Enlightened Conflict

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well.

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

The web is destroying reading skills.

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

The web facilitates laziness.

The web is diminishing attention spans.

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

All, some, most and more.

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

Well.

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

So.

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

(1) – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

(2) – They are increasing the problem gap.

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

Anyway.

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

- 1. Kids read more today than ever before.

Oh. And reading is reading.

Yeah.

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.” - Marti Dryk, PhD

Amen.

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

- 2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

Regardless.

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

- 3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

Ok.

Moving on.

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

Kids are kids.

And they have always been kids.

They are adults in training.

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

Anyway.

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

leaf without a tree

March 4th, 2013

So.

Studying history, and using what you have learned, is a tricky challenge. Often we study history, and the past, so that we can “not make the same mistakes.” Well. The attempt is one of valor <and good intentions> but most actions using historical learning are misused <as they are misguided>.

“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You’re a leaf that doesn’t know it’s part of a tree.” – Michael Crichton

—-

“History is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” - Henry Kissinger

—–

Henry <or Hank to his friends> also said …

“The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically: history teaches by analogy, shedding light on likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for itself which circumstances are in fact comparable.”

Now.

Studying history is always good <that is a Bruce postulate>.

How you use what you learned studying history is always a challenge <that is a Life truth and an ongoing Life debate>.

Too often people want to use historical “learning” as a literal guide for what to do now <or in the future>.

You cannot.

Sorry.

But you can’t.

I do not care if we are talking about business, life or economics.

You cannot .

Hank, discussing Foreign Policy, actually walks us through a nice way to think about this.

Intellectuals analyze systems & situations while statesmen build them.

And therein lays a vast difference between the analyst and the statesman. The analyst can choose what problem he wishes to study whereas the statesman’s problems are imposed upon him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion while the overwhelming challenge of a statesman is time. The analysts runs no, or little, risk. If the conclusions prove wrong he can rewrite and reanalyze. The statesman is permitted only one guess and his mistakes are irretrievable.

Sure. Typically the future is simply a version of the past. But what makes it challenging is that what appear to be superficial changes, that sometimes make it easily recognizable, are the things that transform situations into unrecognizable changed situations. In addition … we tend to ignore the ‘collection of people’ variable .

In the end? We wonder what happened <and why we didn’t learn from history>.

Well.

As Kissinger states … history teaches by analogy, not identity.

Unfortunately this means that the lessons of history are never automatic.

That they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

Now.

I do believe no significant decisions are possible without at least an awareness of the historical context.

For everything exists in time more than they do in a moment in time. What I mean by that is an explanation of ‘context.’ You may not be able to completely replicate the exact time, place, situation and experiences of any & all affecting what you are studying <or even replicate a majority of those variables> however you can gain a sense of choices that were available and choices made. This is contextual learning.

Because people forget that what they are studying is a given moment which is simply a situation where it is not only a reflection of a collection of individuals <and their experiences> but that situation also achieves a unique identity through the consciousness of a common history <those individuals are studying that particular moment colored by,or driven, by perceptions of beliefs of that time>.

The only possibility of learning is studying history within the collective memory.

It is not often that we actually learn something from the past. And it is even rarer that we draw the correct conclusions from it.

Why?

The lessons of history <and Life experiences also> are contingent.

That means they teach the consequences of certain actions … but they cannot force a recognition of comparable situations.

Well.

That is a BIG thought right there.

One that many of us should think about more often.

Let me translate <for my own pea like brain>.

History is contingent upon a series of factors … and to make it exponentially more difficult … contingent upon a continuum <horizontally> as well as simultaneously <vertically>.

Yikes.

That means exactly replicating the situation in which you are ‘learning from’ is … well … pretty much impossible.

The variations and variables almost seem limitless <try pointing that out in your next business meeting when someone says “what did we learn from past experience”>.

And … well … gosh … doesn’t that kind of make you rethink every business book you have ever read?

Regardless.

History is just that … history. A series of factors & variables all aligned for one moment in time <vertically & horizontally>.

Therefore … change is not only the constant but it also possibly represents the only legitimate path to progress.

I say that to suggest that change may actually freedom from the past.

And to suggest that history, when one decides to live it and not learn from it, can cage you.

I know.

Learning to break free from the history that holds no value <or decreases value> is difficult. It is easier to simply use it as a handbook of ‘what to do.’

If we truly seek to learn <and teach> we cannot be subjugated to history.

If we truly seek to be better than what we already are … we cannot do simply as history ‘dictates.’

But all we really feel most comfortable with is remaking things in the image of historical learning.

Well.

I guess that means to remake things better we have to be … oops … uncomfortable.

I believe what I just wrote will make a boatload of people very uncomfortable <assuming anyone understands what I wrote>. Why? Well. This kind of thinking can drive you crazy … particularly if you want to simply study and create conclusions <rather than hypotheses>.

So. The how do most people, and businesses, get around this type of thinking?

They suggest that they have isolated the most important variables … and can draw a correlation to the current situation … draw some conclusive conclusions … and isolate the best plan of action.

Well. They are nuts <if not crackpots or liars>. I do not doubt 99% of the intent of these people but they are still wrong. History provides context not analogy. Now people <in general> do not like that. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to know unequivocally that they will not be ‘making the mistakes of the past.’ Sorry. Can’t happen. You may be able to reduce the odds but cannot unequivocally guarantee it. Oops. Big trouble in the working world if you say shit like that.

But it is Truth. Truth in a business world. Truth in Life.

Another truth? <and something that most people will also feel uncomfortable with>

Studying history will make the in-the-moment decision better. I did not say “using history to make the decision” but rather “people who have studied history will better be able to CREATE a unique decision in the moment.” Yup. I used the dreaded ‘unique’ word. Most decisions are discreet <unique to the moment>. That makes people feel very very <very> uncomfortable.

Regardless. It is a Life truth.

In the end?

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.” – Basho

Well.

That is a nice uncomfortable thought to end on.

pressure doesn’t gain time

February 13th, 2013

Ok.

I almost called this “our obsession with time.”

And because of this obsession … procrastinators, who have always been crucified, are being verbally harpooned day in and day out in books, businesses and everyday life as “time wasters” <which is metaphorically making those people as bad as smokers, litterers and communists or, in general, inferior flawed people>.

Yup.

In my eyes procrastinators have a tough life these days.

Employers are getting better at squeezing any ‘time wasting.’

And peer pressure makes any time wasting become the equivalent of having a post-it note super glued to your forehead with lazy/inefficient/nonproductive/etc. <choose one or all> on it <or just a poor employee>.

Even compensation is becoming more short term.

Almost 60% of Americans are paid hourly.

And even if management isn’t tracking hours, paying people by the hour, demanding meeting effectiveness by the minute or utilizing time efficiency models to squeeze every productive minute out of you … you are putting pressure on yourself with to-do lists, calendar updates, scheduled sex events with your partner and “family time” <limited to maximize 15 minute increments to insure you get everything done you need to get done>.

We are so obsessed with time and maximizing it … all of it … each and every minute … and we are being pressured <by others or by ourselves> to do so all the with the intent to ‘gain time.’

Anyway.

We are constantly seeking to maximize moments under the guise of ‘not procrastinating’ or in harsher words … not wasting … our time.

Maslow suggested we should seek, and encounter, “peak moments of clarity.”

Some bonehead called Eckhart Tolle <who is considered a very smart bonehead in some circles> wrote an entire book expounding on living a life in the ‘now’ (Power of Now) which was slightly absurd.

A company I worked at, JWT, even wrote a trend white paper called “Time is the new Currency” <in the early 2000’s I believe>.

This is crazy.

First of all obsessing over anything, let alone time, is not and never will be … healthy.

And secondly it will never increase efficiency, nor effectiveness, when all time is said and done.

Thirdly, pressure, especially on an ongoing basis, is never a good ingredient in the formula for happiness.

All that said.

I would like to reference an obscure article which can be found in the Academy of Management Journal <Brian Gunia & 3 co-authors of Johns Hopkins> and a book “Wait: the art and science of delay” <Frank Partnoy>.

Let me begin with one of my favorite topics – doing the right thing <ethically>.

I found it really interesting that in a series of experiments slowing down actually makes us more ethical . When confronted with a clear choice between right and wrong, people are 5 times more likely to do the right thing if they have time to think about it rather than if they are forced to make a snap decision. In addition they studied businesses and suggest organizations with a ‘fast pulse’ <like banks> are more likely to suffer from ethical problems than those who move more slowly.

Say what?

Yup.

Time pressure enhances the odds someone will make a less ethical, less right, decision.

Beyond that … the books and research suggest that delaying decisions <not yielding to time pressure> actually enhances the quality of the decision.

Sure. There is a ROI on time and delay and decision making … I imagine if I were smart enough I could draw out a decision utility graph with time and quality of decisions but I am not only not smart enough but I cannot draw.

Suffice it to say these relatively smart guys say that in their published papers.

Look.

Maybe because of the business I am in I get asked a lot about family time (or diminishing of family time) and not having enough time to <fill in the blank> or managing time.

Beyond the fact I have either seen or have done so much research on how people actually USE their time … I have found that we invest so much time trying to manage time … or worry about how to alleviate the pressure time seems to put on us … we actually waste a shitload of time <which actually creates a doom loop of pressure to use and maximize time>.

There is so much discussion and pressure on what to do with time I see diminishing results.

The pressure to maximize time is actually leading to minimizing time (go figure)

So.

I remind people that we all have the same amount of time … which usually draws some evil looks … but its true … it’s what you elect to do with it and, maybe more importantly, your approach toward time.

I tend to believe we forget, or undervalue, the fact that it is less important to do things first then to do things right.

And I have someone on my side … Warren Buffett … who has said … “lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style.”

Me?

I worry that our obsession with time <speed> has a negative effect in business and at home <basically … in our lives>.

The secret to an effective brain is a combination of fast and slow <and there is research to support this>.

Procrastinators get a bad rap … yet this is exactly what they do.

A fact.

If you leave something to the last minute you only have a minute to do it.

Sounds obvious but it is a truth.

Procrastinators are actually the ultimate non procrastinators.

They utilize their time the most effectively.

The research shows that procrastinators actually use the time while putting things on hold thinking and evaluating and assessing different shit. Some relevant shit and some non relevant shit … but it all goes into our mental gourds … rattles around … and when the time comes when the decision/action trigger needs to get pulled … the majority of the time the action is a well rounded ‘right’ decision.

And if that just isn’t you?

Think about this … I found this thought from a mother … or maybe call her a ‘home manager’ instead.

“When you don’t know what to do next, just do the thing in front of you.”

Ok.

If you can live with that kind of thinking I actually believe that not only alleviates pressure <because you just say ‘screw it … I am just doing something’> and you are actually ‘doing’ inseatd of planning or thinking or worrying.

Ok <part 2>.

But I admit it certainly helps if you have more of an idea of what’s the most important thing to do next.

Because these days it seems like too many of us respond to the tyranny of the urgent.

One of the characteristics of an adult who has their shit together is the ability to recognize the difference between the important and the urgent. And, ultimately, refuse to be tyrannized by the urgent … refuse to manage by crisis … refuse to waste time under the pressure to not use time wisely.

Sure. Easier said than done.

Who hasn’t struggled to start something ‘important’ but can’t seem to find the time because of an exploding diaper, an urgent business email, the ringing telephone, or whatever the crisis du jour may be in your own little world?

But as time managers we must recognize the difference … and disregard not only the pressure of others … but the pressure of the moment.

We cannot operate solely in response to the pressure of urgency for long … or we will go nuts.

Well.

Time is not about pressure … it is simply about choices <which I fully recognize creates a different type of pressure>.

And choosing what is most important.

When we’ve made deliberate decisions about what’s important certain choices become a no-brainer.

You’re at peace with the choices you make, because they align with your priorities, and they just make sense.

Regardless.

If time is about choices … and under pressure we tend to make poorer choices … it kind of seems like that equals something to the effect that pressure loses time.

Go figure.

But I was never good at math.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

“… the only true advantage is knowledge.” – <someone I cannot find at the moment>

So.

This thought of temporary advantage, and knowledge, is easy for business but it is also relevant to Life.

Let me begin with business <because, frankly, it is easier>.

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make <in the end> is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable and want to ride it all the way into the sunset <or as far as the horse will carry them toward it>.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

Most often all energy is invested in developing a distinct product, or service, or some tangible advantage.

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

Definition of gobs? Lots of money & time & intellectual energy. And this typically leads to some type of patent <if you are smart> or, at minimum, something different enough you feel it is … well … different <you may actually convince yourself after eating a pound of M&Ms in focus groups and multiple cocktails staring at your navel that it is “unique”>.

Now. Let me tell you a business truth.

Product advantages are actually fairly easy to attain. In fact … they are a dime a dozen. Yup. Sorry about that.

Here is the other business truth.

The majority of product advantages are indiscernible to anyone but the one who developed it. I call it ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ differentiation.

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

Personally I prefer to aim for a competitive parity product that has enough meaningful benefits that it can compete over time <in other words … it is a sustainable product> … and use knowledge to be an advantage.

Sound crazy? Maybe.

Sound painful to say to management? Yes. Trust me … I have the scars to prove how painful.

But if you can keep your head out of your egotistical ass you actually have a chance to see this idea through to a very profitable, sustainable profitable, conclusion.

This translates into the ability to keep the product competitive but limit the amount of investment you have to invest to update/improve/trash & reinvent.

And use knowledge to sustain advantage because knowledge is a changing environment … never stagnant.

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare <unless you define ‘sustainable’ as ‘we did it for a week’>.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it <the ever elusive ‘advantage’>. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look … but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

That’s my quick acerbic soundbite for businesses on temporary advantage.

Personally I believe many businesses mismanage ‘advantage.’ Mismanage through incorrect attitude and in incorrect behavior.

Not only do they typically think incorrectly they also implement too slowly … and ultimately they do not know when to ‘abandon ship.’.

Regardless … now that every business person wants to send me a scathing personal email I will move on to the next topic.

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

We all know Life is challenging. And that is so mainly because it is always changing.

Just when you think you have at least one thing figured out Life moves the thing <hence the term “life sucks” was created>.

To even have a chance to be competitive with Life you have to continuously gain knowledge and adapt. There is no formula for gaining knowledge … sometimes you read something, meet someone or see something that changes your knowledge.

That is self stimulated gathering of knowledge … and it takes some fortitude and self desire to do so.

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

They are a natural incentive to stimulate knowledge growth to maintain advantage. I worry about people like me, who does not have children, as well as those who ignore the knowledge, and stimulus to learn, young people offer. I guess my point is that we should use kids as a knowledge stimulant <rather than ignore them or subjugate them to our past tense type knowledge>.

I thank god I am a reader. It permits me to at least maintain a competitive place in a restless world. Notice I didn’t say competitive advantage.

Just be competitive.

I say that because I fully understand I will never find a competitive advantage against life. Well. Maybe I get a glimmer of an advantage on occasion. But it is fleeting. I keep a constant eye on the fact you gain knowledge to try and keep up. And every once in a while you get really lucky and dash ahead for a second or two.

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

Some silly people delude themselves into believing they have a competitive advantage in life. And, yes, they are delusional. People like this don’t seem to understand that Life is like a river constantly flowing. They quit paddling to rejoice in their ‘advantage’ and … oops … all the crap in life not only feverishly paddles by to get ahead <and lay some traps> but some of Life’s crap may actually slow down and do their best to smack you around a little <because a moving target is harder to hit so when you stop paddling you are easier prey>.

These people confuse ‘glimmer’ with ‘this is my new home.’ That is why they are delusional … because normal people could never get confused by those two things.

Second.

I worry about the people who never even gain one glimpse of the advantage. Because a glimpse gives hope you can win … at least on occasion in life.

No glimmer? No hope? That worries me.

How can anyone, even the strongest of the strongest, keep going on without hope for something better?

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

I now envision someone cranking up an email with a thought on “hey, hold on a second, you seem to be suggesting becoming a chameleon … and don’t you always talk about being true to yourself at all times?!?” <please notice I used a rare exclamation point just for emphasis>

Despite the fact I will give that someone cranking up an email major points because that means someone actually has read some of my drivel in the past … I will quickly go to this quote:

“Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” – Mahatma Gandhi

And then I would answer this way … in business and in life … the core is the core.

That core is the “me inside” and that is the sustainable competitive product. And by product I mean a product being a manufactured product or simply you <or me>. Anyway. That competitive core probably doesn’t have any advantage … it is simply able to go on day after day, year after year and … well … continue to ‘be’ … to exist. It <you & I> compete in Life <or with Life> because of a good steady core.

Adaptability through knowledge leverages your core … and means possible temporary advantage.

That’s it.

That’s my point.

logan’s answering machine

November 11th, 2012

“a long time ago, we used to be friends . . .” – Dandy Warhols <Veronica Mars theme song>

Ok … while this is about Logan’s cell answering messages <and teen Life lessons> … Logan was a great character in Veronica Mars. And Veronica Mars was a great show. I am relatively sure Kristen Bell <who was Veronica Mars> is a good actress … but her Veronica character was the PERFECT role for her. Really smart, in-your-face quick witted soundbite driven communicator, strong but sensitive … all the while balancing being a teen, a girl and a sense of maturity.

And while the show’s various mysteries and crimes were fairly well plotted <some stories were a little far out there> it was some great quick dialogue writing and some unbelievable soundbite moments that makes the show really work. For me? I struggle to remember long monologues <except maybe West Wing> but I constantly remember the short back & forth smart dialogue.

Anyway.

Veronica was not the only great character … there was Logan. A counterpart in quips.

High school Vice Principal: Mr. Echolls, may I have a word?

Logan: Anthropomorphic. It’s all yours, big guy.

The show was filled with little moments like this.

But.

Logan’s cell phone answering message. One of the really fun aspects of the show was how this tortured rich kid <Logan Echolls> used different quotations in a tongue in cheek way on his cell’s answering machine that he likes to call “inspirational messages.” They were delightful in that they were delivered in a slightly sarcastic tone but also as true insight into how he felt <or what he … or any typical teen … was dealing with>. You were never really sure he was pulling your leg or trying to share a helpful thought. The writers treated it as an intermittent running gag. It was awesome … funny … a little wacky … and always relevant to the situation. It was real wisdom but dropped into the real life situations Logan seemed to constantly find himself in. And, frankly, as good TV shows do … they parallel our own Life situations on occasion.

Here are a few <and remember that he is quoting as a high school junior or senior guy>:

“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” -Eleanor Roosevelt

- Teens are in an odd, uncomfortable position in that almost their entire life is ahead of them … all their dreams remain on the horizon … and yet they are crossing into adulthood where reality has a nasty habit of forcing you to better assess your dreams maybe before you would like to. High school is a great place for dream building. And at exactly the same time … Life, in general, is a tough place for those who have dreams. This is where I really feel like teachers are in a very tough position in today’s society. Their real job is almost equally balanced between pragmatic teaching and hope building. They balance the possible and the impossible in almost every kid’s head. And, yet, parents are constantly pounding them on “why are you filling my kid’s head with all that nonsense … he doesn’t need to be dreaming … he needs to be thinking about doing.” Teachers are getting squeezed. And teens are getting confused.

Look. High school kids clearly understand reality. They know they will need a job. They know they need to be ‘good at something.’ And they know they need to do some things to insure they are prepared. We adults are smoking the wacky weed, or taking too many of those calming pills, if we do not believe that. We also are foolish if we do not understand that any Life transition moment <any … even as an adult> is challenging … and a little scary … as you leap from one spot to another. It drives me crazy that adults forget that shit.

Anyway. What makes Logan and Veronica Mars kind of special is that Logan knows all of this … and is going into adulthood kicking & screaming … while Veronica <who he loves> cannot wait to be an adult. The lesson to us adults? They both have dreams. And Veronica is no more valuable, better or exemplary than Logan because of this. People find their own timing with regard to knowing what they are going to do in Life.

“Adversity is the diamond dust with which heaven polishes its jewels.” -Thomas Carlyle

- We adults have a habit of scoffing at what teens believe is ‘adversity’ in their lives and say things like “wait until you get into the real world” or “wait until you have the responsibilities of a family.” We are silly to do so. Adversity is relative. And, to a teen, adversity is often uncomfortably out of their control <because it more often at the mercy of their parents’ lives>.

So while there are some things they can control … there is a lot that is out of their control. And that is a maddening type of adversity. I surely don’t like it as an adult … and as a teen, when you still have all your dreams in front of you, it is also a little scary <and a LOT aggravating>. You know … the truth is that the significant majority of the time teens are doing the best that they can. Life and adversity is grinding away at them and they all pretty much believe <at that time in their life> that there really is a diamond somewhere inside them.

I wish more adults would remember that more often <and I wish more adults told teens there is a diamond in there>.

“To love and win is the best thing. To love and lose: the next best.” -William Thackeray

- Of course, as a teen, this is said sarcastically. Oh, and painfully at exactly the same time. Your first love is always that … the first. Trying to convince yourself that ‘losing a love is the next best’ is a losing battle. Almost everyone learns the truth of this quote at some point in their lives … but … the first is always the first.

This is one of those thoughts that sounds awesome theoretically but is a painful reflection of Life trial & error. I think this thought is even more powerful because it is being said by a teen guy … okay … a tough guy teen. Being a teen boy is a tricky balance. Lots of balancing in fact. As you wander from boy to young man there are some toughness, ‘manly man’ expectations involved … and emotions are an interior thing at a time where much of high school life is an exterior thing. The brilliance of Veronica Mars? Logan gets to maintain his exterior tough guy and decided to share the interior emotion via this faceless piece of third party technology … the cell phone answering machine.

We should remember that even the toughest appearing kids need some outlet for their interior thoughts. We can either give it to them … or they will find it for themselves.

“Life’s tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late.” -Ben Franklin

- When I heard Logan say this I almost laughed out loud. Teens collect experience moments at an amazing pace. And it is still not fast enough. While we old folk always joke that ‘kids always think they know everything’ … we are wrong. Very very wrong. They don’t. And they certainly don’t think that.

They are just doing the best they can with what they have. Sure. They may bluff through some moments <which is mostly a “I don’t want to look stupid” action rather than a real belief they know everything>. Sure. They wished they knew more and had more experience and were ‘wiser’ … but I don’t know one teen who didn’t wish he/she had some more knowledge. That doesn’t mean they believe all older folk know more than they do <would you as you look around at how some of us old folk actually act?> but they certainly recognize that they have a shitload more to learn. And they certainly wish they knew what they really needed to know to deal with some of the crap they have to deal with. We old folk need to remember that Life’s trial & error gauntlet, particularly at that age, ain’t fun.

Anyway.

And the last dose of wisdom, inspiration thought for the day, Logan will share with you today:

“If you dig deep enough, you’re going to find that everyone’s a sinner.” – Logan Echolls

This is a pretty thoughtful thought. Sin covers a lot … envy, greed, lust, etc.

and the real thought behind this is the true fact … no one is innocent … the only question is … how will you bear the guilt? Yeah. This thought is not really about ‘sinning’ or being a sinner but rather acceptance.

We all have flaws. We all make mistakes. We all have done some thing we are not proud of. The real question alll of us face is not whether we have sinned in some way or not but rather how we accept that which was done. In the show Logan was extremely flawed <as kids trying to figure things out typically are> but at his core he was a good ‘man in the making’ …

If you dig deep enough inside, you will find everyone is basically the same … we all have hopes & dreams & good intentions … and insecurities intertwined throughout. And we all work our way though our high school years hacking our way through all of them. And we do <and think> some stupid things at that time in our lives. Heck. Life bombards you with so many different challenges from so many different directions all at a time when you are trying to define your own character and establish whatever version of self esteem you will carry with you moving forward … it would be exceptional if you made no mistakes. If you dig deep enough into your memory banks for that time in life … we all have sinned in some way.

Give kids a break. Of all the times in a Life I cannot think of another when insecurities are as tangled up with good intentions … and ‘sin’ behavior. And we should give them a break because of what I typed earlier … ‘how will you bear the guilt.’ As a teen shapes themselves into young adults I tend to believe we would like them to use as little guilt as possible as they shape themselves for the future.

Anyway.

Veronica Mars is a smart show. And Logan is an added bonus. Maybe just as sharp as Veronica with a similar slightly cynical view of life. The combination of the two makes for an introspective look at the teen/young adult mind <in a pretty entertaining show>.

And the inspirational messages are a nice <sarcastic> reminder of the stuff teens deal with.

living below the line

October 17th, 2012

“Long ago it was said that ‘one half of the world does not know how the other half lives.’ That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little for the struggles and less for the fate of those who were underneath.” - Jacob A. Riis <How the Other Half Lives – 1890>

This is about the have-nots … “the other half” … this is about poverty and this is about perspective.

I decided to write this after a disturbing conversation among friends about “hand outs” and how low income people need to assume some personal responsibility <the implication being that most are lazy, not ambitious or not working hard to change their situation>.

At the core of the discussion was about how people believe other people were using, and abusing, government support systems.

Of course I heard the infamous “they checked out at the super market with porterhouse steaks using food stamps” example.

The real point was that a bunch of people think that another bunch of people are getting support <hand outs> from the government while they are working their own asses off.

So.

I tried. And after maybe making up some ground by suggesting that the majority of people getting government assistance really did need it <and there would always be a minority who will abuse anything> the next suggestion hit the conversation … someone said “I know people need help but there should be limits.” <i.e., at some point we need to stop>

Limits? <hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm>

Ok. Enough with that discussion. Because inevitably we are discussing a lack of understanding for ‘the other half.’

It is a fact that the world is becoming more unequal with wider disparity between haves and have nots than ever before (in measured history). This disparity is very real <in terms of income> and it is even more real when thinking in terms of perceptions.

Me? I personally care less about equality of income (or the gap as it were) but more on equality of opportunity. Therefore I see the inequality as an outcome of an opportunity, or lack thereof, issue.

And therein lies the issue to me.

Too many people want to see it as an economic issue when it is actually an opportunity issue. This issue is created around a belief that people are lazy and actually are happy living off these hand outs. I believe the issue is that most of these people not only cannot tangibly get out of the hole they cannot even see the opportunities to get out of the hole. That is a double whammy of reality + lack of hope.

Which gets me back to poverty and living below the line because most of us don’t understand the reality <of life in poverty> and cannot grasp the lack of hope <because we believe we live in the land of opportunity … if someone works hard enough>.

Why do we struggle with understanding? Because most of us who have it ‘tougher than we had it before’ are NOT living in poverty.

Sure … a tough global economy has impacted everyone forcing some fiscal decisions. And many middle class people consider this hardship. And they combine that attitude with “if you work hard you can gain opportunity.”

Well. I hate to break the news. In today’s world working hard doesn’t guarantee anything and those of us in the middle class have no concept of the really difficult decisions many of the people who the government is helping have to make … every day.

Someone at the table said “I see these people making irresponsible choices, I make responsible choices so should they.”

Well.

I would argue that those of us who have not lived in their shoes cannot really judge fairly. Our ‘responsible choices’ are not the same as their ‘responsible choices.’

Let me try this out on you.

I equate a head of household in an income challenged household in the same decision-making grouping as a small business owner or even someone like a president of a country – day in and day out every choice and decision is important. Every one.

The difference is that they do it without the luxury of a comfortable bed, some bottled water (or a beer) in the ‘frig and a car to get away from it all.

Try this on for size. They are a small business owner who never gets a vacation. Never.

I understand, or I imagine, the question everyone seems to be wrestling with is how much should a government assist.

And that gets driven by “geez, I am paddling as hard as I can why should they get a handout.”

Well.

Here is why.

Because they need it and you don’t <reality>.

Oh. And because we have not offered them a way out <opportunity>.

I admit. I don’t know how to offer a way out. In my table conversation I even sickened myself when I said something like “maybe our efforts should be focused on the next generation of kids … be sure they have an opportunity … be sure they have a chance at a good education <which is the research proven leveler between economic inequality>.”

Sickened? Yeah. My flippant thought implies you are giving up on a group of adults who never had the opportunity to get out and be all they could be.

Regardless. Solving poverty is a huge issue that is not going to be solved in this post.

But I can bend your ear on government assistance to low income households.

Here is the hard part to tell my readers <maybe the part we just don’t want to hear>.

We may be struggling, we may not have it as easy as we have had it before as we look at our stack of bills, and we absolutely are probably more worried about paying bills … but most of us definitely do not understand sheer poverty and the life you lead when you are within poverty.

I do know that here in America the election seems to bring out the worst in us … entitlements, handouts, food stamps for those who don’t need it, etc. … all these simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that America has, and has had, a large number of people in extreme poverty and the world has significantly more.

But our simplistic frustrated comments avoid the fact that recent global studies suggest that “opportunity” <the ability to change social/economic status from lower to higher> is not a truth in today’s America. People born in poverty and/or low income households are more likely to remain a poverty/low income household in America than in most European countries <although we do beat Mexico … but not Canada>.

In fighting extreme poverty it’s sometimes easy to lose sight of just how extreme the conditions that we associate with poverty is … even within our own countries.

Approximately 1.2 billion in extreme poverty globally.

That’s those who live on $1.25 a day. That is about 17.6% of global population.

This does not count “the vulnerable.” Vulnerability measures those who are “sometimes poor” while poverty measures those who are “always poor.” Between one year and the next, many people move into or out of poverty. Thus measures of who is poor now are imperfect guides to who will be poor next year, yet it is the latter that is relevant for public policies that aim to reduce poverty. The solution is to identify those who are vulnerable to poverty—that is, who have a significant probability of being poor next year. People are highly vulnerable if they have more than an even chance of being poor in the next period, and moderately vulnerable if they are more likely than the typical person to be poor next year. <worldbank poverty data>

All this thinking got me thinking about living below the line.

Thinking about how I could put myself in their shoes if but for one week and doing a reality check.

And what made me truly decide to take the step on living below the line <this ‘line’ of $1.25 a day from a global poverty perspective> was not this table discussion among friends but rather when I heard a story about a 3^rd grade daughter asking her mother for a pair of $1,500 <yup … those are thousand 0’s … I did not forget a decimal point> shoes for getting straight A’s.

I must be getting altruistic in my old age because, to me, this is lesson time for the daughter.

To be fair, if the story had been $150, I am not sure I would have got so wound up on this topic <not sure what that says about me> but the combination of $1,500 and SHOES kind of put me over the top. My hope is that I would have been a strong enough parent to have stepped back and taught a lesson. But that is for my parent readers to figure out.

Me?

I am not going to preach.

I thought I would do something to see if I knew what the hell I was talking about.

So let me take a second and talk about the “living below the line” thought.

Yes. That is living on $1.25 a day. Yup. 125 pennies or 25 nickels if you don’t like pennies.

The World Bank defines “extreme poverty” as living on the US dollar equivalent of $1.25 a day, or less.

Regular everyday poverty is actually $2.50 a day just to put ‘extreme’ into perspective for you.

That said, nearly 1.2 billion people around the world currently live in extreme poverty, surviving on $1.25 a day. That is their <dangerous> reality.

I don’t even have to type the choices one would have to make living on $1.25 a day because I would imagine it is so far out of most of my reader’s realm of possibility that it isn’t feasible.

Therefore I found a game developed by the Global Poverty Initiative that actually allows you to put yourselves in those shoes <even if it is just a game>.

Survive125 is an interactive game that puts players in the shoes of Divya Patel, an Indian woman with four children, trying to survive on $1.25 a day:

Players will be faced with many of the impossible choices that those living in extreme poverty have to make every day. It is not only an educational game, it’s a painful experience. By placing themselves in the shoes of someone living in extreme poverty, players are able to struggle with hard decisions and ultimately choose their future.

I have played it several times.

Why several? Well. The first time was simply so unimaginable to me that it ended up being slightly surreal <if not irrelevant>. So I went back. And played around with it. The first time you play through it you will find yourself going “this is not my life.”

By the 3^rd time you are saying “shit, could I make these choices?”

I am honest with myself.

I couldn’t.

From my altruistic ‘children’s education’ pulpit I began as a high & mighty futurist and eventually I ended up as a more realistic survivalist.

Enlightening? You bet.

Realistic survivalist. That phrase will now enter my ongoing lexicon in discussions.

Think you can live on a $1.25? Play and see if you can Survive125.

Okay.

Then I took the next step.

A real reality check. I said maybe I could do this for a week. Actually live on $1.25 a day for food & beverage & entertainment.

Keep the car & gas, home & electricity and I will even give you the cellphone .

A confession.

When I started this personal challenge I didn’t think it was going to be that difficult for just one week. I am a single guy for gods sake. I figured I could easily drink tap water, eliminate the diet coke <and, grudgingly, the coffee> and gather the ingredients I needed to throw a bunch of stuff into a crockpot that I could live on for a week or so.

I mean, c’mon, for one week how difficult could living on $1.25 ($8.75 for the week) a day actually be?

I learned very quickly that it is pretty fucking hard.

For all of the whining that I may have done throughout my life about having to budget or scrape money together to pay bills … I have <apparently> never come close to experiencing anything even near to poverty. Nor <apparently> have I experienced the lack of choice, monotony, and plain hard work that is all part of having to live on such a dismally small amount of money.

My reward for all of this effort?

A truly terrible and relatively tasteless soup/stew <because you cannot afford to buy salt or spices> that I had to ration out so it lasted the week. And more water drinking then I have done in possibly my entire lifetime.

The point is that for all of my effort I received no reward. None. There was no money or energy left for a reward. In fact my only reward was I existed for another week.

This reminded me of a couple of things:

- A life lived in poverty is met with little reward and is unfair … relentlessly unfair … so unfair that reality is grinding.

- A life lived in poverty with no possible reward of ‘opportunity’ seems a pretty dismal space to reside in within life because that means the grinding just puts you further and further into the hole.

The unfairness wasn’t the stew <although it does make you really really think about what someone in poverty feels when they see someone drive by in a nice car or watch commercials with some succulent meal sitting on the table> but it was from the understanding that all choices are eliminated. The food I bought was dictated by my financial means, where I bought it was dictated by my financial means, and my entire life was dictated by financial means. Any extraneous choices were taken away.

In the context of a real lived extreme poverty these choices would become far more serious.

Healthcare or no healthcare?

Do I feed my child a decent meal?

Clothing? Housing?

The list is … well … relentless.

Relentlessly in your face day to day. There is no relief.

As I stated upfront … this was as tiring as running a business … but with absolutely no reward or breaks.

None.

Okay … moving on <because I imagine many of my readers will think $1.25 is just not realistic>.

Don’t want the 1.25 test because you say ‘no way’?

For my middle class friends I will throw you a couple options because when I have talked about world poverty people say “but that is there … you could never live here on that.”

First …

Yes, folks, some do.

Second.

Okay. Try this on for size then.

I have readers all around the world. Find your country’s poverty level <for example … Rodrigo in Brazil would see $29.45/day is Brazil’s poverty level>.

In America poverty <not extreme poverty> is about $24,000 annual for a family of 4. Say it is actually close to Brazil’s for a single person so you also get about $10,720 annually if you are single.

That is $462 a week <$66 a day> if you are in a family.

- Now halve it <assume it is being used for home> and you have $231 for the week <$33 a day> for food & beverage & entertainment.

Single? This is $206 a week <$29.45 a day> if you are single.

- Now halve it … a single person gets $103 for the week <$14.71 a day>.

Disregard mortgage/rent/cell/utilities/gas and do it.

Watch how difficult it is. Then imagine you actually had to pay utilities, rent, gas, etc. within it.

I offer no solution today.

Today I simply ask you take a minute and walk in their shoes.

It may make you feel differently about “hand outs” as well as why “work hard” just may not be enough advise to give someone in this situation.

the right to an education

October 15th, 2012

“I have the right of education,” Malala said in a 2011 interview

I was tempted to call this ‘someone has to be the first’ <and will explain later>.

Probably because I can’t watch news 24/7 I missed the original interview but since its being replayed I can finally give it its due.

Here is the true shame.

I didn’t become aware of it until something <really> bad happened. This is about the 14 year old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousufzai, who was shot when a Taliban gunman walked up to a school bus, yes, a bus full of children going home from school, and shot her in the head and neck. Another girl and a teacher were also injured in this attack.

Why was she shot?

Because Malala Yousufzai threatened the Taliban existence.

How could a 14 year old girl threaten the Taliban?

By advocating overcoming ignorance through education to empower more enlightened individual choices (now everyone knows why I am writing about this).

Yes. This implies the existence of the Taliban depends on ignorance.

Okay.

Before I get to the point of what I want to say you should see the interview if you have not.

Malala Yousufzai is a young girl. A daughter I believe we all would be quite proud to call our own <wherever you live>. She is wise beyond her years as she tells us about hope and dreams. In a way, and in words, any of us can grasp.

Malala has made a stand in Pakistan <and that area of the world> for education, progress and the advancement of all children of all ages. Her interview is worth watching even if you don’t care about what I want to say.

CNN interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hHgPFBDeh0

Now.

Women’s human rights advocates will come out of the woodwork saying she is a martyr for women’s/girl’s rights (by the way … just to be clear … I am a supporter of women’s rights). But I wish they would take a step back and prioritize. This young lady is first and foremost a martyr in the fight against ignorance.

She is not anti taliban (per se) she is pro informed choice.

That said … it is sad we need a martyr at all with regard to this issue. Yet, sometimes we do, not only to fully embrace the seriousness of an issue … but it is proof that someone has to go first.

I am not implying in any way that the majority of people who know what is right are sheep but rather it is a fact that not everyone has the DNA to go first. I like leaders. I advocate leadership. But I tell young kids in school that just because they don’t lead, or go first, doesn’t mean they are weak or a failure or even a coward.

I tell them they can only be judged by their ultimate actions. The when and the where of the actions are less important than the fact you may actually have taken action.

But, in the end, on the really big issues, the tough ones, someone has to go first.

Many influential people will now step out into the spotlight and try to nudge the cause forward. I am glad they are doing so (albeit I would love all of them be aligned behind education as a human right). But Malala will be truly measured by the actions of her peers … the true measure of action is the actions of the youth.

A generation hungry for knowledge.

A generation focused on enlightened decision making.

We adults should never lose sight of the fact that under any indifference we may perceive within today’s youth, there is a fire.

If we attempt to extinguish that fire I can guarantee you they will act. In fact I believe we will see this as this story and message spreads.

This young lady is certainly become a focal point on the right to get an education in that part of the globe. But, we in the west should not be putting the boundaries of this issue just geographically there. This young lady is a reminder to all of us that EVERY child everywhere deserves an education. And while in her case the point of education would be so someone could make an informed choice with regard to the Taliban. It is also a point that we want all of our children to make informed choices on all important issues – religious choices, political choices, economic choices and life choices and … well … joining any organization called the Taliban or not.

A well educated population may become more centrist (a balance of choices) but you would have to assume it moderates divisiveness in some aspects. Extremism, of any kind and situation, is typically a reflection of some choice full ignorance. I abhor all extremism because of this self-imposed ignorance aspect.

And I cannot think of anything more effective in combating that then education at a young age.

A side note <albeit an important one>.

I would like to point out <just in case anyone may be misguided on this issue> Islam is not the one in disgrace in this situation. It is the Taliban. And they are not the same.

Islam is a traditional religion of peace and an extreme minority, the Taliban, has committed this act by twisting and, ultimately tainting, the essence of Islam.

I would hope that the true Islamic people will step forward and deal with this issue.

Anyway.

Malala. The fact that she is articulate, has a wonderful courage of her convictions, and outlines a concise vision of equal rights, education and opportunity clearly drives the point home for all of us to think about.

And … because someone has to go first … and she did.

It reminded me of something that the great Russian writer Lermentov wrote in one of his novels:

“We can no longer make great sacrifices for the good of mankind or even for our own happiness, because we know it is unattainable; and as our ancestors plunged on from illusion to illusion, so we drift indifferently from doubt to doubt. Only unlike them we have no hope, nor even that indefinable but real sense of pleasure that is felt in any struggle, be it with man or with destiny.”

Lermontov wrote this because he rejected this idea … and in the novel he had his hero, Pechorin, reject this passivity and, in fact, Malala rejected this idea.

As do I.

And I do not believe I am in the minority in this belief.

My point?

We should not seek to drift indifferently from doubt to doubt.

twittering amongst the big birds

October 9th, 2012

This is from a recent WSJ article:

“When General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt tweeted for the first time this month, his “Hello Twitter” was greeted with some snarky replies, including this one: “@JeffImmelt how come my grandfather got on twitter before you?”

In the same article:

A leadership expert thinks a CEO is shortsighted if they aren’t tweeting. That is former Medtronic Inc. CEO Bill George, a management professor at Harvard Business School <and avid tweeter>.

“Most CEOs should accept that social media is part of their job description.”

“People want CEOs who are real. They want to know what you think … can you think of a more cost-effective way of getting to your customers and employees?”

With all due respect to a Harvard professor … what is he smoking?

<that should generate some twittering>.

“Social media is part of their job.” ?!? <that was me in a thought bubble> I think that is nuts.

Unless my business leader wants to be involved with twitter, personally, I am telling her/him <me included as a business leader type> ‘don’t waste your time.’

I found the article fascinating because I know for a fact that today CEOs, heck, all company leaders, are constantly being hounded by their own people to join Twitter. Why? Well, because they aren’t:

Seven in 10 Fortune 500 CEOs have no presence on major social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Pinterest and Google+ (source: CEO.com and analytics company Domo).

Among those who do, 4% have known Twitter accounts and 8% use Facebook under their own names, according to the study.

Now. As a counterpoint … 34% of all Americans are on Twitter and 50% use Facebook (same source).

My conclusion? I still say ‘don’t waste your time.’ <unless you & your friends are already on twitter>

There are a hundred different ways a leader can be accessible or ‘real’ or “authentic” or ‘human’ or whatever characteristic you have in your pea like brain that a leader should be. And ‘cost efficient communications’ is … well … silly. Just because it is cheap doesn’t mean it is the best quality decision. But that may be an entirely different post.

Anyway. I struggle to think 140 characters is what is going to make people think someone is more real, authentic or human.

In addition … I think people confuse the issues by using words like ‘human’ or ‘authentic’

In addition … I continuously believe we confuse “social” and “business” .

Social is social <crazy me … but isn’t that the reason it is called ‘social media’?>. Business is business . What employees, and the business world, desires are not social words but rather business words that explain “why the fuck are they making that decision and don’t they know how it affects me!?!” <and not “hey … the party I am at has escargot <snails to the peons in the mailroom>.

We want leaders to (a) make the hard, difficult decisions and (d) <because that first is actually a, b and c.> show that you are in touch with ‘me’ <the little guy> on occasion.

… Yes … please note that I wrote “on occasion.”

No employee seriously believes a leader has time to be with the troops every day let alone typing out 140 characters <ongoing … because twitter is a dialogue not a megaphone> to share the serious stuff.

And the non-serious stuff?

Heck. I really, honestly, don’t want to hear about their social life. It does not make them any more real to me as I hear about their relaxing in some Monte Carlo casino or Marlin fishing on some yacht in the middle of the Caribbean or how they went to their ‘weekend cottage’ or even the ‘blue collar’ … “I weeded my beet garden this morning.”

I want to know they are doing their business shit … and doing it well.

I learned this a really really long time ago … great leaders are not always liked by everyone <the corollary to that is … well … no one is always liked by everyone>. That doesn’t mean they go out of their way to be disliked by everyone. They simply realize that most people will ‘kind of’ like you <and not really care about your human side as much>:

- if the employees feel like they are being fairly compensated

- the employees are being fairly involved in the success of the company <assuming there is some success>

- the employees feel like the company is secure <the leader is making the difficult decisions well>

- the employees feel like they are listened to if they have something <important> to say

<note: a leader can, and should, do all of that and not via twitter>

Anyway.

Here is where Twitter really doesn’t work <99.9% of the time> for leaders … the difficult decisions can absolutely be summarized in 140 characters <we did “x” and it is good for you> but it cannot EXPLAIN the difficult decisions.

Heck. It cannot explain the semi-difficult decisions. And if you cannot explain clearly you get questions. And questions foster rumors. And rumors foster people not working and instead gabbing and tweeting amongst themselves and, in general, a lot of non-productivity.

Look.

I am all for twitter and I think it is a neat social tool for in the moment quick give & take but I also know that even I do not have time to use twitter properly for myself <given everything else going on> and absolutely would not have time to use it properly in managing any organization that is , say, maybe over 50 employees.

Yes. There will be exceptions.

I would argue that the exceptions are driven not by the individual but rather by the company, i.e, what they do to make the organization run all day long <it is different for an online sales business than a factory production line business> & what is its overall culture.

Most leaders <not just Fortune 500 comapanies> just say they are too busy running a company to spend time posting 140-character messages to Twitter and/or retweeting posts <amen to that>. The GE leader could have <thank god he didn’t> tweeted back … “is your grandfather running a billion dollar company or was he tweeting from the golf course this morning?” <note: this is an example of why it is good I don’t tweet>

Sure. There may come a generation of leaders where the involvement of twitter is so integral to their every day DNA that when they actually become a leader it will be … well … not a tool or a tactic nor something they do that makes them more ‘real’ or authentic but rather simply a part of who they are. But <yeah … there is a but>.

Here is my bet.

How you think about things is different between before you get there and when you get there. I believe the next generation of leaders will find they don’t have the time, or there will be more effective means of communicating what they want to communicate, once they actually reach the Fortune 500 CEO <or leaders> slots.

In the end I believe we confuse socially connecting and business connecting. And planning how to make someone sound authentic kind of sounds to me like sending someone to a Sincerity Class.

Now. To be clear.

I firmly believe that today’s leaders have lost a sense of how important organization culture and organizational behavior ‘feelings’ are as they solely focus on the balance sheet. And I firmly believe more of today’s leaders don’t have to be more human, or real, but instead simply recognize they have real humans working for them.

I just do not believe tweeting is the answer to either of those things.

let the bout begin

October 5th, 2012

Alright, time for me to write about the first American presidential debate.

Of course, me being me, I am going to look at the first American presidential debate very differently than all the talking heads on tv are looking at it.

I will let everyone else debate on who won the debate and the excruciating dismantling of each word. Mostly because it was such a mosh pit of he said/she said partial/selective truths which was incredibly annoying and in the end I believe the everyday person had no clue if either told the truth.

Anyway.

What fascinates me is watching what I perceive as two significantly different debate strategies … not ideologies <although they are lurking their within their debate strategies>. And what may make my point of view different than others is:

- I don’t know diddly about politics or debate strategy so I have an unfiltered business <or sports> point of view on what I saw., and

- I truly believe that despite what we all feel about politics and politicians there are some very very smart people thinking about everything that is being done and said and that there is very rarely anything done without a purpose. Anything. Even a perceived disinterested participant.

That said.

Here is what I believe.

Both campaign teams know this is a 3 round boxing bout (with an under card bout). And I think both campaign/bout handlers know exactly what they are doing and the candidates are delivering on a 3 round strategy <no matter how the talking heads want to tear apart one as if it is the end all be all>.

Let me take on the biggest elephant in the room … for example, while we may not have seen the presidents ‘A game’ I do believe he did exactly what he was asked to do by his Angelo Dundee.

Anyway, that is what I believe and here is what I saw.

To me I saw the Raging Bull (or ‘strong like bull’ if you prefer) strategy versus the Muhammad Ali strategy.

Attack, deflect and create doubt (with an eye to knockout) versus absorb, counterpunch and show unshakeable confidence (with an eye to knockout) strategy.

The Romney debate strategy is former and president is latter.

Both extremely viable strategies.

Both really smart strategic plans of action for the appropriate candidate.

Let me begin with the Romney Raging Bull strategy because it was executed flawlessly in the debate.

First.

Attack.

Relentlessly attack.

The Republican trainer told him before he went into the ring “you need to win this round on punches” and “don’t come back to the corner with any punches or energy left. Leave it all out there.”

Now. Here is what truly made this strategy effective in the first debate. The trainer had Romney commit to a brilliant opening psychologically driven tactic.

Intellectually we all know it is an open debate of ideas.

However, psychologically, when the president is involved, there is an additional dynamic. Psychologically we expect our president to be treated with respect so no matter how you prepare yourself for it the first attack, the ‘he was wrong’ or ‘he wasn’t smart’ or ‘he didn’t prioritize correctly’, we bristle. We don’t like it and maybe even get a little angry at the attacker (unless you are Rush Limbaugh of course).

Now. We get over it in a debate, but the first punch hurts.

The republican trainer had Romney rip the band aid off fast and quick and early (opening). He punched the president right in the nose as soon as he stepped in the ring. Painful? You bet. But he got it out of the way and paved the way for a full 40 minutes or so of attack. Well thought out. Well done.

After that it was all about landing punches … didn’t have to be good solid punches but be relentless, don’t give him any space, just keep punching … because something will land and even if they don’t it doesn’t give him any openings to attack.

And attacking played to his strength. Romney is an excellent debater and excellent when the subject is one he has prepared for. His weakness is the unforeseen. He sometimes struggles <and gets flustered> when things aren’t going as planned. Therefore the Romney team avoided the semi-impossible task of guessing every question or possible punch and created the platform for him to win – attack. Just get out there and say what you want to say and what has been scripted.

Oh. They also told him … ‘on anything else? Do. Not. Say. It. <and don’t even think about saying it>.’

Next.

Deflect.

His trainer told him “I do not want you to absorb one punch. Not one.”

Romney was brilliant on this strategic objective. And I mean frickin’ brilliant. It didn’t matter whether the president counter punched with a real truth, a half truth, a partial truth or no truth because whatever the president said the response was “that’s not true” <or ‘you are wrong’>.

He deflected.

And when he actually decided to go on the attack again by counterpunching he simply selected whatever one aspect he had a script memorized on. He slid the punch and counterpunched on his terms. Slightly aggravating to the viewers because that meant he didn’t actually answer the questions but, to the Romney team, it was about punches. And after a while the president simply stopped punching because even he recognized he gained nothing as no matter what he said all people would remember is “that’s not true” every time he said something.

The other brilliant aspect was that it kept the dialogue on parts and not the sum of the parts <brilliant>.

Parts:

Would he increase deficit? Of course not. Never.

Would he cut taxes for the rich? No.

Would he cut back on America’s future investment strategies? Silly, of course not.

Would he raise taxes on the middle class? No.

Would he roll back regulation? No <if it is smart>

Would he cut education? Never <they are our future>.

Sum?

<p.s. – they cannot all be true and add up. It really is arithmetic>

Brilliant. Well played.

Now.

As a truth person I hated the strategy. As a strategy-to-win person I thought it was brilliant.

Lastly.

The trainer told Romney, after he told him he needs to win the round, remember, whatever happens in the fight itself when in doubt you counterpunch with the objective to create doubt in the president – his words, his actions, his knowledge of facts – so that people just aren’t sure about the overall current plan and leader (of course the ultimate hope is the president may even show a crack of doubt or regret at some point for some past decision when I assume Romney would have pounced – rightfully so).

Stay on mission. Whatever you do stay on script and create doubt on whatever he says.

I am not sure that last objective was achieved but that’s not the point. It was the strategic vision. And I think whoever (the Romney Raging Bull trainer) designed the strategy deserves a cocktail.

The risk?

The risk is partially energy (like a real boxing match) but the debates are so spread out (although it does mandate a high level of energy every round) so I believe it is really about rhythm. You only have so many punches. The risk is he slips into some rhythm that can be read before the punch comes or he slightly revises the punch <going slightly off the practiced script> and leaves a big opening. Or he simply runs out of punches and the champ is still standing and has some whoopass punches left. But Romney has a lot more punches he can throw than the president can. Any challenger in a tough economy does. In addition he has the benefit of selective hindsight … punching past actions without having to defend his own actions. And when an economy is doing poorly the challenger has a simplified attack stance as he punches … no need to explain the case of what is wrong … everyone knows <but it is an easy punch to throw if you are suddenly backpedaling>. All Romney has to say is: “I can do this job better than that.” Look. It is always easier to look back and say “stupid, why did you do that?” when no one knows what you would have done in that time and place. But that’s how the bout is fought. Raging bull won a lot of matches. He can win.

- The proof that my theory may be right?

Romney is a bottom line business guy through and through. I would probably love him running a troubled business. I do not doubt for one minute he is a compassionate man but all business leaders have a switch. A switch where it ain’t personal … it is business. And you have to do that sometimes <as a business person>. I imagine he is ruthlessly effective at dissecting past actions of others, revise and improve moving forward. And I tend to believe his business credentials show that this strategy is a mirror reflection of what takes place in a boardroom. What makes him appealing is that when cornered he really doesn’t know how to play politics … he is a business guy. He knows people are involved, and he cares about them, but ultimately he is about making the right business decision and believes the happiness of people will follow. This strategy is perfect for him.

Moving on to the president.

The Muhammad Ali strategy. To me this was the most interesting.

Because while I believe the raging bull strategy was very easy for Romney to implement I believe the Muhammad Ali strategy is a little more difficult for the president to implement.

I believe the democrat Angelo Dundee told the president “remember champ, this is a 3 round bout, not one, and you are the champ, he cannot knock you out in this round, so this round you absorb every punch he’s got. Let him give you the best he has. You will probably lose this round. That said … I only want you to come back at him if, and only if, you think you can put him down on the mat. Other than that, suck it up, absorb what he’s got and just give enough counterpunches to see what else he’s got.”

Well. The president did what he was asked.

Flawlessly if not painfully. He was pushed on the ropes and took a battering.

He used counterpunches to show he was unshakeable in his beliefs on his plan. He used counterpunches to show aspects of his vision. And, yes, there were some openings (albeit not many because frankly the relentless attack was pretty relentless). But if the criteria were “only if you can put him down” then he did what his trainer told him to do.

Let me give a hypothetical, but realistic, example.

The Democrat team is in the bout strategy room and someone says “okay champ, when you get an opening you swing from the hips with the 47% punch and rock him.”

Everyone says ‘hell yeah.’

The republican Angelo Dundee, sitting in the corner with a twisted sweaty towel, clears his throat and growls … “do we know his counter punch if he slips it? … think about this … the other guy says ‘I am glad you brought that up Mr. president because I owe America an apology … especially the 47% but 100% of America. I was wrong to say that and I apologize. I am for 100% of America, have been, and always will be. Please accept my apology’ … all said looking directly at the camera and 67 million people” <plus youtube & media the next day> … Angelo takes a deep breath and then says … “Champ, you can’t ask him if he was flip flopping or changing his mind or even lying … he just apologized to 67 million watchers and 250 million Americans. That punch misses.”

Silence in the room as they think.

(He lets the room ponder that for maybe 30 seconds as he sips some water … clears his throat and turns directly to the president)

“Champ, you can throw that punch if you want, but you need to get your hands up quick to protect your jaw because you know for sure that immediately after he has looked directly at the camera and apologized he is going to turn to you and look directly at you, in front of 67 million people, and ask you ‘is there anything you would like to apologize to America for?’”

He doesn’t even let that one sit in the room but immediately reminds the entire room “in round one the champ only attacks with a punch that will put him on the mat. Let’s move on.”

Someone give the republican Angelo a raise.

Now.

I do not think this was easy for the president. And while some viewers thought he was disinterested or making notes I actually think he was writing something like “remember to take Angelo out to the woodshed, if Michelle doesn’t, and kick his ass for making me do this.” Because while I believe this is a great strategy for a champ it is not an easy one for someone who wants to fight.

Which is why I believe the president was at his best in the closing comments.

He basically got to finally come off the ropes after being battered for 40 minutes and say “I took the best he has, I am bloodied but still standing here, I am unshaken and confident that my plan is the best for America and its people.”

He got to say to Romney “if that is the best you got you, you didn’t hurt me <and you are screwed and should be worried because I am not going away>.”

I am not sure the president can do this strategy, for personal pride reasons, for one more round and wait for the third to finally come out swinging. Well he could, and maybe should, because strategically it is quite possible <although he does need to find some openings in round two to score some solid points> but I think personally this strategy is very difficult for him to take. But if his Angelo Dundee could convince him … I would. Muhammad Ali was one of the best strategist and counter punchers of all time. He waited. And waited. And watched. And waited more. And by taking the best shots and still be standing he gained confidence, he gained some respect, and then he used all he learned and won.

Now.

I think the Democrat Angelo Dundee is going to give a different strategy to Biden … I think he is gonna tell him “go out and kick the young whipper snapper’s ass and feel free and be a jerk about it. Win us the old white folk.” But that is a different post.

Anyway.

The risk here? You can’t deliver the knockout punch in the last round. It’s all or nothin’ in the 3rd round and by this time all of America that will ever even think about voting is watching.

67 million will look like frickin’ peanuts by this debate.

And he has to win by TKO or KO. You are too far behind in points to simply win on points. You need to put him on the mat a couple of times or out for good. It puts a lot of pressure on the champ. But those are the moments champions are defined. Mohammed Ali won a lot of bouts this way. But he did lose some matches. The president can lose.

- The proof my theory may be right? Well. The democrat strategy was exactly the same during the republican primaries. People were jumping up and down saying “why aren’t the democrats defending themselves?!?” as the republicans used the president and the administration’s plan of action as a punching bag. The administration just absorbed the punches and unshakabley kept on keeping on. And then they came out swinging. Time in and time out by biding their time they got the ammunition they have needed for the counterpunch uppercuts. They have used this strategy before.

In addition … the media is actually throwing the punches for him as he rests in the corner for the next round. All the talking bobbleheads are sitting around talking about all the things he could have punched Romney with. Gosh. Romney won the round on punches but the announcers are all talking about the quality of the punches and punches the President could have taken. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … kinda smart that the president didn’t have to bring them up.

Someone knows their shit in the democrat camp.

Okay.

If I am right, I actually believe these strategies are a reflection of the choice America has and they were outlined pretty clearly in the debate:

- Romney. Aggressively attack the short term issues and deflect the long term (not ignore it but the priority is “create jobs now”).

Private, private, private <with some delegation to states>. Now. I don’t really believe he believes this but this is the message. But he is certainly a believer in unfettered <or minimally fettered> capitalism. Let me use healthcare as an example because it is such a lightning rod.

When people hear him talk the people are confusing state rights and his business acumen. In his heart he wants 50 small businesses managing America. It is irrelevant they are called ‘states’ he just believes that businesses generate effective bottom line and effective cost-efficient solutions. That may be an extreme generalization but that is the core of his belief.

- Obama. Absorb the best punches (issues) we are given and create an unshakable future (this doesn’t suggest ignoring immediate job creation but the priority is a solid foundation for the future).

Balance, balance, balance. People don’t like to hear it. Romney message is a lot easier to grasp. The president pounds away at selective governmental assistance and encouragement of private sector innovation. It ain’t sexy and it ain’t just talking about jobs. The president, using business acumen as an example with regard to healthcare, suggests Massachusetts was a new product test market which can now be rolled out nationally. From a business perspective the president philosophically is actually pretty close to a national franchise business model.

Please note that both are viable approaches with pluses and minuses on each. But do not be fooled into believing one system is better than the other. They are simply systems. It is always the people who manage the systems over the long term (not just a year or 4) that make or break either of those business models.

That’s my thinking.

Oh. And who really wins if I am right? The media and whoever covers the third debate. Viewership will continue to increase as the Obama strategy is to guide everyone to the last round of the bout. Especially if the second round goes the way I think it will <a purposeful draw>.

And, actually, I imagine the candidates do also. In a very close race the last debate becomes the make or break moment.

I am sure a lot of people do not want to agree with what I just wrote but, remember, a lot of these yahoos have Harvard and Princeton and a whole bunch of high falutin’ degrees. They may not be in touch with what happens around the average American kitchen table but that doesn’t make them dumb. They know their shit.

And rarely is something happening that they haven’t planned … they just don’t tell you their plan <that is the Bill Belechik acumen I believe>.

I look forward to rounds two and three … and the undercard also.

global citizens

October 2nd, 2012

“… mobilise thousands of ambassadors for change. We’ll unite around a simple yet powerful idea: that by giving every child a chance to thrive, our generation can end extreme poverty.” - the Global Citizen website

Global citizenship is a big concept but I am going to focus on the UN Millennium Goals and the recent Global Citizens Festival in Central Park.

I probably should have made this into 3 separate posts but I just watched the festival and wrote out all my thoughts into 3 sections:

- Global festival music

- Global festival presentations

- Global Citizen poverty & education Initiative

Global citizenship is pretty self-explanatory … it is a basic premise is that people all over the world should come together as one and practice justice, equality, diversity and a mutual respect for the earth & its population. In the UN’s words:

- Development and poverty eradication – We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want. We resolve therefore to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.

The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed on by world leaders at a UN summit in 2000, set specific targets on poverty alleviation, education, gender equality, child and maternal health, environmental stability, HIV/AIDS reduction, and a ‘Global Partnership for Development.’

If you are not aware of the Millennium Development Goals take a minute and visit the following sites. The first outlines the specific Goals as well as does a very nice job outlining the pragmatic steps to address them and a report of performance to date <some businesses could learn a lesson with regard to how they do this> and the second link is the formal declaration itself.

UN Development Programme: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html

United Nations Millennium Declaration: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf

Before I get to thoughts inspired by the festival let me say one thing.

I imagine the everyday person probably has no clue what the United Nations actually does <in a practical sense> as well as wonders about its value … and both are a shame in different ways.

If nothing else the Millennium Development Goals should explain the value of the United Nations. Please. Please take a minute and look.

I am not asking you to actually take action other than read. Because awareness of issues is half the battle. And, who knows, you may find one of their goal initiatives is something you have a passion.

Okay.

The Global Citizen festival in Central Park. Beyond the fact I want one of their incredibly cool tshirts there were some things to note. Some fun things, some practical things and some inspirational/aspirational things. Here you go.

global citizen music

The concert was scheduled around the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. I was really impressed by how the organizers used an innovative approach to ticket distribution so that many of the concert-goers had no choice but to learn about the global citizen issues/initiatives such as polio, child mortality, education and clean drinking water. The neat idea was that anyone wanting free tickets had to register at globalcitizen.org, which then required users to watch videos or read information about poverty-related issues. Each time material was clicked-on, users could earn points toward a drawing for tickets. Points were also accumulated by sharing information via Twitter or Facebook. Well done. Very well done.

It all added up to five hours this past Saturday in New York City’s Central Park with 60,000 people – and more using a web and television simulcast — in an effort to draw attention and action to the cause of eradicating extreme poverty around the world.

There were not a lot of bands at the Festival but the ones who played killed it. Just killed it. I know that bands have off nights and other nights when they are on … and all were on this night.

The acts were silent about the cause but in their short, maybe one hour, sets <or less> they just ran off a strong of really well performed songs.

Four songs from Band of Horses provided some surprisingly grunge/crunchy guitar rootsy music. Very well done. Then the Black Keys. I am not a huge Black Keys fan but when they burned their way through fourteen songs in fifty minutes they made me rethink how I felt about their music. They were tight … really tight. They were so tight I wondered whether the Foo Fighters could maintain the quality level.

Well. Now that I have seen The Foos live I know they are good. But they absolutely killed it, killed it, in their set. They had their full line up <supposedly because there are claims this was their last performance> and they kept their heads down in a no-frills straight forward alt-rock in your face guitar onslaught and just frickin’ rocked the place.

This was a nice rendition of Times like These: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abt8Z8dcPdM

The festival closed with Neil Young & Crazy Horse who gave a characteristically ornery performance basically just coming out and playing as if there were no audience. But, as he and Crazy Horse blistered their way through Powderfinger, I was reminded how much I loved Neil with Crazy Horse. While most people believe their first album together, “everybody knows this is nowhere” was their best album my favorite remains Zuma <with Cortex the Killer on it>.

And when they performed “The Needle and the Damage Done” the set became an instant classic.

Great music for a great cause.

And, most likely, because of the format with long presentations as the sets were traded out, is the reason why the artists did their thing without a lot of preaching.

Their job was to entertain and they did.

If you didn’t watch you missed some excellent live music performances.

global citizen speakers

So.

If I were a betting man I would bet I was the only one who watched all the speakers during the simulcast <excepting the guys who managed the speaker’s microphones>.

In between the roughly hour-long sets by the headliners, there were dozens of speakers from foundations, charities, and corporations. The speakers also included celebrities like Olivia Wilde, Selena Gomez, Sophia Bush and Katharine McPhee. They also used videos, highlighting the wide range of poverty-related causes from malaria and polio to education and maternal health, to introduce the speaker topics.

Really well done.

Okay. The videos were really well done .

The speeches? Well. It was a mixed bag. And, of course it reminded me of a variety of things with regard to presenting.

But let me begin with the best presenter.

And she is only 20 years old.

Selena Gomez speaking on behalf of UNICEF was outstanding. Better than the 40something+’s speaking at other times and pretty much everyone else.

She communicated passion without ever raising her voice, was clear & succinct and delightfully mature.

Selena Gomez: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnDI0COPfC4

Well.

I seriously doubt any older speaker will ever watch this video <despite the fact they should> because a young person could never teach them anything … and that is a shame. But, having said that, please make sure if you have a tween or teen you show it to them. I know I will use her, and this speech, as an example to young people in the future.

60000 people <not really there to listen to speeches>, in an outside environment with a global web & television simulcast and with no ‘uhms’ or colloquialisms she was herself <probably the number one defense someone uses for presentation colloquial mistakes> and delivered what she had to say in a quite understandable way.

I cannot name one song she has ever sung or any movie she has ever been in but I now know she can present.

Regardless.

All the presenters reminded me of how difficult it is to present to a group of people.

All presentations really can get boiled down into 2 important aspects:

- Figure out what you want to say

- Figure out how you want to say it

All the other mumbo jumbo on ‘tricks to effective presenting’ is irrelevant if you don’t figure out these two things. In fact, I would argue you could throw away all the presentation books if you figure these two things out.

What you want to say sounds simple but it is not. Because inevitably you get caught up in ALL the things you want to say, prioritizing what you want to say and getting what you want to say down on paper <or whatever format you elect to organize the presentation>.

All I can say for sure is that you need to put it in a document or a script. Without it you cannot edit. And without editing <unless you are Bill Clinton> you are screwed on the second aspect.

Next.

Figuring out how you want to say it.

Okay. Let me tell you a truth, a fact, a ‘something no one really wants to hear.’ 99% of the time what you just figured out to say will sound like crap if you just read it as a presentation. Maybe 99.9% of the time. Writing & speaking are two different skills. They may be derivatives of each other but one typically does not translate directly to the other.

There were presenters at this festival who were obviously reading their presentation script off a teleprompter <which is a skill in itself by the way> and it sounded obviously stilted and in some cases like it was the first time they had heard these words out loud. Thankfully for them most of the 60,000 were either looking for a Port-a-Pottie, seeking a beer stand or cheering for the next band to take the stage. However … I watched. It was disappointing.

And the issue wasn’t because they were reading a script <another complaint young people throw around when arguing they want to be ‘natural’ when presenting>. It was the script they were reading. They wrote something that sounded good in their head when they read it … but sounded stupid when actually saying it. By the way … that is why rehearsing is important <what happens between aspect 1 and aspect 2>.

Why does this shit happen? Well. Let me give you 4 thoughts <beyond the obvious lack of rehearsing>:

- Forced rules of behavior

All the things I am going to type drive me crazy but maybe this one the most. These are the ‘rules’ like … you cannot stand still, or you have to move, or you can’t have your hands in your pockets, or … well … just go ahead and pick up a ‘how to’ presentation book … they will list all the ‘don’t rules’.

Nuts.

I just say ‘nuts’ to that.

Selena Gomez has her hands in her cardigan pockets just stepping up to the microphone and delivered. No one cared she wasn’t using her hands. Why? Because they were listening to what she had to say. As a generalization all the ‘how to present’ rules are stupid. If you have something good to say, and you say it in a compelling, believable, likeable way, the rest of the stuff just gets in the way. It’s all about the message. If you know, and like, your message just deliver it in as comfortable a ‘behavior’ style you want.

Nuts to all the book rules.

- Forced passion

This one drives me nuts too. It’s kind of like speaking with exclamation points hoping the exclamation points travel through the ether between you and your audience and pricks them in the ass to make them stand up and yell “hell yeah!”

Some people shout. Some people create sentences which they purposefully amplify the end. Some people shake a fist, or pound a table or make some ‘exclamatory’ gesture just so everyone knows they are passionate about whatever they are talking about. Sometimes they don’t really want to but someone suggests “show them you are passionate” and … well … the wheels start to fall of the good presentation wagon.

Well. It’s all forced.

And it’s a shame because most presenters are actually passionate about something related to their topic. And they don’t need to be overt to communicate it. They just need to share their passion in whatever way they exude it.

Selena Gomez? I had no doubt in my mind she was passionate. And all she did was talk. She said how she felt and what she believed. And you know what? I believed her. And I may have actually gone to my computer and done something if I wasn’t stupefied/mortified by the guy who took the microphone from her and tried to ‘infuse energy’ into the discussion <most likely because he didn’t feel like she was ‘energetic’ enough>.

Here is the bottom line. If you care, it will show. You need not tell someone you are passionate. In fact … here you go, a rule. Never say in a presentation, meeting or discussion … “I am passionate about ‘x’.” Prove it without ever saying it.

- Forced relevance <or forced theme>

I almost split this into two but they are just two sides of the same coin. In an attempt to make their topic relevant to either the audience or the environment <you can choose either> a presenter can go to some fairly absurd lengths.

They can use a joke which isn’t really relevant until you explain why.

Or you can do what an Australian presenter did by featuring a Men at Work <because she & they were Australian and she was speaking at a concert> lyric and stealing a word to thematically build energy to encourage people to act <”just like Men at Work said … they should hear our thunder!”>.

Well, let me say this, 99% of the time if you are using a joke or come up with some forced relevance it means you are working too hard. Go back to the simple first aspect and think about what it is you want to say. If it isn’t compelling or understandable, a joke or forced metaphor or forced semi-topical linkage isn’t going to help. In fact it can hurt. How? Because it is extraneous. And extraneous things and activity tugs the audience away from what you really want them to remember and say. I don’t usually get aggravated over this one instead I just get frustrated that the speaker doesn’t trust the topic is interesting enough, and it can be presented interestingly enough, to simply present it.

At the end of the concert I guess I was just surprised how bad <overall> the speakers were. Having never spoken at an outdoor festival <but I have been on the stage itself> I cannot imagine the level of nervousness standing in front of that microphone. My guess is your first inclination is to shout to be heard <thank god musicians learn that they do not have to very early on> and get thrown a little bit by the fact 90% of the audience is obviously, noisily, doing anything but listening to you. But that is no excuse for the level of performance.

Excepting Selena. She stood out. Very well done.

global citizen education

I left this to last because of all the Millennium Goals they discussed at the festival this is the one nearest and dearest to my heart – global children’s education.

<and I will update this post with the UN video on poverty & education when it becomes available because it is very well done>.

First.

Some numbers:

Total number of people that live on less than $2.50 a day 3 Billion

Total percent of World Populations that live where income differentials are widening 80%

Number of Children that live in Poverty 1 billion

Total Number of children that die each day due to Poverty 22,000

Total Number of School Days lost to Water Related Illness 443 million school days

Children around the world who are presently being denied an education 67 million

Total number of Americans that live on less than $23,050 annually <family of four> 46 million

Poverty & education is not just your country’s issue but also a global issue.

If you would like to read more about Children Out of School visit my post:

http://brucemctague.com/global-generation-10-115-million-children-out-of-school

Second.

I am always pleased when people recognize that education can play a crucial role in alleviating poverty. Because I believe most of the people in the West associate a ‘broken education system’ as the key issue and not poverty. When a community, in any part of the world, is living in poverty or even simply struggling economically, it is often the first thing to be overlooked.

In unstable living environments and communities education can often take a back seat as the health and safety of families takes priority, and rightly so, but this doesn’t mean that education should be ignored.

Today’s world doesn’t really have the time nor space for workers who cannot ‘read, write, and do arithmetic’ as well as find and use resources, frame and solve problems with other people and continually learn new technologies. Realistically the education challenge facing the United States is not that its schools are not as good as they once were but rather that schools must help the vast majority of young people reach levels of skill and competence once thought within the reach of only a few <and hopefully also opening minds to the ideals of a just and civil society>. When looked at his way the issue is similar everywhere globally.

But before you can even talk about teaching, or lessons, you need to discuss access and ability to attend.

Richer developed countries, where people are most able to afford to send their kids to school, provide an education at least through secondary school for free (some through university) yet poor countries that are full of people living at closer to poverty levels charge a fee for at least secondary school if not primary school as well.

For those of us in places like the US or UK going to school is a normal part of life, yet, for kids growing up in many developing countries, going to school is a luxury reserved primarily for those living above the poverty line. For instance in Pakistan, almost half of children from poor households are not in school, compared to only 5% of children from the richest households (UNESCO).

For those families living in poverty whose kids are in school, further barriers continue to stand in their way. Many rural villages lack access to schools. This leaves communities to either create makeshift schools in their homes, old buildings or in open spaces with unqualified community members stepping in as teachers, or to send their children to walk long distances to and from the nearest school each day, or to simply not send them anywhere at all.

These are just two factors that contribute to the 67 million children around the world who are presently being denied their basic human right of receiving an education, 95% of whom live in developing countries.

For those lucky children who manage to make it into a classroom, many of them are still leaving without a good education. The 2011 Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report reveals that millions of children in low-income countries are leaving primary school with reading, writing, and numeracy levels far below what is expected for their age group. Overcrowded classrooms, lack of teachers, high teacher absences, and lack of teaching materials are a few of the circumstances that contribute to problems we see in places like Pakistan where nearly two in three rural school children (aged 6-16) cannot read a basic story (March for Education).

Without providing a good education for these kids in developing countries to equip them with the skills and qualifications they need to be able to get a decent paying job, we risk the chance of trapping them in a never-ending cycle of poverty.

In addition it deprives the global community of a rich intellectual entrepreneurial/innovation opportunity.

While I don’t necessarily agree with HOW they are going about addressing this issue I absolutely 100% agree it is a key issue that needs to be addressed. Therefore in this case I believe any action is better than none.

Speaking of ‘good actions’, I am not sure this is part of the UN initiative, but I really like his program Credit Suisse is doing. It is extremely pragmatic but in its pragmatism it ‘drags’ the basics <reading, comprehension, critical thinking, and arithmetic … even ‘working well with others’ values> through the process. I may steal it <use it> as an example of what I envisioned as the ‘on-the-ground’ aspect of Project Global Generation.

Regardless. Here is a short video of the Credit Suisse Global Citizenship Education program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_potMotM9M

Anyway.

There is a great paper written by some professor who pointed out some things about the education system relevant to any education system but particularly relevant as we think about poverty-stricken areas:

In the united states <and most western countries I would assume> our public schools have evolved historically as organizations serving two potentially conflicting purposes: to educate citizens and to process them into roles for economic production. To accomplish the first, schools have the role of supplying students with information and with learning skills. The results can be unpredictable because children’s intellects and skills develop in ways that we cannot predetermine. For the second goal, schools process students through stratified steps leading to predictable, marketable credentials for the workplace. The steps, and some of the outcomes, can be managed, controlled. Thus the school is organized to be in conflict with itself.

In the context of global social responsibility, the issues of livelihood and work need to be examined. We in the industrial world associate survival with employment. This association is being forced on other cultures as the global economy establishes dominance. But we must not forget that employment for survival is a relatively recent concept. It has not always been this way, and there are still parts of the world where survival is not based on working for someone seeking a profit from the labor of others. The conflicting educational purposes of jobs vs. citizenship can be alleviated if we encourage students to consider the social and environmental impact of the work they do. Jobs need not be about extraction, devastation, pollution, over-consumption or exploitation. It is important to remember that for thousands of years humans lived with sustainable relationships to nature and only spent a few hours of every day for their own subsistence. One of the purposes of technology was to save labor. By doing so, technology has been used to eliminate people’s livelihood, i.e. their jobs. Instead, it could be used to simply reduce the amount of time people have to work to support themselves and their families.

I admit I partially included this because I do believe the use of technology in education inherently can reduce to the amount of time to educate <thereby increasing the amount of time needed to survive> and ultimately reduce the amount of time people have to work to support themselves <and increases the amount of time to family>.

Last thoughts.

Poverty is a tough issue for people to practically grasp <easy in concept>. Mainly because, to many, it is so far beyond the simple “have” versus ‘have not.” Unless you actually understand what life in poverty truly is it becomes very easy to misconstrue the true issues with regard to education.

What I do not believe is difficult to grasp is that education is a strong weapon to kill the poverty cycle many families get stuck in. and, once out of poverty, these young minds become productive global citizens.

Selfishly … I hope we solve this poverty problem so these young minds can save us older people from what we have currently wrought.

Sorry for the long post … I probably should have broken it up but hopefully you found something in here worthwhile.