Anecdotes
Stimulating short stories in support of mutually satisfying communications
Updated/corrections/edits 12/15/24 (Viewing tip: Resize this window so that each line has about 10 - 12 words.)
| The Homework Story (about agreements) | The Suicide Hotline Story (about helping vs. serving) | |
| The Copier Story (about complete work) | To Cause or Not to Cause—a story (about intending) | |
| The General's Story (about workplace coms) | The Zen Master Bird-poop Story (about intentions) | |
| The Playground Story (about lying) | Parole—The First 24-hrs—a story (about recidivism) | |
| The Carp Pond Story (about acknowledgment) | Military Academy Scandals—a story (about agreements) | |
| The Water Pump Story (about integrity) | Integrity of The House—a story (about stealing) | |
| Conspiracy for Mediocrity (about couch potatoes) | First Contact—a story about acknowledgment (about validation) | |
| king, kerrith—a story (auto-bio) |
Permission to copy/publish/reprint these stories is always granted via Contact Us (no fee) with the following acknowledgment, "Contributed by Kerrith H. (Kerry) King" or ". . . by Community Communications."
homework
The Homework Story —could also be titled, "Homework: Assigning vs. Communicating."
This story goes back to 1973 when I was teaching speech-communication part-time on the Manoa campus of the University of Hawaii. Students reported on their Instructor Evaluation Form that they thought they learned more with me than with other faculty members. It was also a time of awesome struggle in my second marriage; coincidentally, the Sp-Com Professors were communicating much the same as my now ex and I. The faculty members were bad-mouthing and making each other wrong about combining the Speech and Communication Departments. Most disconcerting was the fact that although my students said they learned a lot from me I knew they were still deceiving their parents at the end of my course—still withholding energy-sapping thoughts and childhood perpetrations [deceits, lies, abuses] from them. [The majority of parents, using what we were teaching them about communication, train their children to deceive them, evidenced by the fact that most dating teens con each other into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have sex.] —in truth, my students mirrored me and my ex and the faculty.
Whatever we were teaching, thought I, it sure wasn't communication. I had just completed Werner Erhard's est Training and his Communication Workshop for Educators so I had a glimpse of what was possible. I left the university and as a communicologist (a Leadership-Relationship Communication-Skills Consultant/Coach) started my ten-person support groups. Since then (44+ years) the vast majority of clients have come through referrals—with no paid advertising.
Although the interim stories are interesting The Homework Story takes place in 1987, 14-years later, with me retiring to the Big Island of Hawaii and another part-time teaching position, this time on the Hilo campus of the University of Hawaii. Once again my subject is, "Introduction to Speech-Communication."
I was excited about the opportunity. I had just spent fifteen years working with some of the most prominent business persons on Oahu Hawaii (multi-cultural to the max). We're talking about thousands of first-person experiences in the cultural melting-pot of the Pacific Basin; I knew I'd be able to do an excellent job. I had learned from personal experience that leaders need constant daily support in telling the truth (honoring their word—keeping agreements, creating agreements that work, and restoring and maintaining their integrity (verbally acknowledging procrastinations and perpetrations, especially verbal and non-verbal abuses).
It's my first day: I have a fresh haircut, an ironed aloha shirt, and word-processed outlines. I'm cool and ready to go. The 22 students are great. We have fun introducing ourselves, getting to know each other, communication courses are like that. We co-create the class agreements. I'm on schedule with my 50-minute class and I've left a generous 5 minutes to assign the homework. They leave in good spirits and my next identical class comes in. I'm on a roll. Like the others they are mostly freshman from the Big Island of Hawaii's high schools. We have a fun time with lots of laughs (I enjoy the lyrical sounds of Pigeon English). As with the first class we co-create the Class Agreements and I assign the identical homework ("Read the first chapter"). As always, I end classes exactly on time.
It's day two: After about five minutes of scheduled small talk, so as to create some space for communication to take place, I have them form into small discussion groups and share what they got from the reading assignment. I immediately noticed that the majority had not read the first chapter. And, none had raised their hand (per a class agreement) to say so. H'm, I could have sworn I communicated. Well, it's my responsibility. I had lapsed into doing my imitation of communication; obviously, I had not communicated that I meant for them to do the homework. So, I modified my outline, cut short the discussion groups, and allowed myself 10 minutes to assign the homework. This time I made certain they got that I meant it.* They reaffirmed their commitment to the Class Agreements, one of which was to do the homework. They left in great spirits.
As soon as the second class was seated I asked, "Raise your hand if you did the homework?" One third raised their hands. I acknowledged those that did and those that didn't. For the remainder of the class I had them do small-group work on a subject I took from the first chapter, the foundation for the remainder of the course. Again, I allowed ten minutes to assign the homework. I was certain they heard that I wanted it done. Note: It became clear that they were mirroring my objection to the required textbook (communication-skills are seldom changed through reading) such as with you reading this now.
Day three: I begin with, "Is there anyone who didn't do the homework?" This time about 50% of the class raised their hands. The same thing happened with the second group. Obviously their definition of the word agreement was homegrown. With both classes I now set aside 15 minutes to communicate the homework. We talked about the reasons they proffered as to why most didn't do the homework; they had graduated from high school without learning that reasons serve as barriers to getting, to acknowledging, the truth. Most had an understanding about the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes (karma) but few had had a direct experience that anchored in a commitment to maintaining ones integrity.
Day four: About five in each class didn't do their homework; not always the same students either. I had them choose study partners and they exchanged phone numbers and times to call each other (much the same as with my Support Groups). They each agreed to be responsible for the other doing the homework.
Eventually, we spent the whole class talking about what this was about. They shared, ". . . most teachers don't expect everyone to do the homework." And, ". . . they don't check homework consistently." "They just say, 'Here's the homework' but they don't mean it." The students also reluctantly confessed that other UH Instructors and Professors were "not as strict" as I was, and that ". . . high school teachers accept reasons." Another student candidly said, ". . . yah, it's easy to con teachers."
After the class two students went to the Dean with tears in their eyes complaining about me. I got a call from the Speech-Communication Department Chairman "requesting" that I meet with him and the Dean. They asked, condescendingly, "What are you doing?" [as in, What in the hell are you doing?]. I glibly answered what I took to be a rhetorical question; "I'm teaching students how to communicate." They looked at each other and almost in unison said, "No, no, no! Your job isn't to teach them 'how' to communicate. Your job is to 'introduce' them to the fundamentals and principles of communication." I'm sure my jaw dropped. I felt embarrassed, humiliated, and upset. With both a B.A. and an M.A. in Speech-Communication I had never made that subtle yet significant distinction before.
In one crystallizing moment everything became clear to me. No wonder most high school teachers have a difficult time inspiring students to do the homework, no one has ever modeled for them how to produce that result. It's not a leadership-skill that's taught to education majors at the university level; myself, I was fortunate to have been exposed to many different leadership-support skills during my childhood as an orphan and tours in the Navy and the Army.
The Chairman continued,
"We can't afford to teach students how to communicate. We're not set up to handle the anger and drama. Students quit when they get angry. Two of your students want to transfer out of your class. They say they will drop out of the university if we don't let them transfer to another Instructor. We need their tuitions."
I mumbled something about one of the agreements the students made on the first day—to communicate any upsets with me first—and, that I wished the Dean had asked them, "Have you talked to Mr. King about this?" I knew from their comments, and the fact that I wanted to be right and make them wrong, that it was hopeless. I should have gone to them both, at the beginning of the semester, and asked if they would support my students in honoring their agreement to communicate upsets to the person with whom they have the upset. Duh! As though I didn't know the university faculty communication model (appropriately referred to as the Adversarial Communication Model) supports (behind the back) blaming badmouthing.
The Dean then said that he and the Chairman would sit in on one of my classes the following day. I said that it would be OK as long as they would agree to sit in the circle and participate in the discussions and, be willing to be coached if I saw that their non-verbal communications were affecting the space. They both said that they didn't want to be a part of the discussion, merely to sit in the rear and observe. I told them they would influence the student's participation. Unbelievably, they both argued that their presence wouldn't affect the students. I realized in that moment that I did not have the skills, nor permission, to remind them of something I had learned in a freshman speech class—that observers always affect outcomes (read about entanglement). I told them that it wouldn't work for me to have them observe. They were upset; neither verbally resolved their upset through to mutual satisfaction with me; they did not come to my class.
The two students transferred to another class. I gave the rest of the students a choice, ". . . a watered-down easy course, or, the best I knew how." They unanimously opted for the latter. I finished the semester and founded Community Communications, a truly nonprofit (no one gets paid) educational organization.
I later discovered that 19 of my 42 freshman students had been enrolled in remedial comprehension and composition courses, partly because their high school teachers had been afraid to insist upon homework being turned in neatly and on time—their teachers understood how to communicate subject matter but job-survival triggered fear resulting in mediocrity. For four+ decades 25% of the nation's college freshman have required revenue-generating remedial comprehension and composition courses to learn what their K-12 "teachers" failed to communicate. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
* I.e. "If you show up for class without your homework done, hand me your parent's telephone number when you arrive. We'll call a parent and have a speaker-phone conversation with them so that everyone can hear the reasons." It's an example of, "I really really mean it!" Note: One of the agreements a parent makes is to be available for phone calls days and evenings. They must agree to receive all calls.
If you liked this story please press the "I liked .
. ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though
nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return For seven years I volunteered my
services "Assisting" four-hours a week, plus hundreds of
events, at the
est Office of Hawaii. That's another story. This one
is about an experience with Elaine Cronin, the est office
manager, whom I hold in highest regard. At age 32, and my
experiences with several dozen orphange counselors and my extensive
military trainings, and a B.A.
and an M.A. degree in speech-communication, I had never come
across a leader, a genuine manager. It was a privilege to
work with her. I discovered the energy that's generated from
service, from doing complete work; of handling each interaction, each
problem, through to completion. One day Elaine gave me a stack of
300 letters to fold, add two inserts, and stuff into
envelopes. She demonstrated exactly how it was to be done. I
was a bit miffed that she thought I needed a demonstration,
but (with a tinge of condescension) I watched anyway. She then had me do one. She then said,
"No. This way." She showed me that I had not placed the fold
of the letter in the envelope exactly as she had
demonstrated. I was always discovering how unconscious I was
around her. She kept me awake. Having satisfied her that I
knew how to do the job as she envisioned she left. About 10 minutes into the job Elaine
came out of her office and asked me to make a copy of
something. It's significant to note here that
we were working at the level of excellence, to get the job
done exactly as communicated. Each job was an exciting
opportunity, not only to serve but to show how great I was.
Can you spell e-g-o? So, I went to the copier and placed the
paper perfectly. I looked at the result. It wasn't centered
left to right. I did three more copies, each one more
towards perfection. I then sped back, like a second-grader
having erased my first chalk board, with my great job done.
She thanked me. She had no idea of the trouble I went
through to do it perfectly. She really didn't care about how
much time it took for me to learn how to do it correctly,
just that I recreated her intention. The drama was mine.
I then returned to the table
outside her office and resumed stuffing the envelopes. About
five minutes had passed when Elaine came out and stood
watching me for a few seconds and then, from the middle of a
stack, took out one and opened it—they hadn't been sealed
yet. She took out the letter and showed me it was missing
one of the inserts. It shocked me; I would have bet money
that I had been doing yet another perfect job. Then, to my
embarrassment, she asked me to get her master copy I had
left in the copier. My jaw dropped to the floor. As I
returned from the copier and handed her the master copy she
said casually, with no emotion whatsoever, "Go though the
stacks and double-check those you've done." I did and that
was the only one I had goofed up on.
It was mind blowing. I couldn't believe what she had
done; to be so in tune with things. And no, she could not have seen me make
the missing insert mistake from her office nor could she have checked them
while I was at the copier.
I had had enough experiences with
Elaine, and other
est staff members, to know it wasn't luck that she
reached into the middle of the pile and found my one error. How did she know to look for the error, the
incomplete? She had found herself making a mistake at her desk due to her
incomplete job of supervising me in doing complete work with the copier job.
Magic happens in the space of integrity, when one is committed to doing
complete work. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return The Army hired a communication
consultant to improve communications, specifically between
and amongst the junior officers and enlisted personnel. The consultant asked the generals
how communication was between themselves and their
subordinates. Almost as though rehearsed they replied that
it was "pretty good." They all said they had an "Open Door
Policy." They sincerely felt as though they were there for
their men. The enlisted men could come in any time and talk
about anything. This is not always so; one is expected to go
through channels, often having to ask the person with whom
one has the problem. The consultant then asked the
middle-echelon officers, the colonels and majors, what they
thought. The officers said that they also had an open door
policy for their men and ensured that the policy was kept
all the way down the chain of command. They felt things were
quite good with senior officers, they were however, ". . .
always aware of being diplomatic and respectfully courteous
when talking with them." They all said they were more
spontaneously honest with fellow ranking officers. When the enlisted men were asked
what they thought was the communication problem in the
military, they said they couldn't tell their superiors the
truth. They were always worried about promotions and pretty
much kept their opinions of their sergeants and officers to
themselves. The Open Door Policy? Yes, it's there, but who's
going to tell a sergeant or a general the truth? Whenever
possible, " . . . you tell them what they want to hear." The point of the story is that no matter
what the leadership of an organization thinks, those dependent
upon management for promotions and survival withhold certain
thoughts, the personal-growth feedback, the stuff that really
counts. Amazingly, every retired general knows of one other
fellow retireee who is still experienced to be a dogmatic, arrogant,
abusive,
self-righteous bore to his/her spouse—in part, because no one
(not even his/her spouse) had the skill nor courage to get into
effective communication with him/her. There is a communication model that
supports open, honest, and spontaneous communication. It's
not taught in public schools.
—Kerrith H. (Kerry) King If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return My first recess, the first day of second grade
in a new school. We had just moved. My parents had promised me wonderful
new friends, excited to meet me. So far, the response had been cool at
best. No one seemed to notice me at all, and everyone already had
friends. So I sat alone at recess, in a safe shady spot, uncomfortable,
anxious, assessing the mass of students, wondering where my niche was. Then, a loud bell rang. The raucous playground
jumped, and kids jumped down from tires, off swings, running in all
directions, disappearing into different doors along the brick wall. I
ran too, toward a door, following the crowd, but as I got closer I
realized it was younger children streaming into it. Wrong door. I stood
still as the crowd of kids washed over me, looking for a face I knew.
They all looked like strangers streaming by. Suddenly another bell rang,
and all at once the doors closed. There I stood, alone in the silence,
in a vast concrete plain of playground. I faced the red brick wall lined with orange
doors. Maybe twenty doors. Each door looked identical; no words, no
pictures, all the same orange. The silence and the wind, and my grief
and fear, and total aloneness. Would anyone even know I was out here?
Were the doors locked? Alone, abandoned, probably about to get yelled at
if someone did discover me still out at recess. I stared hard at the
doors. I searched within me to see if I knew it, could remember by
instinct which one it was. I felt stupid and ashamed. Everyone else,
even those smaller children, every single one knew which was their door.
Every second I waited in that silence, the terror was building that
someone was about to come out and yell at me, thinking I was bad and
skipping school. Being new, no one knew I was good yet. I did not want
to walk back into the second grade on my first day crying like a child
before all those strangers, having been stupid. But I was crying. I
tried to stop, but it was too late. There was no hiding it now, and no
excuse for it. Only a medical emergency would do. I picked a door and burst into it, covering one
eye with my hand, into a quiet room full of staring older students, and
an unfamiliar teacher. I felt a twinge of relief that it was not my own
class. "Help" I sobbed to the strange teacher, "I have something in my
eye!" Put out but concerned, she called on a boy and told him to take me
to the nurse. He was gruff and contemptuous, but he escorted me through
the labyrinth of halls to the bright office without requiring from me
even a word, which suited. He left me there, with a real nurse, wearing
a white outfit and everything. She had me lay down on a paper-covered
cot while she tended someone else. My heart sang. I breathed in the
cooling air-conditioned air, and the mint/disinfectant smell, and was
comforted.
When she came to speak with me her manner was
gentle, but when she said, "What's wrong?" I was undone. I cried and
could not speak. She waited awhile, then began to question me. "Did you
fall? Cut yourself on something? Twist an ankle?" Sobbing, I shook my
head, but one part of me was waiting for her to name some hurt that fit.
"Do you have to use the bathroom?" I paused in my crying, and realized
that I did. So I went, and after I splashed my face in cold water, and
collected myself somewhat. I came out. "I had something in my eye, but I
cried it out." I felt bad lying to her, in her clean bright space, but
better than having her, my only ally, know how stupid I was. She
assessed me coolly, then said, "Very well, you may return to your
class." "I don't know the way!" I said instantly, about to cry again
thinking of the dark maze, twists and turns and strange doors. "I will
take you," she said, and did.
But the next day I had the same problem, and was
back on the paper couch after an identical incident. I did this for
about a week, until I managed to latch on to someone I could recognize
from my class at the end of each recess, and stay on their heels until I
was through the correct orange door. The nurse wised up, of course and
began to ask things like, "Is there a class you have now that you don't
like? Math, maybe?" But after I evaded the interrogation, she always
escorted me back to my classroom. I never told anyone the real reason. —
by Kim Wilkinson, Board Member, Community Communications. If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return Several years ago it became clear to me that our
education system could not work as we know it can if we continued to use the present
leadership-communication model taught to education majors; even worse, I
knew I didn't have the leadership-communication skills to effect a new
curriculum. The more I learned the less I knew. It hurt deeply. It
shattered my Yankee can-do-attitude to the very core, so much so that I
checked into a Zen monastery in Japan. I had entertained thoughts of
retiring there.
Appropriately on either side of the main
entrance to many Zen temples are two fierce looking guardians. The one
called Paradox the other Confusion. The point being, that to experience
enlightenment one must pass through (choose to experience) both. It was
no secret that I was escaping and seeking refuge. I rationalized that I
thrived on serving so what better place to retire to than amongst people
committed to enlightenment? The monastery surpassed my mind's picture of
what one should be like. It was exquisitely beautiful and serene; to
this day I often tear up in appreciation of the simplest of meals.
This story takes place one chilly morning. One
thing I hadn't counted on, after living 13 years in Hawaii, was the
crisp cold mornings atop Mt. Koya. I was sitting on a centuries-old L-shaped wooden porch
overlooking a carp pond. Water trickled down into the pond from a near
vertical dew-covered mountain side. For me it was quite close to
nirvana. I was doing my imitation of meditation and not very well
because I was easily distracted by a gurgling slurping noise made by
some leaves that were stuck in a wire strainer at the far edge of the
pond. The wire-covered overflow pipe was to prevent the water from
getting too high. The sound and activity engaged me as I sat like a
turtle warming myself. I was attempting to Zen the leaves away without
success and the noise continued to echo in the amphitheater-like
surroundings.
I hadn't been there but a few minutes when Happy
Heart, that's as close as I could get to the translation of the Zen
Master's nickname, came out. He looked at me and then towards the
gurgling noise. Without a word he slowly turned and went back inside.
Within a few minutes two monks came out, took off their sandals, and
within seconds they had waded into the frigid knee-deep water and
removed the leaves. The reverence with which they did this task was such
that it was clear they were merely giving the leaves another place to
play. The two bowed towards me and left; then Happy
Heart came out. He looked at me and I looked at him. And though an
observer could have seen that not a word was exchanged, what I
experienced was the most profound acknowledgment in my life. It was the
first time I had ever been in the presence of what I call greatness or
knowingness and not felt as though I had a long way to go. He was there
to serve and honor me. I was deeply moved. I wish there was some appropriate moral with
which I could end this story other than I was there to serve and in turn
was validated. I left the monastery shortly thereafter. One of the reasons I left? It has nothing to do
with the truth but it's interesting, at least to me. It became clear to
me that a Zen Master considers himself to be a success if he can replace
just himself before he dies. It's not the kind of communication model
where there is room for input or change. The system works, to the degree
it works. My commitment now is to incorporate the best parts of all the
communication models of the world into one universal model, one that we
can all drop into from time to time, especially when it's important that
everyone feel good upon completion of a conversation. —Kerrith H.
(Kerry) King If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return Crawling on burnt hands and knees across the
blistering hot sand, his throat rasping in searing pain with each
seemingly last breath, with only a couple miles to go before he reached
town, a miner came across a rickety wooden cabin. In the cabin was
a rusty water pump. The pump handle was in the up position, as though it
was waiting for him. Tied to the handle was a goatskin flask with at
least a cup of water in it. Attached to the flask was this note. Dear Traveler, I assume you need water and
shade; that's why I drilled the well and built this cabin. You may
drink the water and it will see you to safety, or, you can risk
pouring it down this rusty pump so as to wet the leather washers
thereby enabling you to prime the pump and drink your fill and
refill the flask for the next needy traveler. The variables seem obvious. Far from any desert,
with our thirst quenched, we are able to sit righteously detached and
weigh all the factors. For example, we might think, "It would be too
risky to pour the water down a possibly dry well." "What if the leather
washers were so dry that they had cracked and broke?" "I know, I'll
drink the bag of water and come back later and replace it." Unbeknownst to the miner there are several
fundamental success-generating principles at work. The miner drinks the
water and promises to return and leave much more than a small flask.
However, he gets bit by a scorpion and dies paralyzed not 100 yards from
town. Obviously, he dismissed the thought that while he was gone another
traveler may have needed the water—such a philosophy is referred
to as survival at the expense of another. What's the purpose of this story here in a
website about communication? Well, (pun intended) it's about integrity as a
communication variable. When something doesn't go as envisioned one
can't be certain, if it has to do with one's integrity or simply a
communication problem, until one has eliminated the outcome as being a
consequence of an unacknowledged
out-integrity. "H'm, let's see. What
could this broken agreement be about?" If nothing comes up it's most
likely about your agreement-making skills. For most, the question
reveals a thought about an incomplete, an unacknowledged perpetration, a
broken agreement with another. For example: Take the case of a
mechanic "past due" for his monthly house rent payment, who opts for his
own survival. The mechanic has valuable tools or a TV that he could sell
so that his landlord doesn't have to sell something to meet his/her own
monthly mortgage payment. But, the mechanic thinks, "I'll keep my tools
so I can make some money so I can then pay my rent." He doesn't realize
that he has had this survivalist philosophy, this ground of being, of
his own survival being more important than his word, for many years.
All
people (such as D. J. Trump) who have filed for bankruptcy, including
their spouses, have this survivalist philosophy. It contributes to
their failure.
In the study of communication it's imperative
that you study the subject of integrity. Look now to see what your
philosophies are—
1) Do you think the death of the miner might
have something to do with the fact that he opted to drink the water
without concern for another? 2) Do you think
there's a possible connection between the fact that the mechanic
doesn't have enough money to pay his rent and the fact that all
along he's not been committed to keeping his agreements?
3) Is there anyone who would say you are
surviving at their expense?
4) Do you have any broken financial
agreements that are causing others hardships?
—Kerrith H. (Kerry) King If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return Once upon a time in the land of Be, where
everything is perfect, there lived a young person. We're not sure
whether the person was a boy or a girl. Anyway, this person had an
amazing talent; believe it or not they could cause people to do exactly
what they were doing. Now you may smile, or even laugh at this unusual
seemingly obvious ability, but it's true. No matter what someone else
was doing, this young magician could snap their fingers and, POW! They
could even get adults to do what they were doing. Actually, most of the
time it wasn't necessary to do the finger snapping. To tell the truth,
it didn't make any "POW" noise either. They just silently, non-verbally,
intended it. Can you imagine walking down the hallway in
school and someone yells at you, "Hey stupid! Yah, you!" And you
saying, to yourself of course, "Thanks. I obviously needed that. Somehow
I knew I could count on you to say that." Or your mother, calling you
into the kitchen, and before she can open her mouth you saying, "Yup ,
I'll go clean my room." Would that blow her mind or what? It was cool. Everywhere this awesome young
person went it was the same. In school, with a teacher who was grumpy,
they thought, "I wonder why I'm causing that? I sure did a good job." At
other times, in fact quite a lot of the time, they forgot that they
could cause what was happening to be happening. For instance, when they
got in an argument with their best friend, who wouldn't let them borrow
their bike, they'd have to stop the argument and remember that they were
causing their friend to be stingy. How can you get mad at someone who's
doing what you're intending them to do? Now you may be thinking, yah,
but why would someone cause that? Why would someone cause another person
to be stingy? Well, you have to remember they could only cause what was
happening to happen. Actually, you the reader have the same ability,
this magical power. You can choose to be exactly where you are right
now, this moment. Go ahead, choose it, right now. Kind of simple isn't
it. Almost silly, yes? Well, it's not so silly when you see two adults
arguing. It's easy to see that both have forgotten they have the same
ability; to stop, listen, and intend for the other to be saying exactly what
they are saying. If you want you can spend a lot of time trying
to figure out why something is happening, or why it happened, but it's
not necessary. Really! You don't have to figure it out. When the time
comes for you to know, you'll know. The answer will magically appear as
to what the genius in you was up to, the one who unconsciously intended
something
unpleasant to happen. Until then, just be willing to accept the
koan—that you caused it because you caused it. Here's your opportunity to be magical. The
story's about end, would you like to have a shot at intending that? Once
you choose to cause what's happening you too get to be magically
transported to the land of Be where everything is as it is, perfect. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return Early one crisp morning a monk asked his Zen master,
"Sir, will you teach me how to manifest an intention? The Master
replied: "We're always manifesting our intentions, I assume you mean a
stated intention, a result you consciously intend?" The monk
acknowledged the difference and that often he got something other than
what he envisioned because he had not been clear about his intention; he
replied, "Yes." The Zen master said, "Sure. Sit down. I'll show you how
to cause a bird to poop in that bowl on the table, on my command. How's
that?" The monk said, "Way cool," or something like that. And they
sat down.
As dusk approached, the monk said, "Sir, I don't
mean to be rude, but you said . . ." The Zen master interrupted him and
said, "Yes. And I will. We're waiting for a bird to poop in the bowl.
When it does, I'll command it to poop." To manifest a stated intention you must begin by
intending what's "happening" to be happening, to choose what's so to be
so. To create something you first must know how to
create nothing. Until you know how to create nothing, the space
(referred to as potential) from which everything is created, you can't
be certain you are creating anything. Until you know how to create
nothing life just happens. For example: For most divorced
couples love at the beginning just happened. We know this to be true
because during the divorce process neither knew how to recreate the
experience of love—at will, simply through communication. Some, not all,
later discover, that they had become stuck, each doing his/her
imitation of communication. —Kerrith
H. (Kerry) King If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return . . . the motivation behind the
Community Support Group Project. With a clean slate and within minutes of leaving
the correctional facility a parolee, often believing they are intent
on going straight, is usually picked up at the gate by a spouse, family
member, or friend. Quite possibly they are asked, "Would you like to
drive?" They are elated. They accept the offer and cautiously pull out
on to the freeway. The experience of freedom is exhilarating. Soon they
find themselves being passed by those going even faster than the 5 mph
allowed over the posted limit. They dutifully obey the speed-limit signs resisting the
urge to keep up with the flow. But their passenger says, as though they
are joking, "Hey, you've been inside too long. You're holding
up traffic." The parolee, now brainwashed to follow instructions without
hesitation, unwittingly succumbs to the peer pressure. And so, within
minutes of parole, they have been lovingly supported by a "true friend"
in breaking a law, risking a sanction by their parole officer if they
get a speeding ticket; most likely both forgot that the parolee's
license had expired and that he doesn't have a Learner's Permit. They ask their friend if they can stop off at a
book store because they promised their parole officer they would buy a
study guide for the upcoming Carpenter Journeyman's Test. The friend
says, "Great, I'll treat you to some good coffee at Borders." He buys
his book while his friend buys two cups of coffee and sets them on a
table. His friend then leads him to the magazine rack and urges him to
pick out a few magazines to read. Not wanting to be a stick-in-the-mud
he does as expected, knowing full well that reading without paying is
wrong, and that he's ripping off not only the merchant but the
distributors and authors. He feels uncomfortable doing it and
keeps looking up, expecting, if not a Corrections Officer, possibly a
clerk, to ask, "May I see your receipt please?" The friend notices his
furtive looks and further encourages him, "Relax. Look around. Everyone
does it." It doesn't occur to him that Borders is capitalizing on the
unethicalness of customers—the implied but not posted browsing policy
ostensibly generates more sales. A "No Browsing Please" or a "Please
Browse" sign would support everyone's integrity. [Note: This story was
sent to the CEO of Borders and they ignored it. Borders has since gone
out of business.] The "friend" is unaware that twice now they have
supported the parolee in resorting to the same behaviors that
contributed to his incarceration. Later they will say to others, "Yah,
it's too bad. I could tell he was heading back to prison." When at home an old
friend stops by and asks if he wants to go see some of the guys. He
eagerly accepts the invitation. The guys, one of whom is wanted for a
parole violation, are drinking beer, some are smoking pot; he refuses
both. Everyone laughs but they understand and seemingly accept his
decision. However, they keep kidding him, and offering him tokes, trying
to assure themselves he's still one of the guys. Later, when a few whom
he respects have left the party, he finally has one beer and just two
very-stony tokes. Later, on the way home, the slightly tipsy
driver of the car almost rear-ends another car; he casually mentions,
"Damn, that was lucky, no got da kine insurance." This is a given for
quite a few of the parolee's old friends so it's "No big ting." It's
always been that way. The parolee remains silent, unaware of the
friend's unethical dump, the unconscious test, to see just how straight
the parolee is going to go. Silence assures the uninsured perpetrator
that the parolee is still the same old accepting (enabling) friend. Later, at home, sitting around the kitchen
table, his mother mentions how helpful his brother had been while he was in prison, "He let me claim he lives here so I could get more food
stamps and welfare money." Again, silence is complicity. It is
unthinkable to say anything about the fraud. It's always been that way
with one thing or another. Nothing "really" serious, nevertheless, both
illegal and unethical. Each perpetration throughout the day eroded the
experience of wholesome integrity that was there earlier in the morning.
Each complicity having its own karmic consequence. Each perpetration begs to be
verbally acknowledged to prevent compounding consequences. Not having
anyone to clear with, to acknowledge the day's good deeds and perpetrations,
the parolee falls asleep, but it's not the healthy sleep of a person
committed to integrity—his mind trails off as it did after his very
first unacknowledged childhood lie. "Yup." When his mother asked if he
had brushed his teeth. He is neither whole nor complete, "But what the
heck," he mutters to himself dozing off, "nobody else is either." Note: Nationwide, 42% of all parolees
return to prison, in part, because they have not been acknowledged
(caught) for all of life's perpetrations—other than what they were
incarcerated for, or for the perpetrations they got away with
during their incarceration. For more read:
Prisontalk Forum posts. If
you liked this story please press the "Parole - The First 24-hrs . . ."
button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing
happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return With military precision (pun intended) one can
count on an academy scandal every few years. They take turns—the Navy,
then a few years later the Army. This story is about the Air Force
"rape" scandal circa 2003. What follows is a point of view
that I, a former Navy submariner, a "Frogman," and an
Army Airborne Infantry Officer have not seen elsewhere. For many this is going to be
extremely uncomfortable to read. It has to do with responsibility,
cause, intention, and communication.
Your challenge is to read the entire story, to be with, to
choose to experience, the upsets it triggers (find the truth in it
rather than argue with it).
Following is an overview of the '03 scandal: A female cadet
reported that a senior male cadet had raped her, not once but repeatedly
throughout the semester. When the female cadet finally reported the
incident about 40 (yes, forty) other female cadets came forward and said
that they too experienced similar, and worse, treatments by many male
cadets.
The behavior of the male cadets is so
reprehensible it's difficult to get to responsibility, to cause, in the
matter. What has yet to be reported is the equally
reprehensible out-integrity of each of the "victims" and, of the
Academy's Commandant—the person responsible for communicating and
supporting the academy's code of
honor.
America's military academies operate from what's
referred to as a Code of Honor. Specifically: "A cadet will not lie,
cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." The code describes exactly
how to handle a perpetration. I.e. If a cadet observes another
cadet or a staff member breaking a rule, the cadet has agreed (pledged
his/her word) to confront the rule-breaker and ask him/her to stop. If
the perpetrator refuses to stop then they must be told that they leave
the observer no choice other than to report them; or else, and here's
the biggie, both the perpetrator and the observer will be reprimanded
equally, possibly expelled. So we ask: How dare a male
upper-classman make sexual overtures, let alone rape in the form of
sex-at-my-command (a most heinous misuse of control and power), towards
a junior female classmate, except with the fear of knowing, with
absolute certainty, that it will be reported? We also ask: If both the victim
and the perpetrator are equally bound by the same code of honor what
choice does the female have other than to handle the infraction (the
first leer, the first untoward communication) as pledged by her word of
honor? Would she even want to belong to an organization in
which, if she reported such behavior, she was not believed?
Didn't each female cadet give her word to the Commandant of the Academy
that she could be absolutely trusted to support the code—or, were all 40
female cadets lying? Most would agree that they were all ignorant about
the correlation between personal integrity and mission results; few high
school grads, no matter how smart, have an experiential knowledge of the
subjects of integrity and agreements. I.e. Understanding responsibility
is as far from knowing as is not knowing. BTW: It's
not the cadet's fault. The Code of Honor was irresponsibly
delivered instead of it being
communicated. Next we ask: Who communicated
to the male cadets that such behavior was acceptable? This is tricky
because it addresses one's (your) definition of
responsibility, of cause. With these
incidents the alleged "victims" did not make it absolutely clear, they
did not communicate, they did not carry with them hourly, in their very
countenance, that intimate socializing was absolutely not an option.
Ironically this, "Don't even think about it" communication, this
position, is a leadership-communication skill that appears to come more
naturally to most men. A homosexual male experientially knows that there is
virtually no space, no possibility, for a sexual relationship with a
well adjusted heterosexual man; there's not even a tiny hint (not a
micro-tell) of a
possibility. The same is true for a lesbian; most men intuitively know
that there is no possibility—though many ego-bound males try. This
countenance frees one to eliminate sex as a communication variable in
their relationships. Just as men act differently around women so too do
women (even unconsciously) act and dress different in the presence of
some men. For women this difference in behavior is referred to as being
"at
effect" of men. Now we ask: Who communicated to
the cadets that such behavior was acceptable? It was—unbeknownst
to most everyone—the Commandant himself. How do we know? We know by the
results he produced using his leadership-communication skills. It was in
fact unconsciously communicated non-verbally. As Einstein might say,
"it's spooky;" it's a nonlocal (no wires, no gravimetric or electronic
signal) instantaneous ("Old-boy-network") kind of transmission—that he
(the Commandant) doesn't know psychically emanates from his macho
persona—until it's revealed. Within a few conversations, during a
typical three-hour communication consultation with a
communicologist (a communication-skills coach) the Commandant would acknowledge that he
held (and most likely still holds) unacknowledged prejudiced, biased and
sexist views.
Unawares (unacknowledged) these views get communicated
non-verbally. Just as many women are addicted to unconsciously
seducing men so too does a leader communicate his/her biases.
Just because one doesn't know how they produced a result doesn't mean
their leadership-communication skills didn't produce it. Now here's big-time irony: The
subject of non-verbal, to include conscious and unconscious intentional
communication, is not included in any academy's leadership-communication
curriculum. It wasn't until I left both the Navy and the Army, and the
university education system, (see
about me) that I even heard about the
subject of leading (communicating) from intention. I first heard about
this communication variable in the business world during a Communication
Workshop for Educators presented by Werner Erhard (est Training, The
Forum) —I had been serving as the Director of Training for Hawaii's
then largest real estate company. Intention was not covered at all in
any of my B.A. and M.A.
speech-communication courses. Not even to this day do universities cover
such important communication variables as acknowledgements, incompletes,
integrity, perpetrations, withholds, and the biggie, responsibility—the
variables that a communication-skills coach knows with certainty are the
source of all
breakdowns in communication.
This leads to the question: Why
isn't the intentional communication model taught in our military
academies and to education majors nationwide? The answer is: A commandant,
chancellor, university president, and a communication-skills coach,
him/herself, must operate from impeccable integrity. Few leaders,
professors or teachers who get paid, can afford spontaneous candor;
fewer still would be willing to submit themselves to such rigorous
coaching. A totally honest teacher can be perceived as a threat to some
in today's leadership positions, in part because his/her students must
agree to be willing to go absolutely straight, this
includes cleaning up (acknowledging) a lifetime of perpetrations, from
cause (zero blame). In the presence of someone who operates from
integrity any out-integrity soon reveals itself. Herein lies (pun not intended) the rub,
the cause of military academy scandals, the code of honor is not
communicated. It is not delivered with an intention for it to
be honored, therefore it's only understood. It's not co-created; it's
neither gotten nor owned, therefore it's not recreated. If it is honored
it's because of fear (evidenced by the fact that such a cadet will still
have
withholds in his/her personal/familial
relationships). Note: It would take a
Communication-Skills Coach about three 17-hr days (a weekend-long
communication intensive) to communicate the code to the academy's
cadets, its staff, and administrators. A communication-skills coach
is someone who has spent as much time studying/teaching
communication as any professional has spent in his/her specific
field including medical doctors and psychiatrists. Most college
graduates (including politicians, education majors and mental health
professionals) acknowledge that they've only taken the required
Sp-Com courses, including the basic, "Intro to the Fundamentals and
Principles of Communication"). I know of no university
speech-communication curriculum that addresses the correlation
between personal integrity and outcomes, nor any that require
Leadership Training for education majors (courses, classes,
seminars and workshops about
leading? Yes. Training? No). That is to say, teachers are
put in charge of 20+- students without having demonstrated the
fundamental leadership-skills required of entry level enlisted
military leaders (i.e. Private/Corporal/Seaman/Airman).
For example: No Army Corporal would allow a squad member to
show up without all their equipment squeaky clean; whereas a
certified high school teacher will accept a student turning in
illegible homework partially done (the word "accept" here is inaccurate—a
leader causes/intends). Most academy commandants are stuck
somewhere in the process of becoming a leader: What you say? —a
general is not a leader, they are only acting like a leader? Yes. They
were promoted without the validation of a communication-skills coach;
the same pertains to your high school "teachers," the ones from whom you did not
learn. Senior military officers honestly (and arrogantly) believe that
what they call communication is what it is. The way one can tell that an
organization has a leader is that the agreements/rules are co-created
and honored. This is because a leader co-creates/communicates the
agreements as opposed to "announcing them,"
"putting them out,"
"telling them,"
"informing everyone," "saying them," "making them available," etc.
Just as a leader inspires integrity, so too do subordinates have no
choice (WHATSOEVER) other than to mirror the out-integrity of their
supervisors. An aura of integrity emanates from a leader. A
leader can tell from experience if there is a withhold or an
unacknowledged perpetration in a relationship. When a relationship
starts from integrity any out-integrity is like a "mote in thine eye."
It begs to be acknowledged (verbally communicated) and cleared.
For example: Most adults have
yet to be acknowledged (caught) for their own first lie/perpetration.
The majority of parents miss their child's first lie.
You might ask, why is the change (obvious to an objective observer) from
a countenance of innocence on their child's face to a look of guilt,
missed by most parents? It's simply because most parents have
accumulated so many unacknowledged
withholds and lies that they have lost
their ability to be-with, to experience, certain lies, to discern the
difference in another who is out-integrity. Adults even have a
category called, "white lies." At some point in time most parents and
leaders lapse into their
imitation of communication.
A
reader who experiences upset reading this denies the effects of both an
unacknowledged perpetration and the correlation between personal
integrity and outcomes; most likely they are both arrogantly ego-bound
and out-integrity. I.e. They are withholding one or more
significant thoughts from one or more significant people.
BTW: Who have more of an interest in not
providing Leadership Training at the college level—men or women? Such a
course would guarantee truthful (faithful) relationships; both would
have to surrender control 50% of the time. Wage parity would be the
norm.
Put another way, each Academy Commandant who has experienced a
cheating/abuse scandal has his own perpetration for which he/she has not
been acknowledged (caught). All generals have
deceived a superior and have not been acknowledged for that
specific
deception. I.e. Doing a half-assed job of cleaning their weapon after
which they have been presenting themselves as honest. Most senior
officers have lied to
expedite a request/order. Cadets have no choice other than to
mirror their commandant's integrity. There are no exceptions to
this
entanglement phenomenon. The prevailing military communication model
supports a leader in hiding his/her perpetrations (accumulated
throughout childhood and their previous command experiences) for fear of
not being promoted. Few generals have acknowledged to any
present-day superior the deceits they perpetrated that caused a former
superior to think of them as clever and resourceful.*
*
As in the TV
program Survivor, it's understood that
in the military deception strategies are required. The problem is that
no military branch offers clearing (debriefing) processes during the discharge
medical exam so as to eliminate the
karma of personal perpetrations. I.e. A pilot who survives a crash in
which others died, always wonders, for life, if the crash was a
consequence of his/her mind being partially preoccupied with their
marital infidelity or of having one or more "errors/sneaky omissions" on
his/her application form. An officer can't cause (inspire)
his/her troops to be any more honest than the officer is with his/her
own parents/spouse.
Here's an example of a few minutes of a proposed three-day weekend-long
leadership communication-skills workshop to be given at the beginning of
each academy year. It would be titled, "The
Honor Code of Conduct—a communication workshop." It would be
facilitated by a communication-skills coach with military experience. It
would include the following: "Let's begin. Will the following individuals
please go to the rear tables, there is an incomplete on your Academy
Application Form. Note to the reader:
Communication can not take place when there is an unacknowledged
error, perpetration, or withhold in the space. Nationwide
98% percent of all Job Application Forms have one or more
errors (to include a "lazy/accidental/purposeful"
omission/error/lie) on them. It's not only that the cadet
applicant made the error—that's what applicants do—it's that the
staff is so unconscious they did not catch it. Such sloppy work
condones sloppy performance and creates disrespect.
With few exceptions a poorly performing subordinate has
one or more errors on their paper work, beginning with their job
application paper work. The integrity of an
organization begins with the integrity of its records—all failed
goals reveal one or more incompletes having to do with paper
work. It's not as though a paper work error causes an accident,
it's that one can't eliminate the possibility, however remote,
that it has something to do with the integrity of its
leader, say, one who doesn't insist upon everyone doing complete
work. The following takes place sometime on
day-two: ". . . now I'm speaking directly to you
female cadets. If a male cadet in any way imposes himself sexually
upon you and you don't handle it per the "code"
you will be
expelled. Typically, a cadet will begin with a subtle
testing-the-waters seduction, something you experience to be
uncomfortable. The communication is so innocuous it can be
denied. It could even be an unconscious winking, something the male
might be unaware of doing until it's pointed out.
This is not
hypothetical; it will happen. Some male cadet who
needs to be caught for a life-time of sexist communications,
condescensions, manipulations, abuses and unacknowledged
perpetrations, will impose himself upon you in some fashion.
More accurately, you will, using your leadership-communication
skills (to include your unconscious emanations) cause a cadet to
think there's a possibility; it's referred to as a setup.
Women spend a lifetime purposefully not being too nice, too warm or
too loving because it can be misinterpreted as a come-on; as such,
they don't have much practice simply being, of not having an
unconscious agenda to repel or to befriend, or to keep at arms
length with no attachments. An unconscious woman who is not clear
about how she attracts will "accidentally" give off misinterpreted
vibrations. She most likely, during high school, abusively, argued
with her parents (made them wrong) about the effects of certain
revealing clothing. Walking around scantily dressed in a world full
of men whom women know are unhealthfully preoccupied with sex is, as
defense lawyers are wont to say, "inviting it." Such a woman is more
interested in making men wrong for their behaviors rather than
examining their own cause (her unconscious intentions) for
unwelcomed advances. Immature women need their daily fix of making a
man wrong for being sexually attracted towards them. Note:
During the workshop these statements trigger upset and reactions;
these thoughts must be verbally shared by all the
workshop participants; they reveal certain points of view one holds.
The point being, it's not wrong to have points of view; what doesn't
work is to have them and not be aware of them thereby communicating
them non-verbally and psychically (as in "creepy"). We can absolutely count on the above happening.
What I need to know now is whether or not I can trust you to ask the
cadet to acknowledge his uncomfortable communication. If he argues,
denies or invalidates your experience, then you must ask him to
report himself to a senior cadet who will ask the cadet to
acknowledge his/her inappropriate communication. If the "senior"
can't effect completion he/she must report it to a staff member who
in turn will report it to the next in the chain of command; if I can't trust you to do that then the military
doesn't want you.
Leave now [a long pause here for anyone to leave]. We do not want
covert saboteurs in the military. Silence condones. To be an
honorable officer you must be willing at all times to not have the
job. If you become attached to graduating then you will fail the
Commandant. You will compromise your integrity. You will have
thwarted and sabotaged the Commandant. We already know the male
cadet of whom we speak isn't ready to be an officer. What's
also true is the female who attracts and rewards by silence such
behavior is also not fit to be an officer. We don't need
another "tail-hook" incident in which you, yes you, let something
slide, for fear of . . . for reasons. You either maintain your
integrity or you have your reasons. Men, you are making the same agreement with
me. If any cadet, male/female, makes a sexual advance towards you then your
responsibility is to stop it mid-communication. Cleavage that would
be inappropriate when visiting the President or the Pope is
inappropriate here. Here, bras are required. There are no
"accidental" reveals or crotch shots. For example: You would
say, "This feels uncomfortable." If she says, "Thanks, I got
it." and stops, then you've both honored the code. The incident
does not need to be reported. If however she argues, blames, or
rudely dismisses you with a "whatever!" and leaves you not
feeling whole and complete, then your agreement is to ask her to
report herself. To not is to intend it. You must be willing to
source, to elicit (to cause), to be a safe space for another to
give you feedback, about your verbal, non-verbal and psychic
communications. In other words, it's unethical to non-verbally
support another in walking around all day with bad breath.
Note: When you report
yourself it does not necessarily mean you will be punished. Most
often a verbal acknowledgment, without any repeat of similar
behaviors, will complete the incident. We are going to spend this whole weekend
going over just what the code of honor means. The floor is
open for discussions throughout out the 51-hour "Honor Code of
Conduct—a communication workshop." No one leaves except that all are
clear. To not share a thought this weekend is as good as deciding to
not be an officer. I need and want to hear your biases, your
prejudices, your philosophies, your belief systems. I don't care
what they are. What's important is that you have the courage to
share them verbally with all of us rather than communicate them
non-verbally throughout your career. If you hide your
thoughts you are as good as washed out. Examples of withholds and
unacknowledged perpetrations: —many men believe that a woman wants a man
to take her. —many women have fantasies of being taken;
these fantasies are sometimes, unconsciously, communicated
non-verbally. —for females it's often that they
manipulated their date into begging for sex; their first "no" was a
lie and part of their seduction of the man, and then, in deceiving
both sets of parents. During such a workshop there is an
out-pouring (each cadet standing and sharing with everyone) all the
thoughts and beliefs you can imagine; workshops continue past
midnight until everyone gets that their thoughts (good, bad, sick,
noble, sexist, judgmental, evil) about men or women have been
acknowledged. More about the Air Force's honor code:
Here's a headline from the Honolulu Advertiser:
(5/15/04)
"Air Force Academy head takes blame in test cheating
scandal" Here it is, only a few months later and we see
that a Commandant is still using his old leadership-communication model. Still recovering from the rape scandal,
cadets once again unconsciously draw our attention to the academy's
leadership. It's a shame because the source of the problem is
not the cadets. Leaders lead and subordinates follow. Like misbehaving/failing
children the cadets are doing exactly what they are supposed to be
doing. Most students try to do as little as possible—in this case,
study. Leaders know this; however, those in the process of becoming
leaders (the academy staff) cannot tell when a cadet (a
subordinate) is jerking them around pretending to play the game.
Cadets have absolutely no choice other than to mirror the integrity of
the leader of the organization.
In this case, Lt. General John Rosa, the Academy
Superintendent at the time, was missing the leadership-communication
skills it takes to communicate, inspire and support the code of honor. Cheating is a powerful communication of
disrespect; it's an unconscious way of bringing to someone's attention the fact that
something is wrong. The Superintendent has become stuck doing his
imitation of communication. The cadets are presently faced with a
dilemma. They are bound by oath to support their Commander-in-Chief yet
at some level it's possible that a few hold the belief that something
about the U.S. invasion of Iraq is out-integrity; therefore, getting
expelled for cheating is ironically the most ethical, albeit
unconscious, way of getting out of the responsibility of leading men in
a battle they don't agree with. A part of an American's psyche is that a
man's home is his castle; we just don't assassinate other presidents.
There are other ways of communicating that will produce the desired
result. —by Kerrith H. (Kerry) King Even more about the effects of the leadership
at the Air Force Academy
7/2012
The Air Force is once again confronting a sex
scandal, this time at Lackland Air Force Base.
". . . dozens of female recruits were sexually
assaulted or harassed by their male instructors."
Col. Glenn Palmer had arrived at Lackland last
year and was in charge when allegations involving more than a dozen
instructors began to appear within his 737th Training Group.
Colleen McGee, chief of public affairs for Lackland's 37th Training
Wing, said, "But Col. Palmer did not create the environment that created
the misconduct," This statement reveals the prevailing gross
misunderstanding of the word responsibility; she herself is oblivious of
her responsibility for the out-integrity existing within her
organization. Within hours of assuming command a leader
communicates his/her standards, agreements, and rules,
whereas, someone in the process of becoming a leader does not.
Subordinates have no choice other than to mirror the integrity of their
superior. Also, no
leader accepts responsibility for a group's results except that
he/she, as a condition of accepting the position, insists upon releasing
and rehiring his/her choice of staff.
This time it's a
cheating scandal by General David Petraeus and his spouse.*
David, a graduate of West Point, became a four-star general, who
commanded all troops in Afganistan and later,
while serving as the Director of the CIA, both he and his paramour
continued cheating on his wife. The root significance of this incident has yet
to be mentioned in the media—the omission of which is of even greater
importance to us all. Here we have
one of West Point's most successful graduates who graduated without the
experiential knowingness of the correlation between personal integrity
and mission outcomes. One can only imagine what he would
have accomplished had he been a man of integrity. Again we see that the prevailing
leadership-communication curriculum taught at our military academies
doesn't effectively address the subject of personal integrity on
outcomes; if it were, General Petraeus, as the commanding officer of all
troops in Afghanistan, and again in Iraq, would not have dared risk the
success of our military mission, and subsequently, the
effects his continued infidelity had on our CIA, our nation's security. In other words, David has
an understanding
about the correlation between personal integrity and mission outcomes
but he had/has not learned it at the level of knowing. I.e.
Understanding that fire burns is different than knowing fire burns.
Understanding responsibility is as far from knowing as is not
knowing.
Given that all deceits have undesirable consequences we might ask
ourselves, "How dare Petraeus risk the lives of all those under his
command?" And the answer is—it's not his fault. He was
designated as a leader without having been certified as a leader by a
communicologist, a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach (a coach can, within a single
three-hour sit-down consultation, experience a person's integrity and
whether they are functioning responsibly). A coach facilitates
Communication Processes that restores a person's integrity. The
Commandants of our military academies are both unconscious and ignorant;
they can't teach (communicate) what they have not learned from direct
experience. They arrogantly believe that their understanding of
communication is what it is. Like all cadets, Petraeus had been
introduced to the subject of integrity but not as a communication
variable that affects all outcomes. He himself, if given a
choice, would definitely opt for a brain surgeon who wasn't cheating on
their spouse.* We can't
know for certain the effects of Petraeus's unacknowledged perpetration
against his wife; however, based upon personal experience we
know that we are not as sharp, not totally conscious, when our mind is
clouded (partially occupied with) a perpetration or a withhold (as was
the case between himself and his wife); we intuit that karma will
kick-in sometime.
* I say
spouse to remind the reader that a spouse is equally
responsible for the integrity of the family and the results they
co-produce—equally so of an officer's spouse. A
spouse leads by example; she either inspires integrity or not.
If her own integrity is out she automatically creates
out-integrities between her and her spouse.
Hillary Clinton
unconsciously created reminders (Bill's cheating and her losing
the election) to restore her integrity. An excellent indicator
that there's an incomplete in the space is when neither partner
can look the other in the eye for a full 15-minutes, read
The Clearing Process for Couples.
A spouse who operates with integrity can tell through a
micro-tell facial expression when there's an out-integrity (an
incomplete) between them (read
Clues that predict bankruptcy). More
about
infidelity "victims."
5/1994
3/2014
5/2021
8/2021
2/17/22
For more:
Communication Skills Tutorial for Vets,
Supporting a Service Member and,
Communicating with a Veteran.
If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return Picture if you will that you have been floating
around in the universe for as long as you can remember, just floating
along experiencing the mind-blowing scenery. And, that you have been
alone. You've always been alone and as far as you know you are the only
one in the universe; it could very well be this scenario isn't far from
the truth but that's a bit existential for this simple story about
acknowledgement. Notice we don't continue the story with, "And
then one day . . ." because there are no days or nights; there's not
even time as we know it. So, all of a sudden, literally from nowhere,
you see something different off in the distance and it's coming towards
you. It generates confusion and excitement. It's new. The closer it
comes the more experiences and thoughts it triggers. Then the reality of
what you're seeing sinks in; it's something that looks exactly like
you; in fact He/She/It is quite attractive. As this other you approaches
it triggers dozens of thoughts and questions. Once "It" is within hailing distance you yell
out, "Hi!" But Self #2 doesn't reply; it looks at you but ignores you as though you
weren't there. And so you repeat your greeting but a bit louder, "Hello!
Can you hear me?" Without waiting for a reply you burst out with a flood
of questions, "Who are you?" "Do you see me?" "Can you hear me?"
"Are you real?" and a final thought, "Hell, am I real?"
Still no reply, and as it floats by and off
into stellar darkness you yell out desperately, "Wait, don't go."
Not a nod, not even an obscene gesture (which, dear reader, I think
would be hysterically funny), nothing. Now you're left with gazillions
of thoughts and for the first time ever you are out-integrity; you are
not whole and complete. A part of you seems to be missing (perhaps
validation). Definitely something (curiosity) has been added. You are
incomplete; you've had your first interaction, your first experience of
interpersonal intercourse and, it was not mutually satisfying. It will affect you and
all your communications for life, such is the power of an
incomplete relationship. The End. Actually there's lots more because it
poses the question of whether or not you are real; without another to
acknowledge you you can't know for certain, such is the power of
a simple acknowledgement. A nod, a smile, a purposeful avoidance, a
condescending put-down, even a slap assures you that you are having an
effect, that you are real.
So, as we drift away from each other, I say,
yes! To me you are real. Yes you are having an effect, especially your
non-verbal communications and our conscious and unconscious intentions;
and yes, you are entertaining me—as in causing me to think in your
direction (a reaction to the experiences and thoughts that have been
triggered between us). You do have my attention; I teach and write
stories for you. Without you I am both nothing and everything. And, the
biggie, yes, I love you. For more about acknowledging read —
Acknowledging a Veteran and
communication breakdowns. If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return This story is about teachers and communication
and what appears to be a silent unconscious conspiracy that supports
mediocrity. It's assumed that all university
speech-communication professors know how to teach education majors to
communicate subject matter, yet each year, for the past several decades,
25% of the nation's
college and university freshman have
required remedial composition and comprehension classes to learn what their
K-12 "teachers" were supposed to have communicated—it begs the question: What's happening, why aren't
university professors and high school teachers teaching as we know they
can?* Following sheds some light on this phenomenon;
its purpose is to trigger conversations that will eventually make a
positive difference. Any new programs, such as
No Child Left Behind,
Race to the Top,
Common Core, and
the Every Student Succeeds Act, no
matter how brilliant, will only produce more of the same if they are
implemented using the prevailing communication model taught to
education and health-care majors.
—Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
We begin with a truism: The
majority of education majors admit that most of their Sp-Com
(speech-communication) classes were the easiest (the least challenging,
requiring the least amount of studying). Few college grads will
say that their Sp-Com courses were transformational, that communications
with everyone were never the same thereafter. Mo betta the reputation be: "The
Speech-Communication Department's four-year
Leadership Training Program required
of political science, health-care and education majors is by far the most challenging and demanding of
all college courses—it supports an experience of being an effective
leader." We also need to acknowledge another
uncomfortable truth. Most education majors with teaching degrees are
somewhere en route to becoming a teacher. The premise—a teacher
both knows the subject matter and how to communicate so that students
get it. On the other hand, education majors have no
choice other than to continue doing their
imitation of communication; they have
become stuck emulating their high school "teachers" and college Sp-Com
professors. For example: Most who have a
teaching degree do not yet know how to create an effective supportable
Student-Parent-Teacher Homework Agreement, one that consistently
produces all homework handed in on time and neatly. Why, we ask, is this
basic skill, that supports everyone's integrity, not taught? Part of the why is because such
a curriculum addresses the correlation between personal integrity and
results. The majority of education majors performing as
"teachers" are dragging into each student interaction their own lifetime
of accumulated
perpetrations for which they have yet to
be acknowledged (caught). A teacher, one who operates from integrity,
can experience another's out-integrity. A student whose family doesn't
operate with integrity is always looking for someone he/she can respect,
someone they can't con. When a student experiences an
educator who is out-integrity (connable) it triggers unconscious
disrespect; such a relationship is not inspiring. A student who is
out-integrity (with dozens of unacknowledged perpetrations—sneaky
behaviors including
hundreds of house-chores not done or done poorly) automatically mirrors
an educator's out-integrity, with the student and the educator
each unconsciously using the other as a means of restoring their
respective integrities. Another part of the
why has to do with ego.
College education majors have an understanding
of ego but their own is unacknowledged and intact. Most education majors
function as though their mind is the all-knowing self. Few have
experienced the profound humbling experience of the realization of not
knowing—of knowing that all one believes to be true, is both true and
not true. Fewer still
have experienced being cause for all the
breakdowns in communications between them
and others, including the abusive communications within their own
family. Fewer still, are willing to acknowledged that they intend
(albeit unconsciously) some students to do poorly; they honestly believe
that they are in-communication with the students and his/her parents. A
Teacher, having confronted (acknowledged) his/her ego,
will call a communication-skills coach and ask for support getting
into communication with a student and the parents who send their
child to school without the homework done. An Education
Major, posing as a teacher, will keep trying and
not ask for coaching. Education majors will (like an arrogant
self-righteous husband, who, when prodded by his spouse, refuse to stop
and ask for directions) fail a student, honestly believing that their
(the education major's) reasons are the truth; such lies (even though
they are unconscious) compound the consequences for the following school
year. It might be tempting to blame education
majors however, it's not their fault. For one, they haven't
been taught how to communicate subject matter (no excuses no reasons).
In fact, most believe that it can't be done; the belief has been
reinforced through their student-practical-teaching semester.
Most importantly, each education major
graduates with his/her own unique childhood definition of the word
responsibility still intact.
Ask all the educators in any school
the definition of the word
responsibility and you'll get as many
different definitions as there are educators; ergo, when an
education major posing as a teacher is asked to explain why a student failed they
proffer several reasons and excuses, but not the truth. I.e. "I see
now that I honestly thought I intended for the student to learn."
Or, "I failed to get into communication with the student and his/her
parents." Or, "I arrogantly refused to ask a communication-skills
coach for
free coaching." Notice in the above paragraph the "I"
point of view with its absence of blaming excuses and reasons.
This leads to another truism: An educator has no choice other
than to mirror the
integrity, the leadership-communication skills, of his/her principal. Few principals
have participated in a Leadership
Training Program (seminars, courses, workshops, classes, yes,
training, no); virtually none have their own
leadership-relationship communication-skills coach on speed-dial.
An
education major will go an entire semester doing what he/she believes to
be communication and predictably fail several students. Seldom do
principals set goals that effectively measure whether or not a teacher
can consistently produce a stated intention; few principals keep daily
track of each teacher's ability to consistently cause all students to
turn in their homework neatly and on time; it's a result that requires
one to enroll parents in being aligned with a Student-Parent Homework
Agreement. As such, parents seldom get that they too are in
school—an advanced class on parenting and supporting. Can you
be trusted to send your child to school with the homework done neatly?
Or, will your child demonstrate that you are addicted
to mediocrity. It's obvious from the above that although Sp-Com
professors understand how to teach education majors to
communicate subject matter, they simply don't know how to teach
to that skill level. The test?
Most every teacher could, if assigned
just 5 students, cause all 5 to get a passing grade. In other words,
it's not that the majority of educators don't know their subject matter,
it's that they haven't been taught how to communicate it to an
entire class. The Interpersonal Communication Model for teaching 1-5
students is entirely different than the Leadership-Communication Model
used to teach 20-30 students. And so once again we ask, why aren't
education majors taught to communicate subject matter?
The Copier Story
general
The General's Story
playground
The Playground Story
The Carp Pond Story
pump
The Water Pump Story
suicide
The Suicide Hotline Story
Kerry:
Suicide Hotline. This is
Kerry. Hello!
Tom:
Is this the Suicide Hotline?
Kerry:
Yes it is. What's your name?
Tom:
My name is, ah, Tom. I ah,
I, um, I'm not sure what to say.
Kerry:
Yes Tom. What's up?
Tom:
Well, I'm going to kill
myself. I mean, I'm thinking of killing myself.
Kerry:
So which is it Tom, are you
going to kill yourself or are you having thoughts about
killing yourself?
Tom:
Well, I don't know.
Kerry:
Ok. It's not important to me
but I think it might be good for you to know.
Tom:
Don't you care?
Kerry:
Not really. Am I supposed
to?
Tom:
Well, I thought you guys
were supposed to care 'n stuff.
Kerry:
No Tom. You must be thinking
of the police or perhaps the Salvation Army. We don't care
whether you live or die. We're here, I'm here, to be with
you if that's something you'd like.
Tom:
What do you mean you don't
care?
Kerry:
Tom. I don't think your call
is all about whether I care or not. It sounds to me as
though you called to have someone talk to about the thoughts
you've been having about killing yourself. Is that right
Tom?
Tom:
Well, ah, sort of. I mean, I
thought you guys cared.
Kerry:
Nah. Tom, if you don't kill
yourself tonight because I care and then something happens
to our relationship, if I say the wrong thing, if I get mad
at you or stop caring about you, then you might threaten to
kill yourself. None of us here at the Hot Line want that
responsibility. Do you get what I mean Tom?
Tom:
Yah, sort of. Well what are
you there for?
Kerry:
As I said Tom, we're here to
be with you. Let me speak for myself. I'll tell you why I'm
here; I suspect it's true for the other volunteers. I enjoy
talking to people who call in as you have. The conversations
are real, they are energizing. You know what I mean Tom?
They keep me alive. They are really real. You are really
living. How you and I communicate could determine whether
you are around tomorrow. Our communications affect us for
life. I like conversations that mean something. I like
communicating as though our lives depend upon what we say.
Kerry:
Why did you call Tom?
Tom:
I thought I called because I
wanted you to talk me out of killing myself but I see now
that that's not it.
Kerry:
I got that Tom!
Tom
I think why I called was to
just talk with someone who was truthful and real. As though
I were real. Thanks.
Kerry:
Yah Tom, that feels good. Is
there anything else you want to talk about?
Tom:
Nah, thanks. Thanks a lot.
Kerry:
Good. Feel free to call
again. I enjoyed talking with you. Tom?
Tom:
Yes?
Kerry:
I love you!
Tom:
Yah, thanks. Bye.
To Cause or Not to Cause—a story
The Zen Master Bird-Poop Story
Parole
Parole—The First 24-hrs—a story
All this occurs within less than 24-hours. For our parolee tomorrow will
not be a new day, merely more of the same. —by Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
Military Academy Scandals—a story
—often males don't take "No" for an answer, which is tantamount to
date rape.
—another perpetration for most men and women (cadets) is that they have yet
to verbally acknowledge to their parents that they conned their
date/partner into having sex behind the backs of both sets of
parents. This is unethical; the consequences are usually compounded.
"Air Force personnel cheating on proficiency exams."
"West Point has expelled at least eight cadets and are holding more than
50 back a year as a result of the military academy's worst cheating
scandal in over 40 years."
"The U.S.
Naval Academy announced Friday
that it has kicked out 18 Midshipmen following an investigation into
allegations of cheating during a physics exam."
Reported
First Contact—acknowledgment—a story
—Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
Conspiracy for Mediocrity—a story
Let's begin with the fact that university Sp-Com
curriculum descriptions typically include words to the effect: ". . . to
introduce students to the fundamentals and principles of communication."
Imagine a surgeon about to operate on your brain who had merely been
introduced to the fundamentals and principles of surgery, yet
parents submit their precious child to a trainee.
To be clear, unprepared university freshmen, those who require remedial courses to learn what their K-12 "teachers" didn't teach, are not only a Hawaii problem. Instead of addressing the source of the problem (leadership-communication skills)** universities nationwide have resorted to improving the required remedial courses for incoming freshmen, and, charge students for these make-up courses. The problem has become endemic. Education majors are being loosed on the public without having mastered the fundamentals of leadership. More accurately, they do have leadership-support skills but they unconsciously use their specific home-grown skills to ensure mediocrity. One might infer that there is a nationwide conspiracy among speech and communication professors to teach watered down courses to education majors, why else do so few teachers know how to consistently produce, —homework handed in on time and legibly?— And the answer is, tah da — FEAR.
Here's more that helps explain our unconscious commitment in support of mediocrity:
Education majors are not taught how to co-create agreements; few know how to consistently cause homework to be turned in on time and legibly. It would take about 360 additional hours, (one 3-hour session per week each semester, every year), to produce this result. It verges on unethical to graduate an education major who has not mastered such a basic leadership-skill as co-creating agreements. A "teacher" knows that broken agreements are never ever the student's fault.
Most Sp-Com courses do not cover the six variables that serve as barriers to the experience of communication (acknowledgments, incompletes, integrity, perpetrations, responsibility and withholds). These variables account for all breakdowns in communication, therefore, education majors are unaware of the correlation between their own personal integrity and outcomes; they have not learned experientially that their unconscious (messy) house and car, their less-than-satisfying/completly honest personal relationships, and, their withholds and incompletes with family and friends, affect all outcomes with their students. An education major's admonishments to do complete work, when delivered from hypocrisy, gets gotten as a good idea, but because the education major's household and relationships are out-integrity, such wisdom isn't experientially inspiring.
Most education majors have not acknowledged, or effectively addressed, their addictions to withholding, arguing, and blaming; one seldom, if ever, reads in a newspaper, "DOE Superintendent Ms. _ _ _ _ acknowledges that her school's poor SAT scores and the funding and salary problems, mirror her leadership-communication skills." The communication skills it would take to effect satisfactory salaries and fundings are the exact same skills it takes to communicate subject matter.
Creating/restoring one's integrity (the single-most important prerequisite for communication mastery) is not addressed or required in Sp-Com courses for education majors. Education majors are not required to honor all agreements, to keep their relationships clean, to resolve all upsets through to mutual satisfaction, and to deliver all upsets (zero badmouthing or gossiping) to the person with whom they have the upset. Note: Most education majors are still thwarting their own teachers when it comes to demonstrating mastery over their health. I.e. The majority have uninspiring weight/health issues. In other words, as education majors, they hypocritically advocate (communicate non-verbally) do as I say, not as I do.
-
Few teachers in any school know or can quote verbatim the school's purpose; ergo, some are there to earn needed/extra money, others to serve the community, others because they love children, others because teaching is easier than laboring. Some nobly (self-righteously) thwart their fellow teachers by voting no to pay raises by thwarting the stated objective for a pay raise strike, because, "...teaching shouldn't be about money." There is no alignment. Most "good teachers know of one or more staff members who should not be teaching or who are cheating on a spouse; they submit students to another 24-hours of such influences.
-
Most all education/healthcare majors are graduated without having acknowledged life's perpetrations to their own parents. None have been guided to realize the effects on outcomes of unacknowledged perpetrations. I.e. The belief, "A failing child has absolutely nothing to do with the deceit I'm perpetrating on ..."
I trust the above is sufficient for you to acknowledged that there is a conspiracy, an unconscious commitment to mediocrity; it begs the question, how can so many brilliant professors nationwide, especially from our Ivy league colleges, conspire to not teach what they know empowers one to manifest his/her stated intentions? It's not much of a stretch to infer that the present State of the Union, via President Trump, mirrors our unconscious commitment, not to greatness but to mediocrity.
All it takes to move on is to simply acknowledge what's so (more accurately, what has been so). As with alcoholism, the first step towards mastery (drinking from choice) is denial, "There ain't no stink'n conspiracy!" It's not even necessary to know why or to figure out who's been in charge or who's to blame; there's no need for more studies, all that's required are some new conversations in support of the intention to communicate subject matter. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
* It's understood that universities need tuitions and so they lower the standards and consciously ignore the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes. Most would agree that if you are not doing the job you're paid to do then you (you here meaning the Chancellor, and all Professors and Instructors) are out-integrity. What's worse is, professors and "teachers" reward students (graduate them) for not performing to a ridged standard, therefore educators become cause for the karma students reap for conning teachers.
** Leadership-communication skills: We all have the exact same amount of leadership-skills. Some use their skills to forward others, some unconsciously use their skills to effect mediocrity, and still others use their leadership-communication skills to thwart and sabotage. I.e. Overweight teachers and health-care professionals who daily thwart the wisdom of their high school teachers, who communicate that what's being taught about biology, nutrition and physical education doesn't work. Thwarting begets thwarting. The way to discover what you've been up to is to look at the results those around you are producing. Each communication model produces different results.
If you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back key to return
Integrity of The House—a story
During the 80's, "Roger," a friend, built a beautiful ocean-front house to serve as a combination residence and venue for the various events and workshops he sponsored.
Upon completion of the house he traveled to an ashram in India; while there he invited a well known Guru to visit his new facility to give a series of talks. The Guru accepted the invitation.
Upon arrival Roger proudly walked the Guru around the house; strangely, the Guru kept asking to see more rooms. Roger walked with him from room to room until the Guru finally paused, and spread his arms to indicate everything and said, "This won't work." Roger's heart fell to the floor, he had invested a small fortune in building a first-class facility; he was shocked and surprised and said, "I don't understand." The Guru said, "Something's wrong—he paused again, it's the integrity of the house." Again, confused, Roger said, "What do you mean?" The Guru paused for an even longer moment (as he cycled through not-knowing to knowing) and then replied, "It's the nails." In shock, Roger, having experienced the mind-boggling wisdom of the Guru, immediately excused himself and frantically called his contractor friend who had built the house. Roger explained about the Guru's visit and what happened, and asked, "What the hell's wrong with the nails?" The contractor hesitated for a few seconds and then replied, "I'll be dammed. Some guy sold me a five-gallon bucket of roofing nails for an absurdly low price. I immediately suspected they might have been stolen but ignored my hunch."
Roger shared his findings with the Guru and together they did a blessing of the house so as to wipe clean the vibrations, the negative karma, created by its stolen nails. Roger paid the contractor for the actual cost of the nails and also followed through on the Guru's suggestion and made a donation to a nonprofit. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
If you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Close your browser's window or press the back key to return
king
king, kerrith—a story (draft notes for an autobiography)
I liked the badges and medals in the military; reading another's chest created a context for the relationship. In civilian life one must verbally relate what's necessary so as to produce the desired result; not everyone needed to know I was an orphan but it sure helped for a senior officer to know I had been a submariner and a frogman. It's what got me choice commands in Vietnam.
My story has so many unusual twists and turns that relating it accurately takes considerable time; however, like military chest badges-medals, knowing my background creates a context for relatability and understanding. I'm not certain if you'll get value from reading this; it's documented here for my grandson Jared. Following are notes for my autobiography; here's how I became king, kerrith.
I consider myself fortunate to have been adopted during my first year by two single female nurses. Later, at age 10, I was returned to the orphanage—followed with subsequent moves in and out of two boys schools, two foster homes, and three high schools through age 18. Then I joined the Navy, later the Army. I received B.A. and M.A. degrees in Speech Communication (notice I don't use the word earned). I've been a Leadership-Relationship Communication-Skills Coach here in Hawaii for 44+ years.
Part of my fortune was an early childhood living with two females, both RN's (registered nurses). In 1937 my two mothers were on the cutting edge of what was to come; two Protestant women adopting an Irish-Italian Catholic-born child, living openly together in a predominantly Catholic Boston suburb, throughout WWII. Imagine the conversations I overheard!
Actually, I don't remember any conversations with either, this must be psychologically significant. I can however, imagine the unique communications that have influenced me, beginning as the ninth child in my musically talented (opera singer), emotionally conflicted (four marriages), birth-mother's womb, and later, while being pampered by two loving single women committed to healing and service, jokingly fussing over whose turn it was to change my diapers. There are thousands of impactful, also well-hidden/forgotten, kitchen-table conversations that took place around me. It's important to mention the innumerable (24/7) abusive communications that, as embryos, affect us all (for life). All the loving and the abusive vibrations, the thoughts and other non-verbal communications that took place between both parents. Significant also, in utero, are the effects generated by parents who harbor options of putting their child up for adoption if things get "bad."
Faith, the one who formerly adopted me, had herself been adopted. She had retained her Scottish birth-mother's last name, King, ergo, she changed my name, from Richard Altomare, to Kerrith Haddon (Kerry) King.
Aside from the daily vibrations and concerns/fears of WWII one nurse-mother had an
affair; it
wasn't just an affair—she, a Protestant, deceitfully dated and impregnated herself using a
Catholic doctor; the very same dude who later messed up my scene, my
ménage á trois, changing our relationships forever—it was a full-fledged
religious and community scandal. The scorned mother, Evelyn Flora Goodrich, left us to become a
career Army WWII nurse. Faith, the other-mother (I love the alliteration),
married the doctor; they had three children. For some reason (duh?) the
doc and I didn't get along well, he thought the name Kerry was too gay
and so he called me Micky. At age ten, I was returned to the orphanage. As
one might expect, I have a few considerations about same-sex couples and
adoptions
in general (Thinking
of Adopting—Adoption Considerations).
The even more fortunate aspect of my moving life
(pun intended) is that time and again I've seen what happens to children
who were "forced" to stay with a dysfunctional family (argumentative,
unhappy, unethical parents who were
out-integrity from the very beginning); most of those
children are now parents raising their own children using the same
adversarial communication model taught to education and health-care majors
nation-wide by all university speech-communication professors.
I recall being shocked when I first heard childhood friends with parents talk about, or talk
back to, their parents; they appeared to have no sense of appreciation
and respect. Now I understand the source of this disrespect. Rare is a
child who is not experiencing the mind-blowing hypocrisies of today's
parents and society; virtually none have ever witnessed one parent
acknowledge a verbal abuse to the other. A lying President is
acceptable; topics of death, God(s), heaven, hell, religion,
Santa Clause, etc., are being presented as truths instead of being
clearly identified as beliefs. Fortunately, most children are eventually
driven away from the daily home-life interactions with their
parents—unconsciously they are driven to experience the exhilaration and
freedom of true intercourse—to "find themselves," to discover who they
are. With few exceptions, parents teach their children to deceive, to
withhold certain thoughts from their parents; deceit was/is the norm,
evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of teens con each other
into deceiving both set of parents so as to have sex. Few draw the
connection between their divorces and their dating deceits.
=======================
I'll insert my military, college and
Support Group
experiences
here:
=======================
Like
yourself I knew everything when I was a teen. I could see all the
hypocrisies. Compromising my integrity affected my education, it drove me functionally crazy. I
can still come across as a self-righteous narcissistic-like, judgmental machine; I turned my
addiction into a profession. This essay supports me in
completing my interest/need to be an educator. Whereas before I was
driven to "fix" everyone, or the world, now I'm resorting back to a teen
talent of mine—of being an entertainer, an Edutainer;
Potential Rumors and my Blog).
Sometimes, as a parent, one must sit silently in the
passenger's seat while their child makes a wrong turn, trusting that they
will soon figure out what works without being yelled at, corrected, or
accidentally made wrong. I consider divorcing my first wife, when my son was
ten-years-old, as a significant gift. My son didn't
have to undo years of harmful coaching, all my good ideas of how to make it
in the world. Most fathers do their imitation of fathering based upon
experiences with their own father; me, not having a single sit-down
conversation with any adult (male or female) during my entire childhood left
me worse than clueless. I had few ideas of how to be or how not to be. In
typical
dysfunctional families a child tries to be like, or not be like, one
or both of their parents. Ironically, this leaves a child at effect, not in
choice. It takes a child a long time to discover who they really are. Who
they really are is like both and un-like either. I see that my job is to tell the truth and to
support others in telling the truth. I see myself as an advisor that only likes to be listen too,
not necessarily followed. This is one of those never ending stories . . .
no doubt there's more. I'm open to suggestions. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
*
For more
about
king, kerrith If
you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon
pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.
Other recommended readings,
Quotes from
our Tutorials,
Abuse and
Some Thoughts About Spanking and
Gabby's Tips. Close your browser's window or press the back
key to return
Send
us your feedback, corrections, comments, or submit a story to be posted.