Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Rationalizing your racist tendencies and why race remains an issue

Race has been a lingering and, more often, a problematic issue for America culturally, legally, and politically. Being branded “racist” or referencing race in a demeaning manner can bring condemnation and ostracizing upon such a person. Quite simply though the acknowledgment of race is racism and those engaged identifying people by race are no less offenders than those branded as racists.

Categorization is for the purpose of differentiation and separation far more than for purpose of inclusion. What purpose does identifying differences serve? It distinguishes the “us” from the “them.” It allows for an easy judgment to be made about someone and to exclude him or her from the privileges afforded to others.

I often speak to clients about truth, actuality, and reality. In truth what is, is. Truth is absolute. Similarly, actuality is what exists or has occurred while reality is what has been realized. Reality need not be correct or truthful because it is subjective. Reality is only achieved after input has passed through our sensory processing system which is fallible and coloured by the lens of our experience and biases.

When police radios chatter with descriptions of suspects as “white”, “black” or some other racial classification we may not perceive that as a racist action. But our shorthand manner of communication carries with it vast social implications. We rationalize our racist tendencies, of which we may be unaware, because we profess that convenience, long standing practice, or our individual intentions do not appear to be what we have been conditioned to perceive as racism. But the truth is, what is - is! A racist action, one that perpetuates racial distinction and ultimately discrimination is racism in action.

A person may be described as “a black man” which carries great social connotations based upon the perceptions or biases as to “man” and “black.” Identifying a suspect as “a person who appears male and has black skin” describes the actuality rather than the reality of the suspect.

So when thinking of how you speak in reference to people or objects consider whether you are being descriptive or delivering a social message. This can be realized in the manner by which we reference each other.

Clearly we are an ownership society based upon the capitalist nature of western civilization. This manifests itself in the phrases we use to express our relationships. We may say “this is my house”, “that is my car”, or “this is my child.” Certainly a car is titled to someone who owns it. It is his or hers. Likewise for the house. Often though people don’t own their cars but are instead “purchasing” in an ongoing series of payments. Less often do people actually own their homes as is so aptly demonstrated in foreclosures.

While discrimination and prejudice are essential skills for survival they may be misplaced in the social realm especially when it comes to the matter of race. Over 30 years ago I began to understand how government was using race as a means to promote prejudice and discrimination. When I was in prison race was exactingly used as a tool to promote hostility and foster antagonism between inmates so as to divert them away from collectively defeating the turnkeys. Inmate transfers from institution to institution were a means to keep any particular race from gaining control over an institution for if once inmate to inmate hostilities or power struggles were to cease then the administration of the institution would become the target.

I have tirelessly fought to eliminate the institutional or cultural racism that exists within our society. Without deliberate action by all it will continue. Government and NGO forms often ask for divisive personal information such as race or gender. I leave those spaces blank because they serve no other purpose than for government bureaucrats to impose a limitation on someone because of race or gender. If you want racism to stop then start with yourself. Do you identify yourself or others by the person’s race? If race is not an issue then don’t play into the racism game by making it one.

That’s my thoughts from this person who is male and has white skin.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.


Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Monday, June 29, 2015

Providing public comment on the proposed amendments for 2016 Indiana Child Support Guidelines

The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center has completed drafting its initial proposed revisions to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. On 26 June 2015 the Indiana Supreme Court posted on its webpage information about public input on the proposed revisions. The proposed modified ICSG may be viewed here. Public comment on the modifications proposed by the DRC may be made using this form. Comments may also be delivered in writing through the mail. The public is invited to submit comments for 60 days from the date of publication. The public input will be reviewed by the DRC which may then amend its proposed revisions before submitting them to the supreme court.

In previous years I have reviewed the public comments and listened to the subsequent discussion by the members of the DRC about the public input. Reading them in their entirety usually takes not less than five hours. Through these experiences I have gleaned a few clues as to what makes for an effective comment and which ideas get lost in poor draftsmanship.

Before you begin preparing for submitting your comments I would like for you to read and consider the following guidance I provide on submitting comments.

1] Purpose and statutory requirements. Comments that seek to have the guidelines written in a manner inconsistent with federal and state laws are not going to get any traction. Such things as emancipation age, secondary education support, and health care expenses have underlying statutory provisions to which the guidelines must be consistent. Before gathering your thoughts on what you would like to see in the guidelines first read the Preface to the ICSG so you will be aware of the parameters in which the members of the DRC must work.

2] Formality. Use proper letter format, including punctuation, capitalization and accurate spelling.

3] Personalization. The judicial officers on the DRC are interested in who you are and why you have committed your time and effort to reviewing their work. A brief introduction about yourself is appropriate. Specific case information should not be shared in this venue; your comments are public record. Although it is unlikely one of these judicial officers may be associated with your case, providing case specific information or opinion could be a prohibited ex parte communication.

4] Apply comments broadly. A common refrain heard while the DRC members are discussing issues is, “We can’t make these apply to everyone. They are just guidelines.” Thus, when commenting about specific provisions try to ensure that any recommendation could be applicable to nearly all cases.

5] Copy the language and note the section to which you refer. It will help the DRC members to understand your comments if they can readily associate them to the language in the proposed guidelines.

6] Not changing language in the ICSG is taking an action. It is choosing to maintain the current language. If you feel a change should be made that wasn't then that comment is welcomed and should be made.

Be succinct in your writing and keep in mind that you are appealing to judicial officers to accept and act upon your input. The DRC members have each contributed a significant amount of their time to drafting these proposed revisions. Much of it has been done at home on their time. They have all continually expressed concern that both parents need to support their children and ensure that the children are being supported. They have also acknowledged that some parents use child support payments for themselves rather than the child but realize that such misappropriation of support is a matter for the presiding judge on the particular case. It may be good to acknowledge their efforts and show appreciation.

If you do not wish to submit your input on your own then feel free to send it to me and I will include such in a portion of my input dedicated to what I am hearing from parents.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.


Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Friday, June 26, 2015

2016 Indiana Child Support Guidelines proposed changes are now open for public comment

The Indiana Supreme Court today posted on its webpage a link for public comment on the proposed modifications to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. The Domestic Relations Committee has been working on drafting amendments to the ICSG following the adoption of modifications to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines in 2013.

Comments may be delivered through a web-link or submitted in writing. Additional information and the proposed guidelines are available here. Public comment will be taken for 60 days. Following that time the DRC may elect to make changes based upon the public input. The final recommendations of the DRC will be reviewed by the directors of the Indiana Judicial Center before being submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the Court approves the amendments the the modified ICSG will likely go into effect on 01 January 2016.

All comments submitted become part of the public record.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.


Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Are you defeating your own cause or promoting illness over wellness?

Recently I have seen or been invited to participate in the various annual fundraising events to finance research into ailments such as cancer. I will neither participate in nor contribute to the false perception that such funding will help people. My refusal to be engaged in the ruse is based upon an objective view of the myriad factors that affect perception and self-defeating actions which appear beneficial.

The comedic quip that often appears in the fictionalized video productions we watch made in response to the query “What were you thinking” is “I wasn’t”. The various adversities that you or others may face are based upon the selected course taken at decisive moments. Thus, we mentally competent adults are all where we put ourselves.

The stressors that precede outburst of indignation, cries of unjust treatment, or pleas for mercy from the stranglehold of illness were most probably the result of thinking but not thinking deeply. It’s cliche to say that you must look below the surface but that axiom frames an important concept. That is, before making a selection view the situation in depth. This reveals motivations, substance, and, most important, the wider array of possibilities.

As the fledgling student Luke Skywalker was instructed to do by his teacher Yoda, “You must unlearn what you have learned.” The scripts or biases which you have developed throughout your life can deceive and defeat you.

When I express the term “children’s movie” you conjure an image or expectation of the content. Your experiences affect your interpretation of such an ambiguous term. You may imagine animated or CGI based characters involved in an adventurous storyline or actor based video of children involved in some hijinx whereby they surmount a challenge and defeat the odds that favour the adults. However, if you are involved in the production side of film you may envision shaky camerawork, short productions, and low production value. Thus, the term may be applied to films intended for viewing by children or films produced by children.

Societal scripts have likely helped to mold your perception of animals. We speak of a “wild child” or a “wild night” as those which are unruly, go against our norms, and need brought under control. An animal that has been deprived of its liberty, freedom, and expression of its essence usually for the purpose of serving a want of man is labeled as “domesticated.” Thus, a domesticated animal is one which has been enslaved. An animal that is unrestrained, is allowed to live consistent with its natured and make its own decisions is labeled as “wild.” Thus, a wild animal being unconstrained is one that has liberty.

If you are asked to make a contribution to “fund cancer research” that may appeal to your benevolence and elicit your transfer of funds. If you were asked to make a contribution to “help ensure that cancer remains prevalent and pharmaceutical company employees are highly paid” would that elicit the same response? Likely not. But are both phrases applicable to the same act or outcome? I contend that they are which is revealed by a deeper analysis.

You may recall my admonishments to see the objects or events in world for what they are rather than what they are named. As an example I use the instrument that is used to chop down a tree. You may say it is an axe. I say it is a metallic wedge with an arched edge honed sharp which is attached to a handle. That is the difference between what something is and what it is named.

When it comes to diseases of the body and those who are purportedly seeking a cure an objective analysis must be applied to determine if what it is named is what it is. The potential motivation of those applying the names should likewise considered.

Cancer has nearly been cured worldwide with estimates ranging from the National Institute of Health’s admission to 75% of cases being voluntary to around 95% from doctors in the far east who rely less upon a capitalistic pharmacological approach to health. If cures for these diseases, upon which so much research is being conducted, were found today who would be out of work tomorrow? The researchers, the fundraisers, and everyone involved in the treatment process. There exists a huge financial incentive then to perpetuate and treat disease rather than cure disease. This is commonly seen in the mental health spectrum where treatment rather than cure is the prefered approach.

Autism provides a great example of a condition which is nearly 100% preventable through lifestyle choices and has long been known to have an environmental cause. Yet, big-pharma employs many researchers who, along with other researchers receiving funding through grants or those fund-raising organizations, are seeking a genetic based cause.

Why would they seek to find a cause where they know one will not be found? Because as long as they are sure they cannot find a cure but can convince the funders that it can be found where they look then funding continues. The other reason to search for a “cure” that is genetically based is because a “treatment” is likely to be found there. Treatments in western medicine generally apply to symptoms rather than causes. Thus, treatment will ensure dependence upon the treating agents - drugs and doctors. Treating symptoms will also serve to dispel the claims of detractors of the profit scheme who insist that cures may be found in the environment. Because western society views relief of symptoms as a cure, the profiteers who discover an effective treatment can proclaim that “We told you so, it was genetically based” which an uninformed populace will accept as the cure.

So if you want to help find a cure for a disease then don’t give money to those who divert legitimate researchers from seeking a “cure” to instead being hired and directed to only find a suitable “treatment.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.


Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Monday, June 1, 2015

Trust to be trusting and improve your well-being

Consider for a moment the signs of a lack of trust that permeate our modern culture. Locks, fences, and cameras are the most visible examples of a community’s lack of trust in its neighbors. Similar fortresses are erected around individuals based upon their personal lives. Unlisted phone numbers, names missing from mailboxes, and aliases used online also demonstrate a lack of trust. Employers require drug testing, do criminal background checks, and hire surveillance crews to watch employees. All of this lack of trust does not come without a cost beyond the obvious financial expenditures. I contend that lack of trust leads to adverse psychological conditions and a diminished enjoyment of life.

As a child you may have been accused of something you did not do and still over your protests of innocence you remained under the cloud of suspicion until someone else confessed or witnesses absolved you. You likely felt distress at not being trusted especially when it came from someone who you entrusted or were dependent upon to care for you.

Those of you who have been through divorce have likely felt the pain of a violation of trust. You may have trusted your partner to be faithful, honest, and supportive. You may have been the one who was trusted but violated that trust. Either way this contributes to being less trustful of others and yourself. The trust you placed in another was violated and thus you become less trusting after that experience or because you violated the trust of another you become more vigilante against becoming a dupe yourself by being less trusting. Your judgment is called into question because it was you who trusted yourself to choose a faithful, honest, and supportive companion but you failed or you trusted yourself to be that person but failed.

Aside from the personal relationships, business relationships are becoming less trusting. Those are not only built upon a stale, mechanical heuristic that are demeaning to the individuals toward whom such is applied but also those administrators charged with implementing such policies. Hiring decisions, for example, place neither trust in the prospective employee nor the personnel manager. The applicant is not trusted that he or she is not a stupid criminal or qualified to fulfill the needs of the position. Instead a criminal background check is performed to separate incompetent criminals from those who are coy and clever. The qualified applicant group being comprised of criminals so cunning and crafty that they will rob your business blind from the inside and never get caught plus those individuals who are law abiding. Then there is the requisite documentation such as degrees, course certificates or other documentation that you may have been somewhat proficient in test taking.

That documentation is not correlated to competence. From the first diploma I received through the most recent certificates I have received for completing course work and trainings each has gone to the trashcan. They are meaningless compared to my successes in writing appeals, getting laws passed or amended, and having my contributions added to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. One need only look to the disciplinary actions or negligence/incompetence based lawsuits against lawyers, medical professionals or other Master’s Degree professionals to see that years of training do not correlate to competence.

For the personnel manager who completes the perfunctory tasks of checking credentials and obtaining various background data the message of distrust is also clear. That is that the manager is not trusted to hire a competent, trustworthy individual based on the manager’s judgment but is instead only trusted to complete those tasks assigned through the hiring rubric. This all stems from the owners’ lack of trust in themselves to equally associate themselves with individuals that they can trust to hire competent employees. No surprise that they do not trust themselves while living in an atmosphere pervaded by distrust.

This pervasive lack of trust can leave individuals paralyzed by fear. Fear that some employee will make a mistake and botch a job. Fear that one’s property will be taken or usurped by another. Fear that the people we meet on the street, work with, call our friends, or are related to will not be trustworthy and do us some wrong or harm. Anxiety abounds.

But what of those who are not suspicious and who do not cut themselves off from the opportunities provided by trust? I contend that those people have a healthier mental disposition, are in-turn trusted more, and find greater satisfaction in life; particularly in their interpersonal relationships.

Recently I advertised a bicycle for sale on Craigslist. About half an hour after posting the ad a young woman appears at my doorstep wanting to see it. I invite her in and tell her that I haven’t brought it down from the attic yet but she is welcome to follow me up there to have a look. She does and wants the bike. She asks for directions to her bank branch in my town and says she will return with the money. About 10 minutes later she comes in my house [startling me a bit] and gives me the money.

I know some paranoid kooks who would have immediately cautioned both of us to “only make transactions in a public location”, “don’t go in another person’s house”, “don’t allow anyone into your house”, and the ever ambiguous “be careful” all based upon some rare sensationalized adversity that happens in about one out of every 50,000 transactions. Yet, I demonstrated trust in this young woman by allowing her in my home and she demonstrated trust in me by accompanying me to the attic of my home. We had pleasant conversation for a bit and then she left with her purchase.

Our trust for each other as well as others distrust may both based upon a psychological mechanism called “projection” which was refined by Freud although it had been theorized by ancient philosophers. Psychological projection is when a person attributes his or her own character traits upon another person or society at large. It is theorized that psychological projection can even account for armed conflict between countries where an aggressive terrorist state that positions soldiers throughout the world actually accuses the countries it invaded of being the aggressors and terrorist states. In our lives we are most likely to see projection exposed in accusations of sexual infidelity. Those who often are the first to accuse a mate of infidelity are engaged in such affairs themselves. It is their underlying feeling of guilt that leads them to accuse the mate thereby relieving the accuser of the feeling of guilt as his or her infidelity becomes viewed as a response to the projected infidelity of the mate.

Some studies were critical of Freud's theory. Research supports the existence of a false-consensus effect whereby humans have a broad tendency to believe that others are similar to themselves, and thus "project" their personal traits onto others. This applies to good traits as well as bad traits and is not a defense mechanism for denying the existence of the trait within the self.[fn1]

In all the decisions that we make, which have placed us exactly where we are in life, a cost-benefit analysis is applied. Often though people do not objectively apply the full spectrum of the attributes and instead rationalize their decision through the logical fallacy of omission. Those who do not want to trust and project unto the world that it is an untrustworthy world choose to avoid their undesirable traits. They don’t want to admit to their propensity to avoid truth and the manner in which they deceive others. They won’t acknowledge the benefits of trusting others; the reduced anxiety, the freedom to experience life, the strengthening of relationships, and the ease at which new relationships are made. By projecting that the world is untrustworthy they can justify the walls they build around themselves through their own untrustworthy actions.

Examine yourself, objectively review your motives, and measure whether it is worth all the sacrifices that distrust requires. Distrust may keep you alive but it can also keep you from living.

notes

[1] Baumeister, Roy F.; Dale, Karen; Sommer, Kristin L. (1998). "Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial". Journal of Personality 66 (6): 1090–1092.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.


Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn



Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2015 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com