Maryannaville™

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can also hurt me.
Stones and sticks break only skin, while words are ghosts that haunt me.
Slant and curved the word-swords fall, it pierces and sticks inside me.
Bats and bricks may ache through bones, but words can mortify me.
Pain from words has left its’ scar, on a mind and heart that’s tender.
Cuts and bruises not have healed, it’s words that I remember.
*Ruby Redfort

“I’m Sorry”

People who have been hurt or humiliated often hope for an apology. They may hope that an apology from the offender will restore trust, dignity, and, perhaps, a sense of justice. A thoughtful apology is a powerful means of indicating self-awareness and of showing respect for the person who was offended. But a facile and unreflective “I’m sorry” may exacerbate the situation and be perceived as rubbing salt in the wound. A successful apology achieves closure; an apology that backfires escalates a conflict.

Friends may counsel and help the offended party consider what it means to want an apology, e.g., as a step toward reconciliation; as a confirmation that the other party was to blame; as an assurance that repetition of the offense will be avoided; or as a humiliation to the alleged offender. A public apology may help restore the reputation of the person who was hurt; a private apology may open a path toward discussion, improved mutual understanding, and interpersonal trust. Apologies can take many different forms, and it is part of the role of the ombuds to help the parties identify their underlying interests in the process of facilitating either one-way or reciprocal apologies.

In order for an apology to be received as complete and sincere, it may need to include the following elements:

A specific statement of what was done.
It is important to clarify the exact nature of the offense, both for the accountability of the offender and also to avoid misunderstandings. The need for an apology usually occurs when two individuals or groups do not share the same perspective — or when inadvertently or intentionally — they did not do so at the time of the hurtful event. The first step is to seek common understanding of what action or omission was rude or wrongful. In some situations, a preliminary discussion or communication, or shuttle diplomacy by a third party — such as the ombuds — can help identify and, if necessary, make adjustments to the definition of the offense.

Recognition of responsibility and accountability on the part of the one who did the offending.
This admission is perhaps the most important but also the most frequently overlooked element of an apology. This is the “I-statement,” the recognition by the offending party that he or she had a choice to act (or speak, or not take action) in that particular way. “I knew better,” Senator D’Amato said succinctly. The offender who is a public official, a senior manager, a parent, a teacher, or another role model might also acknowledge how he or she is entrusted with this particular responsibility. Some offenses, of course, are unintentional; therefore, it may be helpful, if it is true, for the offender to explain if there was no way that he or she could have predicted the impact of his or her action (or inaction) on the recipient. But, in any case, most offended people will appreciate any efforts made by the offender to explore how he or she might have anticipated the outcome — both as an indication of the sincerity of the regret and as an implied suggestion of how a recurrence might be avoided.’

Acknowledgment of the pain or embarrassment the offended party experienced.
A non-judgmental expression of empathy is a basic step toward restoring trust. The offender may be able to identify with the offended person, e.g., “If someone had made a joke about my religion, I wouldn’t have found it funny, either.” or even if the offender would have personally reacted differently, he or she might intellectually empathize: “It’s understandable that hearing the bad news through the grapevine was upsetting.’ The acknowledgment does not necessarily imply that the recipient’s response is typical, mature, or appropriate. It may be expressed only as a fact: “I now know that receiving a prompt reply is very important to you.’ But it undercuts sincerity when the offender seems to question the recipient’s claims of hurt or injury (‘I’m sorry if anyone was upset…”). And it subverts the purpose of the apology to dwell on a judgmental “you-statement”: “I’m sorry you’re so impatient,” or, “It’s too bad you have no sense of humor.” An apology is not a suitable occasion for self-congratulation on the part of the perceived offender with regard to his or her honesty or opinions. In Edward Albee’s play, A Delicate Balance, Claire says to Agnes, “I apologize that my nature is such to bring out in you the full force of your brutality, ” and Agnes soon responds, “. . . I apologize for being articulate.” (New York: Atheneum, 1966, p. 13)

A judgment about the offense.
When the offender agrees that what he or she did was wrong, saying so is an important part of making amends. The story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, though perhaps lacking in historical veracity, has had enduring appeal in United States culture because of its insistence on the honor of acknowledging one’s own wrongdoing. Many world religions emphasize confession. But status differences, cultural patterns, and advice of legal counsel may present obstacles to formal confirmation of having made mistakes. Nevertheless, a direct self-judgment (“I was insensitive.” “What I did was wrong.”) is often a way to establish common ground with the offended party.

A statement of regret.
If the offender has fully taken responsibility for how he or she acted wrongly or at least for having hurt the recipient, a simple statement of “I’m sorry” sometimes may be sufficient. The impact of an apology on its audience generally depends on the context — not on the words themselves. Senator D’Amato’s two statements each contained those words, but one created more anger and the other may have decreased the tension. Except in relationships with a history of shared understanding and deep trust, simply saying “I’m sorry” is rarely sufficient. But an attitude of contrition and a statement of regret are basic elements of an apology that will build future trust. [Personal change is in order with a plan of action to execute it.]

Future intentions.
These details are often an important aspect of an apology. In some situations, the apology is requested when no future interaction is expected, but even then the offended party is often relieved to hear if steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the offense. When the two parties are likely to interact in the future, it is helpful to discuss the offender’s intended self-restraint; improved behavior in the future; how the offender would like attention brought to a possible subsequent misunderstanding; or other means of preventing recurrence. Sometimes the offender will wish to ask the recipient for forgiveness; for an acceptance of the apology; or for another chance to gain that individual’s respect. An apology may offer an opportunity not only to restore trust but also to achieve a better relationship.

Finally, it is important not to overlook the means of communication of the apology. Because the recipient’s response emphasizes sincerity, any form of communication that appears offhand or trivializing may be resented. In contrast, any gesture of seriousness and personal investment will reinforce the genuine conviction behind the message. The above elements may help the offended person “accept” the apology, move on, and put the offensive incident behind. An additional aspect of the communication might also help the offended party have increased understanding and respect for the offender.

An explanation of why the offender acted in this way.
This component is often not the first priority of the offended party, but it may be very important both to the offender and also to the future relationship of mutual respect between the two parties. An explanation may be the most risky element to include within an apology because it can so easily appear as a flippant excuse; as a defensive justification; or as a reiteration of what was already felt as offensive. Senator D’Amato’s first explanation exacerbated the controversy and the outrage: “I was making fun of the pomposity of the judge,” but his second presented a point of view that everyone could share: “What I did was a poor attempt at humor.”

An explanation that includes a recognition of the offense; the pain it caused; and/or a clear statement of wrong as perceived by the offended party, can be a means of showing more respect for the recipient by making the apology a more reciprocal process of increased understanding.
When people who have been offended say, “I demand an apology,” it is helpful to probe which aspects of an apology they are seeking. Compelling an apology is usually counter-productive, and the suggestion, “just apologize and it will blow over,” is generally misleading. Anyone considering offering an apology should consider the potential damaging results of an inadequate “apology.”

Sometimes the relationship is too adversarial; the differences are too great; and/or, the legal liability too profound for an apology to be offered or received as sincere. In many situations, a future apology would be possible, but only after a process of conflict resolution — such as mediation — that involved increased mutual understanding of both parties’ needs, interests, and emotions.

Originally posted 2007-05-12 20:40:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving*
Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

Originally posted 2007-06-15 06:34:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Thanks, Harry.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
*Bertrand Russell, Dunning-Krugar effect

“The commander of the nuclear-powered submarine USS Hampton has been relieved of his command amid an inquiry into misconduct by crew members, the U.S. Navy said Friday,” CNN claims but ‘US War Leaders Implicated In Putin Assassination Attempt’ asserts that much more is going on.

Originally posted 2007-10-27 04:21:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

A compilation for you to look over is here. (pdf) Help yourself.

Some of you gentle readers may be asking: “What’s historical archaeology?” Simply put, this field is “the study of the material remains of past societies that also left behind some other form of historical evidence.” With a membership base that ranges from newcomers to seasoned professionals, The Society for Historical Archaeology is a group whose work will be of general interest to those with a yearning to learn more about history and archaeology. After delving into their “About” section, visitors should mosey on over to their “Projects & Research” area. Here a number of organizations and research teams have submitted websites that document their own recent excavations, such as those around Harpers Ferry and West Point. Finally, the site’s “Futures” section contains helpful information on careers in archaeology and a guide to programs in historical and underwater archaeology.

Originally posted 2006-07-14 07:24:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

“Oliver Hardy died today in 1965. I was Hardy to Siskel’s Laurel, as you can see here.”

“Just how cool is that?”

The Seven Stage Hate Model

DEFINITION OF HATE
The manifestations of hate are legion, but the hate process itself remains elusive. Limited research in this field precluded the development of a comprehensive hate model. Understanding hate groups is essential for the development and implementation of successful intervention strategies, which depend on an understanding of the hate process. The proposed hate model consists of seven stages, including how hate groups define themselves, how hate groups target their victims and taunt them with verbal insults and offensive gestures, and how hate groups attack their victims with or without weapons.

Hate, a complex subject, divides into two general categories: rational and irrational. Unjust acts inspire rational hate. Hatred of a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin constitutes irrational hate.

Both rational and irrational hate mask personal insecurities. Everyone experiences personal insecurities in varying degrees throughout their lives. The more insecure a person feels, the larger the hate mask. Most people concentrate on the important issues in life, such as earning a living, rearing a family, and achieving personal goals. These pursuits give meaning and value to life. Nonetheless, irrational hate bleeds through day-to-day activities in the form of racial barbs and ethnic humor. Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people.

With respect to rational hate, haters do not focus as much on the wrong done to them or others, but, rather, on their own helplessness, guilt, or inability to effect change. The object of rational hate often is despised or pitied. In the same way, irrational hate elevates the hater above the hated.Many insecure people feel a sense of self-worth by relegating a person or group of people to a lower status.

Empirical observations show that hate groups go through seven stages in the hate process. Haters, if unimpeded, pass through these seven successive stages without skipping a stage. In the first four stages, haters vocalize their beliefs. In the last three stages, haters act on their beliefs. A transition period exists between vocalization and acting out. In this transition period, violence separates hard-core haters from rhetorical haters.

Stage 1: The Haters Gather

Irrational haters seldom hate alone.10 They feel compelled, almost driven, to entreat others to hate as they do. Peer validation bolsters a sense of self-worth and, at the same time, prevents introspection, which reveals personal insecurities.11 Further, individuals otherwise ineffective become empowered when they join groups, which also provide anonymity and diminished accountability.

Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself

Hate groups form identities through symbols, rituals, and mythologies, which enhance the members’ status and, at the same time, degrade the object of their hate. For example, skinhead groups may adopt the swastika, the iron cross, the Confederate flag, and other su-premacist symbols. Group-specific symbols or clothing often differentiate hate groups. Group rituals, such as hand signals and secret greetings, further fortify members. Hate groups, especially skinhead groups, usually incorporate some form of self-sacrifice, which allows haters to willingly jeopardize their well-being for the greater good of the cause. Giving one’s life to a cause provides the ultimate sense of value and worth to life.12 Skinheads often see themselves as soldiers in a race war.

Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target

Hate is the glue that binds haters to one another and to a common cause.13 By verbally debasing the object of their hate, haters enhance their self-image, as well as their group status. In skinhead groups, racist song lyrics and hate literature provide an environment wherein hate flourishes. In fact, researchers have found that the life span of aggressive impulses increases with ideation.14 In other words, the more often a person thinks about aggression, the greater the chance for aggressive behavior to occur. Thus, after constant verbal denigration, haters progress to the next more acrimonious stage.

Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target

Hate, by its nature, changes incrementally. Time cools the fire of hate, thus forcing the hater to look inward. To avoid introspection, haters use ever-increasing degrees of rhetoric and violence to maintain high levels of agitation. Taunts and offensive gestures serve this purpose. In this stage, skinheads typically shout racial slurs from moving cars or from afar. Nazi salutes and other hand signals often accompany racial epithets. Racist graffiti also begins to appear in areas where skinheads loiter. Most skinhead groups claim turf proximate to the neighborhoods in which they live. One study indicated that a majority of hate crimes occur when the hate target migrates through the hate group’s turf.15

Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons

This stage is critical because it differentiates vocally abusive haters from physically abusive ones. In this stage, hate groups become more aggressive, prowling their turf seeking vulnerable targets. Violence coalesces hate groups and further isolates them from mainstream society. Skinheads, almost without exception, attack in groups and target single victims. Research has shown that bias crimes are twice as likely to cause injury and four times as likely to result in hospitalization as compared to nonbias crimes.16

In addition to physical violence, the element of thrill seeking is introduced in Stage 5. Two experts found that 60 percent of hate offenders were “thrill seekers.”17 The adrenaline “high” intoxicates the attackers. The initial adrenaline surge lasts for several minutes; however, the effects of adrenaline keep the body in a state of heightened alert for up to several days.18 Each successive anger-provoking thought or action builds on residual adrenaline and triggers a more violent response than the one that originally initiated the sequence.19 Anger builds on anger. The adrenaline high combined with hate becomes a deadly combination. Hard-core skinheads keep themselves at a level where the slightest provocation triggers aggression.

Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons

Several studies confirm that a large number of bias attacks involve weapons.20 Some attackers use firearms to commit hate crimes, but skinheads prefer weapons, such as broken bottles, baseball bats, blunt objects, screwdrivers, and belt buckles. These types of weapons require the attacker to be close to the victim, which further demonstrates the depth of personal anger. Attackers can discharge firearms at a distance, thus precluding personal contact. Close-in onslaughts require the assailants to see their victims eye-to-eye and to become bloodied during the assault. Hands-on violence allows skinheads to express their hate in a way a gun cannot. Personal contact empowers and fulfills a deep-seated need to have dominance over others.

Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target

The ultimate goal of haters is to destroy the object of their hate. Mastery over life and death imbues the hater with godlike power and omnipotence, which, in turn, facilitate further acts of violence. With this power comes a great sense of self-worth and value, the very qualities haters lack. However, in reality, hate physically and psychologically destroys both the hater and the hated.

Originally posted 2006-07-16 14:01:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The latest terror cell to wage “ground war” on America.

Just when you thought the predictability of the latest triumph in the war on terror couldn’t get any more ludicrous – you’re reminded that the Neo-Cons like to keep the propaganda simple and straightforward, never deviating from well-honed tactics.

In Friday’s article on the Sears Tower arrests it was predicted that one of the repeating elements to emerge from every major terror sting or forged terror alert is the use of retarded individuals as patsies, informants and go-betweens.

Don’t be surprised to learn of a connection to a retarded individual over the next few days.”
So it follows that yesterday it emerged from a New York Daily News report that the alleged ringleader of the plot Batiste “needs psychiatric help,” according to his own mother.

The Daily Show’s John Stewart classified the Miami terror cell that were about to “wage a ground war against America,” according to Gonzales as “seven dip shits in a warehouse,” following a farcical press conference in which Gonzales was cornered into admitting that they had no links to any Al-Qaeda members and had no weapons or explosives to carry out any acts of terrorism.

Today, lawyers for the defendants outlined an argument that the government had used entrapment to essentially imagine into existence a deadly Al-Qaeda terror cell that had never existed in the first place.

Originally posted 2006-06-27 09:33:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter