You’ve heard me say it before. You can gain control over your workday and achieve more in eight hours than the average person does in a week. Simply identify, and then eliminate those daily activities that don’t add anything to the achievement of your long-range goals. Yet as effective as this foundational strategy can be, it has its’ limitations.

In fact, I can almost hear you thinking, “I’m already optimizing my time at work. I know there has to be a way I can accomplish even more each day, yet I don’t see how I can squeeze another four hours on top of my already busy workday.”

Those types of thoughts wouldn’t surprise me at all, because I’ve faced the same disillusionment myself. And since you were attracted to the title of this article, you’re probably already an achiever who accomplishes more than the average person. (It’s always the man or woman who has tasted abundance of any kind in life who demands more from himself or herself.) So for you, here’s a more aggressive strategy to apply.

Time-Leveraging Strategy #4: One morning hour equals two evening hours.

If you give your all during the conventional workday, it’s likely that you’ll be less mentally alert in the evening, so why try to fight nature? And why do battle with the constant annoyances and interruptions of the accepted business day? Rise one hour, an hour-and-a-half, or even two hours earlier. You’ll accomplish as much in any given morning hour, than you will in any two evening hours. It’s why the world’s top super-achievers can be found in their offices hours ahead of “the herd,” and if you want to join them, it’s why you should be found there too.

Sun Tzu, in the 2000-year-old masterpiece “The Art of War” would call this strategy for approaching your day, a battle on “Deep Ground.” This is defined as territory that you can quickly gain by penetrating deep into hostile territory, ground that’s virtually impossible for the enemy to regain.

Just imagine a 5-year-old boy with a small chunk of Kryptonite sneaking up on Superman while he sleeps. If Superman doesn’t see him coming soon enough, he’s trapped and the little boy controls his lair. It doesn’t matter that Superman is a superior adversary; a little boy has gained the control of Deep Ground.

It’s same thing with your average workday. If you start your workday when everyone else does, or even a half-hour earlier — you’ll be trying to win on what Sun Tzu calls “Encircled Ground.” This is territory where once you’re in it, victory is unlikely and escape is tortuous. It’s territory where small, annoying forces can inflict heavy casualties on even the strongest army.

Now take these metaphors and think about your average workday. Even the most efficient person will loose the upper hand to the “busy-ness” of the average workday. If you try to optimize the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. beyond a certain point, you’re fighting your daily battle to succeed on Encircled Ground. And on Encircled Ground you will slowly be worn down and conquered.

The key to achieving more in any given workday lies in your willingness to fight the battle for lasting achievement and gain Deep Ground before the enemy knows what hit them. This can only be done during the hours before the average workday starts. Once you use these hours for long-term goal actions, your enemy (busy-ness) can never take them away.

Begin to apply this strategy by arriving at your office just one hour earlier each morning. Use this time ”’only”’ for completing actions linked to your most important long-range goals. Within just a few short weeks you’ll prove to yourself the exponential value of your early morning hours. And your hunger to take even more Deep Ground each day will increase.

When you choose the winners strategy for achieving more by starting your day on Deep Ground, you’ll find you can create time where there appeared to be none.

”’Copyright 1999-2003 by RPM Success Group

WASHINGTON (Talon News) — Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, argued before a special session of the Supreme Court on Monday that the campaign finance reform passed by Congress restricts First Amendment free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Starr, speaking on behalf of those opposed to the law, said the new campaign finance rules “intrude deeply into the political life of the nation.” He added that the new law “goes too far.”

The urgency of this case has caused the justices to return to Washington sooner than their usual October start. The ramifications of their ruling will have an impact on the 2004 elections and beyond.

The myriad of groups opposed to the new campaign finance reform law crosses the political spectrum. From the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Rifle Association, the opponents of the law say “soft money” restrictions and political advertising limits on the eve of an election unconstitutionally limit the free speech rights of Americans.

Additionally, Starr believes the law prevents grassroots campaigns and other local political efforts from making an impact on elections as they have in the past.

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with Starr’s assessment of the new law.

“The right to speak includes the right to speak in association with others,” he asserted.

But not all of the justices concurred with Scalia’s statement.

“We have never held that,” quipped Justice John Paul Stevens, who has been on the Supreme Court longer than any other justice currently serving.

The case of McConnell v. FEC has long been expected to be a landmark decision by the Supreme Court regardless of how they rule. Their interpretation of the campaign finance reform law drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) should be decided by the end of the year.

However, the law remains in effect as written until a decision by the high court is made.

“The 2004 campaign is not waiting for the starting gun,” remarked John Podesta, a Democrat Party advisor who served as President Clinton’s chief of staff.

“People are already halfway down the track,” Podesta said, referring to the nine Democrat candidates running for president in 2004.

Depending on how the court rules, it is likely that Congress will be forced to consider a new campaign finance reform bill that conforms with the decision.

Liberal Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and Stevens will likely vote in favor of the campaign finance reform law.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Scalia are expected to vote against the law on the grounds of free speech violations.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate, will likely cast the deciding votes in what is expected be a 5-4 decision.

Copyright

WASHINGTON (Talon News) — Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, argued before a special session of the Supreme Court on Monday that the campaign finance reform passed by Congress restricts First Amendment free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Starr, speaking on behalf of those opposed to the law, said the new campaign finance rules “intrude deeply into the political life of the nation.” He added that the new law “goes too far.”

The urgency of this case has caused the justices to return to Washington sooner than their usual October start. The ramifications of their ruling will have an impact on the 2004 elections and beyond.

The myriad of groups opposed to the new campaign finance reform law crosses the political spectrum. From the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Rifle Association, the opponents of the law say “soft money” restrictions and political advertising limits on the eve of an election unconstitutionally limit the free speech rights of Americans.

Additionally, Starr believes the law prevents grassroots campaigns and other local political efforts from making an impact on elections as they have in the past.

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with Starr’s assessment of the new law.

“The right to speak includes the right to speak in association with others,” he asserted.

But not all of the justices concurred with Scalia’s statement.

“We have never held that,” quipped Justice John Paul Stevens, who has been on the Supreme Court longer than any other justice currently serving.

The case of McConnell v. FEC has long been expected to be a landmark decision by the Supreme Court regardless of how they rule. Their interpretation of the campaign finance reform law drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) should be decided by the end of the year.

However, the law remains in effect as written until a decision by the high court is made.

“The 2004 campaign is not waiting for the starting gun,” remarked John Podesta, a Democrat Party advisor who served as President Clinton’s chief of staff.

“People are already halfway down the track,” Podesta said, referring to the nine Democrat candidates running for president in 2004.

Depending on how the court rules, it is likely that Congress will be forced to consider a new campaign finance reform bill that conforms with the decision.

Liberal Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and Stevens will likely vote in favor of the campaign finance reform law.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Scalia are expected to vote against the law on the grounds of free speech violations.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate, will likely cast the deciding votes in what is expected be a 5-4 decision.

Copyright

“Suzanne Gelb Image”

”Multi-Task Employee, Is This an Unreasonable Expectation?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

I operate a consignment store and we are in transition as I wait for a new employee to come on board. In the interim I delegated some of the work that will be assigned to the new employee to a senior employee. This work requires less skill than the senior employee has and he is reluctant, even insulted, to take on these lesser responsibilities. Am I being unreasonable by requiring this kind of flexibility in terms of skill level?

Frustrated Employer

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Employer:

Without doing the research on applicable labor law, it seems to me that the employee should be more than happy to perform the less skilled job providing that he is getting the same pay as he would for the higher skilled job. I personally see nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, an effective employee is one who can be productive in several roles and demonstrates a willingness to do varied tasks.

”Entrepreneurial Skills, How to Develop Salesmanship?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

I am about to fulfill a dream — starting a business as a hair stylist. My problem is that I am uncomfortable with selling. People say I am a talented stylist but I know I am going to have to promote my skills in order to succeed in this competitive business world. In the future maybe I will be able to afford an office manager who can be part of my team and do the promoting, but till then how can I psych myself up for success?

Uncomfortable

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Uncomfortable:

It is true that some people just don’t have a taste for dealing with the public. However, your description of your dilemma tends to reveal that you do not believe that you are as talented as others say you are, or perhaps you do not see yourself as talented as you would like to be. People who suffer this type of poor self-confidence often experience embarrassment even at the thought of trying to sell themselves and typically prefer that someone else take on that responsibility. It is so important for such individuals to recognize and acknowledge their talent and find a way to believe in themselves. Some have tackled this challenge by learning how to strengthen their confidence and take pride in their work at which point they have no problems bragging about how good they are.

”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this weekly column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Extra articles and additional Q & As may occasionally be posted in response to specially requested topics. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

“Suzanne Gelb Image”

”Multi-Task Employee, Is This an Unreasonable Expectation?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

I operate a consignment store and we are in transition as I wait for a new employee to come on board. In the interim I delegated some of the work that will be assigned to the new employee to a senior employee. This work requires less skill than the senior employee has and he is reluctant, even insulted, to take on these lesser responsibilities. Am I being unreasonable by requiring this kind of flexibility in terms of skill level?

Frustrated Employer

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Employer:

Without doing the research on applicable labor law, it seems to me that the employee should be more than happy to perform the less skilled job providing that he is getting the same pay as he would for the higher skilled job. I personally see nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, an effective employee is one who can be productive in several roles and demonstrates a willingness to do varied tasks.

”Entrepreneurial Skills, How to Develop Salesmanship?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

I am about to fulfill a dream — starting a business as a hair stylist. My problem is that I am uncomfortable with selling. People say I am a talented stylist but I know I am going to have to promote my skills in order to succeed in this competitive business world. In the future maybe I will be able to afford an office manager who can be part of my team and do the promoting, but till then how can I psych myself up for success?

Uncomfortable

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Uncomfortable:

It is true that some people just don’t have a taste for dealing with the public. However, your description of your dilemma tends to reveal that you do not believe that you are as talented as others say you are, or perhaps you do not see yourself as talented as you would like to be. People who suffer this type of poor self-confidence often experience embarrassment even at the thought of trying to sell themselves and typically prefer that someone else take on that responsibility. It is so important for such individuals to recognize and acknowledge their talent and find a way to believe in themselves. Some have tackled this challenge by learning how to strengthen their confidence and take pride in their work at which point they have no problems bragging about how good they are.

”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this weekly column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Extra articles and additional Q & As may occasionally be posted in response to specially requested topics. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

“Dick Rowland Image”

”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

– Movin’ Juice: Making Electricity Transmission More Competitive

The recent blackouts in the Midwest and Northeast shed light to the
flaws in the electricity transmission grid. Recommendations to remedy
this situation include building and upgrading transmission, constructing
generation facilities closer to population centers, and reducing demand
for transmission services.

– Transportation Costs and The American Dream

Given a choice between automobiles and heavily subsidized transit
systems, the vast majority of people recognize that autos are faster,
less expensive, more convenient, and more productive than transit.

Above articles are quoted from Reason Foundation, Reason Alert 9/5/03
https://www.rppi.org

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

– A Decade of Tabor

By Fred Holden

“Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth
of government.”
– Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR Amendment: Colorado Constitution,
Article X-Revenue, Section 20

TABOR (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) is a tax-and-spending limitation,
constitutional amendment. TABOR was passed in 1992 by the voters, and is
contained in Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution.
TABOR’s stated mission is to “reasonably restrain most the growth of
government.” It allows only those tax rate increases approved by voters;
while fees are not directly restricted, state government spending is
limited to growth of Colorado’s population-plus-inflation in the prior
year.

Colorado has in TABOR the strictest tax-and-spending limitation of the
50 states. This Issue Paper analyzes TABOR’s effect on Colorado,
contrasting taxing and spending before and after enactment of TABOR.

Ten fiscal years have passed since 1992; this Issue Paper compares ten
years of TABOR performance to the preceding ten years. Colorado state
documents-Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) and “Colorado
Economic Perspective” (Office of State Planning and Budgeting)-provide
the data.

In the decade before TABOR, Colorado state revenues and outlays
(spending) grew well over twice the population-plus-inflation growth
(See Fig. 1). With TABOR, all three were very close, indicating TABOR
had significantly restrained and controlled Colorado government growth.

Though TABOR was part of the “go-go nineties,” its measured effects on
government and non-government employment and distribution were quite
impressive (See Fig. 2). Pre-TABOR, government jobs grew slightly more
than business or total employment. After TABOR, business job growth
nearly doubled that of government job growth.

The TABOR surplus rebate mechanism returned to taxpayers some $3.25
billion over five years, fiscal 1997 to 2001, amounting to about $800
per capita-$3,200 for an average family of four.

TABOR is a success. It passed its own test to reasonably contain growth
of Colorado government, taxing and spending.

Above article is quoted from The Independence Institute https://www.i2i.org

”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

“Failure to sign the no-new-taxes pledge is the hole in the bottom of
the Arnold Schwarzenegger boat. Schwarzenegger is not Ronald Reagan.
Without the pledge, he’s not the anti-tax candidate.” –Americans for
Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, 08/26/03

”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 1314 S. King Street, Suite 1163, Honolulu, HI 96814. Phone/fax is 808-591-9193, cell phone is 808-864-1776. Send him an email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’See the Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

“Malia Lt Blue top Image”

Three Honolulu-based neighborhood boards met Wednesday, Aug. 20, at the Ala Wai Golf Course Club House for an informational briefing on the city’s proposed $1 billion Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT), a controversial transit system with semi exclusive and exclusive lanes the city wants to construct between now and 2007. Around 70 people attended, including at least four from the City & County of Honolulu, and many other concerned citizens and those with private transportation businesses such as taxi and bus companies and tour operators. Others were elected neighborhood board officials from the three neighborhood boards hosting the briefing: Diamond Head/Kapahulu, St. Louis Heights No. 5, and McCully/Moilili Neighborhood Boards.

Representatives from the City & County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services pushing the BRT presented a slick power point presentation, essentially promoting the BRT as the answer to many of Oahu’s problems, several of which are completely unrelated to transportation.

Not only will the BRT solve Oahu’s traffic congestion problems, but also it will help small businesses prosper and create jobs in Hawaii, the city says in this presentation.

There was no mention of the small business owners who say the BRT will cause them great hardship and possibly put them out of business because the proposed routes will deter customers from traveling to their stores and restaurants.

There also was no mention of the number of people who will lose jobs in the private market because the city’s BRT will cause many of Hawaii’s private transportation companies to lose a substantial bit of business, or even be forced to shut down altogether and eliminate jobs.

During Wednesday’s briefing, some debate was permitted by the chair of the meeting. Cliff Slater, one of the nation’s leading transportation experts and a co-founder of The Alliance for Traffic Improvement and HonoluluTraffic.com, countered many of the city’s claims about the BRT, while others from the audience were able to ask questions of the city officials.

Through this limited debate and discussion, it became clear the city has not thought through many of the problems the BRT will cause for people traveling in Honolulu, whether by car, bus or BRT.

In fact, some of the oversights are so outlandish that they almost sound like candidates for Late Night Talk Show Host Dave Letterman’s Top 10 report if he were reviewing the city’s top 10 most outrageous oversights to date on the BRT project.

Since David Letterman wasn’t available, here’s the top 10 compiled by Hawaii Reporter:

”Number 10: No Mo’ Money”

The city is proposing to spend $1 billion just to build a fancier, supposedly faster transportation system when it cannot even afford to fund the one it already has, TheBus. TheBus, which has routes all over the island, loses $110 million a year and is 70 percent subsidized by the taxpayers. Drivers are about to go on strike because they claim they are underpaid at more than $40,000 a year. The city administration and Council have approved within the last couple of months a hike in bus fares that took effect July 1. And already they are considering another hike to cover a shortfall that is causing the city to cut back the routes to pre-2000, the year TheBus routes were beefed up and the mayor was planning to run for governor.

”Number 9: Yup, It is 13 Inches”

The city plans to add platforms all around the city that are 13 inches high so passengers can step right off the BRT onto a level surface. The platforms will be in the middle of the roadway, so passengers have to get off in the middle of major busy thoroughfares and then cross already traffic-congested streets to get to their destination.

”Number 8: A Whack Upside the Head”

TheBus drivers say the 13-inch platforms are just the right height for passengers standing there to get whacked in the head with TheBus mirrors. They say that the mirrors are at just the right angle and height to do some serious damage to the skulls of both residents and visitors, they say. As if there aren’t enough whacked people running around Oahu. But hey, what are a few less people in a town with 1 million people, and what are a few more lawsuits paid for by the taxpayers?

”Number 7: Emergency? Tough S#!@”

The city plans to cut down traffic lanes on the BRT route from 12 feet to 10 feet. Only trouble is the city’s largest emergency vehicles are 10’6″ and cannot fit properly in the 10-foot lanes. So much for racing to the scene, some of the drivers of these vehicles say.

”Number 6: Put That Bus on a Diet”

The city’s plans to cut down traffic lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet on the BRT route affects more than just emergency vehicles traveling through Honolulu — TheBus vehicles are 10’4″ across. City officials denied it would be a problem for TheBus passengers and drivers, as well as for other drivers on the road, to squeeze a steel bus larger than the lane into the lane when steel cars are flying by.

”Number 5: Tough Squeeze”

When asked at the Wednesday meeting what will happen when a 10’4″ bus and 10’6″ emergency vehicle are side by side on Oahu’s roadways narrowed because of the BRT, which include many of Honolulu’s major thoroughfares, city officials promised: “That will never happen.”

”Number 4: Shrinkage?”

The city plans to cut Kapiolani Boulevard, one of Oahu’s busiest roads, from three lanes to two in each direction. The major problem will come during peak traffic hours when city workers typically cone off lanes so four lanes move in the direction of the traffic and two against, thereby improving the traffic flow. With the dedicated lanes planned for this street, there will be only two lanes during peak traffic hours, cut down from four.

”Number 3: That Stinks”

One of Oahu’s streets most often under construction is Dillingham Boulevard in Kalihi. This busy street, which connects Kalihi’s business district to downtown Honolulu, currently has two lanes in each direction, but more often then not, construction crews have two of the four closed off because of work on sewage pipes, utilities and road paving. With the BRT taking up two more of the four lanes, business owners say they might as well shut down their businesses and walk away because their customers will never be able to get to their stores.

”Number 2: The Most Expensive 1.9 Minutes”

The city claims the BRT will shave 1.9 minutes off of a ride on TheBus from Aala Park to Waikiki. Those knowledgeable in transportation, including some who testified at the Wednesday hearing, say the 1.9 minute figure is a made up, pie-in-the-sky number. No matter, for a reported 1.9 minutes, taxpayers will pay $228 million just to start.

”Number 1: Traffic Gridlock Lockdown”

Traffic will actually get worse because people will not give up their cars as the city hopes through this social engineering plan. Yet the city, instead of building new lanes for dedication to the BRT, will take away lanes, thus doubling and tripling the traffic congestion, increasing road rage and generally just outraging Oahu’s biggest voting base — the more than 400,000 registered drivers.

”The good news:” A wise entrepreneur can start making those stress squeeze balls, featuring the face of Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris, and walk car to car during peak traffic times — sure to be worse gridlock than ever imagined — selling them by the handful to frustrated drivers. Talk about a hot commodity. Then Oahu’s drivers, who will have awokened to Harris’ BRT nightmare a little too late to save $1 billion and a great deal of stress, will give a whole new meaning to the saying “putting the squeeze on” the mayor.

”’Reach Malia Zimmerman, editor and president of Hawaii Reporter, at:”’ mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com