Thursday, November 29, 2007
Does it Never End? More Examples of Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups
The numbers of women with chronic lung disease has reached epidemic levels. There now are more new cases of women’s lung disease than men’s. The cause is smoking, whose rates increased in women during the 1960s and 1970s. Now the tars and nicotines have come home to roost, even among women who quite decades ago. .
But wait. There’s more. Doctors misdiagnose, neglect to treat, and treat with the wrong regimens patients with lung conditions. Not only that, but women—and men-- with lung disease are stigmatized as causing their own bad health and therefore come to feel they are not worthy of medical treatment.
If that’s not being a shit, I don’t know what is. The tobacco company glamorized smoking. Then science discovered the links between smoking, health, and death. The tobacco companies covered up by saying there was no conclusive evidence.
People got chronic fatal diseases, about 24 million in the United States today. Then blame was heaped on those who smoked. Many took the blame and do not get the health care they need. Those who became wealthy from tobacco sales are now dead after a life of luxury or are still living believe they are virtuous because they are wealthy.
Of course, there could be some bad consciences among those who enriched themselves on tobacco sales. If there are, I’d love to hear from them. jgilgun@gmail.com
But wait. There’s more. Doctors misdiagnose, neglect to treat, and treat with the wrong regimens patients with lung conditions. Not only that, but women—and men-- with lung disease are stigmatized as causing their own bad health and therefore come to feel they are not worthy of medical treatment.
If that’s not being a shit, I don’t know what is. The tobacco company glamorized smoking. Then science discovered the links between smoking, health, and death. The tobacco companies covered up by saying there was no conclusive evidence.
People got chronic fatal diseases, about 24 million in the United States today. Then blame was heaped on those who smoked. Many took the blame and do not get the health care they need. Those who became wealthy from tobacco sales are now dead after a life of luxury or are still living believe they are virtuous because they are wealthy.
Of course, there could be some bad consciences among those who enriched themselves on tobacco sales. If there are, I’d love to hear from them. jgilgun@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Harry Dent, The Unsung Hero of Accountability
Harry Dent was a hatemongering racist. No question. He helped construct the “Southern strategy” where politicians use code words like “states rights” and “law and order” to signal to white voters that they will not enforce laws granting voting rights and equal opportunities to black people. They suggest they might even roll back the laws that are on the books.
This strategy won Southern states for successful presidential candidates such as Nixon, Reagan, and Bush father and son, got Strom Thurmond elected to the U.S. Senate for decades, and has helped many other politicians, local and national, get into office.
Dent worked for Thurmond for several years and then worked in the Nixon White House helping to solidify the advantages won by the Southern strategy. He showed mastery of the cover-up when he said the Southern strategy redresses the wrongs done to white people who are left out because of affirmative action and governmental aide programs.
Later in life, Mr. Dent became a church deacon and helped build orphanages in Romania. He had regrets. He said, “When I look back, my biggest regret now is anything I did that stood in the way of the rights of black people, or any people.”
Hooray for Harry Dent. He did wrong. He committed unkind deeds and cover-ups. He realized what he had done. He acknowledged what he had done. He changed his ways. In his accountability, Harry Dent is a model for us all. His unkind deed was egregiously harmful to millions. In that, he is no model.
This strategy won Southern states for successful presidential candidates such as Nixon, Reagan, and Bush father and son, got Strom Thurmond elected to the U.S. Senate for decades, and has helped many other politicians, local and national, get into office.
Dent worked for Thurmond for several years and then worked in the Nixon White House helping to solidify the advantages won by the Southern strategy. He showed mastery of the cover-up when he said the Southern strategy redresses the wrongs done to white people who are left out because of affirmative action and governmental aide programs.
Later in life, Mr. Dent became a church deacon and helped build orphanages in Romania. He had regrets. He said, “When I look back, my biggest regret now is anything I did that stood in the way of the rights of black people, or any people.”
Hooray for Harry Dent. He did wrong. He committed unkind deeds and cover-ups. He realized what he had done. He acknowledged what he had done. He changed his ways. In his accountability, Harry Dent is a model for us all. His unkind deed was egregiously harmful to millions. In that, he is no model.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Mindless Roaring of Republicans About Patraeus
How do some people get to be so clever at covering up their own misdeeds by denouncing other people? So many of the rest of us are utter and complete failures at this. Where does their genius come from?
The latest foray into the game of covering up unkind deeds is the denunciation that Republicans roared at MoveOn.Org, an internet-based liberal political group, for making a pun out of General David Petraeus’s name. In a full-page ad in the New York Times, MoveOn wrote: Petraeus=Betray Us after the general reported that the invasion and recent surge in Iraq are successes and that opponents of the invasion are radical thugs with rings in their noses.
The Republican roar shifted attention away from the epic tragedy of Iraq and Petraeus’s contestable claims. They scapegoated MoveOn without taking one second to reflect upon any truth that is contained in their objections.
Win at any costs, say these denouncers. The costs are the truth, American and Iraqi lives, the economic disaster that the invasion is causing in the US and internationally, and the loss of American world leadership, to name a few. Do these Republicans care? No.
The good news for MoveOn is their own surge in fund-raising. In one day, they received a half a million in donations, the largest single donation in the few years of their existence.
This upside doesn’t really matter, though. What matters is the mindless fury of a few who do not have the executive skills to see that the consequences of their actions threaten the foundations of the US democracy. They do not see the terrible things they do in the name of winning.
Why can’t those who understand democracy and have good executive skills be as good at getting their own way as these denouncers who lie to themselves and to others?
The answer is in the question. Reasonable people understand democracy and think about the consequences of their actions. They have good executive skills. They have have consciences.
How are we ever going to defuse the influences of denouncers? They are mindless roarers.
The latest foray into the game of covering up unkind deeds is the denunciation that Republicans roared at MoveOn.Org, an internet-based liberal political group, for making a pun out of General David Petraeus’s name. In a full-page ad in the New York Times, MoveOn wrote: Petraeus=Betray Us after the general reported that the invasion and recent surge in Iraq are successes and that opponents of the invasion are radical thugs with rings in their noses.
The Republican roar shifted attention away from the epic tragedy of Iraq and Petraeus’s contestable claims. They scapegoated MoveOn without taking one second to reflect upon any truth that is contained in their objections.
Win at any costs, say these denouncers. The costs are the truth, American and Iraqi lives, the economic disaster that the invasion is causing in the US and internationally, and the loss of American world leadership, to name a few. Do these Republicans care? No.
The good news for MoveOn is their own surge in fund-raising. In one day, they received a half a million in donations, the largest single donation in the few years of their existence.
This upside doesn’t really matter, though. What matters is the mindless fury of a few who do not have the executive skills to see that the consequences of their actions threaten the foundations of the US democracy. They do not see the terrible things they do in the name of winning.
Why can’t those who understand democracy and have good executive skills be as good at getting their own way as these denouncers who lie to themselves and to others?
The answer is in the question. Reasonable people understand democracy and think about the consequences of their actions. They have good executive skills. They have have consciences.
How are we ever going to defuse the influences of denouncers? They are mindless roarers.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
The Republican Party Power Brokers Have no Decency
The Republican Party hit the jackpot with its cruelty. Larry Craig resigned today as a US Senator after a firestorm of outrage set off when he pled guilty to lewd behavior in the men's room of the Minneapolis International Airport in the summer of 2007.
The first person to shun Senator Craig was Mitt Romney, Republican presidental hopeful, and known as the hypocrite-in-chief in Massachusetts where he lied about his views on homosexuality and abortion in order to be elected governor of the state, which he was.
The party that gets votes and keeps its power by playing to the prejudices and myths held by a minority of the American public once more is shown to be riddled not only with hypocrisy but with beliefs that are inhuman and inhumane.
So what if Craig is gay or bisexual? He is a human being, entitled to be who he is. The unreasonable beliefs about homosexuality have deeply hurt him and his family and GLBT people in general, now only today but for centuries.
From this horror may came some enlightenment. The Republican Party is being hung by its own petard, by its own ridiculous, cruel views and practices.
I also wonder if Craig would have been bullied and bludgeoned into resigning if the governor of his state were a Democrat. Probably not, because a Democratic governor would appoint a Democratic senator. That would upset the balance of power in the Senate.
The so-called moral and family values of the Republican Party not only are inhumane, but they will be trumped if loss of Republican power is at stake.
Open your minds. Be kind, not cruel. Hate mongering does untold damage.
The Republicans I know are as troubled by these events as I am. In reality, this is not a debacle that all Republicans have a hand in.
Those who hounded Craig out of his duly elected office have committed an unkind deed and then covered up with self-righteous cruelty and blather. They have succeeded in being shits.
Who will hold them accountable? When? Have they no decency?
On being a shit is a blog that points out the unkind deeds and cover-ups that are so pervasive in politics and other aspects of U.S. life.
The first person to shun Senator Craig was Mitt Romney, Republican presidental hopeful, and known as the hypocrite-in-chief in Massachusetts where he lied about his views on homosexuality and abortion in order to be elected governor of the state, which he was.
The party that gets votes and keeps its power by playing to the prejudices and myths held by a minority of the American public once more is shown to be riddled not only with hypocrisy but with beliefs that are inhuman and inhumane.
So what if Craig is gay or bisexual? He is a human being, entitled to be who he is. The unreasonable beliefs about homosexuality have deeply hurt him and his family and GLBT people in general, now only today but for centuries.
From this horror may came some enlightenment. The Republican Party is being hung by its own petard, by its own ridiculous, cruel views and practices.
I also wonder if Craig would have been bullied and bludgeoned into resigning if the governor of his state were a Democrat. Probably not, because a Democratic governor would appoint a Democratic senator. That would upset the balance of power in the Senate.
The so-called moral and family values of the Republican Party not only are inhumane, but they will be trumped if loss of Republican power is at stake.
Open your minds. Be kind, not cruel. Hate mongering does untold damage.
The Republicans I know are as troubled by these events as I am. In reality, this is not a debacle that all Republicans have a hand in.
Those who hounded Craig out of his duly elected office have committed an unkind deed and then covered up with self-righteous cruelty and blather. They have succeeded in being shits.
Who will hold them accountable? When? Have they no decency?
On being a shit is a blog that points out the unkind deeds and cover-ups that are so pervasive in politics and other aspects of U.S. life.
Billy Pittman Scores Big
Billy Pittman, a wide receiver for the Univeristy of Texas Longhorns football team, borrowed a friend’s car during the summer of 2007, in violation of the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Such actions threaten his status as an amateur athlete.
Following up on an anonymous tip, University officials asked Billy about the use of the car. Billy admitted it right away. The University held him responsible for his actions. The coach suspended him for three games. The University voluntarily reported the rule violation to the college athletic association, the NCAA.
Billy made an almost perfect statement of accountability: “I’m really sorry. It was an honest mistake, and I’ll do everyting I can to make up for it.” What would have made it perfect would have been “I made a mistake. I’m really sorry. I’d do everyting I can to make up for it.” Then, of course, he has to mend his ways and make up for it. Saying it was an honest mistake was his statement one of self-justification, which was unnecessary.
Good for you, Billy. You are a real man. You made a mistake and you admitted it. You also pledged to make up for it.
Following up on an anonymous tip, University officials asked Billy about the use of the car. Billy admitted it right away. The University held him responsible for his actions. The coach suspended him for three games. The University voluntarily reported the rule violation to the college athletic association, the NCAA.
Billy made an almost perfect statement of accountability: “I’m really sorry. It was an honest mistake, and I’ll do everyting I can to make up for it.” What would have made it perfect would have been “I made a mistake. I’m really sorry. I’d do everyting I can to make up for it.” Then, of course, he has to mend his ways and make up for it. Saying it was an honest mistake was his statement one of self-justification, which was unnecessary.
Good for you, Billy. You are a real man. You made a mistake and you admitted it. You also pledged to make up for it.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Karl Rove Scores Big in the Game of Being a Shit
Karl Rove has done it again—scored big in the game of being a shit. In three TV appearances on Sunday morning, Rove covered up his unkind deeds like the master he is. Cover-ups are of several different types. Rove used most of them.
Why are you picking on me?
Rove is the pick-on-other-people in-chief. Now he's complaining that the press is after him like Ahab after Moby Dick.
That’s not me while implying that it really is him
Rove declared in disgust that the press has made a myth out of him. This genius of the spoken word cloaks himself in one of the great myths and archetypes of all time when he says he is Moby Dick and the press is Ahab.
Someone else is responsible
Asked about his awful hip-hop performance at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner in March, Rove said, “They dragged me up there….I’ve got no choice…I can play along and show them that I’m a good sport.”
Yes, Karl. You have no will of your own. Who, by the way, is “they” and “them?”
Rove said he had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Wilson, the CIA agent, when the world knows he was at the center of it.
Everyone shares the blame
When asked if he has any responsibility in the weakening of the Republican Party, he answered that every Republican ought to feel responsible.
Talk about pointing the finger of blame as a way to shift the rightful blame from him to others. He is a master blame-shifter.
The Constitution ties his hands
Rove hid behind the Constitution as an explanation as to why he did not comply with a Congressional subpoena in hearings on the firings of several non-partisan U.S. Attorneys.
Name calling
Rove called reporters “agents of Congress” when they asked him about his role in the firings. This makes Congress appear to be a gang of outlaws.
This is genius-level rhetoric, masterful use of innuendo to shift attention and blame from him to others. Does he have to think about these responses or do they arise spontaneously in his mind?
Obeying orders
When asked why he subjected himself to so many question and answer shows in one day, he said, “Somebody else made the decision for me. I’m just doing what I was instructed to do.”
Rove is a master, a genius. Sit at his feet and you too may attain the Mount Olympus of being a shit.
Why are you picking on me?
Rove is the pick-on-other-people in-chief. Now he's complaining that the press is after him like Ahab after Moby Dick.
That’s not me while implying that it really is him
Rove declared in disgust that the press has made a myth out of him. This genius of the spoken word cloaks himself in one of the great myths and archetypes of all time when he says he is Moby Dick and the press is Ahab.
Someone else is responsible
Asked about his awful hip-hop performance at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner in March, Rove said, “They dragged me up there….I’ve got no choice…I can play along and show them that I’m a good sport.”
Yes, Karl. You have no will of your own. Who, by the way, is “they” and “them?”
Rove said he had nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Wilson, the CIA agent, when the world knows he was at the center of it.
Everyone shares the blame
When asked if he has any responsibility in the weakening of the Republican Party, he answered that every Republican ought to feel responsible.
Talk about pointing the finger of blame as a way to shift the rightful blame from him to others. He is a master blame-shifter.
The Constitution ties his hands
Rove hid behind the Constitution as an explanation as to why he did not comply with a Congressional subpoena in hearings on the firings of several non-partisan U.S. Attorneys.
Name calling
Rove called reporters “agents of Congress” when they asked him about his role in the firings. This makes Congress appear to be a gang of outlaws.
This is genius-level rhetoric, masterful use of innuendo to shift attention and blame from him to others. Does he have to think about these responses or do they arise spontaneously in his mind?
Obeying orders
When asked why he subjected himself to so many question and answer shows in one day, he said, “Somebody else made the decision for me. I’m just doing what I was instructed to do.”
Rove is a master, a genius. Sit at his feet and you too may attain the Mount Olympus of being a shit.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis
How in the name that all is that good can a bridge collapse in the enlightened city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA? I live there. I know the values that most Minnesotans live by. This is a tragedy and a disgrace of national proportions.
I place the blame directly on George Bush who refuses to give the states money for upkeep of bridges and roads. I blame Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, who does not believe in allocating enough money to keep Minnesota bridges and roads safe. He and Bush are playing to an imaginary audience of greedy honchos who care about nobody but themselves.
Tunnel vision reigns. People like them do not see the bigger picture. Safe bridges, roads, families, and communities are what it is all about. It is not about making greedy people richer.
I place the blame directly on George Bush who refuses to give the states money for upkeep of bridges and roads. I blame Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, who does not believe in allocating enough money to keep Minnesota bridges and roads safe. He and Bush are playing to an imaginary audience of greedy honchos who care about nobody but themselves.
Tunnel vision reigns. People like them do not see the bigger picture. Safe bridges, roads, families, and communities are what it is all about. It is not about making greedy people richer.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Citigroup and BellSouth Retirees -- No Admission of Accountability--Mistakes were Made
Here we go again. How many times will I say that in regard to people being shits? This time it’s Citigroup brokers and bank managers who gave BellSouth retiree misleading information about how much money their investments would earn if they invest in Citigroup accounts. Many employees gave up secure and well-paying jobs on the basis of promised made about rates of return. They invested their life savings in Citigroup accounts.
Instead, their nest eggs disappeared and their dreams of retirement turned into nightmares according to a spokesman. The 200 employees lost a total of more than $12 million.
Citigroup employees gave seminars to BellSouth employees between 1994 and 2002 and told them that they could expect returns of at least 12% per year but typically much more if the retirees opened accounts with Citigroup.
They neglected to tell the retirees that fees would be at least 2% and that their investments would have to earn 14% to make the promised 12%. They did not inform them of the risks.
Citigroup said only a small group of employees were involved and that their actions do not reflect upon the high integrity of other employees and the investment firm itself. The employees were suspended and fined but not fired.
Citigroup paid $3 million in fines and more than $12 million in restitution. So, the retirees got their money back but they earned no interest, nothing in the years they had given their funds over to the firm.
Citigroup neither admitted or denied the allegations of misleading information. Apparently, "Mistakes were made." Right.
The agency that regulates such matters is NASD (the National Association of Securities Dealers).
Instead, their nest eggs disappeared and their dreams of retirement turned into nightmares according to a spokesman. The 200 employees lost a total of more than $12 million.
Citigroup employees gave seminars to BellSouth employees between 1994 and 2002 and told them that they could expect returns of at least 12% per year but typically much more if the retirees opened accounts with Citigroup.
They neglected to tell the retirees that fees would be at least 2% and that their investments would have to earn 14% to make the promised 12%. They did not inform them of the risks.
Citigroup said only a small group of employees were involved and that their actions do not reflect upon the high integrity of other employees and the investment firm itself. The employees were suspended and fined but not fired.
Citigroup paid $3 million in fines and more than $12 million in restitution. So, the retirees got their money back but they earned no interest, nothing in the years they had given their funds over to the firm.
Citigroup neither admitted or denied the allegations of misleading information. Apparently, "Mistakes were made." Right.
The agency that regulates such matters is NASD (the National Association of Securities Dealers).
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
When Cover-Ups Work
What to do when some is successful at being a shit? Psychiatrist Sally Satel gives a few hints. In her practice, war veterans who didn’t want her services put her off by asking, If you weren’t in the war, how can you possibly understand me?
This worked. Sally and other psychiatrists on her team were stopped in their tracks. They apologized. They couldn’t think of a thing to say. Bingo! The wily vets had hit hot buttons. The shrinks backed off. The vets had succeeded in their cover-ups.
Eventually, the psychiatrist found that the men had reasons for putting them off. One man was covering up a heroin addiction.
Another veteran addressed his psychiatrist as “College Boy” at the beginning of each session. It turned out the veteran thought his own life was a mess.
Yet, another veteran peppered Sally with questions about the Viet Nam War. What date was the Tet offensive? Who was court marshaled for My Lai? Have you ever lived in a tunnel?
Sally reacted defensively at first. Then she told the veteran that she didn’t know these things and asked him to tell her all about his war experiences.
He did. They formed a bond. Eventually, he opened up about his troubles with his daughter. As they worked together, things got better between him and his daughter.
The same tactic worked with veterans who said psychiatrists weren’t in the war and questioned whether psychiatrists understand what it's like. The psychiatrists learned to say that they didn't, but I'd like to know what you went through.
This might not always work. No one went wrong when honest and direct in gentle ways.
A tactic for the veteran who called the psychiatrist “College Boy” would be to say, Yes, I am a college boy. What do you think of college boys?
Rarely does it work to get angry and defensive at cover-ups. It’s better to acknowledge the truth of someone else’s point of view and ask for elaboration.
In some cases, people are not covering up unkind deeds. They are covering up something that they are ashamed of, which is different from refusing responsibility for hurting another person.
Maybe they are not shits at all, but something else.
I wonder what would be a good name for them?
Shame can be consuming. People can ruminate on what is bothering them so much that they shut other people out. Then they get deeper into themselves and more cut off. They may get to the point where they see no way out.
The next time someone reacts angrily, think, What is going on here? Is this person covering up?
Most of us are too quick to blame ourselves. How self-centered we are when we blame ourselves for someone else's actions and words.
We are not the center of the universe. We do not cause other people’s behaviors. We are not that powerful. We are not that important.
De-center. Think about the other person. What is going on for that other person. Be willing to look at your own contributions. Often someone else's angry cover-ups have nothing to do with you!
See Sally Satel's article in today's New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/health/psychology/12essa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This worked. Sally and other psychiatrists on her team were stopped in their tracks. They apologized. They couldn’t think of a thing to say. Bingo! The wily vets had hit hot buttons. The shrinks backed off. The vets had succeeded in their cover-ups.
Eventually, the psychiatrist found that the men had reasons for putting them off. One man was covering up a heroin addiction.
Another veteran addressed his psychiatrist as “College Boy” at the beginning of each session. It turned out the veteran thought his own life was a mess.
Yet, another veteran peppered Sally with questions about the Viet Nam War. What date was the Tet offensive? Who was court marshaled for My Lai? Have you ever lived in a tunnel?
Sally reacted defensively at first. Then she told the veteran that she didn’t know these things and asked him to tell her all about his war experiences.
He did. They formed a bond. Eventually, he opened up about his troubles with his daughter. As they worked together, things got better between him and his daughter.
The same tactic worked with veterans who said psychiatrists weren’t in the war and questioned whether psychiatrists understand what it's like. The psychiatrists learned to say that they didn't, but I'd like to know what you went through.
This might not always work. No one went wrong when honest and direct in gentle ways.
A tactic for the veteran who called the psychiatrist “College Boy” would be to say, Yes, I am a college boy. What do you think of college boys?
Rarely does it work to get angry and defensive at cover-ups. It’s better to acknowledge the truth of someone else’s point of view and ask for elaboration.
In some cases, people are not covering up unkind deeds. They are covering up something that they are ashamed of, which is different from refusing responsibility for hurting another person.
Maybe they are not shits at all, but something else.
I wonder what would be a good name for them?
Shame can be consuming. People can ruminate on what is bothering them so much that they shut other people out. Then they get deeper into themselves and more cut off. They may get to the point where they see no way out.
The next time someone reacts angrily, think, What is going on here? Is this person covering up?
Most of us are too quick to blame ourselves. How self-centered we are when we blame ourselves for someone else's actions and words.
We are not the center of the universe. We do not cause other people’s behaviors. We are not that powerful. We are not that important.
De-center. Think about the other person. What is going on for that other person. Be willing to look at your own contributions. Often someone else's angry cover-ups have nothing to do with you!
See Sally Satel's article in today's New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/health/psychology/12essa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Reactors, True Believers, and Clever Foxes: Three Categories of Being a Shit
There are three general categories of being a shit: those who react without thinking and are out of touch with the effects of their actions on others, those who believe their own concoctions and dismiss the effects of their actions, and, those who know exactly what they are doing and enjoy themselves while doing so. Each of these three types has a better chance of success when social customs and traditions justify their behaviors.
Type 1: Reactors
Despite humanity’s long acquaintance, we know little about being a shit. Those who misunderstand the true nature of their actions cannot enlighten because they react without thinking. They are unable to report to others why they behave as they do because they have no thoughts to report. Self-focused and clueless about the effects of their behaviors, they show little caring and empathy for the recipients of their unkind deeds. Finally, they have no sense of humor.
When their unkind deeds come to light, their spontaneous responses are blunt, blaming, and loud. They are incapable of insight into their wrong-doings and would sell out their mothers rather than admit they did something wrong.
These are Type 1 enactments of being a shit and the persons who act them out are Reactors. Reactors are the most spontaneous, least reflective, and least skilled of the enactors of being a shit, and, yet, they could be the most common.
Type 2: True Believers
Those who believe their own concoctions represent the second type. They may explain their behaviors at length, but their explanations are distorted and untrustworthy. As a result, they cannot contribute to a theory of being a shit because from their perspectives the meanings and import of their conduct are self evident. They have no empathy for those they hurt by their unkind deeds. They gleefully mock others and mistake mockery for good-natured humor. They are willing captives of their own perspectives.
When recipients object to their unkind deeds and cover-ups, a favored response is dismissive: “You’re too sensitive.” “Where’s your sense of humor?” “I was only kidding.” Other typical responses are indignation and even outrage. Their incapacities to see the points of view of others and their intolerance of alternative explanations confuse those who take them seriously.
Unlike Reactors who have few or no reasons for why they do what they do, this second type of enactor has explanations that are logical to them, but, when viewed with a clear eye, their explanations are partial and distorted. Therefore, they, too, cannot shed light on the true nature of their behaviors and cannot contribute to a theory of being a shit. These are Type 2 enactments and those who act this way are True Believers.
Type 3: Clever Foxes
The third type are those who know exactly what they are doing and enjoy themselves while doing so. They will not contribute to a theory of being a shit because they do not want to give up the pleasures, joys, and other advantages that they gain from their unkind deeds and cover-ups. They have well-developed skills for humor, irony, bluffing, bullshit, obfuscation, prevarication,[1] and other higher order talents.
They have a special type of empathy in that they can spot the vulnerabilities of others, but instead of sympathizing, they take advantage for their own gain. These enactors are more complex and, some may say, more interesting than True Believers and Reactors whose strategies are typically the in-your-face style. This third style is called the Clever Fox.
[1] These are lies, or statements that can have more than one meaning, such as I never had sex with that woman, with the speaker defining sex as sexual intercourse” and the audience defining sex as “sexual touching” such as mouth—to-penis contact
Type 1: Reactors
Despite humanity’s long acquaintance, we know little about being a shit. Those who misunderstand the true nature of their actions cannot enlighten because they react without thinking. They are unable to report to others why they behave as they do because they have no thoughts to report. Self-focused and clueless about the effects of their behaviors, they show little caring and empathy for the recipients of their unkind deeds. Finally, they have no sense of humor.
When their unkind deeds come to light, their spontaneous responses are blunt, blaming, and loud. They are incapable of insight into their wrong-doings and would sell out their mothers rather than admit they did something wrong.
These are Type 1 enactments of being a shit and the persons who act them out are Reactors. Reactors are the most spontaneous, least reflective, and least skilled of the enactors of being a shit, and, yet, they could be the most common.
Type 2: True Believers
Those who believe their own concoctions represent the second type. They may explain their behaviors at length, but their explanations are distorted and untrustworthy. As a result, they cannot contribute to a theory of being a shit because from their perspectives the meanings and import of their conduct are self evident. They have no empathy for those they hurt by their unkind deeds. They gleefully mock others and mistake mockery for good-natured humor. They are willing captives of their own perspectives.
When recipients object to their unkind deeds and cover-ups, a favored response is dismissive: “You’re too sensitive.” “Where’s your sense of humor?” “I was only kidding.” Other typical responses are indignation and even outrage. Their incapacities to see the points of view of others and their intolerance of alternative explanations confuse those who take them seriously.
Unlike Reactors who have few or no reasons for why they do what they do, this second type of enactor has explanations that are logical to them, but, when viewed with a clear eye, their explanations are partial and distorted. Therefore, they, too, cannot shed light on the true nature of their behaviors and cannot contribute to a theory of being a shit. These are Type 2 enactments and those who act this way are True Believers.
Type 3: Clever Foxes
The third type are those who know exactly what they are doing and enjoy themselves while doing so. They will not contribute to a theory of being a shit because they do not want to give up the pleasures, joys, and other advantages that they gain from their unkind deeds and cover-ups. They have well-developed skills for humor, irony, bluffing, bullshit, obfuscation, prevarication,[1] and other higher order talents.
They have a special type of empathy in that they can spot the vulnerabilities of others, but instead of sympathizing, they take advantage for their own gain. These enactors are more complex and, some may say, more interesting than True Believers and Reactors whose strategies are typically the in-your-face style. This third style is called the Clever Fox.
[1] These are lies, or statements that can have more than one meaning, such as I never had sex with that woman, with the speaker defining sex as sexual intercourse” and the audience defining sex as “sexual touching” such as mouth—to-penis contact
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
What? No Cover-Up?
With great expectations for the greatest cover-ups ever, I read a news article today about the many entrepreneurs in China who are adding inert or dangerous fillers to animal and fish feed and to food for human consumption. Babies, cats, and dogs so far are known to have died.
I was just crushed. Not once in that very long article was there one cover-up. Not one. Imagine! Doing this much harm and not having a ready-made cover-up.
These perpetrators of dastardly deeds are amateurs. Any self-respecting shit or bastard would have had three public relations firms and seven media consultants working dawn to dusk to come up with cover-ups such as "I can't recall" or "Someone else put it there," or "They had pre-existing conditions." "Even mistakes were made" and "I didn't do it" are better than nothing. How about, "I knew nothing about it?"
The writer thought perhaps the entrepreneurs had greed as their motivation. Hm.
A more in-depth article would have interviewed the entrepreneurs if for no other reason than to add to the world's repertoire of cover-ups.
The article was woefully inadequate without cover-ups.
I was just crushed. Not once in that very long article was there one cover-up. Not one. Imagine! Doing this much harm and not having a ready-made cover-up.
These perpetrators of dastardly deeds are amateurs. Any self-respecting shit or bastard would have had three public relations firms and seven media consultants working dawn to dusk to come up with cover-ups such as "I can't recall" or "Someone else put it there," or "They had pre-existing conditions." "Even mistakes were made" and "I didn't do it" are better than nothing. How about, "I knew nothing about it?"
The writer thought perhaps the entrepreneurs had greed as their motivation. Hm.
A more in-depth article would have interviewed the entrepreneurs if for no other reason than to add to the world's repertoire of cover-ups.
The article was woefully inadequate without cover-ups.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
United States Court of Appeals and the FCC
They had me going for a while. I thought I would be fined $325,000 each time I used the word shit in my book On Being a Shit. My gosh! I use it hundreds of times in the book. Imagine if the Federal Communications Commission had gotten wind of that.
I would be in the hole for at least $65,000,000. I would have had to take that job I got offered last week as CEO of a health care organization that only paid $100,000,000 a year, but I could get by on that. I think.
I turned down the CEO job because the salary would compromise my values. But if the FCC had fined me, I would have had to shelve my higher self and stoop to take that job.
I’m off the hot seat now. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that included Fox News, NBC, CBS, and others and against the FCC.
Until the ruling, the FCC was poised to fine the utterance of shit and fuck $325,000 each. This is a way for the FCC to “clean up” the networks, another brilliant initiative of the Bush administration. What did former President Carter say recently about this administration?
The court’s opinion cited Bush’s use of shit at a meeting of world leaders last year and Vice President Dick Cheney’s suggestion to a U.S. Senator: “Go fuck yourself.” The court reasoned that neither of these words referred to sexual acts or bodily excretions but were "fleeting expletives" of frustration.
I believe that deleting shit from my book “would have altered the nature of the … work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the [book’s]… experience for..[readers.]”
This quote is adapted from the FCC’s ruling to allow the film Saving Private Ryan to be shown complete with its use of fuck, shit, and other such words.
My argument indeed for my use of the word shit.
When someone dumps on us and then tries to cover up, a typical reaction is "You shit!"
What’s good for king shits is good for the rest of us. Heaven forbid that we use those words to refer to sexual acts or bodily excretions.
I would be in the hole for at least $65,000,000. I would have had to take that job I got offered last week as CEO of a health care organization that only paid $100,000,000 a year, but I could get by on that. I think.
I turned down the CEO job because the salary would compromise my values. But if the FCC had fined me, I would have had to shelve my higher self and stoop to take that job.
I’m off the hot seat now. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that included Fox News, NBC, CBS, and others and against the FCC.
Until the ruling, the FCC was poised to fine the utterance of shit and fuck $325,000 each. This is a way for the FCC to “clean up” the networks, another brilliant initiative of the Bush administration. What did former President Carter say recently about this administration?
The court’s opinion cited Bush’s use of shit at a meeting of world leaders last year and Vice President Dick Cheney’s suggestion to a U.S. Senator: “Go fuck yourself.” The court reasoned that neither of these words referred to sexual acts or bodily excretions but were "fleeting expletives" of frustration.
I believe that deleting shit from my book “would have altered the nature of the … work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the [book’s]… experience for..[readers.]”
This quote is adapted from the FCC’s ruling to allow the film Saving Private Ryan to be shown complete with its use of fuck, shit, and other such words.
My argument indeed for my use of the word shit.
When someone dumps on us and then tries to cover up, a typical reaction is "You shit!"
What’s good for king shits is good for the rest of us. Heaven forbid that we use those words to refer to sexual acts or bodily excretions.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
"Mistakes were Made" is Another Cover-Up
"Mistakes were made" or "Mistakes were made all around" are cover-ups that politicians use. These cover-ups also have great potential in divorce, raising children, and in any other dispute where one party wants to cover up misdeeds by spreading the blame around.
Don't buy it! You are responsible for your own actions. Other people are responsible for their own actions. End of story. Even children, if they are lucky, have parents who teach them that they are responsible for their own actions.
Children, and many adults, however, do not know where their own responsibility ends and another person's responsiblity begins. We adults have to figure this out for ourselves and teach children how to tell the difference.
The spouse who has an affair says I wouldn't have done it if s/he had not been so cold. Cold or not, the wandering spouse is dishonest is s/he does not look at her or his own motives and actions. Rule 1 in marriage: do not inventory the deficits of your spouse. Inventory your own. Your spouse will do the same.
People take advantage of other people's vulnerabilities all the time. What wandering spouse wouldn't want to get off the hot seat? Pointing the finger at someone else works when the target of the finger feels guilty.
Why do people cover up? Fear of exposure. Fear of shame. Fear that others will think less of them. Fear of consequences if misdeeds come to light.
Consequences can be harsh if wrong-doers tell the truth. Floyd Landis's manager was fired after he admitted that he had made a threatening phone call to Greg LeMond to intimidate LeMond into not testifying at Landis's doping hearing.
What might the consequences have been if the manager had gotten away with the intimidation?
Don't buy it! You are responsible for your own actions. Other people are responsible for their own actions. End of story. Even children, if they are lucky, have parents who teach them that they are responsible for their own actions.
Children, and many adults, however, do not know where their own responsibility ends and another person's responsiblity begins. We adults have to figure this out for ourselves and teach children how to tell the difference.
The spouse who has an affair says I wouldn't have done it if s/he had not been so cold. Cold or not, the wandering spouse is dishonest is s/he does not look at her or his own motives and actions. Rule 1 in marriage: do not inventory the deficits of your spouse. Inventory your own. Your spouse will do the same.
People take advantage of other people's vulnerabilities all the time. What wandering spouse wouldn't want to get off the hot seat? Pointing the finger at someone else works when the target of the finger feels guilty.
Why do people cover up? Fear of exposure. Fear of shame. Fear that others will think less of them. Fear of consequences if misdeeds come to light.
Consequences can be harsh if wrong-doers tell the truth. Floyd Landis's manager was fired after he admitted that he had made a threatening phone call to Greg LeMond to intimidate LeMond into not testifying at Landis's doping hearing.
What might the consequences have been if the manager had gotten away with the intimidation?
Friday, June 1, 2007
"I cannot recall" as a favored cover up
Saying "I cannot recall" is a favorite way that enactors cover up unkind deeds. Nick said that when Cara said he had been cruel. This is the story of how they got back in touch with each other.
Two months after Nick sent Cara the birthday card and Cara concluded that Nick was clueless, Nick got in touch through email. He began with, "I probably should not be doing this but what the hell...been playing on Google Earth and tried to bring up your house but without success."
He said he looked for "the circle around the tree" in Cara's front yard. He said he was "beginning to feel old and mortal." He complained about work. He had done an internet search to see what Cara had been up to. He said his search "suggests you are busy. " Then he asked if Cara had any news.
Cara wrote back a week later. She told him that his email had come just at a time when she was missing him especially and she wondered about psychic connection. She continued,
"We've had such wonderful times together that I said to myself this week I find it hard to believe that these times were not wonderful for you, too. I cherish my memories of us together and would like the barriers between us to dissolve. I can't see how that is possible, although there was a time when I would have done all I could to have seen that happen.
"I'm glad you think of me, and I hope you cherish the memories."
She told him a bit of news about friends who had had a commitment ceremony the week before. She said that the words the two women exchanged were words "I wish you and I could have said to each other: Loving what we know about each other and trusting what we do not know."
She continued, "My wish for you is that you say those words to someone who is worthy of them.
"You have a full life with Moira and her family. Unless things change drastically and you finally come clean, I see little hope that I would want even an email friendship with you. There is far too much unexplained cruelty from you to me for me to ignore. You did say once, 'I hurt you,' and you were contrite. I actually need much more explanation than that."
She said that she cannot see how even an email friendship is possible when there is so much that she wants Nick to explain.
Nick responded right away. He said, "Ok. I thought we could have had an email orrespondence but I read your words 'I cannot see how we can maintain a connection even via e-mail' and I respect them. We did have wonderful times and they keep coming back to me when I least expect them, and yes I also 'cherish' those memories."
He said "I cannot recall" the cruelty or it was about. He continued,
"Sometimes you cannot explain everything in this world. I hope that will always be the case. We need some 'unknowns' even when it's our own behavior. The world is healthier with some mystery in it, even self mystery."
If Cara needed more reason to conclude a relationship between them was hopeless, she had it.
A few months later, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified under oath before a Senate committee that he "cannot recall" the events that led up to the firing of 8 U.S. federal attorneys.
"I don't remember" is a variation of "I cannot recall."
There must be a school for shits that expert recipients know nothing about. Where is that school? How do people learn to be shits? Does anyone know?
Two months after Nick sent Cara the birthday card and Cara concluded that Nick was clueless, Nick got in touch through email. He began with, "I probably should not be doing this but what the hell...been playing on Google Earth and tried to bring up your house but without success."
He said he looked for "the circle around the tree" in Cara's front yard. He said he was "beginning to feel old and mortal." He complained about work. He had done an internet search to see what Cara had been up to. He said his search "suggests you are busy. " Then he asked if Cara had any news.
Cara wrote back a week later. She told him that his email had come just at a time when she was missing him especially and she wondered about psychic connection. She continued,
"We've had such wonderful times together that I said to myself this week I find it hard to believe that these times were not wonderful for you, too. I cherish my memories of us together and would like the barriers between us to dissolve. I can't see how that is possible, although there was a time when I would have done all I could to have seen that happen.
"I'm glad you think of me, and I hope you cherish the memories."
She told him a bit of news about friends who had had a commitment ceremony the week before. She said that the words the two women exchanged were words "I wish you and I could have said to each other: Loving what we know about each other and trusting what we do not know."
She continued, "My wish for you is that you say those words to someone who is worthy of them.
"You have a full life with Moira and her family. Unless things change drastically and you finally come clean, I see little hope that I would want even an email friendship with you. There is far too much unexplained cruelty from you to me for me to ignore. You did say once, 'I hurt you,' and you were contrite. I actually need much more explanation than that."
She said that she cannot see how even an email friendship is possible when there is so much that she wants Nick to explain.
Nick responded right away. He said, "Ok. I thought we could have had an email orrespondence but I read your words 'I cannot see how we can maintain a connection even via e-mail' and I respect them. We did have wonderful times and they keep coming back to me when I least expect them, and yes I also 'cherish' those memories."
He said "I cannot recall" the cruelty or it was about. He continued,
"Sometimes you cannot explain everything in this world. I hope that will always be the case. We need some 'unknowns' even when it's our own behavior. The world is healthier with some mystery in it, even self mystery."
If Cara needed more reason to conclude a relationship between them was hopeless, she had it.
A few months later, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified under oath before a Senate committee that he "cannot recall" the events that led up to the firing of 8 U.S. federal attorneys.
"I don't remember" is a variation of "I cannot recall."
There must be a school for shits that expert recipients know nothing about. Where is that school? How do people learn to be shits? Does anyone know?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Victim-Blaming and Being a Shit
An example of unkind deeds and cover-ups (being a shit) in regard to criminal matters is a father who commits incest on his daughter. When the daughter tells her mother who in turn calls the police, the father cover ups by saying that the mother refuses to have sex with him and the daughter repeatedly made passes at him.
He succeeds at being a shit when others believe him. In some cases, mothers and daughters accept the blame. They have internalized the beliefs with which the father defends himself and for which others excuse him.
To this day, some victims of sexual abuse and rape are silent out of fear that they will be held responsible. See Patricia Francisco, Telling: A Memoir of Rape and Recovery (New York: Harper Collins, 1999) and Surinder Jaswal (2005). Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse in Health Facilities, Indian Journal of Social Work, 66 (4), 395-413, 2005.
Other sources of my understandings of what it means to be a shit come from my job as a social worker. I have had direct experience with many children who have experienced abuse and neglect and perpetrators have refused to take responsibility for their behaviors. They prefer to let the children feely as if they did something wrong and they deserved or caused these adversities.
My work with survivors of sexual and physical assault of women provides additional background to the present investigation. Society assigns blame to survivors for their own assaults and thus colludes in foisting on victims responsibility for their own rapes and battering. What did she do to provoke it? Why didn’t she kick him you know where? Why didn’t she just leave? These examples hardly do justice to victim-blaming statements that shift focus from those who truly are responsible. Such a diverting of attention lets perpetrators off the hook. Then they are free to abuse someone else, or to re-abuse the victim who is now silenced.
He succeeds at being a shit when others believe him. In some cases, mothers and daughters accept the blame. They have internalized the beliefs with which the father defends himself and for which others excuse him.
To this day, some victims of sexual abuse and rape are silent out of fear that they will be held responsible. See Patricia Francisco, Telling: A Memoir of Rape and Recovery (New York: Harper Collins, 1999) and Surinder Jaswal (2005). Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse in Health Facilities, Indian Journal of Social Work, 66 (4), 395-413, 2005.
Other sources of my understandings of what it means to be a shit come from my job as a social worker. I have had direct experience with many children who have experienced abuse and neglect and perpetrators have refused to take responsibility for their behaviors. They prefer to let the children feely as if they did something wrong and they deserved or caused these adversities.
My work with survivors of sexual and physical assault of women provides additional background to the present investigation. Society assigns blame to survivors for their own assaults and thus colludes in foisting on victims responsibility for their own rapes and battering. What did she do to provoke it? Why didn’t she kick him you know where? Why didn’t she just leave? These examples hardly do justice to victim-blaming statements that shift focus from those who truly are responsible. Such a diverting of attention lets perpetrators off the hook. Then they are free to abuse someone else, or to re-abuse the victim who is now silenced.
Stay the Course When You Get Blow Back
Former President Jimmy Carter provided of model of what not to do when enactors blow back--that is, when they have harsh or soft responses to the objections of others to their unkind deeds.
Mr. Carter was unprepared for the responses he got when he famously criticized the administration of George W. Bush as the “worst in history” in terms of its “adverse impact around the world.”
A Bush White House spokesperson had an immediate harsh comeback, which was a cover-up that diverted attention from Carter’s criticism. Tony Fratto said Carter’s words are “sad and reckless evidence” that Carter is “increasingly irrelevant.”
This is hardball. Fratto’s words must have been a direct hit at the hot buttons of the aging statesman. The next day in a nationally televised interview, Carter tried to take back some of he had said. In this electronic age, there was no way he could. The day after Carter’s attempt to roll back his words, President Bush delivered a soft cover-up when he said his (Bush's) “actions are based on what’s best for this country.”
Fratto said of Carter’s rollback on his criticism of Bush, this “just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words.” Fratto chose his own words of criticism so carefully Machiavelli would be proud.
In actuality,Carter had a point. At the time he criticized the Bush administration, the United States was in fact held in disfavor throughout the world for its foreign policy. Had Bush and members of his administration chosen to be accountable, they would have said that they take the words of an esteemed elder statesman seriously.
They would have promised to look into the truth of Jimmy Carter's words and report back to national and international audiences.
Instead, a spokesperson attacked Carter and Bush took the “high road” of virtue that Michiavelli recommended.
Carter had the support and encouragement of many. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton refused to criticize Carter’s words and said the Iraq policy has failed, President Bush is stubborn, the Iraqi government is unwilling to make “tough decision” and as a result “our young women and men are in harm’s way.”
Carter waffled when it is important for recipients of unkind deeds and cover-ups to stay the course. Jimmy apparently could have used back-up. Before his famous remarks, He might even have strategized with confidant(e)s about the many possible ways that the president and his team might respond. Had he done so, he would have stayed the course.
Routinely, a spokesperson or two says something really harsh and then the president comes on the air with soft but firm words that expound on his own virtue, while indirectly casting his critics as unenlightened and unpatriotic.
Jimmy Carter made the big mistake of acting alone. By the time others spoke up to endorse his views, he had already tried to take back his words. He did not stay the course.
Mr. Carter was unprepared for the responses he got when he famously criticized the administration of George W. Bush as the “worst in history” in terms of its “adverse impact around the world.”
A Bush White House spokesperson had an immediate harsh comeback, which was a cover-up that diverted attention from Carter’s criticism. Tony Fratto said Carter’s words are “sad and reckless evidence” that Carter is “increasingly irrelevant.”
This is hardball. Fratto’s words must have been a direct hit at the hot buttons of the aging statesman. The next day in a nationally televised interview, Carter tried to take back some of he had said. In this electronic age, there was no way he could. The day after Carter’s attempt to roll back his words, President Bush delivered a soft cover-up when he said his (Bush's) “actions are based on what’s best for this country.”
Fratto said of Carter’s rollback on his criticism of Bush, this “just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words.” Fratto chose his own words of criticism so carefully Machiavelli would be proud.
In actuality,Carter had a point. At the time he criticized the Bush administration, the United States was in fact held in disfavor throughout the world for its foreign policy. Had Bush and members of his administration chosen to be accountable, they would have said that they take the words of an esteemed elder statesman seriously.
They would have promised to look into the truth of Jimmy Carter's words and report back to national and international audiences.
Instead, a spokesperson attacked Carter and Bush took the “high road” of virtue that Michiavelli recommended.
Carter had the support and encouragement of many. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton refused to criticize Carter’s words and said the Iraq policy has failed, President Bush is stubborn, the Iraqi government is unwilling to make “tough decision” and as a result “our young women and men are in harm’s way.”
Carter waffled when it is important for recipients of unkind deeds and cover-ups to stay the course. Jimmy apparently could have used back-up. Before his famous remarks, He might even have strategized with confidant(e)s about the many possible ways that the president and his team might respond. Had he done so, he would have stayed the course.
Routinely, a spokesperson or two says something really harsh and then the president comes on the air with soft but firm words that expound on his own virtue, while indirectly casting his critics as unenlightened and unpatriotic.
Jimmy Carter made the big mistake of acting alone. By the time others spoke up to endorse his views, he had already tried to take back his words. He did not stay the course.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Bush Defenders Succeed at Being Shits
There they go again. Bush defenders once again have succeeded at being shits. This time the recipient is former U.S. president Jimmy Carter who said the Bush presidency was the worst in history.
A featured letter in my local newspaper, called the comment “contemptible” and immediately attacked President Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is classic. Being a shit is composed of four parts.
1. An unkind deed. In Bush’s case, he has so many unkind deeds it would take years to catalogue them.
2. Desire to cover up unkind deeds. Bush and his spokepeople want to do impression management and make Bush out to be cowboy hero.
3. Cover-up. When Carter exposed the president, the first strategy was to attack Carter. The attack leaves out Carter’s genuine accomplishments and calls upon a tradition of former presidents not commenting on sitting presidents. Carter decided not to honor this because he believes too much is at stake.
4. Recipient buy-in. I hope Carter knows this attack on him is a cover-up. I am less sure that naïve and trusting readers will realize that what this letter writer and other Bush defenders are doing is enacting a perfection rendition of being a shit.
A featured letter in my local newspaper, called the comment “contemptible” and immediately attacked President Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is classic. Being a shit is composed of four parts.
1. An unkind deed. In Bush’s case, he has so many unkind deeds it would take years to catalogue them.
2. Desire to cover up unkind deeds. Bush and his spokepeople want to do impression management and make Bush out to be cowboy hero.
3. Cover-up. When Carter exposed the president, the first strategy was to attack Carter. The attack leaves out Carter’s genuine accomplishments and calls upon a tradition of former presidents not commenting on sitting presidents. Carter decided not to honor this because he believes too much is at stake.
4. Recipient buy-in. I hope Carter knows this attack on him is a cover-up. I am less sure that naïve and trusting readers will realize that what this letter writer and other Bush defenders are doing is enacting a perfection rendition of being a shit.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Unkind Deeds and Cover-Ups: Nick and Cara
Cara said to Nick when she found out he has been seeing another woman, “What do you want? A harem?” Nick responded, “Two women? That’s not much of a harem.” Cara laughed, tickled by the charm that endeared Nick to her. With the laugh, Cara’s tension lifted, and they talked about other things.
Nick had finessed Cara in an elegant, tailor-made way. His involvement with another woman had hurt Cara, and he covered up through humor. He had been with Cara long enough to know that a humorous response would distract her and lift her mood. By her laugh, Cara cooperated with Nick. She enabled him to be a shit.
The potential for being a shit exists wherever two or more people congregate. Persons who succeed at being shits are so good at what they do that recipients do not realize they have been had. Cara, for example, did not know that Nick had hoodwinked and distracted her.
On Being a Shit sheds light on a pervasive human condition. In this book, I develop and test a theory of being a shit. This is the theory.
Being a shit is composed of four parts:
1. an unkind deed,
2. a desire to evade responsibility for the unkind deed,
3. cover-up, and
4. recipient buy-in; that is, the enabling responses of recipients that let enactors off the hook.
Enactors succeed at being shits only if the recipients of their unkind deeds buy into their cover-ups. Without recipient buy-in, enactors fail at being a shit.
Nick had finessed Cara in an elegant, tailor-made way. His involvement with another woman had hurt Cara, and he covered up through humor. He had been with Cara long enough to know that a humorous response would distract her and lift her mood. By her laugh, Cara cooperated with Nick. She enabled him to be a shit.
The potential for being a shit exists wherever two or more people congregate. Persons who succeed at being shits are so good at what they do that recipients do not realize they have been had. Cara, for example, did not know that Nick had hoodwinked and distracted her.
On Being a Shit sheds light on a pervasive human condition. In this book, I develop and test a theory of being a shit. This is the theory.
Being a shit is composed of four parts:
1. an unkind deed,
2. a desire to evade responsibility for the unkind deed,
3. cover-up, and
4. recipient buy-in; that is, the enabling responses of recipients that let enactors off the hook.
Enactors succeed at being shits only if the recipients of their unkind deeds buy into their cover-ups. Without recipient buy-in, enactors fail at being a shit.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Enactors Play Hurt or Get Angry
Enactors of unkind deeds have so many different cover-ups that it's hard to figure them all out. I just discovered one more that has manipulated me more times than anyone can count. That is the person who does something unkind and when you ask them to behave differently in the future the person says sorry, acts hurt, and slinks away. Oh, my, I with my mountain-sized sense of guilt immediately feel guilty, as if I did something wrong by requesting another behavior in the future. I'm tempted to run around telling people what happened to make sure I am not a bad person. I doubt that I am the only one.
Another way that people who do unkind things defend themselves is to get angry. Many times I avoid dealing directly with someone who is out of line because I don't like to be yelled at. For many years, I didn't know that I avoided direct communication when I was displeased because I did not want to get yelled at. My mind has played tricks on me.
Whether someone slinks away acting hurt or whether someone yells at me, they have me. I cooperate with the cover-ups and they succeed at being shits.
I wonder how many other people do similar things.
Another way that people who do unkind things defend themselves is to get angry. Many times I avoid dealing directly with someone who is out of line because I don't like to be yelled at. For many years, I didn't know that I avoided direct communication when I was displeased because I did not want to get yelled at. My mind has played tricks on me.
Whether someone slinks away acting hurt or whether someone yells at me, they have me. I cooperate with the cover-ups and they succeed at being shits.
I wonder how many other people do similar things.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
On Being a Shit
This blog is for anyone who has been the recipient of unkind deeds and cover-ups, a broad audience indeed. From time to time, I will post examples of people being shits. I invite other people to post their own examples.
I will also post a theory of being a shit and will test the theory. The following is how I see unkind deeds and cover-ups.
No matter where we go, we run into other mortals who practice the art and craft of being a shit. We are awash in execrable[1] behaviors. Everyone contributes to them. They’re such a part of our everyday lives that we fail to notice them and take them for granted.
Some practitioners have reached that state of perfection where recipients think they are at fault. Getting others to believe it is their fault is a crowning achievement of being a shit. Without the cooperation of others, being a shit would be impossible.
Being a shit dates back to antiquity and perhaps to the dawn of human history. According to legend, one of the first instances was when a member of a mastodon hunting party threw a spear into the side of fellow hunter and then inquired of the injured one why he had been so stupid as to get between a hunter and his prey.
The injured person said to the hunter who had caused the injury, “My heart goes out to you. You must be disconcerted that this accident should befall you.” The spear thrower accepted the injured one’s apology with grace. The wounded hunter was filled with gratitude and vowed his undying loyalty to the spear thrower. Since that time, wrong-doers have had an unbroken record of success in convincing others that they are at fault.
[1] execrable=loathsome
I will also post a theory of being a shit and will test the theory. The following is how I see unkind deeds and cover-ups.
No matter where we go, we run into other mortals who practice the art and craft of being a shit. We are awash in execrable[1] behaviors. Everyone contributes to them. They’re such a part of our everyday lives that we fail to notice them and take them for granted.
Some practitioners have reached that state of perfection where recipients think they are at fault. Getting others to believe it is their fault is a crowning achievement of being a shit. Without the cooperation of others, being a shit would be impossible.
Being a shit dates back to antiquity and perhaps to the dawn of human history. According to legend, one of the first instances was when a member of a mastodon hunting party threw a spear into the side of fellow hunter and then inquired of the injured one why he had been so stupid as to get between a hunter and his prey.
The injured person said to the hunter who had caused the injury, “My heart goes out to you. You must be disconcerted that this accident should befall you.” The spear thrower accepted the injured one’s apology with grace. The wounded hunter was filled with gratitude and vowed his undying loyalty to the spear thrower. Since that time, wrong-doers have had an unbroken record of success in convincing others that they are at fault.
[1] execrable=loathsome
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
