Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Iraqi Insurgency: 1M US forces needed by 2008-10 time frame

Nobody wages war to fight. They do so to win.

To prevail, the US needs a quantum leap in ground forces in Iraq. But the only way to meet those numbers is to have a draft.

This explains what numbres are needed, and why the insurgency is building faster than current planner are prepared to admit.

What can be done? This explain why the buildup will be coplex and what America needs to do. Update: 7 Jan 2005 Insurgency at 200,000, beating planners forecasts by three years, prompting grave concern in the Pentagon.

Executive Summary

Current combat-manning is insuffifient. The US requires an additional 1M troops to effectively reach max-rate by 2008, for a two year push to snuff the insurgency, expected to reach in the mid to high 200,000 by that point.

Such a change is a three-fold increase in combat forces. It will take three years using 20 CONUS training bases to ramp up and sustain a 1M man draft force.

Draft-numbers are expected to start in the low 37k per mos in year one, and reach a peak rate of over 100K/mos by 2007-8. These figures do not include the logistics-support requirement in the neighborhood of 3-5M.

The longer the US delays making the decision to reach the 1M target figure for conscripts, the more difficult the situation in Iraq will be. At worst, the US will simply fuel a civil war with inadequate troops and force protection.


Estimating the real number of insurgents based in incomplete, inaccurate, and politicized information.


A. Identify model that would estimate the number of insurgents

B. Develop reasonable assumptions that could be independently tested

C. Develop a number of insurgents; forecast US requirements to cover that problem.

Overview Discussion

If we assume the Iraqi insurgency is a training-system, we might make some assumptions about the number of training sites, the number of people who are in the training system, and the total number of insurgents.

One approach is to use waiting-line queue theory. Although the formals require certain assumptions, we can actually use the formulas to test the integrity of the DoD-data. In short, we start where DoD leaves us, and then use the formulas to derive their assumptions; in some cases we even see that the formulas create inconsistent assumptions indicating the DoD-data is problematic.

For starters, what we can assume is that the total number of potential insurgents arriving for training exceeds the kill-rate. Put another way this is saying that the slope of the y-arrivals exceeds the x-kill-rate.

M/M/1 models are exponential, have infinite populations, and their interarrival times are exponential. This is a very good fit with Iraq. Also, we have anecdotal reports that the insurgent-growth-rate/training-rats are both exponential as they have been characterized as "being able to fill their ranks faster" as is the "norm" in a guerrilla-type operation.

Thus, we can take the DoD-sourced data on kills, advance the slope by a lead-time of X1, representing the lead-time for training which ranges from 1 week to for weeks; or 100 hours to 700 hours.

Also, of interest is the number of training sites. We know this number is large, otherwise DoD would target them.

Also, we know that the insurgents move without communicating, and cannot be tracked, as evidenced by the large backlog of FBI-NSA intercepts that have not been translated.

The initial arrival rate of 4000 per month, and 12 training sites appears to be a reasonable assumption. Of concern is that at this rate, the insurgents will number from their present number in the orders of 100,000s. Also, this growth-rate is far higher than the US can sustain, implying that the US can only combat [on numbers alone] if the training rate increases for Iraqis [which does not seem probable] or institute a draft.

The logical question becomes: "How many US troops are required." Assuming we have two trend lines [Rate at which US will achieve peak-value; and the continuing exponential growth rate in insurgent training], we find that the 100,000 value in insurgents links with 1M US combat forces, assuming a ratio of 1:9, or a growth in US forces from the present 400K to 1.5M starting in 2005, and reaming 1M additional forces by 2008, representing 3 years of insurgent growth.

Further, assuming the US has a force-support index of 1:7 [meaning for each combat troop there are 7 support personnel], we quickly get into largest numbers in the 3.5 to 7-magnitude.

In general the real costs for the war will be munitions and fuel; personnel costs are assumed to be burdened [food, medical, equipment, pay] at $50K per year. The large numbers for personnel only amount to peanuts compared to the current spend rate of $1B per week.

At worst, the US will hit 1.5M troops in Iraq by 2008, and peak for 2 years.

If the US actively contributes to a civil war by fueling the insurgency, it remains to be seen whether a 2 year window will solve the problem.

At this juncture, it is not likely the US will easily rampdown; at worst the rate of insurgent growth would far exceed the US ability to ramp-up personnel. Even if there were 20 dedicated training centers brining in 34,000 per moth, the US would still require a three phase step-increase to reach 1M additional troops; this factors in the losses due to 1-year-duty-service.

On sheer numbers alone, the US has to make a decision quickly as to how many troops it wants in Iraq. The issue is not funding [which is already sky-high], but how quickly those troops are going to be inserted into Iraq, at what level, and how quickly the various units around the country will be deployed.

The longer the US waits to come to grips with what is happening in Iraq, the slower and more delayed the decision will be to ramp up to 1M troops, plus support. In the meantime, the insurgents are expected to increase their manning and popular support.

Estimating the Insurgent numbers with a reliable model

  • Two problems: Available support forces insufficient; and the actual insurgent numbers are not only low, but they have greater latitude than forecast

    1. Fewer Iraqis available. Only 5,000 Iraqi forces trained, not 95,000.

    Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Ref

    2. Insurgent ability to work is broader. Firm analysis from Special Operations Consulting -- Security Management Group Inc.

    According to a new report on the attacks occurring daily in Iraq, in the past month alone more than 2,300 attacks have been directed against civilians and military targets. The violence sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north. The sweeping geographical reach of the attacks suggests a more widespread resistance than the isolated pockets of insurgency described by Iraqi government officials. The study was conducted by Special Operations Consulting.Ref

    NY Times Mentions the report: Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread
    By JAMES GLANZ and THOM SHANKER, Published: September 29, 2004 ref

    Confirmation of greater problems

    More countries, but unsustainable troop lvels. Ref; Ref

    Running the numbers

    Total = 24.55; Data source: 11 of 55

  • Model on service time


    Assuming an input of 4,000 per mos, 5.5 arrivals/hour.

    Servicetime: 4.166/hour

  • Blending

    720 hours per mos. Blending model. Fiddling with numbers until get some boundaries:


    Arrivals ____per hour 5.1
    Service time ____hours 100 [1/7 of a month, 720 hours]
    Number of agents 2000 training sites


    Productivity %
    Outbound calls per secondminute (throughput)
    Average waiting time secondsminutes
    Service level % waits less than secondsminutes

    Sensitivity Analysis

    If we cut down the service time to 100 hours and say 80% wait less than 80 minutes, we can get away with 530 locations; or if we have 2000 sites, we can increase the output by 4x.


    1. Arrivals ____per hour 5.1
    2. Service time ____hours 100 < ---- reduced training Blank: ---- > Output

    3. Number of agents ______ --- >530
    4. Threshold ______ --- > 530
    5. Productivity % ______ ----> 96.2
    6. Outbound calls per minute (throughput)
    7. Ave wait time ______ ----> 83.5

    8. Service level _____ 80% waits less than ___ 100 minutes


    Upper end: Where the number of arrivals starts to approach the required number of operators

    6 arriving/hour is equivalent to 4320/mos

    Using this model:


    1. Arrivals ____per hour 6.0
    2. Service time ____hours 700 < ---- 4 weeks training Blank: ---- > Output

    3. Number of agents ______ ---> 6301 [1:1 training: trainer]
    4. Threshold ______ ----> 6301 [1:1 training: trainer]
    5. Productivity % ______ N/A
    6. Outbound calls per minute (throughput)
    7. Ave wait time ______ N/A


    8. Service level _____ 80% waits less than ___ 100 minutes


    Finding critical values from the number of trainers


    5.1 arrivals/hour
    700 training hours

    Critical value [flips from 0 to infinity, and vice versa]
    -- around 3580 trainers


    Input: Arrivals ___ 5.1 hour
    Service time ___ 700 hours

    Forced: Number of agents 3580 < ----- adjust up and down to examine

    Output: Watch for a change from infinity to a discrete number

    Average waiting time _____ 3387.88 minutes
    Service level % waits less than ____ 19.34 minutes


    US needs to make a decision on max-troops required to combat an insurgency that is growing at a sustainable-exponential rate. If the number is 1M, then that will take three years with the following:

    2005 2006 2007
    Year1 Year2 Year3


    per mos 34 68 136

    bi-weekly 17 34 68

    If the peak number desired is higher than 1M, it will more draft notices per month than the initial 34k.

    If the number of troops desired to reach peak rate is desired to be before 2008, the number of training bases and personnel per/month needs to be increased from 34K/most and 20bases.

  • Read more . . .

    Tuesday, September 28, 2004

    Fasism: When people deny it, it's continuing

    Problem they have is they're waiting for "it all to arrive." Don't wait to speak out. More; but mind you, someone wrote this.

    Read more . . .

    Congress considering legislation to violate the 1st Amendment

    The Constitution allows people to freely speak their minds. Congress shall make no law abrdiging freedom of speech.

    There's nothing that permits Congress to require news outlets to differentiate "news" from "opinion."

    Speak out while you can still voice your opinion.

    That means if you publish anything, Congress can make a law to restrict you from publishing "non-news" and restrict your opinions.

    How you liking that, bloggers?

    Read more . . .

    Bush: Soros and Streisand Speak out about Bush flip flopping

    Soros Here is his blog; Soros WSJ ad, speech.

    Streisand: She voices more concerns about Bush.

    Flip flopping Bush : Flip and flow and poster.

    Read more . . .

    Iraq electricity supply: Private contractor reports vs studies

    The Contractor and DoD Goals are not consistent

    How much was the contractor awarded in bonuses for meeting goals that DoD-data does not support?

    Note the numbers are jumping around -- Check the data, sources

  • Contractor

    Reported by contractor: 4.5BMegaWatts, in Sept2003, contractor reported target: 3.8 Archived data -- you can't delete the website now.

    Data See 25/55

    Month MGW Note

    July 3,236 309 309

    Aug. 3,263 311 311

    Sept. 3,543 313 313

    Oct. 3,948 315 315

    Goal: 6,000 to have been reached by July 1, 2004 [Note: 330

    Brookings notes

    309 “Draft Working Papers: Iraq Status”, Department of Defense, 4 November 2003. Unclassified. Provided to the author by contacts at the DoD.

    311 “Draft Working Papers: Iraq Status”, Department of Defense, 4 November 2003. Unclassified .Provided to the author by contacts at the DoD.
    312 Ibid.

    313 “Draft Working Papers: Iraq Status”, Department of Defense, 4 November 2003. Unclassified. Provided to the author by contacts at the DoD.

    314 Ibid. Based on a two-week estimate.

    315 “Iraq Fact Sheet: Power, ”Joint Staffs and CPA, April 27, 2004.

    330 Draft Working Papers: Iraq Status,” Department of Defense, June 22, 2004.. Unclassified. Provided to the author by the CPA/DoD.

  • Read more . . .

    CPA issuing bogus budget figures

    These budget figures are illusory -- CPA-ESTIMATED NEEDS IN SECTORS NOT COVERED BY THE UN/WORLD BANK ASSESSMENT208 see 22 of 55

    Read more . . .

    North Korea

    Claims its has nuclear fuel. Are they weaponized?

    Read more . . .

    OPEC Oil revenues in Euro

    Number 5: Saudis work with White House to fix oil prices and help Bush win election in re economic factors

    Iraq oil: 24/55

    Compare their actuals to their forecast

    Sep 03 30.92

    Jan 03 32.53

    May 03 26.78

    Sep 03 26.85

    Jan 04 26.4

    May 04 32.5

    Sep 04 40.98

    Read more . . .

    Monday, September 27, 2004

    Law enforcement: What evidence do they have to support their assertions?

    Besides accusations that "they need more tools," was there really any evidence that they could show that justified the powers they had in the Patriot Act?

    They used threats, not evidence.

    Law enforcement loses credibility when they cry wolf.

    Read more . . .



    Read more . . .

    DoJ upset and confused by the falling drop in crime

    "We'd like to have more crime so we can have more money."

    Tired of the Patriot Act? You can fight back against DoJ by following the law.

    They'll have less to do, less money, and less resources to handle the real problems that they're still not taking care of.


    Read more . . .

    Civil rights violations in Indiana Prisons

    Investigations or a cover-up?

    Read more . . .

    Election 2004: DoJ already getting complaints of voter intimidation... law enforcement.

    And they're doing it in Florida.

    Read more . . .

    DoJ ordered to comply with FOIA


    Order: 7th Circuit.

    Why does it take so long for the government to comply; yet "When the population takes its time," that is considered obstruction?

    WHy the double standards on "response time"?

    Why are there no consequences/sanctions on the government for delays?

    Read more . . .

    Warning: Internet check scam

    The ask you for help sending money by wire. Bogus documents sent by FedEx.


    Here's how the scam works:

    Steup 1 Create an environment

    Them, example situation: "i own a boutique store and accessories"

    Describe a challenge: "well it been challenging but having an ache now on it"

    Relay a pesonal emotional crisis: "it's my customers giving me aches"

    Step 2: Financial complexity

    Involve other parties: "they requested for some accessories,snd clothes,and shoes from the states"

    The warning: "and i order but i was told they don't ship international,they said unless i have someone in the states to receive it for me

    Step 3: Challenge

    The problem: "and i have no one in usa"

    Step 4: Bait

    The request: "or will u render assistance?"

    Read more . . .

    DoJ celebrates Patriot Acts impact on the democratic process

    Some bad things are good things.

    This week DoJ is saying they're hoping to stop threats to the democratic process.

    Uh, is DoJ really serious about monitoring itself?

    Apparently DoJ wants an exception, as did the King of Europe.

    Read more . . .

    FBI: Despite Sibel's complaint to Hatch, they still have nontranscribed tapes

    How many more 9-11s does the country require for Hatch and the goons in the FBI and DoJ to actually listen to Sibel?

    123,000 hours of audio in languages associated with terrorists still had not been reviewed as of April 2004, the audit found. In addition, more than 370,000 hours of audio associated with counter-intelligence had not been reviewed

    Translation: Bush can't say, "We've taken a look at the 9-11 recommendations" nor can anyone say, "We already fixed that problem." Look at what was said a year ago, and they still haven't fixed it. Back-up

    Despite knowing the problems within the FBI, Bush and the morons in both DoJ and the Senate Judiciary Committee have collectively failed to fix the government, but have put alot of energy into blaming the public:

    the FBI's understandable but obsessive concern with security, its sometimes cumbersome bureaucracy and, critics say, its nativist culture make the bureau a difficult place for Muslims and foreign-born linguists to get jobs and work. ref

    It doesn't do much good to spend "all this money" collecting and storing non-criminal information unrelated to anything...when you have thousands of hours of tapes that have no been transcribed.

    DoJ and local law enforcement have their priorities upside down.

    Why wasn't 9-11 enough of a catalyst for you to listen to reasonable complaints from people like Sibel?

    The money that could attract people is being wasted in Iraq.

    Ref: Part of the wider pattern of problems with intelligence.

    Read more . . .

    Tell the FBI to kiss your butt

    Ref Quotes below are from Time.

    "rousting people suspected of supporting violent extremists"

    "Federal lawmen may question or tail others—if only to let them know the government can find them. . . Some agents say such tactics could backfire by alienating Muslims whose help the bureau needs in identifying suspicious people."

    Forget about alienating the rest of America; or those the government has already aliented by their abysmal 9-11-response, both before and after.

    Think you're being followed? CHances are, if you've benefited from Bushs' tax cuts, you fit the following profile:

    "Agents have been asking law-abiding emigres to report strangers who spout radical rhetoric or who have large sums of money and no jobs; those who rent apartments and vanish for weeks; or people who borrow cell phones and computers to message friends abroad."

    That's right, you have alot of money, you not only get a tax break, but you're eligible for closer scrutiny. They're even going after the Bush-supporters now.

    Here's a joke:

    "the FBI isn't relying exclusively on tips"

    This presumes they were relying on tips in the past, which isn't correct. Not only were they actively rebuffing information, but even if they got the information they ignored it.

    Not to be outdone. More of the "we can't do anything"-anti-logic:

    "... eight weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, all the hijackers were already in the U.S. If al-Qaeda operatives are truly about to attack, as the U.S. intelligence community says, then most are probably already here

    Translation: The US can't find them. Lions, tigers, and bears! How many of AlQueda are still in the FBI--FBI agents knew the 9-11 attacks were going to hit the WTC, but "the buildings were not supposed to fall down."

    Strange how America pays not attention to "novel ideas" when there's a chance to do something.

    Government harasses workers when they dare show any initiative at work; then when the workers cry uncle and give up, then the Feds use this as an excuse to label them as suspicious.

    Idiots in government. Detained in America for exercising your rights.

    What are we fighting for in Iraq, when "exercising those rights" is the "basis" to detain someone? If you like the "way things are here," ~you~ move to Iraq.

    Read more . . .

    Military photographs civilians stateside

    Stateside surveillance isn't new.

    Those military helicopters have windows. And people flying low carry cameras.

    It may say "US Military" but it's carryig local law enforcement.

    Read more . . .

    Spin City: The winner will depend on how much the voters can be deceived

    Fooled into believing in a recovery in both the economy and Iraq. Ref

    How stupid will the voters be? There's a big effort to pull the wool over people's eyes. Remember this is the same population that was convinced "their safety and security" would be enhanced if they gave up their Bill of Rights by passing the Patriot Act.

    Will Americans use their brain, or go with the flow? If history is a guide, Americans will not use their head and re-elect Bush.

    God save the world. It's happening again.

    What's your excuse?

    Read more . . .

    Iraq: Insurgents are getting training from US Marines

    That's right, US military personnel are training insurgents in Iraq how to shoot better.

    Insurgents have been taking up the call to "learn to be an Iraqi National Guardsman" and going under cover.

    There have also been mass desertions of the Iraqi security services ~despite~ the vetting.

    How many times can an insurgent cycle through the US-sponsored training programs before getting caught?

    Many. Their aim is improving. And the "newly US-trained insurgents" share with their fellow fighters the latest US tactics.

    Iraq isn't just a hornets nest of problems. The US is actively creating the enemy.

    Next step, give them the keys to the Pentagon. Oh, wait we already did that when we did nothing about the warnings prior to 9-11.

    Dont laugh, we really are selling them the rope to hang us.

    Read more . . .

    Iran and Syria: OK, so we lied

    Yes, Virginia, we really are imperialists.

    Plans aren't just for Iran, but also to Syria. No surprise.

    Read more . . .

    Police: They say they have a problem when the genearl population gives up support

    Law enforecment managers are taught to blame the critics as police bashers. But when the "general public" starts to complain, that's when the chiefs really start to pay attention.

    Brilliant. So we have to have "the idiots who blindly obey" to be the ones to "send the signal" that the police really have a problem.

    Are you comforted knowing "checks and balances" only works when the problem is pervasive?

    Government proves it fails when it is unresponsive to the early signs of problems; it truly blunders when it requires "self-evident and foregone conclusions" to be so obvious that the problem cannot be blamed on a minority.

    Time to blame the entire population.

    "Please show your arms. You will be branded with your new prisoner number."


    Read more . . .

    Mannerisms and clothing styles

    If you dress appropriately and know the local customs in the US, nobody will bother you.

    Patriots are robots. Be like everyone else.

    Empty your brain. Fit in. Obey.

    Read more . . .

    Rewriting Japanese Internment History

    Ref; ref

    It's all well and good to lock people up, just don't make any comparisons to today's Patriot Act.

    Never mind that the rights of the Japaense were denied, just as they are today.

    If you "don't fit in," or dare to question John Ashkrofts prompting of unlawful government conduct you might be well, unpatriotic.

    Small problem. The 12-year olds in Washington State have figure it out. "The US government denied people their rights."

    COngratulations, Virginia, you stated what it took 3 years for the American Bar Association to realize.

    Comparisons between the WWII and Patriot Act are controversial. Imagine that. Let's divert attention from whether abuses are occuring in Guantanamo and stateside, and change the subject to "whether or not the analogy is relevant."

    Fine, let's skip the comparison and call it what it is: Fascism.

    Denial of free speech, assocation, travel, and public oversight. We fought a great revolution in 1776 to establish this Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Now, anytime someone asserts those rights, they're branded as suspicious, detained, threatened with detention, and told "their efforts to oversee government are a waste of time."

    Wonderful. Government once again proves it has a duty: "Explain to us why we should believe you."

    They have no answers, more non-sense on the broadcast transcripts.

    Blog for other views.

    Read more . . .

    Olympic Modernization

    Winter -- that was then.

    Summer -- this is now.

    Contact the IOC to have fair and balanced dancing.

    Vote for olympic belly dancing -- not just a sport, an Olympic art.

    Who is that handsome man?

    Read more . . .

    China's party talks about corruption -- the leadership do not have a monopoly on power

    Too bad the US doesn't take the same approach.

    US Prosectors have immunity if they fail to take cases, prosecute, or combat corruption.

    Will the US learn from China and put corruption high on the list?

    The SEcurities and Exchange Commission can't get enough money. The US investor has to rely on the likes of Elliot Spitzer in NY to regulate the securities market in the US.

    FBI agents regularly rebuff information related to white collar crime; and DoJ is putting pressure on the US Attorneys not to go after police corruption.

    Only 25 cases last year. Well down. Besides they don't even have court orders.

    Read more . . .

    Transcripts: Nuggets or sludge

    Bill Moyer likes to order transcripts of shows so he knows what people are thinking.

    Uh, Bill you're incorrectly assuming they're thinking.

    Read more . . .

    Elections: Neither Iraq nor Florida are ready

    King Abdulla and Jimmy Carter are on the same page: Neither Florida nor Iraq have the bugs worked out of the systems.

    Look for comparisons between Saddam and a Hurricane. One is full of hot air, the other is washed up. Both are excuses for government to do nothing, claim victory, and then let things get worse.

    Ref; Rigged [Time]

    Read more . . .

    Sunday, September 26, 2004

    Homeland Security: Bush cuts more funding to fund the Iraq-draft preparations

    They can't get funding for police, much less "new things related to terrorism."

    This "domestic security" effort is a joke.

    Are you feeling safer?

    Google: Note the programs have been discussed for quiet some time; the impacts were well known; despite these risks, the President still cut funding to pay for the needless war in Iraq.

    Too bad they don't buy equipment for those officer-turned-soldiers to fight with.

    Read more . . .

    Iraq: Withdrawl an option, or will the military view it as a defeat?

    And the drumbeat for pulling out is started. Hope they realize the military could very well be upset -- one view

    Dunlaps' premise for a coup--the military suffered an embarrassing defeat in the Middle East. A withdrawl would match Dunlap's forecast.

    A financial crisis and a loss of confidence can translate into social instability. 9-11 brought us the Patriot Act, and the mechanism to put down a civil uprising. But what about a coup? Dicussions.

    Read more . . .


    Speaking out when the forest is quiet.

    Strip: What would've happened if Saddam, AlQueda, or the Democrats had used the N-word? Home

    Read more . . .

    Iran, draft, and the war reserve material: How serious are they?


    There's talk of using Iraq to invade Iran. Yet, we have troops arriving in Iraq without weapons. How far stretched are American forces, is there sufficient emphasis on war-production, and what use is it to talk about a draft when we have insufficient equipment?


    The drumbeat of non-sense is rising, just as it was in 2002 and 2003 prior to invading Iraq. The media is being accused, as it was in 2003, that "they just don't get it" when it comes to Iran.

    And we're also seeing the "previous conflict" as fading from the headlines. Just as Afghanistan was "a test case soon faded," so too is Iraq proving the reason de guerre for invading Iraq.

    The war in Iraq has lasted longer than "expected." Brilliant. So how's all the war reserve material doing?

    Answer: Units are being sent to Iraq that do not have any combat gear. More

    Forget about the failed production lines. There are actual "combat troops" that have nothing to fight with.

    Let's consider the production lines now. Part of the sustainment-funding that was allocated "after the cold war ended" was justified on the basis of "keeping the production lines warm." Great. All that money allocated all those years to act as a "bridge" in case something happened.

    Well, folks. It's happened. Despite the bridge-funding, they don't have any bridge-equipment.

    Meanwhile, let's go back to the production lines. There were production lines shut down long ago; has anyone bothered to go back and find out whether the equipment that is being destroyed in combat is adequately replenished in a timely manner? I'm talking about the regular replenishments--I'm talking about the new production lines above and beyond what was originally budgeted and planned for despite the 2003 fantasy-land forecasts.

    Or is the US having to scrape the back closets of the most remotely positioned national guard units? Indeed, even the reserve units don't have equipment. So I'm not clear on how the active duty can scrape anything. Unless they've got stuff hidden stateside that they're not providing to the combat forces. If that's the case, then things are really messed up.

    Do you think that the US wants to avoid giving notice by hiding the last stocks? Of course, but if the forces that are actually going into combat aren't able to get supplies, then the fact that there is old-equipment on standby should make one wonder.

    You don't think that they've moved this equipment during the night to avoid attention? Possibly, but this only explains why the equipment doesn't appear in the holding areas; but doesn't explain the "lack of priority" to actually move the equipment from stateside sources to combat in Iraq.

    Surely, the United States isn't running low of protective equipment but storing that "last wave of supplies" in places where the satellites would not think to look? Not only are they running low, but they don't have the logistics in place to make sure the troops already deployed in the field have sufficient forces. To think they're going to suddenly get new equipment for the draftees is more problematic.

    If you're going to have a debate about the draft, and call up more personnel, it would be nice if there were parallel effort to ensure the equipment-lines were also running at a sustainable rate.

    What's worse than a draft--draftees sitting around waiting for spare parts that are old, outdated. If you're going to drag civilians into the war fighting, let's make sure they aren't using second hand or old equipment.

    The US is getting ready for a draft. Let's hope the US is more honest about the real equipment shortages.

    Hiding the equipment shortages with the current shell games may fool an enemy for a while. But it doesn't do much to convince the public that "their government" really stands with them "in their support of the troops."

    The decision to hide the equipment problem means there's less pressure to timely get the problem solved. The worst thing to have would be a call to arms, but there being no arms or equipment to support the draftees.

    Stop hiding the equipment problem. As it surfaces, we'll see how "serious" the government is in supporting the troops. They're waiting too late to start the production lines. Draftees need real equipment to train with, not cardboard boxes and outdated, inoperative equipment from the cellar.

    Read more . . .

    Detentions: The double standard

    There's an argument going around that "if the Islamists had detained people, there would be outrage."

    Excellent point. Strange how the Untied States can get away with detaining people for three years without a peep.

    Yet the minute "someone else" [the enemy of the week, check your local listings] decides to do this, "Oh, the infamy."

    It's pretty absurd how people will use the "If the Islamists did this, there would be outrage." This incorrectly assumes that there's unfair outrage for non-Islamists engaging in detentions.

    Why is it OK for the US to engage in war crimes, abuse, and detentions without charges; but others, when they do the same, suddenly it's a basis to justify more illegal conduct?

    The US is already walking on thin ice. If the US deems fit to violate the laws of war, then others can also violate the laws of war. We've detained people without charges; the US cannot rely on the Geneva Conventions clauses it has ignored as the basis to accuse others as warranting international sanctions or invasion.

    It remains to be seen how soon the world starts to say, "If the US continues to violate the laws of war, we'll simply violate those laws of war when we engage the US." Be careful when throwing stones.

    Read more . . .

    Animal Farm: Some can be interfered with, but not all

    There's a double standard. Crimes to obstruct justice, but why not a crime to violate the constitution?

    Officers like to whine, "you're obstructing justice."

    Yet, why isn't the officer committing a crime when they engage in conduct to "obstruct the public enjoyment of rights."

    Civil rights shouldn't be simply a civil matter.

    If the public is subject to criminal sanctions for "getting in the way," then so too should officers be subjected to the same criminal sanctions for getting in the public's way.

    If its a crime to get in the way of one, it should be a crime to get in the way of all.

    Read more . . .

    McGruff: He's a threat to your safety, kids

    Cartoon characters like McGruff. What a great strategy. Butter them up when they're young, and get them used to being around officers later. Then when they're older, officers will abuse those who dared to believe they could go to "officer friendly."

    McGruff looks like a nice doggie. Don't be fooled, kids. The police are not your friends. They lie all the time.

    He's actually more likely to bite an innocent victime, informant, or witness than a real crimminal. Those bad pepole doing drugs are undercover officers.

    "Our finest" use the laws as their guide on what to do to harm you. Want to take a bite out of crime? Become a wasp and start eating the police officer's building material.

    Read more . . .

    Bush to hire Kerry as a special advisor


    Kerry's the only one who doesn't give me bullshit. Everyone else goes along with my stupidity--even I'm starting to believe it.

    Read more . . .

    Scheduling conference conflict -- undercover litigator lies in court

    Signs of the imminent "adverse ruling":

    Your honor, I can't make that meeting. I have a prior engagement with the US Attorney about your special toy.

    Read more . . .

    Iraq: New excuses to rationalize the unlawful

    Here we are 18 months after the invasion, and still debating the war. There's a new argument going around to rationalize the war in Iraq.

    This note outlines the reasons why the argument is absurd and should be rejected. These arguments should have been raised and rejected prior to the invasion.

  • The argument

    The argument goes something like this: "It's a good thing we invaded Iraq, because when we have a problem in Iran we'd be distracted by both Iraq."

  • The flaws with the argument

    Quantum foreign policy

    Iraq would be a distraction from Iran; but Iraq is not a distraction from either the war in Afghanistan or against AlQueda. This asks us to ignore the real distraction Iraq has been in the war in Afghanistan.

    Inaction cannot be a distraction

    By "not going into Iraq" would not simply be a delay, but no action. Can't suggest that "the decision to do nothing in Iraq previously" would suddenly become a conflict. We would not be in Iraq, and there would be no distraction if we go into Iran. The argument incorrectly assumes that inaction today mandates action in the future; yet there was no WMD, thus no basis for action today or in the future.

    Doing nothing is not a commitment of resources

    The problem of "waiting to go into Iraq" [or a "delay"] is then suddenly used as a basis to say, "Because we are in both Iran and Iraq" this would be a problem.

    Inconsistent premises

    The argument is premised that we would not have yet gone into Iraq; yet, the premise is based on the assumption that "we would not have gone into Iraq until later," then argue that we'd be in both Iran and Iraq.

    Can't argue that we'll have two states of reality: Either [a] we did or [b] did not take action in Iraq. A "lack of action in Iraq" doesn't mean that action would occur in the future; or that it would occur at the time we were to take action in Iran.

    That the US has chosen to take action in both Afghanistan and Iraq [and create a distraction] doesn't mean that future decisions are validated by "not having to create another distraction".

    Special pleading

    It's OK to use "distractions from Iran" as the excuse to invade Iraq today; but it's not OK to use the "distraction from AlQueda" as the excuse not to invade Iraq.

    Solution in search of a problem

    Fails to address why it is OK to invade Iraq [thereby causing a distraction from Afghanistan], but that the "distraction factor" suddenly becomes the basis to justify "having no distractions while we're in Iran." This merely justifies doing more of what wasn't originally lawful.

    False, weak premise

    Presuming invading Iraq was moral, legal, and justified. If the war was moral, there would be no discussion about defenses against Hague War Crimes.


    The argument fails to describe why invading Iraq is good, right, moral, or consistent with law; rather, the argument uses this unproven assertion as the premise.

    Special immunity

    Implies that some history can be explained/rationalized by looking to the future; while other arguments do not enjoy this exception, and that history cannot be brought into the discussion.

    Double standard

    History is irrelevant if we talk about bad things opposing the President's policy, or point out inconsistencies; but history is relevant when we care to focus on current issues.


    Uses a speculative future conflict to justify the certain past. Had Iran been a real factor, this would have been raised. It was not.

    Appeal to ignorance

    Uses an uncertainty as a basis for an argument. Whether we go into Iran is uncertainty; if the "risk of Iran" was relevant, this would have been raised prior to invading Iraq. This was not done.

    Opposition proves correct

    Can't assert "truth" simply on the basis of "the world opposes" this argument. That someone opposes a policy doesn't provide a foundation for that argument; rather the argument in and of itself fails to stand on its own merits.

    Read more . . .

  • Public defenders: What could be done to advance public confidence

    Public defenders have a tough job. They are not only underpaid, but are the ones that truly ensure the most vulnerable are protected. Publid defenders do not protect rights; they protect people.

    Publid defenders have a disadvantage in that they have a great responsibility, but few resources. This is not to say that they are wanting; only that when compared to the vast resources of government, public defenders often don't have timely access to information they really need.

    This note outlines some things the public defenders could do to faciliate public confidence and support; and generate information that would be useful in protecting the public.

  • Impeaching public officials

    This is otherise known as discrediting a witness, or combatting perjury on the stand. Testilying happens all the time.

  • Exposing corruption and unfair practices

    Demand explanations why the public databases are not consistent with the incident reports.

    Police lying

    Trumped up charges

    Rebuffing complaints

  • Things for public defenders to look foor

    Inconsistencies between the incident file and the intelligence database. Why has no incident report been filed despite this information from the witness in the intelligence database?

    Complaints documented in the outbox without adequate documentation.

    Officer/agent promotion to positions with less personnel responsibilty.

  • Benefits of the public defender out reach program

    Gather information on specific officers

    Document cases citizen-officer interactions are documented in the private databases, but this information in not provided during a Brady-request.

    Identify officer statements to faciliate impeachment

    Strategy to impose consequences on law enforcment for
    - testlying;
    - trumping up charges;
    - interrogating witnesses and victims while rebuffing complaints;
    - identifying non-sense reasons for stops/pretextual reasons to violate the constitution

    Call to the courts attention situations where prosecutors continue to forward complaints to the court, despite an officer veracity problem

    - Why are these cases not declined?

    - Why no court sanctions on officers for trumping up charges?

    Read more . . .

  • Saturday, September 25, 2004

    Fascism in the USA: It continues to creep along


    Anti-constitutionalism. What happened to the right to speak out and dissent. Ref.

    Police sent into beat up those who dare notice what is going on. Duh. There were not WMDs, so why is DoJ rewarded for "spying on those who speak the truth"?

    Private databases outside what is turned over in compliance with Brady-statute. Police take infomation, but don't file it in the incident reports. Yet, use this iformaiton later during subsequent "interviews." Why no records, and why isn't this 'full database" provided to the defendant during a subsequent Brady-review?

    "Relax, everything will be just fine." Oh really, what's going to solve the problem?

    No answer.

    "Trust us." We trusted prior to 9-11. What a joke. Trusted you about WMD. Now there are none.

    Why? No reason to believe you morons. They're not ready for elections in January.

    How many people do you plan to draft after the November election; and if it were known how many you plan to draft, how many people would vote against the President.

    "It's all hypothetical" was the excuse to invade Iraq: "It's hypothetical that they could do something."

    It's also hypothetical that there will be a draft, and this country will slide into fascism. Where is the vote against this non-sense?


    Read more . . .

    Are you confused?

    Oracle of knowledge; and the mirror.

    Read more . . .

    Friday, September 24, 2004

    Judicial staff: Good with sausage-making

    Look, if it was pretty it wouldn't be challenging. Yes, Virginia, there are politics in "non-political" offices.

    Want this job:

    Essential Qualifications .
    Between the lines
    Excellent tactIf you have to lie and get caught violating your freely chosen-professional integrity standards, blame the witness-informant for not understanding that you actually did the opposite of what they are accusing you of doing/not doing.
  • Of course we never actually made those ethics-standards [that we use to justify these salaries] a requirement -- they look good when justifying boon-doggles, I mean " training conferences."
  • Mature judgmentKnowing when to put something in writing and knowing when to deny it. Only make oral statements inside the administrative office where no recording devices are allowed.

    We talk about principles, but do not actually practice them.

    FlexibilityKnee pads.
    Ability to handle a high volume of workIf you can't actually do the work, tell your boss that there is no problem and no need to do anything.
  • Deny the severity of the problem by saying, "That happens all the time," "that's a minor concern" and "they were just making a big deal out of nothing."
  • If pressed, tell them you were misquoted, and that they really didn't understand.
  • Practice saying this to your boss, "Of course there's nothing in writing -- I took no notes as it was a waste of time."
  • Deny, deny, deny.
  • Ability to prioritizeBlame the integrity officer for "wasting your time" and that you've got more important excuses for inaction to create.
  • Forget whether or not the problems have been solved.
  • We're all in this together now that the US Attorney has convinced the Old Crusty Judge to throw the clerk in jail.
  • Do not talk about the improved ratings for the judges case management our best lobbyist-judge received with those file-deletions.
  • We're not going to admit we got a kick back from the judges for the "improved case-management ratings" -- they lobbied the legislature for more funds; who do you think was going to get the additional money? That's more liquor for those Puerto Rico parties!
  • Nobody will say anything -- the defendants will never go to the FBI asking why they weren't called back.
  • Repeat after me and memorize: "Management had no knowledge of this flaw in the stoftware." Ignore the fact that we designed the software and refused to fix the "problem" -- who wants to put the slush fund at risk? We need our toys!
  • Must have effective oral and written communication skills appropriate with communicating with judicial officers and their staff.
  • Note: The "effective communication standard" applies only in-house; it does not apply to public-court communication.
  • Ignore the easy access we give to the media, but the many stonewalls thrown before the public . Their suggestions of "needed reform" in the ineffectual judicial branch are to be discredited as are those rumors of "there were no WMD." Lies, lies, lies.
  • Public-government interface is a trait that is only talked about, but not effectively practiced. Anyone who comments on "ineffective judicial branch communication with the public" must not be allowed to quote our speeches celebrating public oversight.
  • Accuse the justifiably-skepitcal-public of w"asting our important time" ... that we need to spend hiding from the FBI. Do not talk about the "all knowing one" we have hidden in the dungeon, Toto.
  • Deny anyt information the FBI alludes to suggesting we lie, are unreliable, or could be impeached if brought before a grand jury. Hope the FBI I-drive doesn't have stuff that proves otherwise.
  • Dissuade all questions related to the previous guy who retired suddenly and is forcing us to make this job announcement that we still can't fill.
  • The rumors of a power struggle and cover-up during the audit are not to be believed.
  • Despite the large number of whistleblowers who refused to recant their statements to the inspectors [and the hand-full of malcontents at the "old location we wont mention where this guy really screwed up"], all derogatory information has been discredited [we hope].

  • Stickers here:

    Read more . . .

    House passes bill prohibiting Judicial review

    Judicial review restricted in re pledge of allegiance.

    Too bad Congress didn't have a prior statute in place "preventing judicial review of the inadequate FAA and DoD audits."

    Translation: There was nothing stopping the courts from reviewing the ineffectual responses from the FAA and DoD.

    So, Mr Supreme Court Justice, what's your fat-ass excuse for inaction this time? Nothing prevented you from going to Congress and saying, "Congress and the Executive have their had up their ass."

    Why expect someone with their head up their ass to point out a problem with the other two branches that the Judicial branch is supposed to be checking?

    Yo, Scalia-butt-head: The idea that this nation has "separation of powers" doesn't mean that the branches are "never to check eachother."

    Separation of powers was to prevent there from being a single tyranny. Today's hands off approach with "non-interference" simply creates three branches that are three tyrannies, [or is that tyr-on-your-knees?].

    Checks and balances failed prior to 9-11, thanks to the failure of the Judicial Branch to check both Congress and the Executive.

    Mind you this failure was assisted by the same ABA that took three years to get off their rear-end in re Guantanamo. Here's the lesson: Don't trust the judicial branch to check the other two branches of government.

    Yet, it is the judicial branch that likes to lecture to the public to "stop wasting their time" when reasonable questions arise to the integrity, malfeasance, and ineffectualness of the Judicial Branch.

    Judicial Branch is simply feeding off the same cess pool. What fails in the legislature and executive should not be expected to magically improve even before the Court.

    Read more . . .

    Privacy protection act

    Looks like there need to be some reforms in Tort law and statute to dissuade government officials from violating the constitution. More

    What new excuse will they come up with next to both violate the constitution and then create barriers to impose consequences doing the abuse?

    They've already use the 9-11 and Iraq excuses without adequate challenge. And law enforcement lies all the time. so who is to believe we should trust law enforcement when they are face meaningless sanctions, but are actively rewarded for abuses.

    Their reward is the lack of consequences and no injunctions against constitutional violations.

    The fact that we have a constitution and a rekcless law enforcement rewarded for lying should be sufficeitn basis to believe the law enforcement will likely commit future abuses.

    Let's have some meanginful santions on individuals for violating the constitution. This governmental immunity bullshit is simply that: Bullshit.

    Don't bother believing law enforcment in the United States. They are not your firends, they will lie, and there is not reason to trust them. Ever.

    Read more . . .

    Draft: The decision was made in 2001


    UK and US Intelligence agreed: Troops inadequate, situation unstable, and objectives at odds with resources. The making of this mess was well before 9-11; they knew then that a draft would be required to sustain a viable post-invasion occupation force. There were many uknowns, and the risks were downplayed in deference to propaganda. This leadership is dangers in that it believes its own propaganda.


  • Lord Hutton: UK and US Intelligence close -- UK papers spoke of problems before the war

    Hutton inquiry found close links. Ref, ref.

    It should be no surprise why Bush is saying, "Nobody imagined." Rice said the same things about planes going inton buildings. Asessments were ingored.

    The undesirable may not be avoidable.

    One does not create results by simply committing to a policy of "winning." It nees to be workable, not simply nice sounding words to justify not challenging that which is otherwise flawed and unsustainable.

    Why does the White House wish Saddam was back in power?

  • Draft: Not if, but when

    In fact, it was well known before the war that existing troops in the US were insufficient to sustain a post-invasion-occupation force. UK intelligence worked closely with American analysts in forming the judgement.

    Yes, Bush knows he has to have a draft, and is lying about Kerry's accusations otherwise. That's why "everything is going great," so that Kerry loses.

    Draft: Time to have the debate now, not after the election; to do so would be to simply repeat the error of Iraq--making the decision to commit, make the error, and then talk about it after the problem is self-evident.

    We know now. The decision to have a draft was made as soon as the decision to launch a war. That was decided prior to 2001, and before 9-11. Talk to O'Neill.

    By choosing in 2001 to remove Saddam, the Administration committed itself to a draft. They knew the existing combat forces were inadequate relative to the long-term requirements. So much for "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution with a debate.

    Yet, arrogant Americans want more conclusions, not discussion. Iraq isn't cooperating, which is no surprise. Reality often clashes with propaganda.

    These politicians believe their own propaganda. That's why the comparison to Hitler is appropriate. Hitler believed in the mighty Nazi Army, that he invaded Russia. Stalin was surprised because it was so foolish.

    Bush proves to have studied Hitler well. Do foolish things, and the world will assume it is genius.

    Bush has no clothes on. Winter approaches. Hide your children.

    Read more . . .

  • Iraq: Baghdad Blogs provide insight into troops comments about American Media

    One of the recurring themes in the "war in Iraq" is to have troops publicly comment that "the media is all negative and doesn't match the real situation." Then the show-host has a special interview where the American military-propaganda from the White House is spewed forth.

    Small problem. The tales of "this media doesn't match what I saw" ... doesn't match reality. Dn't be shocked. It's called propaganda. And DoD is spewing it out.


    The bloggers in Iraq are confirming the worst news: Bad security, and political leaders who spend more time cheerleading than actually solving problems. That Bush is lying to get re-elected should not be a shock; what should be surprising is the extent DoD is having to go to fight the blogs.

    The new DoD tactic is to have well, DoD-sponsored blogs. Yet, how could these troops possibly have time to "blog" when the security situation is bad? The answer is: It's part of the propaganda war.

    DoD also encourages troops trained in public relations to contct the media. Beware of the "honest US military member's assessment of the propaganda in the American media."

    DoD is actually using this as a strategy to help Bush win the election. Don't be fooled. The bloggers know the situation is sliding toward civil war. And there's nothing a cheerleading-Bush can do, except hope the disaster doesn't blow up prior to November. The situation is only "containable" by shooting the messenger, discounting the media, and focusing on the small victories.

    There are many sucker's rallies on the way to the bottom. A momentary blip should not be confused as a turnaround. Iraq is more likely to have a civil war than free elections in January; all this is irrelevant to the American voters who have to make the choice before the decision on elections is made.

    Yes, Virginia, they deliberately put the "elections" in January, so that they could be delayed after the November elections. Mid November, start listening for more rumblings about a draft. They're not rumblings but real.

    The situation on the ground is much different than the military-propaganda-calls to the media.

    Who do you believe: Imperialist-dogs looking for an excuse to abuse or bloggers who are there and have their eyes open?

    Our politicians are outside of the country 90% of the time (by the way, if anyone has any news of our president Ghazi Ajeel Al Yawir, do let us know- where was he last seen or heard?), the security situation is a joke, the press are shutting down and pulling out and our beloved exiles are painting rosey pictures for the American public- you know- so everyone who voted for Bush can sleep at night. Ref

    "That's right," said the President to the troops, "It's all downhill now, except for the uphill part." And a mighty hill it is after the "good" news is sifted through.

    No different than the Roman Empire. Same bullshit, same land, same excuses. The US is just looking for an excuse to crucify someone and shut down the opposition. Rome learned the hardway that crucifixions merely inspire the opposition.

    This was a war of choice, not of necessity. Just as the "choice" about doing nothing prior to 9-11.

    Yet this government chose nothing. So much for "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution." Checks and balances? Judicial branch is out to lunch, and in need of reform. Just as the entire American "model." Not one to be exported, but reformed at home first and then forced to show it can achieve results.

    Foreigners need not be subjected to standards we do not follow at home, nor deem fit to follow.

    The idea of "liberty, freedom" are merely calling cards to rally the nation so that the ruling-entities can justify abusing in the name of "whatever slogan is convenient this week." If we were truly "fighting for freedom," we'd have enough troops on the ground in Florida to make sure there was no looting.

    Poor planning in Iraq. Poor planning in America. Same system. Same failures. Don't be surprised, just more committed to solving at home the problems we expect others to magically solve abroad.

    Americans can't solve these problems at home; there's little reason to expect the world to meet the same standard we cannot meet at home.

    The smart thing would've been to put the Iraqis to work on rebuidling their own infrastructure, not brining in pricey-contractors who commit fraud. It is appalling that this nation tolerated a cost-plus contract that the contractors "justified" running empty trucks around and then overcharging on that "ineffectual work." That's right, while the Iraqis were sitting around with nothing to do, American contractors were driving empty trucks around, then abandoning $60,000 vehicles because the contracts were written so that "all costs plus profit" were to be reimbursed.

    Explain that to Iraqis: You have to site around doing nothing, while Americans are paid to drive trucks that are hauling nothing. We're pretending to "be here to help," when in fact we're simply using the "we're here to help" as the excuse to find any means to justify charges, so that we can add on profit to things that are a waste of money.

    Again, we are rewarding our own companies for inefficiency; and meanwhile the Iraqis are not being put to work.

    Simple solution: Cancel the contracts with American firms, put the Iraqis to work, and there might be fewer non-Iraqi contractors getting beheaded.

    It's that simple. And so many can't figure it out. These are the idiots who think they're "leaders," yet have to be told [by "the followers"] what to do.

    They are not leaders, but stupid idiots. Time for them to go. Clean house. Clean up DC. And let's fix this mess in Iraq. We owe it to them. If we can't fix this mess in Iraq, why should American believe their government can do anything? Indeed, the "only solution" the American government can show is the threat of force, and a police state to "keep people in line."

    Again, the Roman Empire. It too fell. Pre-emptive wars cannot be sustained when there are insufficient resources to sustain that pre-emption.

    But pre-emption fails as a credible foundation when there is no real threat to "pre-empt." This government uses "allegations" to justify both detention of citizens at home/abroad, and also invasions of other nations.

    An out of control, arrogant, abusive government looking for an excuse to invade, destroy, pry, abuse, and interfere. They've already decided they're going to "find out the information or the achieve the end result," they're just looking for a sellable pretext that the court, public opinion, and the auditors will swallow.

    It's all bullshit. They simply use the laws, standards, rules, constitution as the new standard and guidebook to ignore.

    The same arrogant system that is out of control on Wall Street is also the same abusive system that inflicts damage abroad. The only difference is the images. But it is the same reckless system. The UN and SEC both marginally regulate both.

    Where's the Constitution's Elliot Spitzer when you really need him?

    Read more . . .

    Defective institutions hire defective counsel


    Failed institutions will generally hire failed counsel. If there's a communication, understanding, or listening problem driving the problem at the lower level, you can be sure the counsel isn't going to understand something. Indeed, the very problems driving an "unresolved issue" are related to the same issues that outside counsel would expect to suffer.

    The core issues relate to a failure to adequately plan, train, and assess the environment prior to interacting with the public-client. The same institutional failures [ineffectively plan, communicate, and solve problems in house early], could reasonably be expected to occur when the institution elevates the issue.

    The net result is that a failed institution will simply bring in more failed institutions and parties to do more of what isn't working: Continue to ensure communication with outside counsel is neither timely, proactive, or effective.


    We discuss the problematic institution and identify the tendency of failed institutions to act as a magnet for institutional failure. At each point along the way, we find that the attorney's defects closely match the institutional failures.

    Ineffective logic

    This is one of those examples where an attorney, when examined, suddenly starts skipping in their logic. Rather than simply accept the point, we have an interesting "discussion," that shows evidence they really missed the point.

    An interesting method to evaluate an attorney is to see how quickly they miss the point, or miss the forest for the trees.

    Negotiation warning

    The trick for the public is to identify prior to first engagement those institutions and counter-parties that are most likely to engage in ineffective negotiations.

    One interesting method of avoiding the issue it to argue the wrong point. Let's consider an example where the "basis for disagreement" is not only irrelevant, but actually misrepresented.

    Rather than simply say, "Hmmm...good point," one lawyer shows they'll argue with a client by suggesting the initial analysis is flawed. Yet, let's consider the "facts" -- not that lawyers need facts to make a point.

    Indeed when the public has shown and can demonstrate good faith efforts to reasonably settle a dispute, but opposing counsel-party continues to stick to unreasonable positions based on irrelevancies, the court takes a dim view on failed settlements. Especially when the basis for "inaction and non-settlement" are on trivialities.

    Stop 1 Using a mirror.

    The courts quickly discern whether counsel is responsive to reasonable requests and statements. This is why documentation is important. Counsel will assert during negotiations positions that the courts would otherwise find absurd.

    Rather than apply the statement to themselves, it is noteworthy how an attorney turn the situation around and accuse the client of engaging in behavior that the attorney is actually engaging in.

    One example is for the attorney to not listen, understand, or digest the core issue being presented, and then create the illusion that "a disagreed-with" issue is the core conclusion to be argued.

    This quote is evidence of a very troubled person:

    The biggest problem with your critique is that it's based on incorrect facts.

    Congratulations, does this actually do anything to demonstrate understanding of the core issue? On the contrary, we should not be surprised why both counsel and the institution have failed. They've both demonstrated a propensity to focus on irrelevancies, and fail to focus on what is actually solvable, in common, or points that we can stipulate as being commonly agreed.

    Congratulations on losing points for failing to also focus on the "negotiation tactics" at law school; and throwing that out the window along with the other courses that "didn't seem to apply." The court will ask, "Have you spoken with the opposing party" to resolve this issue; and if not, the court is going to ask, "What have you been doing all this time arguing over a minor point, when the core issues are in substantial agreement.

    Again, we note that an institution that hires such counsel is likely suffering from the "we agree with the public," but are going to spend alot of money to argue over something trivial; rather than agree on the core issues, we're going to delay, waste time, and divert valuable resources and let this escalate, rather than focus on the issue when it is small, and let the "success" be measured in terms of "what we can put behind us through common agreement, not simply using excuses and trivialities to ignore what, in the end, otherwise has merit."

    Insurance companies, institutions, municipalities, and other public entities that engage in this kind of "fight over the scraps to abuse the client-public" really don't have the much reason to believe they'll survive in the long run. You may win the battle and war, but you're going to lose clients and public support. Congratulations on losing goodwill. Friend tell friends, and that's why the smart ones start jumping ship early.

    Step 2 Miss the point

    The broader issue is to notice that an institution like a municipality, corporation, or other entity will suffer from flaws that "outside counsel" are simply going to duplicate, but with more paper.

    The trick is to notice which institutions suffer from these flaws, not by engaging in costly litigation, but to know early and with minimal risk which entities truly respond, communication, and have effective systems in place to handle these problems.

    This phase of the planning relates to understanding how a small issue can say much about what is more likely to fail in a bigger way.

    The next step is to confirm they've missed the point by emphasizing something that really doesn't matter. Whether the attorney read the original statement remains to be seen; nor shall we comment on the merits of the claim.

    Rather, the attorney has not offered any textual references to back-up the claim; merely asserted a position without stating the exact words that justify the conclusion. We need not consider the merits of the assertion given there is no textual reference. Nor shall we necessarily argue "there was nothing there" as we cannot claim "nothing is there" when there is nothing.

    However, the greatest flaw with the "argument" is to imply that the assertion is either true or false; when the real issue is the thrust of the underlying argument. Indeed, the attorney agrees with the thrust of the discussion, so it's unclear why the attorney has used energy implying "the biggest problem with the argument" is X, when the argument is essentially correct.

    A valid argument that is essentially true doesn't have a "biggest problem," as it is merely evidence of "having missed the point." No matter, we shall not attempt to remedy this mental defect; the senior partner must enjoy the gymnastics.

    Here's an example of an irrelevancy:

    The post to my blog that you reference was not about a municipal client.

    You'll have to make a better presentation that this is correct; and that your assertion actually matters. You have failed. Try again.

    Again, the issue isn't that there is a failure to communicate, but that despite court pressure during litigation to settle the dispute, the institution-counsel both are quick to justify the public requiring use of more costly resources. In fact, the real problem is a failure of the institution to plan, discuss, review caselaw, and ensure training and publications create reasonable expectations based on what the institution is most likely to do when push comes to shove.

    Indeed, it is more noteworthy than simply an error, but that the institution and counsel will continue to fight over a triviality, rather than simply say,

    "You're right, although there are some minor differences in perspective, we take responsibility for our failure to timely resolve this dispute when the problem is small. But please don't use this to convince other countries that the United States is equally unresponsive, arrogant, or incapable of solving problems. We demand special immunity, and please disregard our example when forecasting the probability of the American model being more responsive that what is in place. We focus on principles like "customer response" not because we actually practice them, but by parroting these principles, we can justify engaging in misconduct, abuse, and arrogance."

    Step 3 Assert an untrue statement

    Public institutions and their counsel can also be quickly examined by simply observing. Let's take a look at the dialog and show that there is a reasonable connection between the failings of the institution and the likely ineffective responses from counsel.

    Let's focus on the counsel. The next step is to assert something that hasn't been demonstrated. If it was "truly clearly stated" [not that it matters for purposes of the general conclusion], where does the attorney point to textual references? None. Thus, we reject.

    As stated clearly in the post, it was about a corporate, insurance client and the case was a bad faith insurance lawsuit.

    Indeed, the point of this illustration is to demonstrate that the basis for disagreement is irrelevant; but that the institution rather than giving up a dollar in an insurance premium, or do something that might otherwise simply adjust procedures, is more willing to come up with excuses to continue doing what doesn't work.

    This is noteworthy. For institutions then rely on risk management, not as an excuse to mitigate risk, but to continue doing that which would deny discussing that which is otherwise defective. IN other words, the institution uses "risk management" not to solve problems, but to "avoid solving problems" and "ensure that the source of the funding" [client] is treated the worst, when they are most vulnerable.

    IN other words, an insurance company is paid so that 'when there is a problem', the client can get assistance. Yet, the representations of counsel show that the real problem is that insurance companies are so tight-fisted, they'll do much to create unreasonable expectations, and "when there is a real problem" [and the bereaved widow is most vulnerable], the institution and counsel will combine forces to take advantage of that vulnerability and perform more mental gymnastics to avoid doing that which the insurance was designed to prevent: The client being taken advantage of when vulnerable.

    In short, the public institution has created an illusory expectation; and the public continues to act as if this expectation is reasonable. Yet, where is the insurance company when it comes to ensuring the public has reasonable expectations: Are they communicating, clarifying, or providing information that would ensure the public is actually educated on what the insurance company will actually do during a time of crisis; have they actually spelled this out in plain English? Of course not. Otherwise, there would be no disagreement.

    The job of the "dude getting paid" is to ensure the "dude making the payments" has a clear expectation of what will happen; not create the illusion of X, and then when X-occurs come up with excuses not to do it. Again, has the insurance company actually made an effort to demonstrate that the coverage does not apply; that there are situations and problems that people might run into where coverage does not work; or that if there is a future problem, these are the ranges that the coverage can be expected to not cover?

    A simple review of the insurance literature provided to the public could reasonably be used as an indicator of litigation risk. Indeed, if we show the momentum of claims and compare then with the public brochures, it would be noteworthy to see the difference between litigation trends, and the gap in information provided to the public. This is not to presume that all public claims have merit; only the extent that counsel appears to be brought late in the game, when other measures appear to have broken down far earlier.

    The core problem with the above quote is that we find no textual references to justify the assertion. Congratulations on missing the point and providing not textual references to justify illusory assertions. We need not be surprised why the public has a hard time interacting with institutions that suffer from the same defects: Assertions without evidence; and going to battle over the wrong issue.

    Step 4 Belately agree with the core point

    Indeed, one of the greatest flaws is to miss the point: That the American culture is quick to escalate and government, institutions, and corporations are generally unresponsive at the lower levels when things could be amically resolved.

    Aside from that, although I agree with you that many such disputes in our society could be resolved before getting into the hands of lawyers if people were less litigious, in my experience we lawyers are asked by clients to step into the situation only as a last resort when all else has failed.

    Good point: The institution has failed to adequately plan and discuss the issue inhouse with counsel with the issue is minor; and the existing management controls, policies, and training to assist clients is at odds with client requirements and expectations. The institution has failed.

    The time to know these problems is before the client even signs the agreement to work with this institution or counsel. This comes in the form of simply asking, "Which geographic regions and institutions have failed systems; how do we recognize them; and what are our options to avoid engaging in these transactions; and how do we identify counter-parties that are reliable, regardless the actual level of service provided." We'd rather have a counter-party that is going to reliability provide minimal service [so that we can ensure these gaps are covered], rather than be led to believe coverage and assistance is X, when the actual assistance "when most needed" is something different. The goal is to mitigate risks; not to find out after the disaster that the counter party and their counsel are neither reliable nor effective in focusing on solutions during engagement.

    The goal is to screen first, not after the disaster and find out the coverage is abysmal, or the exclusions are unclear. The trick is to probe and explore well before the disaster strikes. And this country frowns on "people asking too many questions." Let us not be surprised why clients go to other geographic regions where discussion is encouraged, not used as the basis to assume there is a problem or some "grand conspiracy going on." Yet, it is amazing how counsel, the court, and institutions during this "pre-engagement phase" will avoid answering questions with reliable information, and simply do whatever it takes to secure agreement, all the while knowing full well they haven't really agreed to do anything. They aren't even hired!

    However, rather than evaluate the situation prior to litigation, many clients [municipalities, or others] will simply use the "we're not going to bother", and do nothing meaningful, thereby proving the point: That reasonable disputes could be reasonably handled, but for unresponsive institutions, thereby requiring costly litigation to handle something that the institution has failed to adequately address.

    Step 5: Reconfirm has missed the point

    Again, whether an institution wants to bring an attorney into a situation at the beginning, or after the dispute has escalated to litigation remains to be seen. It is amazing that a potential litigation opponent will generally not consult an attorney until it is self-evident that there is litigation.

    Rather, are more useful approach [that is not followed] is to assess the litigation risks at the outset and so structure the discussions with the public to ensure litigation is mitigated; rather than bring the attorney late into the game just as papers are filed.

    The institution-government should already know prior to interacting with the public or the client what the range of litigation issues are; and have early signs of problems resolved, not allowed to fester and boil over into litigation.

    Yet, institutions do what they can to avoid the issue, not deal with the problem when the issue is small, and require the catalyst of a lawsuit to actually have the situation resolved. Is that the kind of counter-party you want? Fire them: Both the counter-party and their counsel. They're a cess pool.

    It is absurd to suggest that the client is well-served when they conduct a litigation analysis this late in the game; a more prudent approach [which the public institutions like municipalities, government institutions, and corporations fail to take] is to structure their interactions with the client-public so as to resolve issues.

    The institution should already have a good idea going into the initial discussion the range of litigation issues, so that they do not unnecessarily allow the situation to escalate...and then do the litigation analysis. The fact that the "risks of litigation" were not actively factored-evaluated prior to first engagement with the public-client shows that the institution has a more reactive approach than a risk-management approach.

    When a plaintiff hires his own lawyer and decides to file a lawsuit in court against your company, you really don't have much of a choice other than to get your own lawyers to begin reviewing the case.

    Actually its your company when your firm is the target of a malpractice lawsuit. Again, the client should already know going into an interaction, the needs of the public; that counsel and management have failed to discuss these issues is of no surprise.

    Indeed, it is not surprising that counsel for an unresponsive client misses the point. There's no reason to explain that which counsel doesn't understand: They're there to solve problems, not simply do more of what hasn't worked. Yet, given they've never actually been challenged, there's no reason to be convinced that they're going to do anything that would challenge the client to solve the problem in advance next time. More of the "wait until we have a disaster," then come up with excuses. Hello 9-11.

    Because the institutions fail to assess the real risks of litigation until after papers are filed, this shows the institution hasn't really addressed the issue when it is small. But for the litigation, the institution is unresponsive; that is a sign of poor customer service, failed management-training of customer service, and a poor interface between human relations, training, management, and counsel. We should not be surprised why, in this cess pool of failed communications, that the public would get nothing credible resembling a response.

    Again, whether attorneys understand the issues earlier or late is irrelevant; the issue is the existing training, management controls, policies, and indicators are not consistent with timely problem resolution. Rather, it requires Herculean efforts to get the corporation to respond.

    It is a bad sign when this late in the game, management suddenly turns to outside counsel to evaluate the situation. This is something that should already exist in the existing training and policies in terms of customer interaction. That an attorney this late in the game has to be brought in, implies the corporation-institution-municipality hasn't really understood the clients interests'. Welcome to America! The land of "pay us alot of money to miss the point and treat the client-public like the problem. Those firms get fired and the dollars spent elsewhere.

    In short, they've sent the signal that reasonable expectations are X, Y, and Z; but the actual performance is something else. That's a communication problem from corporate management, and not a client-perception problem.

    The irony is that the same failing of the municipality-corporation-institution are also evidence in the attorney's response: Miss the point, make excuses, agree with core issues, fight over irrelevancies, and make excuses to justify "doing what has happened," rather than looking for solutions. We should not be surprised why an unresponsive institution hires counsel that suffers from the same defects. Birds of a feather.

    It is clear that this late in the game, the institution has underestimated the client; that is not a communication problem, but evidence that the institution has failed to meet expectations. That is credibility problem, and materially undermines goodwill, operating cashflows. Indeed, an arrogant institution and attorney isn't going to care much about "goodwill" when they can generally shift the issue from their own failings, and blame the public-client.

    Congratulations on making my point. Arguing with clients: Why lawyers get fired.

    Read more . . .

    Wednesday, September 22, 2004

    Mirror Choice


    My comments. [Original comments]


    I look at people in terms of their ability to simply do what they say. Their logic.

    The smallest thing can say alot. My experience: The trick is to notice the larger pattern.

    I read, "what I look like and claims that I am using the "race card" for something. I'm not sure what it is, but it seems to put a lot of fear into some people. " ... and wondered, what "it" referrs to [from "it seems to"]; as in "what is 'it' that we are referring to: Your ~appreance~ or "your ~reaction~ to them using the race card comment."

    This I am not clear on: Who is really fearful: Them, or is someone fearful of "~your~ reaction to their reaction"?

    Fear can be good. Are you afraid of using that fear to your advantage; so that you can surprise someone with your contrast; so that you might actually "reveal to them if they dare notice" that you are a nice person despite their assumption?

    However, we need not spend our time and energy "worrying whether others undestand us" for it is not our job to train them; but their job to choose to understand; if they desire to be fearful, that is ~their~ choice.

    How we ~react~ to ~their choice~ is a different matter.

    [It seems no matter where I go, what I write about, or what I'm interviewed about I get someone that sees what I look like and claims that I am using the "race card" for something. I'm not sure what it is, but it seems to put a lot of fear into some people.]

    Maybe the issue isn't "race"--maybe the issue is "~your~ reaction"? [Just so I'm clear, race should not be a big issue.]

    I agree: [Fairness and justice should be.]

    It is a novel concept to ask that we be treated equally; however, in my book when someone shows grace, care, and takes the time to understand [even if they disagree violently] that will win points. They lose many points when they demonstrate insecurity by treating people with disrespect on the false notion that "they are better than those they disrespect." Some people need to be reminded which way the money flows; who the client is.

    I treat people differently according to "how I am reading them" in terms of their body language, speed of motion, eye contact, the consistency between their ctions-words-and-requirements. The arrogant invite deception; invite false respect; invite scorn; and also contempt; and ultimately destruction when their arrogance moves without bounds, norms, professional responsibilities, or the standrads of conduct they parade before the world as "why they deserve to command high fees," but then actually fall well below that standards. They should be paid on the basis of their contribution, not their inflated sense of what JD, PhD, rank or prefessional designation means.

    There is great benefit in letting the fiercest wolves believe you are a dead mouse. They have their professional standards to which they command high fees; those should be followed; and the "client" should not have to remind 'the expert' of the basis to which they derive their "value." Nor should the public be required to remind a professional association what teh constitution is; or that 3 year hence, it might be nice if the ABA awakens from its coma. Oh, but why expect the arrogant speak for the constitution when that battle was raged so long ago that the fools who ride upon its crest have long forgotten what it truly means to fight that battle when it truly matters.

    If someone "is in a position of authority" are they so insecure withthemselves that that must "step upon those they see as being different; for this is not how we would treat the disabled, or the physically handicapped. We treat them with reverence; and this is how we might come to be more centered in our own confidence when we treat "those who are fearful" as being equally deservign of grace, respect, and understanding -- for they know not what they are doing, and should be treated with the same respect that we might afford to an injured or sick animal or bird we find struggling in a meadow's grass. [No matter what your skin color is, being treated equally should be of primary concern to all of us.]

    Although society at large tends to generalize and have historical pattersn, we can choose in our own moment to show grace and care for those who are not able to understand that history is not a ball and chain; nor is "how others have done things" necessarily any relevance to how we choose to simply notice the sparkling robin's eye as it blinks, enjoying the fall morning's meadow. [It just so happens, that the inequitable treatment in the US has historically been drawn along racial lines. In other countries people are persecuted primarily because of their religion, their sex, or their nationality. Here, it's skin color.]

    We owe it to ourselves, in the moment, to be respectful for those who are not able to understand there is an option. Give them their space, their time; it is not our role to "make them understand" ...rather, it is our role to choose to understand them, and accept them.... knowing full well, that "understanding and acceptance" is not the same as agreement.

    Learn to let go of that which is outside your control: Other's perspectives, others reactions. They are of no concern of yours -- rather, let your own example simply speak to only one audience, yourself. If others do not understand, that is simply evidence that they need to be treated with greater respect and reverence as we might graciously peer into a sick animal's eye.

    We all live in the world we choose to create by our own choices. Sometimes, we benefit by deliberately being that which is most provoking, so that we might work through our own issue of "what are we willing to fight for" and "whether this is enough energy."

    Sometimes "the thing that we are reacting to" isn't really the issue -- but it is a feeling that "someone out there" is forcing us to choose, when it is in fact, our own choice, our own focus, our own attitude that is the only choice we have.

    Notice the times when music is irritating; and also notice the time when we can be near a screaming child and be unaffected. We ebb and flow in our reaction based on "what we are wrestling with inside." There are times when we must swiftly move; when the "expert" is falling down, and our rights are in jeapordy. At that moment, the "follower" must recognize that the "leader" is no longer in command; and the "follower" must take the reigns and command with a swift and mighty kick. To be reminded why they are paid; who they work for; and that there are other options besides the current ridiculousness.

    Perhaps this is a time to understand what advantage you may desire to benefit from by having people fearful of you -- perhaps "their reaction" gives you information that you might otherwise not know. Their arrogance is really about their princiles that have slipped from their heart, and are merely words so often parrotted that they mumble them even when they think they are silent. They know not what it means to strike the iron and fight for a principle without regard for personal consequences. They fight only in name, but are unwilling to go all the way. Our task is to test them before choosing to start that first step, before we do in fact, decide to go all the way. The rewards will be great; the time to know is before starting. Then success is inevitable.

    Perhaps there is a benefit: You have the needed disatance. Perhaps you are coming to realize that there are other options, yet you may not wish to change "for the right reason"; rather, you may wish to simple continue after you more fully understand "what this reaction is" and "what the larger signficance is" about. To understand what they value, or do not value.

    [If bringing up an issue that's been a problem with the US since its inception seems frustrating or scary enough to get mad about when someone brings it up, then welcome to my world.]

    Sometimes people say things because "this is how they view" the result, not knowing the rest of teh story, unaware of their abilities, and they have no knowledge of what is possible. They simply take the situation and say, "This is how I would handle it; but it is not handled that way." Perhaps "the difference" isn't ~their~ attribution of race; but ~our~ assumption about their assumption.

    [It seems to me that those people that make accusations of bringing up "the race card" are themselves very adept at handling it.]

    If people were "truly adept at handling it" they wouldn't bring it up -- for they would know that there is greater power in not stating, not commiting, and not revealing that which need not be revealed.

    Is "accusing others of brigin up the race card" a problem; or is "talking about matters that others are struggling with" the real issue?

    Good or Bad. Perhaps the question isn't whether it is "good or bad" but whether any decision has to be made, or whether we choose to simply allow ourselves the enjoyment of letting a young fawn in the meadow take its first steps. It will rise to be a large buck one day, yet in this moment it only knows it wants to rise.

    Enjoy the moment. Life will grow, and become that which it will become. Our only decision is our focus.

    It is neither good nor bad. It just is. [Is that a good or bad thing? You decide.]

    .... [Ah, the race card. I think we got into some good discussion on the race issue in our interviews, Mo.]

    Fear has sometimes been said to be "false evidence appearing real." [I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the word 'fear', because that's really what the whole thing revolves around.]

    But what are we fearful of? Of letting someone ~else~ struggle with their imperfection, lack of knowledge, or limited view; what advantage do we gain by judging that which knows no better; for if we truly wanted to inspire, we might simply say, "They are who they are; we can only graciously respect that. No more or less."

    Their choices are about them; just as ~our~ judgements are about ~us~.

    Honesty can be dangerous. It is rare. It cannot be presumed to be anything; yet most assume "there is an agenda". That is why it can be both a threat, and an easy target.

    [I think the whole idealism of 'political correctness' had good values at its heart, but like everything else, it has twisted and mutated into a raving monster of fear.]

    We can choose. Anger can be useful; for it is energy to do what must be done, to assert when we are not used to doing so. To aslo learn to breath slowly, when we want to scream and run. [ It doesn't take long for that raving monster of fear to turn into anger.]

    Choices mean taking time. To teach ourselves to be equipped. To practice. To become euipped. To learn to master that which we sometimes know so little: Our own reaction, choice, or focus.

    We sometimes choose rage, or it is a quantum leap from thinking. Never pass up the opportuntiy to understand how quicly one man, or a nation will launch to war and rage; for their speed says much, not just about their choices, but also about their fear, the inability to choose logic, their desire to avoid reality, their inclination to avoid that whic is not convenient, and their commitment to something that is at odds with the principles they preach.

    [We seem ill-equipped as humans to deal with fear on any healthy level, so we turn it into rage and hate.]

    If rage and hate were easy to handle, then we have yet to explain the difficulty with self-hate and self-loathing. Hate hides fear; fear hides fear and insecurity; and insecurity hides our inner reality that awaits teh time to bloom. Anger is not bad; for focused, it can be the energy, catalyst to inspire growth -- before a flower can bloom, a seed must crack. How we interpret the signfigance of that rage and anger is just as imporant as the catalyst and the mirror it provides to ourselves.[Rage and hate are easy to handle, because those things don't show themselves for what they truly are.]

    Anger can be good if used for good, self growth, a catalyst to focus, a desire to simply change what has not worked. [Generally, people are fooled into believing that anger is a valiant emotion--and indeed it can be, only in the case of fear turned anger, it is vile and loathsome.]

    Fear can be good as an alarm, a warning, a sign. However "others fear" need not be the catalyst for our frustration -- if they do not understand, it is not our job to make them understand. It is our job if that is what we choose to take on; we need not take that responsibility if that is what we choose not to do. [Somehow we got the idea fear was weak. We've mistaken it for something weak when, in effect, its essence is a core emotion that can alert us of all sorts of good things (and dangers).]

    We may be alert to someone's misconception -- but is that a problem? Not if we know the truth, and "their lack of knowledge of the truth" is simply that -- lack of what we might have. Whether we choose to share, teach, or let be...that is the choice. [Like alerting us of our misconceptions of people or things, situations--whatever.]

    Some are unaware that their small actions are being observed; that reasonable assumtions about their "ability to handle larger issues" are being tested in the moment. That "they're being a jerk" is simply them doing what we do not expect.

    Yet, if we look at it -- given the chance, and no consequences ... peole will do what they can get away with. They sometimes have to be taught there are consequences. Choose your timing. Let them take the bait; let them reveal their true nature; and you will understand. [Then again, some people are just asshats. ]

    Selfknowledge often eludes us. It is simply listening. [We fear what we don't know.]

    Knowledge of others comes faster when we know ourselves, our choices, and what we value. [And we clearly do not know one another.]

    If we listned to ourselves, we would know many others. [As ethnic groups, religious groups, classes, political parties--we just don't know each other at all.]

    Sometimes "what we assume about others" isn't necessarily true; but then again, it someimes is. Maybe we have some self-listening during a time of growth, a pause, and a point to simply choose to "continue doing" that which we originally chose to do; to continue with even less regard for the distractions. Toddlers will fall down, but they get back up; and during growth, they may revert to a previous stage. This ensures the boundaries are there, tests them, and ensures the ground is sturdy before they get up again and attempt to move more quickly.

    We sometimes see in others that which is "our issue" ... maybe a mirror is here; then again, perhaps the mirror is translucent, and the window to another mirror is less foggy. [Whoever would be foolish enough to believe you play the 'race card' clearly hasn't the first inkling into who you are.]

    Others lables are about ~them~; if we "derive our value" from others' reaction, we set ourselves up. For "their reaction" [if it changes] would then "make us different. That is a trap.

    We are more valuable to ourselves when we move in a manner that moves without regard "to their reaction." We choose our own limits; and yes, there are consequences for violating boundaries.

    This is a time for foundations. For asserting new confidence. To know that our own choices are working. And that we can continue, regardless "their reaction."

    [They're not looking at your work.]

    They may not be looking, only venting. They may not be seeing, only fighting a mirror[They're not looking at you.]

    Time is respect. And we can also choose to dishonor that which deserves no respect--that which has manipulated, abused, and intruded. We learn, "never again," and sometimes are reminded of "another opportunty" to take responsibility for that which only we can control: Our focus.

    [I don't really "know" you, other than on the strange, surreal level that this internet provides. We've interviewed, emailed and whatnot, and as for that much, what little I do know of you has amounted to a good deal of respect for you.]

    When we can look upon others with reverence as we might afford a struggling toddler, we will know more about ourselves. They may never know--and that is their choice; we cannot make them choose or be or know that which is beyond what they currently comprehend. Let our example speak for itself; and let our choices be what we are willing to be proud of. Others may view it differently; indeed, there are 6.2Billion people with other views. [In their ignorance they show that they do not know you. And what a shame for them.]

    Yes, I have another view. [It seems that we're in agreement. I'm sure that eventually someone will come across this post and have a strongly differing opinion though. It'll be fun to watch for.]

    When we learn to let others [as they are] ~be~ as they are, we will have more time to develop ourselves as ~we~ desire for ~ourselves~.

    There are times to pause, to know when our "allies" are actually the most dangerous of foes.

    They shall fall when it is to our convenience. Make it so.

    Read more . . .