Constant's pations

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

Friday, June 30, 2006

Constellation: Integrity

A few observations.

Integrity is consistency between actions, values, words, intentions, and results.

Here are some concerns:

1. Individuals taking links from other sites, and not citing them. Then taking credit for "research skills." Then using that "research capability" as a basis to assert/imply, "Because I have reviewed this matter, I conclude this about this person and their reliability."

2. Arguments made on the assertion that something is or isn't true, yet providing no coherent argument to justify confidence in that conclusion. Upon further examination, the issue changes from whether or not the person, for whatever means, can or cannot make an argument, to whether the impartial adjudicator-audience does or does not "understand."

3. Public assertions of standards, rebukes on others, all the while refusing to discuss, acknowledge, or accept that one has failed to meet that standard. Upon examination, the issue changes from whether they are or not reliable, to whether the public at large does or does not "appreciate" their contribution, however disconnect that may be from reality.

4. Public accusations of wrongdoing, confirmed by documents that there was wrongdoing, yet excuses why that documented wrong doing is or isn't relevant. Rather, the discussion-argument turns into whether the "form" and "content" about the original misconduct is or isn't correct. Rather than distance oneself from that misconduct, the chorus scream, "But the messenger is incorrect."

* * *

Measures of Integrity:

A. If you are going to take links from another site, and you do not wish to cite your sources, that is fine. The public can find out whether you are or are not really a good researcher.

B. If you are going to take credit for "research" that someone else has or hasn't done, but refuse to correct that misperception by others, then the issue isn't whether you do or do not have research skills/give credit, but whether you do or do not correct misperceptions that others have.

C. If you are going to point to anyone as having certain qualifications, but have not made a thorough examination of their work products, then your assertions as to their reliability are dubious.

D. If you publicly assert discretion on whether certain standards of conduct are or are not acceptable, but then turn around and violate that rule you impose on others, then you have no credibility.

E. Those who assert that someone is or isn't violation a standard -- that may or may not be a reasonable standard -- then you have no credibility when you violate that standard.

F. If you are attempting to make an argument, and your argument fails, then you have to admit that your argument has no merit. If you choose to change the subject from your failed argument to whether or not someone doesn't understand, then you have no credibility.

G. If you are going to assert a conclusion, but are unable to point to reasonable arguments to support that contention, then your argument is invalid.

H. If you choose to assert that because you have certain credentials or experience that your argument should be accepted without examination, then you are asking the world to embrace what is dubious over other options. Whether something else is or isn't dubious is irrelevant.

I. Those who assert that the particular governing body, rule making authority, oversight, or other institution can or cannot do something must consider not only whether that conduct is or isn't legal; but whether the conduct, if fully enacted, is or is not consistent with the objective of your oath.

J. If an institution, for whatever reason, decides that it can create rules that defy the norms of civility, then it is absurd to argue, if your oath is to the Constitution, that the conduct that the engage in is permissible, while at the same time ignoring the consequences of their misconduct, and the threat that that misconduct puts on the very document you have sworn an oath to uphold.

K. If you have freely taken an oath to uphold a document, a set of freely chosen professional standards, yet your conduct is in contravention with the intent of those standards -- to ensure stability, reliability, and civility -- then your conduct, for whatever reason, that is uncivil cannot be deemed to be appropriate.

L. It is irrelevant whether the rules, oversight, laws, standards, or other monitoring entities will or will not find out. If you make statements that are not truthful, disconnect from reality, or linked with unsound propositions, then your argument is disconnected from what should be reasonably be expected of you.

M. If you have a track record of faulty arguments, poor research, bad fact checking, or permitting misrepresentations to flourish, then this is your issue. It is inappropriate for the public to be compelled to accept that you do or do not have some level of reliability, while the plain reading of your conduct is in stark contrast with the image you desire others to have.

N. If you assert that you do or do not have a capability, but fail to offer that capability when it is requested; then turn around and ask the public to not notice the inability to perform, then you have fooled only yourself.

O. If you would like the world to believe that you have a capability to do something, but the facts and research do not support that contention or capability, then it is not appropriate to lecture others about their perception problem. Rather, the issue is with you: Your original misrepresentation; and your failure to correct that misrepresentation in others; and the subsequent reliance others had on that misrepresentation. This is called fraud.

P. If you have the education, experience, and talent to justify public confidence, but are incapable of performing at that level, cannot work without supervision, or are otherwise incapable of being relied upon to independently act unless that supervision is there, then you have failed in self-governance.

Q. If you have an obligation to be civil, as affirmed with an oath, that you be civil and protect a specific Constitution, then any argument, action, or other momentum that may jeopardize that document -- but which you refuse to challenge -- implicates you in having failed to assert your oath.

R. If the laws of the land dictate that the Constitution shall be protected, then any argument you make that permits that document to be destroyed, put at risk, or otherwise explained away does not inspire confidence you take your oath seriously.

S. If you point to the flawed arguments of others as the basis to rally public attention, or assert a conclusion, yet you make the same failed argument on a separate matter, then you have failed to credibly distinguish yourself from those you say are a threat.

T. If you point to someone's conduct -- however real or imaged -- as a basis to rebuke them; but then engage in that conduct, however explainable it may be, then you have failed to justify confidence in your original conduct-rebuke.

* * *


If you do not wish to cite sources, then do not take credit for research you have not done.

If you have not done research into someone's background, then do not make public assurances as to their reliability.

If you have a standard that warrants rebuking others, then you must assent to that standard being applied to you.

If you say that the public must do or not do something, but then you engage in conduct which violates that standard, then you must decide how you will resolve the original rebuke, and subsequently accept consequences for your personal violation.

If you have a failed argument and must rely on non-sense to justify confidence in that faulty assumption, then own up to that.

If you have inflated your capability, and cannot provide the service you say you can, then you must resolve this with those who have relied on your misrepresentation.

If you have promised others that you will do or not do something, but fail to provide that, then you owe a resolution to those who relied on your promise.

If you say that someone can or cannot do something, then you take responsibility for when they do or not do what you previously stated.

If you want to make an assurance about someone's reliability, you must qualify your statement as to whether or not you have done a thorough review, and provide a demonstration as to the basis for your conclusion. Conversely, when others provide information that is not consistent with your conclusion, you have to account for that, and include that it your statement on the other party's reliability.

* * *

I do not mind that information isn't your original work. Nor do I care that you want to take credit for what you have not done.

The issue is that, when left unchallenged, the real problem is your false sense of capability will blossom into arrogance. That shall not be worthy of respect.

It is not appropriate for others to argue, "Because no one has challenged this, it must be right." Rather, the real issue: You refuse to accept responsibility for what is wrong.

If you have a standard -- however real or illusory that might be -- then I expect you to live up to that standard; and then apologize for having violated that rule or standard that you have imposed on others.

If you say that certain conduct is or is not appropriate, but you engage in that conduct or refuse to do what you expect of others, then the issue is yours.

* * *

Your job is to choose whether you do or do not have integrity. The issue isn't perfection. The issue is the degree of harmony, resonance, discord, and credibility.

Those who have higher integrity, we may wish to have closer.

Those who have lower levels of integrity, we may wish to have at another proximity.

The world will find out. The issue isn't to suppress the truth. The issue is to accept that you are transparent.

* * *

If you choose to associate with those who have been put under investigation, that is your choice.

If you choose to assert legal non-sense, that is your choice.

If you choose to lecture the world about what should or should not be the standard, but you violate that standard, that is your choice.

If you freely take an oath to do something, that is a separate matter. You no longer have a choice. You have an obligation.

* * *

This is where we find ourselves. The issue for America is that it is now at the cross roads. You will have to choose.

On one side of the arena are those who are willing to assert the oath.

On the other side, are those who defy their oath.

In the audience are those who will cheer at the choice either makes.

The issue going forward: Which side are you going to choose, are you going to enter the arena, and will you dare to notice what is going on.

You are free to choose.

But once you make your choice to take an oath, then you have given up your choice, liberty, and discretion. You now have no discretion. You now have an obligation.

* * *

Your job it to decide.

Only you can make that choice.

* * *

It would please me if the following were to occur:

A. Fact checking

If you want to make assurances about others, then you demonstrate research capability that shows your conclusion has merit.

B. Rebukes

If you choose to rebuke someone for conduct that you engage in, then your rebuke should be publicly seen for what it is: Meaningless.

C. Accolades

If you choose to provide credit to others for something, that you later find out, they have not done, or they cannot do, then you should correct that accolade.

D. Corrections

If you have an issue with this, then you need to privately discuss this with those you trust. Whether you correct this now, later, or never is meaningless. You have an obligation to choose whether you are clear with those you associate as to what is really going on, what you can do, whether you are or are not serious about your freely chosen promises and oath.

* * *

Those who have a demonstrated track record of substantially complying with these principles will be given credit, responsibility, and deference.

Those who have a demonstrated track record of wavering from this will have their deference, respect, and credibility appropriately adjusted.

You are not forever banned or labeled as one or the other. However, where there is no intention to improve; nor a desire to freely embrace what is possible, then you shall not be seriously considered, however late you may awaken.

The longer you wait to correct your issues, the more time it will require to demonstrate that you are reliable.

You are not obligated to follow, embrace, and implement anything. However, once you take an oath, then you are bound. You no longer have a choice.

The issue is whether you will be given the chance to take that oath.

You will soon be asked.

Once you betray your oath, that is a serious matter.

* * *

You will get no sympathy when:

  • You take links without giving credit; but then take credit for what you cannot do; then are part of something that is linked with your credit, and you do not realize the mess you are in;

  • You assert a standard of professional conduct with an oath, but you refuse to assert your oath, even when given contrary information showing you have a problem;

  • You rebuke others for doing or not doing something, but you fail to show that you are willing to assent to that arbitrary standard;

  • You claim an infraction for something that you have denied others a remedy when they suffer the same;

  • You engage in conduct that you have denied others the option to enjoy;

  • You assert a standard, but then fail to meet that standard;

  • You berate others for faulty arguments, only to fall down and compel others to not notice when you do the same;

  • You claim to have a capability, but there are not facts to support your contention; then you suffer consequences for failing to perform, have credibility, or do what should be done;

  • You suffer an infraction, yet you resolve that infraction in a way that you have denied others to use;

  • You deny others a reasonable amount of courtesy, compel the world to assent to an absurd construction, yet claim that the truth of your infraction can be explained away;

  • You fail in your oath after having promised to protect the Constitution; yet you ask the world to not notice that you engage in the same non-sense as those you berate;

  • You fail to see the logical implications of what you say is possible, all the while refusing to embrace that your conduct is directly assenting to momentum which defies the oath, and the ultimate objective of your oath: The Constitution.

    * * *

    You have no credibility when:

  • You take credit for what you have not done;

  • You knowingly allow others to have false impressions of your capability;

  • You recommend others have confidence in a specific idea, person, or notion all the while you have failed to review the basis for your statement;

  • You fail to conduct a review of the things you recommend;

  • You make arguments which rely on ever-absurd constructions;

  • You fail to meet obligations that you have freely agreed to embrace as an obligation through an enforceable oath;

  • You engage in conduct which is at odds with your oath, freely chosen professional standards, or requirements you impose on others, however reasonable or unreasonable;

  • You assert that you have or haven’t done something, all the while the plain reading of the evidence shows the contrary;

  • You berate those for doing things you engage in;

  • You hold people to standards you have no track record of fully meeting;

  • You berate others for having failed to do or not do something, yet your conduct fails to provide credible assurances that you are freely choosing to meet the standards that you have embraced as your own;

  • You tell people to do or not do something, yet rebuke them when they do exactly what you want;

  • You induce others to believe something, then abuse them for having believed what you know is false;

  • You agree to do what should or should not be done, yet when detected you attempt to shift the attention from what you have or haven’t done, to whether others have or haven’t met some arbitrary standard;

  • You define someone’s conduct as unacceptable, yet you have only taken evidence from those who desire to prove an illusory infraction, not from those who desire to provide the truth

  • You promise to do something, but have no intention to implement that intention;

  • You berate those who rely on your promise, and rebuke them with ferocity when they subsequently follow-up on your failure to comply with your agreement;

  • You abuse and commit other violations in order to induce someone to rely on something or meet a standard that is not enforceable or applicable;

  • You abuse others, yet want special treatment when others lawfully reciprocate;

    * * *

    When dealing with threat so the Constitution, there is another issue. What is worth your time. When you take an oath, the issue of time is meaningless. That oath is an obligation that must be asserted as if time has no meaning. It is an eternal oath.

    If you choose to spew forth non-sense to someone you think is an idiot, beware. They know.

    You bring discredit upon your oath when you spew forth non-sense, and do so with the mistaken belief that the audience will not figure it out.

    Rather, the audience may choose to celebrate your falsity, so that they may enjoy a larger fall.

    Choose wisely.

    * * *

    This information will largely remain unchanged, but will be revised without notice, and expanded to provide clarity.

    Good luck.