The Lesson; All Beings Are a Beautiful Bundle of Love
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
The day was delightful. The water was superb. The sun was full and bright. A few billowy, puffy clouds floated through the sky. They were white, cumulus, fluffy fellows, the type that excite many a child as they gaze into the heavens. In parks, on lawns, little ones were likely looking up and pointing. "Look," they might say, "It is a horse, a donkey, or perchance a unicorn." It was a day for whimsy. The children, playful in the pool, barely noticed the graceful shapes as they danced above their heads. Instead, they were focused on what they decided were June bugs.
Three young sweet girls stood in the warm water near their Daddy. All were calm, content, and serene. The sisters chatted easily. Father smiled. The youngest lass expressed her curiosity. As her sibling searched for bugs on the plastic rope line, the "baby" in the family asked of the insects. "Are they icky to touch," the cautious curly haired youngster inquired. The more confident elder sister said, "No! They are cute," she said. See." The "older" child showed the girl of fewer years.
A stranger, in the adjacent lane was preparing to swim. Becky was her name. She was much older than the children, and perhaps no wiser; nonetheless, she share her assessment of the beetle. Becky said of the six-legged lovelies, "They are life; all creatures are beautiful." With that thought, the father beamed, and the older lady plunged head first into the water filled cement reservoir.
Lap after lap and look after look the woman and children enjoyed the quiet of the day. The words the swimmer shared seemed to hang in the air. People came and went, throughout the afternoon, and splendor was all anyone saw.
Then, everything changed. The evolution from tranquil to trauma was slow; nonetheless, unexpected. Those in the recreation park were struck, as if by a bolt of lightening. However, unlike when a storm threatens, swimmers were not forced to leave the pool. The jolt evoked more silence. No one screamed, but the sole boy, victim to the method his Mom's adopted for instruction.
The young mother, a woman, perhaps, in her early thirties, was extremely pleasant in appearance, and it seemed her personality was equally delightful. She, Madison, entered the deck area with her small son in her arms. Skin, beautifully tanned, this well-dress lady strode to the lifeguard tower. The little guy, let us call him, Michael, was not as bronze in color, and was visibly agitated. Michael whimpered, even as his Mom held him close.
Becky, the swimmer who enjoyed the company of the little lasses and their Dad before she began her exercise had just finished the more strenuous part of her routine when the mother and child came into view. Becky, a teacher, enjoyed children, in or outside the classroom. She marveled at the openness of a mind not yet crushed by the weight of worry. The sincerity of a small one was a source of fascination for Becky. Children, early in life, were candid and joyous, at least most were, or appeared to be.
Little Michael, a lad, maybe three, or four, was not a cheerful child. He wore no glee on his face, although his features were cute as could be from what Becky was able to see. When the swimmer first noticed Madison and Michael, they were yards away. They approached the guard tower at the opposite end of the pool and spoke with Brianna, the young adult hired to protect the public in an emergency. Becky thought nothing of the interaction. She was relieved to have only her stretches left to complete. Becky moved the shallow end and commenced with another ritual.
Behind her, a metal chair scraped along the concrete. The sound startled her and she looked up at the area where people sat enjoying the sun. Had Becky waited just a moment she would have known Michael and Madison had moved closer to her. The cries filled the air. The sweet little boy shrieked, "I wanna go see Daddy." Michael howled; "No Mom!!!! No!" His face scrunched tightly, this little lovable fellow yelled, "Daddy! Daddy! Daddy! Please Mom! No!" Michael repeated the words, "I wanna go see Daddy!"
His mother chided him, gently. "We have to do this." Madison did not seem to believe she could quiet her son's fears. An expectation that the little guy might enjoy was void from her voice. The Mom simply worked feverishly, to accomplish the dreaded task. She prepared Michael for his dip in the water, and said, "Let's just get this over with."
Becky continued with her work out and wondered of the circumstances. Perchance, the mother and father were divorced or newly separated. Michael may have expressed the deep distress he felt for a family no longer united. Becky, the daughter of parents who parted understood how stressful such a situation might be. She was eight when . . . her reverie was interrupted.
Madison had abruptly carried Michael to the step at the shallow end of the pool. The Mom now wore a white shirt over her own bathing suit. Sweetly, she smiled and leaned forward. Madison said to Becky, "I do not wish to disturb you. I want to warn you; I am teaching my son to swim and he screams, loudly." As an experienced educator, Becky imagined it would be a mild and momentary shout. As one who swims daily and had for well over a decade, the teacher witnessed many a young child learn to paddle and breathe in water.
Indeed, at this very facility she has observed perhaps hundreds of child learn to master their strokes. The excellent swim teachers, parents and paid professionals, helped calm many a neophyte nerve. Often Becky watched with admiration as patient Moms, Dads, and lifeguards helped little ones wade through the water. It was as she shared with the girls earlier in the day, "They, people and insects, are life. All creatures are beautiful."
What Becky witnessed next was not beautiful; it was brutal! Madison held Michaels arms tightly. She forced him into the water. The Mom insisted the boy's head remain face down immersed until she pulled him up. Apparently, they had practiced this cycle before. Becky now understood why Michael cringed and cried out long before he was ever near the expansive liquid sea.
Initially, the trained instructor was paralyzed. Becky could not imagine that a mother might torment her child. The volume of Michaels screams increased. His little arms flailed. "Mom, No! Pleassssssssse!" The emotional agony he felt was palpable. Mom did not stop as he pleaded. The pain on his face did not move Madison to succumb. His words, his anguish, nothing stopped this mother on her quest. For Becky, what must have been a minute or less seemed like hours, years, decades. She thought of sweet obedient Michael. While he shed many a tear and shrieked when he could gasp for air, the little love did as he was told or required to do. He dropped his head into the pool on demand.
Off into the distance, in the parking lot, just outside the fence, Becky noticed a late model shiny black vehicle. The man at the wheel peered in. His car was not situated in a space meant for stopping. This fellow seemed interested in the antics of Madison and Michael. Becky mused; possibly the sound of suffering haunted him as it did her. She could not stand by a moment longer.
With an earnest concern, Becky expressed her empathy for the child. She inquired; "Is he frightened.." The mother responded, "He can swim." Becky queried aloud, had the mother sought other means for instruction. Perchance, if Michael were given the opportunity to slowly adjust to the water. If he were allowed to breathe easily as he slowly learned to stoke . . . Becky's words were cut off. Still somewhat genteel and reserved, Madison explained, "This is what his teacher taught me to do." "She is excellent. Everyone goes to her. They call her the swim Nazi."
The practiced swimmer, and professional educator, shared her own expertise. Becky told of a time when she worked with another teacher who was extremely punitive. This castigatory colleague was an award winner. Some children loved her, parents too. Students taught Becky what she had not known; if you are raised in a family where cruelty is common, you learn to believe that rough treatment is love. Violence is fondness when a family is familiar with vicious behavior.
Becky spoke of a man she loves. He was introduced to swimming in much the way Michael was guided. This man loathes his parents. As an adult, he says of himself, he is really messed up. For the man Becky cares for, trust is not an option. The lesson he learned at the hands of his mother, who taught him how to swim, just as Madison now advised Michael, is that people will hurt you.
In this very short and quick conversation Becky, recalled her own memories, and how she has vivid recollections of events in that occurred in her life when she was younger than Michael. Becky looked over at Michael's face. The torment was already etched into his skin. The screeches scarred him.
Madison listened, maybe. She was polite. The Mom never let go of her cherished son, Michael. The activity did not stop. Nor did the blood curdling screams. The echoes of pain continued to pierce the air, and break delicate decorum.
People within the recreation center while startled, they stood still or pretended to ignore what escaped no one. Only Becky articulated her concern. Madison expressed her interest; more so once she realized Becky is an educator. However, without a moment of hesitation, or a break from or for Michael, she offered a retort. "I will speak with the teacher." Becky again offered, the teacher does what she thinks is best. Perhaps, she, just as the pupils Becky spoke of, had parents who were as aggressive as she was.
Those who admire the techniques the Nazi swim teacher endorses may also be intimately acquainted with instruction through intimidation. "In my family no one yells," Becky said. Madison responded; the same was true in her life. She and her husband do not scream.
Michael continues to squeal. "Mom, Please, No!" He thrashes. He grabs for her mother. Michael reaches for Madison's shirt and slaps her body and face. The Mom had mentioned she wore the blouse just for this purpose. Michael grabbed at the swim instructor, just as prescribed, and when with her, Michael clawed for Madison's clothing.
His moves do not seem to suggest an intention to hurt the mother Michael loves. From appearances, the boy only hopes to find a source of solace. He wants to hold on to someone, anyone. His words seem to express a desire that his Mom will save him from her. The child cries out again and again. He flaps; he flounders. Little lovable Michael thrashes and struggles. Madison was not discouraged.
Still alert and attentive to her purpose, Madison proclaims, "The swim teacher has them trained within a week." Once more, she says, "Everyone goes to her." She may have sensed or seen Becky's alarm. Apprehensive, the mother said, "I will speak to my husband. He is in the car."
Becky realized the man who she had observed earlier might have studied the pair with an interest that could not be described. Possibly, what the father felt was beyond words. Becky knew that emotionally, this event tugged at her heartstrings. She wondered; did the Dad wait for he too could not endure the misery inflicted on his son. How could a mother be so cruel? How could anyone treat a child with such contempt? Why were words of compassion and caution not enough to stop the abuse? Was Becky alone in her anguish?
She exited the pool area, entered the locker room. Then she scrubbed herself in the shower. All the while Becky heard the howls and the hollers. This small sorrowful soul did not rant or rage against his Mom. He only called out for help. Each shout sliced the air and sent chills up Becky's spine. She could hardly contain her own tears.
Becky left the building and again approached Madison, whose energy and purpose had not waned. The worried woman spoke, "If I could I would like to inquire; would it not be better if Michael loved his lessons (and the person who teaches him)?" Did she share the latter thought? She was so troubled, she did not know what she said. Had she asked if it was necessary to master the skill in a week? Madison ignored Becky. She was done with this exchange. She said to Michael, "Just a few more minutes."
Defeated, Becky left the deck. She walked to the office where the guards stood in alert. The group discussed what left each of them distraught. A resigned Brianna verbalized her belief, "There is nothing we can do or say." Shocked to discover Becky spoke to the woman, Brianna began to ask of what was said. Then she realized Madison, with a drained and strained Michael in her arms, was near. She let out a sound that signaled the need for silence.
The mother and her madness quickly fled the premises. After a short discussion with the guards, Becky thanked them for listening to her fears and followed the path from the pool to the parking lot. Apparently, the couple and their child were settling into the coupe. The father glanced over as he saw Becky near the vehicle. Nothing was said. For Becky, there were no words.
She pondered. Was Becky the person now considered a predator? Had Madison grumbled to her husband as she shared details of the encounter? Exhausted and uncertain of the empathy she had supposed all beings had for others, Becky went to her car. She could not drive away, although she saw the family did. The lover of living beings, of children, could not fully understand what existed only for moments in her own life. She was haunted by the hurt she saw in Michael's face and heard in his calls.
Stunned and shaken Becky sat trembling for a very long time. She wailed; she wept. Had she just let a sweet child fend for himself in a world too awful to survive?
Hours passed and Becky imagines, in her life, Michael, and the impression he made on her would never move on. Sadly, she fears, what for her was but minutes, for Michael, will be life.
Becky had mentioned to Madison, or hoped she had, the effect of trauma. To this day, the older educator recounts the stresses that transformed her being. The lessons, what her Mom, Dad, and mentors did supposedly for her benefit, if not facilitated fondly, harmed her deeply. Cognizant that children absorb all they encounter and are affected by every exchange, Becky contemplates the drama Michael endured.
In a desire to calm her self, Becky, an educator who loves to learn, sought answers. She had so many questions, so many concerns. As a teacher, never labeled a dictatorial tyrant, she had much trepidation. What had Madison taught Michael? Was he expected to sink or swim? As she read, her angst increased. What would become of Michael?
How Do You Recognize a Patient (or Person) with Trauma if it is Not Always Obvious?
Different people respond differently to traumatic events. Some people will carry it around in ways that everybody can see that they've been impacted. But most people actually will go through a traumatic experience and won't have any easily visible or obvious manifestation of that. The problems may emerge many months or sometimes even years after the original event. So it's very important for people who are trying to understand trauma to become aware of the various ways in which traumatic symptoms can manifest, the various ways in which trauma can be carried forward by children and adults, and the pervasive impact that trauma has independent of the way someone is observed to perform.How Do Relationships Affect the Way the Brain Develops?
Human beings are at our core, relational creatures. We are designed to live, work, play, and grow in groups. The very nature of humanity arises from relationships. You learn language, you learn social language, you learn appropriate emotional regulation, and essentially everything that's important about life as a human being you learn in context of relationships. And the very substance of a successful individual is bathed in a whole host of relationships with people in that person's life . . .
Can You Continue with the Relationships and How it Affects the Brain
When you look at someone, when you hear someone, when you have a conversation, when you make a joke with somebody, when you touch someone, every single one of those physical interactions are translated into patterned neuronal activity that go into the brain of both people in that interaction and result in positive changes. These physical changes influence our immune system and they influence the autonomic nervous system that controls your heart and your lungs and your gut. Literally, when people have a wealth of relationships, where relationships are present in high quantities and they're of good quality, these individuals are actually physically healthier, they're emotionally healthier, they're more cognitively enriched, and they actually reach their potential to be humane in ways that are impossible without relationships.It's a very interesting thing that people don't really appreciate this very much, but that there's no better biological interaction that you can have than a relationship.
Yes, all beings are but a beautiful bundle of love. Yet, rarely do humans honor that veracity. So few people understand the depth of each interaction. Too frequently, individuals do what was done to them, or what they think they can. Societal standards, customs, traditions, the lessons taught by authoritarian teachers shape them. People learn. Yet, they may not have studied the ultimate lesson. We are each a lovely and fragile beings. We grow well when hearts, minds, bodies, and souls are tenderly touched.
"Michael, I am soooooooo sorry," Becky mused. What of the relationship she had with Michael, or for that matter, with all beings. What affect did her actions or inactions have. Becky though of how all that occurred developed, and how Michael might grow. "If only I had done more, been more, were a better teacher to your Mom, or had offered to help you learn to swim." Becky, heart heavy with regret promised herself, if she were to meet this family again, she would . . . in truth, she did not know what she could or would do. She only hoped that someone would tell her. How does one swim in a world where too many forget, all beings are but a bundle of love.
Sources and Suffering . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 6, 2008 at 09:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Abuse, Adult Influence on Children, Aggression, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Change the World [Within], Children, Desire to Learn, Dreams Live and Die , Education, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Family, Functioning, Fables, Life, A Forward Motion, Looking at Life, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, Teach The Children | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
John He Is As Are Americans At War
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It has long been said, "war is the last [best] option." Human beings, in an attempt to appear rational, reason that of course, diplomacy is preferred. Man-kind [sic] says he will do all in his power to pursue peace. Once domestic tranquility is achieved, two-legged mammals will do what they must to preserve harmony. Then this logical creature claims he must defend himself against all enemies. He will fight for what is right. Man forgets; what is ethically essential to gain and retain peace is the principle, "War must never be an option."
John He Is As Are Americans At WarAs long as man muses, "if need be we will go to battle," then combat is not a possibility; it is a probability. Centuries of conflict have proven this theory true. Yet, humans continue to deny the validity of argument.
Mankind massacres; yet, endures. People engage in what they actually believe is inevitable, war. Feuds flourish. The desire to exert power supersedes the serenity people proclaim is their deepest desire.
When Presidential hopeful John McCain states the obvious, self-identified, peaceful Progressives raise their arms in disbelief. Humans willing to endorse a candidate, indeed, two, or three who choose to engage in combat are outraged by the notion that warfare is forever.
Those who lean left forget they follow leaders intent on the kill. Combative campaigners call a vicious act or attack triumphant.
Hillary Clinton told us of her desire. For the former First Lady, who belatedly quarrels with a war in Iraq, more troops must be moved to Afghanistan.
Barack Obama, like Clinton offers a conditional and tepid plan to withdraw soldiers from the land Saddam Hussein once governed. Obama also plans to shift the battle to Afghanistan if he becomes Commander-In-Chief. For each of the potential Presidents, war is absolutely an option. Physical combat is profound and preferred.
American Progressives see and hear John McCain state his belief, war is inevitable. These peaceful persons wince. Another person who promises to lead citizens of the United States as Commander-In-Chief, is perhaps a realist. He reminds "civil" rights advocates of a reality that hurts. Humans are not logical; nor is man-kind [sic] benevolent to all equally. Warm blooded beings languish in the wind of emotional battles, and shall do so through eternity, or so it would seem based on what was, and continues to be the traditional battle cry.
I've got to give you straight talk, my friends. This is a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars, I'm sorry to tell you. There's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.
John McCain presumes what the Democrats propose. The locations may differ. The pronouncement is posed in a less ominous manner; nonetheless, a war is a war, is a war.
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" . . . "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Bomb, bomb, bomb, Afghanistan or Iran. Civilian casualties will not be collateral, incidental, or accidental damage. In a skirmish, slaughter is intentional. A Liberal offender is no less liable.
"I am still convinced withdrawal means chaos," he said, "and if you think things are bad now, if we withdraw you ain't seen nothing yet."
Ah, that which humans have never seen is what they dare to imagine, peace. Perhaps, if Americans were to withdraw, harmony will be possible.
The point is it’s American casualties. We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years. What they care about is the sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is, look, if Americans are there in a support role but they're not taking casualties, that's fine.
"Fine," as defined, is the future for humans who engage in battles. The Arizona Senator, and Republican aspirant, does not actually differ from the Democratic hopefuls. McCain claims what has been true throughout history, and will be accurate forever, if the current crop of candidates, Republican or Democrat, does as declared.
America can endlessly occupy other nations without the loss of a countryman's life and citizens will not complain. For people who reside in the "land of the free and home of the brave" [sic], as long as all within the clan are comfortable, life is good.
McCain says nothing of the fallen foreign born. Nor do the Democrats decree all murders must stop. The Presidential hopefuls need not mention the millions of lives lost among the "adversaries." Self-interest is significant. Empathy is not essential. Indeed, compassion can hinder a being, a leader, and a nation intent on destruction.
It seems obvious, if citizens of the States are not sacrificed, as far as Americans are concerned, war can continue, and it will, perhaps be good for the country, for profiteers who manufacture weaponry, or at least, for John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all others who allow for this option.
Perchance, it is time for two-legged creatures; particularly those who profess a preference for peace, to assess them selves rather than rant against another perceived enemy. John McCain is but a mirror. He reflects what humans accept. The representation is real. If man-kind [sic] is ever to achieve harmony, if shared serenity is to become standard, every individual must declare, "War will never be an option!"
Promote a Peaceful Progressive Platform . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM in Afghanistan, Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Change the World [Within], Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Exit Iraq Now, Hillary Clinton, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iran, Iraq War, Killing Machines, Military Missions, Philosophy, Violence, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Why War? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Communication; Alone in a Crowd
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
The world is crowded. Six billion, six hundred twenty seven million, three hundred and sixty six thousand, three hundred and fifty people populate this planet, or did a short time ago. In this moment, there are more humans than there were seconds ago. The number of inhabitants increases exponentially each day. Everywhere we look, there is another person being born. Yet, at least in America, people feel more isolated than they did in the past.
Americans are more connected. Cyberspace calls us and draws us in. Electronic communiqués flood our online mailboxes. Cell telephones ring. It seems everyone has one and uses it to speak with someone, even when they are with another individual. Conversation is ubiquitous. However, when in a crowd, Americans feel more socially isolated.
A horde of people feels hollow; a throng leaves us empty. Conversations abound. Yet, few communicate.
Wherever we go we see smiles, hear laughter; and listen. Frequently, we initiate or participate. With all the chitter and chatter, certainly life must be a party. Yet, while engaged in the festivities many feel so very alone. People talk incessantly. Individuals prattle. Persons natter. Discussions abound; yet, something is missing. Small talk does not soothe the soul; it only fills the air.
Folks imply, infer, interpret, insinuate, and insult. Humans coo and coddle. A few chuckle and chat. Still they do not dare speak of what concerns them. True conversation can be dangerous, or at least difficult.
How often have we felt alone in a crowd even when we appear engaged? As children, we "played" with our peers; yet, often we marveled at what seem to entertain them. We went along to get along. At a certain age, we were enrolled school. Placed in a classroom with throngs of students we were one among many. There were expectations that may not have seemed reasonable to us. Yet, we learned it is best to remain silent and pretend to absorb the information. Feeling alone, lost, confused, and perhaps in disagreement was better than being singled out and punished for "bad" behavior.
Now, in our personal and professional lives, we do as we learned best when we were little; we say little or nothing. A parent may fear repercussions if they approach their child's teacher with concerns. A Mom or Dad may feel so forlorn. Other youngsters understand the assignment, and their son is lost. Dad devotes his evenings to his daughter. He tutors her in Math. He wonders, why she does not receive adequate instruction in school. Mothers and fathers may wait to speak. They do as they did when younger; parents hold back. They do not say what is on their mind.
When frustrated beyond belief Mom or Pop may call the school and shout, "Why is my child singled out?" The shrill approach to a perceived problem only exasperates a situation.
Old, young, or contemplating the circumstance of those close to us, often we believe our situation is different. People ponder if they speak, they will be labeled defiant. Some satisfied with the description heatedly head into battle after battle. Individuals take their convictions and mannerisms with them wherever they go.
Professional mentors muse. The goals outlined in the mandated curriculum conflict with the instructor's sense of quality education. Concern for the physical realities of survival may influence this academic. He may decide to do as he is told. Paychecks are often a priority when making a decision. Another educator might march into a superior's office in a huff. Crossly, she will stake out her claim. While the approaches differ, neither communicates their message well. It is difficult to hear what is not said. When faced with verbal flames, people struggle to do more than defend themselves.
An Administrator annoyed with Board dictums, does as she is told. In industry, we observe people are well trained. They too had years of schooling. Society teaches us; only those in authority can voice their opinions. Subordinates must suffer. Common workers do not have the power to be players. Some staffers do steam and scream; they express great angst. However, they usually discover when they holler they loose credibility. A lesson rarely taught in schools or at home is true communication only occurs when calm.
No matter the vocation, indoctrination is sadly, similar. Physicians and mechanics alike learn to diagnose; yet, not discuss. Accountants calculate; however, careful conversation may not be in the equations. Technicians understand how to tinker; they may not have acquired the skill necessary to talk and listen. Chief Executive Officers may have assets; they can secure profits. Nonetheless, many have not earned a degree in deep dialogue.
In every profession and predicament, there are presumed elites. They are knowledgeable in their area of expertise. The mediocre fill room after room. The mundane are abundant. Status means nothing when we evaluate communication skills. Nonetheless, the hierarchy affects what happens when people engage.
Humans in every aspect of life do great harm to themselves and others when they do not express themselves for fear of their station. When individuals yelp rather than ask for the help they actually want or need, much is lost. Trust and tranquility are necessary if we are to truly communicate.
When we remain silent, we appear to be in agreement with authorities, contemporaries, colleagues, and cohorts. If we do not verbalize who we are, what we need, or our beliefs, we experience a greater sense of solitary confinement. We may appear to be part of a team. In truth, we further the distance between self and others. Shouts do not secure closeness; nor do these facilitate communication and empathy. Our reluctance to communicate or boisterous behavior causes a greater divide.
Please ponder what occurs in your office, at a party, in professional careers and in personal relationships. We can be physically connected and emotionally separate. We converse and yet, we do not communicate.
In a classroom, in a court house, a cafeteria, when on a conference-call, in neighborhood communities, and even at home people debase, condescend, patronize, roll their eyes when they think no one will notice, or show sycophantic respect. They, we, humans are anything but authentic when we speak with others. Then we wonder; why might we be less than effective communicators?
When with a loved one, we might relax. We feel we can be totally true to ourselves. Thus, if we feel a need to express ourselves in a difficult situation, we may shout, scream, stomp, slam doors, and tell the other to "Shut up," common vernacular for "Please, close your mouth."
Those calmer in nature, engage in deep and logical discussions. We use "laser logic" to burn a hole in the heart, mind, and soul of a mate. Words may not draw blood; nonetheless, the body is left limp, lame on the floor. It is not a pretty site.
Whether we are physically or verbally aggressive, intellectually assertive, or even silent in difficult times, ultimately we will realize communication is not easy.
Most people realize that the lack of effective communication with others can lead to serious problems in a person’s life: 44% of Americans believe that it "very frequently" causes a marriage or a relationship to end, fewer (38%) say that money problems "very frequently" get in the way of a relationship, some name interference of relatives or in-laws (14%), others blame sexual problems (12%), previous relationships (9%), and children (7%).When asked to choose the most frequent cause among those they listed as "very frequent causes," only two stand out: a majority (53%) say a lack of effective communication between partners is the most frequent cause, while fewer than three in ten (29%) say money problems are the most frequent cause. All other causes are ranked first by fewer than one in ten people.
Partnership has an emotional appeal. Emotions can cause and have an effect on the quality of a conversation. This is evident when we search the statistics. It is interesting to note, people may be more cautious in their careers than they are at home. Our need to survive, to provide food, shelter, and clothing can come between our mouth and our brain. Physically, humans may be more dependent on dollars, than they are on their mate.
A majority of Americans are satisfied with the comfort level of communication in the workplace, though they feel far more at ease talking to their coworkers than their boss. Almost two-thirds of people who work are very comfortable communicating with their coworkers (69%) while only 3% feel uncomfortable. Fewer people (no surprises here) feel very comfortable communicating with their boss (57%). People feel they are less effective than comfortable communicating at work: more than half think they are "very effective" communicating with their colleagues (58%), and somewhat fewer (51%) feel very effective communicating with their supervisor.Older, more experienced people consider themselves more effective communicators than younger people who are just starting their careers and establishing their relationships in the workplace: half of those aged 45-54 (51%) consider themselves to be "very effective" in their communication with the boss, versus four in ten 18 to 24 year olds (39%). Clearly, people become more comfortable and effective dealing with the boss as they get more experience.
At times, age is not the determinant. Experience does not make a difference. Status counts more than seniority or knowledge. Rank is frequently the reward of those considered more capable. Confidence is often interpreted as competence. Commonly, we calculate the worth of another by how well they communicate. If a man or woman greets a crowd with a haughty hail, often they are thought to be strong. A shy and quiet person, someone who is reserved and perhaps reflective may be viewed as less able.
In the workplace, silence is a common solution when confronted with what might seem a crisis. How often have any of us sat with a supervisor and said nothing substantial when asked for our opinion. When on conference calls, or in a meeting with colleagues, we might notice the complaints we hear in the hallway when chatting one-on-one are never discussed. Certified consultations are void of communication. People, when placed in a professional situation do not exchange ideas freely, even when given the opportunity.
Yes, associates chatter; they talk. Statements are made. Yet, ultimately, workers are complacent. Everyone is eager to please the person in charge. Silence may secure a professional paid position. However, the lack of discussion may be perceived in ways the worker does not consider. In the office, at home, on the streets, silence is not always golden.
10 Things to Know About Silence in Communication
By Susan Dunn
July 28, 2005One of the most important parts of any conversation is the silence. Silence can serve many functions in a conversation and how you manage it, determines your level of sophistication. Here are some points to keep in mind about silence in communication.
1. Allowing silence in a conversation puts pressure on the other person. It’s conventional in the US not to allow any sort of extended silence in a conversation. Therefore, to allow one puts pressure on the other person to "fill air time." Some interviewers, for instance, use this technique to see what will happen. Often the person will “spill” – saying exactly the thing they didn’t want to say.
2. Silence can indicate hostility. Withdrawing, “stonewalling,” and pouting in silence are ways some people handle anger. Such a silence can be pulsating with bad feelings, and elicit anger on the part of the other person.
3. Silence can indicate disagreement.
While it’s almost never an indication of indifference, silence can indicate that the other person is having negative emotions. When we experience anger, fear, or embarrassment, our thinking brain shuts down. We sit there fuming, unable to speak; enraged and unable to find words; afraid and scared speechless. Some people are “flooded” with these emotions, and unable to respond.
4. Silence can indicate profoundness, such as awe or horror. Sometimes when we’re listening to someone else, we hear something that leaves us speechless because it really goes beyond words. Listening to someone talk about a dreadful trauma they’ve endured, or a beautiful, almost-sacred interaction with another human being, or a description of an awesome natural event such as a sunset or a volcano eruption are examples. Somehow, when we listen to such things, the ordinary “Oh," "Wow," and “That’s awesome” don’t seem enough, and so we fall silent.
5. Silence can indicate respect. In some cultures more than others, silence indicates respect. A young person may be expected to approach an older person or a person in authority and remain silent until recognized, acknowledged, and spoken to.
6. Silence can indicate contemplation. The more introverted your communication partner, the more likely they will think before they speak. Extraverts discover what they’re thinking and how they feel by talking. Introverts figure it all out inside their own head and heart before giving voice to it.
7. Silence can be intentional rudeness. Because of the nature of normal conversation in the US, allowing an extended silence can be perceived as rudeness. It can also be meant that way. Refusing to reply to the other person is a way of ignoring them.
8. Silence can be the creation of a listening space. When you are profoundly listening to someone, you create an open space for them to talk into that’s almost palpable. Good listeners know how to do this, and it can be learned. It’s an "openness" that you transmit through nonverbal means.
9. Silence can be an indication of empathy. When we're really tuning in to how the other person feels, we're listening more to the tone of their voice, cadence and speed rather than the actual words, so reply with words may not be the most appropriate response. Sometimes sounds are more attuned . . . a murmur, a sigh, sucking in the breath in shock, soothing sounds, clucking (tsk tsk), or shaking the head and going uh, uh, uh.
10. How you manage silence in conversation is an important part of emotional intelligence. Excellent communicators can allow silence when it’s effective or called for; can avoid being pressured into “spilling” when silence is used manipulatively; offer silence as a gift or sign of respect; interpret the silence of others appropriately; understand how other cultures use silence; mindfully regulate the use of silence; and are comfortable with silence and understand its many uses.
When we do not speak; are we the diligent student, the deterred parent, the proper professor, or the distracted, protracted fuse about to bust into flames. Might we be the bewildered Board member, the embattled employee, the disgruntled laborer looking for a way to distinguish ourselves, even if it means we must destroy our co-workers and perhaps ourselves? An observer cannot be certain.
The sounds of silence are significant. They can confuse those that hear nothing. We may intend to communicate we care, and they may interpret the lack of words as contemptuousness. What we do not say speaks volumes, just as gestures do. Does a pat on the bottom mean "Well done," or does such a stroke signify, "I like your body." We can never be certain what another person intends with or without words. Yet, ninety percent of what we communicate is said without oral language.
Non-verbal communication is a system consisting of a range of features often used together to aid expression . . . The main components of the system are:
Kinesics (body language) Body motions such as shrugs, foot tapping, drumming fingers, eye movements such as winking, facial expressions, and gestures
Proxemics (proximity) Use of space to signal privacy or attraction
Haptics Touch
Oculesics Eye contact
Chronemics Use of time, waiting, pausing
Olfactics Smell
Vocalics Tone of voice, timbre, volume, speed
Sound symbols Grunting, mmm, er, ah, uh-huh, mumbling
Silence Pausing, waiting, secrecy
Posture Position of the body, stance
Adornment Clothing, jewellery, hairstyle
Locomotion Walking, running, staggering, limping Of the above, body language (particularly facial expressions and gestures), eye contact, proximity, and posture are probably those which learners most need to be aware of in terms of conveying meaning, avoiding misunderstandings and fitting in with the target culture.
In terms of skills development, non-verbal clues should not be underestimated when developing both the listening and speaking skills. Like grammatical structures, non-verbal communication has form, function and meaning, all of which may vary from language to language.
What does not differ, no matter the verbal or nonverbal language, is the perceived quality of the interaction. When two people come together, even if they do not speak the same dialect, or hold positions outwardly considered equal, they have a sense of whether the interchange is effective and meaningful.
A student can work with a teacher as a colleague. A mentor can learn from those that actively acquire knowledge. A candid parent can approach a child with authentic empathy. What mother or father was not once young? Educators, Moms, and Dads can discuss their needs and deeds without defensiveness.
A Physician can seek the wisdom of their patient. Indeed, only an individual can know what occurs within his or her body and how they feel. A corporate President can engage a subordinate with authentic interest. After all, if anyone understands how a company works, it is the peon, the secretary, and the janitor with the keys to every door. Theses employees have been everywhere within the workplace. Staffers know where the skeletons are hidden, what needs attention, and what functions well.
If each person in every profession or circumstance cares to communicate, attempts to approach the other with empathy, and a desire to understand, any exchange can be fruitful and fulfilling. Again, a conversation is more complex than oral statements.
We may be able to locate an interpreter if the spoken word is unfamiliar. Nevertheless, if our message is not sent with an open heart and mind it will not be received well. Advice from a master communicator and successful businessman may assist us if we are willing to look beyond the superficial.
Former General Electric Chief Executive Office, Jack Welch understands that communication is not a technical process. Task analysis, and implementation of supposed "tried and true" techniques, will not create a great communicator or a leader. Words will not woo a client or the person that you wish to court.
Titles don't matter . . . Passion, chemistry, and idea-flow from any level, at any place are what matters.Welch also says that passion is a must for any CEO or leader [or regular person that wishes to be an effective raconteur.] "If there is one characteristic that all leaders [happy fulfilled persons] share, it's that they care more than anyone else. No detail is too small to sweat or too large to dream." . . . Passion comes in all shapes and sizes and takes many different forms. Ultimately, passion can come from only one place: "From deep inside," as Welch put it.
. . . Passionate leaders [persons] get people to look inside themselves and give more, create more, and risk more.
When asked of communication Jack Welsh muses, whenever he had an idea or message he could "never say it enough." Whether it be in the workplace, within the home, a community, or in the world at-large Jack Welch understands what we all might ponder. People, more accurately, passion makes the difference. Characterizations and classifications do not move mountains, make an industry, allow for intimacy, or inspire. Indeed these designations may threaten us. Welch, an accomplished entrepreneur, and former Chairman reminds us, an authoritarian approach to leadership or in language may deter supposed subordinates.
My experience is that the foundations of leadership [effectiveness] begin in childhood and are reinforced through a series of experiences that build self-confidence. There's a fine line between arrogance and self-confidence. Arrogance can be a killer. The difference between self-confidence and arrogance is the courage to be open - to welcome change and new ideas regardless of their source. Even with all the self-confidence in the world, the "essence" of leadership comes from inside . . . by maintaining integrity. Establishing it and never wavering from it supported everything I did throughout good and bad times.People may not have agreed with me on every issue - and I may not have always been right - but they always knew they were getting it straight and honest. I never had two agendas. There was only one way - the straight way . . .
For me, intensity covers a lot of sins . . . When passion is combined with self-confidence, and integrity, it's a winning combination no matter what you do or where you work.
Welch understands and acts on ideas that I too grasp. Authenticity matters! What is not stated sincerely, with care cannot, and will not, be understood or acted upon. What we say is not as important as how we say it. We cannot state our desires or needs once and expect to be heard or understood. We must reiterate, repeat, dare to be redundant, and then review the details again and again. However, enthusiasm alone and repletion alone are not enough. If we are to be effective in our communication, we must be approachable.
Your nonverbal communication talks before you do. Only seven percent of interpersonal communication is transmitted verbally—the remaining ninety-three percent speaks for itself.And, because nonverbal communication is learned and practiced on an unconscious level, you won’t be aware that you silently scream, “Please don’t talk to me!”
When you enter a room full of [teachers, students, parents] employees, clients, or friends each of them intuitively asks one crucial question: are you approachable? If the answer is yes, the conversations in which you engage will be initiated with ease and comfort. You make new friends. You create new contacts. And you will not have to suffer through another meeting clamped to the snack table. However, if the answer is no, there won’t be any conversations! As a result, you miss opportunities to create connections and meet valuable people.
If child, adult, professional, peon, or we are to achieve, we must conceive, and then believe that we have the power to make a difference. Perhaps that is the greatest problem, the paradigm that hinders healthy communication. Deep down, we do not accept as true that we can be, and do as we desire. Marianne Williamson wrote of what might be the greatest barrier to communication, our fear.
Our deepest fearOur deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, "Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?" Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
I invite you dear reader to be as you fear. Express what you think. Share what you feel within. Do so delicately, and repeatedly. Dear readers consider the words of a Spanish Philosopher and Writer.
~ Miguel de Unamuno [Spanish Philosopher and Writer]
Trust in the impossible. Have faith in you. Be absurd. You may discover you are not as alone. Everyone in the crowd is as you are. They too only wonder how they might best communicate.
Sounds, Silence, Communication Barriers . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 27, 2007 at 11:44 PM in Change the World [Within], Communities and Communication , Discussion, Fear, Harris Poll® , Looking at Life, “Social Isolation in America." | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Poor Troubled Paris. Fame and Fortune Cannot Cure What Ails Her
Celebrity Justice - PARIS Lodging Appeal on Monday
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
I feel a need to preface this discussion with an admission. I am unfamiliar with the life of celebrities not only do I know none personally; only on the rarest occasions do I go to the movies. Commercial television does not play in my presence. I hold no contempt for the illustrious few. I only find it difficult to relate to a life or the telling of stories that seem so far from my own or the reality of millions. I watch and listen to news. As was once uttered on old time television, I prefer 'Just the facts please.'
For those unfamiliar with the circumstances, Paris Hilton on more than one occasion was cited for traffic violations inclusive of driving while drunk and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended licenses.
According to papers filed in Los Angeles' Superior Court, Ms Hilton was stopped by California Highway Patrol officers on 15 January and informed she was driving on a suspended licence.Miss Hilton was sentenced to forty-five days in prison. Then, after seventy-two hours she was released from prison. Psychiatrists meeting with the heiress and the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca thought the distress too great. It was decided house arrest was best. Once safely tucked away in her luxury home, while wearing an ankle bracelet, used to monitor her movements, the luminary celebrated her departure from the concrete walls with friends.The 26-year-old then reportedly signed a document acknowledging she was not allowed to drive.
On 27 February, she was stopped by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for speeding on Sunset Boulevard with her car's headlights off and charged with violating her probation.
Although Ms Hilton maintained she was not aware her licence had been suspended, court papers said the document she signed in January was found in her car's glove compartment.
She was also accused of failing to enroll in an alcohol education programme by a court-ordered deadline.
Within hours she was notified, she must return to court, perhaps to prison. She panicked, rejected the "request;" however, ultimately was ordered to appear before the court. The life of this socialite has taken on a form of frenzy unlike the former fervor. Paris Hilton is now the most popular topic on programs that in the past thought her life far from profound. Hilton is in the news and not for the family hotels.
This week, in viewing informative reports, I, as was all of America, inundated with opinion pieces, revealing monologues, dialogues, and edifying rumors each pertaining to the long, lean, and lanky Paris Hilton. Initially, I felt as many broadcasters mused. "Why are we spending so much time on this story?"
Then, as I reflected further, I realized this was not a vicarious delight. The poor watched and listened not
to revel in the fall of the rich. Witnessing the spoiled suffer brought no joy. Vengeance is not the motivator. People are absorbed for indeed, Paris is you and I; she is each of us. Perchance her activities occur on a larger scale or possibly, they are only more in the limelight.
Paris is poor; she is troubled. The girl is lost as are we all at times. Fame and fortune cannot cure what ails her. Prison will not serve the sentence for her convictions. Drugs and driving have not helped this young woman much; they may have helped her escape her hurts for a moment or two.
Perhaps, she thought she would find solace in a bottle, a syringe, a bong, or a toke. How many of us have escaped or tried to flee our inner pain.
Some of us have surrounded ourselves with people. In a crowd, we hope to feel less lonely. Others of us chose greater intimacy. We deeply longed to feel connected. "Sleeping" with the warm body of another might help us feel alive. Perhaps we wanted to be noticed, to be important, to be the topic or conversation or at least known to a significant few. Apparently, from the little I know Paris has tried each of these methods for reducing her pain.
I had not truly thought about her motives or the meaning of her life until I heard, she screamed for her mother when handed her sentence. Paris Hilton would return to prison. Perchance she never left. She built her own cage long ago. The difference between the County Jail and the Hilton home is in one she must face her demons without medication or distraction.
Some say this lovely is famous for nothing more than her looks. Others think her money brings much interest. Possibly these do provide perks. Nonetheless, advantages reap no assistance. Affluence and abundance beyond what most can conceive may in fact amplify her feelings and the desire to avoid what harms her.
As I listen to the hype, the hoopla, the hate speaks, and the honors bestowed upon this "celebrity that contributes nothing to society," I marvel. While it is true soldiers and citizens are dying in Iraq, the infrastructure is crumbling, forty-plus million people are without health insurance, nine million children do not have medical coverage, and the schools are in shambles, I do not think the nations' fascination with Paris is merely a distraction.
Interestingly, at times, I surmise the focus on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan divert us from what is important. That is sad. Intellectually I understand every entity, each event, and all aspects of life are vital and essential. However, egocentric as human beings are we forget this. We focus on what we believe is best, most significant, or imperative.
As we ponder, we feel the pain. Everyone does. They, you, I have different methods for handling hurts. Some go to war. Depending on their authority they may feud at home or fight across the Atlantic. Others drown their sorrows; they bathe in booze. Drugs do a number on a hurting heart or head. Food was my favorite folly for quite some time. Indulging in various delights can be all consuming. Whatever the form of escape, people usually choose one or a combination of many.
None of these help to heal the pain. Nor do they fully avert our attention. Each is an attempt. While I observe Paris plays pretty, I am reminded George performs powerfully. Neither accepts that what they do has an effect on others. Alas, few of us do. We criticize, censure, find fault and at times, aptly so. When we witness one person wounding another or placing lives in danger, there is ample reason to speak out. However, if we, in turn defame who the person is rather than what they have done, or are doing then perhaps we are projecting, reacting to our own fears. There but for the grace of G-d go I.
Possibly, that is the lesson we can learn from the Paris paradigm. When we ask ourselves 'Should Paris be punished,' are we to assess whether we are choosing to chastise the person or her behaviors. Do we forgive and forget or do we attempt to understand the individual.
Granted, the young and lovely one might be labeled a millennium, part of that particular generation. Paris could be considered among those that "celebrates diversity." She could be thought an optimistic, realist. As others of her generation she is" self-inventive" and certainly an "individual." Oh yes, she "rewrites the rules." We have witnessed this capacity all week, month, year, or longer. Paris Hilton could be characterize as a person with a killer lifestyle. Repeatedly driving on a suspended license might help to define her "irreverence for institutions." This beauty was definitely "nurtured" and she does think of her "family as friends."
George W. Bush might be thought of as a "baby boomer." He too may have benefited from being born into a family of means, one that was well known and connected in ways that yours and mine were not. Possibly, his background brought him higher highs and lower lows. I cannot know with certainty. Nonetheless, I do trust that as a boomer he may have "never stopped celebrating him self.
Baby Boomers, those born after the Second World War and before the sixties revolution were also indulged, rebellious, and willing to assert themselves. Just as the millenniums do, the boomers frequently sought solace in mind-altering substances. Possibly every generation does, has, or will unless or until we as a society help each other come to terms with ourselves. Perchance he is not as categorized at all. Are you, am I? I suspect those that know what appear to be the facts have defined each of us.
Humans often teach and preach about the problems that exist in the world and rarely reflect on the pain they feel. We compete against each other; thus creating greater strife. We battle the little boy or girl within. We are never good enough, strong enough, pretty enough, or truly lovable.
As a culture, we create awards for every accomplishment. We acknowledge what is done. The millenniums feel lonely; yet, in school, at home, on the playground parents made sure they were never alone. The boomers think themselves isolated. Mommy and Daddy spent more money, than "quality" time with them. I trust the "silent generation" thought they suffered. The X and Ys also could complain and did.
Humans, I believe are here to learn. The lesson most vital is the one most of us miss. Who are we; why are we here may be essential questions. However, I think these may torment us. Perhaps, if we accept that nothing is more significant than the relationship we have with every other entity, inclusive of ourselves, we could feel more connected and still singularly unique.
Sadly, humans tend to see them selves as separate or an integral part of a group. The world is black or white. I am a winner or a loser. People struggle to realize they are whole, and intertwined. They are not solitary souls or an assemblage. I offer the wisdom of the Wave Story.
"I heard a nice little story the other day," Morrie says. He closes his eyes for a moment and I wait.
"Okay. The story is about a little wave, bobbing along in the ocean, having a grand old time. He's enjoying the wind and the fresh air -- until he notices the other waves in front of him, crashing against the shore. "
"'My God, this is terrible,' the wave says 'Look what's going to happen to me!'"
"Then along comes another wave. It sees the first wave, looking grim, and it says to him, 'Why do you look so sad?' "
"The first wave says, 'You don't understand! We're all going to crash! All of us waves are going to be nothing! Isn't it terrible?' "
"The second wave says, 'No, you don't understand. You're not a wave, you're part of the ocean.' "
I smile. Morrie closes his eyes again.
"Part of the ocean," he says. "Part of the ocean." I watch him breathe, in and out, in and out.
- Tuesdays with Morrie, page 179
I ask each of us to reflect and realize, Paris Hilton is you and I. She is each and every one of us. Pampered or poor, she struggles to fit in, to feel fulfilled. She is as confused as are we all. Might we contemplate that empathy is the best educator. If we accept this, there would be no war. Poverty would go poof. Education would be distributed equally. The super-rich would not create a poor underclass to serve their needs. Crime would be intermittent; it would be a product of an evolving soul. In a solid society, there would be many teachers. Every one of us might mentor as we too evolve. Ah, would that not be lovely.
For now, I invite us to muse. Paris in a concrete prison or a psychological jail is as we are, troubled and trying to find a way to thrive. Time to think might do her good; it might do us all well to reflect. I am not passing judgment or stating the woman should go free. I believe that often we evolve only when we wound ourselves more seriously than others might.
Others may wish to punish us; however, what others do to us does not affect us as deeply as what we do to ourselves. Those that wish to love us too much may influence what we do. Persons that long to wrong us may indeed wound our soul. However, no one has the power to transform us, although they wish they did. Perhaps, they feel they were severely punished in their lives; thus, we too must suffer.
Indeed, I think trials and tribulations abound. Poor Paris. Poor you and I. Oh, the prisons we build and the walls that confine us.
Hilton Hype. Pondering and Paris . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 9, 2007 at 11:07 AM in Approval or Love, Change the World [Within], Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Life, A Forward Motion, Light. Darkness., Tuesdays with Morrie © | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Teachers Work For Salaries or Students
Taylor Mali on what teachers make. YouTube.
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
You have heard it said, perhaps you uttered the statements. "I want to be a teacher and work only ten months a year." "I want a career that allows me to leave the "office" at 3 in the afternoon." "Those that can do; those that cannot teach." Some think, the job of an educator is a simple task. There are no challenges. The time spent on campus is short and sweet. Yet, studies show that individuals are leaving the profession in mass. According to the Washington Post half of new teachers quit within five years.
Educators flee from a profession they once thought prized. This has been the trend for quite some time.
Jessica Jentis fit the profile of a typical American teacher: She was white, held a master's degree and quit 2 1/2 years after starting her career.Nevertheless, the misnomers surrounding this vocation continue to circulate. Life is bliss when you work to help children learn. Perhaps that is why teachers work as hard as they do. They know they will not be fully financially compensated for doing as they routinely do. Yet, their actions and the results of these are extremely rewarding.According to a new study from the National Education Association, a teachers union, half of new U.S. teachers are likely to quit within the first five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries.
Jentis, now a stay-at-home mother of three, says that she could not make enough money teaching in Manhattan to pay for her student loans and that dealing with the school bureaucracy was too difficult.
"The kids were wonderful to be with, but the stress of everything that went with it and the low pay did not make it hard to leave," she said. "It's sad because you see a lot of the teachers that are young and gung-ho are ready to leave."
The proportion of new teachers who leave the profession has hovered around 50 percent for decades, said Barry A. Farber, a professor of education and psychology at Columbia University in New York.
Recently, Education Week published Teachers’ Workday Is Difficult to Pin Down. This exposé discusses the dynamics of the teaching profession, from hours paid to hours worked. Recently, a report , still in its preliminary stages revealed that teachers work, on average 15 ½ hours a day. In an article published in the The Honolulu Advertiser teachers share their perspectives.
Dawn Kodama-Nii, a third-grade teacher at Wilson Elementary, called the study "pretty accurate," at least in describing the amount of extra time she and her colleagues work.Nor does it make them a teacher, "absent without official leave." Educators take their work with them wherever they go. Most instructors cannot and do not leave their work at the "office." In my own life, once I exited the school building, my day was not done. I graded papers while dining. I wrote plans beginning in the late afternoon. I was working and reworking into early evening. Before I realized it, the day began again and I had yet to go to sleep. Rest seemed less essential than preparing for my classes. On most mornings, while in the shower, I would think of a better way to present the material. I would quickly make changes.She arrives at school by 7 a.m. to prepare lesson plans and get her classroom ready. She leaves at around 5 p.m., taking work home. Nearly every Sunday she puts in another seven-hour day.
"We put in so many hours," said Kodama-Nii, who is married with a 2-year-old daughter. "As a teacher, your job is never done."
But Sylvia Koo, a veteran math teacher at Farrington High who works an average of 10 hours a day, said it's not the quantity but the quality of hours that should matter more.
"We do work more than our seven-hour day, but I don't work 15 1/2 hours every day," said Koo, who also advises the school's math team and teaches math in an adult education class twice a week. "The fact that some teachers go home at 3 p.m., though, doesn't make them bad teachers."
I drove back to the school building and waited in line to use the copy machine. Well, I could have stood still and chatted; however, other arrangements needed my attention. Students scurried in before the bell, hoping to speak with me. There were parents to call, electronic mails to file through, paperwork to complete, and of course meetings. Weekends were slightly different. There was time to look for resources and materials. These could help me motivate minds individually. In truth, I must excite each pupil personally if they are to truly learn.
My story is not unique. Teachers throughout the world could tell the same or similar tales. Nevertheless, those not driven to the teaching profession think this scenario is overstated, unreal, or simply not credible.. Individuals quarreled over the findings in this recent report.
An Advertiser editorial said that the 15½-hour workday “defies logic,” and added that the newspaper’s reporter should have spoken with someone outside the committee who could have brought perspective to the matter.While I, and many studies dispute this claim, I think it is vital that we look at what goes on in the classroom. On average, a single class may have twenty to forty students. Each pupil has his or her own history and manner of working, coping, or relating to information and instruction. These may not be complimentary.But the debate in Hawaii throws up a question with as many answers, it appears, as there are education interests: How many hours does the average teacher clock in?
Further complicating the issue is the fact that teachers work a calendar different from that of other professions—usually around 38 weeks a year.
Based on the shorter work year, some researchers have argued that teachers are on a par with other professions in pay for actual hours worked. A controversial report that came out earlier this year from researchers Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters of the New York City-based Manhattan Institute computed hourly wages for teachers using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to find that, on average, they earn more than economists, registered nurses, and architects, among others. In fact, it said, the average public school teacher was paid 36 percent more than the average white-collar worker in 2005.
The stress on a student or a teacher takes a toll. While most educators feels connected to the scholars in their space and to the curriculum, troubling matters amass. Frequently, a teacher is frustrated. They feel they have little time to teach. Discipline is a dilemma. Class size does not always lend itself to effective instruction. Efficacy is reduced. Sadly, educators no longer believe that they can facilitate growth. We have all heard the phrase, "teacher burn-out." Frequently, educators, as people in all professions expect much of themselves.
We all see parents unable to "control" the crying of a lone child. Perhaps, we are the forlorn mother or father embarrassed when our offspring runs rampant up and down store isles. Imagine, being an instructor, trying to stimulate a class full of students, each with their own individual interests, while maintaining a constructive classroom demeanor.
The ability to control students in a classroom is a critical factor in any educational setting. After all, if teachers do not react adequately to students when their behavior is disruptive, instruction suffers. Teachers who distrust their ability to maintain classroom order cannot avoid this key factor of the job. Day in, day out, they must continue to instruct students in order to reach educational goals.Sigh deeply and continue to assess the predicament of educators. When the Manhattan Institute cited their conclusion, there was a clamor among educators. Career professionals spoke not of the circumstances within the learning environment. They addressed other concerns, those mandated by government.Teachers who have no confidence in their classroom management abilities are confronted by their incompetence every day, while at the same time understanding how important that competence is if they are to perform well and achieve the educational goals. Furthermore, they are likely to know that their colleagues routinely succeed in obtaining a comfortable classroom environment (Metz, 1978).
Teachers who (1) distrust their classroom management abilities under standard job conditions and (2) understand the importance of that competence, (3) cannot avoid the management tasks if they are to reach the educational goals, and (4) are informed that colleagues routinely obtain a comfortable learning environment, can easily suffer stress, exhaustion, and negative attitudes (Davies & Yates, 1982; Usaf & Kavanagh, 1990).
Several studies demonstrate that doubts about self-efficacy can in themselves trigger the burnout process. Chwalisz, Altmaier, and Russell (1992) found that teachers who score low in self-efficacy reported a higher degree of burnout than their counterparts who score high in self-efficacy.
Greenglass and Burke (1988) conclude that doubts about self-efficacy contributed significantly to the development of burnout among male teachers. The more specific relationship between teachers' perceived self-efficacy in classroom management and burnout has been investigated as well. Friedman and Farber (1992) found that teachers who considered themselves less competent in classroom management and discipline reported a higher level of burnout than their counterparts who have more confidence in their competence in this regard.
The study met with vehement opposition from teachers’ unions, which pointed out that it did not take into account additional hours that teachers put into their jobs outside the classroom.We have heard that from many a teacher; yet few take the time to consider the truth of this statement. Assumptions are made. Instructors often have students grade their own, or a classmates work. Yet, those methods for correcting are not always practical, possible, or pedagogically sound. Humans crave attention and the admiration of those they perceive as experts. When a pupil works diligently, and receives a score on a paper and no comments, they feel lost, devastated, and desirous of more. If an academic is expected to excel they must have information to assist them. Authentic achievement involves much nurturing. It is challenging to stimulate learning within a large group. Individuals want and need attention.While school days have always been long, “there is a lot going on now in terms of the No Child Left Behind Act,” said Reg Weaver, the president of the 3.1 million-member National Education Association, referring to the mandates of the 5-year-old federal law.
“There is a ton of paperwork that needs to be done in addition to other responsibilities, and teachers are trying to juggle the duties and responsibilities they have both in classroom and after school,” he added.
Showing interest in each learner takes a lot of time. The clock is ticking. Twenty students, perhaps forty, five, six, or seven subjects to teach, this is the dilemma. Journalist, Vaishalo Honawar, writes, this is a complicated question and the answer is equally complex.
Across the political spectrum, experts tend to agree that many teachers put in hours well in excess of the seven-hour workday stipulated in most union contracts.Yet, many quibble. Among the economists and researchers, remarks are made. Michael Podgursky, an Economics Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison quipped, “People always think they’re working. But if I’m on a treadmill thinking about work, does that count as work?” Nevertheless, in Hawaii there may be some hope for overworked and underpaid teaching professionals. It seems the Time Committee cares. Will parents, Principals, School Boards, and Districts?According to Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, teachers work as hard as professionals in other fields, and then some.
“Teachers work as many hours per week as other college graduates, … or at least women teachers work as much as or more than women college graduates in other professions, while male teachers work slightly less than male graduates in other professions,” said Mr. Mishel, whose board of directors includes labor-union officials.
“I think it’s a mistake for people to think teachers only work their contracted hours,” said Kate Walsh, the president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a conservative-leaning advocacy, and policy group in Washington. It is “difficult and almost impossible” for teachers to get all their work, including preparation for class, done within the hours stipulated in the contract, she added.
Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics acknowledges that there is more to the question of teacher work hours than hard facts. In its latest annual survey on worker compensation, released last August, the bureau found that elementary teachers worked 36.5 hours a week, while secondary school teachers worked 36.9 hours. Special education teachers worked 35.4 hours.
But the bureau also says, in its Occupational Outlook Handbook, that after including school duties performed outside the classroom, many teachers work more than 40 hours a week.
Teachers’ unions, meanwhile, have their own figures. According to Mr. Weaver, the average teacher spends 50 hours a week on instructional duties, and 12 more hours on non-instructional tasks, such as grading papers, advising students, and serving on bus duty.
Those responsibilities, in essence, stretch the workday of an average teacher to more than 12 hours—almost twice what is stated in most contracts.
$63,000 More?Perchance an additional $63,000 per teacher is ah, but a dream. Nonetheless, in a time when American students are falling behind, we as a nation might consider that investing in education and educators benefits society as a whole. Schools are not meant to serve as storage spaces for children, while parents go off and play or make money to pay the bills. Our educational institutions are the foundation for our future.
In Hawaii, the Time Committee was set up in 2005 as a result of a collective bargaining agreement between the school board and the union. (Hawaii has a single, statewide school district.) It was in response to teachers’ concerns of spending many extra hours on the job, said Joan Lee Husted, the executive director of the Hawaii State Teachers Association.“Our teachers have been complaining that with NCLB and with standards-based education, they have been doing more testing, more paperwork, and more committee meetings than they are preparing for delivering instruction,” she said.
The preliminary report found that teachers spend 1,780 additional hours a year, or 254 additional seven-hour workdays, on noninstructional duties that include creating lesson plans, grading tests, counseling individual students, and communicating with parents, among many other tasks. If teachers were compensated for the additional work at the average daily rate of pay, the report says, it would cost $63,000 more per teacher per year.
Meanwhile, the NEA’s Mr. Weaver said a teacher working for 15 hours does not sound, to him, beyond the realm of possibility.
For most teachers, he said, a 12-hour workday is common.
“Teachers are always engaged with the children and the community,” Mr. Weaver said. “We spend a lot of time working.”
A Teachers Work and Wages . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 24, 2007 at 11:00 AM in Art of Loving, Have or Be, Change the World [Within], Creativity and Curiosity, Education, Education or Economics, No Child Left Behind, School Days, Teach The Children | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Seung-Hui Cho. I Mourn Your Life and Loss
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
My heart aches. Of course I mourn the passing of the thirty-two Virginia Polytechnic University students, as do we all throughout the globe. Nevertheless, I cannot forget how my heart hurts for the thirty-third victim, the one the media never seems to count among those killed, Seung-Hui Cho. On April 16, 2007 thirty-three lovable and fragile individuals passed.
Seung-Hui Cho, as he called himself, was a young man locked in Hades for decades. His death began long before the day of infamy. He longed for comfort and company. All he received was chiding. Even in death, Seung-Hui Cho is scorned. I am forlorn.
From the first, there were labels. Many said he was "Chinese"; they would then add their political concerns for China. Then he was, and today he is still frequently referred to as a Korean National. Calls for restraints on immigration are common. Of course, in the minds of many American's anyone that is not white is not right, and definitely, if they are not born in this country, they are aliens.
Among some, there is ample discussion for the name of this now notable student, the "shooter." Many believe his ethnicity is more important than the person.
The Asian version of the name - Cho Seung-Hui - appeared to be more widespread, in part because of its use in the ubiquitous wire stories from Reuters and the AP. As a result, some Korean-Americans felt media groups were playing up Cho's foreign-ness, according to the Asian American Journalists Association, which advised reporters to use the American order.
Thankfully, and I do note the use of the name is Americanized, as family members and Cho himself seem to prefer, National Public Radio retorted as I had when speaking to friends and family. This young and deeply disturbed man was, is an American.
How American was Seung-Hui Cho? Despite being a South Korean national living in America, his upbringing, and his problems, were distinctly American.The system or lack of social services in the United states let this man slide through many a crack.
Seung-Hui Cho and his parents were hoping to find streets paved in gold in America. Unfortunately, they discovered what many of us do, life is good if you are among the fertile few. Actually, life, even for the affluent can be a struggle. Life is life. People yell; they scream, they damn, and they slam. Consider the woes of an eleven year old. The daughter of Alec Baldwin may have been born into money; nevertheless, she receives the wrath of a supposedly loving father. She is verbally slammed and damned.
Imagine how loved this little girl must feel after being told she is a "thoughtless little pig," Her Dad, actor Baldwin, threatens to set here straight during their meeting the following day. Were I she I would want to run for my life. Seung-Hui Cho, the wounded must have often felt a need to escape. Perhaps, his sullen manner was his means for flight. Seung-Hui Cho said in an 1,800-word rambling . . .
'I didn't have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no, I will no longer run.'
Cho lived in shadows, deep and dark. He attended classes at a prestigious University. He was a scholar, a writer. Yet, he was shunned. His dialect was odd, mumbled, and his words were difficult to discern. This academic was nearing graduation, a scary proposition all in itself. He did not feel excepted in the world. From what we know of his history, he never had.
Some say he was paranoid, obsessively anxious, or unreasonably suspicious. Perhaps he was. Many of us feel family and friends expect much of us and from us. Often we compare ourselves to others and we believe we fall short. Acceptance into an esteemed University is glorious. Maintaining good grades is meaningful. Yet, any of us may wonder, is that good enough. Perchance when our sibling excels, we are far more aware of our failings.
Though Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech had already cast a shadow over campus, the news yesterday morning that the gunman's older sister is a recent Princeton alumna brought the tragedy even closer to home.The parents of these fine children are so devastated, they are residing in a community hospital. They feel deeply pained by their son's circumstance. The mother and father meant no harm; they as all parents hoped to provide the best for their children. In an interview with Seung-Hui Cho's grandfather, the elder statedSun-Kyung Cho '04 was an economics major who interned at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok during the summer before her senior year and wrote briefly for The Daily Princetonian. She now works as a "State Department contractor," The Washington Post reported yesterday, and was listed on Princeton's alumni directory as living in Centreville, Va., with her parents.
"Seung-hui troubled his parents when he was young because he wouldn't talk, but he was well-behaved," said the man, who asked to be called Mr Kim, in interviews with two Korean newspapers.They are troubled and think themselves responsible. Perhaps, America has let the Cho family down. They expected so much, all Americans do. However, little is received. The rewards are few."I don't know how I can compensate for the responsibility for raising my kids improperly. I don't know how he could do this when his parents went to a country far away and worked hard."
In an editorial, the Hankyoreh newspaper wrote today that Cho’s case illustrated a problem faced by many South Korean immigrants in the US, where parents are too busy at work to take care of their children.Many in the Korean community think the problem lies in the life of an émigré; however, even native born Americans struggle to make a decent wage or create a comfortable caring environment for their children.“It is the reality of our immigrants that parents are so busy making a living that it’s not easy for them to have dialogue with young children,” the newspaper wrote.
“We should think about whether our society or our (Korean) community abroad has been negligent in preventing conditions that could lead to such an aberration,” it said.
Most neighbours could barely recall talking to the couple. "They're very quiet, very nice people. They worked very hard for him. It's very sad," their next-door neighbour, Abdul Shash, told the Associated Press.Most of us think our lack of personal success is our fault. When our offspring struggle or hurt another, we are pained. A Grandfather feels responsible for his own progeny and the product of their love. Mister Kim the eldest representative of a kind and caring family reflects,"They valued education, just like any other parents in this country, and they worked sometimes 12, 13 hours a day to send a daughter to Princeton and to send their son to Virginia Tech," said Jeff Ahn, president of the League of Korean Americans in Virginia.
“How could he have done such a thing if he had any sympathy for his parents, who went all the way to another country because they couldn’t make ends meet and endured hardships,” Cho’s maternal grandfather, identified only by his last name Kim, was quoted as saying.As a child Seung-Hui Cho was ridiculed and bullyed. As an adult he hid; he hoped to avoid the taunts and teasing.
Former classmates recalled Cho being taunted over his speech difficulties.One professor saw his angst. She read the words of a tormented soul. She was frightened. Initially, she embraced the long-suffering spirit of this neglected man.He almost never opened his mouth and would ignore attempts to strike up a conversation, said Chris Davids, a Virginia Tech senior who graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., with Cho in 2003.
When Cho read out loud in class, other students laughed at his strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.
In a video Cho mailed to NBC in the middle of his rampage at Virginia Tech, the 23-year-old portrayed himself as persecuted and rants about rich kids.
Lucinda Roy, a co-director of the creative writing program at Virginia Tech, taught Cho in a poetry class in fall of 2005 and later worked with him one-on-one after she became concerned about his behavior and themes in his writings.The professor pondered. She realized Seung-Hui Cho was without friends. He did not know how to relate; perhaps, he had never had the chance.
Roy told ABC News that Cho seemed "extraordinarily lonely—the loneliest person I have ever met in my life." She said he wore sunglasses indoors, with a cap pulled low over his eyes.In his writings he was lashing out as all wounded animals do. His actions amplified the distance he felt and thus, created.
He whispered, took 20 seconds to answer questions, and took cellphone pictures of her in class. Roy said she was concerned for her safety when she met with him.Professor Roy became fearful. Sadly, we all are when we do not understand. Often, when any of us think we are threatened, instead of continuing to assist, we withdraw from what causes us great apprehension. We avoid knowing what we recognize and prepare to protect ourselves further. Thus, we as a society discuss increasing security in our schools rather than raising the standards and funding for mental health.
Such is the situation, the shortsightedness. It is all so sad to me. We separate ourselves from each other. We create stress. Then instead of coming together we try harder to take control. Emotions cannot be regulated; in truth, we cannot mandate behaviors. If we are to be truly safe, we must ensure that every individual feels cared for to his or her core. I believe we must interact, not react.
I beseech us all; I ask Americans, émigrés, and individuals in every corner of the globe, do not hold your children tighter, lock them up in buildings where there is little genuine affection. Love them; they need to feel safe and secure and only your authentic fondness can fill their hearts and provide stability. Pay attention to the progeny. They are our future.
Do not apply pressure as a tourniquet might. Suffocating a wound appears to stop the flow. However, scars form from within. What is not released, calmly and with care, in the moment builds up. Feelings must be felt, expressed, and received gently with concern.
Please let your loved ones be and breathe. Provide them with the freedom to speak and to feel. Be with those that are special to you. Listen to their concerns. Allow them to lean on your shoulder when they wish to. Tenderly teach autonomy. Do not dismiss the essence of interdependence as well. May we honor our children wholly in our homes and schools.
Please let us not place imprison our pupils, our progeny. Provide for them in meaningful ways. Trust them to grow and nurture them on their unique path.
Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner; put yourself in his place so that you may understand
. . . what he learns and the way he understands it.
~ Soren Kierkegaard
Everything depends upon the quality of experience . . . just as no man lives or dies to himself, so no experience lives and dies to itself.
Any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience.
The central problem of an education based upon experience is to select the kind of present experience that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences.
~ John Dewey [American Philosopher, Psychologist, Educational Reformer]
The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.
~ R. M. Hutchins [American Educator, Author, The University of Utopia and The Learning Society]
The sorrow is deep and the family feels more than any of us might imagine. I share the Cho family statement. I think that we each can feel their pain in these words.
Text of Cho family statementThose that passed can no longer physically help teach us to be kind, aware, active, and giving. However, through them, I hope we all learn. Every moment of life is fragile, fleeting, and a foundation for the future.
By The Associated Press
Statement issued to The Associated Press by Sun-Kyung Cho, sister of Seung-Hui Cho:On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy.
We are heartbroken.
We grieve alongside the families, the Virginia Tech community, our State of Virginia, and the rest of the nation. And, the world.
Every day since April 16, my father, mother and I pray for students Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Brian Roy Bluhm, Ryan Christopher Clark, Austin Michelle Cloyd, Matthew Gregory Gwaltney, Caitlin Millar Hammaren, Jeremy Michael Herbstritt, Rachael Elizabeth Hill, Emily Jane Hilscher, Jarrett Lee Lane, Matthew Joseph La Porte, Henry J. Lee, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Lauren Ashley McCain, Daniel Patrick O'Neil, J. Ortiz-Ortiz, Minal Hiralal Panchal, Daniel Alejandro Perez, Erin Nicole Peterson, Michael Steven Pohle Jr., Julia Kathleen Pryde, Mary Karen Read, Reema Joseph Samaha, Waleed Mohamed Shaalan, Leslie Geraldine Sherman, Maxine Shelly Turner, Nicole White, Instructor Christopher James Bishop, and Professors Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin P. Granata, Liviu Librescu and G.V. Loganathan.
We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.
Each of these people had so much love, talent, and gifts to offer, and their lives were cut short by a horrible and senseless act.
We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless, and lost. This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person.
We have always been a close, peaceful, and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence.
He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare.
There is much justified anger and disbelief at what my brother did, and a lot of questions are left unanswered. Our family will continue to cooperate fully and do whatever we can to help authorities understand why these senseless acts happened. We have many unanswered questions as well.
Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us.
Source: North Carolina attorney Wade Smith, who provided the statement on behalf of the Cho family
This is not the time to teach fear. It is an occasion, an opportunity to reflect. Perhaps, we might learn to love every being, even those that appear to be different or distant.
Seung-Hui Cho My Sadness for Yours . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 20, 2007 at 04:43 PM in "Take me as I am!", American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Change the World [Within], Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Education, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Family, Functioning, Fables, Humans, Self-Destructive, Looking at Life, Loss of Life, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, School Days, School Shootings, School Violence, Society, Teach The Children | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Virginia Tech School Shooting. Once Again, Why?
Footage of the Virginia Tech shooting on April 16th, 2007
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
It happened again. This time it was bigger and bolder than all the times in the past. At present, this was the worst massive gun massacre on a campus, in a community, since the inception of this country, unless you consider the numerous deaths that occur during war. In combat, a single shooter or a pair of gun totters can destroy many lives. Few are any the wiser. American soil has seen many a battle throughout its short history. Nevertheless, in recent times violent clashes, in quiet neighborhood are more abundant. Today's carnage is the most recent example.
At least 33 people were killed today on the campus of Virginia Tech in what appears to be the deadliest shooting rampage in American history, according to federal law-enforcement officials. Many of the victims were students shot in a dorm and a classroom building.The investigation continues. For now, details are scant. The shooter or gunman is deceased, assuming there was only one. The armed man took his own life. He was not carrying any identification. Until families of the deceased are notified, names will not be released. The circumstances were horrific.
Sidewalks throughout the campus are stained with blood. Everyone asks why. Some thirty lives were lost needlessly. The nation mourns. Journalist, students, parents, and administrators question the police in depth and detail. Earlier decisions are being scrutinized. Could law officers have prevented the second and more extreme bloodbath.
There were two separate shootings on the campus in Blacksburg, Va., the first at around 7:15 a.m., when two people were shot and killed at a dormitory. More than two hours later, 31 others, including the gunman, were shot and killed across campus in a classroom building, where some of the doors had been chained. Victims were found in different locations around the building.I know not why this particular incident occurred; nor do I think this is the question we need to be asking. Again, as I have stated in the past, for me, we must wonder about a society that nurture violence and brutality. I inquire; what do we breed into our children, our adolescents, and adults?The first attack started as students were getting ready for classes or were on their way there. The university did not evacuate the campus or notify students of that attack until several hours later.
As the rampage unfolded, details emerged from witnesses describing a gunman going room to room in the residence hall, the West Ambler Johnston dormitory, and of gunfire later at Norris Hall, a science and engineering classroom building.
For decades, entertainment in America has been snide, rude, crude, and violent. Shock-jocks fill the airwaves with racist, misogynistic slurs. Rappers flood television and computer screens with denigrating images. Movie pictures are gory. Life on the streets is more gruesome. Then there is the trauma and drama in our homes. People yell; they scream, they slam and damn.
We as a civilization might wonder why the gunman or shooters at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University did as they did. Together we can ponder whether the police thought little of the initial domestic dispute. Nevertheless, I believe, until we think about what occurs daily in our homes, or on our streets, nothing will change.
I propose that we contemplate why we as a country are so willing to enter into a war with other nations or other persons. People in America are angry. Our countrymen lash out. Americans are not trained to talk with their friends, families, neighbors, or adjacent countries. Until we consciously work to solve stresses calmly, through conversation, scenes such as this will continue.
Again, I present an article written months ago, after other school shootings. Then, simple solutions were postulated. I penned my thoughts. School Shooting Safeguards. Arm Educators? Aiding and abetting educators, airline pilots, police, campus cops, or citizens will not deter the crime. The crisis will not end if everyone carries a gun.
Blaming adults for their inaction or decisions during a single event will not prevent the next attack. You might recall, another incident that occurred less than a year ago. A young girl was assaulted and the community expressed concern asking of her elders. I wrote, Second-Grade Girl Attacked. "Where Were the Adults?" Everywhere!
Please, I plead; let us all ask ourselves what is causing such crimes, such chaos. I beg; please do not blame others. Ask yourself, how does my silence or my screaming contribute to what comes. Remember, no man is an island. We are each involved with mankind. Our neighbor is as we are. If he is in pain, we will be hurt.
when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book,
but translated into a better language;
and every chapter must be so translated . . .
As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon,
calls not upon the preacher only,
but upon the congregation to come:
so this bell calls us all:
but how much more me,
who am brought so near the door by this sickness . . .
No man is an island, entire of itself . . .
any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee."
~ John Donne
Shooting and Sources . . .
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM in Americana, Change the World [Within], Communities, Communities and Communication , Current Affairs, Psychology , Quality of Life, School Days, School Shootings, School Violence, Short-term Solutions, Violence | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Price of Addiction. Bush and War
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please view the video presentation. Do the Math. What might The Cost of Iraq truly be?
Chapter and verse has been written on George W. Bush and his history of addictions. None doubt his alcohol abuse. The President speaks of this obsession often. His own struggle to stop drinking may have endeared him to many voting constituents. People in America can attest to their own struggles with alcohol dependency. Some feel certain George Bush did his fair share of cocaine; perhaps, it was another drug of choice. It seems marijuana was part of the party boy's bingeing. Currently, and for the last twenty plus years our President has been clean. George W. Bush is sober and possibly no longer addicted to intoxicants, unless we are speaking of war.
I am told killing and defeating personal enemies can be exhilarating. I know not. I think none are my foe, forsaking my own fixations. I do know that many, myself included believe they have addictive personalities. When I relish a pastime, I truly do. However, I do not believe in the contention, "Once an addict; always an addict." Although, I acknowledge many do. People can present a panoply of reasons to support their claim. Rationale for such a belief is abundant. Nevertheless, I am of the mind that habits can be left behind permanently. No replacements are necessary.
Over the course of my life, I have indulged in much that was unwise and unhealthy. However, each of my habits was pursued simultaneously. Slowly, I rejected one after another, until they were all gone. I accept that my life and stories are my own. Yours or George's may be different.
However, I do assert as a friend, familiar, or family of an addict I would not be willing to support the habit of a devotee. I wonder; would you happily bankroll the drugs, the booze, or the food that feeds the addiction of another? I have, out of "necessity," sponsored my own abusive practices. Still, I surmise supplying the obsessed is unwise. The habit will not die easily as long as it is fed. Part of what helped me work through my addictions was the need to consciously consider the cost.
Drowning our sorrows in sauce, escaping in amphetamines, or feasting on foods until your body can hold no more is expensive. Spreading democracy to satisfy an ego or to leave an impressive legacy takes quite a toll. Trillions of dollars are necessary to continue this compulsion.
Money is not the only concern when we assess addiction. The damage done to the devotee is awful enough. The harm that comes to those the addict encounters is immeasurable. When a person chooses to engage in abusive habits many are hurt.
Thus, I ask, do we really wish to support an unhealthy practice? Consciously or not, we do. We fund the President's habit. American citizens, Congress, or we the people sponsor the war in Iraq.
I do not believe in tough love; nor do I think behavior modification releases a person from their dependency. I think each of these "treatments" offers only a temporary solution. The hair-of-the-dog and drug therapies delay deliverance; however, these methods do not suppress a desire. I maintain we must choose for ourselves when or how we work through our addictions.
George W. Bush chose his path. Mister Bush mentions that turning to the Lord, locating a place of faith contributed to his healing. In 2005 . . .
Bush, a Methodist who credits his religious faith for helping him stop drinking and handle the demands of his job [said] "There's all kinds of ways to quit drinking," he added in remarks to a March conference of faith-based social service providers, "but one of the most effective ways to quit drinking is for a person to make a choice to go to a place that changes your heart."George W. Bush may be "right." For some, faith can move mountains. Yet, a strong belief in the Lord does not seem to help with George's current fixation.
G-d, Jesus Christ, and President Bush's belief in these miracle workers does not dissuade this man from evil doings. George W. Bush violates the Commandments daily. The tablets proclaim, "Thou shalt not kill." Yet, George W. Bush does. This man is responsible for murderous acts. He encourages mass slaughter. These reactive behaviors do not benefit a nation, a world, or even an individual. What seems to be another addiction for George W. Bush is devastating the globe and we are paying for it.
I do not understand what motivate us, as a nation. I do not comprehend what moves Congress to act as they do. Iraq war veterans are against this war. Some of these soldiers were elected to office in hopes that they would find a way to stop the blood bath. Freshmen members offer words of wisdom; yet nothing changes.
"We stand together to tell this administration that we are against the escalation, and to say with one voice that Congress will no longer be a blank check to the president's failed policies," said freshman Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), who was a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad. "The president's plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong."We are still funding a failed war effort. The argument is that if we stop supplying the dollars we will not be supporting the troops. The troops themselves dispute this claim. However, members of the House and the Senate fear the people will not believe this is true. It seems Americans do not recall this action has been taken in the past.
A new report from the Center for American Progress details how, over the last 35 years, Congress has passed bills, enacted into law, that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments.Hell did not freeze over; however, with global warming it might. George W. Bush does speak to our addiction to oil and recently relented that America's compulsion to consume may be adding to the affect. Still, I digress.
For some reason the charismatic Vice President Cheney and his partner in war crimes George W. Bush have a hold on Congress; thus, negating the "power of the purse."
Vice President Dick Cheney has made it clear that he does not believe Congress has much to say about the war in Iraq, in particular, or about foreign policy in general.Perchance the forefathers also predicted the possibility of delusion and dependence. The writers of the Constitution may have known that a President can easily become addicted to power. S/he may have an uncontrollable desire to conquer every entity in his or her path. It seems George W. has this proclivity, and we, the people support him. We honor this Commander with title of Chief. The American people and their Representatives ignore the penchant of this President. We give him dollars so that he may do his deleterious deeds. Knowingly, we walk with Mister Bush down a path of destruction!With repeated assertions that the country "cannot run a war by committee," the man who defended the Reagan Administration's Iran-Contra wrongdoing and counseled the first President Bush to omit consultation with Congress before launching the Gulf War of 1991 has established the current administration's view regarding which branch of government is in charge when it comes to warmaking. "The president is the commander in chief," growled Cheney in a recent appearance on Fox News. "He's the one who has to make these tough decisions."
President Bush has dutifully echoed Cheney's line with clumsy but apparently heartfelt references to himself as "the decider."
Were it not for the small matter of the Constitution, the Vice President and his charge might be convincing on this matter.
Unfortunately for these transitory occupants of the White House, the Constitution affords them no comfort.
The document is clear in its language: "The Congress shall have the power... To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."
If that makes it sound as if control over matters military was placed squarely in the hands of the House and Senate, then the founders succeeded in communicating their intent. James Madison and the other authors of the Constitution were exceptionally blunt about their hope that the president would serve as a mere commander-in-chief, implementing the directions of the Congress with regard to the targets or military actions, the characters of those actions and their durations.
The founders bluntly stated their fears about executive excess in a time of military conflict. "War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement," warned Madison, who explained that, "In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand, which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."
The Constitution was written "to chain the dogs of war" by founders who believed it essential that the endeavor be "run by committee" -- with the legislative branch fully empowered to check and balance the ambition, the avarice and the vanity of the executive.
Why? Why are we willing to let a man that has a history of unhealthy habits lead us into battle. More importantly, why do we fund such folly?
I beg; I plead; write your Congressman or woman. Place a telephone call to your Representatives. Sign every and any petition. Speak to your friends and family; ask them to assist you in your quest. Let us stop this insanity; exit Iraq. End this war! Do not allow this President, drunk with power, to dip into your purse. Send the troops home before more harm comes to them. Please help save your fellow humans from a fate that need not be theirs. I thank you for caring.
Reasons to Reflect on George W. Bush and his Fixations . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 26, 2007 at 11:01 AM in Addiction, Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Change the World [Within], Congress and Bush, Current Affairs, Iraq War, Policy, Shrubs Grow. What of Bush’s, United States Constitution, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Are Stepparents Real Parents? Are Biological Parents Best?
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
More than a month ago, I began writing this treatise. The significance of stepparents and adopted parents was on my mind. Gerald R. Ford had passed and there was ample discussion of his heritage. Gerald Rudolff Ford Senior did not father his son in a biological sense. Still, the elder Ford was Daddy. Jerry Ford spoke of his father often and how significant he was in the his life. The elder Ford raised his son as any parent would, even though he was actually a stepparent. Ford, the President was not adopted until he in his twenties. At that age, an adoption was perhaps a gesture; after all Jerry Ford was legally an adult. Gerald R. Ford Junior wanted to honor his father or the man that, young Jerry truly felt was Daddy.
I too was fathered by a man not my biological match. For years, this gentle human choose to relate to me as if I was his own offspring. Legally, we had no connection. Let us call him "Adam," was my stepparent. Yet, this soft-spoken man was my Dad. Long before I could, with permission from the government, call him Daddy he nurtured my heart, mind, and spirit. I too am adopted; my adoption was long in coming. For years my biological father, perchance, we can title him Michael, refused to give his permission. In some states, possibly all, this is necessary. As I listened to President Ford's history, I thought of how it mirrored my own.
My natural father, Michael was extremely wealthy and aloof, as was President Ford's. My birth father could be abrasive, though fortunately not abusive as our President's father was. Perhaps that is why my biological parents were together for more years than the President's were. Still, there are parallels that I think important.
Leslie Lynch King, the biological father of our former President, beat his wife, Dorothy Ayer Gardner, two weeks after the baby's birth. The baby, the man we now know as Jerry, was named Leslie Lynch King Junior. However, life changed after the assault. Dorothy moved in with family and ultimately, years after her divorce from Mister King met a mild manner paint salesman, Gerald Rudolff Ford. The two married. Mister Ford and Dorothy Ford changed the name of their two-year-old toddler. Young Leslie became Gerald Rudolff Ford Junior. The lad was not officially adopted; still, he was Mister Ford's son in every way that mattered.
The Ford family lived a solid and stable life.
Ford grew up in a middle class family. He was a healthy, industrious youth who helped out with the chores."Indifference" was not a term the President used to define Gerald R. Ford Senior; nor is it the word I would choose to define my Dad Adam. However when speaking of Michael, my natural father the utterance, "indifference" seems most apt!When he was 12 or 13, Ford's parents told him he was adopted. He first met his biological father when he was 17 and would see him only one other time. Young Ford was bitter about his wealthy father's indifference toward him. He called their first meeting the most traumatic experience of his youth.
President Gerald R. Ford, often proudly mused, he was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Just as a Ford automobile is considered a car for common people, Gerald Ford thought himself average. The former President was as his Dad, average, a workingman. He was everyman. Leslie Lynch King Senior, Ford's birth father was as a Lincoln vehicle, luxury defined him. Lavishness did not describe young Jerry. He was his "[step]father's" son!
Gerald Rudolff Ford Junior felt as I do, the man I call Daddy may not have been part of the birthing process. Nevertheless, he was there for me, he was with me always. My Dad lives large in my heart and in my mind. Most of my habits are his. I am Daddy's little girl!
Many adopted or stepchildren feel as strong bond with a parent that is not a blood relative. People that do share Deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] are often disconnected. Yet, the courts do not necessarily honor such truths, a stepparent can be a real father or mother. The bias towards gay couples may have helped to cloud the issue.
Are Stepparents Real Parents?The two split; bad feelings ruled what was no longer a family roost. You may relate as I do. My biological parents appeared to be picture perfect. We had a gorgeous, very large home, in an upper Middle Class suburb. For my eldest sister's twelfth birthday, an extension was built onto the house so that she might have a private entrance. Life looked good; many thought our family was great. Oh, the stories I might tell.
By Po Bronson
Time Magazine
Wednesday, May. 17, 2006This week the Supreme Court let stand a ruling, that ultimately could affect as many as one-third of all Americans — anyone in a stepfamily. But you'll probably never realize it from any news reports on the ruling.
The case comes out of Washington State. Sue Carvin and Page Britain were lesbians living together since 1989. Their baby, L., was born in 1995, using an at-home artificial insemination kit and some sperm donated from their gay friend. Page Britain carried L. and gave birth, but Sue Carvin became the stay-at-home mom while Page worked to support the family. Their child called Sue "Mama" and Page "Mommy."
For several years, they were a model of lesbian co-parenting.
I recall the day that my Mom walked out. My natural parents had been together for twenty years and ten days. One might think that after two decades plus, after sharing a bed, babies, and billions of memories together, a couple would know for certain that they are right for each other. Considering the two dated extensively prior to matrimony, one might believe that they thought their togetherness was a treasure, one to keep eternally.
Yet, my experience said that this was not true. The day was April 14. It was a Sunday. On most every day of rest we, as a family went out to dine at a local eatery, Litton's, in Philadelphia. The restaurant is no longer there. Eventually the business folded, just as the marriage did. Perchance, my parents were modeling dissolution.
Might that be the destiny for many? After watching a relationship sever, we have a frame of reference. We know how do end an association. I apologize for the digression. I was merely thinking aloud.
I return to the telling. That particular evening was an odd one. The air was ominous. Every moment was unusual. I did not know why. My father actually spoke to me. That alone was somewhat strange or strained. He said we were going to "Lin Ton's" as though dinner would be a Chinese dining experience. I always ordered fried shrimp, on this occasion, I asked for what I usually loathe, "Chicken in the basket." My elder sisters ate that meal regularly and I thought I might try it.
A conversation ensued after we requested our food. It revolved around cleaning bedrooms, maids, money, and obliquely values. My Mom concluded we, her husband, and by extension, her children had none. We were spoiled, stained by materialism, and motivated by money. My Mom got up from the table and walked out. She returned days later, and initiated divorce proceeding.
I was eight years of age at the time and thankfully not connected to Michael, my natural father. I was perhaps less influenced by Michael's love of money, for my biological father never wanted my birth. He had hired someone else to raise me. Fortunately, a very "real" woman did look after me for many years.
When I was still quite young, the man that would eventually become my Dad entered my life. I was five. At the time. My Mom returned to college, realizing that she wanted and needed to create a life for herself. She has a brilliant mind and thought it best she use it! "Daddy" was a classmate of hers. They were in a study group together. The academics often met in our home.
There was no romance between them before my natural parent's split. It was not even a thought, that all came much later. Nevertheless, the man in my life, the man I bonded with was an outsider, not a member of my family.
My story may not be similar to your own; however, I trust that many, according to statistics, at least a third of you are intimately familiar with stepfamilies.
Consider that for every 1,000 couples with children in the United States, only two of those couples are same-sex-oriented. Meanwhile, thanks to the huge number of second marriages, a third of all Americans are part of a stepfamily. The question "Are they real parents?" applies not just to gays and lesbians — it applies to every stepfamily. That's what the kids are testing when they angrily scream, "You're not my real mommy!" And when the biological mother hears that her son has been spanked by his stepmother, she wonders, "She can't do that, can she?"Step-parenting may have been difficult for my "Dad;" it was more so for me. Times were tough or just different, perchance, confusing. The man that felt like Daddy, was Daddy, legally could not be called my father.While we closely monitor how gay rights are granted and taken away, we pay almost no attention to the fact that stepparents are in the same legal limbo. Despite being ubiquitous, step-relationships are rarely recognized by the law. In most states, stepparents are considered "legal strangers" even if they have cared for and supported a stepchild for years. They have almost no official responsibility and barely any rights.
What kind of rights are they deprived of? Some are remarkably banal. For instance, a stepparent can't sign a child's school report card or field-trip permission form. Others are significant. A stepfather can't include his stepdaughter on his family health insurance plan, for example. And she can't inherit from him when he dies.
In the last few years, state family courts have tried to accommodate the stepparents and stepchildren who appear before them, without granting so much that it subtracts rights from a biological parent. In Colorado, a stepparent can now sign the form that allows a minor to apply for a driver's license. And in Oregon, a stepparent can petition the courts for visitation of former stepchildren, if that marriage has ended. In Arkansas, it's even theoretically possible now for a stepparent to win custody over a biological parent. But in each state, it's a different story, and many states are still in denial.
So, a stepmother can take a month off work to care for her sick stepson, thanks to the federal law on Family Leave. But if she has to take her stepson to the emergency room, state law might prevent her from authorizing medical treatment. And if her son ends up dying due to hospital negligence, she can't sue.
My Mom refused child support and alimony though she was granted each. She believed Michael's money was tainted. She wanted none of it. We were extremely poor. Welfare came to us, stating we qualified and needed to apply. My parents refused. We grew our own vegetables. My Mom baked our bread. The details are endless; however, they may distract. Thus, I will leave those for another anecdote.
The truer challenge for me was carrying a surname that I felt no connection to. I wanted to legally be as I was in life, Daddy's little girl. I called my Mom's second husband Daddy. He was the only actual father I ever felt I had. He taught me everything, how to build a house, clean my room, ride a bike, reading, writing, 'rithmetic, telephone manners, and best of all how to engage with people. Prior to Daddy entering into my life, I was the exemplary loner. I was totally self-sufficient and felt little need for personal exchanges. I never trusted whether closeness would end. The woman that raised me for five and a half years was fired. I was listening on another telephone line when my father delivered the news to my caretaker.
In Kentucky, a stepchild could use the stepfather's surname in school. I did. However, this inexplicably hurt my natural father. A man that never cared for me, felt carrying on his name was meaningful. I visited him on my tenth birthday. He ranted and rage. He yelled at me. Prior to this event, I had not witnessed screaming directly, certainly, no one had ever hollered at me. I was frightened. The man that was supposed to be a loving father, on one of the rare occasions I ever saw him was shrieking. His shouts were meant for me.
I, thought this meeting was quite traumatic! A man that never acted as my father wanted me to bear his name. Why? The man that was my Daddy had no rights in reference to me. Again, Why, or more accurately, why not?
The legal field is sitting on a huge time bomb. One-third of Americans are just one unfortunate circumstance away from ending up in court demanding their rights — where they will be told that those relationships aren't real, and don't count.Typically, stepparents are thought to be cruel and wicked. As children, we learn this lesson well. Perchance we come to expect this; stepparents must be sinister. They are often under suspicion. You may recall Cinderella was treated with disdain by her stepmother. Her stepsisters ridiculed her and required the fair maiden to be at their beck and call. Newspaper articles support this postulate. While admittedly the research did not assess the quality of relationships or the feelings found within stepfamilies, this report concludes that a biological parent will take better care of a child than a stepparent might.The U.S. Supreme Court has never been pressed to rule whether a stepparent is a real parent, and if so, under what conditions. But when it declined to review Britain v. Carvin, Washington State's test for "de facto," parents instantly became a model for other states to replicate. Through a case everyone thought was about gay rights, stepfamilies just opened the door to the recognition they truly deserve.
Differences Found in Care With StepmothersI agree, a paid caregiver may not have the same bond, or at least the biological parents may not allow it. Even if they do, I suspect my story solidifies what often happens. The employee does not feel they have the right, legally, or emotionally, to stay connected and in touch with the young child they raised.
By Tamar Lewin
New York Times
August 17, 2000Children raised in families with stepmothers are likely to have less health care, less education and less money spent on their food than children raised by their biological mothers, three studies by a Princeton economist have found.
The studies examined the care and resources that parents said they gave to children and did not assess the quality of the relationships or the parents' feelings and motives.
But experts said that while the findings did not establish the image of the wicked stepmother as true, they supported the conclusion that, for complex reasons, stepmothers do invest less in children than biological mothers do, with fathers, to a large extent, leaving to women the responsibility for the family's welfare.
''Being raised by the biological mother gives children a lot of protection,'' said the chief researcher on the studies, Anne Case, a professor of economics at Princeton. ''It's a very big thing to ask someone to care for children instead of the birth mother, who, as the sociobiologists tell us, invests so heavily in carrying the child, nursing the child.''
The studies took their data from two of the broadest, most respected surveys of Americans' households, income, spending, and health habits. While those surveys were not created to analyze stepfamilies, their information is detailed enough to allow comparisons between different kinds of families.Did the survey consider the legal restrictions on a stepparent authorizing health care for a minor child? Might they have looked at the finances? Even when a parent re-marries, it often takes time before the new union is as financially sound as the previous blending was.Among children over a year old, living with both biological parents, the health study found that 61 percent have had a medical checkup within the last year. But among those living with a stepmother and birth father, that number dropped to 46 percent -- and of those whose biological mother was dead, only 35 percent had seen a doctor.
My natural parents were exceptionally wealthy. When my Mom married my "Daddy," Adam, he was a student. He belatedly received his Bacheloriate degree and was going on to pursue post-graduate studies. It was years before we were stable. My biological father had great wealth, in part, because professionally his standards were such he had no qualms; stepping on or over others was his way. He was attentive when assessing his assets; however, children were to be seen and not heard. At least that is the experience of his last child, me, you know the unwanted one.
Of the children living with their biological parents, 74 percent wear seat belts almost all the time, compared with 63 percent of those living with a stepfather and biological mother and 52 percent of those living with a biological father and stepmother.Daddy, the man that truly raised me and adopted me, refused to start the engine unless and until we were all buckled into our car seats. He maintained the car with infinite care. His passengers were his prize. He had always wanted the loving family he helped to create.
Families with a stepmother reported overall household food spending that was about 5 percent lower for each stepchild than in families in which both biological parents were present, the food study found.You may recall, my newer family did not have the money to spend on food. Although we spent less, the quality of our fare was far superior. My Mom is a gourmet cook. When with the biological paternal person, going out, entertaining, was what passed for normal. Rarely were we children part of these hedonistic pleasures. Potpies were my friend. Television dinners as they were once called were frequent. Now processed food is considered healthy.
With Daddy [Adam] in our lives, we ate together. We shared all our meals. My mom grew the vegetables and baked the breads and desserts. Later, Daddy took up fishing. We watched our pennies, for we had few. Still, each evening we dined from a different country. Mommy put up a monthly calendar. She filled in each date. My mom never wrote the specifics for the meal, she only penned the country of origin for the entrée. We ate well. I learned to try what I would have rejected in my earlier life.
In families in which women care for both their stepchildren and biological children, the biological child, on average, went to college for a year, while the average stepchild did not go to college.Oh my gosh; the paternal pretense of a parent in my life thought that girls, only need to attend college to receive an M.R. S. degree. Daddy is a scholar. Daily, he and I would read the paper and review what was read. He would ask me questions, ensuring my comprehension. We would discuss how the news was relevant to our lives. He, my Mom, and I looked up any issue relating to the article. Gaining wisdom was our entertainment. It was not costly, although it was infinitely valuable!Children reared by a stepfather also have lower educational achievement than those reared by both biological parents, although, as in most other measures, the negative effect is only about half as much as with stepmothers.
Prof. Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist of the family at the University of Pennsylvania, said that he did not question the findings and believed that the studies raised important questions, but he noted that stepfamilies vary widely.Perhaps, the learned Professor might benefit from what I learned. Mommy and Daddy encouraged me to "Question everything!" In truth, it is still a family theme.
For example, women who take on a 2-year-old child step into a role very different from that of women who care for a 12-year-old stepchild, and for all stepmothers the relationships evolve as the family becomes better established.This may be very true. My sisters were much older than I and had a very different experience of our blood father. They were not ready to open their arms to Daddy and rejected much of what was to come.''I don't think most stepmothers are evil,'' Professor Furstenberg said. ''If they're less involved, if they take a step back, it may be for the most noble motives, to give the parent more room, to decrease the tension. They may be relying on the child's father when perhaps their trust is unwarranted.''
I often see among friends, the stepparent may want to be a part; yet, the natural parent presumes the children will not understand. The stepfamilies do not often blend, as much as they live together, if that.
With more than half the nation's children living apart from at least one biological parent by the time they reach 18, the functioning of stepfamilies has become increasingly important. Most stepfamilies involve stepfathers, rather than stepmothers, and compared with families in which a single mother is rearing a child alone, the presence of the stepfather and his income help raise the family's standard of living.My own experience suggest two parents are the preferred; however, if one or both are not truly loving, caring, sharing, involved and connected, then what comes is chaos. Children, no matter what the age need to know that someone, preferably a parent figure is there for them in thick and thin. Humans are social animals. We need each other. We are expressive or not; whatever we are, we do not perform well or feel well if we do not feel safe, secure, and sane.Still, previous research has shown that children who did not live with both of their parents had bleaker futures: among other things, they were more likely to drop out of school, become delinquents or engage in early sexual activity and drug abuse than children raised by both parents.
Parents guide us. They facilitate our growth. They protect our hearts and nurture our minds. We need them; actually, they need us too. Love is a necessary. It breeds happiness, joy, and it is the avenue for inspiration, imagination, and innovation. If we are struggling to survive, we do not have time or the means to thrive. Fortunately, even social scientists are beginning to realize this.
But while those outcomes are well known, there has been almost no research on the care, attention and resources such children receive -- and therefore, no way to know whether the damaging effects reflect poor parenting, family instability, lack of money or other factors.Yet, as the article goes on, excuses are made, energies are diverted, and enigmas are voiced.
Many stepmothers are quick to acknowledge that being a stepparent is complicated, particularly when they take on older children and that it is unrealistic to imagine that the new bonds will be the same as those between a biological parent and child.Unrealistic, I think not. We create what we believe. If we expect to be rejected, we will be. If we believe that the children are his, or hers, we will never treat them as ours. Sadly, I contend so much of the chaos we experience we create. When we do not legally give stepparents the right to authentically attend to a child's needs, why would they believe they are able.
I think we must truly evaluate our legal system and family structures. If people wed only to have companionship, if they do not work as a unit to create comfort for their shared children, then stepparents will always be separate from the equation. The sum of the parts, Mom plus Dad plus Children, step or otherwise, is best when it is greater than the whole.
Step through the looking glass and find your world turned inside out. Step Parenting references . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 13, 2007 at 08:55 PM in "Take me as I am!", Adult Influence on Children, American Dream, American Family, Americana, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Change the World [Within], Communities, Communities and Communication , Dreams Live and Die , Effects of Divorce, Effects of Poverty , Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Evolution [Emotional, Physical, Spiritual], Family, Functioning, Fables, Life, A Forward Motion, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Nature or Nurture, Profound , Quality of Life, Question Everything, Society, Think Travels | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Climate Change; An Impeachable Offense?
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please Help the Polar Bears. View the video and act. Save the Polar Bears: The Coca-Cola Bear Ad Mash Up
The Bush/Cheney Administration denied global warming for years. Denouncing scientific evidence served this presidential pair and their business partners well. Entrepreneurial enterprises prospered. Profits grew as the icecaps melted. Ocean waters warmed, so too did the hearts of Chief Executives. Corporate coffers swelled. Misters Bush and Cheney benefited.
Therefore, the two and their cronies elected to create an Energy Task Commission comprised of corporate bigwigs. Scientists were barred from these "public" proceedings. Actually, the American people were not allowed to participate in policy decisions that concerned them directly. Environmentalists, oh no. They could not contribute or assist in creating a plan that might save the Earth. Worries about waste were not aired. Increasing the use of electrical and petroleum power were favored. The preponderance of evidence offered in committee focused on commercial financial gains.
Energy guidelines were illusive; possibly, because they were designed to generate more revenue, not to save the planet or preserve our natural resources. Please ponder the records.
A Bush administration report suggests that evidence of global warming has begun to affect animal and plant populations in visible ways, and that rising temperatures in North America are due in part to human activity.President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney enacted policies that accelerated climate change. The globe that we inhabit warmed. No one noticed, or at least few complained. Now, even those that worked with Mister Bush and Mister Cheney are screaming, "What were we thinking?" What were they thinking? Even Cheney's fund manager is up in arms and voicing his outrage.The report to Congress, issued Wednesday, goes further than previous statements by President Bush. He has said more scientific research is needed before he imposes new restrictions on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
In 2001, after the release of a National Academy of Sciences report on global warming, Bush said the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased, in large part, because of human activity, but he emphasized that other factors could have influenced warming. Referring to the NAS report, he said, "We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations may have had on warming."
Several administration officials characterized the study as a routine annual summary of scientific research on global warming. John H. Marburger, the president's science adviser, said the report has "no implications for policy."
Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... CheneyNow, the polar bears are endangered. People throughout the nation are experiencing record breaking high and low temperatures. Tornado winds move more rapidly than they have in the past. Snows flakes fall and build incomprehensible banks. Weather is now an enigma. Perchance, some humans think it another enemy. We know not what the day will bring. We are only certain that humans harmed the environment. We do not only warm the planet, we pulverize the ears and organs of those that inhabit this world with us. People such as the President who focus on profits and creature comforts forget, we too are animals. What we cause will have an effect!
By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds ColumnistThe oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.
Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.
Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.
What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.
"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."
Yet, "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."
We can thank President Bush for lowering the standards that were helping to reverse the damage. This Administration ignored the natural balance and thus hastened the decline. The Bush/Cheney clan denied that humans influence what happens here on Earth. Hence, they allowed actions that reeked havoc throughout the planet. Currently, the two reluctantly admit to the effect humans have on the environment, or at least scientists are forcing them to face what they hid.
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to CertaintyNow we know what we always knew, but chose to ignore. Our President and Vice President have profoundly changed our planet. Their energy policies have devastated the world climate. Might we ask; is global warming an impeachable offense?
By William K. StevensIn the decade when I was the lead reporter on climate change for this newspaper, nearly every blizzard or cold wave that hit the Northeast would bring the same conversation at work.
Somebody in the newsroom would eye me and say something like, “So much for global warming.” This would often, but not always, be accompanied by teasing or malicious expressions, and depending on my mood the person would get either a joking or snappish or explanatory response. Such an exchange might still happen, but now it seems quaint. It would be out of date in light of a potentially historic sea change that appears to have taken place in the state and the status of the global warming issue since I retired from The New York Times in 2000.
Back then I wrote that one day, if mainstream scientists were right about what was going on with the earth’s climate, it would become so obvious that human activity was responsible for a continuing rise in average global temperature that no other explanation would be plausible.
That day may have arrived.
Similarly, it was said in the 1990s that while the available evidence of a serious human impact on the earth’s climate might be preponderant enough to meet the legal test for liability in a civil suit, it fell short of the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” test of guilt in a criminal case.
Now it seems that the steadily strengthening body of evidence about the human connection with global warming is at least approaching the higher standard and may already have satisfied it.
The second element of the sea change, if such it is, consists of a demonstrably heightened awareness and concern among Americans about global warming. The awakening has been energized largely by dramatic reports on the melting Arctic and by fear — generated by the spectacular horror of Hurricane Katrina — that a warmer ocean is making hurricanes more intense.
Each day, the Earth decrees, 'We must condemn these perpetrators of environmental crimes.' The winds and waterways are clamoring for justice. They act out seeking long overdue attention. Mother Nature is requesting we help her. She says, 'Please honor our shared planet.' Do not do as the self-proclaimed compassionate conservative and his cunning colleague have done. Do not destroy natural resources. Preserve the balance. We might consider that with every tempest, with each extreme temperature change, with rampant animal extinctions the environment is screaming, 'Prosecute President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney.' Please, let us heed the call!
Please speak to Senator Barbara Boxer. She is asking for suggestions.
Climate Change and the Bush/Cheney Clan . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 6, 2007 at 04:17 AM in Change the World [Within], Cleanliness. Godliness., Consumption and Conservation, Economics, Environment, Ethics and Profits, Facts or Fictions, Global Warming, Humans, Self-Destructive, Hurricanes , Nature, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, The World Can’t Wait, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
