|
OUR MISSION POSSIBLE |
| World Wide Team | Government | Romance | Networking | Community Chats | Groups |
|
Custom Search
|
|
|
|---|
|
What in God's name is wrong with our government agencies and the people that work for these agencies?
I have worked for the Federal government for almost thirty years. During the "Vietnam Conflict" I volunteered for the U.S. Marines. This was my first experience with willful misuse of power and almost studied stupidity of a bureaucracy gone amok. Recruiters and government officials like to say that the Marines are a highly trained fighting machine.
That statement I believe is either intentionally misleading or an example of the delusional thinking of government bureaucrats. Marines are in fact only intensely trained for thirteen weeks both physically and brainwashed mentally. The training that young men in the arm forces receives, is only enough for them to be convinced to do something stupid. Such as running up on beaches while being shot at.
After my stint in the Marines, I worked more than my share of tough, low paying jobs in the private sector and then I joined up with a federal agency. The pay was good and the benefits even better. The working conditions were much more favorable than the private sector.
The year was 1976 and the employment rate for decent jobs in both the private and government sectors was favorable for citizens. Government jobs were not as vigorously pursued as they are today. A person with just a high school education met the qualifications to work many low level government jobs.
In the past twenty years, good jobs became scarce and a glut of highly educated people opted for working for the government instead of the dream job they trained for in college. This was especially true for the people who worked for the same government agency in Oregon.
Most of the people I worked with on the West coast have earned least one bachelors degree, more than a few have a couple degrees on their resume'. Let me digress a bit, this high level of education did not apply to any of our administrators with the exception of one. Most of the administrators had only completed high school.
The basic work-a-day government employee for the most part enjoyed having a much higher education and quite frankly their intelligence quotient was also significantly higher than most administrators and the general population. The average I.Q. in the population of people I worked with was between 120 to 135. In the Philadelphia area, the federal employees that I worked with had I.Q.'s that averaged from 100 thru 110 and the majority of these people never completed more than a high school education.
Back in Philly, the intelligence level of the regular government workers was generally equal to the administrators. I mention these statistics only because I will use them to make my point as we go further into this essay.
When I first started working for the Federal Government in Oregon, I had just spent two years in college. One of my majors was in psychology and the famous Stanford Prison Experiment was still fresh in my mind. It was apparent to me from the start that the regular federal employee took on the role of prisoner and the administrators took on the role of prison guard, the head administrator had his role as the warden.
So from here on, I will use interchangeably certain terms. The government administrators, managers and supervisors will be labeled as prison guards, the regular employees will be referred to prisoners. The employees training as supervisors or managers will be referred to as prison guard trainee. The employees representatives are referred to as prisoner trustee. (This group of people I had forgotten about from the Stanford Experiment and it would be years before I saw that they fell into the same category; this oversight proved to be my undoing in the later half of my career for the federal government).
The more senior employees/prisoner the more ensconced they were into dysfunctional passive/aggressive behavior and they had a habit of keeping their distance from the newbie's. In fact new employees were treated with contempt....especially if they showed any tendencies towards friendliness towards the administrators. The administrators (most of them) acted like prison guards, although the level of institutionalized unfriendliness varied.
If a prisoner happened to make it into the ranks as prison guard in training, he or she immediately adopt the harsh distant qualities of the administrators that were permanent. The training required the prisoner/employee to work and train only part time as an administrator or supervisor; when they weren't in training the were sent back to the ranks with the other prisoners. When the trainees were back in the ranks, some of them maintained a slightly more distant attitude towards the other prisoners, while other trainees reapplied their happy clown I am a prisoner just like you face. These trainees inevitably ended up being the harshest and most ruthless of the administrators.
The prisoners treated the prison guards in training in a variety of ways. Some of the prisoners started kissing the asses of the trainees, some of them gave perpetual cold shoulders to the new trainees. Some prisoners just kissed their ass in public, while behind their backs they were ridiculed and held in contempt.
Regardless of whether administrators or supervisors were even-handed or not....the prisoners had tendencies to resent any authority figure...especially by the most senior prisoners. Any new prisoner that attempted to have open and respectful relations with any of the administrators or supervisors, were ostracized and the other prisoners used a variety of methods to make life uncomfortable for them. Even the representatives of the prisoners would use a variety of methods to discourage open and honest discourse between the prisoners and the prison guards. Some of the trustees also used political rhetoric and guilt as their weapons. The trustees would intimate that prisoners who had friendly relations with the guards were selfish and disloyal to their compatriots and even un-American. They were constantly assuring the prisoners that it was up to them to act as liaisons between the prisoners and guards. It was their job to be friendly and courteous to the guards when it suited them or uncivil. The trustees made it known that only through them were the keys to justice and good working conditions.
Allow me to digress once more. The majority of the trustees at one time or another had attempted to make a niche as a prison guard, but for one reason or another they were ousted or pressured out. Many of the other trustees had been targeted and inordinately harassed by the guards or warden or at least they felt that had been the case.
Also, as much as they talked about fighting for reasonable working conditions and the unrealistic pressure that the guards put on us to perform, they in fact were the laziest workers. (There were one or two exceptions. In fact one of the trustees was an extraordinarily hard worker and boy did he like to make a show and crow about it). Ironically, the prisoners that became prison guards had also been the laziest workers and abused their use of sick leave and tardiness worse than any of the guards. (There were five exceptions in this rank also) Ironically, the three prison guards that were very hard workers and had almost flawless attendance records were highly intelligent and they were minorities that had to pull the affirmative action race card.
The guards were hostile, the prisoners hostile and passive/aggressive, the warden aloof, the trustees loud, abrasive, manipulative and passive/aggressive. That was how it was before I started to work for this agency. When I started working there, the most aggressive guards like to try and use intimidation techniques to everyone, especially the new people. Evidently, their tactics did not work on me. I either turned their aggression around by humorously poking fun at them in front of other people or when were alone. On two occasions I took the prison guards aside alone and let them know in semi-subtle ways that I was not intimidated and that I would confront them again if they persisted in being unfair. Quite frankly they were more than a bit intimidated by my physicality and the physicality of two of my very muscular friends with whom we often worked together and it was known that we spent much time together away from work, scuba diving, power lifting and other such activities.
The senior prisoners had no power to intimidate me in the manner that they would other new prisoners, and their usual methods of ostracizing was ineffective because I simply did not care. It was my mission to enjoy my job and all the people around me; prisoners and prison guards alike. My two large friends and I made it a point to invite anyone to workout with us, to go scuba diving, or a variety of other things that we enjoyed doing.
We would offer to help any or all of our coworkers help with moving or other tasks. My newfound friends and I would also treat the exception prison guards with extra respect and regard and in fact we would show our admiration of their leadership by working past our prescribed scheduled breaks to help bail them out with their tasks. This was something that the trustees did not like. In turn, these prison guards treated us with more respect and regard and there was more of a sense of team cohesion when my friends and I worked with the prison guards and warden in such a manner. The trustees would warn us that we were breaking with their protocol and also told us horror stories about what the prison guards were capable of and why we needed their protection, that we needed to stay a loyal to each other. In retrospect, it is now apparent to me why none of the trustees ever hung out with my friends and I like many of the guards or prisoners.
We often invited them to do so, but they had their excuses, such as, "We are two busy doing trustee work to insure that you all keep your rights." "We do not have the time or luxury to play when work is done."
Aside from this, and the constant negativity and talk from many of my fellow prisoners, work at this federal agency went smoothly for the first ten years. In fact, many of the people that we worked with like to work in the same areas or be involved the same tasks with me or either of my other two large friends. Yes, things were good. That was until my two friends and I started to really do well in our side investments which was real estate.
My friends and I made these investments from the money we made working extra shifts and by keeping our personal expenses low. Our goals was to simply augment the meager government pension when we were ready to retire. We even toyed with the idea of investing well enough to retire early and then put our full attentions on performing community service, (a dream that has always been near and dear to me).
The fact that we were doing well became known, not from us, but the word leaked from our tenants or friends of our tenants who happened to know people we worked with. Once the word was out, everyone wanted to know how well we were doing with our investments. Since we were doing quite well, we wanted to encourage our coworkers to also invest in real estate; especially since they all said how much they hated their jobs.
Unfortunately, our trustees, treated us with more than a touch of jealousy and more than a bit of martyrdom. It was their assertion that they had been sacrificing their chances at investing in real estate, because of the time they spent outside of work, they claimed they spent representing us. They made a point that we benefited from their sacrifices. No matter how much my friends and I tried to help them to solve the obstacles they claimed kept them from enjoying the fruits of their sacrifice, the more determined they were to give excuses as to why they were unable to invest.
Some of the new prison guards also felt jealous and since they were too intimidated to harass us openly, they contented themselves with back biting to the warden, the other guards, prisoners and trustees. In fact some of the trustees and guards shared in some of the disparaging talk. Not just about me and my closest friends, but anyone that happen to incur the displeasure of either group.
There is one other similarity that the trustees and the prison guards happen to share. They both have a fear recruiting anyone their brotherhood that may possess more competence than them. They fear anyone that may threaten to usurp their position of authority.
Not convinced? Do you think that these assertions may be the ranting of an ex-federal employee with an unjustified ax to grind? Some people would think so and to be fair, for all you know, I could be. However, allow me to lay things out in more detail, and you be the judge.
When a person goes into management, there is really no true monetary incentive to be in management. As a manager, you are constantly subjected to shift changes, and assignments to places far away from home. In short a prison guards life becomes more unstable - with no benefit of extra money. The extra money does not come till many years later, and even then they are still subjected to far more instability with the work environment. In addition, the prison guards are competing heavily with each other, often back stabbing each other.
So what would prompt a person to take on this role? From the first day working for this agency, you see all the downsides to becoming a manager. From the start it is obvious to most people that there can be no true job satisfaction or chance of accomplishing anything of merit. Job satisfaction for most people rarely happens in the federal sector. The majority of tasks required from the prison guards and prisoners alike are often redundant and illogical, serving no real purpose except to fulfill the wardens desire to have his will obeyed.
So why do they go into management? Sadly, these lazy misguided souls do it because they have so little regard for themselves and they crave the role of authority figure more than anything that would be more tangible or logical.
Most of the guards I know feel as if all other aspects of their lives are failed or at least unfulfilling. They are insecure and often, many of them both bullies and cowards by nature.
The majority of the people that seek the prison guard roles are far less educated than most of the prisoners and trustees. They seek to bolster feelings of worth by having power over the people that are more competent than them. The warden and his closest associates will seek to feather bed their territories with people that would be minimal threat to their position of power. It is really Darwinism in reverse. The more incompetent, the higher up the ladder the prison guard may go.
The trustees fear competent people that may steal their thunder and take the keys of justice into their own hands. Unlike the prison guards the trustees tend to be very educated and verbally skilled. Most of them also suffer from insecurity and often talk about their regrets that they sold out their dreams for a drab government job. The trustees as a rule have personalities that are more of a mixed bag than the rest of the prisoners. As I said, in the mix is crippling insecurity, laziness, regrets of not working the dream career they spent years in college training. The trustees tend to need other people to regard them highly.
They also suffer from bitterness, hatred of authority, resentment of the success of others; a disdain for the incompetence and injustice of management: and last but not least, in the mix, for most of them, there is actually a desire to work towards goals that is greater than themselves. What cripples them is that within their psyche are mixed agendas, compulsions and principles which competed heavily and often conflict with each other.
Perversely, the trustees need conflicts to resolve and in the absence of conflicts, they often wait, hoping and eager for conflicts to pop-up. In fact they often make mole hills into mountains.
So there you have it, Wardens and upper class prison guards seeking to fill in slots with people much less intelligent and competent than them, with the main quality sought is a willingness and skill at ass kissing and a willingness to lie if a situation arises for lies. Trustees want conflict and unquestioning regard from the prisoners and also new fledgling trustees to be less competent and less dynamic than them with the main quality sought is a willingness to slavishly follow protocols that are often limited in effectiveness.
The regular prisoner population has a need to feel helpless and negative. They practice and employ negative self talk almost every spare moment that are working. They complain of the trustees, the guards and the warden. They complain about each other. When they are doing this, they are complaining about our legislators, our justice system, and more than anything the people in the private sector.
The trustees also complain about their leaders, the prisoners, the prison guards, the warden, his bosses, the legislators, the justice system, each other and of course the people in the private sector.
True to form, the guards complain of everything.
It took almost twenty years to discover that each of these groups of people like to set themselves apart from the other groups. They trustees and the prisoners actually liked when their complaints of the other groups would actually have merit. It made them feel morally superior and smart. It was an excuse as to why they could not do more in their lives.
Even when the administrators broke laws and ripped off the American public or put them in danger, my ex-coworkers preferred to point their fingers whining and complaining, feeling morally superior instead of whistle blowing to our legislators or the media or anything that would actually threaten to put a stop to the illegal behaviors.
When ever I question the trustees about alerting the public, they responded with disdain at the mention of the media, our legislators, upper management, and especially the regular citizens. Everyone liked to talk about how we have a responsibility to the public, but in another breath it was disdain for the regular work-a-day person.
After twelve years of working for the public, certain managers felt that they could break certain laws. Breaking laws and creating dysfunctional situations which the trustees had been complaining about for years. Their general mode of operation was to whined and wish that our legislators would resolve these issues.
Breaking certain laws was not a practice that management intended to target people that they did not like. Breaking certain laws was one of many knee jerk impulses that they indulged in, mainly because they are not held accountable for their actions. The fact that if certain people that they did not like would be hurt was only a bonus. Many managers and administrators in this agency often bragged that they were above the law, or that no matter what they did, the Justice Department would protect them.
This of course is true. As I already mentioned on my Bio and Philosophy page, I decided to stand up for my coworkers, myself, and the American public. I knew that my decision would cost me in everyway. Initially, I was offered a deal from the federal agencies managers if I agreed not to stand up for my coworkers or make waves. I was offered opportunities to work hours that I preferred, or a location and job of choice. I refused to sell out.
When I refused, and told him that he was breaking the law, the warden just smiled and told me that he and the federal agency would do everything in their power to put every obstacle in our way. As I said, as far as he was concerned, he would have threatened anyone that opposed him, not just me in particular. What was chilling however, was that he also bragged that the government would do everything to protect him.
After ten years of trying to resolve the situation, three people died unnecessarily, one person was forced to retire for medical reasons due to this ordeal and I was forced out and made homeless for two years.
It was during these years that I learned that our representatives actually took a perverse pleasure in the circumstances of yet another illegal activity and abuse of power. They seem to take pleasure that even though I had tried to establish mutual feelings of equality and friendship between the regular workers and the managers, we had been screwed over and were still at risk of government abuse. They gloated that we still needed them to protect us.
Ironically, as they gloated about us needing them, they also seem to enjoy railing over the fact that their normal protocols would not resolve anything immediately, because we were up against the government. In an odd way they seemed to take perverse pleasure in this fact, it was what in their minds that justified their existence and their moral superiority.
Most perplexing was that even though many of my fellow prisoners were also negatively affected, they seem to take delight that the people who were standing up for them was being targeted by management. They seemed to get an odd comfort, because, as they liked to point out, It was a reason why yet again they were proved that they were powerless against the "system".
On numerous occasions, more than a few of our fellow prisoners took sneaky measures that would insure that the handful of the people who were trying to protect themselves and them could be targeted much easier by the managers; even if it meant that the people who were targeted were killed by their betrayal. More of them were confronted by this fact and not one of them blinked or felt remorse over the prospect. The only emotion they felt was fear of violent reprisal from me or the other people that they had betrayed.
Our Trustees betrayed us in other ways. For years, our Trustees had advocated various methods for people and labor to defended their civil rights and yet they refused to do so with the situation I am describing. They refused even when we confronted them pleading that they walk their years of talk. One of the the methods that they have been espousing for years of going to our congressman in such instances...our trustees soundly refused.
In the end, I managed to use many methods that are available to all citizens...methods that our trustees had describe in detail for years, thus forcing the federal agency to allow me to come back to work. I also forced them to follow the law without the aid of a lawyer or the court system or a union.
Because of my personal actions, I managed to put in two more years time and when the federal government was offering early retirement to its employees that have served over twenty-five years. Because I forced them to comply, I qualified for the early retirement.
Sadly, also in the end, I was not able to convince my coworkers that they could be free from the tyranny they were enslaved, the tyranny that they willfully and perhaps unwittingly create or welcomed.
They refused to learn from my mistakes or triumphs. To illustrate my point go to the page that ponders the question and choices of heroism and cowardice by CLICKING HERE!
For those of you who made have thought that the story I just shared with you on this page was too long or boring, please accept my apologies. It is necessary that both the public and federal sector hear the story and to understand how the culture that permeates the federal sector can adversely affect our country.
What Can Be Learn From This Ordeal and What I Intend To accomplish By Sharing My Story?
There is much for American citizens to learned, and it is only then that American citizens in both the private and public sector will enjoy greater safety and justice. It is my hope that people in the government sector will learn how to protect themselves from evil or stupid administrators and from the people who are in positions of power that have sworn to watch over them. People such as lawyers, union officials, their coworkers, and their families. First, let us examine certain key points of both my story and the famous Stanford Prison Study.
It should be apparent how this affects the effectiveness of government agencies. Although some people would assert that dysfunctional politics happens in the private sector as well.
True enough, but not in all the ways that you would expect, and not to the degree that it happens in the government sector. Also, if for instances a private company tolerates dysfunction and inefficiencies, than it simply does so at great expenses and hazard to its own personal survival. The dysfunctions in the private sector does not usually cost the taxpayers as do the dysfunctions in the government sector.
Also, a private company is unlikely to tolerate the type of managers that federal agencies willfully endure. A dysfunctional manager in the private company will often mean lower morale, lower production, substandard customer service and unnecessary added cost of doing business. It simply is not good business and owners or shareholders in such companies will not tolerate anything that diminishes the bottom line.
Not only is this tolerated in the government, it is all too often par for the course...at great expense to the tax payers. In the government agency for which I worked, over fifty million dollars was paid out in workman compensation claims in just one year. It is my experience that many of these claims could have been avoided thereby saving untold millions of dollars of revenue better used elsewhere, and untold pain and suffering could also have been avoided.
In the government sector, the lowered morale is often the cause of intentionally poor performance from the workers. When I first became employed by the government, it was appalling to me how many people consistently tried to see how little work the could get away with. At times, a few people have been known to purposely sabotage the underpinnings of the agency, just to get back and make trouble for the supervisors. Mainly however, work slow downs was the common method. (Not all federal employees get caught up in this petty behavior and in fact are very conscientious workers, however, even the conscientious workers become unintentionally less effective over time).
What can be done to change this dysfunctional culture? Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the common worker. Why? Because whether they realize it or not, they have the most power, or at least they should be the most motivated to act in their own self-interest. (The federal administrators are not taking steps to act in their employees best interest). They have the power to avoid needless negative self-talk and they have the power to monitor and modify their emotions. The have force in numbers and along with the force in numbers they can apply the intelligent use of techniques to modify the behavior of their bosses. In the final analysis, if government administrators, managers and supervisors are not breaking any laws, endangering the workers or American public, or wasting tax dollars, then their is nothing really worth complaining about.
If the agency and the administrators you work for are involved in any of the dysfunctional behavior I have just listed, then it is your job, even your duty as an American to take various appropriate actions --- in force.
When I say in force, I mean with as many of your coworkers as possible you must utilize every legal technique, such as documenting and cross verifying, going to your representatives, both your union if you have one and your legislators. It is their job to jealously guard the interest of the American public. In addition in some cases, your supervisors may be breaking a rule or law...and it is your job as a group to confront as many of their bosses -- as possible as a group, and by certified letters and by phone. This way no one could claim plausible denial. In addition, as a group, you must be willing to take it to the streets, i.e. the media, your family and your community.
It is at this point that many government employees would whine that regardless of what they do, they have no power to affect change or the behavior of their bosses.
Remember when I said that I had forgotten about the trustees in the Stanford Prison Experiment? As I said, that lapse in memory nearly cost me my life and my retirement. It certainly was instrumental with me losing two million dollars.
Keeping this in mind the techniques used on the administrators and agency you work for must also apply to your Union or whatever you have as work representatives. Document every interaction, i.e. phone calls, certified letters, and union minutes. Make certain that important issues are brought up at meetings and with as many coworkers as possible. As they write in their version of the meetings minutes, you and your coworkers also keep a journal of what transpired at the meeting and have everyone witness your journal with signatures and dated.
If your representatives are not complying make note of this and take steps to impeach them. Also apprise your union even at the national level using the same methods. This may sound harsh, distrustful, and even paranoid. Nevertheless, I have seen Representatives interact with administrators in such a way that if they were in the military during Vietnam, they would be shot for collaborating with the enemy.
Remember, In an odd way, some government unions act as if it is in their best interest to keep the conflict going.
Let's get back to the I.Q. and educational comparisons I made between government employees in Philadelphia and Oregon.
I mentioned earlier on this page that in the seventies, a government job was not sought after with the same vigor as it is in today's job market. The people that were hired were not stupid, perhaps less motivated. Their I.Q.'s and education was within average levels. The people I worked with in the Philadelphia area tended to work as hard, perhaps even harder than the people I worked with in Oregon. At least as hard with more consistency. Also, the prison guards/managers were less likely to heap abuse or treat my coworkers back east with the same level of disrespect that the managers in Oregon treated the prisoners/workers that were situated under them.
Why? Over the years, I noticed certain dynamics in my Philadelphia culture were much different than Oregon's culture. Not that the environment there was by any stretch of the imagination, one big group hug. Managers were often curt when they gave direction, sometimes, even rude. However, the workers rarely gave this much power, but this does not mean they could be walked over. The workers would not take any guff, meaning they would give back verbally what they got (Within parameters that were legal of course).
This is how I learned that people really do know if they are stepping out of bounds, i.e., if a manager is using more discipline than is appropriate, or if a worker really deserves to be disciplined. Managers are unlikely to step beyond what is appropriate, if they know that they can not get away with it. Workers are less likely to shirk their duties if they know that managers will not let them get away with it and if they are discipline sternly, but with an impersonal business manner.
The workers in Philadelphia were not near as educated, nor could they articulate as effectively their views on politics, or any subject, but compared to the people in Oregon, they were people of action and they knew the importance of group cohesion and solidarity. They consistenly stood up for each other the few times a manager would step beyond what was appropriate. In addition, the abuses of power that often happen at some locals simply did not happen there. Why?
Well managers knew that if they acted inappropriately, meaning if they targeted a worker unfairly, their health and their possessions could be at serious risk. If a manager acted inappropriate, he or she was not in jeopardy from the workers, but the workers friends and family as well. For instance, if a manager was targeting me unfairly, I would be less inclined to accept it. While I was out and about with my friends, I would be likely to voice my displeasure with my friends about this person. Back east, a person's friends are often known to personally confront the inappropriate manager and let he or she know the risk that they were incurring.
This type of pressure worked to modify a manager's behavior...if and only if their behavior toward you had been inappropriate. As a group the people I worked for knew consciously or instinctually that people will treat you the way you let them or train them. As a group they possessed more courage and actually integrity.
Were they perfect? No, because my observation that my coworkers back in Philly were also slaves to a culture that is dysfunctional. There was and is still room for improvement.
To better illustrate how the system can be improved, let us look once again at the prison guards/managers of any government agency. Remember when I said, that ultimately the responsibility of breaking this culture's dysfunction is the common worker? I will stand by that statement, however, it is my experience that government administrators and the managers that work under them, seem to purposely try to be as ineffective leaders as possible. The sad fact is, there is a shortage of true leaders not only in the unions, but in management as well. I have seen them gloat over the fact that they have made the workers uncomfortable and even angry.
This is not common in the private sector. Business have trouble staying competitive if they had the caliber of managers that the government sector attracts.
The problem is that certain laws have to change to hold government administrators accountable for illegal activities. This has to be done with the backing of both the workers and the workers representatives addressing these problems aggressively outside of the grievance procedure. Until this is done, abuse of power and negligence of the American public will continue.
When I left the agency, the people I worked with had not learned or had refused to learn the techniques and methods that are available to them. Methods to use with which to protect themselves and to guard the effective workings of a government infrastructure that they have taken an oath to guard and protect.
Many of you would ask why? I believe that dysfunctional cultures in many government agencies form where personal individual and group integrity and courage become eroded, or perhaps never existed. Also, many government workers have a low opinion of the integrity and courage of people in the public sector. Their mantra of misery is, "If Americans weren't such sheep, if they had courage and a willingness to stand behind us, we would be able to protect them." It is their contention that the majority of people in the private sector are not as educated or as smart as them. Anyone making less money is regarded with more than a bit of contempt because it is the contention of many government employees that they could have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to get a government job or one of equal pay.
Many government workers tend to project their own shortcomings and disappointments on to the public. Unfortunately, Americans in the private sector are paying the price of this dysfunctional government attitude.
I disagree with the negative views that my ex-coworkers have about people in the privates sector. In fact, when I was forced out of work, I was able to employ the help of a few groups of people in the private sector. When I used this example to my coworkers hoping to prove my point, hoping to convince them to employ methods to protect the infrastructure, my example was dismissed as being an anomaly.
After I retired, the unnecessary loss of life of a few coworkers along with the loss of most of my retirement assets left me smarting. The loss of assets I could have accepted...if the people I worked with, the agency I worked for had learned and changed for the better. I would gladly do what I had done before and happily taken the loss, if my sacrifice had not been in vain. If the very people that I was trying to protect and the organization that was suppose to protect us had not betrayed us. What is dismaying, not only have they not changed, some situations where I worked are worse, and the American public is in my opinion still put unnecessarily in harms way. They are still being short-changed.
As I licked my wounds and tried to deal with my sorrow, the tragedies and mishandling of the Katrina fiasco by FEMA and the negligence of our troops in Iraq and the negligence and lack of adequate treatment of our injured troops back home has kept my wound raw. I am not content to see my fellow Americans to suffer...especially since most of the suffering can be easily avoided or mitigated.
I decided that I wanted to share my story as I raise money and awareness to help alleviate the suffer that my beloved country is experiencing. I decided to ask for the help and advice from a few of my retired ex-coworkers. Initially, no one wanted to help. The still held on to their contempt and distrust of the American people and all branches and agencies of our government.
They told me that not only would I be wasting my time, but that the very people I wanted to help would either ignore me, and their plight or they may even actively try to put obstacles in my way as I struggle to help. I am an optimist, and I do not believe my bitter self-loathing ex-coworkers. However, I am not much on theorizing and philosophizing without acting. I just have to find out things for myself. So that is what I decided to do.
If you are interested in finding out what I will do to discover if it is me or my ex-coworkers that are right, then just CLICK ON > I Just had to find out for myself
Some of the authors and books that come to mind which gives greater detail and understanding of the mechanisms inside the psyche of individuals and into the collective psyche influencing various group cultures I highly recommend three authors: Dr. M. Scott Peck in his various books, the most notable being The Road Less Traveled, Dr. Philip Zimbardo with his latest and greatest work to date, “The Lucifer Effect” and finally, Phoenix Michaels in his ground-breaking book "Who Am I?"
CLICK HERE to see the Letter that I am sending all of the 2008 Presidential Candidates to ask them how I can send money to the troops. LINK PAGE TO ALL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES |
|
| HOME |
Today's Date: |
 |