Common Interrogation Techniques

[See also: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions for details]

Modern interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to be like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When a police officer tells us our fingerprints were found on the inside doorknob of a home that was robbed two days ago, we get nervous, even if we wore gloves the whole time we were inside.

With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. The belief is that an innocent person would never confess to a crime she didn't commit, even if she were confronted with false physical evidence of her involvement. Unfortunately, that's not always the case (more on false confessions in the next section), but it's a big part of the reason why the police are allowed to employ deceptive tactics in interrogation.

The psychological manipulation begins before the interrogator even opens his mouth. The physical layout of an interrogation room is designed to maximize a suspect's discomfort and sense of powerlessness from the moment he steps inside. The classic interrogation manual "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" recommends a small, soundproof room with only three chairs (two for detectives, one for the suspect) and a desk, with nothing on the walls. This creates a sense of exposure, unfamiliarity and isolation, heightening the suspect's "get me out of here" sensation throughout the interrogation.

The manual also suggests that the suspect should be seated in an uncomfortable chair, out of reach of any controls like light switches or thermostats, furthering his discomfort and setting up a feeling of dependence. A one-way mirror is an ideal addition to the room, because it increases the suspect's anxiety and allows other detectives to watch the process and help the interrogator figure out which techniques are working and which aren't.

Before the nine steps of the Reid interrogation begin, there's an initial interview to determine guilt or innocence. During this time, the interrogator attempts to develop a rapport with the suspect, using casual conversation to create a non-threatening atmosphere. People tend to like and trust people who are like them, so the detective may claim to share some of the suspect's interests or beliefs. If the suspect starts talking to the interrogator about harmless things, it becomes harder to stop talking (or start lying) later when the discussion turns to the crime.

During this initial conversation, the detective observes the suspect's reactions -- both verbal and non-verbal -- to establish a baseline reaction before the real stress begins. The detective will use this baseline later as a comparison point.

One method of creating a baseline involves asking questions that cause the suspect to access different parts of his brain. The detective asks non-threatening questions that require memory (simple recall) and questions that require thinking (creativity). When the suspect is remembering something, his eyes will often move to the right. This is just an outward manifestation of his brain activating the memory center. When he's thinking about something, his eyes might move upward or to the left, reflecting activation of the cognitive center. The detective makes a mental note of the suspect's eye activity.

Bad Move In the United States, as many as 80 percent of suspects waive their rights to silence and counsel, allowing police to conduct a full-scale interrogation.

The next step is to turn the questioning to the task at hand. The detective will ask basic questions about the crime and compare the suspect's reactions to the baseline to determine if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. If the interrogator asks the suspect where he was the night of the crime and he answers truthfully, he'll be remembering, so his eyes may move to the right; if he's making up an alibi, he's thinking, so his eyes might move to the left. If the interrogator determines that the suspect's reactions indicate deception, and all other evidence points to guilt, the interrogation of a guilty suspect begins.

The Reid technique is the basis of the widely used "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" manual we already mentioned. It lays out nine steps or issues guiding interrogation. Many of these steps overlap, and there is no such thing as a "typical" interrogation; but the Reid technique provides a blueprint of how a successful interrogation might unfold.

1. Confrontation
   The detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up. The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect's stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect's personal space to increase the discomfort.

If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he's on the right track.
2. Theme development
   The interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why he did it, why he'd like to think he did it and what type of excuse might make him admit he did it. Does the suspect use any particular mode of reasoning more often than others? For example, does he seem willing to blame the victim? The detective lays out a theme, a story, that the suspect can latch on to in order to either excuse or justify his part in the crime, and the detective then observes the suspect to see if he likes the theme. Is he paying closer attention than before? Nodding his head? If so, the detective will continue to develop that theme; if not, he'll pick a new theme and start over. Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security.

3. Stopping denials
   Letting the suspect deny his guilt will increase his confidence, so the detective tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it'll be his turn to talk in a moment, but right now, he needs to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the detective watches for denials and stops the suspect before he can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect's confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn't have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows he has found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing.

4. Overcoming objections
   Once the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect can relate to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like "I could never rape somebody -- my sister was raped and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone." The detective handles these differently than he does denials, because these objections can give him information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, "See, that's good, you're telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister -- it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing." If the detective does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt.

5. Getting the suspect's attention
   At this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect's ally. He'll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect's shoulder or patting his back.

6. The suspect loses resolve
   If the suspect's body language indicates surrender -- his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched -- the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. He'll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect's stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt.

7. Alternatives
   The interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it's less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable ("It was a crime of passion"), and the other is morally repugnant ("You killed her for the money"). The detective builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the detective speeds things up.

8. Bringing the suspect into the conversation
   Once the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and arranges for at least two people to witness the confession. One may be the second detective in room, and another may be brought in for the purpose of forcing the suspect to confess to a new detective -- having to confess to a new person increases the suspect's stress level and his desire to just sign a statement and get out of there. Bringing a new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal.

9. The confession
   The final stage of an interrogation is all about getting the confession admitted at trial. The interrogator will have the suspect write out his confession or state it on videotape. The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to escape the interrogation. The suspect confirms that his confession is voluntary, not coerced, and signs the statement in front of witnesses.

It should be noted here that if, at any point during the interrogation, the suspect does somehow manage to ask for a lawyer or invoke his right to silence, the interrogation has to stop immediately. That's why it's so important to interrupt the suspect's attempts to speak in the initial stages -- if he invokes his rights, the interrogation is over.

The steps we've laid out here represent some of the psychological techniques that detectives use to get confessions from suspects. But a real interrogation doesn't always follow the textbook. Next, let's take a look at an actual police interrogation that ended with an admissible confession.

Thoughts from Perspectives

The Perspectives course has been extremely valuable and has truly changed my perspectives. I will always remember the discussions of methods of evangelizing Muslims. The oval diagram was enlightening. It shows that the fundamental goal of Muslims, Christians, and Jews is “How do I enter the Kingdom of God?”

This led to musings about the foundational "milk" versus "meat" of Christianity. I understand that our eternal salvation, "going to heaven," is a function of God's gracious election and that it is certain. That is a done deal. But Jesus spent most of his time talking about the Kingdom of God. Although the physical Kingdom of God will manifest at his return, we can begin to experience the spiritual Kingdom right now, as we know Jesus and worship him in spirit and truth. Many scriptures state that the key to entering the Kingdom [as opposed to having eternal life] is loving God and God measures that love by how much we love others.

This leads to a broader view of the great commission. “make disciples” includes inviting them into the Kingdom. “baptize them in the name...” means to immerse them in God's name / reputation / glory: His compassion, grace, patience, abundant lovingkindness, truth, forgiveness, and justice.

This leads a new perspective on “church.” What is it, really, at the core? How much of what we do leads directly to the Kingdom and how much is a diversion? Do we expect that unbelievers will come to our church to be converted? Are we properly equipping the believers to actually do the work of the Kingdom or are we depending on paid staff? How much is western culture and tradition and how much is God? God views every person as a precious made-in-His-image being. Do we treat everyone that way? Are we going out of our way to find the oppressed and downtrodden? Our local organic ministries suddenly become more important: His Hands, Aid to Women, Serve The City, J-Street Outreach, etc.

The broken line in the diagram indicates that it is possible to know and love Jesus and to worship in spirit and truth without changing one's worship to a western style. What a new perspective!

Alex Pearson Election Video

Sept 17 2008

Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully - in Ten Minutes

by Stephen King (reprinted in Sylvia K. Burack, ed. The Writer's Handbook. Boston, MA: Writer, Inc., 1988: 3-9)

I. The First Introduction

THAT'S RIGHT. I know it sounds like an ad for some sleazy writers' school, but I really am going to tell you everything you need to pursue a successful and financially rewarding career writing fiction, and I really am going to do it in ten minutes, which is exactly how long it took me to learn. It will actually take you twenty minutes or so to read this essay, however, because I have to tell you a story, and then I have to write a second introduction. But these, I argue, should not count in the ten minutes.

II. The Story, or, How Stephen King Learned to Write

When I was a sophomore in high school, I did a sophomoric thing which got me in a pot of fairly hot water, as sophomoric didoes often do. I wrote and published a small satiric newspaper called The Village Vomit. In this little paper I lampooned a number of teachers at Lisbon (Maine) High School, where I was under instruction. These were not very gentle lampoons; they ranged from the scatological to the downright cruel.

Eventually, a copy of this little newspaper found its way into the hands of a faculty member, and since I had been unwise enough to put my name on it (a fault, some critics argue, of which I have still not been entirely cured), I was brought into the office. The sophisticated satirist had by that time reverted to what he really was: a fourteen-year-old kid who was shaking in his boots and wondering if he was going to get a suspension ... what we called "a three-day vacation" in those dim days of 1964.

I wasn't suspended. I was forced to make a number of apologies - they were warranted, but they still tasted like dog-dirt in my mouth - and spent a week in detention hall. And the guidance counselor arranged what he no doubt thought of as a more constructive channel for my talents. This was a job - contingent upon the editor's approval - writing sports for the Lisbon Enterprise, a twelve-page weekly of the sort with which any small-town resident will be familiar. This editor was the man who taught me everything I know about writing in ten minutes. His name was John Gould - not the famed New England humorist or the novelist who wrote The Greenleaf Fires, but a relative of both, I believe.

He told me he needed a sports writer and we could "try each other out" if I wanted.

I told him I knew more about advanced algebra than I did sports.

Gould nodded and said, "You'll learn."

I said I would at least try to learn. Gould gave me a huge roll of yellow paper and promised me a wage of 1/2¢ per word. The first two pieces I wrote had to do with a high school basketball game in which a member of my school team broke the Lisbon High scoring record. One of these pieces was straight reportage. The second was a feature article.

I brought them to Gould the day after the game, so he'd have them for the paper, which came out Fridays. He read the straight piece, made two minor corrections, and spiked it. Then he started in on the feature piece with a large black pen and taught me all I ever needed to know about my craft. I wish I still had the piece - it deserves to be framed, editorial corrections and all - but I can remember pretty well how it looked when he had finished with it. Here's an example:

(note: this is before the edit marks indicated on King's original copy)

Last night, in the well-loved gymnasium of Lisbon High School, partisans and Jay Hills fans alike were stunned by an athletic performance unequaled in school history: Bob Ransom, known as "Bullet" Bob for both his size and accuracy, scored thirty-seven points. He did it with grace and speed ... and he did it with an odd courtesy as well, committing only two personal fouls in his knight-like quest for a record which has eluded Lisbon thinclads since 1953....

(after edit marks)

Last night, in the Lisbon High School gymnasium, partisans and Jay Hills fans alike were stunned by an athletic performance unequaled in school history: Bob Ransom scored thirty-seven points. He did it with grace and speed ... and he did it with an odd courtesy as well, committing only two personal fouls in his quest for a record which has eluded Lisbon's basketball team since 1953....

When Gould finished marking up my copy in the manner I have indicated above, he looked up and must have seen something on my face. I think he must have thought it was horror, but it was not: it was revelation.

"I only took out the bad parts, you know," he said. "Most of it's pretty good."

"I know," I said, meaning both things: yes, most of it was good, and yes, he had only taken out the bad parts. "I won't do it again."

"If that's true," he said, "you'll never have to work again. You can do this for a living." Then he threw back his head and laughed.

And he was right; I am doing this for a living, and as long as I can keep on, I don't expect ever to have to work again.

III. The Second Introduction

All of what follows has been said before. If you are interested enough in writing to be a purchaser of this magazine, you will have either heard or read all (or almost all) of it before. Thousands of writing courses are taught across the United States each year; seminars are convened; guest lecturers talk, then answer questions, then drink as many gin and tonics as their expense-fees will allow, and it all boils down to what follows.

I am going to tell you these things again because often people will only listen - really listen - to someone who makes a lot of money doing the thing he's talking about. This is sad but true. And I told you the story above not to make myself sound like a character out of a Horatio Alger novel but to make a point: I saw, I listened, and I learned. Until that day in John Gould's little office, I had been writing first drafts of stories which might run 2,500 words. The second drafts were apt to run 3,300 words. Following that day, my 2,500-word first drafts became 2,200-word second drafts. And two years after that, I sold the first one.

So here it is, with all the bark stripped off. It'll take ten minutes to read, and you can apply it right away ... if you listen.

IV. Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully

1. Be talented

This, of course, is the killer. What is talent? I can hear someone shouting, and here we are, ready to get into a discussion right up there with "what is the meaning of life?" for weighty pronouncements and total uselessness. For the purposes of the beginning writer, talent may as well be defined as eventual success - publication and money. If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented.

Now some of you are really hollering. Some of you are calling me one crass money-fixated creep. And some of you are calling me bad names. Are you calling Harold Robbins talented? someone in one of the Great English Departments of America is screeching. V.C. Andrews? Theodore Dreiser? Or what about you, you dyslexic moron?

Nonsense. Worse than nonsense, off the subject. We're not talking about good or bad here. I'm interested in telling you how to get your stuff published, not in critical judgments of who's good or bad. As a rule the critical judgments come after the check's been spent, anyway. I have my own opinions, but most times I keep them to myself. People who are published steadily and are paid for what they are writing may be either saints or trollops, but they are clearly reaching a great many someones who want what they have. Ergo, they are communicating. Ergo, they are talented. The biggest part of writing successfully is being talented, and in the context of marketing, the only bad writer is one who doesn't get paid. If you're not talented, you won't succeed. And if you're not succeeding, you should know when to quit.

When is that? I don't know. It's different for each writer. Not after six rejection slips, certainly, nor after sixty. But after six hundred? Maybe. After six thousand? My friend, after six thousand pinks, it's time you tried painting or computer programming.

Further, almost every aspiring writer knows when he is getting warmer - you start getting little jotted notes on your rejection slips, or personal letters . . . maybe a commiserating phone call. It's lonely out there in the cold, but there are encouraging voices ... unless there is nothing in your words which warrants encouragement. I think you owe it to yourself to skip as much of the self-illusion as possible. If your eyes are open, you'll know which way to go ... or when to turn back.

2. Be neat

Type. Double-space. Use a nice heavy white paper, never that erasable onion-skin stuff. If you've marked up your manuscript a lot, do another draft.

3. Be self-critical

If you haven't marked up your manuscript a lot, you did a lazy job. Only God gets things right the first time. Don't be a slob.

4. Remove every extraneous word

You want to get up on a soapbox and preach? Fine. Get one and try your local park. You want to write for money? Get to the point. And if you remove all the excess garbage and discover you can't find the point, tear up what you wrote and start all over again . . . or try something new.

5. Never look at a reference book while doing a first draft

You want to write a story? Fine. Put away your dictionary, your encyclopedias, your World Almanac, and your thesaurus. Better yet, throw your thesaurus into the wastebasket. The only things creepier than a thesaurus are those little paperbacks college students too lazy to read the assigned novels buy around exam time. Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule. You think you might have misspelled a word? O.K., so here is your choice: either look it up in the dictionary, thereby making sure you have it right - and breaking your train of thought and the writer's trance in the bargain - or just spell it phonetically and correct it later. Why not? Did you think it was going to go somewhere? And if you need to know the largest city in Brazil and you find you don't have it in your head, why not write in Miami, or Cleveland? You can check it ... but later. When you sit down to write, write. Don't do anything else except go to the bathroom, and only do that if it absolutely cannot be put off.

6. Know the markets

Only a dimwit would send a story about giant vampire bats surrounding a high school to McCall's. Only a dimwit would send a tender story about a mother and daughter making up their differences on Christmas Eve to Playboy ... but people do it all the time. I'm not exaggerating; I have seen such stories in the slush piles of the actual magazines. If you write a good story, why send it out in an ignorant fashion? Would you send your kid out in a snowstorm dressed in Bermuda shorts and a tank top? If you like science fiction, read the magazines. If you want to write confession stories, read the magazines. And so on. It isn't just a matter of knowing what's right for the present story; you can begin to catch on, after awhile, to overall rhythms, editorial likes and dislikes, a magazine's entire slant. Sometimes your reading can influence the next story, and create a sale.

7. Write to entertain

Does this mean you can't write "serious fiction"? It does not. Somewhere along the line pernicious critics have invested the American reading and writing public with the idea that entertaining fiction and serious ideas do not overlap. This would have surprised Charles Dickens, not to mention Jane Austen, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Bernard Malamud, and hundreds of others. But your serious ideas must always serve your story, not the other way around. I repeat: if you want to preach, get a soapbox.

8. Ask yourself frequently, "Am I having fun?"

The answer needn't always be yes. But if it's always no, it's time for a new project or a new career.

9. How to evaluate criticism

Show your piece to a number of people - ten, let us say. Listen carefully to what they tell you. Smile and nod a lot. Then review what was said very carefully. If your critics are all telling you the same thing about some facet of your story - a plot twist that doesn't work, a character who rings false, stilted narrative, or half a dozen other possibles - change that facet. It doesn't matter if you really liked that twist of that character; if a lot of people are telling you something is wrong with you piece, it is. If seven or eight of them are hitting on that same thing, I'd still suggest changing it. But if everyone - or even most everyone - is criticizing something different, you can safely disregard what all of them say.

10. Observe all rules for proper submission

Return postage, self-addressed envelope, all of that.

11. An agent? Forget it. For now

Agents get 10% of monies earned by their clients. 10% of nothing is nothing. Agents also have to pay the rent. Beginning writers do not contribute to that or any other necessity of life. Flog your stories around yourself. If you've done a novel, send around query letters to publishers, one by one, and follow up with sample chapters and/or the manuscript complete. And remember Stephen King's First Rule of Writers and Agents, learned by bitter personal experience: You don't need one until you're making enough for someone to steal ... and if you're making that much, you'll be able to take your pick of good agents.

12. If it's bad, kill it

When it comes to people, mercy killing is against the law. When it comes to fiction, it is the law.

That's everything you need to know. And if you listened, you can write everything and anything you want. Now I believe I will wish you a pleasant day and sign off.

My ten minutes are up.

(The above article is copyright Stephen King, 1988)

This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. Please send comments or questions to mike@mikeshea.net.

What would Sully do?

Excerpt from a posting in Politico by By: Eamon Javers
February 9, 2009 04:56 PM EST

Here are the top five lessons from the crash of flight 1549:

1. Don’t panic: Sullenberger told CBS’ Katie Couric that he immediately knew he was in a life-or-death situation: “It was the worst sickening pit-of-your-stomach, falling-through-the-floor feeling I’ve ever felt in my life,” he said. But he didn’t let that fear keep him from acting calmly and effectively. On the cockpit recording, Sullenberger’s tone of voice is even and controlled as disaster loomed.

Lesson: You can’t lead from the fetal position. There are both Democrats and Republicans who would prefer not to have to revisit the notion of a financial rescue package, especially after the debacle of the Troubled Assets Relief Program last year. Sully didn’t want to crash into the Hudson, either – but he didn’t have a choice.

2. There’s only one pilot at a time: The instant his engines cut out over New York City, Sullenberger turned to his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles, and said “my aircraft,” taking control of the airplane. Stiles responded quickly and simply: “your aircraft.” Notice what the two men did not do: They did not argue over who was in charge, or whose theory of crash landing was better. They had only one chance to get it right, and Sully was in the captain’s seat, so he made the call.

Lesson: Leaders have to be allowed to lead. The back and forth tussling we have seen between congressional Democrats and the White House over who’s responsible for certain planks in the stimulus bill is just the opposite of what we saw with Sully and Stiles.

3. Improvise, Improvise, Improvise: Sully cranked through a list of options with his co-pilot and with air traffic control. Return to La Guardia Airport? Couldn’t make it. Bear right toward Teterboro? Still too far. Sully weighed the advice he was getting, and made a unilateral decision, telling air traffic control simply: “We’ll be in the Hudson.”

Lesson: Weigh the options, and then move on. Sometimes, the worst choice on the table is the only one available. Both President Bush and President Obama have been making it up as they go along – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once called it: “bold, persistent experimentation.” For Congress, most economists agree, that means do something – this problem won’t solve itself without a lot of collateral damage.

4. Experts matter: Sullenberger was perhaps the ideal pilot to handle the Hudson landing: He’d flown for more than 19,000 hours, ran his own transportation safety consultancy, and had participated in several National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations. Contrast that with Washington, where all 535 lawmakers on Capitol Hill have an opinion – whether they know what they’re talking about or not. President Obama himself bemoaned this tendency in the stimulus process: “These days, everybody thinks they’re economists,” he joked.

Lesson: Some people are better qualified than others – sometimes you’re the pilot, and sometimes you’re the flight attendant.

5. Don’t worry about public opinion – success makes for great numbers: Couric asked Sullenberger whether he thought about the passengers while he was struggling to land the plane. Sully said, in essence, no. Instead, Sully was focused on the task immediately in front of him. “I knew I had to solve this problem,” he said.

Lesson: The passengers – and the American people – are along for the ride. As difficult as this is to swallow in a democracy, a fast-moving crisis simply doesn’t allow a lot of time for deliberation. Hesitation can mean disaster. Imagine Sully conducting an opinion poll – if asked, surely some of the passengers would have wanted him to try for Teterboro, some for La Guardia, and some for the water landing. By the time he’d decided what to do, it would be too late to do it. What’s more, it’s sometimes better to make a bad decision than none at all. After all, maybe Sully could have landed at Teterboro and saved a $60 million aircraft as well as the lives of the passengers and crew. We’ll never know. But debating the option any longer would surely have cost the lives and the plane.

Winning Every Time

How to Use the Skills of a Lawyer in the Trials of Your Life
by Lis Wiehl

Step 1. Know what you want; The theory of the Case

• Determine Position
• Avoid Red Herrings
• Define Your Goal

Step 2. Choose and Cultivate your audience; Voir Dire

• Who Are Your Potential Jurors? [Right Person? Authority to Decide? Any Bias?]
  
• What Are You Going to Ask? [Identify with you. Hot Buttons? Open Ended. Written List]
  
• When Are You Going to Make Your Case?
• Where Are You Going to Make Your Case?
• Why?
• How?
  

Step 3. Marshal your evidence: Discovery

• Ask People, Order Documents, Follow Leads
• List Direct Evidence
• List Circumstantial Evidence [Connect the Dots, Add Intuition, Conclude]
• Identify Prejudicial Evidence, usually Emotional
• Identify Evidentiary Killers
• Develop Written Trial Plan [Start with the second of two most important pieces of evidence, stack the others to build upon each other, End with the most important evidence]
  

Step 4. Advocate with confidence: Argue the Case

• Establish Your Theme and Set Your tone
• Plan: Open with your Theory; Preview the Evidence; Ask for the Outcome You Want
• Write Out Leading and Open-ended Questions
• Present Your Case: Theory, Evidence, Ask Questions of the Juror
• Summarize with the Strongest Piece of Evidence and Make the Ask
  

Step 5. Counter the claims: Cross Examination

• Few Questions; all Yes-or-No
• Impeach, Expose Non-Truth, and Discredit Hearsay
• Don't Repeat the Direct; Make Strongest Points First and Last
• End With an Ask for Agreement

Step 6. Stay true to your case: Avoid the seven deadly spins

• Digression
• Over-promising
• Adding Last Minute Charges
• Using Hearsay
• Making Subjective Characterizations
• Drawing False Inferences
• Expressing Uncontrolled Emotion
  

Step 7. Advocate with heart: Let me tell you a story

Step 8. Sum it up: The closing Argument

• Start with Your Hook
• Sum up Your Most Important Evidence
• Resolve Any Weaknesses
• Refer to Sympathetic Elements; "Do what is right."
• Justify and Ask for the Verdict You Want.

.

Keys to Keeping Long Term Donors

87 percent of long-term donors use two criteria in their donee selection:

1) Have my donations been acknowledgment?

2) Are my donations making an impact?

Do All Religions Lead to God?

By Kenneth Richard Samples

During the days following the catastrophic terrorist events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush called for a national day of prayer. He urged people of all faiths to pray for America. Interfaith religious services were televised from the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. and from Yankee Stadium in New York. These services included clerics from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. They offered prayers to the God collectively addressed as "the God of Abraham, the God of Muhammad, and the Father of Jesus Christ." Popular television personality Oprah Winfrey led the service held in New York City and boldly declared that all people pray to the same God.

Is Oprah right? Do Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus worship the same God? If so, people of all faiths can live peaceably in this world, can't they?

Religious pluralism is the view that all religions, certainly all major or ethical religions, are equally valid paths to God or to ultimate reality. For the pluralist, many religious roads lead to God and salvation. And yet, given the present cultural milieu of globalism, multiculturalism, relativism (in both truth and morality), and especially the postmodern spirit, the growing climate of religious pluralism poses a serious challenge to the integrity of the Christian faith.

Popular Religious Pluralism

Entering the twenty-first century, America embodies significant ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious diversity. Urban and suburban dwellers come from all parts of the globe. One's next-door neighbor to the right might come from Southeast Asia or Australia. The one to the left might originate from India, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. America, as a democratic nation, places great value on the principle of tolerance, especially the tolerance of religious expression. The Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately, some people take the notion of equal toleration of religious expression to mean that all religions are equally true, thus equally valid paths to God. In effect, democracy has been applied to ultimate truth.¹ This seemingly "politically correct" approach to religion, though popular in this culture, represents deeply convoluted thinking. The acceptance of social pluralism (tolerance of diverse religious expression) does not logically imply the truth of metaphysical pluralism (that all religious truth claims are equally valid and simultaneously true).

Important Considerations

The popular notion that all religions are true ignores three imperative considerations. In order to think through and respond to the issue of religious pluralism, one must recognize and understand each of these points.

1. While the religions of the world do share some common beliefs and especially moral values, fundamental and irreconcilable differences clearly divide them on many crucially important issues, including the nature of God, the source and focus of revelation, the human predicament, the nature of salvation, and the destiny of mankind.² A plethora of views exists just concerning the nature of God (or ultimate reality). Some religions affirm monotheism (one God); others, polytheism (many gods); still others affirm pantheism (all is God); and some even affirm atheism (no God).³ In Judaism⁴ and Islam, God is personal (and singular); in Christianity God is clearly more than personal and singular (superpersonaland triune⁵); while in strands of Hinduism and Buddhism God is less than personal and singular (apersonal and diffuse).⁶

Some of the world's religious traditions view God as wholly transcendent (beyond the world), others as wholly immanent (within the world), and still others as both transcendent and immanent. Some religions view God as infinite in nature and nonidentifiable with the world, whereas in other religions God is finite and identified with the world. Clearly no universal agreement exists among the world's religions as to who or what God really is. As scholar Harold A. Netland states, "Careful examination of the basic tenets of the various religious traditions demonstrates that, far from teaching the same thing, the major religions have radically different perspectives on the religious ultimate."⁷

Identifying mankind's ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma must be resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment) creates other stark contrasts between religions. Fundamental differences exist between the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, and the dominant religion of the East, Hinduism. Christianity affirms that redemption in Christ for the believer involves an eternal personal relationship with God in the afterlife. Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms a cycle of rebirths leading ultimately to the absorption of one's individual consciousness into God or ultimate reality. Those two visions of future reality are simply irreconcilable.⁸

2. The religions of the world are so diverse in belief and in worldview orientation that they defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme or essence. Indeed, this vast and complex array of religious perspectives makes religious reductionism a dubious venture altogether. Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath notes, "There is a growing consensus that it is seriously misleading to regard the various religious traditions of the world as variations on a single theme."⁹

Netland draws a similar conclusion about attempts to consolidate the religions according to a single salvific (relating to salvation) objective: "It is highly misleading to speak as if all religions share a common soteriological goal and simply differ on the means to reach it."¹⁰

Attempts to reduce a variety of religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting the religions. Homogenizing the religions is a costly price to pay to solve the problems of religious diversity, for in the end the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place. Moreover, the various religions do not easily conform to any particular reductionistic category.

While some rightly identify similar ethical values as a common motif, upon closer inspection it becomes evident that even the similar moral principles are motivated by, and grounded in, fundamentally different views of the nature of reality. Religion cannot be reduced simply to ethics, for religion makes claims about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics), to which ethics appeal for justification. The renowned authority on world religions, Cal Berkeley professor Huston Smith, clearly rejects the notion all religions are basically the same:

For as soon as [the notion of sameness] moves beyond vague generalities––'every religion has some version of the Golden Rule'––it founders on the fact that the religions differ in what they consider essential and nonnegotiable.¹¹

The similar ethical values shared by religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism cannot be separated from the distinctive doctrines promoted by those particular religions. This distinctiveness is especially true in terms of historic Christianity; for Christianity is not primarily a system of ethics. Instead, Christian ethics flow from a redemptive relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore the ethical teachings of Jesus in the New Testament cannot be separated from the unique Christian doctrines that emerge directly from the great redemptive events of Jesus' life (such as the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection). In other words, the truth of Christian ethics is tied to the truth of Christian theology.

3. Formal laws of logic demonstrate the impossibility that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way (the law of noncontradiction: A cannot equal A and non-A). For example, Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam). Contradictory religious claims have opposite truth value, meaning that they negate or deny each other. Therefore exactly one is true and the other false. And, accordingly, Jesus Christ must either be God incarnate or not be God incarnate; no middle position is possible (the law of excluded middle: either A or non-A).

Since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all conceive the identity of Jesus of Nazareth differently, logically speaking, their conceptions simply can't all be true. While it is logically possible that all three positions are false, they definitely cannot all be true. Thus, the claims of popular religious pluralism fail to comport with the self-evident laws of thought. This fact led Christian philosopher Ronald H. Nash to conclude that "any one who would become a pluralist must first abandon the very principles of logic that make all significant thought, action, and communication possible."¹²

Some people argue that applying logic to religion is false or misleading. They insist that ultimate truth comes only through some type of nonrational intuition. Their argument betrays them, however, because in arguing against logic they must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. To do so is, of course, self-contradictory. As Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks point out, "Even those who claim, 'Logic does not apply to God,' use logic in that very statement."¹³

To divorce oneself from the self-evident laws of thought when it comes to ultimate reality is to resign oneself to irrationality. Netland explains a price too great for most people to pay because it requires the "forfeiture of the possibility of meaningful affirmation or statement about anything at all––including statements about the religious ultimate. One who rejects the principle of noncontradiction is reduced to utter silence, for he or she has abandoned a necessary condition for any coherent or meaningful position whatsoever."¹⁴

A Philosophical Approach to Pluralism

Some philosophers and religious scholars believe there is a way of making religious pluralism intellectually tenable. Could it be, perhaps, that the contradictions among the world's religions are only apparent rather than real? That is, maybe all the religions are experiencing the same divine reality but in different ways? After all, isn't an encounter with a mysterious and unfathomable God at the core of most religions? Surely God transcends the finite human mind.

The prominent pluralist thinker, John Hick,¹⁵ employs a common Eastern way of illustrating this point, called the elephant analogy. In this analogy, several blind men encounter an elephant for the first time. Each feels a different part of the animal, then attempts to determine truth about the essence of its being. One man pats a leg and sees the elephant as a "living pillar." Another man grasps the trunk and beholds a snake. The man who rubs the tusk believes the elephant to be a "sharp plough-share." Though each individual expresses one important aspect of the whole reality, none comprehends the complete entity.¹⁶

According to this analogy, one may attribute the differences among the world's religions to mankind's inability to grasp the infinite reality of God. Hick applies the famous Kantian objective/subjective distinction of the world as it is (the objective noumenal world), from the world as it appears to human consciousness (the subjective phenomenal world) to the problem of religious diversity. He argues that one must distinguish between ultimate reality as it is (the divine "noumena"), from ultimate reality as experienced by finite human beings (the divine phenomena).

Hick's pluralistic theory places the ultimate divine reality beyond the particular deities of the various religions. This divine ultimate is not experienced directly, but instead is filtered through the different historical and cultural lenses of mankind. Thus people encounter the same divine reality (Mohammed, Krishna, Jesus) differently because of their differing historical, cultural, or philosophical perceptions and biases. He further explains:

These different personae are thus partly projections of the divine Reality into human consciousness, and partly projections of the human consciousness itself as it has been formed by particular historical cultures.¹⁷

For Hick, each religion is valid because each faith provides a genuine (though obviously limited) encounter with ultimate reality. The world's religions represent "different 'faces' or 'masks' or personae of God, the Ultimate Reality."¹⁸ And, since Hick thinks that religion is ultimately about existential transformation (ethics) and not about specific doctrinal beliefs, then all religious paths are acceptable because all the major religions are capable of transforming a person from being "self-centered" to being "divine-centered." Hick views religious pluralism as a much more attractive hypothesis than either total "skepticism" of religion on one hand or traditional religious "dogmatism" on the other.

In response to Hick's philosophical pluralism, while his pluralistic vision appeals to many for both its apparent tolerance and its attempted unification of religion, it is nevertheless fraught with serious problems. An examination of Hick's views should begin with careful scrutiny of the elephant analogy.

In thinking about the elephant analogy, no one questions the reality of biases and limited knowledge on the part of mankind when encountering God, but these concessions do nothing to shore up this analogy's central weaknesses as it relates to pluralism. The elephant analogy seems to imply a radical skepticism concerning one's knowledge of God; namely, that no one, or in this case no religion, can really know God satisfactorily.¹⁹ But if God is by-and-large unknowable, then how is one able to know that God is unknowable?²⁰ In fact, for that matter, would one even know that God exists? How does Hick know so much about the inner workings of the incomprehensible ultimate reality? Especially since this ultimate reality—in Hick's view—does not reveal itself in nature nor in propositions.

Ironically, while the elephant analogy attempts to validate the truth of all religions, it really succeeds in showing that all religions fail to adequately reveal God. So rather than affirming religious truth, the analogy demonstrates that all religions, at least in large measure, are false or misleading.²¹ The religions may indeed provide some core ethical values, but as was noted previously, these similar moral values are motivated by, and grounded in, essentially different views of the nature of reality. In religion, ethics cannot be divorced from metaphysical truth claims. What is good must be understood in light of what is real and true. Actions do not exist in a vacuum apart from truth.

The analogy is especially flawed, however, when viewed from the standpoint of historic orthodox Christianity. According to Christianity, God has personally entered the world of time and space in the historical person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14, 18). This same Jesus makes exclusive claims to divine authority and possesses the prerogatives of deity which are incompatible with the homogenizing and accommodating views of religious pluralists (e.g., John 8:58, 10:30).²²

To accommodate pluralism's unknowable God, Christianity would be forced to give up all of its distinctive doctrines, including the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Atonement. As Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath noted, "The identity of Christianity is inextricably linked with the uniqueness of Christ, which is in turn grounded in the Resurrection and Incarnation."²³ If the analogy were to reflect historic Christianity, one would find the elephant healing the men's blindness and personally introducing himself. For the Christian claim is that God is personally, intimately, uniquely, and decisively disclosed in the Jesus Christ.

For the elephant analogy to work and for religious pluralism to be true, the claims of historic Christianity must be false. For according to Jesus' words in the New Testament, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well" (John 14:7). Again, central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to Earth in the flesh and has been personally known among men.

The Apostle Paul's words directly summarize this central Christian truth: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). Moreover, a fair reading of the New Testament reveals that faith in Jesus Christ is considered the unique and only way of encountering God. "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter declared concerning Jesus, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Hick's reasons for embracing religious pluralism over historic, orthodox Christianity (the faith of his youth) is found in his rejection of the Bible as a propositional revelation from God and in his conviction that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is both unhistorical and logically incoherent.²⁴ He argues vociferously that the Incarnation is a myth.²⁵ Hick also views historic Christianity's position of religious exclusivism as intellectually narrow and morally unacceptable. But Hick's bold rejection of the truth-claims of historic Christianity creates a logical problem for his broad pluralistic claim.

Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans points out that "it is an essential part of Christian faith that Jesus is God in a unique and exclusive way. It follows from this that all religions cannot be equally true. If all religions are equally true, then Christianity is false, and therefore not all religions are true."²⁶ In the end, the correct position must be one of these two: (1) Christianity and all other exclusive religions are wrong, and the rest of the religions, which are inclusive, are right; or (2) all religions are metaphysically wrong. In other words, what pluralism succeeds in doing is redefining religion along the line of ethical transformation and simply dismissing any concrete truth claims that might end up creating contradictions among the religions. In a very real sense a pluralist cannot take the truth claims of any religion seriously.

While some individuals believe that the exclusive claims of Christianity are provincial and arrogant, in reality their own pluralistic claims are dismissive of virtually all of a religions' distinctive features. Further, their view provides something other than a neutral or objective analysis of religion. For the idea of an unknowable ultimate reality is closely connected to an Eastern monistic understanding of the divine. Such proponents appear to be taking the greatly presumptuous position that they, unlike the religions of the world, really know the elephant.

Mythical Truth or Historical Truth

Pluralist thinkers such as Joseph Campbell have argued that all religions can be simultaneously true because all religions merely make mythical and/or poetical claims, not historical, factual truth-claims. This assertion of course means that the religions of the world are metaphorically true but literally false.²⁷

However, again, this view flies in the face of historic orthodox Christianity. Whether one is inclined to accept them or not, the truth-claims of Christianity are historical and factual in nature. Jesus of Nazareth was born under the reign of Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, and He suffered and died at the hands of an equally real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. The historic Christian faith consistently resists and defies all attempts to homogenize and mythologize its central truth-claims. The apostles saw Jesus' resurrection from the dead and reported it as an historical-factual event.

The apostle Peter proclaimed: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 1:16).²⁸ According to the laws of logic and the historical veracity of Scripture, pluralism, no matter how popular, cannot be true.

References:

1. Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 74-75; R.C. Sproul, Reason To Believe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 35.
2. William L. Rowe, Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993), 174-75.
3. The most primitive form of Buddhism, "Theravada," is godless in belief.
4. Reference here is to the traditional adherents of Judaism. Some Jewish groups (Messianic Jews) retain their Jewish heritage and tradition but embrace Jesus Christ (Yeshua) as their Messiah and Savior.
5. This is reflected in the unique Christian doctrine of the Trinity according to which, the one true God exists eternally and simultaneously as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. With regard to the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples, "Thinking About The Trinity: 'One What and Three Whos,'" Facts For Faith 3 (Q3 2000), 8-13.
6. Richard L. Purtill, Thinking About Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 105-6.
7. Harold A. Netland, Dissonant Voices (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 37.
8. Rowe, 175.
9. Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 155.
10. Netland, 160.
11. Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 245.
12. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 55. For a clear and insightful discussion of the formal laws of logic, see Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 103-12.
13. Norman L. Geisler, and Ronald M. Brooks. Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 15.
14. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 55.
15. Hick's works on pluralism include God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Macmillan, 1977) and Problems of Religious Pluralism, ed. (New York: St. Martin's, 1985).
16. Cited in Michael Peterson, et al., Reason & Religious Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 224.
17. John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 119.
18. John Hick. In More Than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 39.
19. See C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985).
20. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 36.
21. Michael Peterson, et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 226.
22. For an introduction and defense of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, see Kenneth Richard Samples, "Thinking About The Incarnation: The Divine Word Become Flesh," Facts For Faith 4 (Q4 2000): 34-41.
23. Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 119.
24. Hick, More Than One Way?, 29-59.
25. John Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM, 1977). For a philosophical defense of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, see Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
26. C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 141.
27. See Douglas Groothuis's critique of Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth in the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1989, 28.
28. This article is an expansion of two other articles; see Kenneth R. Samples, "Responding To Religious Pluralism," Facts and Faith 12, no. 1, (1998), 12-14; and Kenneth R. Samples, "The Challenge of Religious Pluralism," Christian Research Journal (Summer 1990), 39.

Points to Remember

1. World religions defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme for example:
   — The nature of God––one God, many Gods, no God; singular, triune; personal, superpersonal, apersonal; immanent, transcendent, or both; finite or infinite.
   — Mankind's ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma is resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment).
2. Formal laws of logic make it impossible that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way.
3. Whenever the claims of one religion directly contradict (negate or deny) the claims of another religion, then both of these claims cannot be true. Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam).
4. A person arguing against logic must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. This is self-contradictory.
5. Unique and central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to Earth in theflesh and can be personally known among men.

The Right Way to Start a New Job -- And Leave Your Old One

From Tammy Erickson - Across the Ages
4:45 PM Friday December 12, 2008

I once hired someone to help me dig out of the morass of work that had been piling up all around. As then-manager of the company's largest division, I found myself overloaded with a host of primarily people issues - with little time to focus on my own research or clients.

The new guy stopped by my office right after signing all the requisite forms. "What are your top three issues?" he asked.

Hmmm. A bit of an odd start, but okay, I'll play along. I shared my top three headaches - all complicated issues with multiple constituencies and intricate ramifications to be sorted out. As I spoke he made a few scratchy notes on a little pad. When I finished, he didn't comment or ask a single question - just nodded and backed out the door.

Good grief. Obviously hiring this dude had been a major mistake and a total waste of time. I described three tasks and scared him off the property. I sigh, recognizing that I've just added a fourth major headache to my list.

To my amazement, he reappeared in my doorway at the end of the day. "Done," he said. "What are the next three?"

Now, I'm not exactly recommending that as the perfect way to start a new job - at a minimum, it created a bit of angst in the new boss - but I would say that in terms of making an impression - and not just a "good" impression, but one that will last over the decades - this guy was the master. Bar none, the best I've ever seen.

I've known others who come close. One day a senior professional came into my office and stuffed a document under my nose. It looked like a proposal draft and had a neat note on top: "Saw you were working on this; hope this will help. Russ" "Who exactly is Russ?" she demanded.

A new guy I hired a couple days ago. He had taken the initiative to identify projects key people were pursuing and, without asking, had spent nights preparing useful drafts - filled with ideas and possible approaches. Then he left them, gifts in the night, on the senior person's desk. He made an impression, too.

And I've seen equally many examples of people who leave companies badly. I still flinch at the memory of one person who quit after making extravagant promises and numerous commitments - leaving half finished projects with multiple loose ends, upcoming deadlines, and scheduled contributions - and spoke only of her urgent self-interest in moving on. If she had started her exodus with an offer to make sure the loose ends were tied off, her colleagues would have been impressed by her thoughtfulness and, I'm sure, worked with her to create a more-than-fair transition plan. Leaving without addressing open commitments almost insures that your colleagues' last impression of you will be negative. The biggest mistake people make when they depart is focusing only on their own agenda, leaving the human beings left behind high and dry.

In contrast, people who leave well are the ones who go out of their way to touch base with colleagues to make sure that everyone has everything they need going forward. They make sure you feel that even though they are leaving, they continue to wish you and the company success.

In today's economy, the reality is that many of us are likely to be coming and going over the upcoming months - leaving firms, joining firm - of our own volition, or that of others. Whenever you do, those first few and last few weeks are critically important. You have great opportunity for upside when you arrive and tremendous potential for downside when you leave. You do more to shape your reputation, for the good or the bad, in the way you come and the way you go, than just about anything else you do.

Here is my fundamental philosophy: both of these periods are times when your primary focus must be (or at least must appear to be) firmly fixed on the company and your colleagues. Both of these are times when the phrases "what do you need?" and "how can I help?" should be the questions that everyone hears most clearly. Neither are times to talk about yourself and what you want. They are both times to give back. You'll be repaid many times over in terms of the reputation you build.

10 Overused Words in Writing

David Bowman, Owner and Chief Editor of Precise Edit, wrote this article.
(c) Copyright 2008, by Precise Edit

All words are good words. Some, however, are overused without adding value to what you write. As a result, they reduce the readers’ interest, make text seem redundant, and cause the writer to appear amateurish.

We have created a list of 10 overused words, based on the documents we have edited over the last 5 years. We don’t recommend that you remove these words from your writing. Instead, we recommend that you become aware of how often you use them and that you revise your documents to limit their use.

1. There
When writers are not sure about the subjects of their sentences, they will often use this word as the subject. This results in weak writing. (For advice on correcting this problem, see our article “Where Is There?”)

Example: “There was no one at home.” This can be revised as “No one was at home.”

2. You
Writers often use this word when referring to general or reoccurring situations. “You” rarely refers to the reader and should be avoided.

Example: “Our grandmother was nice. She always gave you candy.” This can be revised as “Our grandmother was nice. She always gave us candy.”

3. If
Although “if” is a fine word, it is overused by writers trying to describe options and thought processes.

Example: “If she took the bus, she wouldn’t have time to stop by the grocery store.” This can be revised as “Taking the bus would leave her too little time to stop by the grocery store.”

4. When
Readers realize that actions can occur at the same time, which is what the word “when” indicates. Thus, “when” is usually unnecessary.

Example: “When she opened the door, she saw blood on the floor.” This can be revised as “She opened the door and saw the blood on the floor.” Some writers use “when” to describe actions that cannot occur at the same time, as in “When she woke up, she made coffee.” Actually, she first wakes up and then makes the coffee. This can be revised as “She woke up and made the coffee.”

5. As
We once worked on a book in which the author used this word repeatedly to describe the timing of actions, often 3 or 4 times in one paragraph.

Example: “He was shouting ‘Follow me!’ as he ran down the road.” This can be revised as “He ran down the road shouting ‘Follow me!’ ”

6. Very
Mark Twain made this comment about using “very”: “Substitute ‘damn’ every time you're inclined to write ‘very’; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.” “Very” is a crutch for finding the right word to describe what you mean to say. Find the right word.

Example: “He was very old.” This can be revised as “He was ancient.”

Also, in this example, you can simply write, “He was old,” and then provide text to further explain what you mean by “old.” For example, you could write, “He was old. He walked hesitantly, knowing that his brittle bones would surely break were he to stumble over an unseen obstacle.”

7. Really
Generally, this word can be removed without changing the meaning of a sentence. Anything that is true is also really true.

Example: “He was really nervous about speaking in public.” This can be revised as “He was nervous about speaking in public.” To show a greater degree, use a different word, as in “He was panicky about speaking in public” or “Public speaking scared him.”

8. Am/Is/Are/Was/Were (“to be” verbs)
Action verbs are always preferable to state-of-being verbs. Use words that describe the action occurring. Rather than saying what something/someone is, show the reader what something/someone does.

Example: “I am envious of her success.” This can be revised as “I envy her success.”

Example: “She was dressed in leather chaps and a flannel shirt.” This can be revised as “She wore leather chaps and a flannel shirt.”

9. So
See #7. “So” is also overused as a conjunction.

Example: “Her face was inches from his own, so he leaned forward and kissed her.” This can be revised as “Her face was inches from his own. He leaned forward and kissed her.”

10. Because
This word is overused to provide explanations. To fix this, use the word “and” with action verbs.

Example: “He wanted to go to the fair because his friends would be there.” This can be revised as “He wanted to go to the fair and meet with his friends.”

Example: “I want to leave because I am tired.” This can be revised as “I’m tired and want to leave.”

Six Thinking Hats

This tool was created by Edward de Bono in his book "6 Thinking Hats".
Adapted from Mind Tools

If you look at a problem using the Six Thinking Hats technique, then you'll use all of these approaches to develop your best solution. Your decisions and plans will mix ambition, skill in execution, sensitivity, creativity and good contingency planning.

This tool was created by Edward de Bono in his book "6 Thinking Hats".

How to Use the Tool:

To use Six Thinking Hats to improve the quality of your decision-making, look at the decision "wearing" each of the thinking hats in turn.

Each "Thinking Hat" is a different style of thinking. These are explained below:

• White Hat:
  With this thinking hat, you focus on the data available. Look at the information you have, and see what you can learn from it. Look for gaps in your knowledge, and either try to fill them or take account of them.
  
  This is where you analyze past trends, and try to extrapolate from historical data.

• Red Hat:
  Wearing the red hat, you look at the decision using intuition, gut reaction, and emotion. Also try to think how other people will react emotionally, and try to understand the intuitive responses of people who do not fully know your reasoning.

• Black Hat:
  When using black hat thinking, look at things pessimistically, cautiously and defensively. Try to see why ideas and approaches might not work. This is important because it highlights the weak points in a plan or course of action. It allows you to eliminate them, alter your approach, or prepare contingency plans to counter problems that arise.

  Black Hat thinking helps to make your plans tougher and more resilient. It can also help you to spot fatal flaws and risks before you embark on a course of action. Black Hat thinking is one of the real benefits of this technique, as many successful people get so used to thinking positively that often they cannot see problems in advance, leaving them under-prepared for difficulties.

• Yellow Hat:
  The yellow hat helps you to think positively. It is the optimistic viewpoint that helps you to see all the benefits of the decision and the value in it, and spot the opportunities that arise from it. Yellow Hat thinking helps you to keep going when everything looks gloomy and difficult.

• Green Hat:
  The Green Hat stands for creativity. This is where you can develop creative solutions to a problem. It is a freewheeling way of thinking, in which there is little criticism of ideas. A whole range of creativity tools can help you here.

• Blue Hat:
  The Blue Hat stands for process control. This is the hat worn by people chairing meetings. When running into difficulties because ideas are running dry, they may direct activity into Green Hat thinking. When contingency plans are needed, they will ask for Black Hat thinking, and so on.

You can use Six Thinking Hats in meetings or on your own. In meetings it has the benefit of defusing the disagreements that can happen when people with different thinking styles discuss the same problem.

Five Questions Every Search Committee Should Ask—Of Itself

1. How do we define success?

   It's hard to overstate the importance of defining success. To paraphrase a character in Alice in Wonderland, "If you don't know where you're going, any path will get you there."

   To define success, you don't need an exhaustive, up-to-the-minute strategic plan (although that may be an idea worth exploring), but you do need a collective expression of the board's aspirations for the organization. At a minimum, as the surrogate for the full board, the search committee should be able to coalesce around preliminary answers to the big questions affecting an organization's future.

   Caution: Up to a point, the more specific the answers the better, but too much specificity could impose unwelcome limits on the CEO you're about to recruit. Think big hairy audacious goals and the guideposts against which to measure progress, but avoid setting out turn-by-turn directions.

2. What worries us the most?

   Even the best-run organizations with highly regarded leaders have issues that are worrisome. A clear understanding of shared concerns at the board level can prove enormously useful in discussions with potential CEOs.

   The concerns usually reflect issues of culture and competence, and the pendulum is always swinging between the two. Clarity around the board's biggest worries will help CEO candidates understand the board's priorities. Similarly, the lack of any real worries might signify a well-oiled machine—or a board in denial.

   The corollary, of course, is "What worries us the least?" Typically, the answers reflect the core strengths of an organization. Perhaps surprisingly, these assets can also represent a bit of a minefield for new CEOs. At least some of the values, competencies, and cultural norms that insiders tend to take for granted (because they are so ingrained) will be new to the outsider, if only because of the new context. By articulating values and norms that truly matter, the search committee will help ensure a strong cultural fit between the organization and its new CEO.

3. How much change can we stand?

   In nonprofits with more than a few minutes of operating history, there will be some vocal champions who want to freeze the status quo and some who want to change everything.

   Every new CEO faces the challenge of honoring the organization's past while securing its future. Within this balance of heritage and hope lie enormous challenge, risk, and reward for the board and the next leader. Which aspects of the organization (and its culture) do we want to preserve, and which aspects do we know should be amended? How big, really, is our appetite for change?

4. How can our new CEO add the most value?

   An organization with any momentum at all can project future results from current operations, perform a basic gap analysis to understand what is needed to get from here to there, and then recruit to fill the predicted gap.

   By asking "How can our new CEO add the most value," however, the committee substitutes "What's likely?" with "What's possible?" Given the assets and issues you know about and the results to be expected under normally competent leadership, what are the possibilities under abnormally competent leadership?

   The real added value may have little to do with vision and everything to do with execution. The trick is to determine for your organization the best combination consistent with your mission and values.

5. How can we ensure the new CEO's success?

   In most cases, the search committee's members will become the new CEO's most logical champions. More than most other board members, they will be the new CEO's natural allies, sounding boards, and mentors. At the outset of the process, every committee member should examine ways in which she or he could be most supportive of the future CEO.

   As the search develops a consensus candidate for recommendation to the full board, some alignments will evolve naturally. Nevertheless, we strongly encourage committee members to plan their supporting roles, especially through the critical early months of CEO transition.

   Some boards we work with have had great success in establishing board-level transition teams specifically charged with developing the framework, methodology, and tactics for passing the torch from incumbent to successor. Others choose a less formal approach but still designate a go-to person to support the new CEO's journey to early success. The chair/CEO role is always critical, of course, but what we suggest is a confidant of a different sort.

   The needs will differ depending on the circumstances. CEOs new to a community or to a given cause will profit from help negotiating the twists and turns of the new environment. Managers new to the CEO role itself will profit from a link to peers outside the organization who have made a similar change.

Kim Anderson, Kathy Bremer, Margaret Reiser, and Sam Pettway
© 2008, BoardWalk Consulting. Adapted with permission.

Five Questions Every Search Committee Should Ask of Its Candidates

Adapted from smorgasBoard

A quick scan of the Internet yields literally millions of Web sites promoting suggested interview questions; we've seen lists as long as 800 "must" questions to ask. During our discussions with candidates over the years, however, we have found there are just a handful of questions that really matter.

All of us know of people who were hired for their competence only to be fired for their chemistry. In fact, very few senior executives fail because they cannot do the job; rather, they fail because they cannot do the job here. Context is key—which is why we emphasize it in our questioning. The point is not "What makes you such a good leader?" but rather "What makes you such a good leader for us?"

The Five Questions Every Search Committee Should Ask of Its Candidates

1. Why are you here?

   It is absolutely fair to ask candidates what brings them to the interview, what compels their interest, why this opportunity and not that one has sparked their imagination. In so doing, you will learn a bit about motivation, shared values, and preparation, and you will establish (or reinforce) both the premise and the promise of the discussions you are about to have.
   
   A question as simple as "Why are you here?" will contribute to your understanding of a candidate's self-awareness, self-confidence, and inquisitiveness. Not coincidentally, it will also provide real-time evidence of a candidate's ability to address big issues succinctly.
   

2. How will you make us proud(er)?

   When Shirley Franklin ran for Mayor of Atlanta in 2001, she captured her city's heart with a compelling slogan: "You make me Mayor, and I'll make you proud."
   
   To be sure, Atlanta had hit a low point in city governance before the 2001 elections—Mayor Franklin's predecessor is now in federal prison—but the concept has broad applicability to most CEO searches.
   
   This question does several things. It allows candidates to relate their strengths to the needs and goals they project on the organization, it promotes a discussion of core values, and it forces a focus on the longer-term issues of legacy, both the candidate's and the organization's.
   
   Equally important, this question can prompt a discussion of process—the ways in which your prospective CEO will deliver the reputation, the relationships, and the performance you seek.
   

3. What will surprise us most about your leadership here?

   As we remind clients all the time, there are no perfect candidates. (Corollary: There are no perfect positions, either!) That is, every candidate under consideration represents some trade-off against an ideal.
   
   The trick is to understand the risks inherent in the trade-offs represented by a specific candidate. In our experience, the best candidates have a genuine appreciation for the risks at hand, and they are just as interested as you are in finding ways to mitigate those risks.
   
   The "surprises" question speaks to strengths and weaknesses, but it turns the conversation a slightly different way. You offer the candidate a way to bring up matters not addressed elsewhere in the conversation, and you encourage the candidate to personalize the response (rote answers won't work here).
   
   The insights gleaned can be both comforting and challenging. Inevitably, you will learn something that makes each candidate distinctive.
   

4. What questions do you have?

   We are firmly convinced that you can learn every bit as much from candidates' questions as you will from their answers. Usually, candidates will weave their questions into the fabric of the discussion, but we still suggest you create a specific opening for questions about halfway through.
   
   Candidates who respond with probing, thoughtful, nuanced questions are likely to exhibit these same qualities in their leadership; candidates whose questions are dull, rote, irrelevant, or untimely may exhibit similar characteristics on the job. Through their questions, we have found, candidates demonstrate how they prepare, how they listen, and what they hold dear in subtle ways. We have seen interviews (and candidacies!) end prematurely because of the lack of good questions, and we have seen interest soar in response to prospects whose questions were especially provocative or illuminating.
   
   Don't wait until the end of the interview to invite a candidate's questions. Not only might you miss the opportunity to speak to issues important to your prospect but you will also miss the opportunity to phrase subsequent questions in ways that build on a candidate's concerns. Remember, you are recruiting a senior executive, not just screening applicants.
   

5. What makes you interesting?

   When you hire a CEO, you get the whole person. An interesting, stimulating CEO with broad appeal and a balanced life will make a fundamentally more captivating colleague for you and the organization than will candidates for whom work is their sole outlet.
   
   In a recent set of interviews, the CEO search committee for an association we were working with stumbled onto the fact that the candidate they were speaking with had flown in the night before and spent the evening at a baseball game. Baseball and coaching, it turns out, were among this candidate's core passions outside of his work.
   
   The ensuing discussion about hobbies and diversions said volumes about the way in which the candidate made his leadership manifest. Time is every leader's scarcest commodity; pay attention to how your candidates use it. (P.S. The baseball-loving candidate started as CEO on August 1.)

Finding Out What Makes a Candidate Interesting

We don't favor questions that are convoluted, cute, or contrived. ("If you were an animal/a color/a car, which one would you be?") Rather, we like straightforward inquiries, such as:

• "What do you do for fun?"
• "How did you spend your last three Saturdays?"
• "What magazines do you read?"

All of these are variations on a more fundamental question that you probably won't ask but likely is on everyone's mind: "Will we enjoy our time with you?"

Sam Pettway, BoardWalk Consulting
©2008, BoardWalk Consulting. Adapted with permission.

Five Questions Every Candidate Should Ask

Adapted from smorgasBoard

If you find yourself in front of a search committee, what are the key questions you want to be sure to raise?

Our suggested questions assume that you have done your homework. You have scoured the nonprofit's Web site, you have digested the 990, you have read a solid sample of their published materials (annual reports, solicitation letters, program reviews, and the like). You know the backgrounds, bios, and interconnections of the search committee members, and you've studied key stakeholders, constituencies, and competitors.

There are several questions, however, that should be of special interest to candidates. Here are our top five.

The Five Questions Every Candidate Should Ask

1. What do you like best about the incumbent?
This first question may feel like a softball, but it offers a nonthreatening way for you to steer the conversation into what might be delicate territory.

There are several reasons to ask about your potential predecessor. You will learn a good deal about the culture and values the organization holds dear. You will develop a picture of the deficiencies or gaps the board hopes to correct with its next CEO. You may begin to sense how comfortably the board moves from conflict to consensus.

Even a CEO whose performance has been disappointing will have admirable qualities and key supporters, and our experience suggests that search committees welcome the opportunity to say nice things about someone they may have just nudged out or even fired.

If the CEO you would be succeeding is highly regarded or leaving after a long tenure of treasured service, you will get an earful about things you will not want to mess up. Here, candidates would do well to follow that part of the Hippocratic Oath usually paraphrased as "First, do no harm."

2. What unfinished business would I inherit?
Even the most beloved CEOs don't get everything right. After all, the reason balance sheets balance is that every asset has an offsetting liability. In a wide-ranging discussion, search committees inevitably drop lots of subtle clues about priorities left unaddressed, issues unresolved, and goals unachieved; your goal is to make sure you don't mistake subtlety for unimportance.

Typically, we ask a similar question of incumbent CEOs at the outset of a search for their successor. The best and most self-aware of the lot are quite secure talking about their unfinished business, and the incumbent CEO's viewpoint can be enormously useful. Even so, the board's perspective is the one you want to be sure to capture at this stage, since that's who you will be working for.

3. How will we define success?
It is critical for you and the search committee (and, ultimately, the full board) to have as much clarity as possible around expectations.

If you and your new board have not set out expectations with some degree of specificity, then you cannot be held accountable for missing those expectations, right? Wrong!

In our view, shortfall in performance is rarely about competence and often about expectations. The trick is to convert expectations from a hidden agenda to an open agenda. We recommend taking the discussion in steps, moving from the strategic to the tactical:

1. "What do we need to have accomplished together five years from now?"
2. "What three or four things do we need to achieve, resolve, or demonstrate by this time next year?"
3. "What needs to be addressed right away?"

If you listen well, questions on the definition of success will help accomplish several things:

* First, they reinforce the importance of strategic alignment; that is, the alignment of the nonprofit's resources and leadership around the big goals.
* Second, these questions reinforce your expectation of working in full partnership with the board.
* Third, despite a few requests to the contrary, you really cannot address every priority all the time (although juggling is a much-appreciated skill!). Ideally, priorities flow from the strategic plan. Priority setting is a key responsibility of the CEO, but it's far easier to set priorities if you're working in tandem with the board.

4. Where are the potholes?
Both you and the organization will be charting new maps and setting new directions, even if everyone swears your principal challenge is to maintain the strength and momentum that greet you upon arrival (rarely the real case, incidentally). To be maximally effective, you want to arm yourself with as much knowledge as possible about the hurdles and potholes you might face. There are at least two sorts of issues you want to know about: structural and cultural.

Structural issues tend to respond to "What if?" sorts of questions: What if this donor goes away, what if this program exceeds goal, what if these assumptions are off by 20 percent? The structural potholes can be somewhat arcane, as in "Which footnote to the financial statements concerns you the most?"

The cultural issues tend to be about people, heritage, and legacy. Every organization has its operating norms and protocols; you want to know which issues/styles/approaches everyone takes for granted—especially if the existing norms and protocols represent barriers to progress.

Even if change is exactly what the board is after, the body can still reject the transplant. If you hear some version of "That's not the way we do things here," you may be simply stirring things up in a healthy way. (A Navy captain of our acquaintance used to say, "When the sailors stop complaining, I start worrying.") If you hear it more than once or from more than one quarter, you may be at risk. According to an Army friend of ours, "If you're a step ahead of the troops, you're a leader. If you're a mile ahead, you're a martyr!"

There are several ways to get at these cultural norms. What issues have other senior hires stumbled up against? What gets applauded in the hallways? What's being talked about in the break room and in the parking lot? The more you understand these topics and the culture that promotes them, the sooner you will develop a map that your new colleagues can embrace.

5. How can I add the most value?
The organization you are interviewing with is already on a certain trajectory. This trend line is based on specific assumptions regarding direction and momentum, all of which are critical for you to understand. Even more critical, we suggest, is the need to understand how the exceptional candidate—hopefully, that's you—can add real value beyond that available from the merely well qualified.

Consequently, this question, like many of the others, deserves to be asked in stages. As a candidate, you first want to know what added value the board desires most from its next CEO. Second, as you develop a deeper understanding of the organization, its opportunities, and its challenges, you want to confirm for the search committee—and for yourself—that the special assets you offer are in fact of real value in this particular circumstance.

Every encounter you have with the search committee and its fellow board members helps set a precedent for the way you will deal with each other once you're the CEO. The value of questions from a candidate can be exceptional, and they provide an excellent way for a superior contender to stand out from a slate. If you complement these thought starters with your own research, life experience, and natural curiosity, you can be assured of a provocative, informative, and rewarding discussion—and a subsequent interview.

Sam Pettway, Kathy Bremer, Kim Anderson, and Margaret Reiser
© 2008, BoardWalk Consulting

MacBook

Mac's new MacBook is really, really neat.
EXCEPT....
They took out the firewire.
Let me repeat that.
THEY TOOK OUT THE FIREWIRE.
That is the reason many, if not most, users buy a Mac.
They need to find the fool that suggested this, and the greater fool that approved this, and direct an operation that permanently prevents reproduction. Then fire them, freeing them to work for Dell.

Excuse the rant.

Feynman Lectures

Here is another really important link:

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

It is a lecture series by Richard Feynman (Nobel in Physics). Absolutely brilliant mind, easy to follow (so far). Explains all of physics.

It is worth spending a weekend to watch it sometime. The videos last about 5 hours total.

Voting the Scriptures

Ecclesiastes 10:2

The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.