Character Revisted: JFK the Individual American – President

The question of character is brought to my attention again. The first time it was May 2010, of which I stated:

“The question of character is brought to my attention, and I stumble to find significant reference. My stumbling is not due to poor character, rather an affirmation of individualism. As an American, we have been condition to a set of empowering words: Liberty, Individualism, Freedom, Natural Right, Open Society and Freedom of existence. It goes without stating that all of these words detail the American archetype. A closer look at the originators of these terms provides a clearer perspective, of the double sword nature of these terms, hence characteristics.

One of the primary contributors of this self liberating orientation was Thomas Hobbes. Ironically Hobbes expressed the notion of “natural rights”, but advocated total sovereignty control. The absolute control Hobbes advocated was in understanding, that if each individual has a natural right to all of the environment around them, then each has an equal right to protect the possessions which each accumulated, in whatever manner they found fit. The phase “Dog Eat Dog world” is an understatement, referring to Hobbes. In order to have PEACE and CIVILITY among the society, order had to be established. This order is in actuality a waiver of one’s individual rights, to the collective effort. ” For his wit and expressive ideology, Thomas Hobbes was convicted by King Charles II. He was prohibited to any further publishing. His will to pursue happiness was removed from him. It was King Charles II’s active attempt to end all ATHEISM within England, and thus prohibited Hobbes future publishing. And yet his character strength in him and those who peered through the hypocritical judgment of Parliament and King Charles II.

The reason character come into question again; is because I am reading “A Question of Character: A Life Story of John F. Kennedy” by Thomas C. Reeves. From the reading, several individuals (Americans) with the fully right of expression, conclude from their perception of the late president, opinions that seem to lace together a defined character of JFK. Depending on who and what motive of intent, these opinions can be linked with others of a similar nature, by which the late president seems rather non-heroic and manipulative. Reeves provides detailing statements from socialite, Mary Pinchot Meyers, James Angleton and Tom Bradlee, as to the drug usage of John F. Kennedy in the White House. According to these recollections, Kennedy used marijuana, cocaine, hashish and acid. However these recollections can not attest to the great job the late president performed and his commitment to his job as leader of the free word.

Reeves also states that, Victor Lasky (journalist) stated John F. Kennedy as “cold, calculating, vain, superficial, and morally obtuse (pg. 3). Yet what Lasky fails to define, are the circumstances by which those characteristics were ascribed. How could a loving/caring father also be cold and morally obtuse? Well if the father portion of JFK’s total Biopsychosocial-Sprititual essence was removed. And only the Democratic, Civil Rights advocator portions of his political agenda was the circumstance, then perhaps it would be correct to use such words.

The point of this is to empower all individuals as to the complete essences of an individual and not just the critics and opinions of a few, who will by nature of our American existence: have negative factors to contribute to another. A person has a private life, by which the pursuit of it is a right as our American liberty dictates. The public life of a person is sure to be infused with professional ethics, codes of conduct, laws and simple social politeness. However should a person be judged by their private life essences, especially if they go beyond the normal standard to insure that these private passions do not interfere with their public life.

Character is such an integral factor of our self esteem as it is crashed against the Social Constructed Reality. I firmly believe all individuals need to have their FULL Biopsychosocial Spiritual essence review before any one judge can conclude their fate. Because where men create fate, God creates FAITH!

For Profit Industry Challenge Social Service Industry: Which is More Effective and Empowering When Dealing With Clients

For the life of me, I will never understand why two “professional” case workers, simply refused to intervene. For 8 months they allowed the most unconventional behavior to occur. They allowed lives to be reshaped and destroyed. And although it was not entirely upon them to control: It was their responsibility as case managers to assist, guide, encourage and intervene. These two case managers (Margret Finn and Johnny Garcia of South West Behavioral Services) are detailed in a series of posting titled; Person-Environment: Case Manager Neglect. The series questions the ethical obligation of case managers. And points out the importance of that obligation. From personal experience I can attest that had these two case managers been more ethical and concerned, lives would have turned out better. Instead a chaotic environment imploded, which has ripped into the lives of others (especially mines). For while under their supervision, I was attending ASU, working towards my BSW/MSW. Not one day went by in some of my ASU social work classes, where we were not informed of the importance of Professional ETHICS. A portion of those ethics are specific to client services. And seeming this is the social service industry. It would be expected that case managers strived to provide an environment by which a client (regardless of their crisis) could feel SELF DETERMINED and EMPOWERED. However the opposite is what occurred, regarding me and the two “professional” case managers.

These two case managers have left me to believe that their neglected actions would be the same within the society. From not yelling fire in a theater, to avoiding interning on behave of a child in need. They as case managers are obligated to intervene, in regards to their clients and society in general. If drug activity is among their clients, then they are obligated to intervene. If mental disturbances and crisis management is needed by their clients, they are obligated to intervene. But these two case managers simple sat back and watched as 8 months of torment occurred. Finally they did what should had been done in the first month (11/2012) they provided a separation intervention. Since that intervention, which resulted in homeless again for me, I have expressed my thoughts through conventional grievance, but to no avail. I still express my thoughts on this blog and other social networks (especially Social Worker Blogs) seeming I need to have professionalism validated by others, than the two hypercritics currently still employed. It is so important to me that all citizens express their discontent when dealing with “professional of society”. They must be held accountable, hence is why they have their academic paper work and license to practice social welfare: and I never will.

Last week I came across an interesting article in Bloomberg Businessweek title, ‘GOLDMAN BETS ON CUTTING CRIME’. The article was written by Esme E. Deprez and details the investment interest of Goldman Sachs with the city of Boston. Boston high crime rate and even higher recidivism prompted Goldman Sachs executives to analyze the circumstance and determine if they could effectively administrate Boston’s crime, resulting in a lower recidivism and an empowered prior “criminal” who would be integrated successfully into society! Well Goldman Sachs won the bet. And by winning the bet, executives are considering using the Boston model in other cities across the nation. They also are analyzing utilizing similar strategies for homelessness and social services. In the article, Deprez details the Goldman Sachs investment with a non-profit organization ROCA. ROCA objective for the past 26 years has been to transition young male criminals from the streets into the “legitimate economy”. This is encouraging self-determination and empowering a client. Not what occurred at South West Behavioral Service (yes, a few represent and ruin the majority).

REFERENCE:

Deprez, E. Esme. (2014). Goldman Bets On Cutting Crime, Bloomberg Businessweek.