#and went so nuts implementing it into the first three cases that they ended up w no time to make a proper ending

[mekatrio]

turnabout trump was fun to play thru bc i forgot everything i knew abt card games and didnt want to remember anything and just guessed half the answers and the game kept insulting meeee anyways i only just realized the significance of the bloody ace of spades being tht the ace of spades is the strongest card of the deck. i think

[lesserpandeu]

Software Instability | prologue

fandom: NCT

genre: Sci-Fi/Detroit: Become Human AU!, android AU!, probably lots of angst + fluff in later chapters

pairing: Mark x Reader (probably some Donghyuck x Reader if you squint super hard, especially in later chapters)

words: 3,262

warnings: gun violence, death, cursing;

summary: The amount of deviant cases your department has been receiving is concerning to say the least. After pressuring the android manufacturing company, CyberLife, they send an android to assist your department in finding out what is causing the deviancy in so many androids lately. His name is Mark, and as soft as he seems on the outside, you can’t help but be utterly terrified by him. 

A/N: This story is based on the world of the video game “Detroit: Become Human”. Just replacing Connor (one of the main characters) with Mark and putting y/n in it. You don’t need to know anything about D:BH to read the story, as I explain everything the reader needs to know as the story progresses! While it doesn’t follow the plot word for word all the time, sometimes I need to look up the cutscenes and repeat them to help progress the plot (like the negotiation scene in this prologue). Warning: It might take me awhile to update, but it also it might not, lol. I’m awful about staying on top of fics. Enjoy!

prologue: “My name is Mark”

One more fucking deviant case and you’d lose your goddamn mind.

It was only a matter of time until the deviant jumped off the balcony with the little girl in his arms, sending them both to their dooms. It was a little more imperative for the girl, considering she was actually alive. The android was expendable, but given the fact that it was holding her hostage outside on the balcony, that was going to prove difficult.

Every SWAT officer that’s gone out to stop it was met with bullets aiming with perfect accuracy and an inability to get closer, risking the girl’s safety.

“One more team, just send one more, we’ll get him this time-” your colleague was suggesting as the both of you stood in the office of a once peaceful family home, before the android turned on them and killed them all, except for the little girl he was currently holding near the edge of the pent suite’s balcony.

“It didn’t work the first two times, it won’t work a third, Taeil. We wait for the negotiator to arrive to diffuse the situation-” Donghyuck, your other colleague cut Taeil off before he committed the same offense.

“What’s a fucking negotiator going to do?! That deviant was beyond the point of reason the minute it went nuts!”

“Both of you, shut up,” you groaned, holding your fingers to your temple. You were currently sitting in the office chair, trying to sooth yourself from one of the most stressful moments in your career, no doubt. “No one likes the situation right now, cause frankly, there’s currently a 5% chance that this kid is making it out without falling to her fucking death. If we go against orders and things turn as sour as we’re expecting it to, we’re in for a lot of shit from the head of department that ordered this new approach. We wait, and we obey orders.”

“Oh, nice, so we’re just going to sit and watch as a blue headed android just hops off the roof murdering another innocent human, further dispelling the faith the people have in their safety around androids, only further increasing the rate of android deviancy and cases we’re already overwhelmed with, yeah, you’re so right.”

Taeil had a reason to be stressed out about this. Androids had been implemented into society now for about 30 years. Nearly everyone had one, if they could afford it. They were perfect companions, workers, and entertainers. They came in anyway you could want them: tall, short, dark, light, young, and old. You could program them however you wanted. They could be funny (honestly, you never thought comedic androids were actually funny), kind, obedient, or even sarcastic.

It wasn’t until three months ago that a crime involving an android popped up in your department. An android turned on it’s human, stabbing her fifty times in the chest. It was so shocking at the time, which made it worse when just three more cases appeared in the next two weeks. Now you're on your seventh case, though there have been many more handled by other factions of the PD. One thing all of these cases clearly had in common: deviancy.

The only thing every single android was required to have in common was obedience. It was never allowed to go against its owner’s will. Technology isn’t supposed to disobey. Bad things happen when that occurs. And boy, were they happening. Like the bad thing happening right now.

“Could you- Would- Piss off,” you end up yelling, earning a flinch from the SWAT officer that walked by the open door. They were standing by as the final resort. 

“I just want this shit to be over, thank you very much,” Taeil defensively crossed his arms and leaned against the only wall not hidden by dressers with the family’s pictures. It was suffocating to sit in a home just so freshly destroyed.

“Well, it looks like it will be, cause guess who’s here?” Donghyuck mumbled.

You looked up from your shoes to see what he was talking about.

An android dressed in a stereotypical investigative uniform strode up to the door frame, stance practically perfect. No one needed the glowing serial number on the pocket of his jacket, the blue band wrapped around his arm, or the LED ring on the side of his temple to know that he was an android. He had black hair with bangs parting out, and high cheekbones. He looked young, he seemed to have been designed with a baby face in mind. If he were just a human, he’d probably be a teenager or a college student.

He smiled. It looked so realistic. Androids look just like people these days.

“Oh my god,” Donghyuck responded. The android looked puzzled, blinking a few times as his smile dissipated.

“I didn’t say anyth-”

“They sent a fucking android to talk us out of an hostage situation cause by an android?” Donghyuck exasperated.

“Okay, enough, we need to get that girl out,” Taeil said. “What are you doing?”

“Hello. My name is Mark. I’m the android sent by Cyberlife,” he introduces himself. His voice has an odd chirp to it, like he was programmed to come off as friendly as possible.

“I hate him already-”

“Donghyuck, stop it, we don’t have time.”

“You’re damn right we don’t,” Taeil had enough and walked out the room, squeezing by Mark standing in the doorway. “This way.”

Mark followed him, allowing you and Donghyuck to do the same. You walked into the living room where the sliding doors that led to the balcony were located. The bodies of the last SWAT team lay on the ground by the pool, one fallen inside of it. No one in the room was fazed by it.

“The situation,” Tail started. “The Acharya family is home, their daughter is coming home from school. At 5:24 pm, the father is murdered by the android on the couch with a handgun. The mother follows after coming out of her room to see what is going on. The daughter returns home at 5:40 pm.”

As Taeil explains, Mark begins looking around the apartment. Any other time an officer would ask what the hell he was doing, but since Taeil was talking and didn’t seem to care, you figured it was fine. He went into the kitchen, as it was combined with the living room in a big space. He notices the stove top, which obviously causes you to be aware of it. Water is boiling, who knows for how long at this point. He turns it off, setting it on one of the inactive burners. You raise an eyebrow but nearly instantly forget about it. 

“Then, she calls the police but is then taken hostage by the android. They are currently outside, on the edge of the roof ready to fall off any minute now. He has held her at knife point the whole time, making the sniper unable to shoot. Your job is to get him away from her, preferably without killing her.” A brief, but not long at all, silence looms before Mark says something.

“Do we know the android’s name?”

“...uh”

“What kind of question-” Donghyuck laughs, cutting himself off as if in frustration.

Mark doesn’t miss a beat, “I’m going to need more information to ensure the best approach. There is currently only a forty-eight percent chance of this mission being a success.”

“Yeah, and the longer we wait, the more quickly it becomes 0-”

“Five minutes,” you state. Sure, maybe Taeil should have the final say since he is your senior in both age and experience, but you don’t care right now. Taeil sends you a glare, momentarily staying silent before letting out one of the most stressed out sighs you’ve ever heard him breath.

“Five minutes, or I’m going out there myself.”

 Mark seems to briefly look at you and Taeil as to acknowledge your permission before further inspecting his surroundings. Taeil walks off, going to talk to a SWAT officer. Donghyuck is still outwardly paranoid, leaving the room as he tries to cool down.

You? You watch Mark. Someone’s got to make sure this beta testing droid doesn’t do stupid shit. Okay, maybe less so that and you were just curious.

He walks over to the body of the father (still on the ground, you tried to ignore it the best you could), and takes the holographic tablet out of his hands. He unlocks it somehow, looking through it. Soon he puts it down and goes off somewhere. You follow him, he doesn’t seem to pay you any attention, though.

He, interestingly enough, goes into the girl’s bedroom, indicated by the giant teddy bear residing in it. He looks around, noticing a few things. Frankly, you have no clue what he was doing. But it was too much of a bother to prod him for answers. 

He picks up a different tablet this time, unlocking it. Audio playback begins, drawing your attention. You then notice that it’s actually a video playing. You can see it from around Mark’s torso, given the angle created by standing in the doorway of the bedroom. What on earth was he doing?

“This is Jaemin!” the girl’s voice declares. The video shows her face, that then pans out to show her arm around an android. The blue-haired one you were dealing with at this very moment. But his hair was brown in the photo. Not strange, given most androids had automatic hair color changing options. “The coolest android in the world! Say hi, Jaemin!”

“Hello,” he smiles widely, waving at the camera. They both look so happy. While the video quality is significantly good, the slight distortion of the medium causes ‘Jaemin’ to look practically human, if it weren’t for the commercial android uniform. It was illegal for an android not to wear a uniform identifying that they were digital animals.

Mark puts down the tablet, ending the video playback and continuing his short investigation. He proceeded to the next room, doing just about the same thing there that he did in the last one. He kept this up until Taeil finally yelled out that the five minutes were up.

You followed Mark until you were just in front of the sliding doors, where Mark was about to walk through to diffuse the situation.

“He’s heading out now,” Taeil spoke into his receiver. With that, he opened the door. A burst of wind came through when the door opened, likely from the helicopters that had been circling around now for over an hour.

“This is going to go terribly,” Donghyuck spoke calmly, finally.

“Have a little faith, will you?” You shoved him with your shoulder, arms crossed.

“Just because you think he’s cute doesn’t mean you should have any faith, (y/n).” You hit him on the side of the head. “Oww.”

“I don’t think he’s-”

“The two of you need to shut up, we can’t hear what’s going on.”

The minute Mark stepped out, a gunshot rang. Donghyuck instinctively grabbed you and pulled you down, pulling the both of you away from the door.

“STAY BACK!” you heard the android yell out. You recovered your wits quickly, trying to look at Mark. A new blue blood stain is on the floor right outside the door, coming from Mark. You naturally looked to see if Mark is okay, even if it logically wouldn’t make sense for him to be in pain. He is looking down at the fresh wound on his chest, without any hint of pain in his face. It gave you chills. Androids didn’t feel pain, and as long as they could function with all their parts working, they could take anything.

“Holy shit,” you heard Donghyuck whisper.

“MOVE ANY CLOSER AND I’LL JUMP!” Jaemin yelled, holding the girl with his other arm. She screamed, begging for her life. It’s horrifying to see.

“Get into position, go, go, go!” Taeil speaks hurriedly into his receiver, likely speaking to the sniper squad. The SWAT team that stands by lines up behind the door, ready to burst out at any moment. The situation is at its highest level of intensity that it’s been tonight. 

This is it.

“Hi, Jaemin!” Mark yelled over the noise. So he proves he knows the android’s name, you think. So what? “My name is Mark!”

“How do you know my name?!” Jaemin questioned, the gun still pointed towards Mark, and frankly the rest of you as well.

“I know a lot of things about you,” Mark continued yelling over the helicopters outside. “I’ve come to get you out of this!”

A second later, a helicopter swung around too close to the balcony, producing an even higher gust of wind and blowing the lawn furniture off the ground. It doesn’t hit anyone, but it definitely irritated a certain deviant.

“I know you’re angry, Jaemin,” Mark spoke again. Yeah, why the fuck was he so pissed? You thought to yourself. 

“But you need to trust me, and let me help yo-”

“I DON’T WANT YOUR HELP! NOBODY CAN HELP ME, ALL I WANT IS FOR ALL THIS TO STOP I-... I JUST WANT ALL THIS TO STOP!” He pauses a moment before becoming aggressive again.

“Are you armed?!” he asked.

“I have a gun,” Mark responded. He slowly reached behind him, pulling a handgun out before tossing it aside. You’re deadly silent until Donghyuck impatiently interrupted your focus.

“Is he fucking crazy?”

“He’s doing great, now shut the fuck up,” Taeil whispered angrily in his and your direction.

“There,” Mark said gently, despite keeping his voice loud and clear. “No more gun.” Another short silence settled before he kept slowly approaching the deviant, or Jaemin as you guess his name was.

“They were going to replace you,” he continued talking. “That’s what happened, right?”

“... I thought I was part of the family,” the deviant pathetically confessed. “I thought I mattered… But I was just their toy! Something to throw away, when you’re done with.”

“I know you and Kiara were very close,” Mark sympathised. Or at least he appeared to. Kiara? That must be the girl’s name, you reasoned. Did he find that out when he was looking through stuff? “You think she betrayed you, but she’s done nothing wrong-”

“SHE LIED TO ME!” the deviant cried. Mark stopped, doing something unexpectedly. He looked away from the hostage and the deviant, to one of the officers on the ground. He leaned down, observing before speaking out again.

“He’s losing blood. We need to get him to a hospital or he’s going to die,” he said. The action was very weird, in your opinion. But maybe it’s part of his tactic. You guessed that’s what Donghyuck also thought because he wasn’t saying anything.

“All humans die eventually,” the deviant said coldly. It nearly gives you a shiver. “What does it matter if this one dies now?”

Mark seems to ignore him, starting to turn the officer on his back and do something. Another shot rang, nearly hitting Mark and the officer.

“Don’t touch him!” the deviant yelled. “Touch him and I’ll kill you!”

“You can’t kill me,” Mark stated. “I’m not alive.” He continues whatever he’s doing, seeming to forget about the mission for a moment.

“Whatthefuckwhatthefuckwhatthefuck-” Donghyuck starts whispering. You covered his mouth with your hand, trying to shut him up. How the hell did they let such a hot-headed person get on the force?

Mark finishes what he’s doing, which you guess was to try to stop the bleeding. He stood up, a tie now gone from his uniform. He continues to approach slowly.

“It’s not your fault. These emotions you are feeling are just errors in your software.”

“No… It’s not my fault. I never wanted this. I-” Jaemin goes limp for a moment, hand with the gun falling to his side. “I love them. You know?... But I was nothing to them,” he picks up his gun again. “Just a slave to be ordered around. AUGHH-” he suddenly bursts. “I CAN’T STAND THAT NOISE ANYMORE!” The helicopters. Obviously. They’ve been around for hours. “Tell them to get out of here!”

Taeil spoke something into his receiver in order to do so, but you are hardly listening anymore. Mark is so close. Soon the helicopters left and the negotiation continued.

“There,” Mark assured. “I did what you wanted.” Mark is practically standing in front of him at this point. Jaemin seems hesitant and does not know what to do.

“I-” he stuttered. “I want everyone to leave! A-And I want a car. When I’m outside the city I’ll let her go.”

“That’s impossible, Jaemin. Let the girl go, and I promise you you won’t be hurt.”

“... I don’t want to die…” Jaemin began to cry, his voice becoming softer.

“You’re not going to die,” Mark assured. “We’re just going to talk. Nothing will happen to you.” Mark stops before uttering his next phrase with utter seriousness. “You have my word.”

Everyone held their breath. The silence is long and infuriating. You felt Donghyuck radiate heat from your side. You can only imagine you weren’t far from doing the same thing.

“... okay,” Jaemin was still crying. “I trust you.” He slowly let the girl down, still holding his gun but not pointing it at anyone. She shook, running only a few feet away from the edge before collapsing onto the ground. There was another moment where Mark and Jaemin looked at eachother. Unfortunately, everyone on your side, including Mark, knew what was about to happen.

A louder shot rang out from one of the snipers, and Kiara screamed. A large gaping hole appeared in Jaemin’s side, the force of the shot causing him to stumble around. Not a second later, another shot went off, right into his chest this time. It’s followed by a third. Jaemin wavers, falling to his knees. With three different shimmering blue gashes across his body, he struggles before looking back up into Mark’s eyes.

“You lied to me, Mark.” He tries to say it once more, before his voice fails and he shuts down.

You don’t move and neither does Donghyuck. You can’t believe what just happened. That had to be the most intense moment of your career and you hadn’t even started. Donghyuck was probably on the same boat. Taeil was the first one to move, coming onto the balcony and walking past Mark. Mark just turned away and walked back into the flat. 

You see his face, completely and utterly stoic. Even Taeil looked back, though his face doesn’t show it you know he’s as stunned as the rest of you that just saw everything that took place. And how this android that just appeared so empathetic, compassionate, and kind enough to save an officer’s life just walked away like it was another task completed. It reminded all of you that this wasn’t a human. It was just an android.

If you couldn’t be more awe-stricken and terrified, Mark’s eyes flicker to yours so fast you hardly know if it was just your imagination. But that is all he does as he leaves just as casually as he entered.

“Jesus Christ,” Donghyuck can’t bring himself to get up, now resorting to sitting on the floor. “I really don’t like him now.”

For once, you would have to throw the towel in. Mark was utterly terrifying.

[stopforamoment]

Part Six: Her Tiger (Series Eleven, Part 6 of 16)

Series Eleven: It’s uh Movin’ Thing, but Still and All (Sixteen Parts) Part Six: Her Tiger (Series Eleven, Part 6 of 16)

Masterlist

Book: The Royal Romance (After Book Three)

Pairing: Bastien Lykel x OFC Rinda Parks Word Count: 1,115 Rating: R for Strong Language, References to Children Working through Grief with Bullying, Hints of Child Abuse or Neglect, Child Protective Services Author’s Note: Obligatory disclaimer that Pixelberry Studios owns the TRR characters and my pocketbook with those darn diamond scenes. OFC with all of her quirks is all mine. My apologies if Tumblr or I do something stupid when I try to post this. The keep reading link shows up on my laptop but not my phone. Ugh.

TRIGGERS: Reference to possible abuse/neglect of a child and Child Protective Services

Thank you @asherella-is-a-dork-3​ for always being my sounding board! Thank you @liam-rhys​ and @silviasutton1989 for still being a part of the journey!

Triggers: There are going to be some dark themes in this series that deal with the consequences of what happens when parents don’t put their children first. I promise I won’t get graphic, and I’ll tag each section accordingly. This will tie in with future events and another aspect of Bastien and Rinda’s personalities—as individuals and as a couple.

Series Summary: It’s the week of October 14th, the sixth week of the school year. Henry and Rinda are staying in Cordonia, which means that Rinda can now begin to move forward, and backwards, with professional and personal aspects of her life.

One inspiration while I wrote this was a quotation from Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God: “Love is lak de sea. It’s uh movin’ thing, but still and all, it takes its shape from de shore it meets, and it’s different with every shore.”

The other was these lyrics from the song “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Misérables: “But the tigers come at night / With their voices soft as thunder / As they tear your hope apart / As they turn your dream to shame.”

Chapter Summary: Bastien and Rinda recap their day—and establish some ground rules for sharing ice cream.

Her Tiger

“Tria, the things Henry was showing me that Stephan is doing . . .” “I know, Bastien. It’s bad. We’re all working with Child Protective Services, but it’s a nightmare. Meanwhile we’re documenting everything and praying they’re safe until we see them the next morning. How’s Drake holding up, though? It’s only his second week and he’s great, but it’s still hard for anyone to see it—especially the first time. I feel like he’s been thrown into the deep end, only seeing the ugly before he gets to enjoy any of the fun. I think helping coach football and being part of this week’s dance jam will help, but . . .” “Don’t worry about Drake. I promise, he’s fine. I saw that you—the security team—have a meeting with Liam and Riley next week. Drake told me that you asked him to set that up, and he was happy to do that. It’s going to be fine Tria, but those kids can’t wait until this weekend. Let me talk to Liam and fix things with CPS now.” He saw Rinda was about to protest. “Tria, don’t fight me on this. I promise I have time to mention this to Liam, and it won’t interfere with any preparations for Friday. Tria? I’m going to tickle you to make you look at me.” Rinda laughed and obediently showed Bastien her eyes, and he stared into them, waiting until he saw that they weren’t aquamarine anymore. “Thank you, Tria.” He gently kissed her nose. “You know it’s not fair that my eyes are such a strong tell?” Bastien chuckled. “It’s very fair. If you aren’t going to tell me what you’re thinking, it’s an easy way for me to at least see how you’re feeling.” He grinned. “Besides. You’ve been a very naughty Tria who withheld information from her Tiger, so he had no way of knowing how to help her.” Rinda laughed. He was such a goof when he referred to himself as “her Tiger” or “your Tiger,” but she also loved it. She loved that Bastien was her Tiger, and she was his Tria. And although Bastien couldn’t stay late, they still had time to share spumoni ice cream and talk about their day. Yes, her Tiger would eat right out of the carton with her, but they each had to have their own spoon. Rinda laughed. Of course, silly Tiger! You don’t share spoons, you muppet gobshite. You each take your own spoon and fight each other for the good parts. Just then Bastien scooped out some of the pink section of the spumoni, revealing a large chunk of cherry. “Aha!” Rinda actually muscled Bastien’s hand out of the way as her spoon dove in for the cherry bit. “Tria! You did not just push your Tiger’s hand out of the way so you could grab the good part, did you?” Rinda unabashedly ate the cherry bit. “Yup. All is far in love and war when it comes to ice cream, Tiger.” Bastien suddenly stood up, still holding the carton. “Bastien? Tiger? Wait. Please. I’m sorry. I’ll be a better food sharer. Your Tria is very contrite right now. I promise. Just don’t ask to look at my eyes to prove it.” Bastien went to the kitchen, but he came back with a bowl and put a very small spoonful each of chocolate, pistachio, and cherry ice cream in the bowl. He saw Rinda move in closer, and he slapped her hands away. Then he carefully examined the ice cream and made a production out of picking a pistachio nut out of the bowl and returning it to the container. He finally handed the bowl to Tria. “Here, sweetheart.” Then Bastien twisted away from Rinda and continued eating ice cream out of the container. Rinda was laughing too hard to even finish the ice cream in her bowl, although she did tell Bastien that he was the süßester und düsterster Tiger--sweetest and silliest Tiger. And she loved how he could always make her laugh. . . . . .

When they were done fighting over ice cream, Bastien asked Rinda about the tour of the university and what she thought about everything. And how did their discussion go with implementing some of the safety training in university classes? Bastien smiled when he saw how animated Rinda got. The University was absolutely amazing. So many opportunities and the collaboration that was already taking place. And it was so exciting to be in a college classroom again, and she thought that the initial discussions went well, but she, Collin, and Deirdre knew they really had to work to ensure instructors maintained control for this to work. And most importantly, she felt so horrible that she had to ignore her Tiger throughout the day, but was it okay? Bastien kissed her forehead and cheeks again and again, telling her how much it meant to him when she mentioned Rossini. How he was able to watch her teach, and it was so impressive. How he was busy with security at the duchy now, but everything was going well—although he was still furious that Riley insisted on keeping Gladys on at the duchy. Even though she lost her head position, it was still a security nightmare, especially considering how well Gladys knew the duchy. Ugh. Don’t even get him started. But most importantly, he wanted to tell his Tria again and again how glad he was that she and Henry were staying in Cordonia. But there was one other thing. And it was a big deal, so he didn’t want to mention earlier because he didn’t want to ruin their night. Vivian Trakas invited herself to the teacher appreciation dinner Friday night. Bastien drew back, afraid of how Rinda would react. But Rinda just gave a half-hearted laugh. “I already knew Tiger, but thank you. I purposely made other plans that night so I’d have an excuse not to attend. I know that’s disrespectful to King Liam and Queen Riley, but when the day is over and everyone has exited the school safely, no threats or attacks, I really just want to get away from all of it. And in all honesty, I probably would throat punch Vivian if I saw her in a social setting. Henry was right. She really is a right wagon.”

Wagon? Bastien made a mental note to Urban Dictionary, although he knew it was going to be challenging now that Rinda was starting to throw in some Irish insults. He’d check English and Irish meanings, just in case. There was no way he was going to interrupt to ask her.

[ramrodd]

What flaws in the ROTC program need to be addressed?

COMMENTARY:

I have deleted a series of responses to Mike Page’s response to his own question.

I never disagree with his ahrgument, per se, especially as far as the advantages his proposal of 2 summer camps are concerned instead of the 4 year program I went through as a liberal arts student majoring in letters and process theology.

The process theology I was getting from RTOC, you dumb fuck. Nothing personal, of course.

The 2 summer camp program he proposes is more fun. I loved summer camp. My only problem was that I had to finish my senior year and my summer camp happened just before the 1968 Democrat Convention which resulted in the police riot the SDS had been designed to create with the 1962 Porort Huron Statement.

Cause and effect. The cause was the Trotsky Insurgence process embedded in the political strategy of the anti-war people. The Trosky Insurgency process is designed to employ sedition and subversion to create the social alienation and polarization that leads to sabotage and violent revolution. The sabotage didn’t really kick in until after Kent State, but the subversion really got traction after Tet ’68 and the SDS began to develop cells recruited to infiltrate the military and professions as active agents in the overthrow of the US government.

I was a Junior at Indiana when Tet hit the campuses. I re a uniform three times a week, looking as strac as I knew how to. I had been on a drill team as a Persishing Rifle and had my dad’s example of what a lifer’s uniform is suppose to look like on the job. I was as squared=away as I could be without having mom come behind me and complete the picture.

I knew Tet was coming. I grew up around headquarters and I was as plugged into the Post Rumor Control as the CG of CONARC. I wasn’t spying: it was osmosis. I got back to campus and everything was hunky-dory, the New Hampshire primaries came off as usual and the gates had open on the run for the white House and, at that moment, not-LBJ was not even a Dark Horse.

1967 was the Summer of Love in a “if you’re going to San Francisco…” flowers in the hair kind of way and Sergeant Pepper had just come out and John McCain had just been shot down. Tet was just about to jump off the Tallihatchie Bridge with Billy Joe McAllister, but Christmas was like the German side in Stalingrad 1942: there was a certain magical thinking that maybe it all had a happy ending if we all just clapped for Tink,

Tet was not the cause of the Chicago Police Riots in 1968, the Port Huron Statement was the cause, if you have any useful acquaintance with process theology, that should be evident to you without too much deliberation, Tet was the seed crystal that set off what amounted a socially supersaturated solution, or critical mass, that had been carefully groomed by the anti-war movement to blow up somewhere, sometime. It only took 6 years to achieve that moment and if the Diem brothers hadn’t been assassinated, the Port Huron Statement would have never gotten any traction.

I watched this stuff happen during a 4 year liberal arts education I was required to attend in order to receive an ROTC commission. ROTC is a direct result of the ideal and the intent of the 2nd Amendment, that is, to ensure for the manpower and mobilization requirements of the federal mandate for the common defense in the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the American Republic would be sustained by citizen-soldiers in the Swiss-Israeli tradition. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t have shit to do with guns: it is entirely a mechanism to supply the worker-patriots to carry the guns. The Civil wWar, on both sides, and First and Second Phases of the World at War was fought by the America citizen soldier, thanks to the 2nd Amendment. My dad got his commision at Indiana. I got mine the same way. We spent 4 years in classroom engagement in the process theology of the military arts and sciences, but the most fun was the practical application of FM 22–5, twice a week.

Just for the record, FM 22–5 comes almost directly from Frederick the Great by way of von Steubin and prior to Jomini. US Army doctrine originates in Prussian staff experience, but is embellished by the French example at Yorktown and the focus on Jomini at the exclusion of Clauswitz until Marshall’s reforms beginning in 1942 and proceeding way beyond any need to reexamine the efficacy of the 4 years ROTC program. It’s not West Point. It’s not intended to be West Point. Or OCS. Or the two-summer camp ROTC program. It is, however, the same intellectual trajectory and learning curve as West Point and that trajectory, combined with the experiential data that has accumulated with the liberal arts program, ensures that the collective unconscious of the US Army is being constantly enriched by the broadest possible universe of high shooling for the dressage of the republican citizen soldier.

Here’s the thing, Mike Page, my impression of you is similar to my impression of Richard Carrier, the evangelical anti-theist and John Bolton and Dumb Ass Don: you’ve never heard a shot fired in anger.

I know you were in the combat arms, but your original profile said you went to Germany instead of Vietnam. You now cite Asia, which means you could have earned a CIB on the DMZ, but you were pretty emphatic that you never got to Vietnam.

Poor you. I wouldn’t have missed Vietnam for the world, and being in GermanY during Vietnam was like a certain kind of Purgatory for someone who had signyd up for a life of derring-do and danger, but we all served the needs of the service, so that’s like Eisenhower, who never go overseas in Phase I.

Vietnam wasn’t a great war, but it was the only war we had.

The other thing I sense in you, Mike Page, is the resentment of an OCS officer without a college degree, going through, for the country-club commission I earned over 4 years and a summer camp. If you are serious about producing the best possible officer to lead soldiers against fire, you should know that everything that happened before you got that rank don’t mean nothing once you get it: how you got there ain’t important. It’s that you showed up and stuck around is all the military requires to begin the process of becoming all you can be.

See, here’s the thing, Mike Page: growing up in the Army, all the chaplains I knew had been combat veterans until I left the Army in 1971. Generally, I’ve done what I can to avoid the military since I left: the prospect of spending time with some lifer like you just makes my skin crawl, even if they have been shot at. But you and Bolton and Richard Carrier share an attitude I never encountered among the chaplains I have known. I saw the same thing being directed at John Kerry by the Swift Boaters and it was an attitude I ran into in the corporate culture from Vietnam-era National Guard pukes, who resented the fact that they had to keep their hair short during a time when getting laid and short hair were not the norm and they blamed Viet vets for their decision to pursue their business careers and not be labeled a long-haired, dope-smoking, anti-war hippy freak in a culture of pro-war business executives. It’s like the military officers who conceived and implemented the All Volunteer Military: they blamed the draftee-citizen solder for the way Vietnam turned out and that it was actually their idea in the first place.

So, if this idea of reforming ROTC represents a big career move for you, my advice to the rest of the world is to ignore it.

There were two coalitions in the Army senior officers during the McNamara tenure in the Pentagon: those who were committed to Marshall’s reforms and what my dad called “Nut Heads”, that is, political opportunists who abandoned the needs of the service in favor of their own ambitions and aligned with the McNamara Whiz Kids and his reforms based on the Harvard management model. These guys were in charge when Tet blew up in LBJ’s face and he dropped out of the race. From 1968 until I got back from Vietnam, these guys were like a Marx brothers meet the 3 Stooges, running around, trying to avoid becoming collateral damage. One of these guys scared me out of a military career in Vietnam, someone with the same crypto-Nazi cognitive organization as Mike Pompeo, Mike Espry and Tom Cotton.

And you. In response to your last reponse in our dialogue, to wit,

>>>Mike Page: “If you had an idea, Tom, it would overwhelm that single brain cell you were born with,….”<<<

You are a retrograde pre-Tet ’68 Nut Head. And the All Volunteer Military seems to be just totally stuffed you guys.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY:

How should the U.S. have handled Communist aggression in Vietnam?

You really don’t know shit about much of anything, do you, Mike Page.

Both Korea and Vietnam sit on the trade routes from the oil in the Persian Gulf to Japan and Taiwan, for one thing, and that oil was the reason for our presence on the Pacific Rim and, in no small measure, a factor in Japan’s vision of their Great Co-Prosperity Sphere that compelled the decision to attack Pearl Harbor.

You’ve presented the SDS version of the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam. The actual version is presented, below.

From 1954 until 1962, the MAG-V mission in the Republic of Vietnam was essentially the same as the K-MAG mission in the Republic of Korea: peace keeping and nation building, Both nations were the result of a negotiated partition and, in the case of the Korean Penisula, a cease fire that persists. This was part of George Kennan’s theory of containment and reflected Marshall’s manifesto delivered at Harvard in 1947. The efficacy of this mission can be measured by the present success of the Republic of Korea, and the continuing K-MAG mission.

In 1962, the commie cocksuckers in Hanoi determined to invade RVN and signaled their intent to that end by tossing frags into Saigon movie theaters. I had friends, other Army brats, living in Saigon at the time, and MAG-V evacuated all the dependents in 24 hours in order to clear the deck for general combat and to avoid a reprise of the Phillipines.

After the assassination of the Diem brothers in 1963, America lost the moral legitimacy of its nation building mission and made it impossible to “win” the battle MAG-V was transformed into MAC-V with the mission to conduct a battle of attrition against the Soviet economy by proxy, the subsequent enterprse being a battle in the larger Cold War.

To this end, General Westmoreland was essentially assigned the task of creating the blood sacrifice of the commie cocksuckers on the field of battle that would compel the Kremlin to continue to commit the material support to their ideological clients that would ultimately bankrupt the Soviet economy, which had not begun to fully recover from WWII.

In the final analysis, Vietnam became a contest between Marxism and the Harvard Business model and Marxism won, but, in the larger context, Vietnam was for the Kremlim what Borodino was for Napoleon: a battle they couldn’t afford to fight and a battle they couldn’t afford to lose.

As a direct result of the American War in Vietnam, the Soviet Union is no more. The fact of the matter is, the Domino Theory did, in fact, manifest, regionally, but was contained by what amounted to entropy.

Now, in reference to my commentary on your ROTC essay (Tom Wilson’s answer to What flaws in the ROTC program need to be addressed?) the mistake that the “Nut Heads” in the Pentagon that aligned with McNamara’s agenda made was to NOT proceed at the same time as the “Search and Destroy” element of the post-Diem brothers strategy with the other two legs of a Clauswitzian solution, that is, to equip the RVN military prodigously and to begin the process of “Vietnamization” on pretty much the same model as the ROK Army that served with such distinction in RVN.

As far as providing aid to all of Vietnam, it’s useful to remember that 1954 was the year of the McCarthy Hearings and people were losing their careers for any hint of political intercourse with commie cocksuckers anywhere in the world and Ho Chi Minh was a commie cocksucker who had just supervised the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu. The long haired anti-war hippy freaks of the SDS, and Noam Chomsky, might have found the prospect of providing economic aid to ALL OF VIETNAM appealing, but, well, in 1954, General Ridgeway wasn’t as sanguine of the prospect of success nor inclined to propose the project in the first place.

Just for the record, my self-esteem is perfectly secure. I’ve been dealing with lifers like you since I got off the Freedom Bird in 1971. Just the idea of being around lifers like you makes my skin crawl, but it’s not an impediment to my happiness and personal fulfillment.

[junker-town]

The NFL’s roughing the passer rule is asking refs to do the impossible, again

Former NFL official Terry McAulay gives some background on officials being stuck making controversial calls, and how things will likely improve.

The NFL’s biggest controversy through three weeks of the 2018 season has been it’s roughing the passer rule with regards to body weight. Players, coaches, and fans all have fair gripes over the rule. The way it’s been called so far is unreasonable.

The rule reads as such:

A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball ... When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up the passer with the defensive player’s arms and not land on the passer.

There are many examples showing that the expectation for players to not take their body weight to the ground with them in order to make a tackle is impossible in most cases. Packers linebacker Clay Matthews has found himself on the wrong end of these calls weekly on routine plays without ill intent. Dolphins DE William Hayes claims to have torn his ACL trying to do the impossible by not landing on Derek Carr.

The rule has also put officials in a terrible position by having to call something that’s clearly just a part of the game.

However, it’s not the first time that officials have been stuck making calls they know aren’t right.

Terry McAulay, an official in the NFL for two decades, recalls during the early to mid-2000s when new roughing the passer rules were implemented that were focused on contact to the quarterback’s head.

“If the head moved at all on contact, we were calling a foul,” he says. “Of course you were getting those glancing, inadvertent, unintentional blows — we’d call it a blow — glances that we were calling fouls and people were going nuts and we didn’t like making them, but that was the correction.”

Along with the contact to the quarterback’s head, there was also controversy when hits on defenseless receivers started being flagged in 2010. “It was really really tough because no official at any level ever had to make that call before, and we knew our accuracy wasn’t going to be great,” McAulay says. “But the importance of the player safety aspect required that we all figured it out.”

And it did get figured out, but McAulay acknowledges it wasn’t an immediate fix. It took multiple seasons to get the accuracy to a point where everybody could live with the rule, and adjustments went beyond officials as well.

“Defenders, they got much better at not hitting defenseless receivers — with the over launching helmet to helmet — and then officials got better with recognizing when it was illegal, and when it wasn’t,” he says. “Now obviously, mistakes are still made by players and officials, but it’s in a pretty good spot right now.”

However, the body weight roughing the passer calls will largely be in the hands of officials because of the nature of the play.

Right now, the NFL isn’t giving officials any wiggle room.

In the case of Matthews, his last penalty is a pretty routine play, where he wraps up Alex Smith and completes the tackle. Sure, he lands on top of Smith, but it’s physically impossible to stop his momentum.

Players, coaches, officials, and fans can all agree that Matthews didn’t have ill intent there. However, officials aren’t being given a choice at the moment. They’re stuck making the call because it’s a “point of emphasis” this season. It requires officials to make the call as the rule is written.

“If it’s just a football act that has no additional action that clearly shows that the defender is putting the quarterback at risk, I think the referee should have the discretion to not make that call,” McAulay says.

“Right now, I believe the league has kind of thrown out that unnecessarily, removed that discretion from the referee, and said if you see full body weight, just throw the flag, players will adjust, and we’ll eventually be safer.”

The rule isn’t going anywhere, but it’ll be called more reasonably in the future.

The NFL implemented the change in the wake of Aaron Rodgers’ broken collarbone last year, when he was driven into the ground by Anthony Barr. It was created with good intentions, but as history has shown, there’s always going to be an adjustment period with new rules.

“Nobody was happy that they were going to have to make [calls on defenseless receivers], but everybody clearly understood its importance,” McAulay says. “The league was very supportive as errors were being made. Some of them were game-deciding or game-influencing situations, but the league continued to support, and it kind of got us to where we are today in a pretty good place with defenseless players.”

The NFL’s competition committee is having a (previously scheduled) meeting next week, and will be discussing the rule and how it’s called. Members of the committee are reportedly not happy with the current emphasis, and will likely make clarifications on how the penalty is called.

In a conference call on Tuesday, Fox Sports rules analyst Mike Pereira suggested the committee could look to make the emphasis more on a second act where a “lift and drive” would constitute a penalty. It’s essentially describes the play that Barr hit Rodgers on that inspired the rule.

“There is something to be said about what the league’s trying to do,” McAulay says. “I just think that they moved it too far. Bringing it back just a little bit would really benefit everybody, both players and officials.”

[vedantaboston]

What Is My Duty?

Most of us have faced situations in life when we are confused and unsure about how to proceed. We have wondered: “What is my duty in these circumstances?” Often we just muddle through the confusion and use whatever justifications the mind can think up to determine the best course of action. What if we yearned for scriptural guidance in this matter? Do our ancient books have any useful insights that may help us figure out what our duty is?

Arjuna had a duty-related dilemma on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, as we read in the Gītā. Thrust into a war with people who Arjuna saw as his own, he was confused about the right course of action. He sought Krishna’s counsel. Krishna’s advice to Arjuna was simple: Do your duty. Krishna went so far as to say that it was better to die doing one’s own duty, even if imperfectly, than to attempt to do someone else’s duty, however perfectly (3.35, 18.47).

The word that Krishna used repeatedly for “one’s own duty” was svadharma, literally, “my dharma” (2.31, 2.33, 3.35, 18.47).  Derived from the root dhṛ, “to hold” or “to support,” dharma covers a large canvas, so it is difficult to find a one-word translation of it in English. Depending on the context, dharma can be translated as duty, virtue, justice, and even religion. In order to understand svadharma, we must first learn a little about dharma as duty.

A good starting point in the examination of dharma is to know that it can be divided broadly into two categories: generic (sādhāraṇa) and specific (viśeṣa). As the name suggests, generic dharma is meant for all. It includes virtues like non-injury (ahiṁsā), forbearance (kṣamā), sense-control (indriya-nigraha), compassion (dayā), charity (dāna), purity (śauca), truthfulness (satya), austerity (tapas). Everyone is expected to develop these qualities. The generic dharma is universal. It is dharma for all. It is dharma as virtue.

Dharma as Duty

Everyone has a specific dharma as well. This is dharma as duty. This usually includes duties associated with one’s stage of life (āśrama) and one’s position (varṇa) in the community. In the early stages of Indian society, there were said to be four stages in life: the student stage (brahmacarya), the married stage (gārhasthya), the retired stage (vānaprasthya), and the hermit stage (sannyāsa).

In our times, these have largely been reduced to three: the first part of life is the student stage, usually under the care of one’s parents. Then comes the married stage, when one launches into a career and starts one’s family. Finally, the retired stage, when it’s time to retire as the children grow up and start their own families. A few among those in the retired stage may eventually become hermits without taking formal monastic vows. Those who do take formal vows usually begin early in life, often during or immediately after the student stage. Every one of these stages has its own special set of duties called āśrama dharma.

In the student stage, for instance, the primary duty is to study. But students are at the same time also sons or daughters, so they have duties toward their parents as well. In the married stage, more duties are added—such as the duty towards the spouse and the children—and some of the old duties continue, the duty toward one’s aging parents, for instance. In this way, every new stage adds more duties while retaining a few from the earlier stages. The only exception to this is the last stage. Those who are in the hermit stage are exempt from all the earlier duties, but they have a special set of duties associated with the monastic life.

As to one’s duty toward the community (varṇa dharma), four fields in community life became the focus of attention early on: religion, administration, commerce, and service. Every community needed scholars and priests (brāhmaṇa), administrators and warriors (kṣatriya), farmers and traders (vaiśya), and help of nonspecialist workers (śūdra). Every one of these positions had a set of duties assigned to it. The nuts and bolts of this system evolved over a period of time, the natural way social structures have always taken shape.

The Past

How were the positions determined for community members? On the basis of the qualities (guṇa) they possessed to do the work (karma) that was required (Gītā 4.13). While this was a logical way to fulfill the needs of a community, it couldn’t have been easy centuries ago to implement it in practice. In many ways the world then was unimaginably different from the world today. For starters, these ancient communities were mostly isolated from one another and therefore had to be self-sufficient. Travel was rare and, in the absence of any meaningful mode of transport, didn’t take people far from their homes. Almost everyone grew up, worked, married, raised children, retired, and died in the area where they were born. 

There were no schools to go to for professional training. The only way healing could be learnt, for instance, was as an apprentice to a physician (vaidya). The village physician’s assistant would usually be his own son, who would grow up and, when his father retired, take his place. There was no guarantee that the physician’s son was the best candidate for the job or even had interest in it. But he didn’t have much freedom to choose some other career. If there was only one physician in the village and he died, the community couldn’t go without a physician just because the apprentice wasn’t interested in the job.  Similar was the situation for other skills and trades needed for an efficient functioning of the community. There were exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, but they were rare.

It clearly wasn’t an ideal situation, but there didn’t seem to be any better alternative. The idea was good but the infrastructure was not congenial. That is how these work-related obligations came to be inherited and stayed within the family, not so much earned through merit. Over the years, the positions hardened and came to be determined by birth (jāti) and identified by the work the people did. Swami Vivekananda referred to the arrangement as “a hereditary trade guild” (CW, 5. 311) and “a social institution” (CW, 1. 22). Fully aware of how it was being portrayed, Swamiji emphasized that it was a mistake to view it as “a religious institution” (CW, 2. 515, 5. 22). The varṇas are mentioned by name in the Puruṣa-sūkta of the Ṛgveda (10.90) and in the Gītā (4.13, 18.41-44), but that doesn’t make the social system that adopted the varṇa nomenclature a religious institution, any more than the many references to slaves and slavery in the Bible make that a religious institution.

What the groupings in the Indian society led to was a situation that pitted heredity against merit. People claimed a position because of heredity, which determined the work they did. In many instances, there were perhaps others who were better suited to the position because they had the qualities essential for it. But such people did not always get the job even when they yearned for it. Heredity and work were easier to identify objectively than interest and aptitude. The result was that one’s family affiliation and the inherited work became the socially accepted markers of one’s position and responsibility. 

To be sure, qualities were not ignored. They were often recognized and utilized, but they could not dislodge the primacy of heredity. In the Mahabharata, for instance, Vidura was by birth a śūdra and maintained that position socially but, because he had qualities identified with the position of brāhmaṇa, functioned as a much-respected advisor to the king. On the other hand, Droṇa, who was a brāhmaṇa by birth, was skilled in archery and taught military arts, work that was associated with the kṣatriya position. These were not exceptions. It was not unusual to have one position claimed by birth and another earned through merit or imposed by circumstances. This has continued to be the case, though hereditary positions are increasingly becoming irrelevant now.

The original system was designed for a fair distribution of responsibility among community members. Every form of work that met the social need was necessary and important. There wasn’t any inbuilt sense of one work being higher or superior to any other work. There was no sense of hierarchy. The work was not meant to be an end in itself. It was a means. It could bestow bliss in heaven after death or, when done as yoga, it could lead to spiritual liberation (mokṣa). Every form of work, so long as it did not violate moral and ethical principles, had the ability to give us the highest (Gītā 18.45-46). It didn’t therefore matter what work people did, so long as they remained true to dharma as virtue. 

In practice, though, things didn’t work out quite so ideally. We don’t know how long it was before hierarchies arose with everyone claiming themselves to be superior to others and hence more important than others. The problem was what it has always been throughout human history—greed and selfishness. What had begun primarily as an equitable distribution of duties for social upkeep changed over time into a politicized preservation of privilege for the powerful. The history of the world repeatedly shows us that we human being are adept in the art of transforming anything good into something awful.

Every form of responsibility brings power and, along with it, the desperate desire to preserve privilege. The priests had knowledge gathered from ancient books and they used fear of retribution in the afterlife to keep the rest under their thumb. The warriors brandished the power of weapons and no one dared to refuse whatever they asked for. The traders used their commercial might to control and subdue others. The workers bore the greatest brunt, being oppressed in one way or another by the priests, the warriors and the traders. Eventually they too found their voice and discovered their own strength in numbers and used it to good effect through strikes and protests.

Not all of these things happened at the same time and to the same degree. Also, not everyone misused their positions. Some were indeed good and responsible people, but many others were not. At different times and in different communities, one or the other of these four power centers dominated and tried to control the rest. The emphasis shifted from duty (dharma) to rights (adhikāra). Duty required us to give our time, energy and skills. Rights were about receiving more power, more privilege. No wonder duties were ignored and there was a rush for rights, a trend that continues to this day, not only in the Indian society but also in the rest of the world.

The Present 

The constitutions of democratic nations the world over list different kinds of rights that citizens have. It will be difficult to find any mention of duties. How can there be any rights without the corresponding duties? When President Kennedy said at his inauguration in 1961: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” he was hoping that his fellow Americans would redirect their attention to duties, not simply remain fixated on rights.

The world today is radically different from what it was in those ancient days centuries ago when the social order in India was evolving. The constraints of those early communities no longer exist. No longer is one community isolated from another to the extent it was in the past. On the contrary, we are more connected than ever—in person through easy jet travel and virtually via the internet. Global trade and commerce have not only brought people together but also made it possible to shop for talents and skills in every part of the world. 

Oddly enough, the original intent of the varṇa-system to have responsibilities divided in a community on the basis of merit is easier to implement now than it was then. If a certain skillset is missing, we can now import it from elsewhere—or outsource the work some place else when possible. Today’s businesses try to employ the best talents suited for the job, for that’s the key to success and profits. Merit has a better chance today than it had in the past. Because a lot more choices are available, it is easier now to choose our careers and pursue our interests. There is more freedom in social matters than ever before. It would seem that things are finally falling in place. If you feel that this scenario looks too rosy to be true, you are right. It does represent truth, but only a half-truth.

The other half isn’t pretty. We have come far from the isolated but mostly homogeneous communities of the past to the closely connected but increasingly diverse world of the present. Inevitably, hurdles have cropped up. Merit is still recognized, but before it can assert itself, it has to battle the compulsions of poverty and the forces of racism, antisemitism, nationalism, and fundamentalism. These have spawned different kinds of power centers in societies the world over, keeping communities internally divided. The claims of merit take a backseat when a person is not of the right color or the right nationality or the right religion. More important than the needs of the community are the preservation of privilege of the group in power. The “group in power” is the dominant caste of the time. 

When India came under the thousand-year rule of people from beyond its borders, its social structure had already undergone a sea change. The society was no longer being nourished by dharma as duty. Dharma did not disappear but it became weak. The masses were being controlled by those who had usurped power and privilege. Swami Vivekananda was unsparing in his condemnation of those who exploited the situation to their own advantage. The shell of the original system survived but its soul had vanished. This did more harm than good to the health of the community—and was one of the major reasons why India could not defend itself from external aggressions.

Arriving in India in 1498, the Portuguese were the first to apply the word “caste” (from Portuguese, casta) to the hereditary groupings in Indian society. Throughout history, the powerful—in India’s case, the colonial masters—have always had the privilege of defining and stereotyping the less powerful. Thanks to the Portuguese and then the British, the word “caste” got indelibly associated with India. Because the varṇa system by then had become a caricature of its original plan, “caste” remained as a taint on the Indian society and, oddly, also on Hinduism, the religion that majority of Indians practice. It is difficult to find today a textbook or a chapter on Hinduism that doesn’t treat caste as if it were the defining part of the tradition.

Isabel Wilkerson points out in her insightful study, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents (2020), that the problems in today’s America—especially the ones faced by the black community—are better understood through the lens of caste than racism. A system of artificially constructed hierarchies exists not only in America but throughout the world and, even though it may not always be called by its true name “caste,” it continues to be the major cause of social discontent and suffering. The system takes different forms and manifests in different ways, discriminating against people on the basis of ancestry, color, class, faith, nature of work, and sexual orientation. The word “caste” may have been employed extensively with regard to the Indian society, but it is not merely an Indian problem. It is a global problem.

We have seen that the era in which the varṇa system emerged in India has long passed. The social arrangement, whatever good it may have achieved in the early days, fizzled out with the passage of time due to selfishness and greed. There was no conscious and collective effort to modify or revise the social structure periodically to keep in step with the rapidly evolving society. All social institutions that stagnate tend toward chaos and corruption. Reformers in every generation tried to stem the slide, but their efforts were clearly not enough. All of this has made the system untenable today and irrelevant to most Indians, especially those living in urban areas. 

How does it still manage to survive? It has not survived in its original form obviously. What survives now is the empty shell that bestows privilege on the powerful and keeps the less powerful suppressed through political maneuverings. The underprivileged are nevertheless lulled into clinging to their group identities by the crumbs of “benefits” doled out to them by their political patrons. Each of these “castes” has become a special interest group and is kept alive by community leaders as “vote banks” to strengthen their political clout. The phenomenon is not limited to Indian politics. The caste structure in different guises exists all over the world and shows similar manipulations by the people in power.

So, what is “my duty”?

Keeping all of the above in mind, it’s time to ask: Does the Gītā teaching regarding dharma as duty have any relevance in the 21st century? How can I be sure that I am truly following “my dharma” (svadharma)? What is my dharma in today’s changed world?

As we have seen, “my dharma” includes two sets of primary responsibilities: one, depending on the stage of my life (student, family, retirement, monastic), and two, depending on my skills and work for the community. A group of ancient books called Dharma Śāstras deals with duties at different stages of life (āśrama dharma). These books haven’t been updated for centuries, so their practical utility is limited. They are generally of interest to theologians or to those who study history of religion. For the rest of us, no books are really needed. Common sense would be more than enough, if it is accompanied by a firm determination to follow dharma as virtue.

What is my varṇa dharma? Let us return to the Gītā idea (4.13) of varṇa dharma being determined by the qualities (guṇa) required to do every work (karma). In Arjuna’s case, he was a kṣatriya because he had the requisite qualities, not merely because he was born in a kṣatriya family. He was the preeminent archer of his time. Krishna reminded Arjuna that his varṇa dharma required of him to vanquish the oppressors and uphold justice (2.31, 11.33). Overwhelmed by his filial attachment to members of his family who were on the opposite side, Arjuna wanted to give everything up and live on alms (2.5), a monastic lifestyle for which he wasn’t qualified yet.  His knowledge of who he was and where his duty lay got clouded by his confusion.

That is precisely the kind of confusion that can come upon me if I lack self-knowledge—“self” with the lowercase “s”—meaning, plain simple knowledge of who I am at this moment. In order to know myself, I should look within to examine what my inherent talents and qualities are. It is not easy to look at oneself objectively and assess one’s worth. Some amount of ego reduction is necessary in order to be able to do that well. Done clumsily, people either underestimate themselves or grossly exaggerate their worth.

Armed with the knowledge of my strengths and my weaknesses, my skills and my interests, I can choose my career and decide what else I should do in life. If my self-assessment is accurate, my varṇa dharma becomes obvious. If I am lucky, I’ll find the kind of work I love and am good at. All I need to do then is to work hard, be sincere and attentive. That will bring me joy and other rewards. I can also help those around me find work and activities that fit their profile and interests. The secret of happiness is to make others happy, especially those in my immediate circle. I cannot be happy if everyone around me is unhappy.

It’s also possible that, for whatever reason, I may not find the work that I love or the work I am qualified for. I may then have to settle for something less interesting. The work I am saddled with may not feel to be my svadharma at all. I may feel that my merit is not being recognized. When that happens, it is easy to feel frustrated and angry. But it doesn’t really help. When such impulses go unchecked, they can lead me into doing things that produce even more suffering. I need to find other ways to deal with my situation. One practical way is to do what work I can for the present while looking out for opportunities to do what truly matches my skills and aspirations. Patience and perseverance have never hurt anyone and usually are rewarded sooner or later.

Who wouldn’t want a work that is enjoyable and fulfilling? What if I am not so lucky to get it even after trying my best? If I am a devotee or a spiritual seeker, I will then view whatever work becomes mine as something that God wants me to do. I’ll remind myself that God has put me in this situation for a reason. It’s necessary for me to learn some lessons in life that I haven’t learnt yet. No matter how boring or uninspiring, I’ll try to do the work to the best of my ability, as skillfully as I can, in a spirit of karma yoga, recognizing that doing the work in this manner is my svadharma now. All of this applies not only to the work I do to earn my livelihood but also to every other activity of mine.

The truth is that when we do something in the spirit of karma yoga, it somehow becomes meaningful and joyful even if it wasn’t something we were originally thrilled about. Not many realize that all work is really done by God. This is not recognized because the ego gets in the way and appropriates all agency to itself. If we succeed in minimizing—and then eliminating—the ego, we will know that all efforts are powered by God, who pervades everything and everyone. Every duty stops being “duty” when done as karma yoga, it becomes a form of worship, and leads to perfection and spiritual freedom (Gītā 18.46).

We don’t know if there will ever be a time when everyone in the world will realize this. It sure feels unlikely. Be that as it may, no power in the world can stop me from thinking that every work that makes me unselfish is my duty. Every work that is powered through love and kindness is my duty. Every work that is based on truth is my duty. Every work done in a spirit of worship is my duty. Not only should I think this way, I should also live this way day after day, month after month, year after year. If I do this, nothing else matters. If I don’t do this, what does my life matter?

[wristwatchjournal]

The Petrolhead Corner – Busted! Caught Cheating at Racing – Part 1

Bending the rules is considered somewhat acceptable, breaking them really isn’t and there’s a fine line between the two. And yes, also in a strongly-regulated sport like motor racing, there are examples of people, constructors and racing teams caught red-handed at cheating. People deliberately crashed, stole technical documents, payed-off officials to turn a blind eye, found ‘ingenious’ ways to make a car competitive or simply shunted someone off track. This is the first in a two-part coverage of stories from the racing world where cheaters got caught.

Formula 1 is the top-tier category in racing for years now, and a multi-billion dollar industry. Each race, each championship, there is so much at stake that it every so often leads to someone trying to get an unfair edge over competitors. I think this is part of human nature basically, and always will be, but when it leads to breaking the rules everyone agreed to comply to, you have a bit of a problem. And it’s not something that happens in F1 only, there are multiple examples out there.

Formula 1 – turbo-power versus weight-saving

During the late seventies and eighties, Formula 1 was all about turbo-power. It was introduced in 1977 but was plagued by reliability during the early years. The French constructor Renault were the ones to first use it but the cars often failed to reach the chequered flag. Over the years, more and more teams and constructors developed turbocharged engine, with power increasing and reliability improving year by year. The peak of performance during the turbo-era in Formula 1 was just before the technology was banned, with engines producing around 1.500bhp during qualifying trim, when the boost was turned all the way up. At that time there was no restriction on the number of engines per season so a blown engine was simply replaced without consequence. 

In the first half of the eighties though, not all teams had access to turbo-technology or managed to partner with an engine-supplier that offered a reliable package. This lead to a controversy in 1982 with multiple teams seeking a way to beat the teams that did run turbo-engines. The turbo-cars needed a lot more fuel, while non-turbo cars could be built far lighter than the required minimum weight determined by the FISA (now FIA). Nothing out of the ordinary so far since the use of ballast to weigh cars down to meet regulations was quite common. It even resulted in better balanced cars as the ballast could be distributed freely throughout the chassis.

Stefan Johansson of Sweden drives the #4 Tyrrell Racing Organisation Tyrrell 012 Ford Cosworth DFY V8 during the Brazilian Grand Prix on 7 April 1985 at the Autodromo Internacional Nelson Piquet Jacarepagua circuit near Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Photo by Mike King/Getty Images)

But, as this is a Petrolhead Corner episode about cheating, in 1982 at least two teams came up with the idea to add an auxiliary water tank, allegedly used to cool the brakes. If it was actually used for cooling the brakes there wouldn’t have been a problem. However, shortly after the start, the driver could dump the water and thus lose weight and instantaneously make their cars more competitive. Rules stated that the teams could top up the tanks before the cars were weighed again as it was intended to cool the brakes and thus wasn’t considered a breach. The act of dumping the water to gain an advantage in handling and performance was though.

After discovering this, both Nelson Piquet (Brabham) and Keke Rosberg (Williams) were excluded from the championship. They finished first and second in the 1982 Brazilian Grand Prix, but were disqualified for the breach of regulations. Subsequently, Alain Prost won the race for Renault, followed by John Watson in the McLaren-Ford. 1982 was a season full of turmoil, with strikes, disqualifications, the loss of two drivers (Gilles Villeneuve & Ricardo Paletti) and a champion who won only 1 race in the entire season; Keke Rosberg.

The system in question, here on a Williams FW08

Only two years later, controversy struck again when F1 constructor Tyrrell was caught trying to get an unfair advantage over their competitors. Again things revolved around turbo-power and weight. Tyrrell was the only one to run without turbo engines and between them, the FISA/FIA and the other teams there was a huge debate on rules and regulations. Refuelling was banned and fuel capacity was maxed at 220 litres for the entire race, both favouring the more fuel-efficient non-turbo runners. A common practice is to use a water-injection system, cooling the intake trumpets, reducing temperatures and increasing power output. The British team deliberately ran their Tyrrell 012 cars underweight, only to top up the tanks for the water injection system at the end of the race. The breach of regulations was that along with topping up on water, which was fine, they added up to 140lbs (about 60 to 65 kilo’s) of lead-shot to the tanks too. Tyrrell was caught when they topped up their tanks, and some lead-shot escaped in the process, exposing what they did.

They argued that the lead-shot functioned as ballast and “fixed” in the tanks, just as the rulebook stated since it wasn’t removable without taking apart the car. The FIA wanted nothing of it, deemed the move illegal and banned them from the final races of the season and disqualifying them for the previous races.

These stories are sourced on various blogs, including Jalopnik and Motorsport Magazine.

Rally Championship – Toyota innovates extremely, but also illegally 

Nowadays we have the World Rally Championship, or WRC, as the foremost category of rallying but this wasn’t always the case. Before it was grouped into an official, global championship in 1973, rallying was done under various popular international championships. The first FIA sanctioned championship on a global stage was held in 1973 and evolved from cars like the Lancia Stratos and Renault-Alpine A110 to Group B, Group A and eventually WRC stipulations.

Group B cars are some of the fastest and most extreme rally cars ever built, at least in an FIA sanctioned championship. Events like Dakar or the Pike’s Peak Hillclimb have seen even more extreme cars but that’s not the focus of this article. Following the cancellation of Group B, after a horrific accident killed three spectators and injured thirty more at the 1986 Portugal Rally, Group A took over as the top-tier category. Where Group B brought us legendary cars like the Peugeot 205 T16, the Lancia Delta S4, the Ford RS200 and of course the Audi Quattro S1, Group A was responsible for equally legendary cars running into the nineties.  

Just think of the blue-and-gold Subaru Impreza 555, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo’s, the whale-tailed Ford Escort RS Cosworth or the Castrol Oil liveried Toyota’s. Cars that were piloted by the likes of Carlos Sainz (father of current F1-star Carlos Sainz Jr.), the late Colin McRae, Juha Kankkunen, Tommi Makinen or Didier Auriol. 

Toyota was on top of their game in the early nineties when it came to rallying. Their Celica GT-Four was the 1990 World Champion, with Carlos Sainz behind the wheel. A year later they were trumped by the Lancia Delta Integrale but in 1992, 1993 and 1994 they were king of the mountain again. This winning mood meant Toyota was firmly in the spotlight with a lead role for their Celica. In 1995 the FIA sanctioned a restriction on turbo-capacity by issuing the mandatory use of a restrictor plate, limiting the amount of air being forced into the engine by the turbo. A restriction on air means a restriction on the combustible mix (fuel and air) which in turn means a restriction in power output. 

Toyota ingeniously bypassed this restriction plate with a series of springs and clips which were specially engineered. When the engine wasn’t running like when under scrutineering by judges and technicians, the plate would remain perfectly in place. When the car was running, the system Toyota developed moved the restrictor plate out of the way which gave them a power-bump of about 50bhp. This doesn’t seem like much but when the rest of the field is capped at 300bhp, a 50bhp jump is quite substantial!

On the outside of the turbo, nothing seemed off or tampered with. Toyota even machined and polished the springs inside hoses to interfere with airflow as little as possible. It even required special tools to work on the system and to pry the restrictor plate off when stationary. For all details of the tech that went into this cheat, I strongly suggest reading the article on Jalopnik, as they do a far better job of explaining it than I can ever do.

Even the FIA-president at the time, Max Mosley (later to be charged with a whole different scandal) was impressed by the clever system, calling it the most sophisticated and ingenious device he ever saw in over 30 years of racing. After being caught the FIA banned Toyota from the championship for 1995 and 1996. They didn’t return to winning form until 1998, winning two stages with their Toyota Corolla WRC. A year later they clinched the constructor’s title.

Henry ‘Smokey’ Yunik – USA’s genius cheater

If you are a motorsport-nut like me, or a NASCAR fan for that matter, the name Henry ‘Smokey’ Yunick probably rings a bell or two. This man is perhaps the biggest pain in the butt for rule-writers and governing bodies to date. He is credited with a number of, let’s say questionable innovations bypassing implemented rules and regulations. A few of these ‘cheats’ are hilarious and ingenious at the same time.

The 1964 Hurst Floor Shifter Special, one of the most bizarre open-wheel racers of all time, developed by henry ‘Smokey’ Yunick

The man is a legend in stock-car racing in America, one of the most popular forms of racing in the US. Henry ‘Smokey’ Yunick was a mechanic and race car builder with huge talent and a knack for bending, and sometimes breaking the rules. In all fairness, if the rulebook leaves room for interpretation, it isn’t exactly cheating is it? Well, according to history, some of his shenanigans seeking an advantage over the competition lead to rules being rewritten and even stricter regulations in some areas.

Some of his most noticeable cheats revolve around fuel regulations. At one point he installed an oversized fuel tank into a car, one that would hold far more fuel than the imposed limit. He hid an inflated basketball, and yes you’ve read that correctly, into the tank. When filled up under scrutineering, it would comply with the regulations regarding fuel limits and the car would pass inspection. The basketball would then be deflated and removed, increasing the capacity of the fuel tank, giving the car an advantage in the race. More fuel onboard means fewer pit-stops and thus less time wasted refuelling!

The second example of his rebellious nature also has to do with fuel regulations, specifically fuel tank capacity. This time he fitted a regulation-size fuel tank (no basketball this time) but would also install a huge fuel line to it. Being about 5 centimetres in diameter, and around 3 meters long, it would hold an additional 20 litres of fuel, effectively increasing the cars fuel capacity. 

Finally, and to be honest, this one initially was the most baffling to me, he modified a 1967 Chevrolet Chevelle to run in NASCAR competition. This car is known as the 7/8’s car, as legend has it, it was a perfectly downsized replica of a full-bodied Chevrolet Chevelle. As Drivetribe explains, a shrunken car would easily stand out against a field of full-size bodied stock cars. The reality is that the body was reworked in such a way it would increase its aerodynamic efficiency substantially. Flush mounted fenders, shaved door handles and indicators, headers and exhaust pipes tucked into tunnels in the floor. It even had a custom chassis which allowed to mount the body further back, improving the balance of the car. Upon inspection, a number of changes needed to be made to be deemed legal, an impossible amount of work, which meant it was never run in competition.  

These examples aren’t technically considered cheating since there was nothing in the rulebook at the time that stated it was illegal to do these things. It was just a matter of knowing what was in the rulebook while at the same time knowing full well what was not in the rulebook. Allowing for different interpretations within the rules gave Henry ‘Smokey’ Yunick the edge. It is a colourful story so I felt it deserved a mention.

The post The Petrolhead Corner – Busted! Caught Cheating at Racing – Part 1 appeared first on Wristwatch Journal.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2OYrhTk via IFTTT

[duaneodavila]

Kopf: The Baseless (and nasty) Complaints Against Judge Ellis

I did not pay much attention to the trial of Mr. Manafort. When the jury came back for the government on eight of eighteen counts, I wasn’t particularly surprised.[i] After all, these were essentially tax and bank fraud cases (with one count of failure to register as a foreign agent). The government does not bring those document-heavy charges unless it thinks the basic case, while larded with weak counts, is a slam dunk.

From the reporting prior to the verdict, commentators hazed Judge Ellis for pushing the government hard to get the trial over and otherwise being a meanie to the prosecutors.[ii] But aside from this sniping, I yawned.

Then, the judge sentenced Manafort to “only” 47 months in prison for the 70-year-old defendant. The heavens rose up and hell vented noxious gas. Life plus cancer was the proper sentence, and don’t tell us otherwise, the Trump-haters yelled. I yawned once again.

The judge explained in detail why he sentenced Manafort below the Guidelines. It seems to me the judge was roughly on target. In any event, for an objective and quite good explanation of the judge’s thoughtful explanation and ruling, see here.[iii] Yawn.

But now, I am no longer yawning. Recently, Zoe Tillman published the dismissal of several complaints brought against Judge Ellis under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, regarding his conduct during the Manafort matter. Zoe Tillman, Paul Manafort’s Judge Won’t Face Disciplinary Action For How He Treated Mueller’s Office, BuzzFeed News (April 1, 2019). Even though it is not yet public as of the date of this writing, she even published the opinion of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit dismissing the complaint.[iv]

Now, I don’t know Judge Ellis from a hot rock. So, I did a little looking. There is something called the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, CCH Incorporated (2019).[v] It costs the practicing bar a lot to subscribe to this service because the editors do a deep dive into what lawyers think of a particular federal judge. The publisher then summarizes and publishes the thoughts of the lawyers about that judge without revealing the names or other identifying information.

Here is what I learned. The judge is a senior judge who was born in 1940. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1987. The judge graduated Princeton with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering. He went into the Navy and served from 1961 through 1966. After that, he attended Harvard Law School, where he received his degree magna cum laude. He was awarded a Diploma in Law from Magdalen College, Oxford University.

Now, for the evaluations in a summary fashion.

“Ellis is a brilliant judge, lawyers said. ‘His legal ability is off the charts, he has great legal knowledge.’”

“’He’s absolutely no-nonsense and sometimes a bit abrupt.’” “’He will put the lawyers in his courtroom to the test.’”

“Ellis runs a tight courtroom. ‘He has complete control of the courtroom.’ ‘One should never come into his courtroom unprepared.’ ‘He runs his courtroom efficiently.’”

As for the thoughts of criminal defense lawyers, “’He’s a real legal stickler and will really hold the parties to the letter of the law.’” “’He’s very pro-government.’” At sentencing, “’He’s a little tougher on sentencing than some; he can downward vary but more often he follows the guidelines.’”

Now, let me walk you through the Judicial Conduct complaints and how Chief Judge Gregory resolved them. There were four complaints. Each complaining party “apparently read or heard media reports regarding a criminal matter tried before the district judge.” Memorandum and Order, In the Matter of Judicial Complaints Under 28 U.S.C. § 351, Nos.4-18-90063, -90111, -90112, & -90121, at p. 1 (Mar. 29, 2019). In other words, the complaining parties were not participants in the trial, but bystanders relying on second-hand media accounts.

There were three areas of attack.

Initially, and the one Chief Judge Gregory spent the most time discussing, was the claim that Ellis violated various Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, particularly Canon 2 (avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety) and Canon 3 (admonishing that a judge should perform his or her duties “impartially and diligently”). Greatly summarized and condensed, all the complaining parties thought Ellis was too tough on the prosecutors and “was more interested in hampering the prosecution with unreasonable demands for a quick and speedy trial than he was with carry[ing] out a fair trial.”

The secondary line of attack was still darker. It relied upon Canon 5, which requires judges to refrain from political activity. The judge “tilt[ed] the scales of justice against the prosecution,” made “partisan rulings,” and “deliberately put his thumb on the scales of justice for partisan reasons. A less likely, but entirely possible explanation is that he was subject to other improper, corrupt or illegal influence.”

The final line of attack was that the judge must have been nuts. That is, the judge “has early onset dementia.”

As for the first two lines of attack, Chief Judge Gregory denied them after careful examination. He explained why:

Reviewing the relevant transcripts in the case, and considering the district judge’s remarks in their overall context, the record does not support the conclusion that the district judge engaged in misconduct. One might say that the judge may have been injudicious in his tone or choice of words, but one cannot say that his comments were so discourteous, uncivil, or “bullying” as to “transcend . . . the expected rough-and-tumble of litigation.” Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Report to the Chief Justice of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee (Breyer, J., chair), Appendix E (Committee Standards for Assessing Compliance with the Act), at 147. The judge was sometimes strident with counsel, to be sure, and especially with the prosecution. But judges have wide latitude to manage cases in the way that seems best to them. Moreover, pressing the prosecution to move a case along certainly does not necessarily signal that the trial judge believes the prosecution is wrong or has acted improperly, or that the judge is illicitly attempting to impede the prosecution in the eyes of the jury. These kinds of case-management considerations are directly related to the merits of the judge’s handling of the litigation. A judge’s approach to them, therefore, is not subject to review through a complaint of judicial misconduct. 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii).

To be sure, especially in a high-profile, politically-charged trial, a judge should take care – with the precepts of Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges in mind – to avoid careless remarks that could foreseeably be interpreted as partisan. In this case, the district judge did not cross the line into partisan political commentary.

Memorandum and Order, In the Matter of Judicial Complaints Under 28 U.S.C. § 351, at pp. 3-4.

As for the claim of a corrupt motive or “dementia,” Judge Gregory devoted one line while first noting that the complaining parties had failed to provide him with any evidence. He wrote, “The record does not support the existence of an improper influence upon the judge, mental disability, or ‘early onset dementia.’” Id. at p. 4.

So, why do I write about the travails of Judge Ellis? I have three reasons.

First, the reader should know that Judicial Conduct complaints, mostly by disgruntled litigants, are commonplace. I can’t estimate the number of times I have been subjected to complaints. Every experienced judge (read “old”) has been put through the gauntlet numerous times. While it is not fun, the complaint process serves an important public purpose, even for those who completely misapprehend the governing law, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, and the rules promulgated thereunder. There are judges who cross the ethical line. For those few judges, it is important that there be a process for dealing with them. In short, I am glad that the process, although abused, is in place.

Second, Chief Judge Gregory’s thoughtful analysis makes an important point. A federal trial judge is involved in the “rough and tumble [of] litigation.” The judge is under enormous pressure to control the trial participants and look after the jury. It is unsurprising, indeed commonplace, for a judge like Judge Ellis or me to make a remark during trial that upon reflection we wished we hadn’t. As the now-deceased former Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit, and a truly great trial lawyer before he became a judge, emphasized, law is a human process and that is particularly true of trials. See Donald P. Lay, Law: A Human Process (1996).

Finally, I am angry that the Judicial Conduct process has now been weaponized for political purposes. Reading Chief Judge Gregory’s opinion leaves little doubt that the complaining parties, who were not participants and who relied on the accounts of others, lashed out at Judge Ellis to achieve a political end. He didn’t hate Trump (enough) and should therefore be punished. Such activity bodes ill for the independence of the federal judiciary and our country. As for me, I’m very glad that Judge Ellis was not a shrinking violet. I fear that young federal judges will be cowed—I urge them to have the courage displayed by Judge Ellis.

Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge (NE)

[i] Manafort was found guilty of five tax fraud charges, one charge of hiding foreign bank accounts, and two counts of bank fraud. Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on 10 other charges. The government elected to dismiss them.

[ii] Nancy Gertner, The extraordinary bias of the judge in the Manafort trial, Washington Post (Aug. 16, 2018). By the way, I have enormous respect for Ms. Gertner, formerly a distinguished federal trial judge and now a professor at Harvard. Oddly, however, she ends her opinion piece with this sentence: “Seeking to expedite matters, Ellis impaneled the Manafort jury in a single day.” I am surprised that Gertner is surprised. I have never spent more than one day picking a jury, and that includes complex cases like the Beatrice Six wrongful-conviction case or a particularly nasty murder case. With rare exceptions, I give each side 20 minutes apiece to ask questions, and my courtroom deputy times them.

[iii] “Manafort’s defense team gave Ellis 17 cases to consider where defendants broke tax or foreign banking laws and got probation or home detention — in other words, no prison time. In some of these cases, the guidelines recommended the defendants go to prison for years — and yet judges all over the country decided that wasn’t necessary.

Ellis cited one case he handled that was similar to Manafort’s case involving secret foreign bank accounts. In that case, Ellis gave the man who avoided paying exponentially more in taxes than Manafort only seven months in prison.”

[iv] I can’t find the order on the Fourth Circuit’s website. It may have been leaked to the reporter. Every Circuit is required to make such orders publicly available when they are final. That omission suggests to me that the Chief Judge’s dismissal has been appealed to the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit. So, there may be more to come. By the way, the name of the judge and the names of the complainant or complainants are almost never disclosed pursuant to the rules. See here for all the rules. Nevertheless, from the background set forth in the dismissal order, one can tell that the order pertains to Judge Ellis.

[v] I deny that I have ever read my entry.

Kopf: The Baseless (and nasty) Complaints Against Judge Ellis republished via Simple Justice

[disc-golf]

5 Tips for Creating a Customer-Attracting, Dynamic Brand

Recently, a colleague walked into my office looking refreshed. He had a great tan, relaxed physical demeanor, and big smile—but he hadn’t gone on vacation.

I asked him, somewhat enviously, why he seemed so at ease. “I started playing baseball in ‘an old man’s league’,” he said with a grin.

“When we were kids, we had many activities that we enjoyed,” he continued. “As you get older, you have more commitments. Work, travel, kids’ school and athletics and activities, time with your spouse, and so on. You lose sight of yourself because you are focused on everyone else.”

This struck a chord. A while ago, I created something called “Brand You,” which helps individuals build their confidence in the value that they bring, while aligning their walk and talk. This methodology is always on my mind, so I couldn’t help but reflect on whether my colleague had a really important lesson to share with brand-builders.

His story begged the question: Have our lives become only two-dimensional—work on the one hand, family on the other, and never the twain shall meet? What kind of un-dynamic people does that make us?

I began to wonder if our professional lives—perhaps even our entire personal brand—might have greater dimension if we spent more time doing the relaxing activities we genuinely enjoy.

So I launched an informal study of colleagues and friends. I asked each of them if the status quo of work and family (each relegated to its own sphere) was enough to bring their personal brands to life—to differentiate them from others in the same field.

I heard things like this:

“I get a lot of personal enjoyment from my job and my family. Being a parent and spouse is still work , though.”

“Constantly being the ‘mom’ at work and at home is exhausting. Trying to make everyone else’s lives easier leaves nothing for you.”

“Being with the kids and having fun is great, and it adds dimension. But doing something for myself to continue learning, developing, and evolving is important.”

“Having an escape from responsibility and feeling like a kid again is refreshing and it gives me a way to let go of the stress of work and family.”

Which of these people would YOU engage with because of their electric dynamism? More than likely, the ones with a sense of exploration and personal growth.

Unfortunately, though, many of us miss the boat on this. We get sucked into routines that never give us room for enrichment.

That’s why I put together these 5 ideas for how you can add dimension to your personal brand—not only to improve your storytelling and build a following, but to give yourself new perspective on life, business, and success.

1. Develop a hobby

Consider what you loved to do as a child. Were you a big soccer head? A baseball nut? A tennis fanatic?  Or, think about an activity you’ve always dreamed of doing.

Do it. Don’t feel guilty spending an hour away from your family or from work. Trust me; it will add dimension, enjoyment, and satisfaction to your world.

In fact, my daughter and I started taking a sign language class so that we can working with the hearing impaired. This has always been a dream of mine, and she wants to befriend hearing-impaired children. The class is 60 minutes, one day a week—a minimal time commitment and the perfect opportunity to spend time with my daughter learning something new. Not surprisingly, this often becomes the topic of business conversations (adding to my brand as a kind, empathetic professional).

2. Don’t be an adventure-shy traveler

Raise your hand if you’re one of those peripatetic business travelers who jockeys between hotel rooms and conferences rooms—and never explores their destinations.

Too many of my friends and colleagues are exactly like this. Sure, business trips are for business, but you’re likely not working the ENTIRE trip, so take time in the evenings or off hours to explore your new locale. Get out with employees and coworkers, and experience the native culture. Doing so expands your experiences and gives you more inspiration for storytelling. That storytelling is what hooks in an audience you’ve never met—prospects eager to connect with you, relate to you, and live vicariously through your adventures.

Case in point: A colleague of mine was in Chile for two days for an internal meeting. As luck would have it, she had three hours at the end of the day and went to a super market to understand the region’s typical foods and spices, then trekked to the home of Pablo Neruda, the Nobel Prize-winning Chilean poet. Imagine the stories (and photos) she was able to share after that adventure!

3. Enjoy fiction

Temporarily put down the business or self-help books that usually pile up on your nightstand and start reading or listening to fiction from the cities, states, and countries you visit—or from authors who share similar backgrounds with the people you meet. It is a wonderful way to build perspective, understand others, and deepen your brand as someone well-read and empathetic to other cultures.

Thankfully, there are countless phenomenal titles to choose from these days. If you want to understand Chinese culture, for example, consider digging into something light like “Crazy Rich Asians” by Kevin Kwan. For something more historical, “China Dolls” by Lisa See is a great pick.

4. Play a role in your community

Community activism offers an opportunity to make an immediate difference in your neighborhood while giving you a sense of purpose, value, and belonging.

There are always plenty of needs in your community, too. Libraries almost always need volunteers, community races need organizers, local political organizations need leaders, etc.

Try a number of activities, but be sure you don’t give up if your first choice isn’t the right one for you.

One sales leader I know tried getting involved in local politics, only to find it slow-moving, bureaucratic, and unsatisfying. Instead of quitting, though, he moved onto being a Boy Scouts pack leader and found his true community calling.

Sometimes, these activities can lead you to your next career move. An attorney friend I once worked with decided to volunteer for the environmental committee in her town years ago; this ultimately led to her run for mayor.

5. Make real friends

A while back, I stumbled across a 2012 Forbes article titled, “7 pillars of connecting with absolutely anyone.” In resonated so much, I keep it on my desk for easy reference.

Here’s the gist: In all of your relationships, be human, be vulnerable, be genuinely interested, and be real. Spend time listening and learning from your friends; hear their points of view even if they differ from yours.

Having real friends offers personal enjoyment and new perspectives that will inherently add dimension to your life and brand.

One of my closest friends has views that are the polar opposite of mine. When we are in a group setting, she will share her thoughts and others will debate with her. I always tell myself, “Seek to understand her; don’t debate. You won’t win.”

But I don’t need to win the debate; I automatically “win” by learning and experiencing her culture, speaking her language, and appreciating her views on policy and government.

#

Whatever your specialty or industry, your personal brand is at the heart of what attracts people to you—both customers and potential friends. If you want to engage people with rich stories, compelling perspectives, and nuanced ideas, then there’s only one thing to do: Step away from work and family routines to build YOURSELF as a well-rounded, curious human being.

Start with one (or more) of the 5 tips above, and you’ll be well on your way to dynamic success.

To help you build in time for your enriching activities, implement this vetted Morning Routine…

Sign up now to get our FREE Morning Routine guide—the #1 way to increase productivity, energy, and focus for profitable days. Used by thousands of fitness, business, and finance industry leaders to leapfrog the competition while making time for the people who really matter. Learn more here.

The post 5 Tips for Creating a Customer-Attracting, Dynamic Brand appeared first on Early To Rise.

[kateatahealthyrate-blog1]

AkitikA GT-102 review

buyers guide for iphone An e-mail from an old audiophile pal: “Herb, my buddy owns a recording studio, and he told me one of his $10k reference amplifiers stopped working and the manufacturer said it would take months to be repaired. So he went online and bought this 60W AkitikA solid-state amplifier to use while his big amp was being repaired. The trouble is, the kit cost only $314. (The studio guy bought his assembled and tested for $488.) Now, he likes the AkitikA more than his broke-down reference amp.” My friend wondered if I wanted to review the AkitikA amp (the name is a palindrome, based on a kit). “Hell yes!” I told him. “Kits are my roots!”

When I was in high school, my best friend was a radar technician for the Navy. He taught me Ohm’s law, and how to solder, dress wires, and use a multimeter. He practically forced me to build a Dynaco1 Dynakit Stereo 70 tube amplifier, as well as the matching PAS-2 preamplifier and FM-3 stereo tuner. I didn’t want to take tubes to college, so I also built Dynaco’s solid-state PAT-4 preamplifier and Stereo 120 amplifier, which I used to drive Dynaco’s A25 loudspeakers.

Oh, how I loved them. To this day, Dylan and the Doors have never sounded better! After moving to New York City, I built a solid-state Hafler DH-101 preamp and two (!!) DH-200 amplifiers, which I used to drive stacked pairs of Large Advent loudspeakers. Yahweh, Bob Marley, and The Specials loved this potent lively-up system as much as I did. Next, I started reading Audio Amateur and Speaker Builder magazines, buying used test instruments, and modifying my Dynaco and Hafler gear. By the late 1980s I’d advanced to building simple tube amplifiers from scratch, using parts cannibalized from antique radios. (I worshiped at the Philco 16B Tombstone.) Solder fumes, wire strippers, and building amps remain very appealing to me. For me, kits were the start of a new life one that led me to secret societies and darker corners of the audio underground. When I asked John Atkinson if I could review AkitikA’s GT-102 power amplifier, he said okay, but suggested that, because he would be testing it on his lab bench, I should request the factory-assembled, pre-tested version ($488). Which I did.

Description

Because the GT-102 is available as a kit I begin my description of it by quoting AkitikA’s “Satisfaction Guarantee” for this US-made amp:

Buy the kit.

Build the kit.

Listen to and enjoy the kit.

If within 30 days of receiving the kit you aren’t satisfied, return the kit. So long as your kit is correctly assembled, we’ll refund the price you paid, you just pay return shipping.

The GT-102 is a class-AB, 60Wpc stereo power amplifier in a case made of relatively thin steel. Its front panel sports only a logo and an illuminated, bright green plastic rocker switch for power on/off. On the rear panel are only an IEC power-cord inlet, two gold-plated RCA jacks, and two pairs of generic speaker binding posts. The GT-102’s interior is spartan, but studying its layout gives the potential kit builder a good idea of how much screwing and soldering will be required to build it.

The first thing to note is the steel wall separating the audio circuitry from the toroidal mains transformer and regulated power supply. Note the three deep-finned heatsinks: one behind the rear panel, for the power-supply regulator, and two in a row along the inside of the left side panel, one per channel, to cool the two LM3886 power operational amplifiers.

Now, before you get your knickers in a knot about an “audiophile-grade” power amplifier based on a lowly opamp instead of this year’s fashionable MOSFET, JFET,SIT, or bipolar device—you must understand that the AkitikA’s LM3886 op-amp is notorious and fashionable. The roots of the storied LM3886 can be traced back to 47 Laboratory’s 4706 Gaincard integrated amplifier, designed by Junji Kimura, which I reviewed for Listener magazine; Robert Deutsch reviewed it for Stereophile in December 2001.2 The Gaincard, introduced in 1999, had only nine parts per channel, short signal paths, minimal power-supply capacitance, and, with only one of 47 Lab’s Power Humpty power supplies, cost $3300 (a second Power Humpty cost an additional $1800).

The 4706 Gaincard’s high price, radical simplicity, and unorthodox power supply spawned concern among measurements- oriented audiophiles, but word quickly spread about how musically satisfying it could sound. After reviewing it, I bought the Gaincard and used it every day for 10 years with a pair of Rogers LS3/5a speakers. I’ve subsequently compared my Gaincard to one of its clones and one DIY version, and learned that all LM3886 op-amps are not created equal.

In using power op-amps, implementation is key. PCB layout, wiring routes, grounding strategies, heatsinking, power transformers, and especially power-supply design, will affect stability, transparency of sound, and the ability to drive speakers. My listening for this article, and what I see inside this amp, suggest that AkitikA’s owner and designer, Dan Joffe, has done a smart job with this LM3886 implementation. Kit builders should know that each of the GT-102’s three circuit boards is fitted with a lot of little parts, most of them resistors whose coded stripes identify their values. To build a GT-102, each tiny bit will need to be found, positively identified, properly positioned, and soldered to its board. (I recommend soldering no parts until each PCB board is stuffed full, in mechanically sound fashion.) That done, the rest of the assembly consists of bolting and screwing the boards, binding posts, power switch, ground lug, and power transformer to the GT-102’s chassis. I suggest working slowly and patiently while breathing fresh air (it’s best to solder in a place with good ventilation), and triple-checking each step. The minimum tools required for assembly are: a 30W, pencil-type soldering iron; a small sponge; fine (0.032"), 60/40 rosin-core solder; wire cutters and strippers; #1 and #2 Phillips screwdrivers; needle-nose pliers; a set of basic nut drivers; an inexpensive digital multimeter, to cross-check resistor values against your reading of their color codes; good lighting; and a magnifying glass.

AkitikA’s website says that assembly should take about eight hours, and that 97% of all first-time kit builders complete the GT-102 without a hitch. The remaining 3% get it right in the end, with a little easy guidance from AkitikA. I studied the assembly manual and found it exceptionally clear and idiot-proof.3 It looks just like a Dynaco or Hafler manual.

Listening

I cooked the AkitikA GT-102 on my workbench for three weeks, while writing the Follow-Up on Joseph Audio’s Pulsar loudspeaker elsewhere in this issue. The system I used with the Pulsars comprised Mytek HiFi’s Manhattan II DAC, and Pass Laboratories’ HPA-1 preamplifier and XA25 power amp. I thought this was the most balanced and spatially descriptive system I’d assembled since I began writing for Stereophile in 2014. Jeff Joseph, of Joseph Audio, heard it and approved. So did John Atkinson. Stereophile’s videographer Jana Dagdagan and I made a binaural video of its sound so you can experience it, too.4 I played this setup every day and never once questioned its verity, charm, or competence. It sounded so detailed and lively that I had zero motivation to swap out the XA25 for the GT-102.

you may also like:  buyers guide for iphone

[rebeccahpedersen]

Are We About To See The End Of Double-Ending?

TorontoRealtyBlog

So the government wants to put an end to “double-ending,” eh?

And the public wants this too?

Apparently, this is one of the root causes of the red-hot real estate market, and it pushes bids higher?

There’s a lot of misunderstanding, and misinformation about double-ending, so once and for all, let me pull the lid off this, and give you my honest thoughts about what goes on, and what we can do about it…

Upon closer inspection, that photo of two people shaking hands doesn’t really fit.

I really should have used my Google-Fu to find a photo of one person shaking his or her own hand.

That would make a lot more sense, given the subject matter today…

I want to tell you guys a story, if you’ll indulge me.

A couple of months ago, my wife and I made an offer on a house.

The property, as luck would have it, was listed for sale by Bosley Real Estate.

While the cynics might suggest this gave me an advantage, I assure you, it did not.

As luck would also have it – a different kind of luck, the listing agent, had his own offer on the property.

And while the cynics might further suggest this gave the listing agent an advantage, and put me at a disadvantage, I assure you, it did not.

On the night of offers, the listing agent met with his client at 6:00pm, and signed an offer.

That offer was sealed in an envelope, and handed to our brokerage General Manager.

There were six offers on the property that night, and the General Manager presented the listing agent’s offer first.

That offer was presented by the General Manager, to the listing agent, in front of his seller clients, on behalf of his buyer clients.

Then five other offers were presented, including mine.

In the end, guess who won?

The listing agent.

His offer was the highest, “right out of the gate,” as they say.

And he won fair and square.

This didn’t stop the other agents from complaining, however.  They called “shenanigans,” and our efforts to smooth things over fell on deaf ears.

So ask me: was I mad?

Not a chance.  The listing agent won, in a fair contest, and truth be told – the contest might not have been that fair at another brokerage.

You might ask if this is the way we do all our offers at Bosley, and I’ll be honest and say, I don’t know.

I also don’t know what “rules” are in place to deal with multiple representation, as it depends who you ask, and on what day.

I don’t know what goes on at other brokerages.

And I don’t know what the average Realtor thinks about it.

I do know three things, however:

The public wants change.

Change is coming.

The transition will be seamless.

And that’s that.

To understand “double-ending,” you first need to understand where buyer agency came from.

Because worse than double-ending, is what used to happen before buyer agency was created – back when every real estate agent worked in the best interest of the seller.

So if you, the buyer, wanted to make an offer on a property, your agent, no matter who he or she was, would be expected to push the seller’s agenda.

No word of a lie, folks.  It sounds insane, but this is how things used to work.

I wrote a blog about this back in November of 2016 called “How Buyer Agency Was Born: Knock Estate vs. Jon Picken”

Have a read through, if you’ve got time.

The blog post didn’t exactly rack up a huge number of comments, or a good bounce rate, but the subject matter is important if you want to understand the origin of “double-ending.”

After Knock’n’Picken, as it’s referred to by legal minds, buyer agency was established, and order was restored to the industry.

But keep in mind that this was way before the Internet, and the MLS system.

So back in the 1980’s, and 1990’s, it was quite common for buyers to seek out real estate agents who either had a lot of listings under contract, or worked for a brokerage who had a lot of listings.

Back then, it seemed like an advantage for a buyer to walk into a brokerage and work with somebody who represented their own “in house” listings.

Properties didn’t sell in mere hours like they do today, but without the Internet, there was still a serious lag between when the ink was dry on a listing, and when other agents throughout the city knew about it.

I know we’re not in the 1990’s anymore.  Times change, and the days of buyers wanting to work with the listing agent because of access to a listing, has changed to buyers wanting to work with the listing agent because they believe they’re getting an advantage.

So let me tell you another story.

I had a listing last fall that was red-hot.  In the mid-$1M-range, over 80 showings in a week, and six offers on offer night.

On the morning of offers, I received a call from a young agent who said, “I want you to work with my client.”

I didn’t quite understand.

He told me that his client was his brother, and he wanted me to work with him to “guarantee” he got the property.

I asked him what he expected in return, and he said, “nothing.”

He told me that he didn’t care about the commission he would forego, so long as his brother got the property.

So here I was, looking at double the commission, served up to me on a silver platter.

And what did I do?

I told him I wasn’t interested.

And the roar from the agents around me on the floor that day went wild.

“Are you nuts?” one agent asked me.

“What’s wrong with you?” asked another.

And I sat them down, and explained to them, like father to child, that I have a great reputation in this business, and there’s nothing I would ever do to jeopardize that.  I’m in this business for the long-term, not the short-term.  One extra “end” of a deal today means nothing if it damages your reputation among your peers, and makes them not want to work with you.  If cooperating agents don’t want to work with you, then you get fewer offers, and your seller-clients suffer.

Had I told cooperating agents that evening that I had my own offer, several of them might have withdrew their offers, or not presented at all.

If my seller had received fewer offers, he undoubtedly would have received a lower price.

And that’s not why he hired me.

Not only that, I knew then, as I know now, that it would have been impossible for me to represent both buyer and seller, in competition, at arm’s length.

I don’t like it.  It feels dirty.

And given the pretense to this situation – a real estate agent working with a buyer, who showed him the property, wants me to work with him to “guarantee” the victory, it felt even dirtier.

The agent in question did end up bringing an offer on behalf of his brother that night, and his offer was well behind the eventual victor.

Now at the risk of becoming repetitive, let me tell you a third story, and by the time this story is through, I believe we can use all three to draw some sort of conclusion.

Back in November of 2016, the CBC did a “hidden camera” story where they “exposed” real estate agents offering to somehow lie or manipulate the offer process, on behalf of a potential buyer, to ensure a successful double-end.

You can find that story HERE.

After that story broke, a slew of agents and brokerages got up on their soapboxes, and took the opportunity to talk about how bad the practice of double-ending is, how they don’t like it, and what they’re going to do about it.

One particular brokerage, Re/Max Hallmark, apparently changed their policy as a result, as noted in THIS article in the Globe & Mail, which gave us this quote:

“ReMax Hallmark Realty Ltd., which has 10 offices in Toronto and other parts of Southern Ontario, changed its policy this week to address the controversy. From now on, a listing agent may not also represent a buyer for that property in multiple offers.”

I have no evidence that they did change their policy, aside from that quote in the Globe & Mail.

But I do have a conference table full of MLS listings that show double-enders since November 10th of 2016:

That’s 44 double-enders, via 25 different agents, since the story in the Globe & Mail that said Re/Max Hallmark had changed their policy.

Either this policy at the brokerage level was implemented, and agents are ignoring it, or the brokerage decided not to implement the policy, as was explained to the Globe & Mail.

Either way, it’s noteworthy, because it shows both that the issue of double-enders is being discussed at the brokerage level, as well as the fact that many agents have no problem with it.

So what do we do?

As an industry, is it incumbent upon us to offer up a solution, change, or policy internally, to satisfy the government’s request, which is based on public disdain?

Or do we we wait until the government forces us to change?

Personally, I think change is coming.  No doubt about it.

So either the Ontario Real Estate Association puts together a proposal and offers to work with the Ontario government, or they’re going to come up with ideas on their own, and cram it down our throats.

I would have absolutely no problem if either OREA, or the government, mandated that one individual Realtor can no longer represent both buyer and seller in a transaction.  To take that a step further, I might add, “In multiple offers,” since I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that a listing agent, representing the sale of a farm in rural Ontario, cannot work with a potential buyer when that property has been languishing on the market for 165 days.

I think the exact rules, and the verbiage used, would need to be refined.

And what then of regulation, oversight, and discipline?

Reader “Steve” commented on Monday’s blog that if agents would “find a way around it,” as I suggested, then there is a serious concern here!

I agree.

There are massive fines, even jail time, for insider trading in the equities markets.  So what would happen if a listing agent handed off a buyer to a rookie in his or her brokerage, told that rookie what to offer after he or she had reviewed all the offers, and then that rookie agent happened to magically “win” on offer night?

If it could be proven that there was insider trading, what would the repercussions be?

Now one final thought, just to play devil’s advocate.

If and when the Toronto market ever turns, and properties sit on the market for months at a time, would we then have an issue with “double-ending?”

If you were a seller, and your listing agent happened to have a buyer-client, or receive an inquiry from a buyer, that wanted to make an offer on your property, would you scream “bloody murder” at the rules that prevent your agent from working with that buyer?

The grass is always greener on the other side.

The problem is: we haven’t seen the other side in 20 years.

I welcome your thoughts.

The post Are We About To See The End Of Double-Ending? appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2p3nEQ4

[mrjohnhthompson]

The New PR1MA Financing Plan: A Step Up Or Step Down?

Weeks before Budget 2017 was tabled, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak launched an online survey where Malaysians were asked to list their top three concerns about the economy. In pole position were the rising cost of living and soaring housing prices. Malaysia already has a household debt of 89.1% or RM1.03 trillion, one of the highest in the region, which has led Bank Negara Malaysia to maintain its tight lending measures. But the central bank has denied the reason Malaysians are struggling to land their first property is due to its lending measures, alluding to the lack of affordable housing instead. The Finance Ministry also seconded this and urged the government to provide cheaper housing as demand exceeded supply. During his 2017 budget speech, Najib said house ownership was very close to his heart and the government was committed in ensuring that every family could own a house. One of the incentives unveiled for homebuyers under PR1MA is the “stepped up” end-financing scheme which aims to help selected PR1MA buyers, particularly those struggling to draw out a loan, to land their first home.   But before diving into the scheme, let’s recap what PR1MA is all about:

The nuts and bolts of PR1MA

Established in 2013, Najib launched PR1MA as an affordable housing scheme to assist middle-income households to purchase their first home. It has a mandate of building 500,000 homes with the aim of alleviating the rising cost of living faced by middle-income earners, or the M40 group. [table id=599 /] Houses under the scheme are priced between RM100,000 to RM400,000 and located in various urban centres nationwide. To be an owner of a PR1MA home, a buyer will need to register and submit his or her name for balloting. After being selected, participants will need to verify relevant documents to ensure eligibility, choose their preferred unit based on availability and financing. Prior to Budget 2017, the only scheme available under the PR1MA HOPE Home Assistance Programme is end-financing: [caption id="attachment_26967" align="alignnone" width="800"] Image from PR1MA.[/caption] The difference between this and a conventional home loan is simply that buyers can obtain a 110% loan under the PR1MA as opposed to the conventional 10% down payment and additional miscellaneous fees.

So why a “stepped up” end-financing scheme?

According to Najib, the scheme allows buyers to obtain financing easier with a total loan of 90% to 100%. It helps homebuyers ease their monthly instalments for the first few years and rejection rates are drastically reduced, meaning opportunities to get a higher loan. [table id=600 /]

How it works

Let’s say Ahmad, 32, has finally decided to purchase his first property. He has been working for ten years and currently earns RM3,000 a month. He does not have any outstanding loans and has been chose for a PR1MA property worth RM250,000. He has decided to finance the purchase through a combination of the stepped-up end-financing scheme and by withdrawing monthly from EPF Account 2, which entitles him to get an estimated loan amount of up to RM282,200. [table id=601 /] Disclaimer: The previous version of this article weaved deductions from the EPF Account 2 into its calculations. This has been revised to reflect the latest information on the end-financing scheme where the Account 2 is used as collateral for the loan.  

Strings attached

EPF chief Datuk Shahril Ridza Ridzuan has advised members to weigh their options carefully before thinking of dipping their hands into their Account 2 to finance the housing loan. He said those opting for the scheme to buy their first home would have their savings in Account 2 “ring-fenced” to help them settle their loans in a timely manner. [block type="warning"]That means all other pre-retirement withdrawals under Account 2, namely medical, education, Age 50 and Hajj withdrawals, will no longer be available until the PR1MA loan is fully settled.[/block] Shahril went on to advise that applicants who see an improvement in their incomes over time should consider refinancing the loan to release the “ring-fence” on Account 2 so they could access it for other purposes. Refinancing is simply getting a new mortgage to replace the original loan. This allows a borrower to obtain a better interest term and rate, and also access their home equity when the value of the home goes up. For example, a RM250,000-home may appreciate in value to RM350,000 in 10 years, while having a smaller amount owed after paying for the mortgage for 10 years. By refinancing the loan based on the market value of the home, the borrower will be able to cash out the difference.

One step forward, two steps back?

The stepped-up financing is an option for those who are set on landing their first home and with a steady income flow. This person should also have a good credit health as that may help him or her qualify for better interest rates. The removal of upfront payment does make it easier for a homebuyer to explore the market and the 5-year period paying only interest allows for better cash flow. Without the 110% financing option, a homebuyer would have to fork out at least RM25,000 for down payment, and another RM20,000 for miscellaneous fees. What is yet to be ascertained is whether there will be an increase in interest rates and if there are any costs brought forward from first five years into the remainder of the loan. However, tapping into Account 2 risks exhausting funds meant for retirement. EPF recently revealed that only 22% of its members have enough for retirement, that leaves a good 78% ill-prepared. Also for Muslims, the scheme risks giving up their right to perform the Hajj. Then there is the problem of using the Account 2 for medical emergencies or to fund a child’s tertiary education. Property may be a good asset, but it is not liquid. So in case of an emergency, the owner can’t sell the home immediately for money. One analyst weighing in on the scheme caution banks of the dangers of lowering their criteria to extend loans to buyers who cannot actually afford one. “This is how the subprime crisis happened in the US, when people who couldn’t afford mortgages were given mortgages. If it is widespread enough, markets worsen, salaries are cut and layoffs happen, there will be people who can’t afford to repay their loans,” he said. The EPF also weighed in on this and cautioned that higher withdrawals from the pension fund could risk a housing bubble, where the opening up of the Account 2 could encourage people to buy assets that they may not be able to afford. According to PR1MA and news reports, the stepped-up scheme will be implemented in January 2017. *This article was first published on November 14, 2016.

Image from Property Guru

 The post The New PR1MA Financing Plan: A Step Up Or Step Down? appeared first on iMoney Malaysia.

[rebeccahpedersen]

Are We About To See The End Of Double-Ending?

TorontoRealtyBlog

So the government wants to put an end to “double-ending,” eh?

And the public wants this too?

Apparently, this is one of the root causes of the red-hot real estate market, and it pushes bids higher?

There’s a lot of misunderstanding, and misinformation about double-ending, so once and for all, let me pull the lid off this, and give you my honest thoughts about what goes on, and what we can do about it…

Upon closer inspection, that photo of two people shaking hands doesn’t really fit.

I really should have used my Google-Fu to find a photo of one person shaking his or her own hand.

That would make a lot more sense, given the subject matter today…

I want to tell you guys a story, if you’ll indulge me.

A couple of months ago, my wife and I made an offer on a house.

The property, as luck would have it, was listed for sale by Bosley Real Estate.

While the cynics might suggest this gave me an advantage, I assure you, it did not.

As luck would also have it – a different kind of luck, the listing agent, had his own offer on the property.

And while the cynics might further suggest this gave the listing agent an advantage, and put me at a disadvantage, I assure you, it did not.

On the night of offers, the listing agent met with his client at 6:00pm, and signed an offer.

That offer was sealed in an envelope, and handed to our brokerage General Manager.

There were six offers on the property that night, and the General Manager presented the listing agent’s offer first.

That offer was presented by the General Manager, to the listing agent, in front of his seller clients, on behalf of his buyer clients.

Then five other offers were presented, including mine.

In the end, guess who won?

The listing agent.

His offer was the highest, “right out of the gate,” as they say.

And he won fair and square.

This didn’t stop the other agents from complaining, however.  They called “shenanigans,” and our efforts to smooth things over fell on deaf ears.

So ask me: was I mad?

Not a chance.  The listing agent won, in a fair contest, and truth be told – the contest might not have been that fair at another brokerage.

You might ask if this is the way we do all our offers at Bosley, and I’ll be honest and say, I don’t know.

I also don’t know what “rules” are in place to deal with multiple representation, as it depends who you ask, and on what day.

I don’t know what goes on at other brokerages.

And I don’t know what the average Realtor thinks about it.

I do know three things, however:

The public wants change.

Change is coming.

The transition will be seamless.

And that’s that.

To understand “double-ending,” you first need to understand where buyer agency came from.

Because worse than double-ending, is what used to happen before buyer agency was created – back when every real estate agent worked in the best interest of the seller.

So if you, the buyer, wanted to make an offer on a property, your agent, no matter who he or she was, would be expected to push the seller’s agenda.

No word of a lie, folks.  It sounds insane, but this is how things used to work.

I wrote a blog about this back in November of 2016 called “How Buyer Agency Was Born: Knock Estate vs. Jon Picken”

Have a read through, if you’ve got time.

The blog post didn’t exactly rack up a huge number of comments, or a good bounce rate, but the subject matter is important if you want to understand the origin of “double-ending.”

After Knock’n’Picken, as it’s referred to by legal minds, buyer agency was established, and order was restored to the industry.

But keep in mind that this was way before the Internet, and the MLS system.

So back in the 1980’s, and 1990’s, it was quite common for buyers to seek out real estate agents who either had a lot of listings under contract, or worked for a brokerage who had a lot of listings.

Back then, it seemed like an advantage for a buyer to walk into a brokerage and work with somebody who represented their own “in house” listings.

Properties didn’t sell in mere hours like they do today, but without the Internet, there was still a serious lag between when the ink was dry on a listing, and when other agents throughout the city knew about it.

I know we’re not in the 1990’s anymore.  Times change, and the days of buyers wanting to work with the listing agent because of access to a listing, has changed to buyers wanting to work with the listing agent because they believe they’re getting an advantage.

So let me tell you another story.

I had a listing last fall that was red-hot.  In the mid-$1M-range, over 80 showings in a week, and six offers on offer night.

On the morning of offers, I received a call from a young agent who said, “I want you to work with my client.”

I didn’t quite understand.

He told me that his client was his brother, and he wanted me to work with him to “guarantee” he got the property.

I asked him what he expected in return, and he said, “nothing.”

He told me that he didn’t care about the commission he would forego, so long as his brother got the property.

So here I was, looking at double the commission, served up to me on a silver platter.

And what did I do?

I told him I wasn’t interested.

And the roar from the agents around me on the floor that day went wild.

“Are you nuts?” one agent asked me.

“What’s wrong with you?” asked another.

And I sat them down, and explained to them, like father to child, that I have a great reputation in this business, and there’s nothing I would ever do to jeopardize that.  I’m in this business for the long-term, not the short-term.  One extra “end” of a deal today means nothing if it damages your reputation among your peers, and makes them not want to work with you.  If cooperating agents don’t want to work with you, then you get fewer offers, and your seller-clients suffer.

Had I told cooperating agents that evening that I had my own offer, several of them might have withdrew their offers, or not presented at all.

If my seller had received fewer offers, he undoubtedly would have received a lower price.

And that’s not why he hired me.

Not only that, I knew then, as I know now, that it would have been impossible for me to represent both buyer and seller, in competition, at arm’s length.

I don’t like it.  It feels dirty.

And given the pretense to this situation – a real estate agent working with a buyer, who showed him the property, wants me to work with him to “guarantee” the victory, it felt even dirtier.

The agent in question did end up bringing an offer on behalf of his brother that night, and his offer was well behind the eventual victor.

Now at the risk of becoming repetitive, let me tell you a third story, and by the time this story is through, I believe we can use all three to draw some sort of conclusion.

Back in November of 2016, the CBC did a “hidden camera” story where they “exposed” real estate agents offering to somehow lie or manipulate the offer process, on behalf of a potential buyer, to ensure a successful double-end.

You can find that story HERE.

After that story broke, a slew of agents and brokerages got up on their soapboxes, and took the opportunity to talk about how bad the practice of double-ending is, how they don’t like it, and what they’re going to do about it.

One particular brokerage, Re/Max Hallmark, apparently changed their policy as a result, as noted in THIS article in the Globe & Mail, which gave us this quote:

“ReMax Hallmark Realty Ltd., which has 10 offices in Toronto and other parts of Southern Ontario, changed its policy this week to address the controversy. From now on, a listing agent may not also represent a buyer for that property in multiple offers.”

I have no evidence that they did change their policy, aside from that quote in the Globe & Mail.

But I do have a conference table full of MLS listings that show double-enders since November 10th of 2016:

That’s 44 double-enders, via 25 different agents, since the story in the Globe & Mail that said Re/Max Hallmark had changed their policy.

Either this policy at the brokerage level was implemented, and agents are ignoring it, or the brokerage decided not to implement the policy, as was explained to the Globe & Mail.

Either way, it’s noteworthy, because it shows both that the issue of double-enders is being discussed at the brokerage level, as well as the fact that many agents have no problem with it.

So what do we do?

As an industry, is it incumbent upon us to offer up a solution, change, or policy internally, to satisfy the government’s request, which is based on public disdain?

Or do we we wait until the government forces us to change?

Personally, I think change is coming.  No doubt about it.

So either the Ontario Real Estate Association puts together a proposal and offers to work with the Ontario government, or they’re going to come up with ideas on their own, and cram it down our throats.

I would have absolutely no problem if either OREA, or the government, mandated that one individual Realtor can no longer represent both buyer and seller in a transaction.  To take that a step further, I might add, “In multiple offers,” since I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that a listing agent, representing the sale of a farm in rural Ontario, cannot work with a potential buyer when that property has been languishing on the market for 165 days.

I think the exact rules, and the verbiage used, would need to be refined.

And what then of regulation, oversight, and discipline?

Reader “Steve” commented on Monday’s blog that if agents would “find a way around it,” as I suggested, then there is a serious concern here!

I agree.

There are massive fines, even jail time, for insider trading in the equities markets.  So what would happen if a listing agent handed off a buyer to a rookie in his or her brokerage, told that rookie what to offer after he or she had reviewed all the offers, and then that rookie agent happened to magically “win” on offer night?

If it could be proven that there was insider trading, what would the repercussions be?

Now one final thought, just to play devil’s advocate.

If and when the Toronto market ever turns, and properties sit on the market for months at a time, would we then have an issue with “double-ending?”

If you were a seller, and your listing agent happened to have a buyer-client, or receive an inquiry from a buyer, that wanted to make an offer on your property, would you scream “bloody murder” at the rules that prevent your agent from working with that buyer?

The grass is always greener on the other side.

The problem is: we haven’t seen the other side in 20 years.

I welcome your thoughts.

The post Are We About To See The End Of Double-Ending? appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2p3nEQ4