New Nonfiction Book, Adobe Walls to Tularosa

Adobe Walls to Tularosa is a true story of Ben Hewitt, Texas rancher, gunfighter, lawman, and sometime fugitive.

My grandfather, Benjamin Tarrant Hewitt, died before I was born, but I know him well because of the many stories I heard from my mother, my uncles, and aunts. I interviewed his oldest son, Ebenezer Cole Hewitt, "Uncle Eb," in 1962 when he was 91. I spent 5 hours interviewing two 85-year-old aunts, Minnie Jackson Hewitt and Lavenia Victoria Hewitt Jackson in 1980. Over a period of many years my uncle Robert Frank Hewitt filled in many details of his father's life. I also heard details of Ben Hewitt's life from my mother, Grace Gordon Hewitt, who didn't think much of him. She said he had killed at least 12 men in gunfights and always looked over his shoulder for fear that someone would try to kill him. All the others, including my own father, Joseph Benjamin Hewitt, spoke well of Ben Hewitt.

Ben was present at the Battle of Adobe Walls in 1874 when Quanah Parker led 1,000 Comanches and Kiowas against 28 buffalo hunters huddled within the thick adobe walls of a small fort north of the Canadian River in the Texas Panhandle.

Ben was primarily a business man. He bought and sold ranches, but had a quick temper and often encountered another quick tempered man. A gunfight resulted in one of them dead. Ben survived. He had 8 sons and a daughter. My father, Joseph Benjamin Hewitt, was Ben's seventh son, born on a 13-section ranch in Motley County, Texas.

This book and all of Joe B. Hewitt's books are available in e-book or print form at your on-line bookstores. E-book, ISBN 9780463551462; printed book, ISBN 9781719441902. 

Discover other titles by Joe B. Hewitt, including Murder on the Sky Ride; Mystery of the Vanished Gold; My Love, My Enemy, and Yellow Rose of Texas.

Debating 101

 

            If two people disagree on an important issue, they can argue, discuss, or debate.

            Much of the debates we hear are poor examples of convincing arguments.

            For example, "You're ugly," is not an argument; it's an insult. By insulting an opponent you may bring a chuckle to the lips of your people who agree with your position, but it will not convince others that you are correct in what you say. Rather, it makes people angry, and when they get angry, some people's logic processor shuts down.

            "That's the way you people are," insults your family and friends, inflames and angers rather than convinces.

            The purpose of debate is not to punish with words, or show an opponent as stupid by stinging him with well-chosen words. Debate is to convince others that your position is correct. Insults and ridicule are counterproductive.

Now

A cold and empty bed,

In a quiet, dark house,

Steeps the heart in dread.

 

But when love’s arms enfold,

The lonely chill evicts,

And warmth glows in the soul.

 

A heart that fought defeat,

And grief without relief,

Pumps hope with every beat.

 

Like morning sun on dew,

Filled eyes with tears of joy,

Plain things sparkle anew.

 

While love’s arms do enfold,

The past is still the past,

But Now defeats pains old.

 
---Joe B. Hewitt (2001)

Midnight Snap

In the deep dark of the night,

A small creature with big appetite,

 

Silently crept in a pantry to raid,

Not knowing a trap had been laid.

 

The poor little mouse squeaked out his pleas,

“Open the trap. You can keep the cheese.”

                        ---Joe B. Hewitt

Argentina, 1954; USA, 2013

We Have Peronists in the US too

Written, 8/27/10, still true today.

 by Joe B. Hewitt

Argentines are still sucking on the pacifier Juan Peron gave them in 1946. All they get out of it is frustration. But they still believe the Peronist promises and remain suckers, left with debts and piles of printing press money.

The disastrous snowball Peron started rolling with promises of something for nothing has left Argentina billions in debt and still sinking. In spite of the Peronist’s track record, voters continue returning them to office.

Peronist-to-the-bone President Carlos Menem had brief encounters with reality when he tried to privatize businesses such as the money-losing national telephone company. His constituents failed their painful course in cause-and-effect. Feather-bedded employees, rewarded with jobs from the political pork barrel, with no expertise and nothing to do, didn’t want to give up their cushy jobs. Like others before his, the inflation morass swallowed Menem’s administration.

Peronist, Nestor Kirchner apparently supposed printing press money would work this time when it never worked before? Then his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner succeded him and continued with the printing press money mentality.

The United States has its share of Peronists. They don’t call themselves Peronists, but their philosophy is the same. Get the vote by promising the descamisados, shirtless ones, or in North American parlance, “The little man,” a better cut out of the national pie. “Tax and spend, penalize the producers. Look not to productivity but to government handouts for a better life.” And who pays for it? “Why, the government. They have lots of money, and can print more.”

Fortunately the North American Peronists are much in the minority. Everyone doesn’t believe their divide-and-conquer slogans, such as “We’re for the little man. We’re for the old folks. We’ll keep the opposition from destroying Social Security. We’re fighting poverty. How can the richest nation in the world still have poor people?” Like Juan Peron and his ilk, they are either political opportunists who want power at any price or sincere liberals out of touch with reality.

I suggest a good lesson in cause-and-effect. Look at Argentina. Argentina has been a great nation. The country has a climate and natural resources, much like the United States. The Peronist political philosophy continues to drag it down like a panicky horse in quicksand.

Look at Great Britain and its declining pound sterling. I remember when it was worth around $5.00. Then for a long time it was worth around $3.50. Now it’s more like $1.50.

Look at Canada and its declining dollar. I remember when it took $1.10 US to buy one Canadian dollar. Now it’s more like 90 cents.

The US dollar has continued to depreciate at the same time, so these currencies fall is accelerated. Why? What have these great nations done differently? They have given in to the urge to have the government take care of everyone for life,  provide medical care for all, and a regular government check for those who don’t work.

I met a 27-year-old man in England who had never held a job. He was big, strong, healthy, and intelligent. The government had helped him get a job several times. Each time he got sick at his stomach and couldn’t work. As soon as the job was terminated, he got well. The government declared him disabled, so he lives on the dole.

Our “Peronist” politicians encourage that way of life here.

Key to Economic Progress

Key to Economic Progress

We have witnessed the folly of printing money and giving it away to fat cat corporations. It’s obviously not working. Unemployment, the best economic health indicator, keeps going up. The answer to our economic crisis has been demonstrated many times in past history and forgotten.

The answer is increased productivity.

·         Bill Gates was more responsible for the great leap forward in prosperity and a balanced budget than the government. His genius made us all more productive.

·         Before that the space program’s research helped;

·         Before that the telegraph, and telephone;

·         The Industrial Revolution and the steam engine; and before that

·         In around AD 1000 a newly invented horse collar enabled horses to plow much better than oxen and doubled farm productivity.

All these increased productivity and benefitted everyone. The Government cannot increase productivity, but can encourage it.

Death and resurrection are better than rusting away. World War II destroyed the industrial might of Germany and Japan. They were forced to retool from the ground up. It hurt  and took time, but with their new industries up and running those countries progressed more rapidly than our older technology. Giant China emerged from its long sleep and started new industry with new technology. What was China’s secret? The oppressive government finally recognized that people had to be free to use their natural initiative based on hope of reward rather than fear of punishment motivation that destroyed the Soviet Union.

General Motors was a dying dinosaur, diseased with greed, but instead of letting it die,  the Government put it on life support. Greedy executives thought only of their bonuses. Their partner in crime, the Auto Workers’ Union, demanded and got two or three times more pay than equivalent workers in other industry. The results were decreased productivity and shoddy products. Had General Motors had been allowed to die a natural death, something better would have replaced it. Volkswagen after World War II was practically worthless, it rose up like a phoenix from its ashes and became a major auto producer. As in other WWII cases of renewed technology strength and enthusiasm, VW first had to be reduced to ashes. That’s the way nature works.

 The Government fooled with nature by encouraging sorry mortgages, resulting in fat cat corporations “too big to fail” teetering on the edge of oblivion. It was a concocted artificial problem. So the Government threw around a trillion dollars, so we have an artificial solution to an artificial problem. It’s not working.

AIG was “too big to fail,” we heard. Its layers of top management and partnership with quasi government mortgage companies had swollen it into a monster too fat to rise and walk. Its failure would have had an impact world-wide and it would have hurt. But after disintegration the pieces have a way of coming back together into new and efficient companies. But we have to allow a top heavy beast to collapse.

Apparently most of the stimulus money went to banks. How productive is two entities swapping money? Not very. They are like an old story of two little boys, one with a lemonade stand and the other across the street with a popcorn stand. They had only a nickel between them. So the lemonade boy bought popcorn all day and the popcorn boy bought lemonade, trading their single nickel. After running out of the products their moms had so generously provided, each boy reports that he made a dollar. Each bought the other’s product with the same nickel. They produced nothing, used up their stock, and while crossing the street, they lost their only nickel to a bully who claimed to be a tax collector charging 10 per cent of net profit. They were short five cents and would be subject to late fees and interest.

While the banks got the money, the workers got laid off; small businesses had to cut benefits and reduce workforce. Business that produces wealth is hurting, while those who trade money prosper.

The economic stimulus behaves like a morphine addict: feel good now, hurt later. (When Heroin was first introduced it was hailed as a cure for morphine addiction.) The economic stimulus has not increased productivity. Rather it is the narcotic that keeps recipients going back for more and has decreased output of real goods.

 The Government can keep on printing more money, but it only makes the addiction worse.

Bureaucracies and politicians don’t produce, they consume. They may take our money and give some of it back, and we feel good temporarily. But the money we have left is worth less. Inflation is lower than I can remember, but it is being held up artificially. When the natural order of things begins to come together, we will see how inflation is the equal opportunity

Use Your Grudge Bucket

Use Your Grudge Bucket

Intentionally or not, with malice or without,

Close kin, strangers, friends and all will do you wrong,

Will make you so angry you’ll scream and shout.

Stay calm and build a grudge to last so long,

Then put the big bad grudge in your grudge bucket.

Take the grudge from your mind; replace it with a song.

Be sure your grudge bucket has a hole in it.

---Joe B. Hewitt

Watchtower Disciplines Jehovah's Witnesses

Cult Members are Under Total Mind Control

Almost every family in North America has a member who is under total mind control of the Watchtower Society. Some examples of the extreme discipline these people are under:

The Watchtower intrudes into the married bed. They have rules about sexual foreplay and state that a husband and wife’s passion “should not go unbridled.”

Watchtower rules shelter sex abusers of children in the Kingdom Halls.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are prohibited from

Playing chess

Possessing wind chimes

Attending any event sponsored by a church, including a picnic.

Giving to the Red Cross or Salvation Army.

These are just some of the topics covered in my book, Rescuing Slaves of the Watchtower, Hannibal Books, 2011, . ISBN 978-1-61315-006-1. Available in Christian bookstores, Amazon.com, www.joebhewitt.net; www.rescuewatchtowerslaves.com, in print or e-book from Barnes and Noble, Sony or Amazon.

My first book, I Was Raised a Jehovah’s Witness, (Accent Books, Denver, Colo. 1979; Kregel Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1997). Sold 45,000 copies in English and more in Chinese translation published in Taiwan.

I served as pastor of churches in the Dallas area for 39 years. I retired in 2001 and devote most of my time to writing and serving as a court-appointed mediator handling cases for Dallas and contiguous counties.



The whole load of hay information on www.joebhewitt.net.

Routine Circumcision of Baby Boys

Some people want to routinely cut off part of helpless baby boys’ penises just in case they should grow up to be sexually promiscuous and/or fail to keep themselves clean. Not as bad as some Africans’ custom of “circumcising” (more like mutilating) young girls by cutting off their clitoris lest they grow up and want to enjoy sex. Not as bad, but close.

Those who advocate routine circumcision of all baby boys are obviously circumcised males and females who don’t know any better. They are the least qualified to claim a right to assume power over baby boys’ future sex life.

Circumcision is a religious sacrifice. It indicates total submission to God. The circumcised man has forfeited some sexual enjoyment for life. A family’s religion is the only justification of routine circumcision of every baby boy.

Routine circumcision has nothing to do with religion but rather with vogue, utility and big-brother-knows-best. I knew young soldiers who underwent circumcision only because they wanted to be like the other guys: the majority who were circumcised.

The idea behind routine circumcision is that circumcised men are less likely to contract the HIV virus.
It’s not like we were facing an AIDS epidemic by leaving all those foreskins intact. The increased vulnerability for the uncircumcised is minuscule at best and non-existent if he practices monogamy and/or cleanliness.

Explaining the difference in sexual satisfaction to a circumcised man is like trying to explain a rainbow to a person born color blind. He doesn’t know what he missed because he never had it.

The foreskin not only is a protective sheath, but sensitive nerves in the foreskin provide much of the pleasure of sexual intercourse. Because the tip of the foreskin is so sensitive, the aroused man can find the correct place of entry “with no hands.” The foreskin keeps the male’s natural lubricant where it needs to be. The lubricant works its way within the foreskin and prepares the head for entry. As entry is achieved the sheath slides down the shaft. Those sensitive nerves in the foreskin now form a ring around the shaft enhancing sexual pleasure.

To remove the protective sheath from the sensitive penis head is like turning a woman’s vagina inside out and exposing it to the drying air and irritants. It would lessen sensitivity and necessitate artificial lubricants; the same results of male circumcision.

Rather than routinely circumcising baby boys, I suggest a less drastic approach to the HIV problem. Teach them the old adage, “Be good. If you can’t be good, be careful.” Or you might paraphrase it, “If you can’t keep that thing in your pants, at least keep it clean.”
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe B. Hewitt is a retired pastor who did marriage
and family counseling during his 39 years of ministry.

Dealing Death Legally

Each time I go to a super market or major discount store and see racks of cigarettes, snuff and chewing tobacco, I think of the more than 300,000 people in the United States and 500,000 people in Europe killed each year by tobacco products. And I wonder, "Do these retailers have a conscience? Do they care at all about human life?"
The middle aged lady behind the counter just works there. It's not her decision to sell the stuff. Same with the manager. You can ask questions all the way up to the corporate board rooms. "Business is business. We have to compete."
Obviously profits from sale of tobacco products are more important to them than human lives.
Tobacco bad news is not hidden in a corner. "Big Tobacco needs to recruit 500,000 new smokers each year to replace the ones who die prematurely due to smoking-related illnesses . . ." news reports quoted David Byrne, the European Union health commissioner after the EU outlawed tobacco ads on December 2, 2002.

In the United States the tobacco industry has been socked with billion-dollar court judgments for killing people. Yet the industry considers those losses part of the cost of doing business and keeps on going. Grocery chains, discount stores, and drug stores keep on retailing the deadly products, some of which finds their way to teenagers who become addicted and fill the ranks of the old smokers who are dying off.
Tobacco farmers keep on growing it. Big Tobacco keeps on making cigarettes, snuff, and chewing tobacco. Wholesalers keep on distributing. Retailers keep on selling. People keep on dying. Who cares?
I started smoking when I was 15, before I had enough sense to make such a life or death decision. I fortunately was able to quit when I was 30. I have outlived my old friends who could not quit. I have been present many times when people died, killed by tobacco. When I see a man die, gasping for breath in cancer-filled lungs, I think of those racks of cigarettes, the nice lady selling them, the store manager, the president of the company, and the board of directors. Corporations are not mechanical entities out of control. Humans make up the mechanism that grows, makes, distributes, and sells tobacco. Have they no conscience?
------------------------------------------------

Babies Need Not Die in Hot Cars

Another two-year-old child died in a hot van. Another family drowned after their car went into a lake. These needless deaths can be prevented.
Frequently we read of a forgotten toddler imprisoned in a hot car with the windows closed, killed slowly but surely. These babies need not die. An easy way of prevention exists if we will just put it to use.
Creativity has been described as a new combination of things already known. Just a little creativity, combining existing electronic elements to make a “Baby Rescue” device can save hundreds of lives in the United States every year.
The usual scenario: A day care worker can’t count, or forgets to count, leaves a toddler asleep on a back seat, and leaves the van in the sun. The child wakes and starts crying. No one hears. The child may try to escape, but no one sees. Modern devices can detect high temperatures and the high pitched cry of a child. Another device can roll down windows. Another can sound an alarm.
These devices could be built and installed in cars and vans at little cost. The Baby Rescue device wouldn’t be 100 per cent effective, because some dying children won’t cry out. But the majority who do cry out would be saved.

People don’t drive into a lake or river deliberately, but such accidents happen. I recall a news article several years ago of a man driving with his wife and children in a rainstorm. He lost his way and drove down a boat ramp and into a swollen river. The family drowned. Evidence showed they tried to get out of the car but couldn’t.
My brother, Gordon Hewitt, parked his car in the driveway of a hurricane-proof house when Hurricane Ike hit Grand Cayman Island. The storm surge swept his BMW car off the driveway, down the street, and into deep water. When he found the car, all the windows had been rolled down. I assume BMW has a safety device that causes the windows to roll down when the car is submerged. Such a device could have saved the family that went into the river, and many others as well.
If BMW can do it, why can’t the other automobile manufacturers?
Women who leave babies in hot cars while they visit bars are not likely to buy a Baby Rescue device. Automobile manufacturers close their eyes and refuse to look at safety devices that will add cost to their products. Seat belts and air bags came into use with pain that hurt car companies like childbirth. So for the children’s sake, there should be laws. Devices to rescue babies from hot cars and families from submerged cars should be installed in each new car, and all existing day care center vans and buses.

Pretending Ancestors were Pure is Pure Fiction

By Joe Hewitt

Vocal Jewish groups don't like it said that “Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.”
Would the Japanese now like to say they were not responsible for bombing Pearl Harbor and wholesale slaughter of men, women and children in China? Some Germans might like the world to believe the Germans were not responsible for the Holocaust when Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses were rounded up and exterminated. Some white Americans try to make excuses for the 200 years our ancestors enslaved blacks. Of course the Japanese living today can't be blamed for something done by the fanatical leadership that had control of their country during a past generation. Nor can the Germans living today be blamed for actions of long dead Nazis who had control of Germany. White Americans living today should not be blamed for something done by a minority of their ancestors. The same is true about Jews living today; they can't be blamed for something done by fanatical Jewish leaders more than 2,000 years ago.
But let's not pretend it didn’t happen.

Volumes of volumes should count for something. The facts haven't been kept secret. The most published book in history, the Bible, says Jewish leaders insisted that Jesus be crucified. The highest court of Israel, the Sanhedrin, voted for Jesus to die, following the recommendation of the highest official in Judaism, the high priest. Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor, wanted to release Jesus and wash his hands of the whole affair, but a Jewish mob shouted "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
The Jewish leadership insisted on the Romans doing the dirty work, and the Romans did it at the Sanhedrin, the high priest, and the mob's fanatical insistence. Later on the Jewish leaders got over their shyness about murder and stoned Stephen, a disciple of Jesus Christ, to death because he was preaching about Jesus.

Rabbi Eugene Korn of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted as saying Mel Gibson's movie on the Passion of Christ relies on "sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as bloodthirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity."

There are sadistic, money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity in every ethnic group and culture. Are we to believe that of all the races of people on earth the Jews alone are immune from such flaws?

We can't forever condemn an entire nation for some of their ancestors' past actions, neither the Japanese, Germans, White Americans, Jews, or Romans. However, if something is true, it's true and no amount of whining will change the facts.

To say the Jews were not responsible for Jesus' death is a gross revision of history, and requires the same kind of reasoning employed by shallow thinkers who deny the Holocaust. We have to admit it: Jews crucified Christ; Germans enacted the Holocaust; the Japanese murdered children in China; white people enslaved Negroes.

Some anti-Semites pretend that Jesus was not a Jew. The crucifixion of Jesus is about God’s sacrifice that enables Jew and Gentile to be reconciled to Him. During the persecution of Jesus’ disciples, some of the bad guys were Jews. Most of the Christian victims were Jews.

I and millions of others on this planet believe Mel Gibson's film is true to Scripture. We also believe the Bible that says Israel is God's chosen people. The greatest Gentile defenders of Israel are Evangelical Christians.

The death, burial and resurrection of Christ are not about denigrating a race of people. Rather, it's about goodness and mercy; it's about an innocent one dying willingly for the guilty. In true Christianity there is no difference in races, sexes, or economic class.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Matthew 26:3-4, 59, 65, 66; 27:1-2, 21-25; Acts 6:11-13; 7:57-58)

Cloning Humans

By Joe Hewitt

Originally published in The Dallas Morning News
Sunday, May 19, 2001.

Where is it written, AThou shalt not clone humans@? By what standard is cloning human beings immoral or unethical?
People continue to say there are moral and ethical questions without delineating them. If a majority of people in a democracy vote to outlaw something, they don=t need a moral explanation; they can just do it. Americans well might. But I believe if they do it will be because of a panicked reaction to the unknown rather than for solid, moral or ethical reasons.

Perhaps the real, deep down, fear is that sex will eventually be downplayed. But that, of course, is ridiculous. A society that produces babies without the need of sexual relations exists only in science fiction. If human cloning is perfected and accepted it will be expensive and rare. In vitro fertilization was greeted with the same suspicion, but Atest tube babies@ and their families are doing just fine. Neither in vitro nor cloning would make an artificial human. Both require a mother=s womb.
Granted, there are dangers in human cloning. The whole idea may turn out to be a bust, producing only malformed infants. If so, a ban would be necessary. But, until we find out, outlawing scientific research would be using the same medieval reasoning that nurtured the Dark Ages. So far, only government-funded research is prevented by law.
There is nothing in the Bible to prohibit human cloning. God created. Then He equipped mankind to procreate. With the ability God gave us, we produce children. The soul is God=s department, not ours. Cloning humans is no more immoral or unethical than giving birth to an identical twin, which is a natural clone. None would claim an identical twin to be an artificial entity with no soul.
People get the wrong idea about human cloning. They think the clone emerges full grown from some mystic machine. With successful human cloning, an infertile husband=s wife could bear a son literally just like Dad. The baby would be like Dad=s identical twin but younger.
Some people were ready to forbid organ transplants because of potential unethical practices. Human cloning can proceed with the same ethical safeguards. We are no more Aplaying God@ by utilizing every opportunity to save or enrich human life than we are when we conceive and bear children, or when we use advanced gene therapy.

Our Creator is the maker of moral laws. If God chooses to prevent human cloning, it just won=t happen.
Millions of potentially adoptable American babies are being lost to abortion. Couples yearning for children are spending small fortunes to travel to Russia and other Eastern European countries to adopt. There is a great need in the hearts of these loving couples that can be filled with perfected human cloning. People who desperately want children genetically their own will demand it.

The Dying Dollar

By Joe Hewitt


While the federal government is swinging a flyswatter at the fox in the henhouse a big hungry bear is coming in the open kitchen door.
Sub-prime mortgages, credit card debt, bankruptcies, and collapsing financial institutions are bad enough, the fox in the henhouse, but not our main problem. Our main problem is a looming currency crisis.
The dollar is dying.
Gold is now close to $1,000 an ounce. Not that gold is worth a lot more, but that money is worth a lot less. The dollar is losing steadily to the Euro. The Euro was introduced in 2000 on par with the dollar. The Euro reached $1.57. People in Europe and around the world who have been saving dollars will figure it out: Euros are a better investment.
I remember when Saddam Hussein’s stash of money was discovered in a Baghdad bank: large cartons full of U.S. $100 bills. There are other hoards of dollars around the world. I remember visiting Russia in 1996 and exchanging dollars for Rubles. Even in remote Siberia so many dollars were flowing through the system that the Russian currency exchanges had automatic machines to count dollars. Traveling in the Middle East I heard again and again the cry of street peddlers, “One American dollar,” or “Five American dollars.” Throughout Latin America, I have asked the question, “Do you accept dollars?” The answer is usually, “Yes.” U.S. dollars flow through the arteries, veins, and capillaries of commerce around the world.
So when people in these other countries figure out that the dollar is losing its value as fast as a new car, what will they do? They’ll ship them back to the United States where they have the most value and spend them. American real estate sales to foreign companies, already numerous, will multiply. Within a three-month period the amount of currency circulating in the United States could double. Like the run on Bear Stearns stock caused its value to plummet out of control, the rush to send dollars back to the U.S. will gain momentum until it’s a flood. When the money supply in the U.S. doubles, guess what will happen to prices. Four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline hurts. Eight-dollar-a-gallon gasoline will hurt worse. How about a seven-dollar loaf of bread, and a nine-dollar gallon of milk?
Like Richard Nixon’s futile attempts to stop double digit inflation in the Seventies, the federal government will probably institute price controls with the same results, accelerated inflation.
When the tons of dollars flood into the United States we could do as other countries have done when their currency becomes worthless: just chop off some zeroes and print more money. Call it “New Dollars.”
No matter how well you dress it, a dead dollar is just a piece of paper. We got started with printing press money because we were desperate during the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted a giant devaluation when we went off the gold standard. Gold went from $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce. Two generations later, President Lyndon B. Johnson did away with the silver standard, and soon gold was $350 an ounce.
Now we’re on the paper standard.
The big hungry bear is coming through the open kitchen door, and the fox is still in the henhouse. What do we do? Maybe government can do something. I hope so. I’m afraid nature will take its course and our country will suffer a major economic collapse that will spread like a tsunami around the world.
-------------------------------------------------------

We have "Peronists" in the US too

We Have Peronists in the US too

Argentines are still sucking on the pacifier Juan Peron gave them in 1946. All they get out of it is frustration. But they still believe the Peronist promises and remain suckers, left with debts and piles of printing press money.
The disastrous snowball Peron started rolling with promises of something for nothing has left Argentina billions in debt and still sinking. In spite of the Peronist’s track record, voters continue returning them to office.
Peronist-to-the-bone President Carlos Menem had brief encounters with reality when he tried to privatize businesses such as the money-losing national telephone company. His constituents failed their painful course in cause-and-effect. Feather-bedded employees, rewarded with jobs from the political pork barrel, with no expertise and nothing to do, didn=t want to give up their cushy jobs. Like others before his, the inflation morass swallowed Menem=s administration.
Peronist, Nestor Kirchner apparently supposed printing press money would work this time when it never worked before? Then his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner succeded him and continued with the printing press money mentality.
The United States has its share of Peronists. They don=t call themselves Peronists, but their philosophy is the same. Get the vote by promising the descamisados, Ashirtless ones,@ or in North American parlance, Athe little man,@ a better cut out of the national pie. ATax and spend, penalize the producers. Look not to productivity but to government handouts for a better life.@ And who pays for it? AWhy, the government. They have lots of money, and can print more.@
Fortunately the North American Peronists are much in the minority. Everyone doesn=t believe their divide-and-conquer slogans, such as AWe=re for the little man. We=re for the old folks. We=ll keep the opposition from destroying Social Security. We=re fighting poverty. How can the richest nation in the world still have poor people?@ Like Juan Peron and his ilk, they are either political opportunists who want power at any price or sincere liberals out of touch with reality.
I suggest a good lesson in cause-and-effect. Look at Argentina. Argentina has been a great nation. The country has a climate and natural resources, much like the United States. The Peronist political philosophy continues to drag it down like a panicky horse in quicksand.
Look at Great Britain and its declining pound sterling. I remember when it was worth around $5.00. Then for a long time it was worth around $3.50. Now it=s more like $1.50.
Look at Canada and its declining dollar. I remember when it took $1.10 US to buy one Canadian dollar. Now it=s more like 75 cents.
The US dollar has continued to depreciate at the same time, so these currencies= fall is accelerated. Why? What have these great nations done differently? They have given in to the urge to have the government take care of everyone for life, provide medical care for all, and a regular government check for those who don=t work.
I met a 27-year-old man in England who had never held a job. He was big, strong, healthy, and intelligent. The government had helped him get a job several times. Each time he got sick at his stomach and couldn=t work. As soon as the job was terminated, he got well. The government declared him disabled, so he lives on the dole.
Our “Peronist” politicians encourage that way of life here.

The Baptist Tent

An Allegorical Explanation of the Different Kinds of Baptists
By Joe Hewitt

All Christian denominations live in tents. However, some, such as Roman Catholics and Churches of Christ, consider all those not in their particular tents to be outside in the heat and cold just pretending to be under a tent.
The Baptists have one of the largest tents, which they have cut up and divided into several smaller tents:
The Allegorist Tent is filled with people who especially can’t tolerate intolerance. Allegorists believe that Old Testament accounts of Creation and the Fall of Man are just stories to help primitive people grasp the greatness of God. They explain away miracles as natural phenomenon or legend. Allegorists call themselves moderates. Some call themselves liberals, and others call themselves conservatives. People who disagree with the Allegorist position they call intolerant, fundamentalists, or Calvinists.
Allegorists avoid talking about allegory. Rather if asked, they will proclaim that they believe the Bible and every word Jesus Christ said, although some on the fringe of the tent like to pick and choose, and themselves determine what He actually said.
The Allegorists’ prayer: Lord we thank you that we have the truth. We pray those other people would be as enlightened as we are so we can enlarge our tent and invite them in.
The Literalist Tent is much larger. They believe the Bible is literally true, but there are exceptions that allow for allegory in the Parables and in certain prophecies, especially in the Book of Revelation. They believe God created everything in six days, but differ on the definition of “day.” They believe the miracles actually happened as the Bible says. Literalists call themselves conservatives and can’t say the word liberal without turning down the corners of their mouths. Literalists suspect anyone who calls himself a moderate to be at best a closet liberal.
The Literalist’s prayer: Lord we thank you that we have the truth. We pray those other people would be as enlightened as we are so we can enlarge our tent and invite them in.
The Fundamentalist Tent is divided into two sections, the Capital F Fundamentalist, and the little f fundamentalist.
The little f group move freely in and out of the Literalist Tent. They say they are fundamentalists in the sense that they believe in the fundamentals of the faith, rather than being in a fundamentalist tent per se. They believe pretty much the same as the Literalists, but like the Pharisees of old, believe a few laws are good; many laws are better. Some on the fringe of the tent worry constantly about how women dress and fix their hair.
The Big F group stay pretty much in the center of their tent and keep check on one another to be sure they don’t deviate in their beliefs. If any deviation should be detected one is liable to be called a Southern Baptist, which is considered almost as bad as being a liberal. They major on women’s clothing, makeup and coiffures. If a woman wears pants she’s trying to dress like a man, which is a sin. If a girl wears shorts, she is sinning almost as badly as a wife who won’t obey her husband, or a deacon who drinks wine.
The Fundamentalist’s Prayer: Lord we thank you that we have the truth. We pray those other people would be as enlightened as we are so we can enlarge our tent and invite them in.
The Dictators Tent is filled with people who believe every word in the Bible is not only inspired by God but that every word was personally dictated by God. This tent is so tiny that everyone in it is on the fringe.
The Dictators’ prayer: Lord we thank you that we have the truth. We pray those other people would be as enlightened as we are so we can enlarge our tent and invite them in.
The King James Tent is likewise tiny. People in it claim the only reliable Bible is the King James translation of 1611. Of course they can’t read its archaic language. They read the revision of 1769 and consider it the only reliable Bible. When asked to choose between a passage in the original Greek that has shades of meaning different from the KJV, they will choose the translation over the original. They venture in and out of the Big F Fundamentalist tent on occasion.
This is the only Baptist group that requires those who enter their tent to check their brains at the door.
The King James Group’s prayer: Lord we thank you that we have the truth. We pray those other people would be as enlightened as we are so we can enlarge our tent and invite them in.
The Fatalists’ Tent is small and filled with people who are a lot like inert gas, practically invisible, odorless, and tasteless. They stay quiet. Especially they don’t do missionary work. They believe they were elected to salvation before the foundation of the world and others were doomed to Hell with no possibility of salvation. Everything that happens was preordained. If you are a rotten drunkard who beats his wife and starves his kids, you aren’t to blame. It was all preordained.
The Fatalists’s prayer: Lord we thank you that we have the truth. To Hell with those other people.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Conflict Resolution Guidelines for Schools

Conflict Resolution Guidelines for Elementary Schools

Copyright 2008, Joe B. Hewitt



With the possible exception of conflicts that as a last resort go to administration for arbitrary settlement, all conflict resolution sessions should be confidential. Nothing that is said in the session should be repeated to others. However the law requires that revelation of child neglect or abuse, and elder neglect or abuse must be reported to authorities immediately.

I. Conflict with a Colleague, One on One

When a teacher observes inappropriate conduct or bad behavior by a colleague, he/she should assume the responsibility of trying to defuse the situation.

For example: A teacher steps out of her classroom into the hall, grabs a boy by the arm, screams at him, and shoves him on his way.

The colleague who observes this should ask the screaming teacher for a private talk. If the out-of-line person is still controlled by a fit of anger, the aspiring peacemaker should become the Initiator of Conflict Resolution and ask for a meeting the following day. If that request is refused, the peacemaker Initiator has a choice of (1) letting the matter slide, and take the chance of dealing with an irate parent later, or perhaps see the inappropriate behavior repeated, or (2) reporting the incident to the school administration.

1. Go to the Conference Table

Ideally the intemperate person who has become the Respondent in Conflict Resolution will cool off, sit down with the colleague, and discuss the problem.

In the meeting, the Initiator should establish a relationship with the Respondent. For example, “I’m not trying to exert any authority over you. We are colleagues and friends. I asked you to meet with me to follow the school’s Conflict Resolution Guidelines. Following those guidelines, everything that is said here is confidential. I’m sure we both want what is best for our students. At the same time, I want to avoid any official report of this incident. I hope we can resolve the conflict amicably. I know you must have been under a great amount of strain, or you wouldn’t have reacted as you did to the child. Please tell me what led up to the confrontation.”





2. Vent

The most important thing the Initiator can do is to listen. Be patient. Listen to all the circumstances that led up to the confrontation. Don’t be surprised if during the explanation the Respondent will realize he/she was out of line, admit it, and vow to keep his/her temper under control. If there is something not clear, ask questions. If there seem to be contradictory statements, ask more questions. Ask for clarification. Finally, restate in your own words what the person has told you and make sure you have a complete understanding of what he/she said.

After the Respondent has completely run down, tell what happened from the Initiator’s vantage point. If there is a disagreement on what took place, don’t argue. Emphasize the parts of the incident on which both agree. Especially emphasize the common concern both have for the children in your care. That concern must be number one, and we must be able to adjust our own personal biases and proclivities so we can always act in the best interest of the children.

3. Options

Discuss options to solve the problem. Write down the options on a board or paper. Scratch unworkable options. Try to get an agreement on a solution to the conflict.

Some possible options for the Respondent:

A. Contact the boy’s parents. Explain his actions that led to the confrontation. Ask for their help in preventing such behavior in the future, and apologize for overreacting.

B. Have a conference with the boy. Ask him to tell in detail what led up to the confrontation. You may find he has problems at home or with other students. He may need to visit the school counselor. Apologize to the child for bad behavior, which by no means excuses his bad behavior.

C. Resolve to be more careful in the future to head off potential problems early to keep them from escalating and keep his/her temper under control no matter what.

4. Settlement

When a settlement agreement is reached, write it down. Make a copy for the Respondent and the Initiator. The settlement agreement can be simple. For example:

“I appreciate my colleague calling to my attention my behavior, obviously perceived as inappropriate, involving Billy Joe Smith. I will have a conference with Billy Joe and reprimand him for his behavior that led up to the confrontation and apologize to him for my inappropriate behavior. In the future I will act in a professional manner to the best of my ability.” Signed ______________________. Date ___________.

If no settlement can be reached, go to the next step: Ask the Respondent to meet with you and a mediator.

Conflict with a Colleague, Meet with a Mediator

With consent of the Respondent, the Initiator should contact a colleague, preferably one with many years of teaching experience, and ask him/her to serve as mediator.

The Mediator is in charge of the process, which is basically the same as one-on-one.

1. Go to the Conference Table

2. Vent

3. Options

4. Settlement

The Mediator should arrange for the time and place of the meeting between the two parties. Sit together around a table in a quiet setting. It is best for the parties to face one another across the table. The Mediator should explain the mediation process using the following check list:

1. Welcome, Introductions. (Suggest informality, using first names.)

2. Purpose of mediation. (Focus on the future) The Mediator is impartial, not a judge. No one is forced into settlement. The decision is yours. The Mediator is a facilitator to help guide the parties to settlement.

3. Procedure and process.

A. Each side is given time for uninterrupted presentation.

B. Each side is to state its position.

All participants should be prepared to make suggestions for possible solutions.

4. Caucus. (Optional. Private.) In the event either party wants to talk to the Mediator in private, they can go to another room for a private caucus. In the event the parties want to speak confidentially to one another out of the presence of the Mediator, they can caucus as well.

5. Privacy and note taking. (Everything said is Confidential. No information can be used later in an administration arbitration hearing or court. Mediator cannot be called as witness. Notes to be destroyed .)

6. Ground rules. Be courteous. Listen. Speak respectfully.

7. Discuss with the parties the approximate length of time for sessions. If anyone has to leave at a certain time, make arrangements to reconvene at a later time if necessary.

8. Get both parties to sign Waiver and consent forms acknowledging confidentiality of sessions, neutrality of Mediator, and that the Mediator can’t be called later as a witness.

9. Procedure:

A. Mediator gives each party uninterrupted time, beginning with the initiator.

B. After each party’s presentation, the Mediator should clarify issues and problems. Make sure he/she understands what each party is saying, and make sure each party understands what the other party is saying. If there are any questions, the Mediator should ask them. The Mediator should be crystal clear in his/her own mind what both parties are claiming. It is vital that the Mediator maintain neutrality.

C. Generate options. The Mediator should write options on the board or on paper. Write as many options as possible, discuss them, and eliminate the unworkable options one by one.

The Mediator should guide the parties toward settlement. Make suggestions. Consider reciprocity: “If he does A, would you be willing to do B?” Once there is an agreement on any point, write it down.

When a settlement agreement has been reached, the Mediator should make sure each party has complete understanding. Then write the agreement. Ask each party to read it, approve it, and sign it. Make copies for both parties and one for the Mediator.

If no settlement can be reached, the Mediator should declare an impasse and refer the matter to administration.

SAMPLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

In the matter of an altercation between myself and a student in the hallway outside Classroom No. 143 on August 18, 2008, I agree to visit the student’s parents no later than September 1, 2008, and try to ascertain what led up to the student’s behavior that day and to apologize to the parents and student for my outburst. To the best of my ability I will keep my temper under control, act in a professional manner toward all my students, and maintain a good relationship with the parents.

Signed, John Johnson, Respondent

In the above matter, I agree to keep all the details of this conflict confidential, and will lend my support to the Respondent in the future to prevent such conflicts.

Signed, Jane Doe, Initiator

Signed, Bert Brown, Mediator

If mediation does not result in a settlement, the next step is to go to the administration. The Administrator should talk to the Initiator to learn the about the conflict in question and make a decision whether to act as mediator in a second attempt at mediation in a confidential setting or have an administrative hearing and arbitrarily make a decision dictating the terms of settlement.

If the Administrator and Respondent agree to a confidential mediation session, the Administrator might want to invite the child, and/or his parents to be present at least part of the time during the mediation.

The Administrator-Mediator should follow the same guidelines as the colleague Mediator outlined above:

1. Go to the Conference Table

2. Vent

3. Options

4. Settlement

In the event the Administrator-Mediator does not achieve a settlement, the only recourse is for him/her to exercise authority and act as an arbitrator, handing down a binding decision.

II. Conflict between Teacher and Parent

In this situation the parent might bring an accusation against the teacher, so the teacher becomes the Respondent with a responsibility to try to resolve the conflict one-on-one if possible. Having been apprised of a complaint made to Administration, the teacher should contact the parents asking for a conference.

1. Go to the Conference Table.

Use the same techniques outlined above in the section, I. Conflict with a Colleague, one-on-one.

2. Vent

The teacher should invite the parents and child to tell the whole story. Ask them to sign the confidentiality agreement. Explain that it in no way prevents them from appealing to the Administration if the conference fails. They may refuse to sign. Continue with the conference regardless.

Encourage everyone concerned to tell all, father, mother, child. The teacher should make sure he/she understands each position. Ask questions. Repeat in your own words. Clarify.

If during this process a parent uses abusive language, the teacher must be firm, and tell the parent that the teacher will have to conclude the conference and refer it to the Administration if they can’t continue the conference with civility.

3. Options

Ask for options to settle the conflict. Offer options. Write them down. Discuss them. Narrow them down and try to reach a settlement agreement. Consider reciprocity.

4. Settlement

Once you have reached an agreement, write it down, and ask everyone to sign it. Make copies for everyone.

SAMPLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

In the matter of a dispute between Teacher John Johnson and Billy Joe Smith in the hallway outside Classroom No. 143 on August 18, 2008, all parties agree to the following:

Billy Joe Smith agrees to follow classroom rules, not be loud and disruptive, and to treat the teachers with respect.

John B. Smith agrees to maintain normal, loving parental discipline over Billy Joe and encourage him to good citizenship.

Susan L. Smith agrees to encourage Billy Joe to do his homework, get enough sleep, be on time for class and maintain good dietary habits, especially leaving off the three high-energy drinks he had been consuming daily.

Teacher John Johnson agrees to keep his temper under control, act in a professional manner toward all students, and maintain a good and friendly relationship with Billy Joe and his parents.

Signed, Billy Joe Smith

Signed, John B. Smith

Signed, Susan L. Smith

Signed, John Johnson

Date, August 21, 2008.

The teacher may on rare occasion encounter a person who agrees to everything, but refuses to sign anything. In that case the teacher should get the parent to verbally affirm that he agrees and leave it at that, hoping he will fulfill his part of the settlement.

III. Conflict between Teacher and Administration

Here danger lurks. Any time you have a dispute between a person and one in authority, you have an uneven playing field. Obviously the teacher may feel intimidated. The Administrator may be gun-shy, afraid of litigation. At best the situation is tense.

SAMPLE SCENARIO: John Johnson is a teacher and coach who feels discriminated against because he is male in a culture dominated by females. He has made a formal complaint to the Principal and the Assistant Principal, both women, accusing them of giving him the worst possible assignments in the cafeteria, hall monitoring, playground, and school bus monitoring. It has been going on for five years. He has complained several times. He still gets the worst assignments, and the younger women with less experience get the best assignments. Mr. Johnson says he’s fed up, and if he can’t get some justice from the Administration he will appeal to the School District Administration and possibly file a lawsuit.

1. Using a Teacher Mediator

The ideal would be for the two to agree on a teacher-Mediator to settle the conflict and keep it in the family. It is doubtful that Mr. Johnson would agree to a fellow teacher as Mediator unless it is an older woman for whom he has a lot of respect, or perhaps another male teacher whom he could trust to be impartial. The Administration would probably not consent to a close friend of Johnson’s to be mediator. However, if a peer mediator could be agreed upon, it would be better than the alternative escalation.

In this case Mr. Johnson is the Initiator, and the Principal and Assistant Principal are the respondents.

The selected Mediator has to take charge of the mediation process, even though his superiors are parties. He may find it difficult. The situation is like a president of a large corporation playing on the company’s baseball team, taking instructions from the coach who is one of his employees. All concerned must accept their roles in this particular situation.

Since time schedules and history will play an important role in this mediation, the Mediator should request that all pertinent documents be brought to the mediation session. For example, Mr. Johnson claims he was given the worst cafeteria detail for the past five years. Those records will be needed.

Confidentiality is especially important.

Another requirement in this kind of mediation is that the parties have full authority to settle. You don’t want to get near a settlement and have the Principal say, “I can’t agree to that until I talk to the Superintendent,” or Mr. Johnson to say, “I can’t agree to that until I talk to the union.” If both parties do not have full authority to settle, the Mediator should postpone the mediation until all parties with that authority can be present. Other than making sure that requirement is met, the Mediator should follow the same course of action outlined above in I. Conflict with a Colleague, One on One, Meet with a Mediator.

Allowing the Initiator to vent is especially important.

After everyone has had their say, the Mediator might ask to look at the assignment records for the past five years, and lay them out on the table. It might be obvious that Mr. Johnson was mistaken on one point and that the Administration did seem to dump on him in another. The best way to get the truth out on the table for all to see is for the Mediator to ask questions. He/she’s not taking sides, just trying to clarify the information.

After the Mediator starts listing options, it might be necessary to separate the parties, leaving the Respondents in one room and taking the Initiator to another room. In those caucuses, the Mediator can make suggestions more freely than he/she could in the presence of the other party.

The Mediator can also re-state the other party’s position to make sure it is understood without the other party thinking the Mediator to be partial. For example, in a private caucus with the Principal and Assistant Principal, the Mediator might say, “You can see that John is angry. If we can’t come to a settlement agreement in mediation, you know what will come next. Dealing with the School District is an unknown. You don’t know what they’ll do. If it goes to court, it’s even more of an unknown except that it will cost a lot of money. The best way to be sure of the outcome, is to arrive at a settlement agreement both you and John can live with. Now according to your records, you did assign John to the southeast corner of the parking lot, not-so-affectionately known as ‘The Pit,’ a hundred days last year. Would you consider it an option to make a change in that pattern? . . . etc. etc.” You wouldn’t want to say those things in Mr. Johnson’s presence, so a caucus is called for.

In a private caucus with Mr. Johnson, the Mediator might say, “I really think the Administration is seriously considering remedy to your problem. I hope you will work with them in coming up with something that both of you can agree to. The alternative is scary. If you go to the School District with this, you don’t know what will happen. If you file a lawsuit, it will cost you a fortune to prosecute the case, and you still don’t know how it will turn out. The best solution is to work something out here in mediation. Now you said earlier that if the Administration would give you a better assignment in the cafeteria, you wouldn’t mind doing some extra duty in ‘The Pit’ because you understand that your strength is needed there to corral some of the more rowdy boys . . .” etc. etc.

Going from caucus to caucus is called “shuttle mediation.” Sometimes it is the best way to go. If the Administration agrees to one point, urge Mr. Johnson to agree to another. Soon you have an agreement. Write it up. Get everyone to sign it, and go home friends.

SAMPLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

In the matter involving a grievance by John Johnson, against the Administration, alleging unfair assignment of non-teaching tasks, the parties, having full authority to settle the dispute, agree to the following:

The Administration renders to Mr. Johnson an apology for treating his physical strength as a liability rather than an asset by assigning him to especially onerous tasks that should have been shared more equally with other teachers. The Administration agrees to remedy that situation by using a roster wheel of teachers and assigning him only his fair share of each of the non-teaching duties except in instances where he specifically agrees to do more than his share. The roster wheel system is to be set up no later than September 20, 2008.

Mr. Johnson agrees to do his fair share of the non-teaching duties as assigned by the Administration using the roster wheel without complaint, and agrees to do fifty per-cent more of the southeast section of the parking lot where his physical strength is needed.

Signed, Principal

Signed, Assistant Principal

Signed, Initiator

Signed, Mediator

Date

2. Using an Outside Mediator

If either party refuses to use a peer mediator, the Administration should contact the School District. If the School District does not have staff mediators, or if the Initiator is afraid they too would be biased against him, an outside professional should be hired.

3. Out of the Family, Out of Control

If all else fails and the Initiator files a lawsuit, it will be up to the School District’s attorneys to fight the battle.

The usual sequence of events:

The Initiator hires a lawyer. The lawyer files an original petition with the court alleging the Initiator, now the Plaintiff’s charges. The Defendant attorney files an answer. The court sets a trial date months in advance. The court orders the case to mediation. The court-appointed mediator gets all the parties to the table.

Now the situation is much more complicated and around the table we have, the Plaintiff and his lawyer; The School District Lawyer, and the Principal and/or an Assistant Superintendent of Schools representing the Defendant. The scene is played out much like the scenario above except the Plaintiff will probably be asking for a large amount of money in addition to redress. The lawyers are charging large fees. Both parties have to pay the Mediator. He tries to get everyone to cut their losses and settle because if they go on to trial, costs will be multiplied and the outcome will be in doubt.

Recommendations for Ongoing Conflict Resolution Program for Elementary Schools

1. Duplicate the sections on Conflict with a Colleague, One on One and Conflict Between a Teacher and Parent, distribute them to the entire faculty with a cover letter stating that it is every teacher’s duty to defuse conflict by initiating intervention.

2. Ask teachers to volunteer as peer mediators. Duplicate the entire set of guidelines and give it to the volunteers. If they will study the guidelines and scenarios, they will be better equipped to do a mediation. It is important that they use the check list.

Get those volunteer mediators together in a self-study group. Assign some to write a scenario. Assign parts in role playing exercises. Let them take turns being the Initiator, Respondent, and Mediator. With two or three mock mediations behind them they will be ready to do peer mediations.

3. Train volunteer fifth graders to do student mediations. Many schools are doing this successfully. It is not only beneficial for students in conflict, but also for the student mediators. Experience as a student mediator helps equip them for future positions of leadership.

Resources for training teacher mediators:

Nancy Ferrell, PhD, nkferrell@sbcglobal.net, 214-320-0144.

Glenn Currier, MA, learners@swbell.net, 972-965-3125.

Joe B. Hewitt, Hewitt and Hewitt Mediators, Email Hewitt 972-771-8208.

Resources for training student mediators:

Irene Zucker, Verbacom Executive Development, izucker@verbacom.com, 972-386-8372.

Cris Gilbert, Dispute Mediation Service (DMS), lagilbert@dms-adr.org, 214-754-0022.

Marona Hewitt, Hewitt and Hewitt Mediators, hewittmarona@msn.com 972-771-8208.



WAIVER AND CONSENT FORM

(To be signed before mediation begins.)



This waiver and consent form is executed in exchange for participation by the Mediator in the mediation of a dispute between



___________________________________ and ______________________________________



It pertains only to the matters arising during mediation of that dispute.

1. I understand that the Mediator is not a legal advisor. I agree to hold the Mediator harmless for any observations, suggestions or implications that he/she may make in the course of mediation.

2. I waive any right of action that I may have against the Mediator for any allegation of wrongful conduct on his/her part.

3. I agree to the necessity that mediation be confidential and; therefore, agree that I will not call the Mediator, to act as witnesses in any court or administrative hearing.

4. I agree to treat anything said by the opposing party as part of an offer to compromise and settle the dispute being mediated. I further agree that statements made during mediation shall be treated as offers to settle and shall not be admissible should this matter result in litigation or an administrative hearing.

5. I specifically agree, however, that a fully executed settlement agreement can be admitted to any court proceeding without my objection as evidence of such settlement.

_________________________ ____________________________

Signature of Party Date



Joe B. Hewitt has been a court-appointed mediator for Dallas courts since 2002. In addition, he does pre-litigation mediation as well as training in conflict resolution. The Conflict Resolution Guidelines arose from a workshop for Elementary Schools.
A similar set of guidelines is for the workplace, which can also be found on this website, which Hewitt developed after doing workshops for administrators and human resources managers.
These guidelines are copyrighted, however permission is given any entity that wishes to use them as long as Joe B. Hewitt is listed as the author along with his contact information.
Joe and Marona Hewitt are available for conflict resolution training.

Hewitt and Hewitt Mediators
972-771-8208
Email hewittjoe_marona@msn.com
Website: www.joebhewittmediator.com