Climate Change Bill: Moving America to...

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.