This is a VERY interesting article that will help you understand the difference between science, junk science and News. (Unfortunately the last two are closely related)

http://www.bazian.com/pdfs/HowToReadANewsStory_vers03_26Nov08.pdf

Pay close attention to the part about 'Conference Abstract.' That means it hasn't been peer reviewed yet to see if the idea actually holds up or has more holes than a spaghetti strainer.

Peer review is not blogging, nor is it Kipling-esque monkeys dancing around chanting "This is true, we all say so." It's rough. I often refer to the scientific process as getting 'jumped into a gang.' (The newcomer has to fight everyone in the gang to prove his worth to join.) If you come up with a scientific idea, there are a lot of other very smart people who are going to throw that idea a beating. If the idea stands up to this smack down, THEN and only then does science accept it as fact.

And that's what gives us junk science. Someone gets an idea, presents it as an abstract and the news prints it as though it is carved in stone and already scientifically approved. In fact, a big grumble among scientific type is when someone goes running to the press to get their idea published as THE TRUTH (tm) before it has been fully tested and peer reviewed.

Here's an important thing you may not know. Do you know the difference between
a hypothesis
a theory
and a law?

It's got everything to with being tested and found to stand up (surviving the smackdown).

A hypothesis is an idea that a smart person came up with about a subject.

The dictionary says: A proposition or set of propsitions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specific group of phenomena either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation.

In other words, it's an idea. An idea that you need to check out to see if it's true.

And that DOESN'T mean it's true because a bunch of people want it to be true. In other words just because someone says "this is how it is" doesn't make it so. This is where the news and publishing industries really muck up people's understanding of science and promote junk science. (As in don't bother going through peer review, run out to the press or get a book published ... folks will believe it's true because you have letters behind your name OR because you're getting them all riled up).

A theory on the other hand is a hypothesis that is halfway through the being jumped in process. There's been some people beating on it for a while and it has withstood what has been thrown at it so far.  Does it work here? Yes. Does it work there? Yeppers. Does it still hold true over there? We don't know, we haven't tested it under those conditions yet.

If it falls down over there, then it's back to the drawing board with the theory.

There is however an interesting exception. That is the Theory of Evolution. There is NO theory that has been as well tested, reviewed, studied and tried to figure out than evolution. It works, they know it works and they got the proof. So why is it still a theory?

Because they haven't figured out HOW it works.

That's the booger. Does evolution work over time or in giant spurts? Uh... yes. Okay so how does it know to do which one? We don't know ... that's why it's still a theory. 

Laws however, are senior gang members. They've not only been jumped in, but they've kicked some ass. It's been tested and proved under all conditions (over here, over there and way over yonder) and found that it works. Most importantly scientists know HOW it works.

For example: Force = mass x  acceleration pretty much works everywhere until you get to quantum. In the physical world laws work reliably every time.

Here's a big issue though, courtesy of the media, news and publishing houses you're going to hear a LOT of hypothesis presented as if they were laws.

In fact, when a person with letters behind his name makes a statement of A=B, unless this idea has gone through the scientific process then what you're hearing is a hypothesis, NOT the undisputed truth.  But see new sources don't care about that slow and boring scientific process, that takes too long. They want to get their story out NOOOOOWWWWW!

So they're going to make it sound as if this "Hey, I got an idea" is as solid as the laws of gravity.

The link
http://www.bazian.com/pdfs/HowToReadANewsStory_vers03_26Nov08.pdf
gives you some ideas how to tell the difference. Because a study is just a tool in the whole peer review process. It isn't proof positive. Which also should make you kind of wonder about people who use studies to promote their agenda.

Note: One of my gifts (although you might also call it a curse) is the ability to see a subject from different perspectives. To my twisted way of thinking, a subject is never about just one thing. This is a common myopia I have found where people look at subjects it's from their perspective and nothing else. Whether this mono-perspective is race, idealism, psuedo-intellectualism, the bottom line or gaining/retaining their slice of the pie that's as far as they WANT to look. If you are such a person, then I advise you to stop reading right now, because this blog is just going to piss you off. There ain't no simple answer because, it's one HELL of a complex problem.

There is a term that just drives me batshit ...
      "That's a Mexican's work."

What's most appalling to me is the people I've heard it the most from are Blacks, Asians, Indians and Semitics. Most white people in the US are far too nervous about the repercussions of blatantly making such a 'racist' statement. But that doesn't mean the attitude isn't there. While they live it, they just don't say it.

As a gross generalization, there are ALL kinds of labor "Americans" hold themselves to be too good to perform. And I DO mean Americans, because it has nothing to do with skin color. Hell, I've even heard Mexican Americans refer to these jobs as "wetback work."

The bottom line is the person feels he or she is too good to do such demeaning (and often hard and filthy) work -- especially for such low pay(1).

While researching on a different subject, I came across a comment by expert regarding the effects of TV and mass media on American culture. His observation was about the incredibly high expectations many people have (this being influenced by popular culture, commercialism and a never ending barrage of media). In short, these people expect better than what they have created for themselves. As an example of this concept, I'll point out ads in the US that use the slogan: "Get the (fill in the blank) you deserve!"

A few years ago, I had a discussion with both educators and businessmen about kids' expectations. From the educators the common expression was just because the kid turned in the paper, he or she expected an "A." From the employers the grumping was about the expectation to step into high paying jobs fresh out of school -- especially in hi-tech and management positions.

What I personally have seen is a combination of high expectations for everyone else and -- at the same time --  extremely low performance standards for oneself. This is not only common in the workplace, but extending into everyday life, especially when it comes to what they expect of YOU. (And why you don't have the right to expect the same of them.) But, for the moment, let's keep this idea being about jobs and labor.

Speaking as a customer, I really prefer talking to customer support in Manila and Bombay. I get better service, problem resolution and friendlier attitudes calling around to the other side of the world. Locally, I am shunted around between people who often tell me that it isn't their problem.

Recently, I called one of my service providers, and the little white S.O.B on the other end of the phone hung up on me. He got pissy with me for not having  service ticket number. This was after I told him I had used the company's on-line form and hadn't received a return confirmation ... that's why I didn't have a service ticket number. He said "Don't use THAT form, send an email to ... " then * click!* This snotty little bastard is NOT doing me a favor by answering his phone and doing his job. Oh yeah, and for the record, this was a software company's on-line IT help page that didn't work. AND I have to pay $125 a year for support.

Oh yeah, and in case you are an apologist, I learned a loooong time ago that you get far better customer service if you are polite, patient and helpful in helping them solve your problem.  Being rude, obnoxious, angry and throwing a hissy fit over the phone does NOT help. But, even being polite and friendly often doesn't help when it comes to dealing with service providers who HAVEN'T outsourced to other countries.

So that's me talking as a customer.

Speaking as a co-worker, when it came to a 'Git-R-Done' attitude, most of the people I worked with didn't have it. It annoyed the hell out of me the times where I and a crew managed to get the most done (especially nasty jobs) I was often the only American-born individual in the crew. And I preferred it because I hated having to listen to the bitching and whining about 'how hard the work was' and putting up with the kagging(2) of most native-born workers. The guys from other lands whom I worked shoulder and elbow with had a bigger and better work ethic than the locals.

Speaking as a boss, there is a huge problem with the local work force. When you have employees who think they are doing you a favor by just showing up and are disgruntled when you have the audacity to expect them to actually work in order to be paid, you have a problem. Never mind showing up on time (or even showing up at all and  them still expecting to have a job), it is not uncommon for the performance standards to be 'do as little as you can' and then only meet the minimum requirements when you do work. Of course, then bitch and whine about how unfair the boss is for demanding higher standards than slacking.

These also were the times I was told most often "that's Mexican work" because an individual just didn't want to do a particular hard and nasty job. It was too demeaning for the individual to stoop to doing that particular task.  In short, that person is just too good to do that sort of work. On many occasions I told the person to stand there and I did the job myself ... and then I turned around and fired the person on the spot. (The combination of refusing to perform job duties, insubordination and the fact that I performed the job myself usually protected me and the company from wrongful firing and discrimination charges)

Add to this, there's an extremely American attitude; that there is a safety net. One of the things that makes this country great is you REALLY have to work at starving to death in this country. Sooner or later, the safety net is going to kick in. There is always a way to get by. It may not be a stellar existence, but you won't die of famine or drought. Unfortunately, a great many people translate this into "I don't have to do anything I don't want to," including work. Whether they are working or not, doesn't matter, someone will take care of them. Don't think this attitude exists? Then explain to me  the two early-20s "kids" I heard say, "Okay, so here's the bet. The one who can get fired first wins."

Oh yeah, and if the person knows how to 'play the system,' you have someone who will sue you for firing him. So in many cases getting fired IS part of how the person gets by.

Now let me once again strongly stress, although I am obviously talking about lower socio-economic class thinking and jobs, this has NOT been a race issue. I've seen this kind of behavior from people of all races.

It, is VERY much an issue of native born and acclimated to living in the US. Hell, I've had day laborers turn down a day's work at $20 an hour because they don't want to work for that low a price. Hell, they'll take the day off and come back tomorrow to get $50 an hour working under the table. Cheap help doesn't really exist anymore.

Having said all of this ... this 'scut work' HAS to be done. But what do you do when you have people, who have no qualifications to do a better job, convinced that 'they are too good' to do this kind of labor?

And now, let's step out of the lower socio-economic levels in include middle and upperclass people. People who -- despite their claims at egalitarianism -- not ONLY are waaaaaay to good to do this kind of work, but throw a caniption fit when prices rise (think of the outrage when gasoline reached $4 a gallon). I mean gawd damn it, it is their RIGHT to have low cost essentials and services. Not only are you supposed to provide them, but for way cheaper than what you're doing now(3).

So how do you meet this unrealistic expectation. Where do you get cheap, hardworking labor to do the scut work that the locals believe they are too good to do?

The answer is simple, you import people from other countries who ARE willing to work that hard for that low pay. And when THEY catch on that there's no 'need' to work for that little, you import some more. Anyone beginning to see a problem here?

Then there are the contributions from the top side down. Companies... BIG companies ... hire illegal immigrants because they are cheaper, and a LOT less troublesome, than American laborers. If you fire an illegal for slacking, he'll go get another job. If you fire an American, you're likely to get sued.

Not only is illegal labor cheaper, but the problems of life can be shunted off to someone else. A corporation doesn't have to offer health insurance because they know that the uninsured immigrant workers will take their family to the ER for health issues. Hell, I know of one supermarket chain that allowed a theft ring to function. The laborers would steal products from the warehouse, sell them to black marketers. Who'd go around to the small ethnic markets selling the stolen products for a huge discount.  It turned out that the supermarket chain SAVED more money allowing the theft ring to function and taking insurance claims than it would have cost them to insure the warehouse employees. "Oh need medical help? Go to the ER." (4)


This is why I get so upset when I hear people screaming about the 'immigration problem.'  The problem isn't with the people who are coming in and doing the jobs. It's with the people who are here who AREN'T willing to do the jobs. People scream about immigrants taking jobs away from American workers, and then when a shitty, dirty and low paying job opens up, TRY to find a reliable person to do it.

Over the last 20 years, I've copped a real attitude about the American work ethic and sense of entitlement. The bottom line is, in order for society to function, shit has to be shoveled, dirt moved, garbage sorted, skanky jobs done, food need to be cooked, dishes need to washed ... and for not that much money.

The problem is most folks have lost the stomach to do it themselves. So employers have import people who will do it for the lousy wages they're willing to pay.

So before you bitch to me about all these illegals and what they are doing to this country, take a hard look at all those things you think you're too good to do yourself AND that you think you shouldn't have to pay that much to get it done. Then tell me a better way to handle the pragmatic realities of keeping  a society of people who think they're too good to get dirty running.

Because I sure'n hell don't know the answer.

M

1)Years ago I pointed out that a huge appeal of being a drug dealer was that you work a minimum amount of hours and make more money than you do at a McDonald's.

People who don't want to understand this say, "But you won't get killed working at Micky Ds!" I say, "Yes you will because of all the drug addicts who will try and rob the place." You're going to get shot no matter what, so you might as well make a lot of money before it happens instead of flipping burgers.

2) Kagging is an old California Ren Faire term. It isn't the same as "milking the job" (working slowly to draw it out). Kagging is pretending to work, with special emphasis on being 'too busy' doing something else to do any heavy lifting. It's not just laziness, it's letting your team mates carry your load, as well.

3) Take a look at the payscale of people who do jobs that risk their lives saving yours or protecting you, teaching your children or are the ones providing the actual service. While huge amounts of money are being poured into the fields, you'll find (like charities) most of the money is being siphoned long before it reaches these levels.

4) Now in their defense, I must also point out that government doesn't help this situation either. Insane taxing and regulation that hit companies from all sides, contibutes to leaving the companies no real choice but to do everything they can to reduce labor costs. That's why you pump your own gas, check yourself out at many stores and a host of other cost saving measures that we've come to take for granted.(4). Hell, my biological father was forced to sell his mid-sized company to an out of state corporation because of the taxes and workman's comp fees the state of California levied. He couldn't stay in business in California.

Unfortunately, what screws the sympathy for most corporations is the incredible salaries, benefits and bonuses that corporate managers pay themselves. That's another side of a larger problem. But before you go off on a "This is why we need to socialize" or go libertarian on me, realize that these companies DO an incredible job of supplying and distributing essential needs ... like WHY everything you see, touch and eat.

HTML clipboard

Let me start out by first saying I am politically non-Euclidean. In short, I do not believe the issues that confront U.S. can be solved with thinking that boils down to a sheet of paper with Us and Them written on different ends. If you believe your political ideology can solve all the problems of the world, I suggest you stop reading right here because what I'm going to say will just piss you off. Second, I am both a teacher and a professional writer. As such I am very aware of how words are used. And that includes the difference between just plain sloppiness of thought and poor word use vs. when it is deliberate word choice for manipulation. This isn't magic, it's not sign of psychic prowess.  It's a skill you develop when you make your living through words and teaching. Third, let me warn you, this is a long article. You might want to go get a cup of coffee and your thinking cap.

Got a cuppa? Brain cells front and center? Good because we're going to do the equivalent of looking behind stage at performance. Stepping out of the audience and going backstage you get to see an entirely different side of the production. And the stage show we're going to be looking at is the media -- especially the so-called news media.

I recently got sent a link to the 2009 Project Censored list http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

The first story about 1,000,00 Iraqis Killed by the U.S. Occupation hit a hot button with me, buy it also tipped me off as to why these 'stories' were not censored, but generally ignored by the media.

Let's start with the use of the word by. Not 'during, not 'as a result of' or even 'because of,' but 'by.' I have personally encountered one of the ways this study has been interpreted. I had a woman look me in the face and tell me the U.S. has killed a million people in Iraq. I asked her if she meant that U.S. soldiers had gone through neighborhoods and committed systematic genocide. I found it hard to believe that the entire U.S. military would go in and personally pull the triggers. Because when you say the "U.S. has killed a million people" that IS what you are talking about.

At first she said yes, but when I pointed out that:
 a) there'd be a revolt by the troops (professional soldiers are not genocidal maniacs)
 b) the media -- which was embedded with the troops (largely courtesy of Larry Flint, BTW) -- would have reported homicides by our troops
 c) I have friends on the ground there, know many who have returned and none of them mentioned military genocide.

She grudgingly admitted that, well, maybe it was the Iraqis doing most of the killing of other Iraqis -- but it was still our fault. She then told me that by removing Hussein we were the cause of all this bloodshed. That meant that all these deaths were the SAME as if our own troops were pulling the trigger.

I was stunned. Not only was she using the word 'by,' but she even wanted to drop the word 'occupation.' In her insistence to condemn the U.S. involvement overseas, she'd totally brushed aside 1,400 years of hatred between Shiite and Sunni, ignored the political and social history of Iraq, the wars between power factions, private militias, intertribal and racial hatred, as well as the fact that these religious militias had NO problem with the idea of picking up guns and shooting anyone who got in their way. Oh, yeah, and let us not forget the mafia-esque terror and control of neighborhoods that would make old-school Sicilian dons gulp in disbelief. According to her, it wasn't the Iraqis killing each other as they battled to become local warlords, settle scores and vendettas between factions or gangs and private armies terrorizing neighborhoods into submission ... it was the U.S.. Those poor innocent Iraqis were only kidnapping, killing, torturing, bombing or machine gunning each other as an expression of their outrage over U.S. occupation*.

In her mind, no matter WHAT, it was the U.S.'s fault. And she was willing to utterly ignore any and all the facts to the contrary. If she couldn't do that, then she was just as willing to dismiss them as irrelevant to her point. As far as she was concerned, the U.S. was responsible for pulling all those triggers and planting all those bombs as if U.S. troops had done it themselves. And where did she get those numbers?  Why from that report that the Project Censorship claimed had been censored of course. This report said it was so, so it must be so.

Oh just as an aside, I'd remembered hearing about this report in a news story. At the time my BS sensors went off, but after dealing with her, I would go look it up. I found it easily. Anyone else notice a glaring flaw in logic there? (Hint, if it was censored, how come it was mentioned in the media and so easily found?)

Nothing I said that evening swayed this woman from her belief that the US was engaged in genocide. I was reminded of something a friend of mine (who teaches logic at a University) repeatedly states in his classes:
If you've made up your mind before the facts, you are prejudiced
If you stubbornly refuse to change your mind no matter what the facts, you are bigoted
If you refuse to change the topic, you are a fanatic

When you see that kind of rabid determination to cling to an idea, you will see all kinds of facts, factors and realities thrown out and dismissed. And the first things to go out the window are mitigating factors, alternative perspectives and common sense. I've seen it time and time again among people pressing an agenda. To promote outrage and self-righteousness not only are the numbers inflated, terms confidently (and conveniently) redefined, words like 'estimated' used once and then never heard again (the estimate is presented as fact from then on), but other factors go unmentioned or are simply brushed aside as unimportant.

As another example, it isn't the drug dealing and usage, the prostitution, the associating with ultra macho and violent criminals, having sex with a homophobic, unstable Hispanic male (with a criminal history of violence) under the guise of being a female that got a transgender killed up in Greeley, Colorado last year. She was killed because she was a tranny, dontcha know?

The transexual community (of which I have some friends) was in an uproar. I was called in on a transgender forum to explain that, while the gender/sex issue was a factor in what happened,  hanging out with dangerous and violent people is more likely to get you killed. In fact, that's a far more reliable way to get your ticket punched than your plumbing.  'No, no, no,'  forum members countered, 'all that other stuff didn't matter, she was killed because she was different!'

When you encounter that rabid a denial of logic, facts and other considerations, you don't have truth, you have an agenda. And a supposed 'proof' of this agenda is the news. Any time something happens, people grab the story and say "SEE? THIS IS WHY WE'RE RIGHT!"

Now that I have you thinking about how the news is being (ab)used, let's get move onto how the so-called 'news' is being presented.  There are all kinds of claims and complaints about how stories are reported. The most common are media bias, censorship and cover ups. It seems the more Euclidian you are in your politics the more you complain about how the biased towards the other side a particular news source is. Rather than get into that mudslinging contest, I'm going to look at some fundamentals about the issue. (This is the backstage view I was talking about).

Let's start with the big one: Censorship. Here is where I have to say we have to be cautious about our word choices. Whether the media decides to run a story or not has a LOT more to do with business decisions than censorship. You can bet your sweet bippy advertising and subscription income are huge factors considered in whether or not stories run. That is a flat out statement of fact. And it is about as much news as "you need to keep breathing to live."

And I will add this is a huge element of why I say you are being manipulated. And not just by the media, but also by people with agendas. But that's a little more hard to define and subjective so we'll stick with the more easily identified and defined concept of censorship to begin with.

I'd like to give you a little history lesson about the First Amendment, freedom of the press and what censorship really means. The reason the First Amendment was written was because censorship is exactly what was happening in colonial times. The English royalty was using its influence to instigate 'police raids' against people who'd pissed them off. 'Official sanctions' were deployed against people who printed not only scathing, insulting broadsheets about them, but also revealed double dealing, corruption and the money-making schemes they were involved in. Publish an accurate account of the kind of money-making scam the same person was involved in, and you might not live long enough to be put in prison. And it would be the local cops deployed against you under direct orders from the person you pissed off. (Incidentally, this misuse of law enforcement was also done by wealthy Americans using their influence.) Freedom of the press was designed to prevent government interference.

But also realize a lot of what was printed back then wasn't even news, it was smear campaigns, sensationalism and rumor. And this in even 'established' newspapers. This wasn't news, it was the most horrific version of blogging. Libelous columns were commonly used to attack your enemies -- and where it got real nasty was in politics. You want to read some nasty, vitriolic hate mongering? Read both pre-revolution rhetoric about the British Crown and post-revolution attacks on other political parties and opponents. It didn't matter if it was true, it was presented AS news. But, as nasty and libelous as it got, the government was prohibited from taking action against the press under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Does this mean censorship hasn't happened? Of course not. One of the biggest cases of actual government censorship ever seen in the U.S. was under Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. (Amazingly enough, I've heard it argued that one of the contributing reasons why the South lost was because it had too much democracy and freedom of the press.) But then again, Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and threw many U.S. citizens in prison because he suspected them of being spies. He also had imprisoned a number of anti-war activists and agitators to shut them up. Yep. That's officially censorship, and we have had it happen here in the U.S..

We've also had local government try to prohibit publications of  certain information and contents. This, however, is usually based in public outcry over what was considered 'offensive material.' Here is where things get tricky, it's the PEOPLE demanding that the government pass laws prohibiting the sale of certain magazines, not the government deciding to act on its own. (Keep that idea in mind next time you think the government is up to something).  Enter Larry Flint, who -- love him or hate him -- has done more for free speech and freedom of the press than any pundit or advocate I know of. Then comes the  Washington Post and the NY Times. Both of whom also ended up in the Supreme Court. Thereby establishing the precedent of  "If they can get it, they can publish it."

Over all though, instead of actual censorship, the government tends to rely on just lying to the press about what is going on. Remember, actual censorship means active intervention from the government in the suppression of information.  It's the difference between lying by saying "Nothing's happening" and the cops kicking in your door in the middle of the night.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's look at something that ain't so cut and dried. We here in the States love to piss and moan about the quality of the news media. This would have more credence if  the ratings didn't drop like a paralyzed buzzard if 'sports' isn't the biggest part of our evening newscast.  (Stop and think about this: How many news channels do you have in your cable package vs. the number of sports channels?) The public is voting with their remotes. If you want to stay in the media business, you do have to pander to both ends of your money spectrum. Keep your advertisers AND your readers or viewers happy. Again, think breathing when it comes to a necessary fact of life.

Right now, we have extremely biased news that seems to be designed to pander to different ends of the political spectrum. But, and I cannot stress this enough, that is what the public likes! That is what gives you the highest ratings, NOT fair and balanced reporting of all sides of an issue. The circus gives you the best feedback. The public loves strum und drang, hysterics, outrage and conflict. While we're at it, it also seems that people also get off on name calling and insulting, whether overt or covert

It's safe to say that most news sources are picked not because of their neutrality of reporting the news. Instead they are chosen because the source panders to an individual's biases and ideologies.  So you can bet your bottom dollar the story selection, writing style and amount of time given to alternative view points is going to seriously slanted in towards the audience's biases.

Let me stress is not, repeat NOT, censorship.

Here in the U.S.  if you don't like the way news is being presented, you are more than invited to go out and start your own newspaper, TV station or news source. You can report on whatever you like and -- as long as it isn't an outright lie -- write it any way you want it. Has any government agency kicked in the doors of the offices of the people running The Censorship Project, shot them, or beaten and thrown them into prison, confiscated their computers (used to be printing presses) and trashed the offices? No.  Well then that isn't censorship.

Now here's an interesting concept. For well over 200 years, 'newspapers' were about as accurate, fair and unbiased as the National Enquirer and extreme left or right blogs. They were indeed written to inflame the populace by misrepresenting what was really happening AND reinforcing pre-existing biases and agendas. If I can draw an analogy to modern times, blogging was being presented as news. (And if I might insert a personal opinion among the facts that I have been presenting, this is where I see our media heading once again.) In time, however, there rose a counter philosophy of 'fair and balanced,' journalistic ethics and emphasis on reporting both sides of the story. The idea was news was news, entertainment was entertainment, and advertising was advertising. Many people (including my wife who ran a newspaper for 20 years) look back on this as the 'Golden Age of Journalism.' Was it always practiced, well ... no. But the ideal was there, even though reality often fell short.

It is arguable that this was a period of self-governance by the media. However, as times changed -- and yes, this includes the corporations assuming more and more control of both the electronic and print media -- so too did the nature of the business. And this includes business paradigms dictating the reporting and slanting of the news. There is an old -- but well-worth-reading -- book called "Breaking the News" that looks at business, politics and the influences of technology and popularity on the print and electronic media.

And hell yes, it's a business. Not only that, but it intends to STAY in business. And you don't do that by ignoring all the elements I've talked about thus far. You don't necessarily pander to the lowest common denominator, but you sure'n hell pander to your base. If you don't, you don't stay in business.

Now, let's throw in another fun-filled fact. You can be sued for slander and libel in this country (slander is spoken, libel is literature). While the ultimate defense against these charges is the truth (yes, the person really did do that) that still doesn't mean you aren't going to get your ass dragged into court. Even IF what you wrote is true, you're going to end up in court before it is proven as such. If what you wrote has factual back up, you can document everything that you put into print AND you've kept yourself from making stuff up -- you have a good chance of coming out of the lawsuit ahead.

But that doesn't mean you still weren't sued. Even if you can prove what you said or wrote was true -- time, money and a whole lot of work went into protecting your butt.

Being sued -- especially by a big company -- is a major consideration for what you finally see in the news. As a business, you can be destroyed for running a story. And it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. A real problem is that one aspect of the U.S. court system -- while originally set up to protect the 'little guy' from retribution for bringing suit against the 'big guy' -- can be used to destroy both someone AND a business. Do you have a corporation that is doing something wrong and a paper or other news source reports it? Get your lawyers ready because you're going to be sued.

With this in mind, take a look at the list of stories in Project Censored and ask yourself: How many of these would have ended up in court had a mainstream media source tried to present them as 'news?' Remember, while op/ed and blogging is a person giving his or her opinion on a set of facts, news is supposed to be the facts and truth. The question I have is not how many of these 'stories' were censored from an outside source, but, instead, were deemed too shaky, improvable and dangerous BY the media sources themselves?

As in: This is an allegation by a group, but if we run this story as if it were facts, we're going to get our asses sued off.

Oh yeah, and other than the risk of getting sued if you print false or made up information, if you go too far off the deep end with shaky stories you blow your credibility . Remember, even if a source is slanted to the biases of its followers, it must maintain its own credibility with that base. Go too far and a majority will abandon you (read, stop giving you money).

Okay, so why is all this important? Let's start with the problem I have with the very name 'Censorship Project.' Censorship is a word that elicits a strong, knee-jerk, emotional response in the American mind. As in, let's talk Drew Weston's "The Political Brain" here. Once you kick someone into an emotional state, their logical brain ain't driving the bus no more. MRIs have shown the limbic system goes all aflutter when certain topics are discussed, and yet the people being tested ALL swore they were being reasonable and rational.

Right up front, the name has blown the credibility with a number of people, while at the same time, triggering a positive emotional response in others. There will be people who go "YES! The big evil corporate media and government have been censoring information and lying to me!"  There also will be the "frickin' fruitcake conspiracy theorists are at it again" crowd. Other folks will immediately dismiss it as a liberal propaganda machine. Still other people, who do know what the word means are going to look at the name and say "You're stretching it there, bucko."

What I'm saying there will be a strong emotional response to the term -- no matter what your leanings.

But you need to wonder about how fair, unbiased and -- most of all -- accurate a source is that starts off, NOT only using a hot-button term, but misusing it. And if you spend any time roaming around the site, you'll notice something else. Not only are they misusing the word, but they're trying to subtly redefine the censorship to mean something else. It's been my experience that when you encounter this it's usually to further their agenda and pander to their base.

Straight up, this information not being carried by mainstream media is NOT an act of censorship BY the government. But once the word 'censor' is used, the idea of censorship is planted. In fact, if you look through the site the idea of censorship further promoted by lumping the government and business into one big monolith of deliberate censorship, oppression of free speech and conspiracy. That simply is not the case. There are a lot of different reasons why stories aren't run AND there's a whole lot to be said about the credibility of a lot of these sources. But if you want to believe in a conspiracy of censorship, it reinforces said belief.

So we have to ask ourselves are business decisions based on popular demand, legal repercussions, editorial standards and preserving a news source's credibility really censorship?

Or are they what they are? Let's even go so far as to use the term 'self-censorship' -- which has a totally different connotation than 'censorship. The line between legitimate business decisions and self-censorship is -- at best -- murky. But if you squeal censorship because someone didn't run a story, it often gets people to overlook the fact that the story itself is as shaky as the claim of censorship. For example, the 'story' that the U.S. has killed a million people in Iraq. I DO remember hearing about the organization making that claim in a news story. But what was also reported in the same story was the counterpoint that the organization was rampantly disregarding facts (like the Sunnis, Shiites and religious militias were actually pulling the trigger) in order to blame the U.S.

Now lest you think I'm picking on liberals, I know several conservative sources that are just as bad at this. So it is very much a common problem. Common enough for me to say that blogging, op/ed and yellow journalism is -- in my opinion -- replacing news. And pretty much everyone is guilty. Good luck finding a fair, equally representative and unbiased source of information.

Yet people believe that what they are being told from these biased sources IS news.

Worse, they want to believe that it's 'the truth.' I'm sorry, but I don't consider either Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore a reliable source of news. But right now, I am having a hell of a time finding news sources that are not caught up in the loop of creating the news. What's most scary to me is that the media is reporting on itself. As if what they have to say is the real news.

For example, I asked an international e-mail list I run about media reporting on the Tea Party. In case you missed it, there were hundreds of simultaneous rallies across the U.S. about taxes.  And that is NO small feat of organization.  Numbers range from 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 people participated

But here's why I asked people to watch for the coverage. I personally received two notifications of the events from people who are polar opposites from each other politically. One is so politically conservative I refer to him as 'right of Attila the Hun.' The other was just as far the other direction on the liberal scale. I say that he thinks Karl Marx was a wimp. That struck me as odd. Because those two agreeing on the idea of the Tea Party was not unlike Jews and Muslims dancing cheek-to-cheek over the topic of religion. What was also of interest was the fact that the organizers of the event insisted it was non-partisan.

I was interested to see how the rallies were covered by the various media outlets. What I observed didn't make me happy. The reason I'm not happy was it was immediately sucked into the old liberal vs. conservative shtick by the media.

Straight up, I HAVEN'T read one mainstream news article on the subject that didn't quote Paul Krugman, the New York Times op/ed writer, who dismissed it as an 'astroturf' movement (a fake grassroots movement). This one guy said it, and all of a sudden that term became the gospel as to why you shouldn't pay attention to those crackpots. Overnight, the allegation became a fact. The term 'astroturf' was used as the reason to dismiss the entire movement as a conservative plot.

The reason I was unhappy with how it was covered is that most coverage of the event wasn't about the rallies themselves. A majority of the stories I read were overwhelmingly focused on opposing pundits claiming it was or wasn't a conservative movement. The actual participants of the rallies, their political ideology and their reasons for being there were functionally ignored. In other words, the stories tended to be written "3,000 people showed up at the capitol to protest taxes. liberal blah, blah, blah, blah conservative blah, blah, blah, blah."

Here's something else to think about, the ideas was originally  called 'astroturf' before the rallies ever happened. Two day earlier to be exact. However, that term was universally used to dismiss the movement. In many news sources I read, the accusation of it being a manufactured movement was attributed to other sources. Some articles did attribute the term directly to Krugman, but many wrote it as 'critics claim it is less a grassroots than an astroturf movement' or quoted someone who also called it astroturf. 

Is it just me or is dismissing something as 'manufactured' more credible if the critics aren't  themselves all using the same terms and canned rhetoric?

My point is you can still use the term to dismiss the event without revealing the partisan bias of the original source. Why is that interesting? Because the original op/ed piece is downright degrading to Republicans and dismissive of the whole movement because there were very strong conservative elements involved. And yes, Fox News and many other conservative advocates were banging the drum about it. However, the people who were organizing the rallies repeatedly stated that it was nonpartisan. And the attendance of my two politically Euclidean friends support that contention.

Whether it was or wasn't  a plot by the other side isn't the issue. What I want to point out is how quickly was the whole subject assimilated back into the dueling Borg collectives of liberal vs. conservative. (There's a great political cartoon there.)

I'd like turn your attention to the book Breaking the News. In discussing the business realities of the media, the author talks some points that you really need to think about when it comes to how things work in the real world. He mentioned:
 1) the need to ALWAYS stay in front of the camera or Internet, magazine, etc (Thereby making a celebrity of a pundit, blogger or newsperson)
 2) the constant race to break the story first
 3) how under these circumstances actual investigative journalism and research is impossible
 4) how it is also impossible for someone to be informed on EVERY topic you are 'reporting' on
 5) the counter to this was to always have a 'shtick' that the person in front of the camera (or blogsphere) returns to

That last one is critical because it allows the person to respond to ANY subject and seem knowledgeable about it. For example, instead of actually knowing anything about the subject, the celebrity can ask, "How you do you think (fill in the blank) will affect this administration?" Education, welfare reform, global warming ... you can sound intelligent and well informed on any topic IF you bring it back to your shtick. And the viewers or readers won't even notice.

I'm going to suggest that a huge part of the problem with our current media (rolling news, blogsphere, op/ed, pundits, etc all into one). They're doing this very thing and most people aren't even noticing that what they are being given is not news, but opinion. And the shtick that is EXTREMELY popular is liberal vs. conservative. They don't have to report the news anymore, all they have to report is the goings on of those OTHER people and why they're wrong.

I'm further going to suggest that we ourselves have become such trained monkeys in that all it takes is someone to walk up and say 'liberal' or 'conservative,' and we immediately drop into our emotional brain. (The Political Brain). So I strongly suggest you look for
a) these shticks
b) opinion being presented as facts
c) what a particular source ISN'T telling you about the subject
d) how much time is spent presenting one side of an issue vs. opposing sides

The last one is important. My wife had an editorial standard of "a good story pisses everyone off equally." Because it meant that people were ticked that you gave as much time to all sides. If one side was happy then that meant you'd biased the story in their favor. Often what you'll see in biased reporting is the pretense of fair and balanced. After 15 paragraphs pro something, there will be one or two lines from the other side.

Ask yourself, is this news or is this a business decision to pander to a bias?

In closing, there is something I want you to think about. Believe it or not, I was at ground zero with a freedom of speech case that almost went to the Supreme Court (no, not Hustler magazine ... although I have had my books reviewed by them). One of my publishers, Paladin Press, was being sued because they'd published a book called "Hitman" that a contract killer had ...well, literally ... done a killing by the book. Paladin was defending the publishing of the book under the First Amendment. And incidentally had the NY Times, Time Warner and a lot of other major publishing sources filing friends of the court briefs in Paladin's favor. Well with all of this going on, 60 Minutes was doing a story on the case.

Another publisher of my works advised the owner of Paladin, Peder Lund, NOT to talk to 60 Minutes. Now mind you this guy had been a cameraman for 60 Minutes. He told Peder, "I don't care how smart you think you are. These people are professionals at spinning the story the way they want to." Peder did it anyway and, basically, was crucified. (The same feature included a clip from my DVD Surviving a Street Knife Attack where I was shown slashing a piece of meat. Now mind you, it was a clip where I was showing the danger of a knife. But without the audio, it was a REALLY scary scene. Amazingly enough, the audio wasn't run on the 60 Minutes piece.) I'd like to leave you with the 'why' behind the advice to Peder.

If you think you are too smart to be manipulated by both the mainstream media AND the smaller more extreme sources, you're just the kind of person they're looking for. Because you can be manipulated into your monkey brain. It IS both an art and science they practice of triggering your biases and getting you emotional, instead of logical. They are indeed professionals and it is their business.

M

*She also conveniently overlooked the fact that the reason these groups WEREN'T doing it under Hussein was that his group of thugs were nastier than the then warring factions. You may want to fight the other guy, but Hussein's boys would kill you both.

Marc MacYoung

©2009

The link to the nuts and bolts stuff is at the bottom of the page. But before you go there, there as some things you might want to consider about this subject.

I was watching a documentary on movie director Oliver Stone. They were discussing Stone's movie "Natural Born Killers" and someone mentioned that the movie was misunderstood. If you remember, there was an outcry about the movie glorifying crime and violence. This guy said the movie was not a glorification of violence. In fact, he claimed it had been a condemnation of the media for doing just that. Specifically, it was about how the media makes stars out of violent people, thereby encouraging them to commit more and more acts.

I have some first hand experience with this idea. The first time I was shot at (when I was 14) was from a car. The last time I was shot at was from a car. In the twenty years in between, at least half of the bullets directed at me came from cars. In short, drive by shootings were just a fact of life from where I'm from. While they weren't an everyday thing, they weren't uncommon either.

However, in the '90s there was a drug war going on in South Central Los Angeles. The Crips and the Bloods were the equivalent of modern day cartels and they were busy shooting each other up. What didn't get a lot of media coverage was the drug trafficking angle. What did get a lot of coverage was the carnage. That was when the media adapted a "If it bleeds it leads" editorial policy.

And drive by shootings went through the roof.

Oh yeah, realize that 'drug wars' is a misnomer.They aren't like actual wars with pitched battles between armies. What they are closer to is two sets of insurgents battling each other. Mostly it's hit and run trying to pick away at the other side -- with innocent civilians being the ones who bleed the most. A lot of the people hurt in those drive by shootings weren't even involved, they were -- to use a term from gang parlance of the time -- mushrooms. Like mushrooms that pop up on the lawn, they were just there to get mowed down. It was the innocent bystander dying -- these mushrooms -- that made drive bys 'news worthy.'

And quite frankly, I'm not just talking about callousness of the shooters. It wasn't a gang member, but the news director of a television station who -- upon hearing of a multiple person homicide just blocks away -- exclaimed loudly to the news room "SWEET!" If it bleeds it leads, folks.

I'm not entirely blaming the media for the increase of drive by shootings. After all there WAS a drug war and you are talking about violent dysfunction criminal assholes pulling the trigger. But I will draw your attention to the 'star effect' of the If-it-bleeds-it-leads policy.

After machine gunning a house or business (and killing others than just the target) gang members would rush home to see how many news programs THEIR murdering people appeared on. The more stations that covered it, the more bragging rights you got. And quite frankly, the more 'mushrooms' you got the greater the coverage.

Does this sound sick and twisted? Good.

But you need to realize something, there are sick and twisted people out there who hunger for their '15 minutes of fame.' And these days, many of them don't care if it costs them their lives. See quite frankly, 'what's inside of their heads' is such a dark and twisted snake pit that preserving it isn't all that appealing.

On the other hand, going out in a blaze of glory shows that they are not weak, twisted and useless. This has great appeal. And it has the added benefit of hurting the world they blame for their own screwed up existence.

But I really want you to pay attention to the fame angle. Because going out slaughtering people beats plain suicide hands down. For one blazing moment in time, THEY are going to be all over the media. In their minds, everyone will know who they are and recognize their power. The media coverage the rampage shooter's carnage creates this fame. That is a moment of power and glory that is far more important than their survival.

Incidentally, while this doesn't totally apply to suicide bombers, many of these elements are present -- including the well orchestrated local 'fame' of the bomber. It is done BY the organization sending the suicide bombers. When you see professionally manufactured posters, placards and signs extolling the virtues of the bombers, learn about the financial support of the bomber's family, walls of martyrs and children playing bomber and mourners in the streets, you realize these are not spontaneous acts of rage. They ARE part of a well orchestrated campaign to exploit this kind of personality.

As I've said, to this kind of dark and twisted personality, continued existence isn't that important. Striking out at the world and the ensuing fame is. (In fact I once heard an interesting statement "A serial kills the same person over and over again, a suicide murders the whole world at once. I don't know how accurate that is, but it is worth considering.) It's almost as if the attitude is if you can't do any good for the world, then hurt it. So instead of just shooting oneself one can share one's pain by hurting others and commit 'suicide by cop.'

And you know what? When one person does this and gets media coverage ... odds are another will do it too. That's why these spree shootings, rampage shootings, school shooters and what police call 'active shooters' tend to happen in clusters. One guy does it and another says "Hey, good idea!"

Now the simple truth is that these things are extremely rare. Every day BILLIONS of people go to school, work and shopping without some lunatic opening fire on them. Think about that, it's important.

What makes it seem like such a pressing danger is a blend of the media and our little emotional brains overwhelming our logical brain. In our little monkey brain (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/monkey_dance.htm ) we see something as both real and immediate even though it isn't close to us.

 Here's a question that most people will -- thankfully -- answer 'none' to. In the last year, how many rampage shootings have occurred 20 miles from where you are sitting right now? 50 miles? 100 miles? Try tweaking the question to 'In the last 20 years...."

See what I mean by saying they really aren't that common? You logically know this. As I write this there have been five shooting sprees and officer deaths
in the last month. NONE of them closer than a 1000 miles from where I
am sitting. And I'm sitting 40 miles away from Columbine High School.
(BTW, notice you can still remember that? That's fame) While our
logical minds know we are safe, I figure a lot of people's monkey
brains are pretty active.

And why not, when you turn on your TV, they seem purdy durned close don't they? Our emotional minds are uncomfortable with the threat of being caught in such a situation.

So maybe we might want to learn something to do about it?

The problem is, I've heard a number of 'policies' about what to do when a shooter shows up. Quite frankly, I'm not impressed.  These answers tend to be be more oriented towards the school/organization interests than keeping you from getting shot.

Having BEEN shot at on numerous occasions, I thought I'd offer up some advice based on first hand experience. Stuff that has actually worked to keep my hide from getting bullet holes in it.

You can find the nuts and bolts information about how to survive a shooting spree here
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/activeshooter.html

M..

 In order to truly get this point of the following story, you'll need to realize that I grew up in situational poverty, surrounded by generational poverty. In short, growing up, I learned to think differently than a lot of folks -- especially nice middle class people. A huge part of the process of me getting out of the 'streets' was to learn how to conduct myself like a 'civilian.' Much of this I discovered was learning what NOT to say, but I digress...

Many moons past when I was still learning how to conduct myself as an honest citizen, I was involved with a multi-million dollar business deal. Short version, a training group wanted to come into an existing facility with some specialized training for ... well specialized professions. This was specifically teaching protocols to police and military that would help keep them alive. Simply stated these same protocols were likely to result in some unpleasant person getting his brains blown into a fine pink mist. (Remember, when I say the reason that I like writing my urban paranormal series is because "Nobody dies" I AM talking literally.) The owner of a training facility was amenable to working with our group. The plan was for him to run his normal business, but we'd lease the usage of the facilities on a recurring basis. The deal was approaching not only finalization, but launch. We'd run some test market training and were very happy with both the classes and the reception within the target market.Yay us ... things were looking good.

So you can imagine our surprise when the facility owner started sabotaging the deal. Whether it was to block program development, double book or renege on agreed on facilities, services and -- most of all --costs, problems were cropping up too often. After a few of these problems folks started to wonder. But, he insisted the deal was going along just fine ... and then he'd turn around and screw something else up. His favorite ploy was unexpectedly slapping us with a extra cost,  followed by "I wouldn't have agreed to THAT as part of the package. It's very expensive."

In short, if he wasn't trying to outright kill the deal, he was trying to gouge us. His behavior wasn't making him a favorite of our financial backers. It made him even less popular with the folks who'd brokered the deal, because his squirrely behavior was making them look bad in the eyes of the investors. A lot of time and money had been poured into this project and it was rapidly unraveling.

Anyway, before the final implosion, the instructors were in a meeting trying to decide what to do about this guy's behavior.Someone snarled "It's almost as if he's trying to kill this deal." I opened my mouth to speak and suddenly caught myself. I slammed my teeth together and stopped before I said anything. In a room full of cops and military folks, I'd been about to ask:

I take it whacking him is out of the question?

ShutupMarcshutupMarcshutupMarc! I'm not BSing here, in my old neighborhood that IS a viable business solution. Something I learned early was "Never make it easier to kill you than to leave you alive." I've seen it happen. Hell, I've known people on both sides of the gun. And this guy was rapidly making it easier for us try to deal with his heirs.

The reason I usually tell people this story is, back then, I had to shut up because everyone would have known I wasn't joking. Even if they were thinking the same, you don't say that in polite company. Well okay, so you can argue that cops and military folks aren't polite. But you still don't say that in business meetings -- especially if you mean it.

FYI, in the end, the guy did end up killing the deal and we walked away. Not only that, but that constellation of instructors and investors broke apart. His behavior destroyed their credibility with the investors. I take comfort in the fact that a few years later the founder of the facility ended up taking control of the facility back from the guy.

Let's fast forward a couple of decades. I was telling the same story to a Lt. Col I know. This guy is so slick he can slide up hill. He told me that I could have said it and gotten away with it. The qualifier was that I would have to tell everyone that I was speaking hypothetically about ALL the options, including that WE walk away from the deal right then. The other end of the spectrum was that we kill him and deal with the new owners. He said that had [[iframe]]d it that way I could have gotten away with saying it. The fact is NOW I know that and could say it and get away with it. Twenty years of polish and conflict negotiation taught me to be more tactful and a lot less scary.

What hasn't changed is, when it comes to conflict, death is always an option. And not always the other person either, it could be me doing the dying. That is the spectrum that I approach negotiations with. On one extreme is chaos, killing and bloody violence. On the other is drop cargo and BAIL!

That option is usually to prevent the first. Forget 'winning,' there are some circumstances where just being alive after it is over means you've 'won.' The trick is to know when the situation has drifted into these extremes.

See why I take negotiation seriously? I know how easily they can escalate into conflict. And I know how easily conflict can end up in extremes.

I recently read some research related to a project that I'm doing. The author expressed the opinion that a major motivator in why people stay around 'too long' in dangerous situations is 'pride.' He postulated that people don't believe they can defeat a tidal wave or an avalanche, so they don't have so much pride involved. He argued people are more reasonable about finding a course of action when faced by a force of nature than when confronting a person.

I tend to disagree. Not because I think he's wrong, but because I suspect there's more to the issue than just that. I'm more the school of thought that experience counts. As in if you haven't seen it or experienced it yourself, you don't believe it can happen.

While the obvious example would be Hurricane Katrina, I'm going to use another example. I say experience not only having had my own life on the line, but having studied the subject of how we react to danger and having watched videos of people in places like Beirut, Serbia and now parts of Mexico. Imagine this, a driver is tooling along and all of a sudden a firefight, explosions and all kinds of nastiness starts up right in front of them. What do they do? Now remember these are poor countries where OWNING an auto is a big deal.

The answer is they bail out of the car and run like hell.

Why? Because trying to drive out of urban combat is a really good way to get killed. A car is a much bigger and less mobile target. One, that if you start taking fire while stuck in it, your chances of survival aren't that good. While bullets from a pistol can bounce off cars, slugs from assault rifles can pass right through both doors and still keep going. (Remember, what's between the doors is mostly open space* ).

Now you might think 'okay, so I got that one wrong. I'm not that familiar with guns and I don't live in a place where battles in the street are common. But I'd know what to do in other circumstances."

Not necessarily. I'm sitting less than three blocks away from where a High School student was hit by a train. Long story short, on the way to school, at a red light, she drove onto the tracks, when the RR Xing guards came down she panicked and stalled her car. Now mind you that the alarms start going off when the train is a half mile or so away. So it wasn't like the train snuck up on her. She was still sitting in the car trying to get it restarted when the train hit her. This poor kid lived.

My point is that with beaucoup tons of train barreling down on her, she refused to abandon her car. She nearly died, trying to save the car. Here is a nice, middle class kid who had NEVER seen violent death and in all likelihood had never herself been in danger. Is she stupid? No. In fact, she was extremely smart, popular and socially adept -- within a particular social strata. Until that day she existed in a world where disasters were not only something that happened to other people, but always on the TV. She is permanently confined to a wheelchair now because -- in a crisis -- she insisted on maintaining certain priorities. Priorities that put her sitting in a car as a train slammed into it.

The reason I told you these two stories is to show you how what you think and feel can blind you to what is going on -- especially during a negotiation that not only isn't working out but has floated into being something else.

Now when I say that when I am dealing with a conflict death and abandoning things are on the table, I want you to realize that if a situation has escalated to conflict, things aren't going well. But that doesn't mean it still isn't a negotiation. In fact, if I can bastardize Clausewitz, a conflict is negotiations carried on by different means.

Except, the deeper you get into conflict, the more it isn't about what the original issue was anymore. And further afield you get, the closer you get a point where the guy isn't negotiating anymore... if he was ever at all. I tend to look at negotiation and all the mutations that can arise from it more along the lines of a color spectrum.

 

Okay, so negotiation isn't exactly in the middle ... that's more because I suck as a graphic artist than that I'm trying to imply anything. The point here is that you can float FROM negotiation into different areas. And if you're in your monkey brain you won't realize that the moorings have slipped and you are now in a totally different territory.

In MOST situations, farther away from 'Negotiation' you get, the LESS rational it becomes. Oh yeah, going the other way, 'Bullying is negotiation carried on by other means too.' Because it's hard to discuss all the variables in written form, I'll just refer to conflict from now on.

Here's where it gets complicated, if dropping into your monkey brain can happen to you, it can happen to the person you are negotiating with too! Any 'negotiation' can go sideways when one or the other parties begins to float into these mental states.

Oh, BTW, when I say that when I'm negotiating that 'bailing out' or 'causing carnage' are still on the table, that isn't exactly accurate. At least not in the sense that I'm going to unexpectedly (and for no good reason) lunge across the table and bite someone's throat out. When I (and everyone else) is firmly entrenched in the 'green zone' of negotiation, then those extremes really aren't even on the horizon. Sure theoretically they're there, but in reality they are OVER the horizon and far away. Now if we travel in that direction, they'll come in view. But as long as everyone stays back in the green zone the reds of extremes aren't an issue.

Now I'm going to change tracks for a second and tell you a fundamental rule my wife and I have about our relationship. That is: Only one of us gets to be crazy at a time. It's a pretty good rule.

For example anytime we have a negotiation that is heading out of the 'green zone,' it usually means that one of us is getting emotional. Now instead of reacting in kind, the person who recognizes that this-is-a-bigger-button-with-the-other-person will step back and say 'Whoa! It's time to return to rational.' That means it's time to take a break and cool off. Both of us come from relationships where that behavior was not practiced and we've learned why it is important to recognize when one or the other is slipping out of the green (or in the case of several of my ex's, it was ALWAYS their turn to be crazy).

So, the first rule of keeping a situation in the green of negotiation is to recognize WHEN it the shading has changed. And that means recognizing it within the other person AND -- perhaps even more importantly -- within yourself.

The reason it is important, is the further you allow yourself (or the other person) to head toward the horizon, the closer you get to those extremes. In fact, once you read the next part you'll understand this point better. If you aren't monitoring your own emotional state, you can easily travel over the horizon and end up in an extreme without even realizing it.

Or even more common, you'll blind yourself to the fact that the other person is in that extreme zone. You may still be in the conflict zone and he's moved into the extreme.  A really important indicator of your monkey brain (and yes I strongly suggest you follow the link) taking over is when you feel the situation has to be resolved ...

NOW!!!

In case you didn't notice, I sort of emphasized that point. If you believe it has to be resolved now, if you believe that you have to 'win,' if you believe that the world will end if you don't get your way ... the monkey is driving the bus.

Unfortunately, as you may have noticed driving to work today, there are a LOT of monkeys behind the wheels. Still people who are locked in their monkey brains are more fixated on winning and doing it now than coming to a reasonable and win/win compromise.

The most important thing you need to realize about our monkey brains is emotions are contagious. As a survival mechanism your monkey brain is designed to go ape-poo when someone else's does. Think about this as a survival tool. There you are as a cave man or woman and all of sudden 'George' comes busting out of the bushes in wide eyed terror and heading hard and fast towards a tree. Are you going to live long enough to breed if you say "I say, old George seems to be in a bit of a tizzy eh what?"

NO! Because whatever is chasing George is going to eat you instead! In fact, courtesy of these contagious emotions, you're going to be doing your best to pass ol' George so whatever is behind him is still his problem.

If someone else flips, our instincts are to go with them. But as Richard Conniff said in his excellent book The Ape in the Corner Office, "Our brains and our repertoire of social behaviors have expanded enormously over the course of our evolution, and it is a shame to ignore all that." Just because our monkey brain is designed to go along for the ride doesn't mean we have to follow this pattern. We CAN use other parts of our brains to function.

Remember, your emotional monkey brain is very much in the 'now.' But not necessarily in a good way. It can imagine all kinds of horrible things that it decides are immediate threats. Not that it 'could happen' but that it is happening now and only going to get worse. Worse that is unless you do something RIGHT NOW to
a) stop it,
b) win,
c) regain your status
d) get revenge
e) some or all of the above ...
your monkey is convinced that Armageddon is at hand. It's not, but the monkey believes it.

What commonly happens in a negotiation that turns into a conflict is that everybody's monkey brain gets 'lit up' and things start to spiral out into left field. BTW, you've probably seen this at work too. Where you walk into a meeting and the next thing you know people are swinging from the lights, hooting, screaming, attacking the environment and slinging fecal matter. You walk out of the meeting going "What the hell just happened?" Watch video of primate conflict and you'll see the patterns except instead of chimps, it's humans behaving that way with only a little more subtlety. That's what happens when monkey brains take over.

Oh incidentally, when your monkey brain is driving the bus ... it's ALWAYS self-defense. According to that part of your brain, any nasty, rotten, hurtful thing you said or did was only to defend yourself from the evil attacking other monkey. When you've broken up as many fights as I have you gotta wonder why both parties are absolutely convinced that it was a) self-defense and b) the other dude started it.

They're not making it up either, they honestly believe it. The problem with this however, is that the video and witnesses see two guys who were both equally guilty in the creating, escalation and participation of a 'fight.' Their monkey brains were in full swing**

See why only one of you gets to be crazy at a time? Otherwise it floats over the horizon to extremes.

And yes, even though you might not ever have been to the extremes, that doesn't mean the other person in the conflict hasn't. Nor does it mean he isn't willing to go there again. Sitting in a business meeting my roots were nearly revealed. Keep this in mind as you enter into any negotiations. Because -- if it stops being an negotiation and turns into something else AND if it looks like the guy is going into an extreme -- it's a smart thing to stop thinking about bailing out of the situation  and DO IT!

If you're not willing kill or be killed over something, then dropping cargo and getting the hell out of Dodge IS the best option on the table. And even if you are willing to go to the other extreme, bugging out is still an option. That other extreme is no small thing, I've bailed out of many a situation because it wasn't worth pulling the trigger. (Besides, I hate paperwork.)

As Tom Cochrane said in the song "The secret is to know when to stop."

Learn to spot when it's left the green zone and take a break. It will save you a LOT of grief.

The second secret about negotiation is to know when it isn't. In any situation you have two people who have different goals. Imagine them as circles. Now when those circles overlap to some degree or the other, you have the potential for negotiation. An example is the seller wants to sell for as much as possible, but will settle for (fill in the blank). A buyer wants to buy for as low as possible, but will go as high as (fill in the blank). As long as there is overlap there exists the possibility for negotiation. A negotiation is where BOTH parties walk away satisfied because they got what they wanted. Keep that in mind, it is important.

Another point to bear in mind is the thinner the overlap, the harder it is to get to a successful conclusion. Let's use buying a car for example. Someone has a car you want. But he wants way more money than you want to spend. His rock bottom price is the maximum you want to spend. You can still reach an accord, but it's going to be a whole lot more work. And odds are, the negotiations are going to break down. If we're smart, we'll do our best to go out and find places where the overlap is greater rather than less. The greater the overlap, the easier the negotiations and the happier everyone will be afterwards. In other words, don't be afraid to walk out the door. Not as a bluff, but heading off to give someone else your money in exchange for something you want.

Now here's the bear: Sometimes there is NO overlap.

That means that the goals of both parties are so far apart there is NO chance for negotiation. This blows the hell out of the often parroted ideal that 'anything' can be negotiated and compromise reached. Not only no, but hell no. The everything can be negotiated and a reasonable compromise worked out is a happy, happy, joy, joy warm fuzzy idea. One that only works if your idea of 'roughing it' is when the line at Starbucks is too long. (Translation: among people who've only operated in their monkey bran, NOT in their lizard brain.)

A key element to negotiation is to realize when it is isn't. Know how to spot when that guy over there has absolutely no interest in coming to a viable resolution. That is to say one where everyone comes out a winner.

When you don't have that, you have a win/lose situation. As far as he's concerned he wins, you lose. That's it. That is not a negotiation, that's conquest. And you need to know when that IS someone's goal. Because now you're in extremes.

While we're at it, let's deflate another popular myth, that of "Down deep, we all want the same thing." Unless down deep the speaker wants to rob, rape, kill or slaughter anyone not of his or her tribe, then that is not true. There are a lot of folks in this world who believe, if you aren't of their tribe, then it's open season on you and yours. Can you negotiate with these people? Sure. But you have to be willing to kill them, their families and their entire tribe if they break the deal ...because, if you aren't, they will break it. Why shouldn't they? If you aren't willing to do this, then you are too weak for them to deal with as equals. And in their world there are only predators and food.

Trying to come to a 'reasonable' win/win outcome with these people is somewhat ... problematic.

Changing tracks again: I have a common answer when people who are having trouble with a stalker or an obnoxious neighbor, ask me "Is he dangerous?" My answer is "Not to me, but he is to you." That's because I can look at someone and immediately tell how far towards the horizon he (or to be honest, 'she') is. And where ever the troublesome person is, odds are I've been further down that way. And I can go that way again. So if I have to deal with him, I know that instead of playing catch up to his extremes, I'll instead meet him on my way back from mine. And I'll have more steam. ***

Now believe it or not, the willingness to blow someone's brains into a fine pink mist can be a form of negotiation. Most people think I'm talking about bullying but I'm not. I'm talking about negotiating IN the extreme. But we're not negotiating how much something is, does the toilet seat get left up or down. Nor are we talking 'does the toothpaste get squeezed from the middle of the tube or the bottom.' While we're at it, it's not even a I win/You lose pseudo-negotiation (where the other guy is pretending to negotiate). We really ARE negotiating.

In fact, we're negotiating a win/win situation. It's a walk away and everyone gets to live. Implicit in the contract is 'you stay away, I will too and we'll not see each other again.' That's because 'if I ever see you again, I'll just assume it's self-defense and start shooting.' And yes, there are times when superior firepower IS an invaluable tool in negotiations. But once again, that's REALLY a matter of being able to recognize when you're NOT in the green zone -- but are instead out in the extremes.

What's more is you don't even have to be emotional, just recognize when the other person is that far out. Believe it or not, you can function out in the extremes rationally and calmly. (The trick is knowing how to articulate why it was necessary, but that's another blog.)

Interesting things will begin to happen when you understand these two aspects about negotiations. One is how much easier negotiations will become. There is just something about the body language of someone who understand extremes are always possible that tends to keep a damper on them.

That's because people usually go to extremes in order to 'win.' The simple fact is that 'winning' isn't everything, but they think it is. In fact, a lot of people have learned that being the most extreme is a good way to 'win' when the other person is negotiating. Again this isn't negotiating, it's barely disguised conquest.

Unfortunately, you'll see many conflicts are are two people trying to win and that's why things escalate.BUT, once someone else is willing to rationally go there too, the dynamics change. To them the extreme isn't about winning or losing. It's about damage control and ending an untenable situation.

The person who is operating towards those goals has a strategic advantage over the person trying to 'win.' If nothing else, that person can just walk away.

The second is you'll find yourself not wasting your time with people who are only pretending to want to negotiate.

The simple fact is a lot of folks are relying on you believing the 'down deep we all want the same' and 'we can come to a working compromise.' As long as you approach them from that paradigm, then they have the advantage, because that ISN'T what they are about. They are about them winning and you losing ... but they aren't going to tell you that. What they will start doing is demanding more and more or changing the terms of the deal (think the facility owner).

Once you know this possibility is on the table, you'll be able to spot it. And knowing what it is, you'll be able to shift tactics accordingly.

Third is once you realize that whether or not they are in view, those extremes are still over the horizon, you'll be less hot-to-trot to go there. If you choose to give into your own monkey brain, then you're the one who is taking things closer to the extreme. And if you do it with the wrong person, there will be blood.

If you do it with others, they will take the other extreme and you'll be left alone. People who want to negotiate win/wins, don't like hanging out around people who are into win/lose.

Understanding the wider scope of options can really help you stay calm in an emotional situation. And if you can do that, you can really do wonders for keeping it from escalating into a conflict -- even if the other person's monkey brain is driving the bus.

M

*Which is why if you end up in a place where bullets are flying and you take the hide behind the car (which I don't recommend) hide behind the engine compartment. Personally I always prefer the put a car between you and the shooters and RUN bent over while keeping the vehicle between you and them. Unless they are specifically shooting at you, most of the time they'll be too busy to shoot at you directly.

** This is monkey brain thinking. Lizard brain thinking has a different agenda. As a friend of mine summed it up "the monkey brain thinks 'I'm more important than him.' The lizard brain thinks "DUCK! (or counterattack)" The monkey brain is more about social status. The lizard brain really is about fight or flight.

*** I can also tell when the nice person doesn't have that same extreme within them. THAT'S why the guy is dangerous to them.

*NOTE* MySpace is getting funky. You're going to need to cut and paste the URL instead of clicking it.
***********

There is a place in the human psyche that ... well, until you've been there,
any warnings sound trite, any description sounds like exaggerated hyperbole and
lurid tales. That's because until you've been there there is NO way to describe
exactly how fucked up it. You can only describe it in analogy and metaphors.

"Well if it's all that bad, then why'd you go there in the first place?" is a
question that those of who have crawled out of the abyss hear all the time --
usually by people who've never stepped outside the confines of their social
niche. Well as tempting as it is to backhand these people, here at long last is a socially acceptable answer ...

http://www.metalandmagic.com/modules.php?full=1&set_albumName=silly&id=abyssact1&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

... and it ain't to far from the truth, except what it's offering is different for everyone who's been there.

Remember Chitlins: Religion is for people who are afraid of hell.
Spirituality is for those who have been there.
M

This blog starts with me curled up behind a washing machine in an apartment building laundry room. I was alternating between throwing up and crying. I was 17. In a life already filled with violence, this was the first time I'd ever stabbed anyone. As you can imagine, I was not comfortable with what I had just done.

In my defense, the guy had been drawing a gun to rob -- possibly shoot -- us when I slammed into him. In my uhh ... errrr ... well ... ya see ... 'okay, not defense, but that's how you made money in that neighborhood,' it was a drug deal gone bad.  My friend had shown up with the money, the other dude had shown up with a gun. Me? I was there because my friend -- rightly so, it turned out -- had a bad feeling about the meeting, and he wanted some back up. I was just muscle on this run.

The other guy was demanding to see the money, but he wasn't showing the dope. He was getting more and more agitated while insisting the marijuana was near by. That ain't right. I was getting really uptight with how things were going. I casually slipped my hand under my shirt and put it on my knife. The guy turned away from me and toward my friend. Suddenly his elbows flared out as his hands went to his waistband. At the time I didn't know exactly what it meant. But when my friend yelled "GUN!" I figured it out right quick. I slammed into the guy as I stabbed him, knocking him down.

Unfortunately, unlike in the movies, he didn't stay down. In fact, he got back up and fired at least three shots at us as we fled down the alley. Even though it was the first time I'd succeeded in stabbing someone, it wasn't my first time being shot at. For the record, I didn't like it the second time any better than the first. If I thought we were running fast before, when the first bullet whipped past us, we nearly hit supersonic. At the mouth of the alley, my friend and I split in different directions. I ended up hiding in the apartment building laundry room.

It was there that the reality of what had just happened came crashing in. In that cramped, cold room, violence stopped being a game to me. I'd just put steel into another human's body. Not only did I freak out, but my body went wonky, too. Nausea, the shakes, uncontrollable crying, those were just a few of the experiences I had.

What also happened that day was that I encountered, first hand, what extreme adrenal stress can do. "Adrenal stress" is what I call a 'wheelbarrow term,' a simple phrase that groups together a lot of complicated issues. Sure the term  doesn't cover everything that is going on with you at the time, but you know that going in.

First off, the term 'adrenaline' is a layman's term for a complex hormone (epinephrine). When released, a series of physical and chemical changes occur in your body as it kicks into fight or flight mode. But that information doesn't even begin to address what those physiological changes do to your perception.

That's where adrenal stress response comes in. To the best of my knowledge, Peyton Quinn is the guy who coined the phrase. I mean isn't it easier to say 'adrenal stress' than 'tachypsychia, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, cognitive dissonance and amaurosis fugax?' Because those are just some of the things that can be going on.

And like a wheelbarrow with a lot of different things in it, each situation can and will be different. For example, sometimes someone will have auditory exclusion (e.g., not hearing the gun in his hand going off). Other times, he will hear just fine. (In fact, if your character is hiding from someone who is looking for her, little sounds amplify). Sometimes time will slow down, sometimes it will speed up (tachypsychia). Sometimes your character will see a particular thing very clearly and won't notice something that is happening right in front of him or her.

One pretty consistent thing is spatial distortion. In fact, all kinds of things tend to distort under adrenal stress. I've had many experiences with that. My first experience with distortion came when I was about 8 years old and was feeding the chickens. Chickens? Yep, even though I was a Los Angeleno, we had raised chickens (my first step-dad was Mexican). The bins of feed were under the rabbit hutch. Through a combination of factors, I'd scoop up a ladle of scratch and bring it up and out near my face. As I was doing so the grain exploded and a saber-toothed mouse lunged for my throat. I swear his fangs were 6 inches long at least! I screamed and fell over backward as the mouse sprang off my shoulder and headed for the bushes. Oh and I threw chicken feed all over the place (the chickens didn't mind). Biologists tell me there isn't a species of saber-toothed mice, but I know there is because I've seen the bastards.

In the same vein, I've never just had a knife pulled on me ... they were all at least machetes. That little 4-inch blade magically grows to at least a 2-foot-long sword. The same thing with looking down the barrel of a gun. It doesn't matter what caliber it is, it's like looking down a cannon. Because under adrenal stress, you focus on what your monkey brain deems as the threat.

And that is all you're seeing!

Another way that spatial distortion can work is if someone is charging you with intent to do you harm. You will swear in court that the guy was inches away. When the video is run though, the guy can be 5, 10 or 15 feet away. This also works when it comes to escape. Perceptually it may not be that far to the door, but it sure feels like it's a long way. Or it seems to your character that it takes forever to get there (tachypsychia). This can be perceived as seeming like a person is moving in slow motion. When in fact, video shows he or she is moving faster than a rattlesnake on a double espresso.

All kinds of things happen under adrenal stress. Generally speaking, fine motor skills go out the window. Unless your character has spen years practicing subtle movement, they're gone. Also trembling occurs. One of the problems that police used to have when they carried revolvers is, when they ducked down behind something to reload, their hands would be shaking so badly that they had a hard time getting the bullets in the chambers of the cylinders. In fact, a loading procedure had to be developed to be used when officers were under fire. They were taught to hold their arms against their body to minimize movement.

Try it yourself. Get a wine or a soda bottle and a pen. As you hold your arms out have someone stand behind you and shake you randomly while you try to put the pen tip in the mouth of the bottle. Now realize that a bottle mouth is a lot bigger than the chamber for a bullet. Do it again, but this time bring your forearms and wrists against your body with your hands in front of you. Have your friend shake you again as you put the pen in the bottle. Lots easier isn't it?

It shouldn't surprise you that this shaking can effect your character's aim.

Now there are a lot of other things that go on during a conflict that people don't know about. For example, when the fecal matter hits the fan, a lot of people start swearing, others are silent, others babble and laugh. I growl and snarl. Some people tremble before violence starts, some go perfectly still.

What a lot of people don't talk about is the erection.

Yep, that's right, Mr. Happy stands up. Where do you think the expression, "I don't have a hard on with you," comes from?

So what about after violence? Well there are all kinds possible reactions. And these vary wildly, depending on whether it was a win, a loss or a draw. Nausea and vomiting are not uncommon. Hyperactive babbling, curling up in a fetal position and shaking, crying jags, getting crawling-on-your-lips drunk or finding someone and screwing your brains out -- all of them are common. And those are just the short-term reactions as you come off the adrenaline rush.

The long-term aftermath can be depression, nightmares, a sense of isolation (Massad Ayoob calls it the "mark of Cane") or unexpected bouts of fear or rage. Here's an interesting bit of information. Research into PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) indicates that the brain is physically rewired after a traumatic event. But that which rewires itself can shift back too.

Despite the popular idea that anyone who goes through a traumatic event will suffer PTSD, it turns out that in most cases the brain returns to more normal functioning on its own. And it can do it with or without therapy. This is why the new approach to crisis counseling is, instead of just assuming that people need it, you ask, "Do you need help?" Not everyone will want to talk about their experiences.

Sometimes the person can manage on his or her own. Other times that person can't. But there will be recognizable stages and processes in the aftermath of involvement in violence. If you want to write more realistic characters, you might want to consider looking into these subjects.

I have three suggestions to help you get a better understanding of how violence  will affect them -- before, during and after.

The first is a book by Peyton Quinn, Freedom From Fear. Peyton is an old friend of mine and a co-founder of the genre of ex-street fighters writing about what it takes to survive. The man also is a pioneer in scenario-based training and adrenal response. His book, Freedom from Fear, is a fantasic layman's explanation of how your emotional brain and adrenaline can hijack you. And that's not only in a life-and-death situation, but even in the office or at home. Here, in simple terms, is an insight into what happens when we get sucked into the cycle of adrenal stress (and that includes how you will react even in an argument).

The second suggestion is a DVD by shooting expert (and also expert witness) Massad Ayoob. It's called Physio--Psychological Aspects of Violent Encounters. It focuses on what perceptual changes your character will undergo during an action scene.

The third recommendation also is a DVD by Mas. It's called Post Shooting Trauma. This addresses common reactions and problems people who have violated one of society's biggest taboos -- taking a human life -- will face. We're not talking about PTSD per se, we're talking social stigma, depression and a whole host of other problems that, until you see this DVD, you'd never imagine to write into your story.

M

 

Your hero or heroine comes through a doorway and quickly ducks behind the wall as a hail of bullets blast out of the room.

Well except for one thing, a smart bad guy will just empty the clip into the wall your protagonist ducked behind. The bullets will pass through the wall and into your character ... thereby making your story (and series) a whole lot shorter.

That's because there's a difference between 'cover' and 'concealment.'

Concealment means someone standing in a certain spot can't see your character. Bullets can still pass through concealing barrier and into the hidden person. Oh yeah, one more thing about concealment, it only works from one point. Your character may be hidden from one perspective, but someone looking from another direction can see your hero or heroine plain as day. And if that person is playing for the other team, your character has problems.

Cover, however, means that bullets can't get through what your character is crouching behind.

And now to really muck things up, cover is relative. Different calibers of bullets and different bullet types do -- and do not -- go through different things. Against a .22 or a .38 ducking behind a car is going to work as cover. Even if the bullets somehow do manage to penetrate the first car door or trunk, odds are they will have lost the kinetic energy to travel across the interior and still penetrate the second layer of metal. Against a .223 (M-16) or a .60 caliber, you'd better put your character crouching down behind the engine compartment (the engine block will stop it). Because those WILL pass through the body of a car -- especially if the shooter is using 'hardball' ammunition. If someone is shooting a .50 caliber ... well an entire city block cannot not provide enough cover.

Many moons past, I was sitting at a friends' house, and ... well, there's no delicate way to put this ... we were getting stoned. (I was in high school, okay?) We'd been talking about guns. One of the brothers (Dave) got up and went into their mom's room. As Dan and I sat there talking, there was a loud boom from the next room and a 'thwack' from across the living room. In between Dan and I was white dust and little chunks floating in the air. In the wall, also between us, was a hole. The kind of hole an exiting bullet makes through drywall to be specific. Dan and I sat there in stunned and stoned silence for a second before he blurted, "DAVE!" We jumped up and ran around the corner. Only to come to a screeching halt when we found Dave standing there in stunned immobility, smoking gun still in his hand and staring stupidly at the hole in the wall. Dan's stoned and drawn out "F************k man" broke the tableau. We started giggling like nervous idiots (which wasn't far from the truth).

It turns out that a bullet from a .357 magnum (mom's gun that Dave was getting to show off) will not only pass through the bedroom/living room wall, travel across the living room, enter and exit a drywall/stucco wall, travel across a walkway, but also penetrate and exit the stucco/drywall of the duplex unit across the walk. We know this because when two stoned high schoolers pick up a third that third kid can look through the hole and into the neighbor's front room. Whether or not it lodged itself in the fourth wall or penetrated that one, too, we didn't hang around to find out.

See why your character flattening him or herself against the wall the next to the door isn't going to work? While we're at it, see why ducking behind a couch or a table isn't such a hot idea either?

Now all kinds of other things complicate this. First is the fact that there are all kinds of different calibers of guns. To further muck things up, the same 'size' bullet can come in different cartridges (shells). Although most people think a bullet is one whole thing -- that's kind of like calling any copy a Xerox. What you think of as a 'bullet' is two parts. A bullet (that part that comes out of the barrel) and the cartridge or shell. The size difference between a .22 and a .223 isn't that much, but the extra gun powder in the larger .223 cartridge makes a BIG difference between what works for cover -- and what doesn't. If someone is coming after your character with a moose of a pistol or an assault rifle, you shouldn't try to have him hide behind drywall or a sofa.

And then there is the bullet itself. Hardball is the slang term for a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet. Now an interesting bit of trivia is that FMJ bullets are military bullets agreed upon at the Hague Convention (not the Geneva Convention). The reason is they are actually less effective at killing people and cause fewer traumatic wounds than 'designer ammo' that has become so popular. The FMJ bullet does not deform upon entrance and therefore does not expend all of its energy inside whatever it hits.

The down side of this is two-part problem:
  One, an FMJ bullet will travel through things like walls and bodies and keep on going.
  Two, this kind of ammo is cheaper.

That means a semi-auto assault rifle in the hands of a gang banger is likely to be loaded with FMJ. And gansta's are NOT known to be terribly accurate shots. So anybody who is behind or even in the general vicinity of the target, and NOT under cover, is in some deep kim chee. It doesn't matter if the target is on the lawn and the bystander is in a house. Unless that house is made of concrete or brick, that's cover, not concealment.

Incidentally 'mom's gun' was loaded with hardball. That's why it went through all those walls.

The flip side of this is hollow point, soft tip or other designer ammo. These kinds of bullets are designed to malform or break apart when hitting something. What they are designed to do is deliver all the energy of the bullet into your target's body and create as much shock and damage as possible. These are for when you WANT your bullet to deliver all of its force inside your target -- instead of still having enough juice to pass through him. These kinds of ammo are considered to have better 'stopping power' against a humans. (You need fewer bullets to make him fall down and go thud).

Here's where you get into 'on this hand ____, but on the other hand ____' issues.

In terms of your hero not wanting to hurt anyone else, the lack of penetration of these kinds of bullets is a good thing. You can have your character shoot someone using designer ammo, and it will not pass through the bad guy to zap someone behind him. No problem But at the same time, these kinds of bullets can often turn concealment into cover. This can be a bad thing when the bad guys ducks behind ... say ... a solid core door. A FMJ slug might get through, but a Glazer Safety Slug won't. You can use this information to your character's detriment or benefit. Let's say a hitman is after your character. He's carrying this kind of ammo to ensure maximum efficiency. Your character barely dodges the first attack. If the bad guy is using designer ammo, even a couple of car windows can save your hero's tuchas until he or she gets to real cover.

Other contributing factors are angle and deflection. Remember I said that someone hiding behind the wall next to the door can still be shot? Well, those same walls can work 'around a corner' -- at least in an older house. In U.S. building codes, studs (in older homes 2x4s) are generally 16 inches apart. Shoot into the wall from perpendicular (or near perpendicular) angle, odds are the bullet is going to miss the stud and pass through the drywall. BUT, if you are trying to shoot through the wall at an acute angle (especially less than 45 degrees) then chances are the bullet will hit multiple studs. This is why a hiding behind a corner in a hallway can be cover against a hand gun. Hey, even ducking around a corner works too.

Another area where angles and deflection are important is with surfaces, such as car windows. Remember that caliber and cartridge thingie? It applies here, too. Someone standing on the ground shooting at a car window with a hand gun or a low-power rifle has a very high likelihood of having his bullet deflect upward as it hits the windshield -- even if it penetrates. And believe it or not, against certain angled windshields, a bullet can bounce off glass entirely. On the other hand, a high-caliber, high-speed, full metal jacket bullet won't have any trouble going through a windshield. So you might want to reconsider having that sniper try to take out your hero while in a car. The sniper would win.

Okay so how do you have your character move through a building without getting shot? This is especially important if the bad guy knows what he's doing.

Well, sticking with my motto of  "if I wouldn't stake my life on it, I don't carry it," I'd like to point you to a DVD set that I HAVE staked my life on. Yep. I speak from personal experience when I say this DVD has done wonders from keeping me from getting shot while looking for bad guys. Chris Caracci's CQB Clearing Tactics/Patrol Tactics for the 911 Officer is a double feature on one DVD. It covers both shotgun and pistol tactics for safely clearing, securing a building and how to hole up against home invasion. The first one CQB (close quarter battle) covers moving through a house alone and with a shotgun. The 911 tactics DVD is for police and deals with pistols and teamwork. It works for office buildings and apartment complexes. Both scenarios can easily be translated into space ships and castles (blasters or crossbows, what's the difference?)

Now your characters can be as competent as you want them to be while being heroic.

M

I read ... a lot. I used to read for fun much more than I do now. Now days, most reading I do is work-related. Give me a Terry Pratchett or Jim Butcher book over Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents any day. While I do have to admit the latter is interesting in a scientific geeky way, it just isn't "fun" reading. (Okay so I admit it, my copy of Forensics for Dummies is among my cookbooks just as a sick joke. There are many ways you can have fun with literature.)

Over and above what I read for research on my projects and for understanding, I also read and watch information put out by others in my field. This is especially the case when someone wants me to carry his or her book or DVD on my No Nonsense Self-Defense site.

Wow, publishers send me free books. (Oh yeah, folks, NEVER send your copies to people you want to carry or review your stuff ... have the publisher do it. You're already doing their marketing for them, don't pay out of pocket.) This is why free books and free DVDs are sent to me. Sounds good right?

Except for one thing. I'm VERY picky about what I promote, much less carry.

Quite frankly, about 99 percent of the stuff that people send ends up being used as coffee coasters before I stick the material in the cage of my wife's cockatoo. Shredding a book keeps him entertained -- and most of all quiet -- for hours. That's about the sum value I give to the information that's being promoted in most of these books.

Some might call me persnickity, but I've listened to farting bumblebees fly by. (Bullets make a distinct sound as the displaced air comes crashing back behind them ... a sound I always imagined a bumblebee who's had Mexican food for lunch would make.) Since I've been in situations where the rude SOBs opened fire first, I don't have a lot of time or patience for next generation John Wayne macho.

I especially don't have any patience with people selling killer kung fu ninja combatives (or knife 'fighting') without respect for little complications like use of force laws, the police, prisons, civil liability or -- my personal favorite -- street retribution.

And that doesn't even begin to address the psychological, emotional and moral issues involved in the creation, escalation and aftermath of violence. Human beings are actually an amazingly nonviolent species. It takes a LOT to get us to the point where we break our social taboos conditioning and, yes, even primate threat display behavior to engage in physical violence -- much less kill each other.

Ever notice that thriller movies would be a whole lot shorter if someone just shot the son-of-a-bitch early on? But the appeal of a thriller is to watch a normal person pushed to the edge by a crazy person until FINALLY it becomes so bad the person violates one of the biggest social taboos and kills his or her stalker. But the person HAS to be pushed that far before we give him benediction for whacking the whacko.

So when someone sends me a product that tells the reader how to perform the ninja dim mak death touch or how to survive Ragnarok with just a flesh wound ... well the cockatoo is going to be quiet for a while.

Violence is a complicated form of human reaction. For more than 20 years now, I've been telling people, "Violence DOESN'T happen in a vacuum." There are ramifications, complications, emotional upheavels (quite often stomach upheavels) and, of course, the "OWWW F**K response. That's when you realize you've forgotten that drinking strong alcohol with a split lip hurts like a motha'.

And then of course, there is the most dreaded thing of all: Paperwork. (Wanna guess how many people are still walking and breathing because I soooooo hate paperwork?)

The Tools for Writers series I am writing is turning writers on to quality books and DVDs to enhance and make accurate their action scenes. The materials I recommend not only weren't fed to the cockatoo, but I heartily endorse and in some cases carry the titles at NNSD. In short, they contain not just good information, but information that I'd stake my life on in situations where the bumblebees are leaving the cantina.

Let's start with Sgt. Rory Miller's Meditations on Violence.

I often say that there's a lot of bad information out there because 'stupidity makes great sound bites.' Yeeha, doesn't, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," and "a woman should have the right to walk naked into a biker bar and not be molested," just roll off the tongue?

They'll also get you raped in prison or killed. So much for the value of sound bite wisdom.

Rory, however, has a gift I am soooo totally jealous of. He can take complex subjects and boil them down into concise and easy-to-read (and remember) writing. We're not talking basics (which are an introduction), we're talking fundamentals (that from which a system arises).  In 180 pages, the man lays out condensed truth and understanding about HOW and WHY most violence happens.

Simply stated, I can write encyclopedias on why Rory is right about what he says. His gift is to make complicated issues easy to understand. And to do it without rendering the information useless because of oversimplification. Rory's book isn't going to give you all the answers. But what it will do is get you thinking in the right direction to guide further research on the subject.

Let's take a concept he calls the 'monkey dance.' I nearly hugged myself when I read this term. I consider it to be a wheelbarrow concept. That is one convienent term that encompasses adrenal stress response, psychology, neurology, primate conflict behavior, threat display, social conditioning and about six other major topics regarding how human beings  engage in and react to conflict.

In a book filled with brilliant insights, Rory's most stunning is this revelation, "You don't control the monkey dance; it controls you."

That's right, folks, your 'monkey brain' takes over during an emotional and stressful event. We're not just talking about a conditioned response, we're talking primate conflict behavior of threat displays. If you've ever watched monkeys in conflict, you'll see a whole lot of similarities with all the yelling, screaming, posturing, throwing s**t and attacking the environment that humans also do. Want to know how to write about the build up to violence? Know the monkey dance.

Rory also dissects (and I do use that word intentionally) the nature of violence and the conditions under which it happens. These 'rules' are something that any writer needs to know before trying to write a fight scene.

If you are at all interested in understanding the complexities of conflict, Meditations on Violence is a GREAT starting place. It also will open your eyes to other areas you can research to make your writing more realistic. Subjects that, unlike the killer kung fu ninja commandos books, you can really use -- not just in your writing, but also in handling conflicts in your own life.


M