Taming Chaos With A Personal Plan
For sometime I have taken Stratfor Global Intelligence for the wide variety of info from around the world. Today the Security Weekly post had these valuable recommendations for having a personal plan done to help you be able to cope with a crisis. I hope you find it as helpful as I did:
Taming Chaos with a Personal Plan
March 16, 2011 1805 GMT
By Scott Stewart
Over the past week we’ve seen a massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan that caused a nuclear accident, the Saudis sending troops into Bahrain to quell civil unrest there and the government of Yemen taking measures to expel foreign media as protests have swelled against Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
We have also recently seen large-scale evacuations of expatriates from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and it is not unreasonable to assume that we might see a similar exodus from Bahrain and Yemen if developments in those countries deteriorate. Moreover, in Japan, the risk of radiation and conditions that are not yet under control at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant could force further evacuations there.
In light of this uncertain environment, STRATFOR thought it prudent to address once again the topic of personal contingency planning. While we have often discussed this topic in relation to terrorist attacks, its principles are also readily applicable to crises caused by natural disaster, war and civil unrest. When a crisis erupts, having an established personal contingency plan provides people with a head start and a set of tools that can help them avoid, or at least mitigate, the effects of the chaos and panic that accompany crisis events.
When Chaos Reigns
When a crisis erupts due to civil unrest, natural disaster or a major terrorist attack, a number of things happen rapidly and sometimes simultaneously. First, panic ensues as people attempt to flee the immediate scene of the disaster, usually seeking safety using the same escape routes. At the same time, police, fire and emergency medical units all attempt to respond to the scene, so there can be terrible traffic and pedestrian crowd-control problems. In the event of large civil disturbances, roads can also be clogged with protesters, troops and panicked civilians. This can be magnified by smoke and fire, which can reduce visibility, affect breathing and increase panic.
In many instances, an attack or natural disaster will cause damage to electrical lines, or the electricity will be cut off as a precautionary measure. Natural gas, water and sewer lines can be damaged, causing leaks, and in the case of natural gas lines raising the threat of explosions and fire. Earthquakes and mudslides can cut roads and shut down mass transit. Often, people find themselves trapped in subway tunnels or in high-rise buildings, and they are sometimes forced to escape through smoke-filled tunnels or stairwells. Depending on the incident, bridges, tunnels, subway lines and airports can be closed or jammed to a standstill. Grocery stores are frequently inundated by people scrambling (and sometimes fighting) to obtain food and supplies.
In the midst of this confusion and panic, telephone and cell-phone usage soars. Even if the main trunk lines and cell towers are not damaged by the event or otherwise affected by the loss of electricity, this huge spike in activity quickly overloads the exchanges and cell networks. This means the ripples of chaos and disruption roll outward from the scene of the crisis as people outside the immediate vicinity of the crisis zone hear about the situation via the media and wonder what has become of loved ones who were in or near the crisis zone.
The Need to Plan
Those caught in close proximity to such a disaster site have the best chance of escaping and reconnecting with loved ones if they have a personal contingency plan. While such planning is critically important for people who live and work overseas in high-threat locations, recent events have demonstrated that even people residing in places considered safe, like Cairo and Tokyo, can be caught in the vortex of a crisis. Taking this one step further, sudden disasters, such as tornadoes, earthquakes, school shootings or the derailment of train cars carrying chlorine, can strike almost anywhere. This means that everyone should have a personal contingency plan.
Emergency plans are vital not only for corporations and for schools but also for families and individuals. Such plans should be in place for each regular location — home, work and school — that an individual frequents and should cover what that person will do and where he or she will go should an evacuation be necessary. This means establishing meeting points for family members who might be split up — and backup points in case the first or second point also is affected by the disaster.
When school-aged children are involved, parents need to take the time to coordinate with the school to learn what the school’s crisis plans are so any measures the school employs can be accounted for during the planning process. A crisis plan should also account for any pets a family may have.
The lack of ability to communicate with loved ones because of circuit overload or other phone-service problems can greatly enhance the sense of panic during a crisis — especially in this age, when people are so dependent on almost-constant communications via the ubiquitous smart phone. Perhaps one of the foremost benefits of having personal and family contingency plans in place is the reduction of stress that results from not being able to contact a loved one immediately. Knowing that everyone is following the plan frees each person to concentrate on the more pressing challenges presented by their personal evacuation. This is critical because someone who waits until he or she has contacted all loved ones before evacuating might not make it out.
It also is important to have a communications plan, which should include the contact information for the designated rallying site as well as an alternate communications hub outside of the area. It might be difficult to communicate from point A to point B, but someone at point A or B might be able to get through to a person at point C. For example, it may be impossible to call from Tripoli to New York, but both parties may be able to call through to Rome.
Alternative means of communication also should be included in the communications plan. If the phone lines and cell phones are clogged, many times text messages can still get through and Internet connections may work to send e-mail. Satellite telephones, though expensive, are also very useful in a communications blackout, as are two-way radios. Analog fax lines can also prove useful when other forms of communication are shut down.
People who are going to serve as communications hubs need to be briefed on the evacuation plan and have contact information (landline and cell phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) for each person who will be participating in the evacuation. The communications hub should also be provided with important personal data on each person, including full name, date of birth, passport numbers, etc. The communications plan also will be helpful in case one member of the family is unable to evacuate immediately or finds it unwise to evacuate at all. In that case, he or she will know where the rest of the family is going and how to contact them once communications are restored.
Planning is important because, when confronted with a dire situation, many people simply do not know what to do or where to start. It is not unusual to find people wandering aimlessly at the scene of a disaster. Not having determined their options in advance — and in state of shock over the events of the day — people quite often find themselves unable to think clearly enough to establish a logical plan, so they just drift around or collapse in helplessness. Having a plan in place gives even a person who is in shock or denial and unable to think clearly a framework to lean on and a path to follow.
Evacuating
One of the keys to surviving a catastrophe is situational awareness. Situational awareness allows people to recognize a potential threat at an early stage and take measures to avoid it. Situational awareness also helps people know where to go when an unforeseen disaster strikes. For example, if the airport is closed by the crisis, situational awareness enables one to understand the alternate means of leaving the country, and if a bridge is damaged on an alternative land route, you can locate another way out. Being aware of the layouts of your residence and workplace is also critical. If an office building is hit by an incident of workplace violence or catches fire, people with a plan will know where the fire exits are and where they lead. Situational awareness will then help them realize when an exit could lead them out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Situational awareness also aids in reacting to a dangerous situation while on the move. If a subway tunnel is filling with smoke from a fire or bombing, situational awareness tells one to keep low in order to avoid being overcome by smoke. Better still, proper preparation can lead people to carry important items such as a smoke hood that can be worn to protect against smoke and a flashlight to help navigate a dark place like a tunnel.
For individuals who work in high-rise buildings, frequently travel or routinely take a commuter train or subway, these two items can greatly assist you if the need to evacuate arises. Smoke hoods are relatively inexpensive devices that can be carried in a briefcase or purse and quickly donned in case of emergency. They will usually provide around 20 to 30 minutes of breathing time, which could quite literally mean the difference between life and death in a smoke-filled hallway, stairway or subway tunnel. Likewise, a small flashlight could prove to be invaluable in a crisis situation at night or when the power goes out in a large building or subway. Some of the small aluminum flashlights can also double as a handy self-defense weapon.
Of course, in some situations, evacuation might not be the best idea. If there is no immediate threat at a specific location, it may be more dangerous to join a crowd of panicked people on the street. In some cases, it might be safest to just stay in place and wait for order to return — especially if the shelter is stocked with food, water and other basic necessities. Situational awareness will allow you to make the call on whether to stay or go.
As part of a contingency plan, it is also prudent to prepare a small “fly-away” kit containing clothes, water, a first-aid kit, nutritional bars, medications and toiletry items for each member of the family. It also is a good idea to include a battery-powered or crank-powered radio and other items such as appropriate maps, multi-tool knives and duct tape. An appropriate amount of cash can also prove quite useful. The kit should be kept in a convenient place, ready to grab on the way out. Even if it is impractical to keep all these items in constant readiness, keeping most of them together and using a prepared list to collect the other items quickly can help get one out the door in seconds. Maintaining important papers, such as vehicle titles, deeds, licenses, birth certificates, passports and credit card information, in a central file allows it to be quickly retrieved in case of an evacuation. Of course, passports are of vital importance in an overseas situation.
Another important part of situational awareness is having the means to receive instructions and information from the authorities. In addition to radio and television, many locations have emergency text and e-mail alert systems that can provide critical information. Overseas, embassies also maintain networks for disseminating information to expatriates such as the U.S. Department of State’s warden system. Individuals should register for such services and ensure they know how information is disseminated before the crisis hits and results in communication disruptions.
When it comes to information pertaining to emergency plans and fly-away kits, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Administration’s ready.gov site is an excellent resource. For people residing overseas, the U.S. Department of State’s travel information site and the Overseas Security Advisory Council are also valuable resources filled with helpful information.
Now, while it is important to listen to authorities in the case of an emergency, individuals cannot rely on the government to take care of them in every situation because the resources simply may not be available. This means that individuals must have a plan in place designed to take care of themselves and their families.
Flexibility Required
In order to be effective, an emergency plan must be fluid and flexible. It is important to recognize that even a good plan can be worthless if reactive measures taken by authorities during an emergency impede execution of the plan, or if the catastrophe itself closes down the airport or a section of a primary escape route. For these reasons, it is best to have several alternate contingency plans that account for multiple scenarios and include various routes and modes of evacuation. Once the emergency is announced, it likely is too late to start devising a back-up plan.
Plans must be also reviewed periodically, at least once a year. A plan made following 9/11 might no longer be valid. Bridges and roads included in the original plan might be closed for construction at the present time or could have been changed to a one-way traffic pattern. Communication plans may also need to be updated if family members move or change telephone numbers.
The contents of fly-away kits should be checked periodically to ensure the kits are functional. Flashlight and radio batteries can lose their charge and need to be replaced. Items such as smoke hoods can become damaged by being carried around in a purse or briefcase for too many years. Food can become stale and inedible. Medications can expire. Children can grow and require different sizes of clothing.
Finally, while having a contingency plan on paper is better than having nothing, those plans that are tested in the real world prove to be far superior to plans that are never tested. Running through an evacuation plan (especially during a high-traffic time such as rush hour) will help to identify weaknesses that will not appear on paper. It also will help ensure that all those involved know what they are supposed to do and where they are supposed to go. A plan is of limited use if half of the people it is designed for do not understand their respective roles and responsibilities.
No plan is perfect, and chances are that individuals will find themselves “shifting on the fly” as conditions on the ground change in the event of an actual emergency. However, having a plan and being prepared allows a person to be more focused and less panicked and confused than those who have left their fate to chance.
Taming Chaos with a Personal Plan is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
STRATFOR is not responsible for the content of other Web sites.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Want To Think Outside The Box?
Occaisionally I have posted an article from Seth Godin's Blog (sign up here: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/). He posts daily and most days are very thought provoking. Today he launches The Domino Project described below. My guess is most of you will be intrigued and challenged by his new project.
I'd encourage you to read it with the thought in mind of "How can I create something in my business that is so far out of the box that it will transform my business?".
To be informed about what The Domino Project is publishing sign up here: http://www.thedominoproject.com/subscribe-to-this-newsletter. Since I know you will sign up for both if you are interested, I will not post Seth's stuff in the future . . . well, forgive me if I occasionally can’t stand not to post one!
Read on . . .
The Domino Project
Book publishing is changing. It’s changing faster than it has in a hundred years.
I’ve been persistent enough to be part of that change, provoking and poking and wondering about what comes next.Today, I’m thrilled to report on what’s next for me.
To reinvent the way books are created when the middleman is made less important.
To reinvent the way books are purchased when the tribe is known and embraced.
To reinvent the way books are read when the alternatives are so much easier to find.
To find and leverage great ideas and great authors, bringing them to readers who need them.
The notion of the paper book as merely a package for information is slowly becoming obsolete. There must be other reasons on offer, or smart people will go digital, or read something free. The book is still an ideal tool for the hand-to-hand spreading of important ideas, though. The point of the book is to be spread, to act as a manifesto, to get in sync with others, to give and to get and to hand around.
Our goal is to offer ideas that people need and want to spread, to enjoy and to hold and to own, and to change conversations.
Working with a great team at Amazon, I’m launching a new publishing venture called The Domino Project. I think it fundamentally changes many of the rules of publishing trade non-fiction.
Trade publishing (as opposed to textbooks or other non-consumer ventures) has always been about getting masses of people to know about, understand and read your books. The business has been driven by several foundational principles:
1. The middleman (the bookstore) has a great deal of power. There’s only a limited amount of shelf space, and there are more books (far more books) than we have room for. No display, no sale. That’s one reason books are published with the economically ridiculous model of 100% returns from bookstores. Huge stores can carry thousands of books and return them if they don’t sell. Large chains get a say about what’s on the cover, what the title is, and they even get paid for shelf displays.
2. The audience (the reader) is largely unknown to the publisher, and thus to the author. Authors with large followings still have to start over with each book, because they don’t have permission (or the data) to contact loyal readers directly.
3. Pricing and product are static and slow. Once a book is published, the price is set forever. Add to that the glacial speed from conception to publication date and you see a system that is set up to benefit neither the publisher nor the reader.
4. Books are inherently difficult to spread. The ideas in books might travel, but the act of recommending a book, having the idea stick and a new sale get made is slow or broken. Given how important the ideas in books are, this chain has many weak links. It's worth rethinking how a publishing house could organize around its ultimate goal, which is to spread ideas.
The internet and the Kindle are changing all of these rules. The Domino Project is designed to (at least by way of example) remap many of these foundations.
1. There is no middleman. Because there is infinite shelf space, the publisher has more control over what the reader sees and how. In addition, the Amazon platform allows a tiny organization to have huge reach without taking significant inventory risk. "Powered by Amazon" is part of our name—it describes the unique nature of the venture... I get to figure out the next neat idea, and Amazon can handle printing, logistics and the platform for connection.
2. The reader is tightly connected with the publisher and the author. If you like the sort of things I write or recommend, you can sign up and we can alert you to new works, send you free samples and otherwise make it easy for you to be smart about the new ideas that are generated.
3. Pricing can vary based on volume, on timing, on format. With this project, I’ve made the decision to ignore the rules that publishers follow to get on the New York Times bestseller list. There’s no point in compromising the consumer experience or the product merely to get a nice ego boost and a small shot of promotion. More on this in a future post, but I'll let you use your imagination.
4. Digital goods and manifestos in book form make it easier to spread complex ideas. It’s long frustrated me that a blog post can reach 100 times as many people as a book, but can’t deliver the nuance a book can. The Domino Project is organized around a fundamentally different model of virality, one that allows authors to directly reach people who can use the ideas we’re writing about.
The Domino Project is named for the domino effect—ideas can quickly spread, moving through a previously static set up. Our mission isn’t to become a promotional machine, focused on interrupting large numbers of people or having significant promotional chops through traditional media. Instead, we're grabbing the opportunity to choose and deliver manifestos that are optimized for the tribe, for the small group that wants to grab them, inhale them and spread them. The good ones will spread, first from person to person, then from one circle to another, and eventually into large groups.
That’s a lot to absorb for one post. I’ve been working on the ideas behind The Domino Project since I published my very first book in 1986. The first manifestos won’t be out for a few months, but you can learn more as we go by following the Domino Project.
PS When we roll out our books, there will be sneak previews and other goodies for those first on the list...
Seth Godin
Start thinking outside the box,
TPE3
I'd encourage you to read it with the thought in mind of "How can I create something in my business that is so far out of the box that it will transform my business?".
To be informed about what The Domino Project is publishing sign up here: http://www.thedominoproject.com/subscribe-to-this-newsletter. Since I know you will sign up for both if you are interested, I will not post Seth's stuff in the future . . . well, forgive me if I occasionally can’t stand not to post one!
Read on . . .
The Domino Project
Book publishing is changing. It’s changing faster than it has in a hundred years.
I’ve been persistent enough to be part of that change, provoking and poking and wondering about what comes next.Today, I’m thrilled to report on what’s next for me.
To reinvent the way books are created when the middleman is made less important.
To reinvent the way books are purchased when the tribe is known and embraced.
To reinvent the way books are read when the alternatives are so much easier to find.
To find and leverage great ideas and great authors, bringing them to readers who need them.
The notion of the paper book as merely a package for information is slowly becoming obsolete. There must be other reasons on offer, or smart people will go digital, or read something free. The book is still an ideal tool for the hand-to-hand spreading of important ideas, though. The point of the book is to be spread, to act as a manifesto, to get in sync with others, to give and to get and to hand around.
Our goal is to offer ideas that people need and want to spread, to enjoy and to hold and to own, and to change conversations.
Working with a great team at Amazon, I’m launching a new publishing venture called The Domino Project. I think it fundamentally changes many of the rules of publishing trade non-fiction.
Trade publishing (as opposed to textbooks or other non-consumer ventures) has always been about getting masses of people to know about, understand and read your books. The business has been driven by several foundational principles:
1. The middleman (the bookstore) has a great deal of power. There’s only a limited amount of shelf space, and there are more books (far more books) than we have room for. No display, no sale. That’s one reason books are published with the economically ridiculous model of 100% returns from bookstores. Huge stores can carry thousands of books and return them if they don’t sell. Large chains get a say about what’s on the cover, what the title is, and they even get paid for shelf displays.
2. The audience (the reader) is largely unknown to the publisher, and thus to the author. Authors with large followings still have to start over with each book, because they don’t have permission (or the data) to contact loyal readers directly.
3. Pricing and product are static and slow. Once a book is published, the price is set forever. Add to that the glacial speed from conception to publication date and you see a system that is set up to benefit neither the publisher nor the reader.
4. Books are inherently difficult to spread. The ideas in books might travel, but the act of recommending a book, having the idea stick and a new sale get made is slow or broken. Given how important the ideas in books are, this chain has many weak links. It's worth rethinking how a publishing house could organize around its ultimate goal, which is to spread ideas.
The internet and the Kindle are changing all of these rules. The Domino Project is designed to (at least by way of example) remap many of these foundations.
1. There is no middleman. Because there is infinite shelf space, the publisher has more control over what the reader sees and how. In addition, the Amazon platform allows a tiny organization to have huge reach without taking significant inventory risk. "Powered by Amazon" is part of our name—it describes the unique nature of the venture... I get to figure out the next neat idea, and Amazon can handle printing, logistics and the platform for connection.
2. The reader is tightly connected with the publisher and the author. If you like the sort of things I write or recommend, you can sign up and we can alert you to new works, send you free samples and otherwise make it easy for you to be smart about the new ideas that are generated.
3. Pricing can vary based on volume, on timing, on format. With this project, I’ve made the decision to ignore the rules that publishers follow to get on the New York Times bestseller list. There’s no point in compromising the consumer experience or the product merely to get a nice ego boost and a small shot of promotion. More on this in a future post, but I'll let you use your imagination.
4. Digital goods and manifestos in book form make it easier to spread complex ideas. It’s long frustrated me that a blog post can reach 100 times as many people as a book, but can’t deliver the nuance a book can. The Domino Project is organized around a fundamentally different model of virality, one that allows authors to directly reach people who can use the ideas we’re writing about.
The Domino Project is named for the domino effect—ideas can quickly spread, moving through a previously static set up. Our mission isn’t to become a promotional machine, focused on interrupting large numbers of people or having significant promotional chops through traditional media. Instead, we're grabbing the opportunity to choose and deliver manifestos that are optimized for the tribe, for the small group that wants to grab them, inhale them and spread them. The good ones will spread, first from person to person, then from one circle to another, and eventually into large groups.
That’s a lot to absorb for one post. I’ve been working on the ideas behind The Domino Project since I published my very first book in 1986. The first manifestos won’t be out for a few months, but you can learn more as we go by following the Domino Project.
PS When we roll out our books, there will be sneak previews and other goodies for those first on the list...
Seth Godin
Start thinking outside the box,
TPE3
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Organizing For Joy
Here's another interesting thought from Seth Godin:
Organizing For Joy
Traditional corporations, particularly large-scale service and manufacturing businesses, are organized for efficiency. Or consistency. But not joy.
McDonalds, Hertz, Dell and others crank it out. They show up. They lower costs. They use a stopwatch to measure output.
The problem with this mindset is that as you approach the asymptote of maximum efficiency, there's not a lot of room left for improvement. Making a Chicken McNugget for .00001 cents less isn't going to boost your profit a whole lot.
Worse, the nature of the work is inherently un-remarkable. If you fear special requests, if you staff with cogs, if you have to put it all in a manual, then the chances of amazing someone are really quite low.
These organizations have people who will try to patch problems over after the fact, instead of motivated people eager to delight on the spot.
The alternative, it seems, is to organize for joy. These are the companies that give their people the freedom (and yes, the expectation) that they will create, connect and surprise. These are the organizations that embrace someone who makes a difference, as opposed to searching for a clause in the employee handbook that was violated.
From: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/
Organizing For Joy
Traditional corporations, particularly large-scale service and manufacturing businesses, are organized for efficiency. Or consistency. But not joy.
McDonalds, Hertz, Dell and others crank it out. They show up. They lower costs. They use a stopwatch to measure output.
The problem with this mindset is that as you approach the asymptote of maximum efficiency, there's not a lot of room left for improvement. Making a Chicken McNugget for .00001 cents less isn't going to boost your profit a whole lot.
Worse, the nature of the work is inherently un-remarkable. If you fear special requests, if you staff with cogs, if you have to put it all in a manual, then the chances of amazing someone are really quite low.
These organizations have people who will try to patch problems over after the fact, instead of motivated people eager to delight on the spot.
The alternative, it seems, is to organize for joy. These are the companies that give their people the freedom (and yes, the expectation) that they will create, connect and surprise. These are the organizations that embrace someone who makes a difference, as opposed to searching for a clause in the employee handbook that was violated.
From: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
How The Media Can Change The Thrust Of A Person's Message By Omission
Here is an update from a friend, Melinda Rembert Wells. For several years Melinda has had an ongoing fight against a rare and complicated tumor in her brain. Today she is doing well.
I thought her post on Caring Bridge about how the media (At least the Dallas Morning News in this case) can totally change the thrust of a person's message by omission is very informative. It should make us question everything we read - at least check other sources. Melinda is doing very well and her post clearly tells you who she believes is responsible.
TPE3
Melinda's post from Caring Bridge:
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:43 PM, CDT
There was an article in the Dallas Morning News today about people who use social-networking sites, such as Caring Bridge, to communicate with friends & family about their health status. This is an article that I was interviewed for, and I was quoted and pictured in it. If you want to read it, you can find it at this link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/healthyliving2/stories/082310dnliv-social-networking-for-cancer-patients.8209e53a.html (The pictures are only shown in the print newspaper, not on-line.)
Overall, I was disappointed in the article. The reporter got a lot of details about my diagnosis/treatment incorrect (which is not a big deal to me), but what is a big deal to me is that all of my references to the Lord were erased. When I was contacted by the reporter a couple of months ago, I agreed to the interview only because I thought it would be a great opportunity to share my faith in Jesus Christ and proclaim His name. Unfortunately, the reporter chose to ‘edit out’ all of my references to the Lord. From my perspective, you cannot accurately tell the story of any aspect of my cancer journey (or my life) without mentioning the Lord. So, I’m sad that the reporter, and now the readers, don’t understand the central theme of my story – Jesus Christ.
Moreover, I feel that the reporter completely misrepresented me when she said in her article, "Melinda Wells searched the internet for inspiration." What?! Are you kidding me? I search the Bible for inspiration, and I turn to the internet to facilitate communication with my friends and family – a BIG difference. I truly do not understand how the reporter could make that statement after interviewing me for two hours. Can I demand a retraction? Is this how politicians feel when they read what people say about them in the papers? (Shout out to George W. – we don’t believe any of the nonsense that was written about you in the media. We love that you moved home to Dallas, and we so appreciate your sacrificial service to our country!)
The one thing that thrilled me about the article was the close-up, color picture of the artwork that my friends’ children created for me when I was in the hospital. I have them all hanging up on my wall at home, and the photographer captured a close-up of three pictures. I was so thrilled to call my friend, Amy, and tell her that the drawing that her triplet 6-year-old boys drew for me of the SuperBowl teams was printed in the newspaper! And also my friend, Jen, has a five-year-old boy whose creative interpretation of the appearance of my hospital room was included in the close-up picture, too. So fun! I quickly told the moms to go out and buy a paper, so that they can show the kids their artwork printed in the paper! I can’t wait to hear how they react!
In the end, I'm sure that the reporter didn't intend to make me feel misrepresented. It was an article about Caring Bridge, not an article about me. But obviously my experience with Caring Bridge is a result of my cancer journey, which I feel cannot be told accurately without some reference to the Lord. And I do not think that I could have used the words, "the Lord", more often in the interview. She just chose to omit what I think is of utmost importance. Apparently, she (or the editor) felt otherwise. In closing, I hope that this article in the newspaper will inform many people about the Caring Bridge website, how it can facilitate communication, prayer, and encouragement between the one who is ill and their network of friends, family, and even strangers that are praying for them.
And maybe, someone who reads the article will search for my name on the Caring Bridge website and find my blog that tells the real story of my cancer journey. As it says on the top of the blog:
"…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11
All glory to the Lord,
Melinda
I thought her post on Caring Bridge about how the media (At least the Dallas Morning News in this case) can totally change the thrust of a person's message by omission is very informative. It should make us question everything we read - at least check other sources. Melinda is doing very well and her post clearly tells you who she believes is responsible.
TPE3
Melinda's post from Caring Bridge:
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:43 PM, CDT
There was an article in the Dallas Morning News today about people who use social-networking sites, such as Caring Bridge, to communicate with friends & family about their health status. This is an article that I was interviewed for, and I was quoted and pictured in it. If you want to read it, you can find it at this link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/healthyliving2/stories/082310dnliv-social-networking-for-cancer-patients.8209e53a.html (The pictures are only shown in the print newspaper, not on-line.)
Overall, I was disappointed in the article. The reporter got a lot of details about my diagnosis/treatment incorrect (which is not a big deal to me), but what is a big deal to me is that all of my references to the Lord were erased. When I was contacted by the reporter a couple of months ago, I agreed to the interview only because I thought it would be a great opportunity to share my faith in Jesus Christ and proclaim His name. Unfortunately, the reporter chose to ‘edit out’ all of my references to the Lord. From my perspective, you cannot accurately tell the story of any aspect of my cancer journey (or my life) without mentioning the Lord. So, I’m sad that the reporter, and now the readers, don’t understand the central theme of my story – Jesus Christ.
Moreover, I feel that the reporter completely misrepresented me when she said in her article, "Melinda Wells searched the internet for inspiration." What?! Are you kidding me? I search the Bible for inspiration, and I turn to the internet to facilitate communication with my friends and family – a BIG difference. I truly do not understand how the reporter could make that statement after interviewing me for two hours. Can I demand a retraction? Is this how politicians feel when they read what people say about them in the papers? (Shout out to George W. – we don’t believe any of the nonsense that was written about you in the media. We love that you moved home to Dallas, and we so appreciate your sacrificial service to our country!)
The one thing that thrilled me about the article was the close-up, color picture of the artwork that my friends’ children created for me when I was in the hospital. I have them all hanging up on my wall at home, and the photographer captured a close-up of three pictures. I was so thrilled to call my friend, Amy, and tell her that the drawing that her triplet 6-year-old boys drew for me of the SuperBowl teams was printed in the newspaper! And also my friend, Jen, has a five-year-old boy whose creative interpretation of the appearance of my hospital room was included in the close-up picture, too. So fun! I quickly told the moms to go out and buy a paper, so that they can show the kids their artwork printed in the paper! I can’t wait to hear how they react!
In the end, I'm sure that the reporter didn't intend to make me feel misrepresented. It was an article about Caring Bridge, not an article about me. But obviously my experience with Caring Bridge is a result of my cancer journey, which I feel cannot be told accurately without some reference to the Lord. And I do not think that I could have used the words, "the Lord", more often in the interview. She just chose to omit what I think is of utmost importance. Apparently, she (or the editor) felt otherwise. In closing, I hope that this article in the newspaper will inform many people about the Caring Bridge website, how it can facilitate communication, prayer, and encouragement between the one who is ill and their network of friends, family, and even strangers that are praying for them.
And maybe, someone who reads the article will search for my name on the Caring Bridge website and find my blog that tells the real story of my cancer journey. As it says on the top of the blog:
"…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11
All glory to the Lord,
Melinda
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Anxiety Is Practicing Failure In Advance
How is that for a catchy title? Recently, my wife, Ann Day, shared this with a group of ladies for discussion. The article is taken from Seth Godin's new book, Linchpin and shown below. I read the book a few months ago and have shared it with many people. I highly recommend it as a book that can change your perspective about your life.
I have known of Seth Godin for years - he has authored many books including Permission Marketing which is now widely practiced by most Internet marketers. As a result of reading Linchpin I was introduced to Seth's Blog (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/). Everyday you receive a fresh dose of Seth's wisdom. Another influencer of my life, Mike Vance, said, "You will be the same tomorrow as you are today except for the books you read and the people you meet". A daily dose of Seth will start your day with a new challenging thought that will lead you to a constant evaluation of your life and how and why you do what you do.
Anxiety steals your life . . . you can step out of it. As I was looking for this article I searched his blog for "Anxiety" and had 20+ hits. It is clear that Seth's thoughts and wisdom on Anxiety come from his personal struggle with it. He is a "fellow struggler". Phil 4:6,7 is a great prescription.
I also came across an interview with Seth on Linchpin by Catalyst . For the interview go to http://vimeo.com/8900789. It is 25 minutes long but definitely worth the time. At the very end he shares how he is able to come up with all the great stuff he does on the blog.
Here's the article . . . Enjoy:
Anxiety Is Practicing Failure In Advance
Anxiety is needless and imaginary. It’s fear about fear, fear that means nothing.
The difference between fear and anxiety: Anxiety is diffuse and focuses on possibilities in an unknown future, not a real and present threat. The resistance is 100% about anxiety, because humans have developed other emotions and warnings to help us avoid actual threats. Anxiety, on the other hand, is an internal construct with no relation to the outside world. “Needless anxiety” is redundant, because anxiety is always needless. Anxiety doesn’t protect you from danger, but from doing great things. It keeps you awake at night and foretells a future that’s not going to happen.
On the other hand, fear is about staying alive, avoiding snakes, feeding your family, and getting the right to play again tomorrow. Fear should be paid careful attention. There’s not a lot of genuine fear here in our world, so when it appears, it’s worth noting.
Anxiety, on the other hand, is dangerous paralysis. Anxiety is the exaggeration of the worst possible what-if, accompanied by self-talk that leads to the relentless minimization of the actual odds of success.
Anxiety makes it impossible to do art, because it feeds the resistance, giving the lizard brain insane power over us. It’s impossible to be a linchpin if you agree to feed your anxiety.
You’ll notice that throughout this book I’ve often used the word “fear” when I really meant anxiety. That’s because we do it all the time, confusing the two . . . a bad habit.
From Linchpin
Seth Godin
I have known of Seth Godin for years - he has authored many books including Permission Marketing which is now widely practiced by most Internet marketers. As a result of reading Linchpin I was introduced to Seth's Blog (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/). Everyday you receive a fresh dose of Seth's wisdom. Another influencer of my life, Mike Vance, said, "You will be the same tomorrow as you are today except for the books you read and the people you meet". A daily dose of Seth will start your day with a new challenging thought that will lead you to a constant evaluation of your life and how and why you do what you do.
Anxiety steals your life . . . you can step out of it. As I was looking for this article I searched his blog for "Anxiety" and had 20+ hits. It is clear that Seth's thoughts and wisdom on Anxiety come from his personal struggle with it. He is a "fellow struggler". Phil 4:6,7 is a great prescription.
I also came across an interview with Seth on Linchpin by Catalyst . For the interview go to http://vimeo.com/8900789. It is 25 minutes long but definitely worth the time. At the very end he shares how he is able to come up with all the great stuff he does on the blog.
Here's the article . . . Enjoy:
Anxiety Is Practicing Failure In Advance
Anxiety is needless and imaginary. It’s fear about fear, fear that means nothing.
The difference between fear and anxiety: Anxiety is diffuse and focuses on possibilities in an unknown future, not a real and present threat. The resistance is 100% about anxiety, because humans have developed other emotions and warnings to help us avoid actual threats. Anxiety, on the other hand, is an internal construct with no relation to the outside world. “Needless anxiety” is redundant, because anxiety is always needless. Anxiety doesn’t protect you from danger, but from doing great things. It keeps you awake at night and foretells a future that’s not going to happen.
On the other hand, fear is about staying alive, avoiding snakes, feeding your family, and getting the right to play again tomorrow. Fear should be paid careful attention. There’s not a lot of genuine fear here in our world, so when it appears, it’s worth noting.
Anxiety, on the other hand, is dangerous paralysis. Anxiety is the exaggeration of the worst possible what-if, accompanied by self-talk that leads to the relentless minimization of the actual odds of success.
Anxiety makes it impossible to do art, because it feeds the resistance, giving the lizard brain insane power over us. It’s impossible to be a linchpin if you agree to feed your anxiety.
You’ll notice that throughout this book I’ve often used the word “fear” when I really meant anxiety. That’s because we do it all the time, confusing the two . . . a bad habit.
From Linchpin
Seth Godin
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Supreme Court Effectively Invalidates Hundreds of National Labor Relations Board Decisions
Another fine state of affairs created by the inaction and political games by our friends in Washington:
Supreme Court Effectively Invalidates Hundreds of National Labor Relations Board Decisions - A K&L Gates Labor and Employment Alert
by Michael J. Schrier, Mark S. Filipini
July 2, 2010
In an opinion that effectively invalidates more than two years worth of National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") decisions, the United States Supreme Court held recently that the NLRB lacked authority to issue decisions in unfair labor practice and representation cases when it was composed of fewer than three members between January 2008 and March 2010.
By law, the NLRB should have a complement of five members, with the longstanding practice that the President appoints three members of his own party and two members from the opposition. Like many senior administrative positions, NLRB members are subject to confirmation by the Senate. While the political nature of the appointment process has historically resulted in temporary vacancies from time to time, the NLRB recently endured an unprecedented twenty-seven month stretch with three vacancies starting in January 2008. The two remaining members, now-Chairman Wilma Liebman (a Democrat) and Member Peter Schaumber (a Republican), attempted to carry on the Board's business by issuing decisions where both could agree on the outcome. Despite their philosophical differences and their purposeful avoidance of issues they perceived as controversial or novel, Liebman and Schaumber managed to issue 595 decisions before President Obama made two recess appointments effective in April 2010 to temporarily bring Board membership back up to four, and a further appointment in June 2010 to bring the Board membership up to five.
In New Process Steel, LP v. NLRB, No. 08-1457 (June 17, 2010), the Supreme Court ruled that it was contrary to the agency's governing statute for the NLRB to issue any decisions when it had fewer than three members. This ruling has short and long term consequences for employers. The immediate impact of this decision will be felt in pending appeals involving cases decided by the two-person Board - five before the Supreme Court and 90 before the various federal Courts of Appeals. On July 1, 2010, the Board announced its intention to seek a remand in each of these appellate cases for further consideration by a three member panel of the Board.
At this point, it is unclear how the Supreme Court’s decision will directly impact the roughly 500 other NLRB decisions issued by Liebman and Schaumber. The five-member Board may decide to quickly reissue some or all of the decisions, assuming that one or more of the recess appointees agree with the holdings. More likely, the Board may address the issue if and when prior litigants raise it. Because the parties to any particular dispute may have settled, complied with the Board rulings or otherwise moved on, this approach could help reduce the impact on the Board. Moreover, as a practical matter, it may not make sense for employers to seek to reopen a case based on the Supreme Court’s decision, as the Board is now more likely to side with labor in any dispute. However, the tactical calculus could be different for an employer deferred back to an administrative law judge by the two-member Board for further proceedings. The bottom line is that employers affected by any of the two-member rulings should engage in a careful analysis of the facts and legal issues in their particular case(s) to sort through the issues and opportunities raised by New Process Steel.
In terms of the potential long term consequences, employers should assume for now that the Supreme Court has likely eliminated all precedential value in the 595 two-member NLRB decisions issued by Liebman and Schaumber. More importantly, in light of the frequent difficulties with the political appointment and confirmation process, it is possible that the NLRB could again become temporarily incapable of issuing new opinions due to a lack of members in the future based on the New Process Steel decision.
Contacts:
Michael J. Schrier, +1.202.778.9249, michael.schrier@klgates.com
Mark S. Filipini, +1.206.370.8111, mark.filipini@klgates.com
This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
K&L Gates is comprised of multiple affiliated entities: a limited liability partnership with the full name K&L Gates LLP qualified in Delaware and maintaining offices throughout the United States, in Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, in Beijing (K&L Gates LLP Beijing Representative Office), in Dubai, U.A.E., in Shanghai (K&L Gates LLP Shanghai Representative Office), in Tokyo, and in Singapore; a limited liability partnership (also named K&L Gates LLP) incorporated in England and maintaining offices in London and Paris; a Taiwan general partnership (K&L Gates) maintaining an office in Taipei; a Hong Kong general partnership (K&L Gates, Solicitors) maintaining an office in Hong Kong; a Polish limited partnership (K&L Gates Jamka sp. k.) maintaining an office in Warsaw; and a Delaware limited liability company (K&L Gates Holdings, LLC) maintaining an office in Moscow. K&L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the jurisdictions in which its offices are located. A list of the partners or members in each entity is available for inspection at any K&L Gates office.
Supreme Court Effectively Invalidates Hundreds of National Labor Relations Board Decisions - A K&L Gates Labor and Employment Alert
by Michael J. Schrier, Mark S. Filipini
July 2, 2010
In an opinion that effectively invalidates more than two years worth of National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") decisions, the United States Supreme Court held recently that the NLRB lacked authority to issue decisions in unfair labor practice and representation cases when it was composed of fewer than three members between January 2008 and March 2010.
By law, the NLRB should have a complement of five members, with the longstanding practice that the President appoints three members of his own party and two members from the opposition. Like many senior administrative positions, NLRB members are subject to confirmation by the Senate. While the political nature of the appointment process has historically resulted in temporary vacancies from time to time, the NLRB recently endured an unprecedented twenty-seven month stretch with three vacancies starting in January 2008. The two remaining members, now-Chairman Wilma Liebman (a Democrat) and Member Peter Schaumber (a Republican), attempted to carry on the Board's business by issuing decisions where both could agree on the outcome. Despite their philosophical differences and their purposeful avoidance of issues they perceived as controversial or novel, Liebman and Schaumber managed to issue 595 decisions before President Obama made two recess appointments effective in April 2010 to temporarily bring Board membership back up to four, and a further appointment in June 2010 to bring the Board membership up to five.
In New Process Steel, LP v. NLRB, No. 08-1457 (June 17, 2010), the Supreme Court ruled that it was contrary to the agency's governing statute for the NLRB to issue any decisions when it had fewer than three members. This ruling has short and long term consequences for employers. The immediate impact of this decision will be felt in pending appeals involving cases decided by the two-person Board - five before the Supreme Court and 90 before the various federal Courts of Appeals. On July 1, 2010, the Board announced its intention to seek a remand in each of these appellate cases for further consideration by a three member panel of the Board.
At this point, it is unclear how the Supreme Court’s decision will directly impact the roughly 500 other NLRB decisions issued by Liebman and Schaumber. The five-member Board may decide to quickly reissue some or all of the decisions, assuming that one or more of the recess appointees agree with the holdings. More likely, the Board may address the issue if and when prior litigants raise it. Because the parties to any particular dispute may have settled, complied with the Board rulings or otherwise moved on, this approach could help reduce the impact on the Board. Moreover, as a practical matter, it may not make sense for employers to seek to reopen a case based on the Supreme Court’s decision, as the Board is now more likely to side with labor in any dispute. However, the tactical calculus could be different for an employer deferred back to an administrative law judge by the two-member Board for further proceedings. The bottom line is that employers affected by any of the two-member rulings should engage in a careful analysis of the facts and legal issues in their particular case(s) to sort through the issues and opportunities raised by New Process Steel.
In terms of the potential long term consequences, employers should assume for now that the Supreme Court has likely eliminated all precedential value in the 595 two-member NLRB decisions issued by Liebman and Schaumber. More importantly, in light of the frequent difficulties with the political appointment and confirmation process, it is possible that the NLRB could again become temporarily incapable of issuing new opinions due to a lack of members in the future based on the New Process Steel decision.
Contacts:
Michael J. Schrier, +1.202.778.9249, michael.schrier@klgates.com
Mark S. Filipini, +1.206.370.8111, mark.filipini@klgates.com
This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
K&L Gates is comprised of multiple affiliated entities: a limited liability partnership with the full name K&L Gates LLP qualified in Delaware and maintaining offices throughout the United States, in Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, in Beijing (K&L Gates LLP Beijing Representative Office), in Dubai, U.A.E., in Shanghai (K&L Gates LLP Shanghai Representative Office), in Tokyo, and in Singapore; a limited liability partnership (also named K&L Gates LLP) incorporated in England and maintaining offices in London and Paris; a Taiwan general partnership (K&L Gates) maintaining an office in Taipei; a Hong Kong general partnership (K&L Gates, Solicitors) maintaining an office in Hong Kong; a Polish limited partnership (K&L Gates Jamka sp. k.) maintaining an office in Warsaw; and a Delaware limited liability company (K&L Gates Holdings, LLC) maintaining an office in Moscow. K&L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the jurisdictions in which its offices are located. A list of the partners or members in each entity is available for inspection at any K&L Gates office.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
What In The World Am I Looking For?
In this follow up to last week's article on Situational Awareness we get the answer to "What in the world am I looking for?"
Watching for Watchers
June 17, 2010 0855 GMT
By Scott Stewart
In last week’s Security Weekly we discussed how situational awareness is a mindset that can — and should — be practiced by everyone. We also described the different levels of situational awareness and discussed which level is appropriate for different sorts of situations. And we noted how all criminals and terrorists follow a process when planning their acts and that this process is visible at certain times to people who are watching for such behavior.
When one considers these facts, it inevitably leads to the question: “What in the world am I looking for?” The brief answer is: “warning signs of criminal or terrorist behavior.” Since this brief answer is very vague, it becomes necessary to describe the behavior in more detail.
Surveillance
It is important to make one fundamental point clear up front. The operational behavior that most commonly exposes a person planning a criminal or terrorist act to scrutiny by the intended target is surveillance. Other portions of the planning process can be conducted elsewhere, especially in the age of the Internet, when so much information is available online. From an operational standpoint, however, there simply is no substitute for having eyes on the potential target. In military terms, surveillance is often called reconnaissance, and in a criminal context it is often referred to as casing or scoping out. Environmental activist and animal rights groups trained by the Ruckus Society refer to it as “scouting.” No matter what terminology is being used for the activity, it is meant to accomplish the same objective: assessing a potential target for value, vulnerabilities and potential security measures. Surveillance is required so that criminals can conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
The amount of time devoted to the criminal surveillance process will vary, depending on the type of crime and the type of criminal involved. A criminal who operates like an ambush predator, such as a purse-snatcher, may lie in wait for a suitable target to come within striking distance. This is akin to a crocodile lying in a watering hole waiting for an animal to come and get a drink. The criminal will have only a few seconds to size up the potential target and conduct the cost-benefit calculation before formulating his plan, getting ready and striking.
On the other extreme are the criminals who behave more like stalking predators. Such a criminal is like a lion on the savannah that carefully looks over the herd and selects a vulnerable animal believed to be the easiest to take down. A criminal who operates like a stalking predator, such as a kidnapper or terrorist, may select a suitable target and then take days or even weeks to follow the target, assess its vulnerabilities and determine if the potential take is worth the risk. Normally, stalking criminals will prey only on targets they feel are vulnerable and can be successfully hit, although they will occasionally take bigger risks on high-value targets.
Of course, there are many other criminals who fall somewhere in the middle, and they may take anywhere from a few minute to several hours to watch a potential target. Regardless of the time spent observing the target, all criminals will conduct this surveillance and they are vulnerable to detection during this time.
Given that surveillance is so widely practiced, it is quite amazing to consider that, in general, criminals and terrorists are terrible at conducting surveillance. There are some exceptions, such as the relatively sophisticated surveillance performed by Greenpeace and some of the other groups trained by the Ruckus Society, or the low-key and highly detailed surveillance performed by some high-end art and jewelry thieves, but such surveillance is the exception rather than the rule.
The term “tradecraft” is an espionage term that refers to techniques and procedures used in the field, but term also implies quite a bit of finesse in the practice of these techniques. Tradecraft, then, is really more of an art rather than a science, and surveillance tradecraft is no exception. Like playing the violin or fencing with a foil, it takes time and practice to become a skilled surveillance practitioner. Most individuals involved in criminal and terrorist activity simply do not devote the time necessary to master this skill. Because of this, they have terrible technique, use sloppy procedures and lack finesse when they are watching people.
Although everybody planning a criminal or terrorist attack conducts preoperational surveillance, that does not necessarily mean they are good at it. The simple truth is that these individuals are able to get by with such a poor level of surveillance tradecraft because most victims simply are not looking for them. And this is where we tie the discussion back into last week’s Security Weekly. Most people do not practice situational awareness. For those who do, the poor surveillance tradecraft exhibited by criminals is good news. It gives them time to avoid an immediate threat and contact the authorities.
Demeanor Is the Key
The behavior a person needs to outwardly display in order to master the art of surveillance tradecraft is called good demeanor. Good demeanor is not intuitive. In fact, the things one has to do to maintain good demeanor frequently run counter to human nature. Because of this, intelligence and security professionals who work surveillance operations receive extensive training that includes many hours of heavily critiqued practical exercises, often followed by field training with a team of experienced surveillance professionals. This training teaches and reinforces good demeanor. Criminals and terrorists do not receive this type of training and, as a result, bad surveillance tradecraft has long proved to be an Achilles’ heel for terrorist and criminal organizations.
Surveillance is an unnatural activity, and a person doing it must deal with strong feelings of self-consciousness and of being out of place. People conducting surveillance frequently suffer from what is called “burn syndrome,” the erroneous belief that the people they are watching have spotted them. Feeling “burned” will cause surveillants to do unnatural things, such as suddenly ducking back into a doorway or turning around abruptly when they unexpectedly come face to face with the target. People inexperienced in the art of surveillance find it difficult to control this natural reaction. Even experienced surveillance operatives occasionally have the feeling of being burned; the difference is they have received a lot of training and they are better able to control their reaction and work through it. They are able to maintain a normal looking demeanor while their insides are screaming that the person they are surveilling has seen them.
In addition to doing something unnatural or stupid when feeling burned, another very common mistake made by amateurs when conducting surveillance is the failure to get into proper “character” for the job or, when in character, appearing in places or carrying out activities that are incongruent with the character’s “costume.” The terms used to describe these role-playing aspects of surveillance are “cover for status” and “cover for action.” Cover for status is a person’s purported identity — his costume. A person can pretend to be a student, a businessman, a repairman, etc. Cover for action explains why the person is doing what he or she is doing — why that guy has been standing on that street corner for half an hour.
The purpose of using good cover for action and cover for status is to make the presence of the person conducting the surveillance look routine and normal. When done right, the surveillance operative fits in with the mental snapshot subconsciously taken by the target as the target goes about his or her business. Inexperienced people who conduct surveillance frequently do not use good cover for action or cover for status, and they can be easily detected.
An example of bad cover for status would be someone dressed as “a businessman” walking in the woods or at the beach. An example of bad cover for action is someone pretending to be sitting at a bus stop who remains at that bus stop even when several buses have passed. But mostly, malefactors conducting surveillance practice little or no cover for action or cover for status. They just lurk and look totally out of place. There is no apparent reason for them to be where they are and doing what they are doing.
In addition to “plain old lurking,” other giveaways include a person moving when the target moves, communicating when the target moves, avoiding eye contact with the target, making sudden turns or stops, or even using hand signals to communicate with other members of a surveillance team or criminal gang. Surveillants also can tip off the person they are watching by entering or leaving a building immediately after the person they are watching or simply by running in street clothes. Sometimes, people who are experiencing the burn syndrome exhibit almost imperceptible behaviors that the target can sense more than observe. It may not be something that can be articulated, but the target just gets the gut feeling that there is something wrong or odd about the way a certain person behaves. Innocent bystanders who are not watching someone usually do not exhibit this behavior or trigger these feelings.
The U.S. government often uses the acronym “TEDD” to illustrate the principles that can be used to identify surveillance conducted by counterintelligence agencies, but these same principles also can be used to identify criminal and terrorist surveillance. TEDD stands for time, environment, distance and demeanor. In other words, if a person sees someone repeatedly over time, in different environments and over distance, or someone who displays poor surveillance demeanor, then that person can assume he or she is under surveillance. If a person is being specifically targeted for a planned attack, he or she might be exposed to the time, environment and distance elements of TEDD, but if the subway car the person is riding in or the building where the person works is the target, he or she might only have the demeanor of the attacker to key on because the attacker will not be seen by the observer over time and distance or in different environments. Time, environment and distance are also not applicable in cases involving criminals who behave like ambush predators. Therefore, when we are talking about criminal surveillance, demeanor is the most critical of the four elements. Demeanor will also often work in tandem with the other elements, and poor demeanor will often help the target spot the surveillant at different times and places.
In a situation where a building or subway car is targeted for an attack rather than a specific person, there are still a number of demeanor indicators that can be observed just prior to the attack. Such indicators include people wearing unseasonable clothing in warm weather (such as trench coats); people with odd bulges under their clothing or wires sticking out from their clothing; people who are sweating profusely, mumbling or fidgeting; people who appear to be attempting to avoid security personnel; and people who simply appear to be out of place. According to many reports, suicide attackers will often exhibit an intense stare as they approach the final stage of their attack plan. While not every person exhibiting such behavior is a suicide bomber or shooter, avoiding such a person rarely has much of a downside.
One technique that can be helpful in looking for people conducting long-term surveillance is to identify places that provide optimal visibility of a critical place the surveillant would want to watch (for example, the front door of a potential target’s residence or office). These optimal observation points are often referred to as “perches” in surveillance jargon. Perches can then be watched for signs of hostile surveillance like people who don’t belong there, people making demeanor mistakes, etc.
This principle can also be extended to critical points along frequently and predictably traveled routes. Potential targets can conduct simple pattern and route analyses to determine where along the route they are most predictable and vulnerable. Route analysis looks for vulnerabilities, or choke points, on a particular route of travel. Choke points have two main characteristics: They are places where the potential target must travel and where rapid forward motion is difficult (such as sharp, blind curves). When a choke point provides a place where hostiles can wait with impunity for their victims and have access to a rapid escape route, the choke point becomes a potential attack site. These characteristics are found in attack sites used by highly professional kidnap/assassination teams and by criminal “ambush predators” such as carjackers. While the ideal tactic is to vary routes and times to avoid predictable locations, this is also difficult and disruptive and is warranted only when the threat is high. A more practical alternative is for potential targets to raise their situational awareness a notch as they travel through such areas at predictable times in order to be on the alert for potential hostile surveillance or signs of an impending attack.
The fact that operatives conducting surveillance over an extended period of time can change their clothing and wear hats, wigs or other light disguises — and use different vehicles or license plates — also demonstrates why watching for mistakes in demeanor is critical. Of course, the use of disguises is also an indicator that the surveillants are more advanced and therefore potentially more dangerous. Because of a surveillant’s ability to make superficial changes in appearance, it is important to focus on the things that cannot be changed as easily as clothing or hair, such as a person’s facial features, build, mannerisms and gait. Additionally, while a surveillant can change the license plate on a car, it is not as easy to alter other aspects of the vehicle such as body damage (scratches and dents). Paying attention to small details can produce significant results over time.
As we noted last week — and it is worth repeating here — paying attention to details and practicing situational awareness does not mean being paranoid or obsessively concerned about security. When people live in a state of paranoia, looking for a criminal behind every bush, they become mentally and physically exhausted. Not only is this dangerous to one’s physical and mental health, but security also suffers because it is very hard to be aware of your surroundings when you are exhausted. Therefore, while it is important to watch for the watchers, watching should not involve feelings of fear or paranoia. Knowing what is occurring in the world around them empowers people and gives them a sense of security and well-being, allowing them to spot the good things in life as well as the potential dangers.
This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
STRATFOR delivers critical intelligence and perspective through:
Situation Reports: Snapshots of global breaking news
Analysis: Daily reports that assess key world events and their significance
Quarterly & Annual Forecasts: Rigorous predictions of what will happen next
Multimedia: Engaging videos and information-rich interactive maps
Intelligence Guidance: Internal memos that guide STRATFOR staff in their intelligence-gathering operations in the immediate days ahead
STRATFOR’s chief executive officer, Dr. George Friedman, is a widely recognized international affairs expert and author of numerous books, including The Next 100 Years (Doubleday, 2009), America’s Secret War (Doubleday, 2005), and The Future of War (Crown, 1996).
STRATFOR members include individuals, FORTUNE 100 corporations, government agencies and other organizations around the world. For more info go to www.stratfor.com.
Watching for Watchers
June 17, 2010 0855 GMT
By Scott Stewart
In last week’s Security Weekly we discussed how situational awareness is a mindset that can — and should — be practiced by everyone. We also described the different levels of situational awareness and discussed which level is appropriate for different sorts of situations. And we noted how all criminals and terrorists follow a process when planning their acts and that this process is visible at certain times to people who are watching for such behavior.
When one considers these facts, it inevitably leads to the question: “What in the world am I looking for?” The brief answer is: “warning signs of criminal or terrorist behavior.” Since this brief answer is very vague, it becomes necessary to describe the behavior in more detail.
Surveillance
It is important to make one fundamental point clear up front. The operational behavior that most commonly exposes a person planning a criminal or terrorist act to scrutiny by the intended target is surveillance. Other portions of the planning process can be conducted elsewhere, especially in the age of the Internet, when so much information is available online. From an operational standpoint, however, there simply is no substitute for having eyes on the potential target. In military terms, surveillance is often called reconnaissance, and in a criminal context it is often referred to as casing or scoping out. Environmental activist and animal rights groups trained by the Ruckus Society refer to it as “scouting.” No matter what terminology is being used for the activity, it is meant to accomplish the same objective: assessing a potential target for value, vulnerabilities and potential security measures. Surveillance is required so that criminals can conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
The amount of time devoted to the criminal surveillance process will vary, depending on the type of crime and the type of criminal involved. A criminal who operates like an ambush predator, such as a purse-snatcher, may lie in wait for a suitable target to come within striking distance. This is akin to a crocodile lying in a watering hole waiting for an animal to come and get a drink. The criminal will have only a few seconds to size up the potential target and conduct the cost-benefit calculation before formulating his plan, getting ready and striking.
On the other extreme are the criminals who behave more like stalking predators. Such a criminal is like a lion on the savannah that carefully looks over the herd and selects a vulnerable animal believed to be the easiest to take down. A criminal who operates like a stalking predator, such as a kidnapper or terrorist, may select a suitable target and then take days or even weeks to follow the target, assess its vulnerabilities and determine if the potential take is worth the risk. Normally, stalking criminals will prey only on targets they feel are vulnerable and can be successfully hit, although they will occasionally take bigger risks on high-value targets.
Of course, there are many other criminals who fall somewhere in the middle, and they may take anywhere from a few minute to several hours to watch a potential target. Regardless of the time spent observing the target, all criminals will conduct this surveillance and they are vulnerable to detection during this time.
Given that surveillance is so widely practiced, it is quite amazing to consider that, in general, criminals and terrorists are terrible at conducting surveillance. There are some exceptions, such as the relatively sophisticated surveillance performed by Greenpeace and some of the other groups trained by the Ruckus Society, or the low-key and highly detailed surveillance performed by some high-end art and jewelry thieves, but such surveillance is the exception rather than the rule.
The term “tradecraft” is an espionage term that refers to techniques and procedures used in the field, but term also implies quite a bit of finesse in the practice of these techniques. Tradecraft, then, is really more of an art rather than a science, and surveillance tradecraft is no exception. Like playing the violin or fencing with a foil, it takes time and practice to become a skilled surveillance practitioner. Most individuals involved in criminal and terrorist activity simply do not devote the time necessary to master this skill. Because of this, they have terrible technique, use sloppy procedures and lack finesse when they are watching people.
Although everybody planning a criminal or terrorist attack conducts preoperational surveillance, that does not necessarily mean they are good at it. The simple truth is that these individuals are able to get by with such a poor level of surveillance tradecraft because most victims simply are not looking for them. And this is where we tie the discussion back into last week’s Security Weekly. Most people do not practice situational awareness. For those who do, the poor surveillance tradecraft exhibited by criminals is good news. It gives them time to avoid an immediate threat and contact the authorities.
Demeanor Is the Key
The behavior a person needs to outwardly display in order to master the art of surveillance tradecraft is called good demeanor. Good demeanor is not intuitive. In fact, the things one has to do to maintain good demeanor frequently run counter to human nature. Because of this, intelligence and security professionals who work surveillance operations receive extensive training that includes many hours of heavily critiqued practical exercises, often followed by field training with a team of experienced surveillance professionals. This training teaches and reinforces good demeanor. Criminals and terrorists do not receive this type of training and, as a result, bad surveillance tradecraft has long proved to be an Achilles’ heel for terrorist and criminal organizations.
Surveillance is an unnatural activity, and a person doing it must deal with strong feelings of self-consciousness and of being out of place. People conducting surveillance frequently suffer from what is called “burn syndrome,” the erroneous belief that the people they are watching have spotted them. Feeling “burned” will cause surveillants to do unnatural things, such as suddenly ducking back into a doorway or turning around abruptly when they unexpectedly come face to face with the target. People inexperienced in the art of surveillance find it difficult to control this natural reaction. Even experienced surveillance operatives occasionally have the feeling of being burned; the difference is they have received a lot of training and they are better able to control their reaction and work through it. They are able to maintain a normal looking demeanor while their insides are screaming that the person they are surveilling has seen them.
In addition to doing something unnatural or stupid when feeling burned, another very common mistake made by amateurs when conducting surveillance is the failure to get into proper “character” for the job or, when in character, appearing in places or carrying out activities that are incongruent with the character’s “costume.” The terms used to describe these role-playing aspects of surveillance are “cover for status” and “cover for action.” Cover for status is a person’s purported identity — his costume. A person can pretend to be a student, a businessman, a repairman, etc. Cover for action explains why the person is doing what he or she is doing — why that guy has been standing on that street corner for half an hour.
The purpose of using good cover for action and cover for status is to make the presence of the person conducting the surveillance look routine and normal. When done right, the surveillance operative fits in with the mental snapshot subconsciously taken by the target as the target goes about his or her business. Inexperienced people who conduct surveillance frequently do not use good cover for action or cover for status, and they can be easily detected.
An example of bad cover for status would be someone dressed as “a businessman” walking in the woods or at the beach. An example of bad cover for action is someone pretending to be sitting at a bus stop who remains at that bus stop even when several buses have passed. But mostly, malefactors conducting surveillance practice little or no cover for action or cover for status. They just lurk and look totally out of place. There is no apparent reason for them to be where they are and doing what they are doing.
In addition to “plain old lurking,” other giveaways include a person moving when the target moves, communicating when the target moves, avoiding eye contact with the target, making sudden turns or stops, or even using hand signals to communicate with other members of a surveillance team or criminal gang. Surveillants also can tip off the person they are watching by entering or leaving a building immediately after the person they are watching or simply by running in street clothes. Sometimes, people who are experiencing the burn syndrome exhibit almost imperceptible behaviors that the target can sense more than observe. It may not be something that can be articulated, but the target just gets the gut feeling that there is something wrong or odd about the way a certain person behaves. Innocent bystanders who are not watching someone usually do not exhibit this behavior or trigger these feelings.
The U.S. government often uses the acronym “TEDD” to illustrate the principles that can be used to identify surveillance conducted by counterintelligence agencies, but these same principles also can be used to identify criminal and terrorist surveillance. TEDD stands for time, environment, distance and demeanor. In other words, if a person sees someone repeatedly over time, in different environments and over distance, or someone who displays poor surveillance demeanor, then that person can assume he or she is under surveillance. If a person is being specifically targeted for a planned attack, he or she might be exposed to the time, environment and distance elements of TEDD, but if the subway car the person is riding in or the building where the person works is the target, he or she might only have the demeanor of the attacker to key on because the attacker will not be seen by the observer over time and distance or in different environments. Time, environment and distance are also not applicable in cases involving criminals who behave like ambush predators. Therefore, when we are talking about criminal surveillance, demeanor is the most critical of the four elements. Demeanor will also often work in tandem with the other elements, and poor demeanor will often help the target spot the surveillant at different times and places.
In a situation where a building or subway car is targeted for an attack rather than a specific person, there are still a number of demeanor indicators that can be observed just prior to the attack. Such indicators include people wearing unseasonable clothing in warm weather (such as trench coats); people with odd bulges under their clothing or wires sticking out from their clothing; people who are sweating profusely, mumbling or fidgeting; people who appear to be attempting to avoid security personnel; and people who simply appear to be out of place. According to many reports, suicide attackers will often exhibit an intense stare as they approach the final stage of their attack plan. While not every person exhibiting such behavior is a suicide bomber or shooter, avoiding such a person rarely has much of a downside.
One technique that can be helpful in looking for people conducting long-term surveillance is to identify places that provide optimal visibility of a critical place the surveillant would want to watch (for example, the front door of a potential target’s residence or office). These optimal observation points are often referred to as “perches” in surveillance jargon. Perches can then be watched for signs of hostile surveillance like people who don’t belong there, people making demeanor mistakes, etc.
This principle can also be extended to critical points along frequently and predictably traveled routes. Potential targets can conduct simple pattern and route analyses to determine where along the route they are most predictable and vulnerable. Route analysis looks for vulnerabilities, or choke points, on a particular route of travel. Choke points have two main characteristics: They are places where the potential target must travel and where rapid forward motion is difficult (such as sharp, blind curves). When a choke point provides a place where hostiles can wait with impunity for their victims and have access to a rapid escape route, the choke point becomes a potential attack site. These characteristics are found in attack sites used by highly professional kidnap/assassination teams and by criminal “ambush predators” such as carjackers. While the ideal tactic is to vary routes and times to avoid predictable locations, this is also difficult and disruptive and is warranted only when the threat is high. A more practical alternative is for potential targets to raise their situational awareness a notch as they travel through such areas at predictable times in order to be on the alert for potential hostile surveillance or signs of an impending attack.
The fact that operatives conducting surveillance over an extended period of time can change their clothing and wear hats, wigs or other light disguises — and use different vehicles or license plates — also demonstrates why watching for mistakes in demeanor is critical. Of course, the use of disguises is also an indicator that the surveillants are more advanced and therefore potentially more dangerous. Because of a surveillant’s ability to make superficial changes in appearance, it is important to focus on the things that cannot be changed as easily as clothing or hair, such as a person’s facial features, build, mannerisms and gait. Additionally, while a surveillant can change the license plate on a car, it is not as easy to alter other aspects of the vehicle such as body damage (scratches and dents). Paying attention to small details can produce significant results over time.
As we noted last week — and it is worth repeating here — paying attention to details and practicing situational awareness does not mean being paranoid or obsessively concerned about security. When people live in a state of paranoia, looking for a criminal behind every bush, they become mentally and physically exhausted. Not only is this dangerous to one’s physical and mental health, but security also suffers because it is very hard to be aware of your surroundings when you are exhausted. Therefore, while it is important to watch for the watchers, watching should not involve feelings of fear or paranoia. Knowing what is occurring in the world around them empowers people and gives them a sense of security and well-being, allowing them to spot the good things in life as well as the potential dangers.
This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
STRATFOR delivers critical intelligence and perspective through:
Situation Reports: Snapshots of global breaking news
Analysis: Daily reports that assess key world events and their significance
Quarterly & Annual Forecasts: Rigorous predictions of what will happen next
Multimedia: Engaging videos and information-rich interactive maps
Intelligence Guidance: Internal memos that guide STRATFOR staff in their intelligence-gathering operations in the immediate days ahead
STRATFOR’s chief executive officer, Dr. George Friedman, is a widely recognized international affairs expert and author of numerous books, including The Next 100 Years (Doubleday, 2009), America’s Secret War (Doubleday, 2005), and The Future of War (Crown, 1996).
STRATFOR members include individuals, FORTUNE 100 corporations, government agencies and other organizations around the world. For more info go to www.stratfor.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
