Summary: I have long discussed what might make Americans rouse themselves to retake the reins of the Republic and reverse its evolution into a new regime. Clear warnings, descriptions and diagnosis of the problem? Anger at ourselves and what we’ve allowed America to become? None of these seem plausible. Perhaps fear will do it, produced by recognition that there is a class war — and we’re losing. A few posts will review the depressing news.
Will these spur you to act? Time is not our ally. Lots of groups talk about building a New America; the people doing so act in the shadows — visible only if you look. But the results of their work have become obvious.
We discuss the progress of our foreign wars in great details, just as we track every vibration of the economy and the political machinery in Washington. The big things get less attention, such as the class war by the 1% against us. We’re losing. It’s like slowly boiling a frog; it’s happening so slowly that we don’t notice. But there’s still time to act. {Also: zoologists consider this a myth; please don’t test it at home.}
(1) COIN comes to America
As I and so many others warned for so long, the techniques of surveillance and oppression developed during our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would eventually come home. As we see at the crushing of the Occupy protests and on the streets of Ferguson. Here’s another example. Even I, who has chronicled so many horrific stories about America at this website, was shocked. I shouldn’t have been surprised.
“The disappeared: Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden ‘black site’“, Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, 24 February 2015 — Secret interrogation facility reveals aspects of war on terror in US. Protester details 17-hour shackling without basic rights. Accounts describe police brutality, missing 15-year-old and one man’s death.” Excerpt:
The secretive warehouse is the latest example of Chicago police practices that echo the much-criticized detention abuses of the US war on terrorism. While those abuses impacted people overseas, Homan Square – said to house military-style vehicles, interrogation cells and even a cage – trains its focus on Americans, most often poor, black and brown.
Unlike a precinct, no one taken to Homan Square is said to be booked. Witnesses, suspects or other Chicagoans who end up inside do not appear to have a public, searchable record entered into a database indicating where they are, as happens when someone is booked at a precinct. Lawyers and relatives insist there is no way of finding their whereabouts. Those lawyers who have attempted to gain access to Homan Square are most often turned away, even as their clients remain in custody inside.
Where was the Chicago Tribune all these years? As so often the case, a British newspaper broke this story about events in the US. That’s a long pattern, from the scandals about the Clinton Administration to leads about NSA surveillance.
(2) What reforms followed the protests about police violence?
Leaders of the NY Police have creatively responded to protests about their use of excessive force.
Louis Turco, president of the Lieutenants Benevolent Association, hand-delivered a note to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton Friday seeking his support for legislation to create an “aggravated resisting arrest” charge for people who resist arrest twice within a 10 year span. The proposal would increase the punishment for resisting arrest by pumping it up from a class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year in jail — to a class E felony, punishable by up to four years in jail.
“Such a program would have the potential dual benefit of enhancing the safety of the men and women of the Department and the general public,” Turco wrote.
He also is asking that the NYPD, through CompStat, begin tracking all incidents involving resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. {New York Post, Jan 26.}
No mention of using CompStat to track incidents of police using excessive force, even lethal force against unarmed people. That’s information carefully not tracked by police departments and the FBI. The proposal quick gained a powerful advocate:
NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton today called for the state to change resisting arrest to a felony charge. Mr. Bratton testified today before a joint hearing of four State Senate committees, where he made a number of recommendations — including suggesting that the penalty increase for resisting arrest. Currently, resisting arrest is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum punishment of one year, which Mr. Bratton argued does not deter the nearly 2,000 resisting arrest charges each year. “I think a felony would be very helpful in terms of raising the bar significantly in the penalty for the resistance of arrest,” … {New York Observer, Feb 4.}
That’s a bad idea in the current police regime, since accusations of resisting arrest are frequently misused by bad cops.
Police departments around the country consider frequent charges of resisting arrest a potential red flag, as some officers might add the charge to justify use of force. WNYC analyzed NYPD records and found 51,503 cases with resisting arrest charges since 2009. Just five percent of officers who made arrests during that period account for 40% of resisting arrest cases — and 15% account for almost 3/4 of such cases.
“There’s a widespread pattern in American policing where resisting arrest charges are used to sort of cover – and that phrase is used – the officer’s use of force,” said Walker, the accountability expert from the University of Nebraska. “Why did the officer use force? Well, the person was resisting arrest.” {WNYC, 4 Dec 2014.}
As usual, the New York Times doesn’t even mention these developments (so far as I can see via Google). These are matters not fit for us to know about. Anyway, they affect mostly the underclass — so of little interest to membership of the inner and outer parties who comprise the NYT’s core readers.
The America that once was
The America of today, perhaps much worse tomorrow
Posts in this series showing that we’re losing America
- More evidence that we’re losing America. It’s not too late to act.
- Stories about a rising tide of black mob violence!
For More Information
To get angry, see posts about police violence. For ideas what to do next see the posts about Reforming America — steps to political change.
Here are a few posts keeping score: Why the 1% is winning, and we are not. Four opportunities to get angry, and put America on path to reform. Scoring the game so far: NSA is winning, we’re losing. My favorite: As the 1% grows more powerful, they speak their minds more boldly.
“COIN comes to America”
America started COIN
Namely, America started COIN, American Geniouses like Lind, Boyd And Robb started it, we are just perfecting it…
Javier,
“American Geniouses like Lind, Boyd And Robb”
That’s wrong on too many levels to bother with. Check with Wikipedia, or a book, or something.
If the Tribune is like many other papers, they simply don’t have the proper amount of staff anymore to do proper comprehensive reporting.
Byproduct of Family papers selling to corporations seeking to cut costs and maximize profits. See McClatchy’s Impact across the country for a broader example.
MikeF,
That’s an important point, which I overlooked. It’s a chicken and egg thing — in reverse. As they stop doing journalism — instead acting as stenographers for activists, governments, big corps, etc — their audience walks away, and their subscription revenue crashes even more. It’s a death spiral.
The Guardian is owned by a charitable trust, which has supported losses of £100,000 a day in the 3 years up to 2012 (see Wikpedia). How long can that continue?
Well, to me, as a friend of Robb, discussing who invented COIN does not make any sense, if you view man as the ruler of himself, anything that attempts against his domain is insurgency, and any act of rebelion can be viewed as counter insurgency.
In this sense, I see Boyd’s behaviour as a pilot as COIN
P.S.: Who do you think cornered The Mayor of New York in a restaurant full of whores, during Occupy?
Robyn,
“I see Boyd’s behaviour as a pilot as COIN”
OK, but having your own definition of words makes communication impossible.
“That’s an important point, which I overlooked.”
I don’t know. Non-profits are trying to fill the gap, but the biggest loses is the diminished coverage at the local and state governance level as papers are folding.
It’s dificult for folks to stay informed even when they want to.
Mike F.
I agree, but have a different framing on this. I believe (suspect) that many institutions that relied on the middle class for support (financial and as volunteers) are dying along with the class. People no longer have the time or the money. Live bands, periodicals, museums — much of America’s cultural life is dying. These institutions go back to the future, seeking rich patrons. Needless to say, only a few will succeed — and they’ll be reshaped in the process. It’s part of the evolution into a New America.
So far Americans drift along with this. One of the major themes of the FM website has been not just to describe this process (as so many others do as well or better), but discuss ways to stop the process. That puts us in a small group. There are countless single issue activists — “save the XXX!”, but few working for social or political reform. Most of the others are doing the valuable work of organizing — but I suspect (fear) they are skillfully doing the wrong things. New directions are needed. Our “space” in this community is to look for new ideas.
“That’s wrong on too many levels to bother with. Check with Wikipedia, or a book, or something.”
I dont want to check with wikipedia, I want you to explain to me why , exactly are Lind, Boyd & Robb not geniouses that started COIN theory of an acceptable level. Please do…
Javier,
THis is not the reference desk at the library, and you are not paying for my services. Your statement is factually wrong on many levels. For starters, COIN dates back to the Vietnam War (by the French). For another, Lind opposed COIN. I doubt Boyd even wrote about it (except perhaps incidentally).
” much of America’s cultural life is dying”
Translation: “We have been a nation of idiots for about 35 years, and I dont like it”
LOL :)
“Real COIN“, Chet Richard, DNI, 31 October 2009 — Opening:
BTW FM Ed, that comes from the Boy Compendium
http://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/
:)
Javier,
Don’t mindlessly copy and past. You have posted “Real COIN” by Chet Richard at DNI, 31 October 2009. Boyd died in 1997. You obviously didn’t even read it before posting it.
So FM Ed… did Boyd write about COIN??
I’m moderating further comments.
Javier,
You posted false information. When called on it, you jabbered for several rounds then posted material which you obviously didn’t read and didn’t even pertain to your claim. They essay was not only not by Boyd, but didn’t even mention Boyd. Life is too short to put up with this. I’ll lift moderation if you stick to facts or stated opinions.
Boyd had disciples, and they applied his methods to insurgency. However, not only did they not “invent” COIN — most of them opposed the methods of COIN.
Well, there are many COIN ideas that are based on Boyds thinking, and Lind wrote about it too http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=12362
The Best Counterinsurgency: Unentangle
by William S. Lind
Retired Air Force Colonel Chet Richards has published another short, good book: If We Keep It: A National Security Manifesto for the Next Administration. The “it” in question is a republic, which we are unlikely to keep since republics require a virtuous citizenry. But suggesting a rational, prudent defense policy for the next administration is sufficiently quixotic we might as well also pretend the republic can endure.
Richards’ first major point is that most of our armed forces are “legacy forces,” white elephants designed for fighting the Red Army in Europe or the Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific. They have little utility in a world where nuclear weapons prevent wars among major powers, wars with minor powers can be won easily and usually aren’t worth fighting, and legacy forces generally lose against Fourth Generation opponents. Although they are largely useless, these legacy forces eat up most of the defense budget. Richards would disband them, save the Marine Corps, some useful tac air (i.e., A-10s) and some sealift, and give the money back to the taxpayer.
That will happen when pork stops flying. But the point is a good one; most of what we are buying is a military museum. I disagree with Richards that the Marine Corps or any other major elements of the U.S. armed forces are Third Generation forces, forces which have institutionalized maneuver warfare. The Marines talk it, but it is not what they do. I would prefer to keep enough of the Army to face the Corps with some competition, rewarding whichever service actually makes it into the Third Generation. Bureaucratic competition is a good thing.
Perhaps Richards’ sharpest point is that DOD’s latest fad, counterinsurgency, is something of a fraud. He notes that whereas states have often been successful in defeating insurgencies on their own soil, invaders and occupiers have almost never won against a guerrilla-style war of national liberation. Not even the best counterinsurgency techniques make much difference, because neither a foreign occupier nor any puppet government he installs can gain legitimacy. Despite the current “we’re winning in Iraq” propaganda, both Iraq and Afghanistan are almost certain to add themselves to the long list of failures. If neither the U.S. Army nor the Marine Corps can do successful counterinsurgency, what can they do? That brings us back to Richards’ first point.
While all these observations are useful, there is one suggestion in If We Can Keep It the next administration desperately needs to follow, namely Richards’ recommendations on grand strategy. As Germany discovered in both World Wars, if you get your grand strategy wrong, nothing else you do well matters; you still lose. At the moment, America’s grand strategy suggests we have the national character of a rich kid schoolyard bully. Somebody hit us pretty good from the back, so in retaliation, we’ve beaten up on some weak kids in the playground, one of whom had nothing to do with it but whom we had been wanting to thrash anyway. In the meantime, we’ve left the real perpetrators alone, even though everybody is sure we know where they are, and we’ve been careful not to pick on kids who look like they might hit back.
Not very attractive, is it?
The best passage in Richard’s book prescribes the grand strategic antidote:
“As a first step, therefore, the country needs to return to its roots. We need to restore our innate suspicion of foreign entanglements and concentrate on being the best United States of America we can be.”
With the ghosts of our Founding Fathers, I reply, Hurrah! This is advice the next administration can take, should take and will take – if, and only if, our next President is Ron Paul.
Robyn,
As a friend of Lind — I’ve posted much of his material here, including an article on 4GW he wrote for our current series — the title is misleading. What Lind recommends is a defensive strategy — something he, Chet, and I have advocated. It’s not counterinsurgency in any meaningful sense of the word. It is recognition that most local insurgencies are of little strategic interest to the US, and (fact) that foreign armies have seldom defeated local insurgencies.
Furthermore, I don’t understand what point you re attempting to make. Nothing here supports Javier’s false assertion that “America started COIN, American Geniouses like Lind, Boyd And Robb started it, we are just perfecting it.” Saying Lind, Boyd, and Robb started COIN is nuts. COIN in the post-WWII colonial wars (and Vietnam) long predates their work.
This debate is silly. That’s the problem with allowing Trolls into comment threads.
Robyn,
Yes. Much of Boyd’s thought has spread.
“You posted false information. When called on it, you jabbered for several rounds then posted material which you obviously didn’t read and didn’t even pertain to your claim. They essay was not only not by Boyd, but didn’t even mention Boyd. Life is too short to put up with this. I’ll lift moderation if you stick to facts or stated opinions.”
Boyd had plenty of disciples.
Please lift moderation, I will beat you according to your own standards.
Javier,
This is irrelevant to the post, and your original statement is false: “America started COIN, American Geniouses like Lind, Boyd And Robb started it”. Finding other people who are disciples of Boyd is not relevant, and in any case none of them invented COIN — which predates Boyd’s work. Moderation stays on, and I’m deleting this thread.
This is troll behavior. I asked you to cite sources for your statement. You’re doing the troll trick of shifting and shifting the issue. It’s wasting our time.
“This is troll behavior. I asked you to cite sources for your statement. You’re doing the troll trick of shifting and shifting the issue. It’s wasting our time.”
yes, but you have never seen a troll like me.
I have plenty to offer to your blog if you just happen to be gentle with me.
Javier,
OK. When people ask for facts in support, don’t screw with them. If you don’t have support, then fess up. It’s not a crime. This is like talking at a bar, not a university exam. Don’t make stuff up, and please stay more or less on topic.
The reason why they opposed COIN is because they were aware that a regular force cannot possibly employing a COIN, compete long term with an IN.
Boyd outlined way to do it, but nobody listened to him.
Insurgency usually has certain mentalsophistication, and COIN requires it, Boyd et al, knowing US forces, were agaisnt COIN, not ideologically, but as a matter of practicality, he knew, US forces were not up to the task.
Javier,
Please stick to something relevant to this post. You’re just making stuff up about COIN, and it’s too off-topic to discuss here. This is “hijacking the thread.” Not polite.
“Please stick to something relevant to this post. You’re just making stuff up about COIN, and it’s too off-topic to discuss here. This is “hijacking the thread.” Not polite.”
OK, I guess thats fair.
“Please stick to something relevant to this post. You’re just making stuff up about COIN, and it’s too off-topic to discuss here. This is “hijacking the thread.” Not polite.”
What tactics am I allowed to use to beat you?
I want to finish this night in a good spirit, because even though Ed and I spar a little bit, I feel we have great things in common.
With that, I wish you all gentlemen a good night rest.
Naybody with 3 neurons, knowing you are the Editor and i a new commenter, can easily tell who won.
Javier,
“can easily tell who won.”
This is a place for serious discussions, not a high school debate club. Troll defenses are up. Goodbye. You are banned.
Troll (see Wikipedia): a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, and/or off-topic messages in an online community.
And you are RIGHT, what I posted was not written by BOYD, it was written by one of his disciples. Have a good night.
I guess all your COIN theory , ignoring Boyd, is of no use with ISIS, Did you ever wonder why??
Javier,
That is not correct, on several levels. First, refering to it as “my theory” is idiotic. I have written since 2003 about our foreign wars, predicting their failure Second, insurgencies are usually defeated by the well-proven methods of counter-insurgency (the military theory page on the right side menu gives links to several studies showing this). It’s only foreign armies that have low odds of defeating local insurgencies since Mao brought 4GW to maturity after WWII.
“More evidence that we’re losing America. It’s not too late to act.”
What action can we take that will insure that a black guy will never get shot after trying to grab a cop’s gun? Even if that were by some miracle achievable, how does that prevent the 1% from continuing to steal us blind?
Why worry about a police state when we haven’t even organized ourselves into anything remotely threatening to the oligarchy? The 1% could not be happier when people keep the focus on these peripheral issues. What should be the top priority? What you say here is very much on the right track:
“So far Americans drift along with this. One of the major themes of the FM website has been not just to describe this process (as so many others do as well or better), but discuss ways to stop the process. That puts us in a small group. There are countless single issue activists — “save the XXX!”, but few working for social or political reform. Most of the others are doing the valuable work of organizing — but I suspect (fear) they are skillfully doing the wrong things. New directions are needed. Our “space” in this community is to look for new ideas.”
I propose we include the words, “prioritize”, “focus” and “get to the root of power” in all our discussions. The oligarchy has thrived during the single issue scattershot approach era, they love to see the opposition scatter its energy. It is long past time to recognize that this is a losing strategy.
Gloucon,
“What action can we take that will insure that a black guy will never get shot after trying to grab a cop’s gun?”
I don’t believe you understand my point, or my analysis of Ferguson. First — as I said at the time, picking Ferguson as a fulcrum was nuts, for the reason you state. However the problem of police so often shooting unarmed people is a problem unique to America among the developed nations, so a solution should be possible.
“Even if that were by some miracle achievable, how does that prevent the 1% from continuing to steal us blind?”
These provide opportunities to mobilize people and build organizations. As I said then,
Wow. Guess my star is rising. As trolls go I’m a piker. The only point I keep trying to make here is that we keep doing our math wrong. There was an elliptic reference here to Zeno’s parradox. Apparently doing math wrong has a long and persistent tradition. The point I keep slavishly making here is that macroeconomists are doing their math wrong. I know I’m pissing up a rope trying to convince FM that this is true here but I’m heartened by you “Trolls”, who are less circumspect than I have been. The revolution will not be televised.
Peter,
I have no idea what you are attempting to say.
“elliptic reference here to Zeno’s parradox.”
What does that mean, in this context?
“Apparently doing math wrong has a long and persistent tradition.”
Ditto.
“The point I keep slavishly making here is that macroeconomists are doing their math wrong”
I doubt any economist believes the current paradigms are more than crude approximations, since it is a young science.
On the other hand, your comments are riddled with errors about simple facts, which you ignore, showing that you know little about economics, and have no interest in learning. 30 minutes with wikipedia or the Britannica would make a new man out of you.
But you are not a troll.
Actually, Boyd did write about COIN, although he didn’t use the term. In Patterns, “guerrilla warfare” refers to attempts to overthrow a regime politically and militarily (p. 90) — that is, an insurgency. Successful counter-insurgency (p. 108) requires that the government demonstrate its “moral legitimacy and vitality” in order to rob the guerrillas of the popular support they need. This is difficult to do if the government is being propped up by foreign troops.
It is hard, however, to credit Boyd as a founder of modern COIN theory because at the bottom of p. 108, Boyd recommends that if you cannot establish the moral legitimacy and vitality of the government, you should probably consider changing sides.
Please feel free to download If We Can Keep It from the Articles page at SlightlyEastOfNew.com.
Chet,
Yes, that is the kind of “incidental” mentions I referred to.
These news should be verified. If true it would be incredible. Not that it has happened, such a thing is a perfectly logical development of existing trends, but that it has happened so soon. I mean, the USA is not the Argentine of the 70’s with an actual insurgency, political organizations with revolutionary aims and so on. Americans are as atomized and politically reliable as it can reasonably get. Why would one bother with illegal repression at this point is beyond me, only a power trip coupled with paranoia can explain this.
It is unlikely however that such a thing would spur much of anything. Back then, once it became clear what the security forces were up to people rushed to buy bumper stickers proclaiming support for the Junta in the hope not to be next. Only a reduction in the kill rate, an economic crisis and the major defeat at the Falklands brought them down.
Marcello,
That is a dark vision. I wish I could say that I was certain you were wrong.
This is a very good read inspired by Boyd in many senses, enjoy! https://www.ausa.org/publications/ilw/Documents/LWP_80_web.pdf
This thread demonstrates why we’re losing America, something I’ve seen on hundreds of threads here. We love to talk about fun stuff, like wars! Things that don’t affect our lives, over which we have no control. Whee!
Few want to talk about the things that affect us, for which we have responsibility. That means thought, challenging our easy beliefs, and — OMG — concluding that we might have to work and take risks. As previous generations of Americans have had to do in order to save the Republic.
Reading this thread is quite depressing.
Note to self: toss trolls out more aggressively, before they hijack threads with pointless disputes.
“having your own definition of words makes communication impossible.”
Yeah, it sure does, I was stating a point of view by making an analogy, sorry you couldn’t get it. hey, it’s your blog, you can do whatever you want. And don’t worry, I am not American, so if the “we’re losing America” remark was intended to me in some way, you can still save it.
Yours truly
Robyn
PS: I don’t think you take dissent to well
Robyn,
Most people running active websites find managing comments to be annoying and disspiriting. Which is why so many either moderate them heavily, post them only after approval, or do not have comments. See the discussion about comment in section 3 on this page, quotes from operators of big sites.
“And don’t worry, I am not American”
Perhaps it is you who should worry. Many of the developed and less-developed nations have similar trends. Perhaps your home does as well.
Homan Square in Chicago is also the location for child safety seat installation training for CPD Officers. The police are less aggressive than ever even with their more “fearsome” clothing options. From most of the coverage I saw or read about Ferguson the police formed a perimeter around the municipal government offices and stayed put. This is hardly the beginning of police state tyranny.
Majormarginal,
I have no idea what that comment attempts to say. Something about child safety seats as a rebuttal to the rapidly increasing government surveillance of us, militarization of police (misuse of SWAT, using military tactics & equipment when not needed, shooting unarmed people when no risk to anyone’s safety). Plus, of course, the subject of this post (did you read it?) increasing income inequality.
I guess if you keep your eyes tightly closed you can avoid seeing these things.
Sir, My eyes are wide open, I do not avoid seeing things. Local police have nothing to do with increasing income inequality. Local police are no more “militarized” than in the past and are not at all similar to the military. I do not see things that are not there.
MajorMarginal,
“My eyes are wide open, I do not avoid seeing things.”
You previous comment suggests that you don’t see the growth of SWAT teams — something with few or no precedents in US history. And the militarization of police equipment and tactics, something with few precedents in US history. And the increased surveillance by state and local police, something far beyond anything we’ve seen before. I could continue, but you probably get the point.
“Local police have nothing to do with increasing income inequality.”
Who says such a thing? The point is that the police have built an ability to suppress protests that is far beyond anything seen in US history. And recent events show they’re willing to do so.
“Local police are no more “militarized” than in the past and are not at all similar to the military.
Keep those eyes tightly closed! Any exposure to TV or news will introduce unwanted information. Also, repeated denying the obvious doesn’t convince anyone. By now there is ample evidence that you are wrong. Astonishingly wrong.
“I do not see things that are not there.”
But you do fail to see things that are obviously there.
Being the individual the equivalent to the state and applying this same principle on a smaller scale. I would also like to add that I see all of Boyd’s life as an example of counterinsurgency,
Robyn,
That’s a fascinating idea. Unfortunately, if so he’s an example of mostly failed CI. During his life he had an influence on a few aircraft, but without changes to the institution — so after he retired it reverted. The F-22 and esp F-35 are contrary to his advice.
His work on strategy has had influence on the margins (i.e., among us marginal people) but almost nil on the conduct of US geopolitical strategy. In that he stands with other giants, such as Martin van Creveld — and a larger group (e.g, William Lind and Chuck Spinney, Rupert Smith in Britain). There was a brief moment when it looked like the US Marine Corps was listening, but that was soon washed away.
For more about this see the series since August about 4GW.
Sidenote: I think it might be more accurate to see Boyd as an insurgent, working against the norms of his institution(s). His “to be or not to be” speech was a call to insurgency, to take the Red Pill. Most officers are sensible and decline, hence the result (details here).
Most insurgencies fail (i.e., most counterinsurgencies win).
Who is the rightful ruler of man? if it is himself, it is counterinsurgent behaviour against the ones that try to take that power away, be it the state, society, bosses, spouses, or whoever; in every sense of the word.
Robyn,
I don’t dispute your right to have your own meanings for words, different than those the rest of us use. But as Alice told Humpty-Dumpty, doing so makes communication into a game where you change the rules every move.
I’m sorry you don’t see the poetry
Robyn,
It’s a domain thing. You go to a doctor and sing poetry => he or she is not going to be happy. This is a place to discuss geopolitics. You say something, people give an analysis in reply — then you say that you meant something completely different and its poetry — although we had no way to know that. This is discourtesy to people attempting to converse with you. If you are going to write poetry, tell us.