A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology

An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278

---------------------------

Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations.  I did, however, hold some deep reservations that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of value to others on an individual level.

To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you biologically exist.  Not to create a lousy analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed significantly more.  That phrase is:  “their shit stinks the same as mine.”  My typical response to this assertion is to say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell of their excrement, then you are right.”

The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear.  Every individual should have access to the ability to earn a living.  Every individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine.  Every individual should have access to clean water, food and shelter.  Every individual should have access to free movement around the globe.

I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe.  I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points.  Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life.  They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience.  Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.

Two and a Half Men

Chapter 8 -- Two and a Half Men    p.195

------------------------------

Personally, I recall that I had been a fan of Two and a Half Men, but I always cringed somewhat with the concept of a show about a household where a child was being brought up without much supervision and the complete lack of parental discretion that was being exercised.  In Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen’s character was uncle to the youngster involved and he was a forty year-old alcoholic, womanizer who floated through life yet received all the rewards that society at the time could offer.  He had a beach front house in Malibu, beautiful women, nice cars, essentially the ability to be totally selfish in his actions.  His brother was considered an amusing sidekick who was divorced, broke and generally just a bit of a square.  He usually tried to do the right thing by his son, but was ostracized by his brother for being such a loser.  The son grew up on TV to be portrayed essentially as someone with no intelligence and no prospects for the future.

Upon a personal collapse by Charlie Sheen, Ashton Kutcher was put into the role.  He was a youthful internet billionaire who had the mind and social awareness of a teenager.  The son at this point was relegated to making bathroom humor and being a dopey young adult who smoked a lot of pot.  The producers of the show, at this time, chose that the father’s character should become somewhat mentally unstable and had him in and out of stressful conditions until the show went off the air in 2015.  The show tried many tactics to keep up viewers and resorted to the bottom of the barrel, I thought, when they introduced lesbian grandmothers.

excerpt from Chapter 6 - flood example

Chapter 6 - page 102

-----------------------------

One excellent example of “Constructive Capitalism” came from Home Depot who shut all their stores in the Southwest US during the Austin, Texas floods in late 2013.  As part of their relief effort, the Home Depot shipped warehouses full of supplies and sent their staff to the flooded area to immediately start rebuilding the damaged communities.  The employees were paid in full their regular salary and all their travelling expenses.

Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (August 2005) was still a fresh memory in 2013, and no one wanted to see the same thing happening in the city of Austin, so Home Depot mobilized almost five thousand employees, delivered untold truck loads of supplies and utilized their management skills to deliver on-ground support to those affected by the floods.  Just to be clear, the Home Depot was not involved at all in the initial rescue or relief effort but rather the rebuilding efforts that followed.  Fortunately, the rescue and relief efforts were pretty well managed as opposed to Katrina, so the rebuilding process could start right away.  The Home Depot did not wait for insurance issues, local zoning discussions or the media.  They just started rebuilding and repairing people’s homes so the owners could move back in.

The effect was immediate and astounding for Home Depot.  Home Depot had forfeited a sizable portion of their marketing budget to fund this effort but certainly reaped the rewards from a business standpoint.  Their brand value sky-rocketed as did their stock price following the Austin floods.  By March of 2015, Home Depot’s stock price had almost tripled to just under $200.  When asked about their efforts at the time to make such a large commitment, the CEO said that he just could not sit back and watch people in trouble when he knew he had the resources at his finger tips to do something about it.  He pointed out that Home Depot was monstrously successful in the South Texas area and that he felt that they should contribute as much as possible.  Many share holders at the time questioned his decision as they felt that the Home Depot was going to potentially forego billions in sales as a result of the rebuilding effort and that the materials should not have been just “given-away”.  Home Depot at the time made it clear to the stock-holders, that as a part of the local business community, they had an obligation to be involved in the rebuilding of its communities whenever required.  It is not moral to profit from the suffering of its customers.  This was revolutionary corporate thinking.

Today, the Home Depot has a regular rebuilding program that goes to disaster areas all over the world and pitches in “on-ground” as required.  They are under no obligation to wait for governmental efforts other than not to interfere with rescue efforts.  

Chapter 1: continued

January 20^th, 2013.   Henderson Francis West is inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of the United States of America.  This is still hard for me to write as it still seems so incredible to me as an individual, let alone as someone who has been characterized by others as the “greatest man alive”.  People magazine actually gave me that infamous title in 2018 much to my personal embarrassment.  A few of my more enthusiastic supporters have even characterized me as the “greatest man in the history of the world”.  Once again this is a completely incredulous depiction of me and one which is simply ridiculous.

I am of course flattered and equally appreciative of such extreme praise, but I still consider thoughts of this nature unequivocally strange.  I am, however, level-headed enough to see the origin of such claims.  For example, one achievement I will readily acknowledge that has had profound impact is my contribution to the overall health of the population of the planet.  I will admit freely and proudly that I have delivered a great deal in my time, and I am very receptive to the praise I receive in this area.  To me, my contribution in terms of world health is of the greatest significance.

Through my business successes, I have been able to provide to literally millions of people proper nutrition through the distribution of the universally recognized “NutrisHouse” brand.  The recipients have benefitted not only in receiving proper nutrition but also from receiving dignity, stability and an appropriate level of quality of life such that overall enhanced and peaceful living conditions became possible around the world.  In return, I have been fortunate to receive success and wealth far beyond what any single man should ever possess.  Most importantly to me though, through my wealth and success I had been offered a platform to exert influence and change for the betterment of society and this is truly the greatest reward in my life.

Some other people give me my greatest credit for my global contributions in terms of the numerous relief and charitable efforts that I have first-handedly developed and moved forward, not only in my own business world, but across the corporate and charitable landscape in general.  My efforts, in the humanitarian realm, have led to the expanded expectations of charitable organizations and even more influentially on corporations and how they operate.  Corporations were to become more tangibly involved and extremely influential wherever they conducted business rather than be merely fund-raisers, check writers or public relations opportunists.

From my perspective, my greatest contribution in the humanitarian area though was not so much in the area of physical, financial, medical or on-ground mobilization.  Rather, I take the greatest pride in being a catalyst for a new level of willingness to solve the world’s problems by private individuals and organizations in general.  Up until the year 2012, most people looked to government and charities to fulfill the humanitarian role.  I was able to leverage a truly caring mindset and attitude specifically of young Americans to spear-head a cultural shift where young citizens would actually go to parts of the world that required knowledge or relief efforts and give their time, education and muscle.  This mindset as it turned out was critical as well for these people in their employment as they strived to work with companies that reflected their spirit of generosity.

The result was that corporations came to realize that through legitimate on-ground humanitarian efforts locally and internationally, the value of their companies increased as their brand value increased.  The era of exploiting developing nations, leveraging humanitarian efforts for Public Relation improvement and profiteering as the world continued to decline was coming to an end.  I fortunately was able to show a new path that ultimately provided improved world standards and delivered increased corporate profits.

I feel comfortable in taking pleasure in the fact that my contribution in the humanitarian realm far exceeded the negatives and as a result, many of the world’s greatest inequities are being addressed, and a lot of them have been eradicated.  This is what I truly want my legacy to be though I know it will not.  I understand this though, as my efforts in restoring democratic values and instilling a contribution valuation mindset have had long-lasting profound effects on the world.

My greatest contribution in America was in terms of changing many of the institutions and fundamental thought processes so that we were able to move-forward in a ridiculously complicated and globalized world.  As I mentioned, in the early twenty-first century, most American institutions had become thoroughly inept at being able to even function let alone strive for effectiveness.  I figure that one can easily make the argument that I might never have even won the 2012 election, if the governmental processes were not as broken as they were at the time.  It was this extremely broken system that I completely despised that ultimately permitted me to win.  Life can be supremely ironic.

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.


The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.


It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.


The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.


Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

The Recognition Era - Part 2, What It Means "Top Ten" List conc.

This post is the continuation of a previous post on Friday, June 15, 2012.

---------------------------------------------------

Six.  Irresponsibility.  The world is very complex and it is pretty tough in today`s social, business, political arenas to assign blame to an individual.  Even in instances whereby direct blame is is obvious the subject can easily find excuses for poor performance.  Problem solving and putting out fires is a better skill these days than foresight.

Seven.  Apathy.  People care about what they consider important more than ever and not much else.  Further,as the need for recognition is paramount, effort will only be put towards areas whereby there can be acknowledgement.  Subsequently, if recognition cannot be attained then people won't care and will not put any effort at all towards areas in which there is no success.

Eight.  Triviality.  Recognition for its own sake does not require significance.  Therefore, people will attempt to succeed in areas that are niche and quite likely inconsequential.  Being acknowledged for being good at something trumps the importance of the activity as well as any type of moral contribution.  As recognition is the key driver, the means of acknowledgement is inconsequential therefore non-traditional socially acceptable means will become mainstream.  Crime, pornography, abhorrent behavior.

Nine.  Ease.  Very few people appear to want to work hard for anything these days.  Recognition and success have to come easy and early for anyone to pursue it.  No one wants to see the fruits of their labor materialize three years down the road.  Instant impact and rewards are what drives motivation in the twenty-first century so abandonment of difficult tasks will occur frequently.

Ten.  Individuality.  Recognition is greatest when it is a singular achievement.  More and more people will strive to be acknowledged for their own efforts rather than being part of a collaborative team. Within the team environment as well there is a need to be considerate and follow much more procedure which is the bane of individuality. As everyone feels that they know what is the best course of action for them, then teamwork will become the antithesis of the individually minded person.

All these things in total do not necessarily require negativity rather a willingness to be accommodating and an ability to manage in this new Recognition era.

The Recognition Era - What It Means "Top Ten" List

As the world becomes less focused on accomplishment and more on recognition here is what we can expect.  Here is a proverbial Top Ten list split into two postings.

Firstly, an overall decrease in quality of just about everything.  From clothes, to cars, to food you name it, it will get worse.  The exception of course will be at the high-end or luxury type items whereby those who can afford quality will be able to purchase it.  Everything will be built or grown to ultimately be disposable so quality will be a secondary goal.  Consumers expect their products now to be functional and design-oriented.  Durability is not something younger generations strive for as they are used to products being replaced regularly due to advancing technologies, evolving trends which has lead to an inherent obsolescence of goods and services.

Two.  Transiency.  There will be an increased growth in movement as people can simply leave one area or sector where they are not getting enough attention and search out greener pastures.  The easiest way to get recognition is to be the "new guy" as expectations are usually lower while attention is usually at its peak.  People will however, will still want to gravitate upwards in their careers so expect a lot more movement as candidates for internal promotion become less and less available.

Three.  Sound-bites.  The recognition era is of course driven by short attention spans and digital media.  Therefore, do not ever expect to have time to explain yourself fully.  Every message including personal conversation has to be delivered quickly.  The result will be that society and business more forward in a piece-meal fashion and requires leadership who can respond quickly and effectively but also mobilize those around them to respond as well.  Think of it as flash mob leadership.

Four.  Inconsistency.  Most people these days hold more of a go with the flow approach.  Just look at the political world to see that what the candidates said five years ago is no longer meaningful nor are they even individually accountable for it.  The world is changing very fast and new information surfaces constantly so what worked last week may no longer be even relevant.  Planning will become less influential when compared to the need for speedy reaction times.

Five.  Success.  Success will not be 100% measured in terms of pay and income.  Flexibility of working, unique processes and freedom of action will become paramount.  No one who thinks they are special want to do things the same way as everyone else.  Quick promotion and titles will be more important.  Expect the companies that get and retain the best people to be the ones with the least amount of management.  Plus, many younger people have access to their boomer parents wealth and know they are OK financially.

Numbers 6 through 10 will be available on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.

Posts From the Road: Denton Record-Chronicle

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently in North Texas so I will comment on the Denton Record-Chronicle cover story regarding the use of original artwork to decorate storm drains with an environmental agenda.  http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20120426-storm-drains-to-sport-murals.ece
---------------------
The art world is one that I support and participate in.  I have several original artworks in my own collection and have contributed to several performance art groups over the years.

There are four aspects to the art world.  1) the purists who feel art should be a statement of the artist only, 2) businesses who buy and sell at all levels from high-end masterpieces to retailers who sell wall hangings, 3) hobbyists who dabble and perhaps someday hope to make a living and 4) the uninvolved which is basically 95% of America which holds no real affinity or passion for it.

In the instance, local artists are developing art pieces that are attached temporarily to storm drains to discourage dumping of toxins into the system as they drain directly into Lewsiville Lake.  The question I pose is whether artwork done at the request of a specific municipal government or with the sole purpose of creating an environmental message a valid form or art?

I would propose that it absolutely is art. Art is the product of what I would refer to as skillful imagination and reflects aspects of culture and humanities.  I would further add that art has always been developed with some form of commercialism or to support a societal trend.  Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel at the behest of the Catholic church, Impressionists in their period almost all had benefactors who subsidized them and they ardently tried to be seem at Salon in Paris, Picasso painted pictures on napkins as currency for his drinking and perhaps even Jackson Pollock who was a definitive troubled artist relished in his fame for a period before succumbing to his alcoholism.  Many governments over the years as well have utilized artwork to craft their cultural vision though in fairness you can easily dismiss these attempts at state directed artwork as horribly unethical.  Obviously I am referring to Hitler and Stalin in this instance.

Some of the greats of the 20th century as well were quite amenable to making their artwork available for purely advertising purposes.  Norman Mailer comes to mind as one of the greats who utilized his artwork for Coca-Cola and TIME magazine.  If you extend art to include musicians then I think one of the goals of 99% of today's`modern recording artists is to have their music selected for use in advertising so commercialism obviously is not a deterrent to them.  Why would visual artists be held to a higher standards other than the fact that some purists hold them to a higher expectation and therefore are extremely reluctant to allow them access to galleries and press coverage.

I would suggest then in the 21st century it should not be surprising in the least that artwork has shifted to reflect societal trends as a driving force for the inspiration of many artists.  Plus, as benefactors rarely exist anymore and any type of cultural funding continues to be cut, then artists need to make a living so simply through necessity they are required to take contracts that may not necessarily reflect their true identity but enables them to put bread on the table.  The world of the struggling artist is one thing that has not changed much over the years.

The subjectivity of art though has not changed one bit.  Whether art is hanging in the MOMA or attached to a storm drain, it is still up to the individual who is viewing it to have final say as to whether it appeals to them or not.  Art should never be limited or restricted due to its purpose and should just be evaluated by effect.  In reality, today`s storm drains might be the great treasures of the future.

Post from the Road: Globe & Mail

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently awaiting a connection while at the Montreal airport I will comment on the Globe & Mail's (Canada's national newspaper) cover story regarding the amount of fighting during the National Hockey League's Play-Offs.
----------------
Being an avid hockey fan myself and a former Junior player I have always seen fighting as part of the game and just a by-product of the roughness of the game.

The amount of violence in this years play-offs is so over the top that there has to be more to it than in earlier years. For example, in the article posted within the G&M, they point out that in the first week and one half of this years play-off season (2012) there has already been 8 suspensions (and more are pending rulings from the league). During the entirety of the 2010 play-off season there were none. There were four in 2011.

There are three over-whelming causes at the root of this dramatic increase. The first is that the Boston Bruins won the Cup last year; the second is the attention given to head shots during the 2012 season; the third is the win-at-all-cost mindset held by NH:L players (or at least the keep my job mindset).

The first situation is that the Boston Bruins were able to win the Stanley Cup last year through a style predicated on intimidation and rough play. The NHL owners all seem to have the same reaction when this happens and that is to encourage that type of performance from their own team.  The instill GM's, coaches and players that are able to deliver what appears to be the appropriate methodology to win. Much like life, when one sees a winning formula it is not too long before others follow. The mindset is that to defeat the Champions the competition has to do more of what they do rather than devise a plan to overcome them. In this case, where toughness and intimidation ruled last season, every other team has to be tougher and more intimidating this year. Escalation of violence inevitably leads to worse and worse behaviour.

The second situation is that head shots have been on the radar all season which has forced some players to adjust how they play. What used to be a tough hit on what many would consider an inattentive opposing player is now a suspendable action. Human nature tends to replace unacceptable behaviors with new behaviors that deliver the same result. It takes years to eradicate societal ingrained actions. Therefore other measures by the players are implemented to overcome the now banned tactic.  The dramatic increases in boarding penalties and fighting is testament to this occurrence.

Finally, players themselves are responsible due to the all out competitive nature to play and stay in the NHL. In a new age of team parity and quality of talent, there are only a few players in the league that seem to have the superior talent to rise above the fray and it is rare that even they as top players over-achieve.  The highest paid players in the league are now 30 goal scorers and defensemen who can log 30 minutes a game.  Let's face it, 30 goals is no guarantee of a long and prosperous career nor is playing twice as much as everyone else. I an age where distinct and natural talents are less and less achievable, then players have to bring other talents to the table in order to stay in the league. Player leadership has all but disappeared from most players due to the single-minded goal they have all pursued which was to just get there.  And as most players hold comparable skill levels it becomes about brute force as to who gets to stay. Therefore, more and more players are arriving in the league with an extremely aggressive game to go along with their competent hockey talent.

The violent play is unlikely to go away as long as the teams that are playing this way now win moving forward.  Let's be realistic, if it worked in the previous round there is no reason to stop.

The New American Dream: Crafting Ones Own America

The American Dream is changing to one whereby individual citizens have input and control over their world such that they have the opportunity to live free and define their own measures for success.

The traditional dream of being free and working hard which subsequently leads to financial success has become antiquated as most people no longer feel that the system is fair or accessible to them. America's domestic economy has evolved into a tremendously inequitable system whereby a financial oligarchy has complete control over it and manipulates the system to their advantage at the expense of the many.  Many Americans do not even have the ability to strive for an improvement to their existing situation as the middle class formula for growth has diminished. Even a minimal goal of home ownership has eroded for way too many people.

Americans now feel the USA is a place where they are manipulated and controlled to the point that they have no contribution or input into the current system.  This unease with the current system is the root of the social unrest we are witnessing. The Tea Party movement is a social movement to affect political control and the 1/99 movement is a protest over economic inequality. Though each movement represents a very different philosophy, both are the same in their origins in that all the members are asking for is the same thing...access and influence for more American citizens.

The evolving new definition of the "American Dream" is one in which individuals feel they have the ability to influence and craft their own immediate community so that they can have a platform for success.  Success itself  is also being redefined as less of a financial reward but rather one in which American culture, society and the economy is more equitable and accessible to everyone.

George Clooney: A Good Role Model For All

George Clooney is a good example of how private citizens should be doing things.

He selects a cause and then goes on-ground to actually see first hand what is happening and then uses his democratic freedom to try to make changes.  He provides funding, he lobbies Congress, he goes as far as to  get arrested (for some reason?) to make his point and to bring about relief in Sudan.

Whether you agree or disagree with his causes or his methods is inconsequential.  The fact is that anyone and everyone has the opportunity in America to do the exact same thing.  Of course, George has access to his personal resources that allow him to take on a very active role in foreign countries and being an actor he also has the celebrity factor to make his chosen causes more prominent in the media.

All individuals have the ability to do the exact same thing in their local community.  The freedom to choose to be involved and to push for the social or institutional changes that they deem relevant to them.  As we enter this period during the evolution of "engaged democracy" people are starting to realize that they can have access and influence by doing things themselves rather than turning to government for solutions.  There is further, no requirement that an organizational component be present.

Government has proven itself incapable of solving virtually any problem in today's modern world and it is up to the self-directed and impassioned American citizen to craft the future of America. George Clooney is doing his part in the societal areas that affect him the most.  He does not choose to try to fix everything just the areas that concern him the most.  That is truly what freedom is and is the real essences of a new definition of the "American Dream" whereby individuals have the right to be involved in societal development.

The old definition of the American Dream which is predicated on "hard work leading to success" is being usurped by a new Dream "that one has the power to craft the society in which they will succeed".  The requirement of having to accept the current roles no longer exists.

The Real Value of Money

Money is a great gift to humanity.

Humanity by nature is judgmental and money is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is free to amass as large a fortune as they choose.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.