Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Know Your Legal Rights: Playing For Keeps

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Law enforcement, and the 'Justice System' for the most part are not genuinely groups of people who are in the business of either protecting your rights or serving the greater interests of justice. They are in the business of indicting, convicting, fining and incarcerating. By analogy, they serve your rights as effectively and enthusiastically as the Internal Revenue Service operates to minimize your income tax payments and help you to prepare a tax return. There are some basic rules to dealing with law enforcement and its investigative and judicial allies:

1) Know your legal rights. Don't ever trust the word or promise of someone in a prosecutorial or investigative position;

2) If a law enforcement or investigative person knocks on your door "just to ask you a few questions," simply ask, while leaving them outside, "Do you have a court order or a warrant for my arrest? If not, just telephone my attorney, ________ at _____________. I'm sorry that I can't invite you in". Do not answer a single question after that, don't take the bait -- politely and apologetically close the door and advise them to "stay safe and drive carefully." You must do this despite your knowledge, or manners, or fear, or curiosity. Law enforcement counts on people's propensity to self-incriminate and to be easily intimidated in order to keep those conviction records high.

3) Never ever communicate with any judicial, investigative or law enforcement agency except through an attorney. Don't accept an invitations to have casual conversations with strangers, or to come downtown so we can have you answer a few questions -- you'll be back in a hour or less."

4) Never resist arrest, or defy a search warrant. Just don't talk. As they say on television, "lawyer up."

5) Try to conduct all of your business within the confines of the letter (if not the spirit) of the law, and avoid unnecessary exposure or direct interaction with any government agency if it can be avoided. Do not inadvertently make yourself or your activities a target.
The article excerpt link below appears courtesy of THE BIGTHINK DAILY IDEAFEED Newsletter. They are not only an excellent source of information -- they are a valuable source of commentary; and commentary is what brings utility, applicability and direct personal relevance to reported news.

This Video Will Keep You Out of Jail
This Video Will Keep You Out of Jail
Daniel Honan
What's the Big Idea? How well do you know your rights? Moreover, have you ever had to exercise your rights during an encounter with a ... Read »
I am not an advocate of either conducting your affairs illegally, or of being either overtly insulting or uncooperative with these hardworking folks who are just 'doing their job'. All that is important to remember is that they are not generally (with some very special exceptions) 'out to help you' and that your cooperation can be limited to simple courtesy in saying "no."

by Douglas E Castle

Share this page

Friday, December 23, 2011

Leadership: Sealing The 'Working Bond'

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

If you are a leader, or are going to become one, one of your first crucial chores when assuming responsibility for others and taking the scepter of command is to create a working bond, i.e., a person-to-person bond with everyone in your organization or company -- even if that organization or company is a very large one.

You must not only achieve this symbolic but very powerful working bond with all of those persons who will be reporting to you, and to all of the persons who will be working for them --- all of the way down the hierarchical pyramid. It will be time-consuming, but worthwhile.

This process can and should be accomplished with a group of people present (picture a military commander assembling and addressing his troops) or in several segments, each with a group present. The purpose of the group is to bear witness to the bonding act with each individual assembled.

Your job is simple: Using your best posture, and your clearest voice of command, walk up to each of your people , make direct, unflinching eye contact and say, simultaneous with offering a firm handshake, "I'm _______________. What's your name?" [wait for the answer]. Then: "_________________ (stating the person's full first and last name), I'm honored to meet you. Thank you for being here."

Each person you establish eye contact with, shake hands with and address with professional respect, will immediately be taken with your command, and will immediately become 'bonded' [in a profound emotional way which is very difficult to explain in non-technical terms] to you and in your service. The reason for having the others in the group each witnessing this act is multiply its image, strength and memorability.

It is a very special occasion, and you have made it so by sanctifying it with this personal greeting ceremony. It also reinforces the utility of the proceedings by indirectly bonding the whole group together.

Incidentally, this is far more than a mere show - it is a critically important early-stage person-to-person interaction which will serve you in good stead. I strongly advise you to seal the "working bond" with each conquest, acquisition, victory or promotion.

Douglas E. Castle [http://TakingCommand.blogspot.com]

by Douglas E Castle

Share this page

Thursday, December 08, 2011

The Truth About 'Reputation Management' | Douglas E. Castle

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Reputation protection and management are indeed crucial aspects of building your credibility. Because anyone can post anything to any number of complaint boards, fraud alert boards, or to the web in general, unless we have never been alive, someone has been angered with us over something which we have said or done -- whether baseless or absolutely true. Some are matters of opinion and some are matters of documented fact. 

Many online credibility management or social media "cleanup" services have recently sprung up to combat the increasing problem of getting negative news (posted on the web for all to see) by either persons you've wronged, persons who just don't like you, or personal details about your divorces, regulatory issues, multiple bankruptcies, business failures, table manners, misdemeanors, felonies, arrests, time in a sanitarium, firings and dismissals, censures, license revocations, affiliations, rotten posts which you later regretted after placing them on FaceBook and other social media, your pending foreclosure, pictures of you with a lampshade over your head at an office party, personal telephone and residence information, sealed court records (incidentally, nothing is ever actually either sealed or is actually inaccessible for an assiduous muckraker) consumer complaints either 1) off of the the major search engines (particularly Google), or 2) "buried" deep in the bowels of the search engines (i.e., the 59th page in Google) where no "normal" person would have the time or patience to look.

There is actually no good news here, folks. There are no panaceas. No "black hat" hackery/ crackery or quackery tools or cleanup squads available... even powerful governments have been caught in massive lies, coverups and political scandals -- WikiLeaks, anyone? There is some useful information which can help to minimize or mitigate the effects upon you and your career by these pesky postings that befoul your otherwise exemplary search engine reports.

1) If someone has posted something that is a matter or published fact or public record, don't even bother trying to delete it or remove it, unless it is a civil matter which has subsequently been legally settled, paid, satisfied, rescinded, vacated, dismissed, released or otherwise satisfied with a court-stamped or other evidentiary agreement. If this is the case, the cheap fix is to publish the document evidencing the satisfaction. The better fix might be to retain a professional firm, as referenced above to have the posting party issue a publicly-posted rescission.

2) If there was a regulatory investigation, whether dropped, or prosecuted, it will not be expunged. Don't waste a minute. Don't try to eliminate facts. Be prepared to briefly explain them (denials are invariably perceived as admissions of even greater guilt and wrongdoing) only if asked and don't offer apologies or feeble, wishy-washy discussions about mitigating circumstances. Stay in command, and never assume a defensive posture. Remember -- whatever happened in the past is done. Right or wrong, it is now merely a piece of history. Let it strengthen you, or even have a third party spin it in your favor.

When a corporate executive and aspiring statesman was asked (as in an "Is it true that...?" open question-style confrontation) by a reporter at a press conference about a previous felony conviction (from  some years prior), the executive (after waiting for a hush from the crowd of reporters, and signaling them to be quiet), simply said, without, engaging the reporter, something to the effect of, "Yes. That is absolutely true. It was a troublesome thing. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the press, if you don't mind, I'd like to avoid wasting any further of your valuable time and get back to the matter that needs to be addressed immediately. I'll continue, but I will insist that we keep the nature of this conference relevant and highly-focused. I have limited time, as we all do, and a business to run. Thank you."

That "Thank you," was fully and deafeningly dismissive.  

3) Do not waste a minute of time or a penny seeking legal relief for defamation of character;

4) Do not engage the other party by any inflammatory response.

5) The best of the professional services will either 1) legally seek to have incorrect factual information corrected or removed, or what they will do is use some SEO chicanery to "stuff" the search engines with all manner of articles related to all manner of possible search engine queries which speak of you or your business in glowing terms.

Having said all of this, the best advice that a leader who has chosen to be successful is to avoid wasting too much time with off-target problem solving, lest you fail to conserve adequate time to invest in pursuing growth opportunities.

Douglas E. Castle [http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/douglascastle] and the Taking Command! Blog.

Never, ever let defensiveness or desperation be a motivating force for your decisions or actions. Leaders and commanders are permitted to err. The idea is to keep your Achille's heel (which each have one or more) out of a bear trap, and to keep from letting emotion turn the present path of progress into a detour into the woods. Stay in control, and never exhibit submissiveness. Nobody said that it would be easy.

by Douglas E Castle

Share this page

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Intelligence Versus Force And Surprise - D.E. Castle's Four Fundamental Settlement Options

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Core, infrastructure, operational groups, supp...Image via Wikipedia

In situations/ encounters where one group (tribe, nation, gang, army, corporation, aliens from another stellar system) comes to meet (or, more aptly, confront) another previously unknown group, the first inclination (strictly a function of Human Nature) is for both groups to be distrustful and suspicious of each other, and to seek some form of safe settlement or stability to minimize the fear and maximize the sensation of security. This sense of security may be temporary or longer-term, and it may be well-founded or very illusory. But it is always a destination point -- especially where resources or territory are limited or otherwise at issue. Either the groups will reach a productive accord, or one will ultimately prevail and dominate.

A cautious trial-and-error ritual is called for in every one of these cases. It is a ritual that leads to positioning and settlement of one sort or another. If a symbiosis or synergy is not rapidly found, acknowledged, valued and put into operation between the two sides, there will be a conflict where both sides will sustain losses, but one will emerge the victor-of-record. By crude analogy, the ceremonial dance will either result in a mating or a massacre.

In these situations, each of the parties will absolutely choose one of the following four fundamental settlement strategies. Being badly in need of ego gratification, I refer to these as Douglas E. Castle's Four Fundamental Settlement Options:

OPTION 1: Diplomacy. Finding complementarity. Becoming valuable to each other as allies.

OPTION 2: Avoidance. At its worst, this becomes appeasement.

OPTION 3: Warfare. Whether covert or overt, it is reliant upon the elements, as discussed in short order, of surprise and overwhelming force. Sometimes it is done in a repeated 'hit-and-run' fashion, and sometimes it is done with

OPTION 4: Espionage and Applied Intelligence. This requires great technological and social engineering skills. The objective is either to a) be gone when the enemy strike takes place, causing the attacker to waste tremendous resources, and to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or b) to attack the enemy at its weakest point in terms of resources, preparedness and time. Both a and b work hand-in-hand in an optimal OPTION 4 Scenario.

My first choice is OPTION 1. When the possibilities and the prospects do not seem good, my immediate second choice is OPTION 4. Sadly, OPTION 2 leads to enslavement, and OPTION 3 is one of the most profitable industries in the world for too many powerful parties who stand to benefit by prolonged and inefficient conflicts...behavioral psychology coldly and meticulously exploited in the name of avarice.

In law enforcement and many rudimentary military operations, the conventional (and short-order) wisdom is that in order to overwhelm a target,presumably an enemy, you must have two elements on your side: 1) Complete Surprise; and 2) Overwhelming Force.

 These are indeed critical components in overpowering and conquering an enemy. They also require a tremendous investment in ordnance, personnel, logistics and communications, as well as the ability to keep a secret by using tight need-to-know informational controls, impenetrable communications systems and zero leakage.

Many very otherwise under equipped forces (terrorist cells, insurgent groups, organized 'underground' movements) fraction their information into compartmentalized 'cells' so that no one individual has complete knowledge of the plan of attack. In larger, more powerful forces, this fine point of splitting up information into little puzzle pieces (so that no traitor or captured party can divulge any significant part of the plan -- willfully or under extreme duress*) is not taken very seriously. When budgetary resources are plentiful, and a profit can be derived from a protracted and primitive conflict -- OPTION 4 is underutilized (and often underdeveloped) and overshadowed by the dubious promise of OPTION 3.

Any student of history knows this. In fact, just watch some late night television shows and see how many well-planned strikes, or "busts" fail because the targeted location was either abandoned by the adversary due to some illicit advance notice of the pending strike. In fact, to compound matters and make things worse, these heavily-armed, resource-laden strike teams are often led right into an ambush or trap, creating a double victory for the would-be victims.

*With reference to the photo at the top of this article, it is a simplified structural diagram, courtesy of Wikipedia, of the Core, infrastructure, operational groups, support net from al-Qaeda style cell system.

The most efficient option [of those possible in accord with D.E. Castle's Four Fundamental Settlement Options] is the one which uses the minimal resources to the maximum advantage. OPTION 1 is my preference because of its inherent potential for prosperity and peace. My second choice, when in serious doubt, is OPTION 4.

Knowledge, if properly acted upon, is indeed power; and brute force is as expensive as it is ineffective when lined up against well-implemented espionage derived of reliable intelligence analyzed and acted upon decisively.

In terms of a leadership or command decision, this OPTION 1 to OPTION 4 move is not indicative of cowardliness by any means. It is a matter of pragmatism in terms of conserving resources and maximizing the chance of either alliance or victory, as appropriate in the circumstances.

Douglas E. Castle [http://TheInternationalistPage.blogspot.com]

by Douglas E Castle

Share this page

Thursday, November 17, 2011

The 2 Most Undesirable Traits In A Leader

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

People have different views about what qualities make an individual a true and worthwhile leader -- the type of individual whom people will follow into battle (either legislatively or literally). An individual who is truly a commander has followers who feel safer and strengthened by his or her words and actions.

That having been said (one of my favorite phrases), the two elements which will undermine any aspiring or existing leader's credibility and influence status are common to all followers, although they don't often admit it:

1) Indecisiveness. Being too slow to make decisions, or being too obsessed with "buy-in" and "compromise" means that you are uncertain of either your position on an issue, or of your personal power. Both are unforgivable.

2) Weakness. If you are afraid to do battle with the opposition, even if you feel that either appeasement or collaboration are better alternatives (appeasement is never forgivable, and if you want to collaborate, be certain to assertively and ceremoniously establish the 'ground rules' as the consortium's de facto control person) makes you appear to be a coward, or somehow compromised.

Even some of your own most vociferous constituents, employees, followers or troops will be hesitant (usually for fear of reprisals) to point out moments when you've either tripped or are about to trip on one of these landmines. But with each incident of exhibiting indecisiveness or weakness, the probability of your maintaining an effective and efficient command will wane.

Presentation is sometimes every bit as important as substance in your role as a guiding light. Do not ever forget this.

Douglas E. Castle

by Douglas E Castle

Share this page

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Your Opinion: Exercise Extreme Caution! - Interpersonal Relationships Are Like Minefields....

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

If your opinion is not solicited, try to avoid offering it -- unless it is an urgent warning that may save someone about whom you care from getting hit by a bus or shot by a sniper.

Unsolicited opinions are generally perceived by most persons as intrusive judgments, criticisms or insults, unless they are obvious warnings of imminent danger, or unless they are stated as ideas... framed as 'spontaneous thoughts'. Example: "You know what would really bring out the color in your beautiful eyes? That fedora!"

Before offering your opinion (when it is actually requested), be certain that you understand the motivation behind the person's inquiry. In some cases, it is merely a call for validation or affirmation without any real opposition or new perspective on your part; in other cases, it is an honest request out of respect for your knowledge or special expertise. In the first case, the requester doesn't truly want your opinion, so much as your endorsement.

If someone says, "I'd really like your opinion about ___________," don't answer. Instead ask, "Why do you ask?" or "Why, in particular, do you want my opinion?" If the answer is along the lines that "I've decided to...," or "I'm going to...," or anything else indicative of a strong commitment to a plan of action, or a reference to a decision already made, proceed with extreme caution. This individual is seeking your agreement, assent or endorsement -- perhaps even your reassurance.

If you disagree with this person's decision or ex post facto action, and you wish to stay out of harm's way (avoid a wasteful argument, or compromising an alliance over something unimportant to you, specifically), the only answer which works is, "You've asked for my opinion, but I'm going to insist that in a matter such as this one, that you must trust your own instincts." This is a powerful non-answer, which places the responsibility for any outcome squarely on the shoulders of the requester and which sounds (albeit remotely) like your endorsement of the requester's decision-making skills -- but it is not a false endorsement of what may ultimately turn out to be a calamitous choice. Don't be an accomplice or enabler to stupidity if you can avoid it.

The truth is not always what is sought. Your alternatives are to lie (the least desirable), or to turn the question around to a positive-sounding non-answer. When possible, this latter choice is best, especially if artfully delivered.

Sometimes, in taking command of interpersonal relationships, diplomacy, and carefully choosing one's battles are the keys to the preservation of alliances.

Douglas E Castle

by Douglas E Castle

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Threats And Threatening

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

The making of threats and engaging in the act of threatening are serious issues. They have a tendency to backfire. Although there are circumstances where a warning is appropriate, an outright threat (as opposed to an implied one, which is the type preferred by certain persons in high political office -- you've seen them in the movies, where a public official wants to induce another official to do his bidding, so he anonymously sends his quarry some photographs of his quarry engaging in "ethically questionable" acts) is seldom an intelligent tactic for getting anything done.

An outright (overt) threat, either made orally or in writing, gives your adversary an advance warning to prepare a counterthreat or defensive action. More often than not, these types of threats engender hostility and defensiveness more than compliance with the desired objective. If the threat is menacing enough, you can find law enforcement on your doorstep. And if you don't carry through with the threat after your adversary has failed to comply with whatever your demands were, you will have lost a position of negotiating strength.

The only threats that are effective are:

1) a threat of a lawful or legal action which you carry through with at the scheduled compliance deadline. These are perfectly fine to put in writing, as a matter of notice and record; or,

2) an imagined and unspoken threat, as perceived by your adversary when he has opened that envelope of nasty photos (as described in sordid detail earlier). In this type of case, you have let your adversary's mind do all of the threatening, without having said a single word.

If you  do not believe that your adversary can be 'behaviorally re-directed' by either of the two above approaches, you must attend to matters swiftly, precipitously and without any warning whatsoever. in order to change the undesirable predicament to which this other individual or entity has subjected you.

Generally speaking, positive reinforcement or negotiation is preferred to threatening whenever possible. If threatening is indicated in the circumstances, let your quarry's mind (and his imagination) do the work for you. And lastly, actions are generally preferable to threats.

This last comment regarding the taking of action is important, and should not be taken lightly. If you have achieved a reputation for taking action, that is more often than not, the greatest threat of all.

Don't be perceived as an extortionist. It is far better to be perceived as a person of action or as a positive motivator in most cases you will encounter.

Douglas E Castle

by Douglas E Castle

Friday, October 28, 2011

Privacy Is An Illusion - "Intrusion Marketing"

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

If you are not living "off the grid," and you conduct any type of commerce or communication using your computer (laptop, notebook, iPad...it doesn't matter) any of your credit cards, debit cards, mobile devices, automotive GPS navigation system or anything else that operates electrically, magnetically or through any combination of both, your personal information (all of it, from purchasing patterns, to tastes and preferences, to medical history, to relationships, to your daily driving habits, and a myriad of other miniscule details, which, if assembled, give an incredibly comprehensive picture of you) is 1) compromised; 2) being monitored, analyzed, stored, compared and used to 'profile' you as a consumer, a victim or the target of an investigation; and, 3) available for access or sale to innumerable parties without your knowledge or consent.

The use of this information cannot be controlled by law. Technology is invariably several steps ahead of legislation and law enforcement. You might say that Technology is the new artillery. A computer worm or virus can immobilize the entire command and control center of a military operation.

In the interests of technological efficiency, social media sharing, data gathering for market research, expediting the transmission of records, and automating otherwise labor-intensive processes, you are being observed. Your electronic fingerprints, footprints and photographs are everywhere.

Using a combination of satellite technology (i.e., with Google Earth, you can see where I'm standing in my yard and the sun's gleam off of my bald spot, too!), GPS, RFID, electronic tagging and labeling, keystroke logging, telephonic number punching, information-gathering bots and cookies, security cameras, coupon redemptions and electronic card swipes, your personal information, virtually all of it (including your utilities services providers, monthly bills, amounts spent on various categories of commodities).

As this information is processed, you will be categorized and targeted -- if you've bought certain types of things, or exhibit certain consumer patterns, or even made computer information searches about particular subjects -- you should be fully aware that you are giving up information even as you try to find or research information.

Credit card companies are selling your consumer expending information (where you've gone, what you bought, how much you spent, and more) to various marketing companies. Facebook, Google and other communications platforms and social media companies use this information to "filter" the screens you see and the results you find when you go to your favorite sites, pages or search engines to correspond to what they think will be of greatest consumer or ideological interest to you personally.

It is as if your computer were studying you so thoroughly that it was learning to anticipate your every thought and move. It is as if there were a roomful of intelligence analysts on the other side of your computer screen or mobile device watching you.

This is quite frightening, especially as more and more data-gathering technologies and systems become better integrated and interconnected to speed up processing and analysis time. Following is an article excerpt. You might wish to read it and then hit the "BACK" button on your browser to return to this page:

 From BigThink's Daily IdeaFeed:

Targeted Web Ads Tied to Your Credit Card Buys
Pay for a fast food lunch with your credit card then see weight loss ads next time you're online. That kind of outcome is likely under moves Visa and Mastercard are studying.

You cannot avoid this intrusion, nor can you avoid this "filtration" of what is "selected" for you to see. But you can anticipate it, and have some fun with it by varying your routines; your routes; the stores where you purchase things; the types of things that you purchase and the timing of those purchases -- and especially (you may even laugh) randomizing the sites you view and the subjects you research.

Understand that in taking command of your limited privacy, you can always feed the data aggregators misleading information. If you research important things, break up the time spent on those sites with, for example, time spent (while you're away from your device for a while) on sites which are of either no interest whatsoever to you (randomizing with irrelevant data), or by countering your time investment with something that is the ideological opposite of what you are truly interested in (neutralizing with opposing data).

If you know that you are being observed, and you cannot escape the intrusions which technology has made virtually unavoidable, then put on a show. Feed these voracious data-miners misinformation. This is perhaps the last game left to play (actually an old espionage trick to find "leaks" in security) which can make your profile less about who you are (privately), and more about what you'd like them to think (publicly).

Any good interrogator, prosecutor, soldier or illusionist knows the value of misdirection, or of sensory confusion. It is a low-technology gambit to do a bit (unfortunately not enough) of gaming an increasingly abusive high-technology environment.

Don't worry. I won't tell anybody that you've read this article. It doesn't matter though. They'll already know.

Douglas E. Castle [http://TakingCommand.blogspot.com]

by Douglas E Castle

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Why Unorganized Movements Don't Work - The "Neverlution"

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Social expression, whether in the form of approval or protest, is a Human dynamic which is either effective or destructive. If a group of persons (myself among them) want to change the way "Wall Street" (to use that geographical designation as the personification of greed, much as so many Americans regard Washington, DC as the epitome of corruption, and Hollywood as the land of the irresponsible, overindulged botoxed and endlessly de-toxing rich) is conducting matters concerning every aspect of the economy, they have gotten only one thing right -- a vague idea of the otherwise faceless enemy.

The "Occupy Wall Street" (or "Take Back Wall Street") movement and growing protests have only a few things going for them, and a great many more things working against them. This excess of organizational liabilities over organizational assets is why I believe this "Woodstock"-like study in sleep deprivation is doomed to failure.  Some philosophical protesters are actually calling this movement (more like a multi-geographical block party in search of any theme) a "horizontally-organized resistance movement." I cannot help but picture people lying down in the street as tanks march over them...

In brief:

1) The protesters have identified a categorical party -- an adversary with a name, whom they genuinely distrust, dislike and resent with increasing vitriol;

2) They (the masses) are (by loitering, littering and making a great deal of noise without a clear signal) physically out in the open and at the very gates of the felonious fiscal fatheads who have monopolized the money supply, the capital markets, and the unraveling of an economy. Righteous indignation, channeled and expressed properly (which they are not...at least here) funneled into a course of action (rather like a strategic plan with a defined goal in mind, which is conspicuously absent in this Neverlution) can be powerful, if there is an objective (or a threat) and a plan of action understood and supported by its grassroots citizen military.

Yet, the only things that our neverlutionaries would seem to have in common [and again, I don't disagree with their tremendous hurt and outrage] is anger, frustration, a desire for some instant character change (I'm thinking of Ebenezer Scrooge, out of Dickens' novel  or of George Bailey, in "It's a Wonderful Life," Frank Capra's poignant masterpiece), and greater fiduciary responsibility paired with more generosity.

Our protesters are just complaining (except in Florida, where they are whining) and blocking the flow of traffic -- they are failing to recognize the need for movement leadership, a precise goal (or list of demands) to present to the some decisionmaking individuals in the Wall Street inside community who could actually be responsive, and a serious threat of consequences for non-compliance.

The sad truth is that our noble protesters lack a simple goal, a plan, the tools (perhaps threats) to prosecute the war, and a semblance of true organization, command and control. They are like kidnappers who have committed the act, but haven't figured out what they should ask for, how they can arrange to receive it, and what action that they can take in the event that the kidnap victim's loved ones are noncompliant;

3) No matter how great the movement gets in terms of involved protesters and geographical locus, nothing will happen with out a stated, realistic objective, a plan, leadership, and a viable threat.

If this movement fails, or just eventually results in a diffused death by boredom and attrition, or a resignation to impotence and surrender (without the first salvo even having been fired over the bow) it will ultimately encourage the smirking moneymeisters of the capital markets, banking and investment sectors to go even further with their abuses. It will strengthen an adversary's resolve. That would be a sad ending for what was started with the best of intentions.

An acquaintance of mine (a monetary mercenary), said to me, smiling, "Occupy Wall Street? Fine. I'll work from home. I've got my laptop and my phone."

Will one of our protesters put forth an agenda, promulgate it, and (if he or she is worthy and capable) take command? Don't lose this opportunity to achieve something memorable, and long overdue. In a year, don't be the punchline of a bunch of quick-churned jokes amongst Wall Steet's cognoscenti. Take off the tie-dyed shirts and put on the cleats.

Douglas E Castle [http://aboutDouglasCastle.blogspot.com]

by Douglas E Castle


Bookmark and Share