitated. Deviation will be punishable. As the crimson sky of vitality and knowledge darkens to a lifeless, breathless mass -- as it becomes illegal to investigate and pose questions -- as the book fires reach further and further towards the skies and the condition of life sinks lower and lower -- and as intelligence becomes a sign of criminality, we wil discover that our lives are without freedom, our minds full of barriers, and the never-ending journey of education has turned into a slug-race. Censorship is our enemy, so much as ignorance, cruelty, and brutality are our enemies.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life,
Punkerslut
by: Andy Carloff
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves." -- Thomas Paine, On First Principles of Government (1795)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821)
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -- John Morley, On Compromise (1874)
If we want to know if someone believes in freedom and liberty, the prophets of creativity and passion, we may simply tell them, "When I told a person my opinion, they resorted to threats and physical violence." If the person we are telling this to believes in freedom, they will express their absolute horror at such a situation, but if the person does not believe in freedom, then they will ask, "What was the opinion?" As true liberty and freedom does not have borders or restrictions, unless another's liberty is at risk. If a man becomes the chorus of freedom and sings the songs of happiness, but states it ought to be illegal to express some opinion they believe to be heinous or ghastly or an abomination, then this man is nothing but a hypocrit and a traitor to the advancement of civilization. When a leader says, "You can say anything you want, but you may not say this or this or this," then it is the beginning of Censorship and the devaluation of opinion. And as they make it illegal for us to open our mouths, they make it illegal for everyone else to open their minds. Shackles attached to the strings of the heart as much as they are bondaged to the sentiments of the mind, and civilization, and its institutions of art and love and community and peace and freedom, as Censorship advances, civilization becomes crippled and debilitated. When we can no longer sing the song which has enchanted our hearts, unless we are rigidly following the notation of a biased authority, then we are no longer living in freedom, but in the foul chambers of Censorship.
There is nothing more obscene when the cry is made that literature is obscene in nature and should be censored. What can honestly be said of a person when they say we are not allowed to think a certain way, or to express our opinions in a way they dislike? What can be said when a Conservative states all Liberal texts should be banned, or when a Christian states all heretical texts should be banned, or when a person states that a radical opinion should be supressed and not heard? If a person wishes to prove that a theory is correct, they should do so openly and using evidence. To silence your opponent and not allow them to argue their case is to disable the advancement of truth and liberty. Those who are desirious of learning the truth and expanding their knowledge of both sides will be disheartened to find that they cannot find a text of anyone who opposes one theory. The government which approves of Censorship does a disservice to society.
The crime stipulated by Censorship is not one of action, but one of knowledge. It is in knowing that we become criminals. And in all of the Totalitarian nations where Censorship is in full force, artists and writers and comedians and musicians and thinkers, or any individual that is part of a creating class, will find themselves to be criminals. Not criminalized because they are the source of some evil, or that they cause misery or distress, but solely because they hold opinions, that they have thoughts, that they are capable of judgments. The members of the criminal class then are not only the poor who have no means of production, but the thinkers, the geniuses, the researchers, the scientists. And as Censorship masquerades as protection, as it continues its love affair with ignorance, all classes of men who find themselves allured to liberty, will detest Censorship against any group, in any form.
There have been thousands who have been persecuted for holding an opinion, let alone expressing the opinion. The church has been notorious for killing heretics all the way into the 20th century, with the death of Francisco Ferrer. The Red Scare and Senator McCarthy spent his political career by destroying others. And there came to be no more smug and cruel an institution as the Unamerican Activities Committee in our modern world. Lives were destroyed and futures were crushed, as the persecutors gained in fame, glory, and wealth. As the bog-god, terrorist machine of government crushed more souls into consumerist fodder for its never-ending goal of control and oppression, the world was thrown into a madenned craze. Even investigation of theories of Communism was tantamount to being recognized as a Communist in the eyes of the government.
What have our lives come to, when there are laws and regulations that say we cannot read certain things, that we cannot think certain things, that we may not question and understand certain things? Can there be any ideology, any belief system, any religion, or philosophy that is so taboo or foreign, that we must not permit anyone to know about it? The idea that is so dangerous that it must be banned from the mind is the idea that does not exist. Censorpship of an idea proves nothing. It only proves that someone must resort to physical force to put down their opponents. When someone cannot disprove their opponent with argumentation and evidence, they will resort to Censorship. And it is true that the censor-morons have been responsible for Censorship in all its forms, whether it is the destruction of the printing presses or killing those who hold an opinion.
The gluttonous beast of tyranny will do all in its power to disable and handicap the progression of civilization. It may try to crush our hearts, destroy our desires, and fill us with the idea that hope is vanity, truth is vice, and lust is sin. But before the cruel servants of brutality do anything -- before they construct their prisons, before they enforce compulsary education, before they force us to work in dangerous factories, before they tax us so they can support their luxurious lifestyles, before they massacre us in the streets -- before the cyclopse of iniquity raises his fist to take a blow at civilization, the first thing he will do is to put a clamp on our lips and our minds. He will burn our libraries, control all means of communication, and will make it punishable to hold or express a taboo opinion. And once Censorship is in place, all sorts of injustices and unfairness may be committed upon the tender flesh of innocense, upon the crying infant of life.
Can it not easily be predicted that these with enough brazen attitude will be met with healtfelt sorrow when they discover tha their questions are illegal? What kind of country would we be living in if questions and their answers are illegal? There may be those in full support of Censorship who will claim that we should remove obscenities from books, and allow only material to be published that respects sacredness. There can be nothing more sacred than liberty and freedom, the mother of inquiry and justice. Among the cruelty of the Censor-morons, there is the villification of the human body. The Fig-Leaf Campaign is notorious for this. In their never-ending quest to destroy freedom and creativity, only the greatest artists, be they Renassaince men or pornographers, have been persecuted. And by what writ can they claim that our bodies are obscene? Of all things, it is the least obscene! We are all born into this body, this bundle of loosely connected nerves, given the hormones of lust, allowed thought and contemplation. Such a magnificent machine and such a wonderful experience, but upon inspection of this spectable, the Censor-morons claim it is an obscenity! There is no expression more sincere in its cruelty and outright ignorance, when it claims that we are obscene, disgusting, vile, terrible, horrible, based on the way our bodies look to others. Perhaps if it were humanly possible, they would pass laws making it ilegal to see our own nudity.
The question really presented to us is this: can any idea, based on how radical or altrenitave, be so dangerous that we must silence it? If our means of communication and thought are free, then the journey to truth is only given permission to pass. When we can question everything, present ideas, and express evidence, only then will we have a free nad clear view of everything. The just courts of the world will not supress evidence. By what writ can a just society supress a view? It is not a question as to who is right or wrong. Many who censor Racists may say it is because they cannot be right. But if it is true that Racism is wrong, then allow it to be observed and investigated. If it is untrue, it's publication will be detrimental to its cause. But to supress the opinion, disallow investigation of any opinion, is slavery off thought and destructive to truth.
As the noose around our mind tightens, with government regulation, we will find that our liberties in all areas of our lives are degrading. With excessive harshness, trying to govern what we are allowed to think and what we are allowed to say, we will become indoctrinated into a drone-like trance, without humanity, with creativity, with love or hate. Becoming mindless fools following a set path determined by an unjust power, the ability to carry out justice and fairness will be severly debilitated. Deviation will be punishable. As the crimson sky of vitality and knowledge darkens to a lifeless, breathless mass -- as it becomes illegal to investigate and pose questions -- as the book fires reach further and further towards the skies and the condition of life sinks lower and lower -- and as intelligence becomes a sign of criminality, we wil discover that our lives are without freedom, our minds full of barriers, and the never-ending journey of education has turned into a slug-race. Censorship is our enemy, so much as ignorance, cruelty, and brutality are our enemies.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life,
Punkerslut
JFK Conspiracy And Other Historical Secrets
JFK Conspiracy And Other Historical Secrets
by: Lorrie Klein
The prophecies of Nostradamus, today popularly believed to be the work of a charlatan, are given new life in Morten St. George's Incantation of the Law Against Inept Critics: A Guide to Cryptic Thinking. St. George discovered that some of the famous stanzas masked their message by means of a unique type of cryptography involving the deployment of a wide array of deception devices. Nonetheless, a rigorous and systematic unraveling of these devices does not always wind up with the prophecies confirming recorded history. Unperturbed, St. George allows his decoding techniques to take the prophecies to where they lead:
* Napoleon Bonaparte was murdered on his island of captivity by poison in the wine, instigated by a woman enraged over the defeat of his army in 1813.
* President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a group of conspirators led by his vice-president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Officially accused by the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was completely innocent since the bullets that killed Kennedy were fired from a rooftop, not from an open window.
* The JFK conspirators were also behind the assassination of Kennedy's brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, several years later.
* Martin Luther King was assassinated because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, not because of racism.
* Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was assassinated because of his support for the anti-Islamic Shah of Iran, not because of his efforts to make peace with Israel.
* The Russians paid the Bulgarians with a suitcase containing gold and more than a hundred thousand rubles to attempt the assassination of Pope Juan Paul II.
* American satellites over the Falkland Islands guided a British submarine to an Argentine cruiser, which was torpedoed resulting in the death of hundreds of Argentine sailors.
St. George claims that this information, as well as a clear allusion to all the major events of world history from Hiroshima to September 11, are conveyed by a mere forty-two stanzas that interconnect in intricate ways to supply the needed details. According to St. George, these forty-stanzas were originally part of a group of one hundred stanzas written in the sixth century, a thousand years before the time of Nostradamus. St. George, however, does not view this as a strategic problem for the prophecies: "If the prophecies foresaw historical secrets, it is safe to assume that they also foresaw their translation into French
by: Lorrie Klein
The prophecies of Nostradamus, today popularly believed to be the work of a charlatan, are given new life in Morten St. George's Incantation of the Law Against Inept Critics: A Guide to Cryptic Thinking. St. George discovered that some of the famous stanzas masked their message by means of a unique type of cryptography involving the deployment of a wide array of deception devices. Nonetheless, a rigorous and systematic unraveling of these devices does not always wind up with the prophecies confirming recorded history. Unperturbed, St. George allows his decoding techniques to take the prophecies to where they lead:
* Napoleon Bonaparte was murdered on his island of captivity by poison in the wine, instigated by a woman enraged over the defeat of his army in 1813.
* President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a group of conspirators led by his vice-president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Officially accused by the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was completely innocent since the bullets that killed Kennedy were fired from a rooftop, not from an open window.
* The JFK conspirators were also behind the assassination of Kennedy's brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, several years later.
* Martin Luther King was assassinated because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, not because of racism.
* Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was assassinated because of his support for the anti-Islamic Shah of Iran, not because of his efforts to make peace with Israel.
* The Russians paid the Bulgarians with a suitcase containing gold and more than a hundred thousand rubles to attempt the assassination of Pope Juan Paul II.
* American satellites over the Falkland Islands guided a British submarine to an Argentine cruiser, which was torpedoed resulting in the death of hundreds of Argentine sailors.
St. George claims that this information, as well as a clear allusion to all the major events of world history from Hiroshima to September 11, are conveyed by a mere forty-two stanzas that interconnect in intricate ways to supply the needed details. According to St. George, these forty-stanzas were originally part of a group of one hundred stanzas written in the sixth century, a thousand years before the time of Nostradamus. St. George, however, does not view this as a strategic problem for the prophecies: "If the prophecies foresaw historical secrets, it is safe to assume that they also foresaw their translation into French
Police and Effective Communication
Police and Effective Communication
by: Kenneth R Tapscott
If there is one occupation where communication skills are an absolutely essential that is the job of a police officer. In terms of police officers and the jobs they are expected to do on the street, communications skills are so critical that they can spell life or death for the officer or others involved. On the job officers are required to talk to all different types of people and those people are in sometimes the worse situation they have ever been in. Police Officers deal with people of all races, cultures, ages, ethnicities and background. Having to deal with all different types of people, officers must know what each person expects to hear and what each person expects not to hear. As the United States is becoming more diverse in cultures, police officers need to be very careful dealing with the different cultures. What could be perceived as being normal in the officers culture may not be in dealing with certain ethnicities. For examples in some cultures and religions it is forbidden for women to speak with a man other than her husband. This can turn into a pretty difficult situation if an officer does not know this and insists on a female speaking with him. This works both ways as well as many ethnic groups coming to this country do not follow and agree with all of the rules we follow.
Police need to adjust their tone and attitude depending on the situation they are presented with. Police officers need to show sympathy and comfort victims and at the same time are expected to lay down the law and show assertiveness and authority. For some officers it is very difficult turning emotions on and off and police officers will never know what emotions and attitudes they will be presented with throughout a days work.
Police officers have to not only respond to stressful situations, they have to take control of them and get everyone to work together to resolve the situation. Officers are expected to put their own emotions on the side so that the situation at hand can be dealt with effectively. Police officers need to know how to deescalate a situation before the matter gets out of hand and they need to do so in a way that everyone involved in a particular situation agrees with. Examples of this would be a suicidal subject calls or calls involving the mentally ill. Both situations are very difficult for officers to deal with especially those officers who are faced with these calls absent any experience or training in how to deal with them. These situations are highly charges and volatile situations and proper communications is required for a successful resolution. Officers need to evaluate each situation and attempt to give in the needs of the subject but at the same time still showing authority as well. In situations like these just a few wrong works or actions could spell disaster for all that are involved.
An officer is only as good as him reports are. Not only is an officer expected to handle multiple calls a day they are also expected to document everything that takes place on those calls and then put that information into a report form for future use. Officer must be sure to put everything in there police reports and to do so in a way that everyone reading it will understand what they are stating. This becomes especially critical when a case goes to court and the officers police report is questioned and challenged by the defense.
The job of a police officer is very difficult one and having sharp communications skills is a required skill to have and will mean the difference between a successful officer and an unsuccessful one.
by: Kenneth R Tapscott
If there is one occupation where communication skills are an absolutely essential that is the job of a police officer. In terms of police officers and the jobs they are expected to do on the street, communications skills are so critical that they can spell life or death for the officer or others involved. On the job officers are required to talk to all different types of people and those people are in sometimes the worse situation they have ever been in. Police Officers deal with people of all races, cultures, ages, ethnicities and background. Having to deal with all different types of people, officers must know what each person expects to hear and what each person expects not to hear. As the United States is becoming more diverse in cultures, police officers need to be very careful dealing with the different cultures. What could be perceived as being normal in the officers culture may not be in dealing with certain ethnicities. For examples in some cultures and religions it is forbidden for women to speak with a man other than her husband. This can turn into a pretty difficult situation if an officer does not know this and insists on a female speaking with him. This works both ways as well as many ethnic groups coming to this country do not follow and agree with all of the rules we follow.
Police need to adjust their tone and attitude depending on the situation they are presented with. Police officers need to show sympathy and comfort victims and at the same time are expected to lay down the law and show assertiveness and authority. For some officers it is very difficult turning emotions on and off and police officers will never know what emotions and attitudes they will be presented with throughout a days work.
Police officers have to not only respond to stressful situations, they have to take control of them and get everyone to work together to resolve the situation. Officers are expected to put their own emotions on the side so that the situation at hand can be dealt with effectively. Police officers need to know how to deescalate a situation before the matter gets out of hand and they need to do so in a way that everyone involved in a particular situation agrees with. Examples of this would be a suicidal subject calls or calls involving the mentally ill. Both situations are very difficult for officers to deal with especially those officers who are faced with these calls absent any experience or training in how to deal with them. These situations are highly charges and volatile situations and proper communications is required for a successful resolution. Officers need to evaluate each situation and attempt to give in the needs of the subject but at the same time still showing authority as well. In situations like these just a few wrong works or actions could spell disaster for all that are involved.
An officer is only as good as him reports are. Not only is an officer expected to handle multiple calls a day they are also expected to document everything that takes place on those calls and then put that information into a report form for future use. Officer must be sure to put everything in there police reports and to do so in a way that everyone reading it will understand what they are stating. This becomes especially critical when a case goes to court and the officers police report is questioned and challenged by the defense.
The job of a police officer is very difficult one and having sharp communications skills is a required skill to have and will mean the difference between a successful officer and an unsuccessful one.
The Leo Wanta Saga, Pt. 11: Bush Illegally Blocks The Wanta Plan And $4.5 Trillion Settlement On Behalf Of Americans
The Leo Wanta Saga, Pt. 11: Bush Illegally Blocks The Wanta Plan And $4.5 Trillion Settlement On Behalf Of Americans
by: Greg Szymanski
With the Federal Reserve Board illegally blocking The Wanta Plan , overseas financial sources are reporting today that U.S. authorities are preparing a plan to hi-jack the $4.5 trillion dollar settlement collecting dust in a Bank of America account In Richmond, Va.
This is the reason, sources say, President George W. Bush personally instructed the Fed to block the transfer of money, involving a vast sum of money earmarked for the U.S. Treasury, AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. and former Ambassador Leo Wanta.
Financial observers informed the Arctic Beacon corrupt "high level" American officials are planning to steal the full sum of money, even though the money belongs to the people and protected by Wanta as the legal trustor.
A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) that was to have been filed with the Bank of America, Richmond, has meanwhile mysteriously gone missing," said the editor of an influential London currency review, adding if such actions were taken it would involve a crime to defraud the rightful owners of the money.
The $4.5 trillion in The Wanta Plan were recently signed pursuant to the accord an agreement between Leo Wanta/AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., the US Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr., and other key high level players who all decided this partial settlement would be better than Wanta's original idea of pursuing the entire amount estimated at between $27.5 and $70 trillion.
It is important to remember the funds belong to Wanta as trustor and his trading corporation and are not the property of Bank of America, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury or any other party.
The signed agreement was finalized June 12 after Wanta, a former Treasury and Secret Service agent, was released from a long and unwarranted jail term, including 133 days in Swiss dungeon. Further, Wanta suffered tremendous hardship since the late 1980's, including a character assassination by the CIA as operatives even falsely pronounced him dead in order to loot the vast sum of money.
Wanta's ordeal began after refusing to "play ball" with President George H. Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton who reportedly used the vast sum of public money, estimated at more than 27.5 trillion, for their own personal benefit.
According to Wanta, who has appeared numerous times on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal, the smear campaign and illegal jailing began after he refused demands by Bush and Clinton for the wrongful diversion of $1 billion into an Panama bank account for Pilgrim Investments/Jorge (George) Bush in August 1989.
Wanta has identified this transaction as being illegal, but also has traced more than $750 billion of the booty as being diverted, stolen or misused by the Bush and Clinton crime families, monies which should have been properly returned to the American people.
Christopher Story, a financial writer from London, following the story, said: "The reappearance of this upright Treasury/Secret Service financial agent after years of absence, after the CIA had lied for years that he was dead, delivered a high-voltage electric shock to the criminal gangs operating inside the US structures.
"These are led by arrogant and powerful intelligence 'barons', and their compromised intelligence, banking and legal associates. Such people now understandably fear that they are all going to be exposed, arrested and indicted for their serial corruption crimes over the years."
Under The Wanta Plan, considered bigger and more important than The Marshall Plan of the World War II era, Wanta himself outlined the specifics of the deal recently as a guest on The Investigative Journal.
"Under the plan," explained Wanta, "the US Treasury is to receive $1.575 trillion in tax payments from the $4.5 trillion, representing tax payable at 35%, and then at least $96 billion per banking day following the delayed start-up of prearranged AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. trading operations."
Wanta added another similar aggregate tax amount per banking day will be payable to the U.S. Treasury/IRS arising from a similar transactions with other U.S. parties, generating an estimated aggregate $200 billion every banking day for the Treasury.
In addition, the State of Virginia is to receive an initial windfall tax remittance amounting to $270 billion since Wanta's group was incorporated there, ensuring windfall tax remittances to Pennsylvania, as well.
When Wanta appeared on The Investigative Journal last week, he said he was miffed why the Fed would illegally hold up the transaction sinice it was costing the American people $200 billion every banking day the money remains dormant.
Further, he officially gave the Fed until July 31 to release the money, saying the agreement would then be null and void as he planned to then go after the total aggregate amount of offshore money estimated at $70 trillion.
"I don't think they want that to happen," added Wanta. "It could be devastating to some major worldwide financial as they would collapse since they do not have the liquidity to return the full amount of the money."
As a capsule summary, the vast sum of money used illegally by corrupt insiders inside the U.S. government, was originally amassed by Wanta as part of a plan he and several other financial whizzes devised on behalf of President Ronald Reagan to destabilize the Soviet currency, bringing a quick end to the Cold War.
However, after Reagan left office, he was back stabbed by the Bush I and Clinton sadministration, leading to a long and unwarranted jail term to "get him out of the way," including 133 in a Swiss jail and years behind bars on a bogus Wisconsin state income tax charge.
Released more than a year ago, Wanta has been trying with limited resources and no cooperation from the government and the media to return the money to the American people.
During his many years in jail, much of the money has been diverted to numerous private overseas accounts and, according to Wanta, essentially looted by the corrupt Bush and Clinton crime families.
But in an unexpected move in 2003 Wanta filed a federal court case to recover the money. Although the case was dismissed under sovereign immunity, he received verification from the court that his legal trustor status was valid, the judge telling him to use the federal collections courts as a recovery process.
During the last year, Wanta has been trying to retrace his financial tracks and Monday emailed the Arctic Beacon for being one of the only news outlets to follow the story, saying 1.2 trillion is a good first step at lowering the national debt.
Regarding the illegal blockage of money authorized by President Bush and the Fed Reserve, The International Currency Review had this to say, reminding the American people it's imperative to follow the Wanta money before it is stolen by the corrupt criminals controlling the White House:
"Just as a taxpayer is obliged to pay his taxes, on pain of severe penalties for not doing so, anyone who prevents a taxpayer from paying tax is liable in the eyes of the law: and this, as noted, applies to everyone, without exception, including the President of the United States."
by: Greg Szymanski
With the Federal Reserve Board illegally blocking The Wanta Plan , overseas financial sources are reporting today that U.S. authorities are preparing a plan to hi-jack the $4.5 trillion dollar settlement collecting dust in a Bank of America account In Richmond, Va.
This is the reason, sources say, President George W. Bush personally instructed the Fed to block the transfer of money, involving a vast sum of money earmarked for the U.S. Treasury, AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. and former Ambassador Leo Wanta.
Financial observers informed the Arctic Beacon corrupt "high level" American officials are planning to steal the full sum of money, even though the money belongs to the people and protected by Wanta as the legal trustor.
A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) that was to have been filed with the Bank of America, Richmond, has meanwhile mysteriously gone missing," said the editor of an influential London currency review, adding if such actions were taken it would involve a crime to defraud the rightful owners of the money.
The $4.5 trillion in The Wanta Plan were recently signed pursuant to the accord an agreement between Leo Wanta/AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., the US Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr., and other key high level players who all decided this partial settlement would be better than Wanta's original idea of pursuing the entire amount estimated at between $27.5 and $70 trillion.
It is important to remember the funds belong to Wanta as trustor and his trading corporation and are not the property of Bank of America, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury or any other party.
The signed agreement was finalized June 12 after Wanta, a former Treasury and Secret Service agent, was released from a long and unwarranted jail term, including 133 days in Swiss dungeon. Further, Wanta suffered tremendous hardship since the late 1980's, including a character assassination by the CIA as operatives even falsely pronounced him dead in order to loot the vast sum of money.
Wanta's ordeal began after refusing to "play ball" with President George H. Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton who reportedly used the vast sum of public money, estimated at more than 27.5 trillion, for their own personal benefit.
According to Wanta, who has appeared numerous times on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal, the smear campaign and illegal jailing began after he refused demands by Bush and Clinton for the wrongful diversion of $1 billion into an Panama bank account for Pilgrim Investments/Jorge (George) Bush in August 1989.
Wanta has identified this transaction as being illegal, but also has traced more than $750 billion of the booty as being diverted, stolen or misused by the Bush and Clinton crime families, monies which should have been properly returned to the American people.
Christopher Story, a financial writer from London, following the story, said: "The reappearance of this upright Treasury/Secret Service financial agent after years of absence, after the CIA had lied for years that he was dead, delivered a high-voltage electric shock to the criminal gangs operating inside the US structures.
"These are led by arrogant and powerful intelligence 'barons', and their compromised intelligence, banking and legal associates. Such people now understandably fear that they are all going to be exposed, arrested and indicted for their serial corruption crimes over the years."
Under The Wanta Plan, considered bigger and more important than The Marshall Plan of the World War II era, Wanta himself outlined the specifics of the deal recently as a guest on The Investigative Journal.
"Under the plan," explained Wanta, "the US Treasury is to receive $1.575 trillion in tax payments from the $4.5 trillion, representing tax payable at 35%, and then at least $96 billion per banking day following the delayed start-up of prearranged AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. trading operations."
Wanta added another similar aggregate tax amount per banking day will be payable to the U.S. Treasury/IRS arising from a similar transactions with other U.S. parties, generating an estimated aggregate $200 billion every banking day for the Treasury.
In addition, the State of Virginia is to receive an initial windfall tax remittance amounting to $270 billion since Wanta's group was incorporated there, ensuring windfall tax remittances to Pennsylvania, as well.
When Wanta appeared on The Investigative Journal last week, he said he was miffed why the Fed would illegally hold up the transaction sinice it was costing the American people $200 billion every banking day the money remains dormant.
Further, he officially gave the Fed until July 31 to release the money, saying the agreement would then be null and void as he planned to then go after the total aggregate amount of offshore money estimated at $70 trillion.
"I don't think they want that to happen," added Wanta. "It could be devastating to some major worldwide financial as they would collapse since they do not have the liquidity to return the full amount of the money."
As a capsule summary, the vast sum of money used illegally by corrupt insiders inside the U.S. government, was originally amassed by Wanta as part of a plan he and several other financial whizzes devised on behalf of President Ronald Reagan to destabilize the Soviet currency, bringing a quick end to the Cold War.
However, after Reagan left office, he was back stabbed by the Bush I and Clinton sadministration, leading to a long and unwarranted jail term to "get him out of the way," including 133 in a Swiss jail and years behind bars on a bogus Wisconsin state income tax charge.
Released more than a year ago, Wanta has been trying with limited resources and no cooperation from the government and the media to return the money to the American people.
During his many years in jail, much of the money has been diverted to numerous private overseas accounts and, according to Wanta, essentially looted by the corrupt Bush and Clinton crime families.
But in an unexpected move in 2003 Wanta filed a federal court case to recover the money. Although the case was dismissed under sovereign immunity, he received verification from the court that his legal trustor status was valid, the judge telling him to use the federal collections courts as a recovery process.
During the last year, Wanta has been trying to retrace his financial tracks and Monday emailed the Arctic Beacon for being one of the only news outlets to follow the story, saying 1.2 trillion is a good first step at lowering the national debt.
Regarding the illegal blockage of money authorized by President Bush and the Fed Reserve, The International Currency Review had this to say, reminding the American people it's imperative to follow the Wanta money before it is stolen by the corrupt criminals controlling the White House:
"Just as a taxpayer is obliged to pay his taxes, on pain of severe penalties for not doing so, anyone who prevents a taxpayer from paying tax is liable in the eyes of the law: and this, as noted, applies to everyone, without exception, including the President of the United States."
Leadership and Perception
Leadership and Perception
by: MIchael Keller
Leaders lead and followers follow, right? What if, as a leader, you believed you were leading but no one was following? What if your employees believed they were being led but in reality there was no leadership? We like to believe we are effective and efficient leaders using our perception of what an effective and efficient leader is as a benchmark. Our supposed followers may have a very different perception. It does not matter whose perception is right or whose perception is wrong -- what does matter is that what we perceive, we believe. After all, perception is the truth. Webster defines perception as:
“1a: a result of perceiving: OBSERVATION, b: a mental image: CONCEPT, 2 obs: CONSCIOUSNESS, 3a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation (color ~), b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience, 4a: quick, acute, and intuitive cognition: APPRECIATION, b: a capacity for comprehension, syn see DISCERNMENT.
In the scientific community Berelson and Steiner, in their book Human Behavior, define perception as, “...the complex process by which people select and organize sensory stimulation into a meaningful and rational picture of the world.” In the arena of leadership I would define perception as the acute awareness of the effectiveness a leader has in an organization based on an introspective assessment and accurate internal as well as external feedback.
This author had the honor of attending the FBI National Academy (176th session, almost froze to death) and the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. During both of these arduous academic endeavors I was inundated with management principles and theory by some of the foremost leaders in both the law enforcement profession and corporate America. During my subsequent research I came to the conclusion that most everyone agrees that there are three primary skills that a good leader must possess: 1. vision, 2. interpersonal skills, and 3. technical skills. No one ever mentioned perception. I argue that to survive as an effective leader this skill is every bit as important as the other three.
The fact that people can perceive the same thing differently needs to become an integral part of the decision making process of all leaders (Robbins, De Cenzo). The process by which leaders can use the skill of perception effectively has several overlapping steps.
Perception
“We react to a specific object based on what we see rather than on what it really is. Often we see only what we want to in a given situation. Similarly, how we react depends on what we hear, not necessarily on what was really said.” (Whiseenand)
Several years ago I learned that perception was a powerful force to be reckoned with. I heard rumors about me that disturbed me because they were not true. When the opportunity arose, and the guts, I asked others how I was thought of in the organization.
I had heard rumors that I was thought of as the “fair haired boy” should have been no hair as I am follicly impaired. I also heard that I thought I was better than others, that I was a hard ass, black and white, aloof, a guy that could get things done. Some of these perceptions troubled me deeply and the best defense being a strong offense I set out to gather whatever information and data might be available to make an accurate assessment and appropriate changes.
I realized that to be an effective leader I had to know what the employees honestly thought of me. To accomplish this I made appointments to speak with employees that I knew well and others I barely knew. There were only two rules, be honest and be respectful. I approached this not as an opportunity to take a shot at me but as an opportunity to help me learn to be a better leader. If you give your employees an opportunity to take a shot at you, face to face, you will find that they will be less than frank for fear of reprisal. In a constructive criticism atmosphere they can be brutally honest. If you do this with the true intent of learning, you will undoubtedly get your feelings hurt. As people described their perception of me it sometimes made me very uncomfortable because I knew in my heart that they were wrong in their perception. It was at this point that I learned that what an employee perceives, they believe, regardless of what the truth is.
“The probability of developing such knowledge of ourselves and other people is enhanced if the police supervisor: (1) becomes continuously aware of the intricacies of the perceptual process; (2) avoids arbitrary and categorical judgments; (3) seeks reliable information before judgments are made; (4) shifts position as additional information is acquired; and, most crucial, (5) recognizes that we all see things differently because our needs greatly determine the view we have of ourselves and the world. To ignore the importance of the perceptual process is to ignore a major determinate of behaviors.” (Whiseenand)
Having become, (1) aware of the need to recognize and acknowledge the perceptions of employees and (2) gathered data through interviews, it was time to extrapolate from the data the relevant facts, (3) be objective, (4) review the facts for accuracy, and (5) make an assessment on how to change perceptions. Assessing the necessity for change requires a very introspective look at ourselves while attempting to be objective. This is not always easy or comfortable. Taking a systematic approach to perception and the resulting appropriate changes, if any, fosters an objective approach to various issues. This approach also helps put issues into a perspective that is not overwrought with emotion. This sounds likes a very simple methodical system but the reality is that when you introduce your personality and the personalities of your employees the frustration levels will soar, your communications skills and your patience will be tested.
Communication
Communication is the single most important tool a leader has at his/her disposal. Much has been written about communications and it is not my intention to regurgitate what others have said except to speak about communication and perception. You may have the best of intentions, genuine concern for the welfare of your employees, but if you do not communicate this in a fashion that your employees can understand then the perception of the employees may be just the opposite. Effective, accurate communication touches all aspects of leadership. The leader, sensitive to the perceptions of the employees, must use communication as a tool to either reinforce a positive perception or change a negative one.
To accomplish the changing of a negative perception through communication a leader must be very (1) proactive. The saying that “the best defense is a strong offense” is very appropriate here. When communicating with employees administrators must remember to (2) listen to what is being said, (3) be timely in responses, and, (4) provide accurate information.
Listening is a fundamental aspect of effective communication. How can we solve a problem when we have not listened to what the problem is perceived to be? How can we discern the difference between a symptom and problem when we have not listened to the facts? How can we help when we do not hear? “Listening on the job is not only frequent, it is important as well. When 282 members of the Academy of Certified Administrative Managers were asked to list the skills most crucial for managerial ability, “active listening” was rated number one and was placed in the “supercritical” category”. (Adler) Listening to what employees have to say sends a message that you care about their input; they have value.
I don’t know how many times I have listened to my spouse while watching television and retained nothing from the exchange except the score. Interactive listening is an integral part of effective listening. Listening can be mentally exhaustive. When an employee comes into your office to speak with you about some problem, come down from the “Ivory Tower”, grab a note pad, sit across from them and listen, take notes if necessary. This might come as a surprise to some administrators but frequently employees have very good ideas.
Communication with an employee should be done in a timely fashion. If an issue exists that requires input don’t wait so long that the information you disseminate is ineffective. Finding the right moment to interject an idea or address an issue is always a consideration. How many times have employees asked one another “what kind of mood is the boss in today?” They are assessing whether the timing is right to engage the boss in conversation or just leave him/her alone.
When communicating with your employees be sure that the information given is accurate. Inaccurate information will lead to confusion, frustration and impact productivity. Remember, if you’re the leader of the organization, what you say is very often perceived as gospel. Some of the communication we have with our employees is just friendly, idle chitchat that, although seemingly insignificant, can send some very profound messages. How many times have you heard your employees say “well, I thought you meant”? Your employees perception of what you meant was different that what you communicated. If you’re lying to your employees, stop. Once you’re caught in a lie, the perception will be that everything you say is probably a lie. The damage is irreversible in most instances.
Consistency in communication with employees compliments accuracy. Employees want to be treated fairly and we should strive to be consistent in our application of fairness and interaction with employees. Failure to be consistent in how we communicate will send mixed and confused messages to the employees. We should not communicate displeasure to one employee and fail to communicate the same displeasure to another employee for the same issue. It’s very important to remember that employees talk among themselves and frequently compare notes.
The use of E-mail, although efficient, is not always effective and should be avoided when the situation requires face to face communication. Sometimes what we say is not nearly as effective as how we say it. The impact of what we say through the verbal, written and electronic mediums pales in comparison to the perception of our communication through our body language and inflections.
Maintaining a chain of command is critical in this life and death profession we call policing. For the effective leader though, an open door policy can be very beneficial. Your employees should understand the importance of the chain of command and they should never have the perception that their leader is unapproachable. While trying to maintain a chain of command many leaders advocate having an open door policy. On occasion, an employee may be moved to take advantage of your open door policy and engage you in conversation that is to be kept in confidence. When you agree to talk with an employee “in confidence”, you are giving your word that you will not divulge the information. Failure to keep your word will result in the perception that you cannot be trusted. We must also remember that our employees talk amongst themselves and that the grapevine is a very powerful entity. The topic of conversation frequently is our leadership abilities and although employees don’t usually do in-depth analysis, they have significant opinions that they pass among each other. If you fail to keep your word with an employee, in all probability other employees will know within a short period of time resulting in a severe blow to the perception of your credibility
In summary, we as administrators, in hopes of accurately assessing the perceptions of our employees, must open our eyes and ears. There are too many administrators who think that because problems are not knocking down their door that everything is great. When a confidence vote is called for, an association formed, or morale plummets, then these same administrators react with anger and hostility, usually at the wrong people, for issues they, the administrators, should have had knowledge of.
Perception is just another tool, under utilized, that requires an administrator to develop the true desire to be the best he/she can be. Using all of the tools available to us we can achieve great things with our employees for our citizens. We owe it to them. We owe it to ourselves. We took an oath!
END NOTES
R. Adler, “Communications At Work”, Principles And Practices For Business and Professions, McGraw Hill 1992, p.93
S. Robbins, D. DeCenzo, “Fundamentals of Management” Essential Concepts and Applications, Prentice-Hall 1995, p.236
P. Whisenand, “Police Supervision”, Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall 1971, p.30
by: MIchael Keller
Leaders lead and followers follow, right? What if, as a leader, you believed you were leading but no one was following? What if your employees believed they were being led but in reality there was no leadership? We like to believe we are effective and efficient leaders using our perception of what an effective and efficient leader is as a benchmark. Our supposed followers may have a very different perception. It does not matter whose perception is right or whose perception is wrong -- what does matter is that what we perceive, we believe. After all, perception is the truth. Webster defines perception as:
“1a: a result of perceiving: OBSERVATION, b: a mental image: CONCEPT, 2 obs: CONSCIOUSNESS, 3a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation (color ~), b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience, 4a: quick, acute, and intuitive cognition: APPRECIATION, b: a capacity for comprehension, syn see DISCERNMENT.
In the scientific community Berelson and Steiner, in their book Human Behavior, define perception as, “...the complex process by which people select and organize sensory stimulation into a meaningful and rational picture of the world.” In the arena of leadership I would define perception as the acute awareness of the effectiveness a leader has in an organization based on an introspective assessment and accurate internal as well as external feedback.
This author had the honor of attending the FBI National Academy (176th session, almost froze to death) and the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. During both of these arduous academic endeavors I was inundated with management principles and theory by some of the foremost leaders in both the law enforcement profession and corporate America. During my subsequent research I came to the conclusion that most everyone agrees that there are three primary skills that a good leader must possess: 1. vision, 2. interpersonal skills, and 3. technical skills. No one ever mentioned perception. I argue that to survive as an effective leader this skill is every bit as important as the other three.
The fact that people can perceive the same thing differently needs to become an integral part of the decision making process of all leaders (Robbins, De Cenzo). The process by which leaders can use the skill of perception effectively has several overlapping steps.
Perception
“We react to a specific object based on what we see rather than on what it really is. Often we see only what we want to in a given situation. Similarly, how we react depends on what we hear, not necessarily on what was really said.” (Whiseenand)
Several years ago I learned that perception was a powerful force to be reckoned with. I heard rumors about me that disturbed me because they were not true. When the opportunity arose, and the guts, I asked others how I was thought of in the organization.
I had heard rumors that I was thought of as the “fair haired boy” should have been no hair as I am follicly impaired. I also heard that I thought I was better than others, that I was a hard ass, black and white, aloof, a guy that could get things done. Some of these perceptions troubled me deeply and the best defense being a strong offense I set out to gather whatever information and data might be available to make an accurate assessment and appropriate changes.
I realized that to be an effective leader I had to know what the employees honestly thought of me. To accomplish this I made appointments to speak with employees that I knew well and others I barely knew. There were only two rules, be honest and be respectful. I approached this not as an opportunity to take a shot at me but as an opportunity to help me learn to be a better leader. If you give your employees an opportunity to take a shot at you, face to face, you will find that they will be less than frank for fear of reprisal. In a constructive criticism atmosphere they can be brutally honest. If you do this with the true intent of learning, you will undoubtedly get your feelings hurt. As people described their perception of me it sometimes made me very uncomfortable because I knew in my heart that they were wrong in their perception. It was at this point that I learned that what an employee perceives, they believe, regardless of what the truth is.
“The probability of developing such knowledge of ourselves and other people is enhanced if the police supervisor: (1) becomes continuously aware of the intricacies of the perceptual process; (2) avoids arbitrary and categorical judgments; (3) seeks reliable information before judgments are made; (4) shifts position as additional information is acquired; and, most crucial, (5) recognizes that we all see things differently because our needs greatly determine the view we have of ourselves and the world. To ignore the importance of the perceptual process is to ignore a major determinate of behaviors.” (Whiseenand)
Having become, (1) aware of the need to recognize and acknowledge the perceptions of employees and (2) gathered data through interviews, it was time to extrapolate from the data the relevant facts, (3) be objective, (4) review the facts for accuracy, and (5) make an assessment on how to change perceptions. Assessing the necessity for change requires a very introspective look at ourselves while attempting to be objective. This is not always easy or comfortable. Taking a systematic approach to perception and the resulting appropriate changes, if any, fosters an objective approach to various issues. This approach also helps put issues into a perspective that is not overwrought with emotion. This sounds likes a very simple methodical system but the reality is that when you introduce your personality and the personalities of your employees the frustration levels will soar, your communications skills and your patience will be tested.
Communication
Communication is the single most important tool a leader has at his/her disposal. Much has been written about communications and it is not my intention to regurgitate what others have said except to speak about communication and perception. You may have the best of intentions, genuine concern for the welfare of your employees, but if you do not communicate this in a fashion that your employees can understand then the perception of the employees may be just the opposite. Effective, accurate communication touches all aspects of leadership. The leader, sensitive to the perceptions of the employees, must use communication as a tool to either reinforce a positive perception or change a negative one.
To accomplish the changing of a negative perception through communication a leader must be very (1) proactive. The saying that “the best defense is a strong offense” is very appropriate here. When communicating with employees administrators must remember to (2) listen to what is being said, (3) be timely in responses, and, (4) provide accurate information.
Listening is a fundamental aspect of effective communication. How can we solve a problem when we have not listened to what the problem is perceived to be? How can we discern the difference between a symptom and problem when we have not listened to the facts? How can we help when we do not hear? “Listening on the job is not only frequent, it is important as well. When 282 members of the Academy of Certified Administrative Managers were asked to list the skills most crucial for managerial ability, “active listening” was rated number one and was placed in the “supercritical” category”. (Adler) Listening to what employees have to say sends a message that you care about their input; they have value.
I don’t know how many times I have listened to my spouse while watching television and retained nothing from the exchange except the score. Interactive listening is an integral part of effective listening. Listening can be mentally exhaustive. When an employee comes into your office to speak with you about some problem, come down from the “Ivory Tower”, grab a note pad, sit across from them and listen, take notes if necessary. This might come as a surprise to some administrators but frequently employees have very good ideas.
Communication with an employee should be done in a timely fashion. If an issue exists that requires input don’t wait so long that the information you disseminate is ineffective. Finding the right moment to interject an idea or address an issue is always a consideration. How many times have employees asked one another “what kind of mood is the boss in today?” They are assessing whether the timing is right to engage the boss in conversation or just leave him/her alone.
When communicating with your employees be sure that the information given is accurate. Inaccurate information will lead to confusion, frustration and impact productivity. Remember, if you’re the leader of the organization, what you say is very often perceived as gospel. Some of the communication we have with our employees is just friendly, idle chitchat that, although seemingly insignificant, can send some very profound messages. How many times have you heard your employees say “well, I thought you meant”? Your employees perception of what you meant was different that what you communicated. If you’re lying to your employees, stop. Once you’re caught in a lie, the perception will be that everything you say is probably a lie. The damage is irreversible in most instances.
Consistency in communication with employees compliments accuracy. Employees want to be treated fairly and we should strive to be consistent in our application of fairness and interaction with employees. Failure to be consistent in how we communicate will send mixed and confused messages to the employees. We should not communicate displeasure to one employee and fail to communicate the same displeasure to another employee for the same issue. It’s very important to remember that employees talk among themselves and frequently compare notes.
The use of E-mail, although efficient, is not always effective and should be avoided when the situation requires face to face communication. Sometimes what we say is not nearly as effective as how we say it. The impact of what we say through the verbal, written and electronic mediums pales in comparison to the perception of our communication through our body language and inflections.
Maintaining a chain of command is critical in this life and death profession we call policing. For the effective leader though, an open door policy can be very beneficial. Your employees should understand the importance of the chain of command and they should never have the perception that their leader is unapproachable. While trying to maintain a chain of command many leaders advocate having an open door policy. On occasion, an employee may be moved to take advantage of your open door policy and engage you in conversation that is to be kept in confidence. When you agree to talk with an employee “in confidence”, you are giving your word that you will not divulge the information. Failure to keep your word will result in the perception that you cannot be trusted. We must also remember that our employees talk amongst themselves and that the grapevine is a very powerful entity. The topic of conversation frequently is our leadership abilities and although employees don’t usually do in-depth analysis, they have significant opinions that they pass among each other. If you fail to keep your word with an employee, in all probability other employees will know within a short period of time resulting in a severe blow to the perception of your credibility
In summary, we as administrators, in hopes of accurately assessing the perceptions of our employees, must open our eyes and ears. There are too many administrators who think that because problems are not knocking down their door that everything is great. When a confidence vote is called for, an association formed, or morale plummets, then these same administrators react with anger and hostility, usually at the wrong people, for issues they, the administrators, should have had knowledge of.
Perception is just another tool, under utilized, that requires an administrator to develop the true desire to be the best he/she can be. Using all of the tools available to us we can achieve great things with our employees for our citizens. We owe it to them. We owe it to ourselves. We took an oath!
END NOTES
R. Adler, “Communications At Work”, Principles And Practices For Business and Professions, McGraw Hill 1992, p.93
S. Robbins, D. DeCenzo, “Fundamentals of Management” Essential Concepts and Applications, Prentice-Hall 1995, p.236
P. Whisenand, “Police Supervision”, Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall 1971, p.30
A R by: Larry Parker
A R by: Larry Parker
eason To Be Proud
Every day now more and more Americans are waking up to the realization of a fact that many of us were aware of, that most of the rest of the world was aware of, as far back as early 2003 - the fact that sending our military into Iraq would be a disastrous mistake, that it would cut a wound so deep and so wide throughout the Muslim world, decades would pass before healing would ever be possible. But the deed was done, and the consequences are now shaping up to be even worse than those of us who opposed the war had anticipated. Death, suffering, poverty, disease, and conflict are going to plague the Iraqi people for many years to come. And yet those responsible don't seem to be overly concerned about the destruction they've wrought. Is this possibly because their priorities, carved in stone some twenty or thirty years ago, have always been about control of the region's resources and never about the welfare of it's inhabitants. Motivated not so much by greed as by fear really, are they trying desperately to stave off an impending approach of the peak oil phenomenon? Is it their hope to grab up as much of the world's remaining fossil fuels as they can so that, when the wells begin to dry up, we Americans, along with those we call allies, will be assured an extra degree of comfort while the rest of the world scrambles about for diminishing supplies of heat, electricity, water, and food? If so, then what a proud day it is for all of us in whose name this is being done.
But the unending repercussions of these atrocities aren't limited to whole populations or communities. For it is the countless personal stories of individuals and families which are, without question, the most tragic of all consequences. There is, for example, the incident which took place earlier this year in Mahmoudiyah, Iraq.
Her name was Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, and for some time she'd been harassed and propositioned by a small group of American soldiers who manned the checkpoint which she passed through every day. I can only imagine how she must have prayed to God that there were some other way she could have travelled to reach her home, how she must have lain awake at night, fearing what these animals in uniforms might one day do to her. Then on March 12th, her worst fears came to pass, and, in a matter of minutes, an innocent family of six was brutally reduced to two. The parents and the two girls shot to death. The two boys orphaned, their lives changed forever.
I sit here now and wonder how much coercion Green found it necessary to employ before the others, spurred on by their desire, gave way to his appeals and agreed to join his crusade. Did the devil in sheep's clothing (or Army fatigues in this case) sit amongst his "pals", innocently playing a game of cards, knowing exactly which strings to pull, which buttons to push? And once committed, they formulated their plans, donned their disguises, and proceeded to traverse the short distance it would take to relieve their yearnings and quench their lust. I can just picture the five of them fantasizing themselves to be on a "mission", thereby heightening their sense of danger and excitement. And emboldened by the knowledge of their superior strength they invaded the sanctity of Abeer Hamza's home, the sanctity of her body, and the sanctity of her very life.
I wonder also if the four "recruits" to this mission were aware beforehand that murder would be on the day's menu. Oh well, too late to worry about that now. Now they sit in their cells and wait. Now there's no shortage of time for them to contemplate the events of March 12th and to regurgitate over and over again in their minds the actions they chose to pursue that day.
And what of the provocateur himself? Well, though there are a few things I would like to say about Mr. Green, I think instead I'll just let him speak for himself.......
"I came over here because I wanted to kill people." (1)
"all Iraqis are bad people." (2)
"I'm gonna go over there and kill 'em all." (3)
"The truth is, it wasn't all I thought it was cracked up to be. I mean, I thought killing somebody would be this life-changing experience. And then I did it, and I was like, 'All right, whatever.' " (1)
"I shot a guy who wouldn't stop when we were out at a traffic checkpoint and it was like nothing," (1)
"Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant. I mean, you kill somebody and it's like 'All right, let's go get some pizza.' " (1)
Yes indeed, what a proud day it is for us all.
May the souls of Abeer Hamza, her parents, and her sister rest in peace.
(1) Andrew Tilghman (30 July, 2006) "Encountering Steven Green" washingtonpost.com
(2) Kirk Semple (06 August, 2006) "Iraq Rape-Murder Hearing Focuses on Role of Ex-G.I." The New York Times
(3) Sarah Childress and Michael Hirsh (07 August, 2006) "An Itchy Finger" MSNBC/Newsweek National News
eason To Be Proud
Every day now more and more Americans are waking up to the realization of a fact that many of us were aware of, that most of the rest of the world was aware of, as far back as early 2003 - the fact that sending our military into Iraq would be a disastrous mistake, that it would cut a wound so deep and so wide throughout the Muslim world, decades would pass before healing would ever be possible. But the deed was done, and the consequences are now shaping up to be even worse than those of us who opposed the war had anticipated. Death, suffering, poverty, disease, and conflict are going to plague the Iraqi people for many years to come. And yet those responsible don't seem to be overly concerned about the destruction they've wrought. Is this possibly because their priorities, carved in stone some twenty or thirty years ago, have always been about control of the region's resources and never about the welfare of it's inhabitants. Motivated not so much by greed as by fear really, are they trying desperately to stave off an impending approach of the peak oil phenomenon? Is it their hope to grab up as much of the world's remaining fossil fuels as they can so that, when the wells begin to dry up, we Americans, along with those we call allies, will be assured an extra degree of comfort while the rest of the world scrambles about for diminishing supplies of heat, electricity, water, and food? If so, then what a proud day it is for all of us in whose name this is being done.
But the unending repercussions of these atrocities aren't limited to whole populations or communities. For it is the countless personal stories of individuals and families which are, without question, the most tragic of all consequences. There is, for example, the incident which took place earlier this year in Mahmoudiyah, Iraq.
Her name was Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, and for some time she'd been harassed and propositioned by a small group of American soldiers who manned the checkpoint which she passed through every day. I can only imagine how she must have prayed to God that there were some other way she could have travelled to reach her home, how she must have lain awake at night, fearing what these animals in uniforms might one day do to her. Then on March 12th, her worst fears came to pass, and, in a matter of minutes, an innocent family of six was brutally reduced to two. The parents and the two girls shot to death. The two boys orphaned, their lives changed forever.
I sit here now and wonder how much coercion Green found it necessary to employ before the others, spurred on by their desire, gave way to his appeals and agreed to join his crusade. Did the devil in sheep's clothing (or Army fatigues in this case) sit amongst his "pals", innocently playing a game of cards, knowing exactly which strings to pull, which buttons to push? And once committed, they formulated their plans, donned their disguises, and proceeded to traverse the short distance it would take to relieve their yearnings and quench their lust. I can just picture the five of them fantasizing themselves to be on a "mission", thereby heightening their sense of danger and excitement. And emboldened by the knowledge of their superior strength they invaded the sanctity of Abeer Hamza's home, the sanctity of her body, and the sanctity of her very life.
I wonder also if the four "recruits" to this mission were aware beforehand that murder would be on the day's menu. Oh well, too late to worry about that now. Now they sit in their cells and wait. Now there's no shortage of time for them to contemplate the events of March 12th and to regurgitate over and over again in their minds the actions they chose to pursue that day.
And what of the provocateur himself? Well, though there are a few things I would like to say about Mr. Green, I think instead I'll just let him speak for himself.......
"I came over here because I wanted to kill people." (1)
"all Iraqis are bad people." (2)
"I'm gonna go over there and kill 'em all." (3)
"The truth is, it wasn't all I thought it was cracked up to be. I mean, I thought killing somebody would be this life-changing experience. And then I did it, and I was like, 'All right, whatever.' " (1)
"I shot a guy who wouldn't stop when we were out at a traffic checkpoint and it was like nothing," (1)
"Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant. I mean, you kill somebody and it's like 'All right, let's go get some pizza.' " (1)
Yes indeed, what a proud day it is for us all.
May the souls of Abeer Hamza, her parents, and her sister rest in peace.
(1) Andrew Tilghman (30 July, 2006) "Encountering Steven Green" washingtonpost.com
(2) Kirk Semple (06 August, 2006) "Iraq Rape-Murder Hearing Focuses on Role of Ex-G.I." The New York Times
(3) Sarah Childress and Michael Hirsh (07 August, 2006) "An Itchy Finger" MSNBC/Newsweek National News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
