Jean Schmidt

TITLE: Jean Schmidt Calls John Murtha a Coward?
AUTHOR: Susan Dunn, MA, The EQ Coach
WORD COUNT: 1,1092
WRAP: 60
URL: http://www.susandunn.cc
Mailto”sdunn@susandunn.cc

“Jean Schmidt Calls John Murtha a Coward?”
by Susan Dunn, MA, The EQ Coach

Being an emotional intelligence coach, and having recently published an article on being new to the job (from the emotional intelligence standpoint), several people have written, asking me to comment on the above-referenced incident.

It is a giant leap to go from Schmidt’s actual words to “Jean Schmidt Calls John Murtha a Coward.” I confess I did not see videos of her speaking. I have only the printed word to rely on, but then reasonable people do side-step “hearsay” and go to the source. We have innumerable research studies showing us that people don’t see what happens, don’t hear what is said, and “invent”, especially when their emotions are being worked over.

According to the transcript, here is what Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Oh) said: “He (Bubp) also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do…”

So Schmidt didn’t call Murtha a coward. Granted she implied he was, but that’s technically different. Bubp, incidentally, denies having had the conversation with her, which was enough for me to pronounce it “politics” and wash my hands of the whole thing. However, there’s some good EQ stuff in here. Let’s proceed.

Implications rely on thoughts and feelings we supply, fueled by emotion. This is something politicians rely on, the press, your boss, and other who wish to steamroll you into something. Emotions can over-ride thinking, and a person not thinking is a person at the mercy of the other. It is an incendiary leap to say Schmidt called Murtha a coward, and it sells newspapers, or whatever.

Splitting hairs? Yes, but I’m a wordsmith.

Murtha was not there when it happened, and had to go on hearsay as well. How would you react if it had been you? Would you take the bait?

Someone with high EQ wouldn’t, someone who’s been around the block a few times, like Murtha. When asked how he felt about it (by Russert), here is what he replied: “…I try not to put this in a personal basis, and I would hope the people would take this suggestion as a responsible recommendation, and then read the resolution that I put forward, redeploy the troops on the periphery as quickly as within the safety of the troops. You know, this is a new member, and sometimes they give her something to say that –they get out of hand. I try not to take this stuff personal.”

He’s evasive, using political-speak, i.e., what does “within the safety of the troops” mean?? Sometimes “they” give her something to say … who are “they?” He implies he doesn’t take offense, and then sends us back to read what he actually proposed. The message: read what he said, read what she said. Emotional intelligence is about reality-testing.

The EQ points here?

· If you care about what really happened, go to the source and read it. Then analyzie it, logically and make your own decision. Don’t rely on hearsay.
· The press has incredible power in how they report things. Incendiary comments “sell.” You should consider this possible bias in anything you read. That’s reality-testing, and emotional intelligence competency. “Take it with a grain of salt.”
· Other thoughts I had – (1) she was ‘set up’ to do this. Entirely possible, as Murtha IMPLIES but does not SAY. The reactions may have been staged as well, albeit impromptu, and definitely opportunistic. But that’s politics. (2) the over-zealous newbie on the scene. This happens a lot. (3) What would have happened if she’d been a man? (4) Her apology? It was expected. It was given. It seemed extreme, as if she were afraid. She doesn’t seem able to ‘hold the center’ at this point.

Folks, what actually happened was all implied, which brings up another point.

She did not SAY he was a coward, she IMPLIED he was a coward. In politics, of course, you take the bait. In real life, I recommend you don’t, and Murtha knew this.

There’s an excellent book I recommend by a real pro, “The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense,” (http://tinyurl.com/6hngm ) by Suzette Haden Elgin. She takes you point-by-point through the disguised attacks, passive-aggressive maneuvers, and innuendoes from nasty folks we have to deal with all the time, giving responses you can make that will keep you out of trouble. Because, you see, once you “take the bait,” well the nature of the interchange is that you are dangling in the wind.

Let’s say your new boss comes up to you, a senior worker, and says, “I just talked to Joe Blow in accounting and he said people over 50 can’t remember anything. Young people do.”

Gonna take the bait?

Not you! You’ve got EQ.

If you say, “Well that doesn’t apply to ME, I remember everything,” you are on very, very thin ground, because no one (including Joe Blow, the young man in accounting) does not remember EVERYTHING. Further, you have included yourself, whereas technically neither Joe Blow nor the manager had. In other words, you implicated yourself. Not smart! Low EQ!

Likewise getting sucked in to the black hold of “No! Young people don’t remember everything.”

If you say, “Tell Joe Blow to mind his own business,” you reveal an inability to remain reasonable under pressure.

A possible response? “What an interesting theory. I wonder he read that.” You thereby imply (fair is fair … remember, your attacker has laid the ground rules here) he read it, that it doesn’t apply to you, etc. Tit for tat. Then get back to your work!

When you give someone the power to “make” you angry, you lose…. on three fronts:

1. You give up your personal power, an emotional intelligence competency.
2. The physiological reaction of anger prevents you from thinking clearly when you need it the most.
3. A minute of angry suppresses the immune system for about an hour. Is it worth it to your health? Usually not. Righteous indignation included.

As Epictetus said many, many years ago: “Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him”

Drama aside, the issues under discussion were serious ones. If you care, read about them. Then speak your peace, write your congresspeople and exercise your rights. And don’t do it by implication and he-said, she-said, gather up your EQ and state your opinion, with the rational arguments behind them.

One reason we study EQ is so we don’t fall prey to all the people who use emotions to manipulate us.

UST SAY NO to mineral oil products for baby. It's like putting the oil you use in your car on your baby only worse ... it sinks into baby's skin and into the bloodstream.

Try this instead ...

Item#: 852
Arbonne Baby Care Body Oil

Softens, moisturizes and protects baby’s delicate skin. A gentle formulation that conditions dry, chapped skin while providing antioxidant protection. Helps reduce redness and irritation while restoring essential moisture. Recommended for children from birth to 10 and extremely sensitive skin types. ( 5.9floz./174mL )

Price: $16.50

Shop with me online, conveniently, at www.susandunn.myarbonne.com.

Let me help you make some money. Become a consultant )go HERE. I love my consultants who sell. In fact I'm taking one on a cruise with me next week just to tell her "thanks" for making herself money, for making ME money, and for HELPING SO MANY PEOPLE.

I'm convinced there is NOTHING that makes us more miserable than the junk we bombard ourselves with, particularly through the skin; it's absorbed directly into the bloodstream ... you know, like the nicotine patch, hormone patch ... anything else we want to last, and last, and last, yes? Frangrances made me (and many people ill), minerol make my eyelids well, and my nostrils stuffed up,

Get clean. Get ARBONNE.