From GTD...

You can't organize what's incoming - you can only collect it and process it. Instead, you organize the actions you'll need to take based on the decisions you've made about what needs to be done. [emphasis mine]

I've translated the daily report, have soaked myself in reviewing procedures and console handbooks, and so am taking a break and improving my mind musing about what I've read recently in David Allen's Getting Things Done.

It could be that, in attempting to better organize my life, I am chasing a chimera. Perhaps what I am engaged in right now is simply a more subtle variation of the behavior exhibited by many dieters when they chase the mirage of that "magic pill" that'll let them continue to eat huge quantities of foods, yet still lose weight.

In my case, I find myself continuously... I don't know... backsliding (?) from the ideas set forth in time- and life-management systems I've tried to implement. For example, the eagle-eyed reader will have noted that, in distinction from past years, I did not revise my beginning-of-year resolutions in 2005. I did not do so primarily because it became clear that despite my intentions, I had failed - very nearly completely - to follow through in consistently comparing my results against the goals stated in the resolutions (once a year is not enough) or in making day-to-day choices with those resolutions in mind. And frankly, leaving aside the issue of how well or poorly the resolutions themselves were addressed, if it comes down to a choice between rendering lip service to an idea or no service at all, I think the former is a lot less destructive ("one less open loop to worry about," to borrow a phrase from Allen).

And yet, I feel compelled to go on trying, after modifying my approach. Which is why I'm reading GTD.

In reading GTD, I am encouraged. Allen tries to address some issues that I never was able to successfully handle, say, using the Franklin system. The poster child in this regard was the feeling of helplessness I experienced when my carefully laid out plans were routinely wiped out by events, or the demands of my boss/coworkers/whomever. When I actively used the Franklin approach, I used to get really down when it came to transferring undone to-dos from one day to the next, because it seemed I got so few of them taken care of.

Here's what Allen has to say about one's calendar:

Those three things [day-specific events, time-specific events, day-specific information] are what go on the calendar, and nothing else! I know this is heresy to traditional time-management training... but such lists don't work, for two reasons.

First, constant new input and shifting tactical priorities reconfigure daily work so consistently that it's virtually impossible to nail down to-do items ahead of time. (Amen!) ... Trying to keep a list in writing on the calendar, which must then be rewritten on another day if items don't get done, is demoralizing and a waste of time. (Amen, again!) ... Second, if there's something on a daily to-do list that doesn't have to get done that day, it will dilute the emphasis on the things that truly do. [emphasis mine]

After two "Amens" (and very nearly a "Halleluliah!") I grok this last, hard.

And return to work.

Cheers...

Another of a thousand small cuts...

The Supreme Court today basically cleared the way for the wealthy to use government power to bludgeon lesser property owners into submission by deciding that the taking of private property for private development is a legitimate implementation of the power of eminent domain, even when said property is not blighted.

The time was that governments could only seize property for projects with a clear public use - roads and schools, for example - which was later expanded to include redevelopment of so-called "blighted areas." Eventually, some jurisdictions began to condemn property that didn't need revitalization, and hand it over to developers for the construction of malls and hotel complexes. That's what got this case to the SCOTUS: ordinary citizens resenting the condemnation of their homes to make room for an office complex.

As a result of today's decision, it is now the "law of the land" that, if a developer can convince your local government officials that, say, building an office complex on the site currently occupied by your home or business will provide improved benefits to the community (e.g., more jobs, greater tax revenue), then said officials can move to confiscate your property for such development.

Personally, I'd have thought the opposite conclusion, supporting private property rights, would have been a no-brainer, because frankly, there's not a property in the country that couldn't be developed somehow to make it more "beneficial" to the community in terms of economic impact. And yet, somehow I get the feeling that only the owners of small businesses and not terribly affluent owners of choice property will be targeted by this decision.

The next logical step for developers (if it hasn't happened yet) is to bypass approaching property owners with an offer to buy and to go directly to local officials and pitch the benefits of condemning the coveted property and giving it to the developer for improvement.

Apropos of this, it turns out there is an eminent domain story in my family.

I am told my grandparents bought a few acres in New Jersey in the late 40s with the idea of retiring there, but my grandfather died before that dream could be realized and my grandmother simply willed the property to my parents, who - about 20 years later - had the acreage taken under eminent domain for some water district project in what by that time had become an affluent neighborhood. The "fair and equitable" price paid by the state for the property didn't even cover the taxes paid over the years on the property.

So, it's turning into a real disastrous year for SCOTUS decisions. Not only does Commerce Clause regulation extend to non-economic activity (which is going to turn around and bite today's proponents in the butt someday), but eminent domain really is a legitimate avenue for implementing what amounts to a planned economy. Ye gods.

Cheers...

P.S. If you think this is all some kind of grand Bush conspiracy, check out which justices voted on which side of the question.