Wasted Honor -

Carl R. ToersBijns is the author of the Wasted Honor Trilogy [Wasted Honor I,II and Gorilla Justice] and his newest book From the Womb to the Tomb, the Tony Lester Story, which is a reflection of his life and his experiences as a correctional officer and a correctional administrator retiring with the rank of deputy warden in the New Mexico and Arizona correctional systems.

Carl also wrote a book on his combat experience in the Kindle book titled - Combat Medic - Men with destiny - A red cross of Valor -

Carl is considered by many a rogue expert in the field of prison security systems since leaving the profession. Carl has been involved in the design of many pilot programs related to mental health treatment, security threat groups, suicide prevention, and maximum custody operational plans including double bunking max inmates and enhancing security for staff. He invites you to read his books so you can understand and grasp the cultural and political implications and influences of these prisons. He deals with the emotions, the stress and anxiety as well as the realities faced working inside a prison. He deals with the occupational risks while elaborating on the psychological impact of both prison worker and prisoner.

His most recent book, Gorilla Justice, is an un-edited raw fictional version of realistic prison experiences and events through the eyes of an anecdotal translation of the inmate’s plight and suffering while enduring the harsh and toxic prison environment including solitary confinement.

Carl has been interviewed by numerous news stations and newspapers in Phoenix regarding the escape from the Kingman prison and other high profile media cases related to wrongful deaths and suicides inside prisons. His insights have been solicited by the ACLU, Amnesty International, and various other legal firms representing solitary confinement cases in California and Arizona. He is currently working on the STG Step Down program at Pelican Bay and has offered his own experience insights with the Center of Constitutional Rights lawyers and interns to establish a core program at the SHU units. He has personally corresponded and written with SHU prisoners to assess the living conditions and how it impacts their long term placement inside these type of units that are similar to those in Arizona Florence Eyman special management unit where Carl was a unit deputy warden for almost two years before his promotion to Deputy Warden of Operations in Safford and Eyman.

He is a strong advocate for the mentally ill and is a board member of David's Hope Inc. a non-profit advocacy group in Phoenix and also serves as a senior advisor for Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council in Chino, California As a subject matter expert and corrections consultant, Carl has provided interviews and spoken on national and international radio talk shows e.g. BBC CBC Lou Show & TV shows as well as the Associated Press.

I use sarcasm, satire, parodies and other means to make you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
































































































































Monday, January 24, 2011

Political Correctness

Many people know that transparency used a social context which usually implies openness, communication, and accountability. “It is a symbolic expression of the meaning a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through.” Transparent events include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc. The definition of Deception is acts to propagate beliefs that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda, sleight of hand. It can employ distraction, camouflage or concealment.

Someone once said that “Political correctness is simply a speed bump in the traffic of truth, free thought and speech.” In a world of political correctness, there are ample amounts of both transparency flaws and deceptive practices to deceive the public of the government’s actual state of affairs or purpose for engagement. The rationale why these practices are used comes back to illustrate the need governments to refuse to show people or others how they actually conduct their business and minimize negative impacts that may influence their credibility or social desirability. More commonly, it’s not the way you actually do things but rather, the way you say how you do things. The difference between the two is substantially important to the degree of accuracy involved in the reporting. On the other hand, it’s not a question on how you do actually do things but rather a question on how things are done. One requires more detail than the other and that procedure can be harmful if too incriminating or distasteful. That is the only purpose political correctness serves; damage control.

Reporters, being intuitive in nature, are failing to ask the proper questions of public official and are letting them off the hook with dishonest and partial answers. Misleading the facts, they [public agencies] have conditioned their responses to meet the social expectation regardless of the distraction such an answer may provide the public. One method of controlling this environment is to hand out questions and answers before the interview offering a sort of debriefing when in reality it is a deceptive way to avoid being asked the wrong questions that may commonly lead to an imperfection or misperception.

Objections to false transparency options or deceptive methods are becoming more and more scrutinized whenever the practice reveals a weak link in the reputation of the agency or public official making the statements to the media or public. Learning how to balance the two and projecting this “credibility” is tricky and requires repetitive practice to appear to be sincere, open minded and willing to cooperate. This is why many agencies have public information officers who can stand the glare and anxiety of releasing information to the press. The objections however follow political paths that create the image that if the party in power has the majority, then they are provided more credibility and more coverage than those in the minority.

The lesson learned here is the media’s ability to reach the politicians is only as good as their reputation to not infringe on the political party in question and not challenge their creditability and treat them with velvet gloves. In this manner, they are the recipients of favorable access to the news and given “scoop” assignment advantages over the others who report it “like it is” falling in disfavor immediately and denied the access to those who control the politicians and their activities.

No comments:

Post a Comment