Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Human Behavior Part Two: Labor

"Say, you can't do that to a lady!"


If Greece were to be forgiven their debts, would they respond by choosing A or choosing B?  What sayest you?


A.   Being thankful, warned and immediately implement policy changes to stop the overspending; or

B.  Would they continue to spend that which they do not have; or possibly even increase the over spending?

How you predict their reaction tells us a lot about what you think of human nature.

In the Free Fish versus Fishing Pole, how you feel mankind (in general) will react to Free Fish, reveals what you believe about human nature.

There are two basic opposing theories upon the nature of man:

Theory One says that man was created unstable, that is, prone to transgression, selfishness, deception and law breaking.

Theory Two says that man is born 'good', therefore, his nature is prone to doing that which is right, seeking the betterment of others over self, law keeping, and so on.

The former teaches the necessity of discipline, as his natural inclination will otherwise be trouble.
The other teaches that the inherent goodness within man needs only a good environment to see it through to fruition.

Theory One says that given the choice between right and wrong, it is more likely wrong will be chosen, unless specific early training is given, while Theory Two says that mankind has a "free will", that is, a will neutral from all external influence, and makes "good choices" unless his environment tells him otherwise.

In a recent study on weight loss, researchers found that "conservatives" did better at losing weight than those who identified themselves as "liberals" and upon further examination, they found that the successful held to a philosophy of "personal responsibility", more than those who struggled to lose weight.

What does this have to do with Statement Analysis?

The better your understanding of human nature, the greater your ability to experience success in Statement Analysis will be evidenced.   

Human nature is quite complex; far more than anything I could cover in an article, or even in book, or ten volumes of books.

We all hold, generally, to one theory or the other, and I have covered "free will" in prior articles, but briefly hold that free will, that is, truly free will, is a myth.

For example, should you lay before me the choice between liver and lobster, my will is "free to choose" which I shall have for dinner.

I choose lobster.

Yet, I have never tasted liver.

The two lay before me, and although I may choose one or the other, my will not "free" but under influence.

Having never tasted liver, I have tasted and loved lobster.  This is one element. Next, as a young boy, I grew up seeing television movies in which children, particularly, the Little Rascals, being told to "eat your liver" in which they  made faces that distinctly communicated a vocabulary word best summed up by:

"yuk."

There are already two influences removing neutrality from my thinking, yet there is still more.  Pictures of liver significantly increase my prejudice against it.

Also, there is the all natural diet C.K. Dexter-Haven enjoys in which he is given an entire chicken, over the course of several days, uncooked, bones and all, including the internal organs.   Having learned this from police K-9 breeders, he and other dogs seem to live far longer and with far more health than their compatriots who have the chicken burned down to tiny little itty-bitty forms where one may wonder if there is any nutritional value left.  "Old Roy" from Walmart specializes in things like chicken beaks and feet, but even this is second to its number one ingredient:  corn.

Having cut up the whole chicken for daily meals, I have both seen and handled livers and I do not want to eat them.  Even if you were to slip it into a soup, having me eat it and love it, I would not be happy.

The point being is that the will is not "truly free and independent", but has a 'bent' towards one way or another, and  this is why neutrality or the 'clean slate' description is false.

One way or another, human nature has a 'bent' or 'leaning', and no matter how much we claim that "right and wrong" are indefinable, or 'fluid', as is popular today, parents teaching children have a general yet incomplete knowledge of right from wrong.

Theory One says the child's bent is to do wrong.
Theory Two says the child is bent to do right.

Neither claims the child has any judicial guilt, having done nothing wrong.

Various vocations highlights human nature, especially over many years.  Defense attorneys can, after decades of defending people, can get an interesting insight into nature.

Nurses, also after decades of experiences, especially those who work in maternity, can get insight that is not readily available in statistics.  Although this can be, like everything else in our country, insulting to some, delivery room nurses often predict whether or not a new born is likely to have child protective intervention based upon the name given the child.  They said "a novelty name sometimes shows the baby to be a novelty to the parents."

Had I given my children a novelty name, and this statistic proved solid, I would not feel offended.  The nurses gave examples but what I observed among them (over the discourse in years, not months) was that the older the nurse, the more likely she would side with the asserted belief.

There exists a myriad of complexities within these two but, for those of you who wish to know (I am one of them), it is fascinating to learn about human nature, even as we ask ourselves about what happens when we die.

In interviewing, the more one understand of human nature, the more consistent success will be realized. 

I will cover Theory Two when I have addressed some specifics within Theory One that are directly applicable to the work of analysis and deception detection.

Today, I cover "labor" within human nature.

We looked at Genesis, and although I only covered a sketch, I hope you found it interesting.  Whether or not you hold to it, it allows you to understand what much of the western world has held, particularly gaining popularity during the Protestant Reformation, and particularly losing popularity in the 20th Century, up to today.

Human nature does not change.

Our opinion of human nature changes, and my own has changed dramatically over the years.  I confess that I use the comment section for my research, and while having conducted more than 6,000 interviews in the last several decades, I continue to learn and gather information.  I took greatly detailed notes of many of these interviews and reviewed them carefully.  This, itself, taught me much.

I specifically seek out an opinion from the audience of each seminar I conduct to see where they stand.  I find that the responses change as geography changes.

I find it all interesting, but especially how it works itself out in practice.

*There are always those who do poorly in analysis due to cynicism regarding human nature.  There are just those so suspicious that they will fail due to the belief that everyone is lying, even though they hear me say how few people tell outright lies.

*There are those who see things through rose colored glasses and "look for the good" in everyone.  These "pollyanna" types actually do well in analysis because they can follow rules for deception, but are better equipped at "withdrawing content" from a statement or interview.  In training the "pollyanna", I find that, over time, they even out.  It seems, at least for me, easier to teach a gullible person than a cynical person.  This may have something to do with trauma history.

In interviewing, I have tremendous confidence that I will get to the truth.  It is extremely rare that I feel anything less than this powerful emotion.  The only time I feel that I will not succeed is when someone is not only refusing to talk, but refuses to talk, as expressed in very few words.  

The refusal to talk is very rare, and in many years, it has happened less than a handful.

If someone says, "I don't feel like talking..."

I got 'em.

He only "feels" like not talking, which means the right questions will get him talking.

"I don't have anything to say to you" is another one in which I will get information.  This person has things to say, but just not to "me", so I strategize accordingly, knowing, he has something to say.  I just need to change "me" into someone he will talk to.

The only closed door is "I will not talk."

If this is met with compliance, that is, if the person is "truthful" to his word, he will not say another word, including, "I already told you I will not talk."

With those who resist, I have sometimes said, "I will only have half a story and I think you should have your part told" and offer the presence of an attorney, including an 800 number and a card, with my phone, as no one's rights should be violated.

If he has the info, I will have the info.

The above usually works but if it doesn't, the knowledge of human nature, itself, serves me in ways you might struggle to imagine.

I hope that sharing just a few details (though I carefully guard my secrets) will assist you, especially if you are in investigations, investigative journalism (rumored to still exist), therapy, counseling, sales, communications, and wherever you may be that requires you to gain information, including...

human resources.

My Scenario Was as Follows:

I.  The Need for Information
II.  The Use of Human Nature
III.  The Result

Understanding human nature is critical to the most elementary and basic success in Statement Analysis, even if one does not recognize their own philosophy or name it as such.  They just "do" and they do well.  They can do better, should they apply themselves in this manner.

I.  The Need for Information

I had a case where a company had a young woman who applied to work for a company but had been terminated by another company with a reputation for excellence.  This did not bode well for her, however, yet the company considering hiring her felt that she would be an excellent candidate.

Her claim:  "I don't know why I was terminated."

HR had tested her and she scored high on the emotional intelligence test.  I reviewed it and agreed with the assessment.  This was someone who was intelligent and possessed a good sense of self.

Her personal statement also was analyzed for truth and she was truthful, in all of her assertions.  This means that someone may be incorrect about something, but is not attempting to deceive. (This is something that every company that wishes to reduce shrinkage, frivolous suits, fraudulent unemployment and so on, should put into practice.)

The initial interview was with an experienced HR professional who reported that she had done very well in the interview and struggled only with the "I don't know why I was terminated" portion. The young woman appeared to be telling the truth, even though it seemed odd.

My advice was to contact the company and "get" the details, knowing that this would mean, "We can only confirm that she worked from Jan 1 to March 1 and her employment ended there. "

In a country that has a high percentage of lawyers and one for whom theft has been decriminalized through the court system, I do not blame the company for not giving any details out.

II.  The Use of Human Nature

Back to our initial study in Genesis.

We learned that the Creator took man from the ground (element of which he returns upon death) and then "took" the man to the Garden to "dress and keep it", that is, to work and protect it.  This means that the man has a gender, or "sexual affinity" with work.  This is part of his nature:  to be productive, to do things, to accomplish things and when that is done, to protect and enjoy his labor.  Woman, that is, the one taken from man, also partakes in this gender identity, though not in the exact same manner.

I continue to enjoy Avinoam Sapir's "Linguistic Archeology" where I learn at each reading.  He does a marvelous analysis of the word "take", which is not only when the Creator "took" Adam to the Garden to work and protect it, but later when a man "takes" a wife.  It is a word of authority and confidence.  (more on this another day).

Mankind, that is, human nature, has a distinct connection with the earth.  The earth is where everything in your home has come from.  Everything you have, from your computer microchip, to your bar of soap has come from the ground.

I always find it interesting when someone in their 60's attends a training.  I hone in on them to see if they are open to answering questions, as it is a fascinating generation of "hippies" and "free love" and "we were going to save the world" resignation of failure, and so on.

Most all of them talk about how their view of human nature changed 180 degrees from "back in the day" when they were going to change the world.  Those in social work, in particular, speak (note the present tense; this is ongoing as I met one self identified hippie this weekend in social services who shared the same disillusion of life, while waiting on line for chocolate chip ice cream) in resigned terms of failure.

Inevitably, the conversation or interview goes to the subject of "work" or "labor" with them, and this is where they express the most disappointment.

They believed in Theory Two, and that if they were to change the environment of the person, life would be better, whereas Theory One says the change comes more from the person, rather than the environment.  This is the:

Give a hungry man a fish, or...

Give a hungry man a fishing pole, instead, clash of ideals.

Over the years, I think I only met one "hippie" (I use this term fondly) that held to "fishing pole" theory in the 60's or 70's.  All else where of the "free fish" view.

For younger audiences reading this, the scenario is on how to help someone in trouble.  Do you give him a free fish, or do you give him a fishing pole, so that he can help himself?

Your answer reveals your political and moral view of today.

In Genesis, the man was given access to the garden's delight, but his commandment was to work.

Later, in the ancient Hebrew welfare system, a field was to be harvested in straight lines, by workers who were to go through it, up and down, one time only.  What they did not harvest was then left for the poor to go, themselves, and harvest.

In the New Testament, the same theme continued with the prohibition against feeding those who refused to work with "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat", allowing for hunger pains to awaken his innate nature to be productive, according to the Genesis account.  Note that "will not" is effort, which excludes those who "cannot" work.

The clash of two belief systems comes to a head here with the Theory One saying that if you give a man a free fish, he will look for another free fish, as is human nature, but if you inspire him with a pole and hunger pains, he will not only feed himself, but will have a "sexual satisfaction of his affinity", or a "masculine satisfaction" within himself and inspire him to:

a.  catch enough fish to eat some, store some;
b.  catch enough fish to eat some, store some and then trade some for money for a boat to;
c.  catch even more, so as to employ others, who, themselves, will now need to purchase new poles;
d.  which will have the pole makers busy with inventory, hiring more and...

well, you get the idea.  Eventually, if he turns the fish into enough enterprise, envy will arise in someone else.  If this envy becomes institutionalized, the productive one will be taxed, demonized, and eventually told, "See that business all built up?  You didn't build that."

Envy and Jealousy are different.  Being provoked to jealousy may cause someone to see how productive fishing can be, and imitate it.  Envy is not satisfied to compete, but says, "if I can't have it, I will destroy his."

The opposite is where the man, deliberately created to work, by the design of the connection between his physiology and work, will feel a terrible dissatisfaction in life and will not "feel like a man."

Question:  What does a man do when he does not feel like a man?

Answer;   He goes out and tries to prove to himself that he is a man, outside of work.  This can take on two distinctly testosterone driven activities:

1. Violence
2. Reproduction

Neither are, themselves, bad, with both "Genesis" related.  Man was to "build" up the garden but he was also to "protect" it, and David, whom Mr. Sapir asserts wrote Genesis, described how a boy's play with bows, arrows, rocks, and things, that is, sports, was designed to teach him how to defend his home, his wife, his children, and so on.  Violence is sometimes necessary in self protection.

Reproduction was, especially in the ancient world, necessary not only for a survival of mankind, but individual survival in an agricultural society.

When a baby was born, the parents took care of the children, but when the parents became old, the children took care of them.  This was why the ancients had so many laws protecting the family and why reproduction was also important enough to safeguard the human heart with laws and even vows.

To reproduce a child meant to care for, and protect the child, two distinct outworking of testosterone. A man who thus produced a child fulfilled his manhood, and then provided for his child, which also fulfilled him, and went on to protect his child, including putting a warm roof above the child's head, all fulfilled that which he was created to do.  He felt like a man.

When he does not work, he is "sexually" or "in gender", "off kilter" or off balance and most unfulfilled.

Hence, babies born to men who are idle during the day, rather than being productive, is not only seen, but seen in such a large number that it becomes a cultural distinctive.  Cultural distinctive are not based upon exceptions.

The US statistics about children born into families where there is no father (indiscriminate reproduction, or abandonment) showed acute increases in crime, substance abuse, poverty and all that attends these things.

Do this for a generation or two and you will find that not only does no one get wealthy off of free fish, but become generationally enslaved to waiting upon the fish caught by others, with young sons growing up without fathers exampling what fishing looks like.  Thus is the assertion of the Theory One person; human nature is bent towards laziness and needs "thou shalt nots" early and often in life, while Theory Two says, "No, give him more fish and you'll see.  Its the environment, stupid, not the nature. "

This system has now messed with human nature and has reaped the results with multi-generational welfare.

What will Greece do?

Stay tuned, but do you really see them repealing their endless lists of bureaucratic regulations, resulting in far less government, on their own 'free will'?

How often do we elect law makers versus law repealers?

Each new election means new laws.  Some might be good, and necessary as environment changes (laws to govern vehicles weren't a pressing need in 1776), but what of the myriad of laws that just keep on coming, and keep on making life more complicated, and keep on restricting freedoms and...

keep on lining the pockets of lawyers?

When a man does not feel like a man because he is not producing he is not 'dressing', that is, working, the garden, but neither is he 'keeping' it; that is, protecting it.

Question:  Protecting it against what?

Answer:  Decay.  Erosion.  Rot.  Neglect.  Theft.

Do you see where this theory is going?

In short, the lack of habitual productivity leads to, well, the lack of productivity.  This is specifically seen in:

not taking care of one's home.
Not taking care of one's children.
Not protecting his family from others.
Not protecting his home from others.

and...in detail, not doing homework with the kids, to help them learn about what it takes to "dress and keep" the earth, which means poor grades, which means low paying jobs which means that it actually is better to stay home and get free fish than it is to work at just enough paycheck to lose the free fish.

Then if they have a child, they get a bit more fish, and if they have two, yet a bit more fish again...

The New Testament declaration:  "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat", prohibiting the church from giving out food to those who refuse to work, is condemned as "immoral", as the free fish program gets to hire:

Fish distributors;
Fish record keepers;
Fish inspectors;
Fish supervisors of record keepers;
Fish supervisors of fish distributors;
Fish supervisors of fish inspectors;
Fish managers of fish supervisors, and so on until you have one large but fiercely loyal:

voting block.

Did you ever stop to think that you are nothing more than a voting block?

It is not a pleasant feeling for any of us.

In conversation, I seek to find women who are "for Hilary!" in 2016.  I always ask "why?" with the shortest possible question.

I have yet to find anyone familiar with the political positions of Ms. Clinton.  This may be due to ignorance, or it may be to just how often she changes, but what it comes down to is that they are voting for her because she shares the same sex organs that they do.

This is our "Pavlovian" response and tell us (all) that we are conditioned to respond in a certain way, by media domination and propaganda.  There are certain words that, in public, make me uneasy.  I have asked myself, "why?" recently, and sometimes, I did not even know why.

Thus the success of the 'voting block' mentality, and I consider myself somewhat informed, at least, compared to others.  Ugh!

The Theory One, held by people of faith, says that if given a choice between productivity and laziness, unless specifically trained, we will choose the idle.  We would buy a lottery ticket and cross our fingers.

In fact, our nature is such (here I go again) that deception is within all of us, and must be trained out of us, however, the nature of deception is such that:

the deception within us seeks to deceive us into not recognizing it.
Later, much later in life, I studied the "deceptiveness of human nature" in deeper terms and found that the nature within us, seems to love to convince us that we are the moral superior of others and this is how politicians play their voting blocks.

Recently in a town hall meeting in Minnesota, residents were angry that the US federal government had brought in 110,000 immigrants to their city in "resettlement" and did so without asking the residents.  They worried about money and had not had a voice in this.  The federal government did it.

The argument?

"The chief point of contention was over the refugee resettlement program. When citizens asked for a moratorium on the program until after an economic impact statement had been done, Congressman Emmer asked why anyone would have a problem with people in the United States legally."

Their concerns about finance became a "moral low ground" position as having a "problem" with legal immigration.  They may have worried about the strain on school and health care budgets, but they knew if they kept going, eventually they would be called "racist" for worrying about money.  They also likely knew what is now becoming a 'norm' for us:  main stream media will only report things "one way", and in this case, only in the positive.  

Going back to the fishing pole, would immigration be the same if one could not apply for free fish until one has worked for a certain period of time, putting fish back into the pool?

How you feel about human nature will guide your answer. 

Mankind, according to Theory One, needs incentive, as his nature turns the wrong way, and hunger pains can help drive him.  Since he was created to work, when he is idle, he causes all sorts of problems.  It is like looking forward to coming vacation and working really hard so that you feel you deserved your time off, instead of calling out sick the day before.  As a boy, I enjoyed my dessert more if I ate my vegetables.  There is something to be said about accomplishment, even if it is your own mother saying, "eat healthy!" or competing homework and chores, and then enjoying free time. 

This is because, (if true), we have been created to work, or accomplish things, and in doing so, we fulfill something within us.  The opposite leaves us empty and troubled, and could lead us to trouble others. 

III.  The Result

The company reported that the reference was the dull, "we can only confirm that she worked here for 3 months...", and was frustrated. 

I said, "not a problem.  I will find out why she was terminated."

I was confident because of one thing:

Human nature does not change. 

Mankind was created to do things, therefore it is part of human nature to do stuff.  It is in all of our nature to "do" or accomplish something that has do with with "stuff" and all "stuff" came from the same place we came from:  the ground. 

This is a technique that I use successfully and I teach others in interviewing because no one other than the "I will not speak" person can resist this line of questioning. 

No one.  

I called the reference and got the speech.  

No surprise here. 

I then told the supervisor that I understood and commented on that she sounded very busy.  I was baiting my hook to ask her, "What do you do there?"

Everyone of us likes to talk. 

We have been created to communicate and no other created being on earth communicates like we do. Yes, we have a few who grunt, but mostly, we have amazingly detailed speech and communication through words that is rich in diversity.  

She sounded grateful for the empathetic comment and confirmed, yes, she really was busy.  

I told her that I was familiar with her company, but not her department.  That's all it took and she was off and talking about her busy day, but especially at the excellence of her department.  She had emotional satisfaction, at the end of the day, of the work she and her employees accomplished, every day, Monday through Friday. 

Now, once you have someone talking, the information is flowing and your trained skills from Statement Analysis are picking out the most important words to her (the subject) and you are asking very short questions, yet specific, based upon her words, which only inspires her even more so.

It took her only 15 minutes to establish this rapport and flow of information where it would now be "impolite" for her to withhold information from me even though, prior to her direct statement, she leaked out why the young woman was terminated. 

I listened. 

She finally said, "Do you want to know why I fired her?  I will tell you.  She was a lovely girl, and a great worker.  She was very friendly and outgoing but in this office, the workers are all quiet, keep to themselves, and resented her disrupting their silence with her friendliness and I had to let her go before her probation period ended but she was great..." and on and on she went. 

The company that thought to hire her especially liked her friendly outgoing personality.  For them, it was a perfect fit.  For the quiet, mathematics only like atmosphere of book keeping, she was a terrible match. 

This is just one small sample of how the knowledge of human nature serves me in my success rate and is a small secret of success that I share with you.  

You might want to consider if the account in Genesis, comically mirrored in "Men are From Mars; Women are From Venus" (or wherever they are from) is truth, and if it is, what are its implications for you?

Will it impact how you view your spouse?

Will it help you understand why your son and daughter are quite different?

Will you vote for Hilary?  I say this in jest, but I recognize that there are some who can articulate something along the lines of where Hilary stands, it is just that I have not, in my life time, seen someone so willing to change at any time, over any issue, and blur any possible distinction in opinion, while receiving standing ovations from the very people who should be silent:  the press.  

The kindly but remorseful "hippie" social workers have revealed a lot to me in my research.  There were a few "hanging on to the dream" but those actively in the field, working with new parents, especially, are the most profoundly sorrowful.  I was schooled by one of them, many years ago. 

I was advocating for a "heroin mama", that is, a mother with a heroin addiction who has given birth to her child and wants custody.  She had gotten clean, and saw the child go through withdrawals.  This was a time when nurses made certain that mothers knew how the infant suffered.  Of recent years, nurses are often told that they are not permitted to do so.  

In this case, I did admit that the mother distanced herself, emotionally, through words, from the child's suffering, but the minimization was expected.  

An "old salt", that is, a veteran and self described hippie from the 60's said, "Peter, she doesn't want the baby.  She just wants to get high."

This was in the face of clean random tests and appropriate responses in the nurses' notes. 

"How do you know?" I asked her. 

"She won't keep her nursing appointment with the nurses, Peter.  Watch."

Although I was put off by her harsh demeanor, I knew she had 30 + years in the field, at that time (long retired now), and wondered if I had been taken in by the emotions, rather than by the words, of the mother.  

When the hospital called to report mother did a "no show", I went to the mother's apartment.  

She had not worked a day in her life, but had an apartment paid for, along with cable TV (this was before the internet age), and plenty of extras.  She existed, week to week, without labor. 

When I arrived there, the apartment was a mess and she had her pet dog on her lap and said, "I want the baby but I could not find anyone to watch Snoopy."

I was filled with a profound disappointment.  

I did not mind being "wrong" or even appearing as "gullible" to the professionals that the mother had signed releases for me to talk with, but because I had mis-read her, and to the older professionals, they "knew" the patterns of life. 

You may successfully argue that this was just one case and does not represent the human race of which I will quickly agree with you. 

Yet it is what caused me to study, take notes, and use in my interviews, that taught me my opinion of human nature; the mother's, as well as my own, and it was not a flattering view. 

I recognize that many of you will disagree with some ancient story from antiquity about how we came into existence.  I do wonder, however, and rely upon the comments, just how many of you are open minded, to learn, and grow. 

It is no different than the early questions in seminars where I seek to learn who is overly cynical, overly gullible, and who possesses emotional intelligence, which includes the element of humility.  

I admire those who hurt over someone in need of fish, and only differ from them in how to best help those in need.  I do not know anyone, nor have I met anyone, who would not personally open their fridge and share their food with a fellow human being in need.  Whenever a crisis hits, Americans give.  This is why "fake hate" is so successful:  we are a generous people.  But should this generosity be enforced by government, which means the lengthy list of government employees?  

What you feel about human nature dictates how you feel about big government versus small government. 

The Apostle Paul, in writing to the churches, claimed to have the authority of Christ in his own declarations and said, "A man that does not provide for his own house hold, is worse than one who does not believe", for this one, claiming to be a follower of Christ, like a "hater", is "carrying the Name in vain", that is, declaring himself to be one thing by his words, but the opposite by his actions. 

Question:  This terrible condemnation of hypocrisy was based upon what?

Answer:  Labor.  Work.  Provision.  Protection.  

This is where some of our child support laws initially came from, even though many that believe it do not recognize that it was part of the arguments from the man who used the Genesis account as the foundation of his arguments.  

I also recognize that this view point, that is, "Creationism" is not only unpopular today, but may become, in some form or another, contrary to laws in the United States.  

I am of this opinion, now, due to court rulings that had to do with religious freedom in practice, especially that of orthodox Jews seeking to practice their faith in the United States, only to be successfully sued for practicing their faith.  

Creationism itself, is of faith, but it is also something, sans the portion of creation, itself, that many people today still hold to.  They may not recognize where it came from, but they raise their children to a code that is inherited generationally, even if they know not its origin.  They tell their children:

"do not hit your sister" but follow it with lessons on how hitting impacts the victim.  The use the negative, first, and then the positive.  This is the "thou shalt not" philosophy that is ancient. 

When Paul argued, "does not nature itself teach you...?" as a rhetorical question, he was referring to that order in Genesis that appeared "out of sequence", but was only "out of sequence" to us, until we understood:

1.  God made man
2.  God said it was "not good" for man to be alone
3.  God then brought to man all the animals in nature, rather than making woman 
4.  This caused man to become acutely and perhaps, painfully, aware of his status as "not good" because, unlike all the animals, he had no mate. 
5.  Then, woman was created. 

Lastly, as a caution to those who celebrate the crushing of freedom, please note that even as you hold to an opinion where opposition has been crushed, either legally, or through law suits, or even through public shaming, loss of job, reputation, etc, the freedom surrendered, will, some day if history has its say, come back to ensnare you, as well. 

We will get to Theory Two, the optimistic philosophy, eventually, as we work through various beliefs about human nature. 

I hope that you have "food for thought" for yourself, and consider yourself fortunate to still be able to hear a view, publicly, that one day soon, you may not be able to hear, at least, legally, or without consequence, since various attempts or ideologies that will suppress freedom over the internet, specifically, are now public knowledge.  If a "gun forum" can be shut down, even though I am not a gun owner, I know that other forums that do not discuss illegal activities can be shut down, too.  

In our freedom of speech, we held that it was the conspiratorial and treasonous speech, against the king of England, specifically, that they had in mind.  It was not necessary to guard the freedom of those who agreed with the colonialists, but those who opposed them.  This is where the famous "Voltairian" quote arose, which has been said in many ways, sometimes comically, but basically is this:

I don't agree with you in what you are saying.  Yet, I defend, even with my life, your right to say it.  


I hope that this impacts your choices when you examine "the expected" in analysis. 

 I recognize, however, that language is possibly about to undergo the biggest change ever in human history of speech.  It is something perhaps not even considered prior to our day.  

We know that language shifts.  I said to someone yesterday, "Say, when did you start rooting for the New York Mets?" deliberately using one of my favorite phrases from the 1930's.

Sadly, the person just answered the question without comment, "I've always rooted for them.  I hate the Yankees."

Social experiment failure.  

How marvelously odd it is that an ancient story, thousands of years old, has been carried down through so many generations, in so many countries, of so many different languages, and continues to influence us, whether we recognize it or not.  

You may not agree with the New Testament command not to feed someone who refuses to work, but at least you know its origin and why some people hold to it, and why they warn against the consequences to entire generations that are given free fish.  

It is the basis for tolerance:  understanding, even when disagreeing.  













40 comments:

False Dilemma said...


A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available.

See also:

Deduction and Induction
Disjunction
Logical Fallacy
Top 12 Logical Fallacies

"A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive, while the other is the one the manipulator wants us to choose. Whoever succumbs to this trap has thus made a choice that is forced, and as such, of little value. . . . Here are a few examples of common false dilemmas:

Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a miracle.

If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.

America: Love it or leave it.

The universe could not have been created from nothing, so it must have been created by an intelligent life force.

Of course it is possible, using the same process, to create trilemmas, quadrilemmas, and so forth. Each time it is claimed (falsely) that the list of enumerated options is complete, and that one and only one acceptable option is hidden in that list."

Lis said...

Peter, my parents were staunchly of the view that human nature is inherently good and raised my siblings and I this way. It was a disaster. They spent their whole lives being shocked and dismayed, and my siblings and I suffered the consequences of many bad decisions. I came to know Jesus Christ, through the Bible, 40 years ago and my whole life and perspective turned around. I agree with you 100% on this subject, I've seen it all lived out.

My parents meant well. They were educated (and educators). They were kindhearted people. They wanted to leave the oppression of the "thou shalt nots" out of our lives, thinking they were offering us a more compassionate and free way of life. It did not work out that way.

I feel like our family was ahead of its time, we lived through so many things that are common today, only back in the day we were the only ones. At least we had the benefit of most of the families and the community around us being relatively stable. I really feel for kids today, they don't have that. I think the rise in drug use is due to the fact that so many feel a sense of futility and meaninglessness- the pain and suffering inherent in life seem to have no purpose or higher meaning so why not just try to escape.

Lis said...

False dilemma, are you saying that maybe human nature isn't inherently bent towards either selfishness or the greater good? Are you saying that maybe there's a third or fourth possibility? What would they be?

Peter Hyatt said...

Liz,

there are a whole bunch of "in between" claims, but in practice, they, and the claim to neutrality, always fall to one side, or the other, in practice. Hence, my hedging.

Peter

False dilemma said...

Lis- I'm not making a claim about human nature; I'm claiming the article is deceptive.

C5H11ONO said...

What if you have genes that carry good or bad traits? What if you are born neither good or bad? Then combined with good or bad influences throughout the course of your life you are led to who you ultimately become? Babies will grow to adulthood and will know the difference between what is right and wrong. Sociopaths know the difference, yet they don't care.

The "blind" Greeks knew that what they were doing was wrong, yet chose to lie. (technically, they are blind since they were blinded by greed!) But are they bad people? If we look at each one individually will we find some to be law abiding? Hard working? Do they all ignore traffic signals? Do they pick pocket? Do they steal when they go to the stores? It appears to me that this particular situation was propelled because of a group mentality. Therefore if a group mentality arises where Greece accepts the conditions and the group mentality begins to promote that cutting back on government funding is the "right" thing to do, then I am certain that there will be improvement. If that doesn't happen, I would be inclined to think that it might get worse.

Look at the group mentality in our own country. One that comes to mind is recycling. This wasn't popular in the 70's, but there was a small group that began to speak loudly about how "we need to leave our world a better place for our children" and lo and behold, it's something the vast majority of us do now. Look at the Confederate flag mentality now. It's bad to even say the word. If you do, you may be subjected to condemnation. The same can happen in Greece. It depends which "group" gets the upper hand. 20 years from now we may have the "Confederate" revival and it will be good/popular again.
I think that you ultimately do good or bad because of influences including genetic ones, and we can throw in the "group" pressure as well.
I've just confused myself! I just want to be able to improve my statement analysis abilities.

Ellie said...

Peter, here's something I've been thinking about in terms of human behavior and I was wondering if you have noticed this in your work investigating child abuse.

I know several foster parents who have had traumatized and horribly abused children in their care. When others have learned of the abuse the children endured; multiple skull fractures in various stages of healing (in infants), broken limbs, etc., more than once people have commented that they get frustrated with their children too... I saw a news report of children whose relative was adopting them after their parents's rights were severed because of life threatening abuse. The reporter stated that infancy is a dangerous time for children because parents get frustrated by crying and potty training issues.

I submit that those kinds of ideas originate from the Just World Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis. People want to believe that there aren't monsters and evil people, that good people just "snap," and that these children must have been frustrating. Abusers don't abuse because they snap. They believe they deserve quiet babies who are not inconvenient, messy, or smelly and they punish when they don't get what they want.

I have seen the same mentality at work as I learn about targets of intimate partner abuse. Pastors, friends, counselors, authors etc. tell us that good men can abuse because they are frustrated and their targets should work harder at being less frustrating. Abusers abuse because they can, because they aren't getting what they think they deserve. Any "good" works you see are part of the game they play to keep power. Assuming people are "good" harms many by keeping abusers in power.

Did you notice people hoping that abusers "just snapped" in your work investigating abuse?

Sara said...

I believe that humans are inherently good. That doesn't mean they remain that way. Free will and their environment, together with genetic predisposition, will determine whether they remain good or not.
I, too, have worked in the maternity ward. I have never seen a "bad" baby.
I was born into Catholocism. The concept of original sin was one of the reasons I rejected Catholocism as I matured. Nope, I just couldn't buy that we, as humans, are defective from the moment of birth, nay, conception. Further, I suggest that viewing humanity as inherently bad/wrong/evil is a form of self-hatred, a deep lack of self-esteem if you will. I do see that we have the capacity for evil within us, but this doesn't mean we have evil within us.

Ellie- I agree wholeheartedly with your view of how people want to explain evil away, often as a "snapping". I have seen and heard that reasoning. I'm always like "No, he didn't snap, he just an a@@H@@@".

Lemon said...

I'm going with (B) They continue to spend that which they do not have; or possibly even increase the over spending.
#everybodysdoingit

Lis said...

It's interesting to watch a baby doing what is innocent and natural (for it) and then imagine an adult doing the exact same behavior. It's actually kind of chilling, try it sometime!

My parents loved babies! but as a baby became a toddler, gained some abilities to interact with the world and assert itself, and human nature became evident, they found it much more difficult. I think in a way they felt betrayed. They had loved and nurtured and still this baby became selfish and wanted it's own way, regardless of how it affected anyone else! Disappointing.

Expectations make such a huge difference in life.

Lemon said...

Following up on what Lis said:
I love going out to a nice restaurant and hearing toddlers speak in moderated tones, whispering "Yours! Yours!" and offering their toys to one another.
Said nobody, ever.

rob said...

I'm going with option 'B' also. And I say everyone else (other countries) should withdraw and let the chips fall where they may.

The concept of 'have to' and 'will to survive' can change people for the better. A lot of ugly will come before it gets better, but, oh well. We should watch closely, our time is coming soon.

Peter Hyatt said...

Here is one for ya:

Where objective truth is denied, death of many follows.

Or, better still:

Pick out various regimes that have promised social utopia for its people, and count the number of dead that followed.

If helpful, use only a few hundred years of history.

Tyranny comes from the vacuum created by destroying right from wrong, historically.

Peter

C5H11ONO said...

The communist regime in Cuba overthrew Batista under the guise of a promised social utopia. What happened immediately when Castro came into power was swift and shocking. Militia came into every workplace and arrested individuals indiscriminately simply because they had a different opinion than the new regime. Castro had any revolutionaries that were "popular" with the people and held "influence" executed. 60 or so years have gone by. Obummer believes that it is high time we start working with Cuba. Cubans are told that this happened a long time ago and they need to get over it. Raul Castro is better. Well here is a photo of Raul engaged in an execution. Tell me how this scum bag is better? Tell me how you would feel if your father's home, farm, properties were taken away and told that it now belongs to the government? Would you be able to forget and put it behind you?
http://marcmasferrer.typepad.com/uncommon_sense/2006/08/the_blood_on_ra.html
Many of the people affected are still alive. Slavery in the US seized to exist so much longer and yet black people are unable to forget and put it behind them, yet Cubans need to get over the atrocities perpetrated on them 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago. Here's the final laugh though. So many "African Americans" like to wear Che Guevara t-shirts and post his posters in their civil rights offices and what they don't know is that Che was racist and couldn't stand blacks. This is just a reflection of their ignorance since Che himself was a mass murderer and sociopath, yet they honor him. And by the way, his t-shirts are sold in the same stores that pulled the Confederate flags. Anything “Che” is offensive, but the "popular group" is pushing the “Confederate” agenda and the sheeple follow.
Cubans were not allowed to talk disparagingly about the government. The government came into power and removed "religion". Many Cubans witnessed how priests and nuns were kicked out of their convents. They implemented the "voluntary" work where kids had to go to work camps. Unsupervised by their parents. Do you know what happened? The Cuban regime systematically dismantled the family unit. The communist regime in Cuba became dependent on Russia. Everything was shipped from Russia from baby food, to automobiles. They weren’t good products. You know why? Because the Russian people were working in an oppressed government themselves. There was no need to improve because there were no rewards to be reaped. Then since the professionals and even farm owners left the country, those that took over were ignorant. They didn't possess the knowledge and those natural resources didn't flourish. People had to buy food that was rationed, the same way Venezuela has to buy their food now. Social programs...Free. Yep, you got free healthcare. Have you seen photos of hospitals in Cuba? If you have a loved one in a hospital you have to bring your own bed sheets. Medicine? Families in the US had to ship medicines to Cuba. That was the social reform. What is happening here? Have you been to a doctor lately? Have you found yourself being treated by a Physician Assistant?
Cuba, aside from having a thriving tobacco industry, had coffee and sugar as natural resources. Do you know what Cubans put into their coffee? Chick Peas. The coffee is mixed with chick peas so they could have sufficient amount to provide their people. There is no food in Cuba. If you lived in the country you could possibly have a better opportunity at eating than those in the city. Ask any Cuban about food rationing. But healthcare is free.
Here's the healthcare system Michael Moore wouldn't show you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_RgM1jHeo
Socialism and communism are one and the same, and they don't work.

Peter Hyatt said...

Subjectivity leads to tyranny. This is why the Supreme Court ruling is not really about same-sex marriage. It has created a new status of creation; the "identity", which, itself is subjective, changing, etc.

Next, historically, the "left", or those who use government to encroach into the social lives of their citizens has almost always led to death.

Cambodia

China's communist take over led to millions of deaths

Stailin promised everything and then starved entire cities for wheat and food;

Hitler was far left, in that the Nazi party was extreme socialism, encroaching upon everything from childhood to the grave (they were not "left" in that they were nationalists, or for their own nation first).


What of the American "father" of socialism, FDR?

He promised bread, chicken, and "security" from cradle to the grave but then, like all messianic tyrants, he ran out of money. What did he do to get the businesses up and running? He issued an oil embargo against Japan, and armed German's enemies, while promising the American people he would stay out.

Europe's messianic complex has imported 50 million people who's ideology is to over take them and enslave them, and have faithfully exercised this philosophy for more than 1,000 years.

We, believing we are messianic, too, have brought in toxic immigration with the promise that they can take from our public wealth, without having to invest into it first. This is self loathing in practice.

Yet, each tyranny has claimed the "moral high ground" and seeks to silence all opposing voices, while those who believe in freedom defend free speech like the air we breathe: something we cannot be without.

The court ruling on the Jews at JONAH was just a tiny example of tyranny and its immediate implication.

Europe spends money like there is no tomorrow, cutting their military budgets knowing that the US will come to their defense yet Greece is buckling under, with Spain, Portugal, Ireland (and more) not far behind in bankruptcy.

yet, they believe themselves to be sovereign keep right on going, while we, the 'sheep' have been conditioned by press who know the only way to access the major powers is to cozy up editorial wise. When I say "sheep", I mean myself, too, as I have the same Pavlovian reactions that many of you do. I realized this when I use the word "tea party" and negative images immediately come upon me, yet I don't know much about their beliefs! It shows how good a job the propaganda has done, and why few people still trust the media.

We have been caught spying on our allies, and now we are going to "defeat ISIS without guns", and will likely see more spending that is unprecedented in our history, including that the current president has indebted us more than the last three presidents...

combined.

Self loathing? Yes, our ego is destroying us as we are a people of "feelings." I even tried to grasp the UCLA's chart against racism and all I could come up with is this:

If I moved to Italy, and worked really hard at learning Italian and some Italian says to me, "Your Italian is really good", I will know that this is a "micro-aggression" of a racist %^(&*( who despises me, rather than complimenting me.

trustmeigetit said...

OT

Statement from Dylan Redwine’s mother about why she is so sure dad is responsible. Strong statement.

Reporter: "How can you be so certain?"
Hatfield: "Because I know what evidence is out there. I know him, I know our relationship. I know his relationship with the boys and that's why, from day one, I pointed my finger at him.”

BD863 said...

Hope this worked

Saint Theresa said...

Please 6@1 513 2587

Saint Theresa said...

Or leave your number

Sara said...

C5H--nice to read from a clear thinker. I hope you are not shy about educating your family, friends, and children especially (if you have them). Our rights, our protections against tyranny, are being incrementally eroded, and Cuba is a great example of where we could end up. I have found with my children the need to consistently connect the dots for them. To make them aware that what seems like a small concession today, is merely the top of the slippery slope towards tyranny. Things don't change overnight, but slowly, almost Imperceivable.
When my children were studying the Holocaust, they understandably questioned "How did this happen?", but also expressed that there must be "something" about the German people that allowed this. I told them straight up, the Germans are no different in this regard than Americans--Make no mistake, under the right circumstances, our neighbors (lovely people) wouldn't hesitate to throw us in a camp...It can happen here...this Is Not simply "bad things people used to do in the olden days". Bad things are happening in many countries at this very moment in time.

New England Water Blog said...

This story has gotten interesting. Who is really The Watcher?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148988/New-twist-Watcher-mystery-No-copies-threatening-letters-no-summons-served-former-residents-insist-no-stalker-family-demanding-triple-1-35m-sale-price.html

shmi said...

The person who is being given something has their palm up. The person doing the giving has the "upper hand". The giver will always have power over the other. Same is true of a country. I do not understand who or what entity is going to bail out Greece, but they will soon wield the power over them.

tania cadogan said...

off topic

When the Westfield Leader recorded last August that John and Andrea Woods had sold their house to Derek and Maria Broaddus, the only raised eyebrows in the comfortable New Jersey town may have been over the price; at $1.35million, it was in the top three most expensive transactions of the month.

But a year later, the six-bed, 3.5-bath family house with wraparound porches lies empty, stripped of furniture, a children's playhouse abandoned in the backyard.

The New Jersey home is at the center of a bizarre legal case which has made it famous worldwide.

On one side is the Broaddus family, who claim they were deceived by the sellers over a troubling secret: That their new home has a menacing stalker who calls himself 'The Watcher'.

Since the Broadduses signed the property deed in June 2014, they say 'The Watcher' has sent them three threatening letters, laying claim to the house and suggesting 'nefarious intentions' towards those who live there.

With three children under 12, the couple have said they are too terrified to move into the home, particularly because one letter, made sinister demands for 'young blood'.

And on the other side of the bizarre case are the Woods, a couple in their early sixties with two grown-up sons.

Their downsizing to an idyllic waterfront property in Cape Cod has been upended as they face being sued for the $1.35million purchase price of the New Jersey home along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Broadduses claim to have spent in renovations.

The Broadduses were also suing for legal costs and punitive damages for 'severe and incalculable emotional distress'.

But a Daily Mail Online investigation today uncovers the background to the case – and raises key questions over a legal battle.

Seton Hall Law Professor, Charles Sullivan, said it was going to be a 'hard road both legally and factually for the plaintiffs as the only proof they appeared to have come in a statement from "The Watcher" himself'.

Derek and Maria Broaddus filed their civil case on June 2 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County against the Woods and two companies involved in the sale of the home; Chicago Title Insurance Company and A Absolute Escrow Company.

Also named on the complaint was The Watcher as 'John Does #1 through #10'.

The lawsuit alleged the Woods family were 'so desperate to sell' that they kept quiet about The Watcher and his 'mentally disturbed fixation' on the turn-of-the-century home.

The Broadduses claimed the Woods received a threatening letter from The Watcher 'on or about the week of May 26' and failed to disclose it before the house sale was finalized.

However, the lawsuit doesn't explain how the Broadduses found out that a letter had been sent to the Woods.

The Broadduses claimed they would never have bought the house if the sellers had warned them of The Watcher.

Three days after getting keys to their new home, the Broadduses said The Watcher sent them a letter, demanding 'young blood' and threatening to watch the house as 'my grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s'.

Two additional letters were sent to the Broadduses in the next six weeks. The letter writer claimed the Woods sold the Westfield house because 'it was their time to move on and kindly sold it when I asked them to,' according to the lawsuit.

The letter, signed by The Watcher, claimed that he had been put in charge of the home and was 'waiting for its second coming', the suit stated.

tania cadogan said...

The threats also seemed to focus on the Broaddus children. The Broadduses have refused to move into their home due to the 'potential harm' which could befall them and their children.

And the couple also claim they were now unable to sell the home because of The Watcher's letters.

The Broadduses were now obligated to reveal The Watcher's threats to those who live at the house and this has put off potential buyers, according to the suit.


No copies of the letters, which have sparked international interest, have been made public. The only details were those included in the Broadduses' lawsuit. That lawsuit demanded 'treble damages' - a potentially handsome compensation.

It's unclear where the letters were sent from and where they were received.

The United States Postal Service told Daily Mail Online they had received a copy of one of the letters from a third party and contacted the police department to offer assistance.

USPS could offer no further information on the letters but confirmed they have assisted the Westfield Police Department with an investigation.

Westfield police chief David Wayman told Daily Mail Online there will no longer be any comments from his department relating to The Watcher case but earlier revealed to Nj.com that police had a 'few' leads.

Chief Wayman added that he was unaware of the Woods receiving a letter from The Watcher as the Broadduses have claimed.

Local realtors also confirmed last week to Daily Mail Online that the sale of the home on Boulevard had been withdrawn from the market.

A realtor from Coldwell Banker, whose name was provided by a fellow agent as the individual handling the sale, hung up when contacted.

For 41-year-old Mr Broaddus and his college sweetheart wife Maria, 40, the purchase of the million-dollar home in June 2014, must have appeared the reward for their years of hard work.

After graduating in 1992 from Cheverus Jesuit High School in Portland, Maine, Mr Broaddus spent four years at the Catholic University of Fairfield in Connecticut, graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in marketing in 1996.

While at Fairfield he met fellow student, Maria Joy Santamauro, a native of Westfield, New Jersey, who had graduated from her local high school and was studying for a degree in mathematics.

After college, the couple moved to an apartment in New York where Mr Broaddus embarked on his career, climbing the ranks at General Star Management, a Berkshire Hathaway company, to becomerose to become vice president.

Around 2002, the couple moved to a $300,000, three-bed colonial style starter-home in Scotch Plains, New Jersey.

Six years later and with a growing family, the couple upgraded and fulfilled Mrs Broaddus' wish of returning to her home town of Westfield.

They paid around $770,000 and moved into a three-bed, 3.5-bath property with screened porch, deck and large garden.

Mr Broaddus is now a senior vice president for Allied World Assurance Company, where he has been for the last decade.

He is no stranger to routine legal action while handling accounts totalling more than $75 million from his office on the 25th floor of a skyscraper in Manhattan's financial district, just steps from Wall Street.

Along with his professional success, Mr Broaddus' philanthropy reveals him to be a devout Catholic. He joined his former high school's board of trustees in 2012 and raised $13,000 for children's cancer charity, St Baldrick's, which primarily fundraises through head-shaving events. In 2011, the Broadduses were listed as donors of Camp Sunshine, a retreat for children with life-threatening illnesses.

New Englander Mr Broaddus is avid online follower of ice hockey team, the Boston Bruins, the New England Pats and the Red Sox, according to social media, and a fan of TV shows The Walking Dead, The Daily Show and The Newsroom.

He also appears to keep up with goings-on in his hometown, following Facebook groups for renting in Portland along with Friends of Portland and a Portland historical society.

tania cadogan said...

Like her husband, Mrs Broaddus earned her degree, in Math, from the University of Fairfield in the mid-nineties. She spent a brief stint working in human resources and consulting for Hewitt Associates.

However unlike Mr Broaddus, she decided the corporate world was not for her and her passion lay in teaching. She pursued her Masters at Sacred Heart University, also in Connecticut.

The 40-year-old, mother-of-three has been a lifelong volunteer. While a student at Fairfield, she received a humanitarian award for charity work, crediting her parents for driving her to give back to the community.

She also volunteered at a summer camp for children with cancer, and after graduation, went to Arizona to spend time at a counselling agency for abused children.

Several years later in 2004, the now Mrs Broaddus was back in her home town teaching the fourth grade at Franklin Elementary School.

The then pregnant 29-year-old told the local paper in a short 'Educator of the Week' interview that she thought the Westfield school system provided a 'solid education' and that she was on a mission to make math exciting for her young students.

She added that she took the job at Franklin Elementary because she had always wanted to move back to her local area.

At the time she was pregnant with the couple's son, who is now 11. The couple went on to have daughters, who are now ten and seven.


In recent years, Mrs Broaddus seems to have swapped the demands of teaching for the busy job of being a stay-at-home mom to three young children.

Sadly, their lawsuit suggests that the young family's peaceful, suburban life has been uprooted by the disturbing presence of a presumed stalker while they live in a temporary home.

But since filing their lawsuit, the Broadduses have used a crisis management public relations firm to respond to calls directed towards them and their lawyer.

Abernathay MacGregor is more used to the world of financial and insurance public relations, but its managing director, Rhonda Barnat, is answering questions for the Broaddus family.

Dealing with allegations of a deranged stalker in suburban New Jersey is an unusual addition to her CV: the firm describes her as 'one of the country's leading crisis management advisers' and she has previously been involved in the aftermath of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Through her, the Broadduses have refused repeated requests for interview over the sensational claims of their suit.

Whether answering no questions at all is in line with what Barnat says is her usual advice to her clients is unclear: she wrote in Business Insider in 2010: 'Tell them, as simply and clearly and quickly as you can. Things go better when you answer the first question first.'

Their attorney, Lee M. Levitt, has also refused to respond to repeated calls to his office in Parsippany, New Jersey or to requests for comment sent to the Gmail address he provides.

Mr Levitt, who graduated from Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, was admitted to the New York and New Jersey bars in 1997. According to his website, he has more than 12 years of experience as a general practice lawyer. He records his specialty as dealing in DUIs.

Those on the receiving end of the million-dollar lawsuit are distinguished scientists, John Whitcomb Woods, 62, and his 61-year-old wife Andrea.

Mr Woods is a cell biologist with a number of awards including a National Research service award from the National Institute of Health; an Argall L. and Anna G. Hull Cancer Research Award and a Leukaemia Society of America special fellowship.

He earned a Ph.D in biology from the University of Maryland in 1981, continued with his post-doctoral work at Yale University School of Medicine and while at the Ivy League college , he became a special fellow with the Leukemia Society of America.

tania cadogan said...

They moved to the Boulevard home in the early 1990s when Mr Woods became a research fellow at Merck, based in Rahway, six miles away, and lived there with their sons, Tim, now 24, and Michael, 28, selling last year.

His wife Andrea also worked at Merck, a global pharmaceutical company which makes vaccines among other products.

Much like their legal adversaries, the Woods also appear to have been valued members of the Westfield community.

The Woods were members of the Presbyterian Church of Westfield where Mr Woods served as a deacon. He is a former scoutmaster and has been a summer camp director on three occasions.

Following the sale of their Westfield home the Woods have decamped to the idyllic seaside community of East Falmouth, Massachusetts.

They purchased a three-bed, three-bath ranch-style home in 2012 for close to $600,000, nestled in a heavily forested, gated community within walking distance of the members-only Cape Cod country club.

Mr Woods refused to comment to Daily Mail Online on the lawsuit citing advice from his lawyer, when reached at his property.

He gave a wry smile and offered no comment when asked if he had received letters from The Watcher.

Details of the Woods' attorney were not known at present. Chicago Title Insurance Company and A Absolute Escrow failed to respond to requests for comment.

The Woods have not responded the civil lawsuit as of today - in fact they have no need to do so: no summons has been issued against them, court officials said, which means the case is simply stalled.

According to New Jersey courts, defendants must file an answer to the suit within 35 days of receiving a summons, including any defense and dispute with the facts.

As lines are drawn on both sides of the real estate legal battle, past residents of the house on the Boulevard revealed to Daily Mail Online they were baffled by tales of The Watcher and recalled their happy childhood.

Matthew L. Bakes, 57, whose parents owned the house for 40 years, said he had never heard of the alleged creepy tormentor while growing up, adding that his family had never received any threatening letters.

tania cadogan said...

Mr Bakes' late mother Floy Bakes and father Seth Bakes, a WWII Air Force captain, bought the home in the early 1950s and lived there happily for decades with their two daughters and two sons.

The 57-year-old described an idyllic childhood, bordering on 'almost dull' in the single family home surrounded by neatly-kept lawns.

Mr Bakes, who lived in the house through the 1960s, said he was unaware of The Watcher or his letters – despite the letters noted in the Broadduses' lawsuit, where the sinister figure claims his grandfather and father had been watching the home for decades.

He said: 'We never had any letters. We had a very good childhood. The house was my mother's dream home.

'This has all caught me totally by surprise, it's so arbitrary.'

Mr Bakes, who now lives in Bally, Pennsylvania and owns a car restoration business, said he had loved growing up on the street which had changed little over the years.

The family knew their neighbors during their time in the house although Mr Bakes said he doesn't know anyone who lives there now.

His sister, Margaret Bakes Davis, also told Daily Mail Online that she found the story of The Watcher 'very odd' and there had been no mention of this figure growing up.

She said: 'It was a fabulous house to grow up in and we had great neighbors. I consider myself very lucky to have lived there.'

Mrs Davis, who now lives in Belle Mead, New Jersey close to Princeton, added: 'Nothing like that happened when I was there. It just seems so bizarre.'

Their father sold the home in the early 1990s to John and Andrea Woods.

When asked about his childhood home's newfound notoriety, Mr Bakes said: 'It strikes you as kind of odd, you never associate it with anything like that.

'Living there, it was just a normal way to grow up.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148988/New-twist-Watcher-mystery-No-copies-threatening-letters-no-summons-served-former-residents-insist-no-stalker-family-demanding-triple-1-35m-sale-price.html

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Search Intensifies For Missing Bardstown Mother

Search efforts for missing Nelson county woman, Crystal Rogers, continued Wednesday.

"We've had about 75 to 100 people out today," Sam Johnson said, relative.

Family, friends and community members searched either on foot or by boat, are all looking for signs of Rogers, a mother of five who disappeared Friday.

"She's got little kids and they miss their momma," Sherry Ballard said, Rogers' mother.

Deputies found Rogers' maroon Impala on the Bluegrass Parkway unlocked and with a flat tire Saturday morning.

They say her phone and purse were still inside, but there was no sign of Rogers.

"She's never been anywhere for a long period of time that I didn't know where she was at or somebody in the family," Ballard said.

Hoping someone out there knows something, her parents are offering a $60,000 reward.

"Bring her home," Ballard said. "Just bring her back to us we beg you to."

Crystal is 5'9, weighs about 160 lbs, and has blonde hair she recently cut to shoulder length.

Family and friends gathered at St. Thomas church Wednesday evening for a prayer service.

They say rain or shine they won't stop searching until they find her

"Every opportunity every clue we're not going to leave a stone unturned," Johnson said. "We're going to search that area."

Investigators say Rogers was last seen at her boyfriend's house Friday night and he is cooperating with the investigation.

However, her parents say he hasn't been helping them look for her.

"Him or none of his family has been out to find her," Tommy Ballard said, Rogers' father. "We're the ones who reported her missing."


If you have any information regarding this case you're asked to contact the Nelson County's Sheriff's Office at (502) 384- 3211

http://www.lex18.com/story/29506588/search-intensifies-for-missing-bardstown-mother

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

OT: Above.

Investigation Centering on Boyfriend of Missing Bardstown Woman

The Nelson County Sheriff's Office says the boyfriend of a missing mother of five has agreed to take a lie detector test.

Friends and family continue their search for 35-year-old Crystal Rogers. The search area has expanded with teams combing additional areas off of the Bluegrass Parkway.

Rogers' car was found abandoned near mile marker 14 with her purse and cellphone inside. The 2007 maroon Chevrolet Impala also had a flat tire.

Nelson County Sheriff Ed Mattingly says Brooks Houck, Rogers' live-in boyfriend, is the last reported person to see her at his family's farm.

The family has increased their reward to $40,000 for information that leads police to find Rogers.

http://wkyufm.org/post/investigation-centering-boyfriend-missing-bardstown-woman

Anonymous said...

I think people act and believe mostly the way they are taught as children. Most of the time this does not change. But sometimes it does. As an airforce wife, I moved for 20 years. I met people from all over the world. I feel that my views and thoughts are very different now from how I was raised.
If people have been taught to hate, usually that takes generations to change. My kids think so differently from my parents about everything from politics to religion. My children are very open minded about food and people from different cultures.
Greece may not have learned anything. This is how they live and think. I don't think that they will be quick to change. But their children might change.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

This would be interesting to analyze, if, the 911 call is released?

Madison police: Man calls 911 to divert search for him

A man sought by police as a suspect in a domestic incident Wednesday allegedly tried to throw police off his track by calling 911 to report a man with a gun a mile away.

Derrick Pollard Jr., 26, Madison, was taken into custody in the 800 block of Walsh Road at about 11 a.m., following the domestic incident reported at about 9:45 a.m. in the 4300 block of Nakoosa Trail.

Pollard was tentatively charged with dialing 911 to report a false emergency, battery, disorderly conduct and resisting, Madison police said.

According to police:

A 26-year-old woman called police claiming that she was struck by Pollard and that he tossed a 10-month-old baby into the back seat of a car before leaving the area on foot.

Police started tracking him near the 700 block of Pulley Drive and found him on Walsh Road.

"During the time officers were looking for him, a call came into the dispatch center of a man threatening people with a gun near Swanton Road and Thompson Drive," said police spokesman Howard Payne.

"Since the phone number that this call came from was thought to be associated with Pollard, one surmised he was attempting to have the searching officers divert resources to the falsely reported call," Payne said.

Pollard allegedly told police the only reason he ran in the first place was so police had to find and catch him.

"Officers, along with the assistance of a police dog, did their job well," Payne said.



Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/madison-police-man-calls-to-divert-search-for-him/article_c1c7da96-f824-510f-802a-b4dc7ec228c0.html#ixzz3fPvNg54v

Anonymous said...

OT

Peter,

I searched the site, but don't see anything on Donald Trump.
When I listen to him speak or read interviews, he raises my hackles.
My fledgling knowledge of statement analysis causes me to view him as a bad guy.

One candidate who comes off as sincere is Gov. Jindal.

Thoughts ?

Thanks.

Peter Hyatt said...

At least there is no more first year philosophy student posts.

The Donald?

Like the hair, but don't trust him around your sister.

Peter Hyatt,

President, The United States of Feelings.

Anonymous said...

B. for Greece.

Is it possible to have theory 1 and 2 be dependent on whether one is talking about groups overall (mob mentality) or individuals ?

I vascillate between the two theories depending on whether it's an individual or multiple people involved.

I think a lot of people find HC to be scary. Will it override lib's hatred of republicans ? IDK.

There was a skit on SNL that did a great job parodying her preceived demeanor.

"CITIZENS, you WILL elect me! I WILL BE YOUR LEADER! "
-Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon), SNL

Buckley said...

At least there is [sic] no more first year philosophy student posts.

Amen! Logic...philosophy...same difference.

Besides, the middle school put downs make us "feel" so much better, anyway :)

Buckley said...

Trump has no delusions he is going to be President. I dare say he doesn't even want to be President; he likes being in the headlines, talking about himself, etc. He's annoying but he's not stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing. And what he seems to be doing is helping Bush. He takes on Bush by name, making it look, for a news cycle, a race between the two, shutting out the others. He goes too far in immigration comments, making Bush's position more palatable to mainstream Republicans. He overdoes it by insulting Bush's wife, making people feel sorry for Bush.

Bush responds:

"Bush shrugged off the back-and-forth Wednesday night, calling Trump's comments part of "this weird little controversy that I’m not a big party to"

I get why Bush is minimizing the "weird little controversy" but why the negative statement "not a big party to"?

Trump is minimizing Bush's opponents, making Bush look more reasonable to moderate Republicsns (who aren't as loud but make up a significant portion of the electorate- just ask McCain and Romney.

I thought Walker was going to catch on more. Christie is done, Jindal is going nowhere. Rubio? Maybe but seems more like VP or 2020 nominee. I'm sorry, Cruz seems like Trump without the cajones. To me, his statements seem the most deceptive.

The Democrats are making a huge mistake by attacking Bush for his comments on Americans working harder. He's not saying people should be forced to work more but that opportunities should be there to earn more, remove debt, help the country be more productive. Big mistake being against hard work and growth.

Buckley said...

Forgot Kasich- he's my favorite! I hope he catches on. He gets that too much spending is too much spending regardless of which party proposes it. Plus he just seems like a regular guy more than many of them.

Carnival Barker said...


Peter, were you a CASA?

oldmarathonrunner said...

What a load of absolute bollocks. Of course there is free will. Everyone is absolutely free to do what they wish. The influences exerted do not in any way alter the fact that they are free to make the choice for themselves. Some people will chose to die for their beliefs others would rather give in and be alive. They are free in all circumstances to make the decision for themselves. The fact that people in Japan have no idea how their country actually behaved in the war no 2 has no bearing on their freedom at any time to decide for themsleves to be ashamed or not. At all times every human has the ability to decide what to do for himself all pressures make no difference to the fact that they can chose they merely affect the choice.