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?

instinct

April 6th, 2013

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquis

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure .

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

3 thoughts for the day

October 18th, 2012

This will be my American debate post <although there are some Life lesson thoughts buried within>. And, as before, I will permit the paid media to dissect what seems to be every syllable, not just individual words, performing a surgery to uncover intent versus what was actually said. I would tell all those media surgeons one thing … 50% of the people watching the debates say <in polls> they would not vote for either candidate.

Okay. Without tearing apart anything here are three thoughts with regard to what I saw <without any massive overthinking but simply using a note or two I jotted down during the actual debates>.

Thought 1: subtle acts of graciousness

The last President debate. In an otherwise 90 minute workmanlike display of negativity and attacks there was a subtle moment of graciousness.

Extremely subtle and will be continuously overlooked because of the importance of the moment <so thank god I am here to point it out, huh?>.

This was during the now infamous Libya/Benghazi embassy discussion <did he actually say acts of terror or not and despite the fact he actually said it did he mean it … all of which is crazy …>.

The president had just finished his ‘Hollywood moment’ <”that is not the way we do it”> and Governor Romney went on the attack because he was sure he had caught the President in a lie.

We need to remember this is a highly emotional moment for the president. Politics aside he was also actually delivering a state of the union sound bite on “don’t fuck with America”.

The Governor turned directly to the president and said “so … in the Rose Garden you actually said acts of terror?”

The president knew exactly where the governor was going. The president knew the intent and the inevitable next phase. In a debate this is where you can actually see the jaws of the trap closing.

Let’s be clear. You don’t always get these moments and nor do you give them away.

The president’s initial response … “move along governor.”

In an incredibly subtle act of graciousness the president, in a highly emotionally charged moment, held the trap open for a moment and was giving the Governor the opportunity to think for a second … and even avoid the trap if he decided to. He suggested to his competitor that this was not a path he should pursue.

- Note: I envision in that moment, no matter how brief it actually was, someone in the Democratic debate team backroom was screaming at the President “what the f#@% are you doing !!??!!”

People can tear this apart but there is only one way to view this. Instead of pouncing on an opportunity he instead offered to give the opportunity away.

That, no matter how you elect to define it, is a gracious act on an incredibly important stage.

Now.

In the heat of the moment the Governor missed his opportunity <although I believe he sincerely thought he had caught the President in a ‘puffery’ moment and I am also willing to bet some aide who either had not shared the transcript or had convinced everyone that ‘the president wasn’t being literal’ – which is dancing on the head of a pin type reasoning – got a well-deserved smack on the head afterwards> and got trapped.

I will admit that I extremely disliked the President’s “could you repeat that” comment after the trap had closed as unnecessary gloating.

However, in the end, I made note of the subtle act of graciousness.

I believe it is often the moments within the moments, the subtle things, which show you the true measure of the man (or woman).

Does this mean he now gets my vote? Nope . Just means I respect him for the subtle act of graciousness he offered a competitor in a heated moment.

Thought 2: invested spectating

The heck with the debaters … watch the invested spectators <and it is difficult on a number of levels>.

Michelle Obama, who has been through this gauntlet before, is a stoic rock. Absorbing whatever she sees and hears <although I envision many of Dolly Madison’s finest china has met their demise against a white house wall on occasion as she vents some frustration afterwards>. Ann Romney, who hasn’t been through this gauntlet, looks like she has swallowed an entire glass of milk … that has gone bad. Tagg Romney <one of Mitt’s sons>, in one of the most delightfully honest moments of candor, stated he wanted to go up on stage and take a swing at the president <noting he doubted the secret service would permit him the opportunity>.

Michelle Obama has equated watching her husband in a debate like watching her child doing a balance beam routine. With all due respect to Mrs. Obama <who I do admire> she is selling the challenge to her and Mrs. Romney, and all the truly invested spectators <family> short. There is an intellectual aspect in which integrity, honesty & character is combined with the concern for the physical aspect <the mental agility> necessary to be successful on the stage in this event. This is not just like watching a physical event where there is some failure to perform aspect but there is an emotional aspect that tears at the bond you have with someone you love.

A retort between candidates means that someone you love, are married to, been brought up by, etc. is having their character questioned <and let us be very very clear on this … both of these men are good men with strong character & passion for what they believe is right for America>. But I really do believe it is worse for the invested spectators than it is for the debaters themselves.

I say that because I do not see two men who dislike each other. I see two men who sincerely believe they have the right ideas and who are passionate about their ideas and are, well, competitive to some extent. Within the game itself athletes who are good friends will rip each other’s heads off and yet have beers together that night. Do I believe they are that close? Nope. But, frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised, if re-elected, if the President would ask Governor Romney to be part of his cabinet.

All that said … I do not believe any of what I said about the athletes in the actual game itself makes it any easier on the invested spectators. Especially because it appears from the outside looking in that both wives seem to have special relationships with their husbands <which I wish more people would take note of … because it is also a measure of the man we are voting for> and uniquely have what is, frankly … an enviable bond.

I like the fact that Ann Romney, who has adult children, seems to try and have them around as often as possible. I envision it is a natural support group during some extremely difficult personally challenging moments as her husband is being challenged <note: I am not suggesting she is not a strong woman but rather I don’t care how strong you are this is a tough situation>. I think this says a lot about her as a mother and wife.

I like the fact Mrs. Obama doesn’t involve her younger daughters at debates <and, frankly, I hope she doesn’t let them watch them> but she seems to have her brother there with her … which says a lot about her as a mother, wife & the importance of family. I imagine it is one way to help her get through what she has to endure during a debate.

I guess I am writing this thought for two reasons.

First is that I admire Michelle and Ann for a variety of reasons but also to mention to people that the debate is not just about two candidates but extends out. What they say, heck, what we say, during and afterwards has impact deeper than I believe we can ever imagine <so maybe more of us should think about what we actually say about these candidates personally>. I cannot envision ever putting my own family through something like this.

Second is that while I love a good debate, and discussion, I couldn’t do what they are currently doing. I am no smarter than either of these two men and I know that if my wife started discussing how what the other person said attacked my character … I would immediately begin thinking about what I may have said that would have suggested a lack of integrity or honesty to them. And the possible discussion that is taking place in their living room. I couldn’t do it.

Negativity is a cruel sword to wield.

It demeans and diminishes. And not just the person you are attacking but those who have invested in that person.

Thought 3: math

This is about managing a deficit … or budgeting … or however you want to phrase this … and politician math <which is nothing like the stuff you learn in 3^rd grade … it is sketchier … closer to say theoretical physics>.

You would think that doing the math with a revenue and expense ledger would be simple <what comes in equals what goes out>.

But. Here is a truth, a fact as it were, neither of the American candidates <or any politician in any country for that matter> will ever honestly tell you – the numbers do not add up on any national plan.

Yup.

Read those words and weep.

Because there is a wacky variable called ‘the economy’ that impacts both. The better the economy the more revenue <taxes> and less expenses <government assistance>.

That said … neither the Romney plan <whatever it actually is> nor the Obama plan <whatever that is> mathematically works <there is a headline for you>.

Ah. Until you tell us how much you are assuming the economy will grow. There’s the rub.

Mitt is optimistic.

Barack is cautious.

To make the Romney math work <because he seems adamant about not increasing revenue> there needs to be a significant uptick in jobs, and the economy overall, oh, and quickly by the way.

To make the Obama math work <because he is adamant about attacking the deficit and is assuming the economy stays relatively slow> there can be modest economic growth.

There are other significant things I could use a comparison between the two but as a thought for the day I was just tired of the whole math thing.

I won’t tell anyone which path to like and subscribe to … but I would suggest everyone read a Wall Street Journal editorial column <Putting Fiscal Policies Under the Microscope” by David Wessel : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444657804578048433223646530.html> as they think about it. Basically this guy suggests politicians are always more optimistic with regard to the affect they can have on an economy than actually occurs.

Ok. Gotta get back to having more thoughts. Enjoy.

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 campaign ad and website I want

October 16th, 2012

The pettiness of the American presidential campaign has brought me to a place where I am now going to give them both, candidates, candidates’ teams and parties, some unsolicited advice.

Here is the campaign ad that should be on air from now until the election:

Just one commercial <and hopefully we can stop wasting gobs of money running petty negative messages>.

Obama and Romney side by side (you could film it at the debate) and Obama says “I endorse this message” and Romney says “I endorse this message.”

<note: I am not a copywriter but someone could certainly script this for a voice over>

“We are tired of the petty back and forth in the campaign and all the wasted ad dollars and believe you deserve better. We believe you need to make a choice … and we are each offering a distinct choice. Therefore we are from this point forward simply sending people to www.obamaromneythechoice.org where we have outlined a side by side comparison of the choice you get to make. Please remember to vote.”

Here is the ‘obamaromneythechoice’ website:

Some background.

For years I have been in a business where we have had to figure out how to clearly define what we offer for new business purposes (sometimes failing but we have lots of experience) so that someone, who is seeing multiple providers basically saying the same things, can clearly compare the provider options … and make an informed choice.

That said I will suggest a simple format that they can both follow so everyone can have a side by side comparison.

- Challenge to be solved.

- Solution/plan to be provided.

- Expected results.

That’s the basic framework. It’s a simple case study/problem-solution format. Smarter people then I can ensure we have the proper nuances within each ‘challenge to be solved’ so there are some clear comparison points and enough of the “American issues” are listed to address the big stuff.

Oh.

And I want a short term result <within 3 years> and a long term result <what infrastructure this is setting up for a future America.>

And.

I will give them a vision page. And not some lofty “better America” <because for gods sake if they don’t have that then maybe they should move to Russia> but rather a “here is what I believe our issue is today” and “here is what I believe a healthy America looks like.”

I know. I know. That last one is tricky but here is the deal … each party & each candidate has a very clear vision for America … and you may not have noticed but they are very different. One has a milk formula and one has a vodka formula. I don’t know why they dance around them but somehow someway they just need to belly up to the bar and not play politics and simply state what they believe.

That’s my unsolicited advice.

What that means?

No more meaningless debates <for the media to slice & dice and each party to feel even stronger about the same things they have believed since day one>.

No more big advertising campaigns <so maybe we can give some teachers raises>.

Oh.

The only other piece of advice?

Add a “none of the above” box on the ballot. Not a write in box … just a “I do not want any of these candidates” box.

I guarantee the highest voter turn out ever seen in America.

And maybe politicians will learn something bigger than the electoral process and the belief “one of the two parties has to be voted in” after it is all said and done.

Because I will tell them a truth that they may not want to hear … if politicians believe they can put off making fiscal policy decisions <which is their job by the way> until someone gets elected then they should begin believing that the public may actually decide they didn’t offer us the best choice and we will put off selecting one of them.

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.

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.

1855 and 2012 (or … an Open Letter to My Generation)

September 19th, 2012

Dear My Generation <us older folk>,

Ok. I feel like we need to have a talk. Not just a talk but maybe a ‘talk talk.’ You know what I mean. Now. I am going to avoid the “am I better off today” topic but suggest in an open letter to my generation that we may not be in an economic crisis but rather a cultural crossroads. And I may suggest that we need to quit complaining and/or blaming and step up to the plate. Anyway. It seems like we get so caught up in ‘how bad – we feel/perceive – it is today versus yesterday” we overlook this period in time may simply be an example of painful well-needed progress <oh, isn’t all progress painful?>.

“Progress? The history of all times cries loudly against it.” – Immanuel Kant

Note #1: Versions of this thought were recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Note #2: The idea that we are bad, and getting worse, feels remarkably comfortable across cultures.

Note #3: My generation seems to be crying loudly at this time.

This thought is also true for each generation’s belief, or nonbelief, with regard to our views on human nature and its prospects. Most cultures have a myth of a golden age from which we are in decline, but in the absence of evidence on whether the state of nature was violent or utopian or truly golden or gold plated.

Note #4 <or rather a question>: so … is much of our current angst about the world simply a reflection of the fact attitudinally we change, progress, is painful … as well as difficult to see while within the moment?

Ok.

What made me think about all of this?

I had some beers the other night with a bunch of guys in my generation <old white guys … I am also an old white guy>. Prior to beer I was fairly optimistic with regard to the world and when I left I had a sense of several of the following:

- Armageddon is upon us <at least the old white guys>

- The world is crumbling around us <and it is mostly Obama’s fault>

- America is a pansy in foreign policy <we should be killing, crushing, smothering someone … yet to be identified but it should have already been done>

- The Islam slur video on youtube is simply an expression of freedom of speech

- Cats & dogs are living together <but cannot be married>

- We are doing nothing but complaining, bickering and blaming someone else

Personally I find it difficult to discuss progress when most people I hear think we are headed to hell <in a hand basket> and want to complain someone should do something about it or just blame someone for it.

Regardless. I am gonna try. Because I need to tell some things that are on my mind to my generation <us older folk>.

The truth is that all times are changing times. Times of moral and mental transformation whether we like it, or want it, or not. When what is viewed as simplicity by looking in a rear view mirror looks like chaos when viewing through the front windshield. What everyone knows is true becomes only wht some people used to think.

In the end? It is unsettling. For all our delight in innovations and impermanence we also long for the unalterable. We cherish old stories for their changelessness.

Oh. And media is doing its part to feed this frenzy. As retired General Wesley Clark said on a Sunday interview … “isolated multiple incidents involving the few being highlighted by the media creates perceptions of overall chaos.”

But the media is a different post for another day.

Now, I am not suggesting we shouldn’t look around with concern … albeit I would rather call it a ‘crossroads’ rather than the more popular ‘C’” word … a crisis. Because, yes, things are changing, but, yes, they are always changing.

That said … I am reminded by Rousseau: “let us begin by setting aside all the facts for they do not affect the questions.”

The question is why we are so certain the world is going into a shithole <or into chaos … or … in a crisis … pick your poison>.

Attitudinally I suggest this is partially what Gregg Easterbrook calls “the progress paradox.”

It suggests that frustrations rise with our expectations, and make us feel worse while we are actually getting better. Political interests, and media, deliberately exaggerate bad things. But it doesn’t explain the joy we seem to gain from seeing our glasses as half empty.

It is difficult to explain but I am not writing to do so … only to make the point that while we gnash our teeth about what is going on today … we have this in common with any culture and any generation you would like to query <you may need a medium and a crystal ball to ask some>. Every age produces prognosticators who declare it is worse than what came before. They might turn out to be true but within the moment it is always difficult to say whether one is declining or progressing.

It is a see saw of challenges and new innovations.

Robert Bork suggested <in an otherwise unreadable book of despair>: “every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must be civilized.”

Despite being poetic he has a point. We learn from history and we ignore history.

Each generation wants to create a unique identity … which means you begrudgingly assume things from past generations /history. All that said the true thought is there to be found … for moral clarity for each generation we need to conserve the bits of decency left. For it is within a sense of decency we can see the progress within the seeming chaos.

Part of the difficulty in doing so in times like these is that we tend to feel better when we assume the worst.

Huh? Yeah, But It would be too easy to suggest optimists may spend their lives being disappointed while pessimists spend theirs being pleasantly surprised <although I do believe there is an element of this>. Plus. If you buy this then it suggests my generation is simply a generation of pessimists … and I refuse to believe that.

Optimists or pessimists, good or evil … frustrated or just simply believe “these are the worst of times” I will take a minute to let my generation read two items from the mid 1800’s. I included these thoughts to show some words that I believe resonate today. In fact, take the dates off and they could appear in NY Times next week:

“The dream that this young land, fresh from the hands of its Creator, unpolluted by the stains of time, should be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven … has passed away from the most of us , as nothing but a dream. We yield ourselves, instead, to calculation, money making, and moral indifference.” – 1855 magazine writer

“it is an affair of instincts, we did not know we had them: we valued ourselves as cool calculators, we were very fine with our learning and culture, with our science that was o no country and our religion of peace … and now a sentiment mightier than logic, wide as light, strong as gravity, reaches into the college, the bank, the farmhouse, and the church. It is the day of the populace; they are wiser than their teachers. The interlocutions from quiet looking citizens are of an energy of which I had no knowledge. How long men can keep a secret! i will never speak lightly of a crowd. We are wafted into a revolution which, though at first sight a calamity of the human race, finds all men in good heart, in courage, in a generosity of mutual and patriotic support. . We have been homeless, some of us, for some years past … but now we have a country again. This affronting of the common sense of mankind, this defiance and cursing of friends as well as foes, has hurled us, willing or unwilling, into opposition.” Ralph Waldo Emerson 1861

The late 1850’s into the 60’s was a time when the men and women, an extraordinary cast of characters in leadership & influencer roles, find themselves at a crossroad of new ideas–about medicine, commerce, economics, technology and justice. It was a time in the world where proponents of the old ways fiercely battled those with progressive minds.

A time when the intrigue, the ideas, the questioning and tension raise the level of global change.

Sound familiar?

So.

A couple of points here:

Every generation feels like it is worse than it was before.

Every generation struggles to link past analogies to the present <because we inevitably always err on the side of thinking today is significantly different than yesterday because of ‘progress’ innovations>.

All that said let me share some bigger overarching thoughts relevant to the overall angst I believe my generation is feeling … because our beer conversation reminded me of several things:

- In America, in particular, we constantly struggle in the hollow space that lies between a self-interest mission and an idealism mission. Kissinger suggested America will always be tugged in 2 directions with its foreign policy.

1. Domestic ideals: A strong sense of what is best for America (within its boundaries as primary focus and secondarily its actions outside its border).

2. Mission of ideals: A strong belief that part of our mission is to encourage and support our “freedom of choice” ideals (regardless whether there may not be a direct self-interest reward). How about calling this ‘supporting the progress of our ideals internationally.’

A thought for my generation. These two things are not always aligned and yet our actions may still be right. Regardless. We are a country with a strong set of ideals of which are not defined by dollars and cents. The dollars and cents have always been defined by the ideals. Yes. Let me say that again to my generation … the dollars and cents have always been defined by ideals.

There is good well earned money and then there is … well … money. Notice the people who stretched the rules to make their money defend it as “money is money.” They are wrong. It may all look the same but it doesn’t feel the same. I say that because it is up to my generation to remember the ideals … and the fact we are NOT the world’s peacekeeper … we are the world’s ideal protector. Inside and outside our borders we stand up for the little guy <or gal>, the medium sized guy and the big guy wherever and whoever they are to protect the ideals. And I mean wherever and whoever. We refuse to let ideals be bullied.

I am a business guy. So let me try this on for size. If it isn’t about ideals then aren’t we just a commodity? My generation needs to put their wallets and any bias toward some religion in the drawer for a minute or two and check their ideal pulse. Cause if there is no pulse we are doomed.

- We constantly struggle with the perception reality gap of minority actions and majority truths (and I have a longer post coming up on this). Despite how it sometimes feels we are not driven by the lunatic fringe which is in the minority. The minority…the radicals, the psychopaths, the greedy, the morally inept … is just that … a minority. As a subset of the minority/majority paradox we constantly struggle with discerning the lunatic fringe from the voice of progress in the fringe. And the lunatic fringe is often sneaky making it difficult to discern. Think about Ron Paul or even Jesse Ventura. Or almost any radio talk show host (right or left). One moment lucidly insightful next moment loony crackpots.

Regardless I would suggest to my generation that we get our heads out of our collective asses and realize we are smart enough to not be fooled by some sound bite or inflammatory statement as some foolhardy fact but rather think … yes … think. Progress takes work and thinking. Therefore, the foolish voices of rage within some silly minority faction nor the silent majority of the sheep are relevant to us because in thinking our way through it ultimately we will be able to offer a clear voice of reason.

- We constantly struggle with immediacy and patient thoughtfulness. We burst into a desire for immediacy and decisiveness (which we sometimes confuse with immediacy) to right a wrong or to get something done. And yet we are unforgiving in the retrospective “blame game.”. We seek to blame. We seek the quick response. We seek self-interest. We seek hope. We seek dignity and decisiveness in our actions. We want decisive quick leaders in a complex (sometimes confounding in our attempts to unravel it all to find truth).

I would suggest to my generation we are of an age where we have run the gauntlet of hasty foolish decisions and wasted opportunities dithering over this & that. In our wisdom we should realize that while our leaders may be ‘better’ than we in some form or fashion they are also derivatives of us … having run the same gauntlet. We are smart enough to know that some decisions should be made quickly and some should be made patiently and that typically the person who knows the most <which would not be us by the way … it is them> will make the best decision possible. Will it always be right? Of course not. But the blame game is wasted energy … for us & them.

- We constantly struggle, morally, between how to act on what is versus how we believe it ought to be (I have an upcoming post on this called redefining mortal clarity). I am not really sure it was that much better when we were young but I sense things were fairer … people played by the rules more often and people did the ‘right thing’ more often. Regardless of what I sense, or don’t sense, what I do know is the foundation of a moral clarity is “we” … not I. Because at the heart of moral clarity is some decision of self sacrifice, i.e., what I am I willing to sacrifice <a me thing/benefit> in this situation so that I honor the “we” <either in ideal or actual benefit>.

I could have suggested to my generation that the struggle is between I and we but instead I took it to a higher level and suggested we explore our collective moral navels <please remove lint> and decide what we want to be teaching our future generations.

- We constantly struggle with looking backwards and forward progress. We are at an age where it is sometimes simpler to look back than look forward. We assess all the progress that has been done in our lifetimes (and desire to maximize it in some ways) rather than dream of the unseen progress to come.

I suggest to my generation that no matter how fond you are of some memory or ‘how it was’ or ‘how we did it’ you cannot go back. Ok. You can … but you ain’t gonna get anyone else other than some old folk to join you. Progress is forward. We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater but we need to stop slowing everyone down looking backwards. It’s done. Move on. Help progress or just get the hell out of the way.

Ok.

Interestingly all of what I typed <aspects of it> may be why every generation believes it is not as good as what was before. In reaction we seek the decisions made and not the process that led to it.

So, my generation, we need to take a step back and quit whining for someone to show up and magically clean our house <assuming you actually own one> for us.

We may prefer clean <and clarity> but the world is a messy place. It always has been.

My dear generation … regardless of how you feel on this topic <we are going to hell or every generation has felt like they were going to hell> we ultimately are forced to focus on progress and moving forward. It is inevitable. And all this blaming and dickering silly backwards gilded age gazing is irrelevant. In fact it is wasting not only energy but also what we actually have to offer to progress. We are the Prophet (Idealism) archetype <Straus/Howe archetype> generation of wisdom to future generations.

the caption is not mine but the future is in the picture

Yup. Future generations. Sorry, my generation … but, no matter how narcissistic we may be, our reward, and the inevitableness of progress, is not self-interest.

It is our Children.

Practically speaking children give us a stake in the future <and a desire to see it doesn’t end up in hell>. Whether we want to believe progress is possible … in the end … you cannot possibly raise, or educate, children if you believe it is not possible.

So, my generation, maybe it is time to grow up.

It is time to battle calculation, money making, and moral indifference.

It is time to remember that which we desire … be the home of freedom and the race of men so manly that they would lift the earth by the whole breadth of its orbit nearer heaven.

It is time to insure we do not regress but rather progress.

Please.

Sincerely,

One of the <older folk> Generation.

stepping up

September 7th, 2012

Ok.

This has to do with voting … and what you do with that vote … and, well, getting involved.

I am calling it stepping up.

And I want to begin my thinking by sharing something I would like to give credit to a Fareed Zhakaria interview on his show (but this is a guess because I was remiss in writing down the source when writing the thought):

Interview Q: What is the greatest threat to the united states today?

Answer: 1. Radical Islam. 2. China. 3. Congress.

Interviewer Response: No. it is when the best people refuse to get involved. When the best women and men we need to fight those three threats listed above stay on the sidelines. That is our greatest, and gravest, threat.

I agree.

The biggest threat America faces today is the best people stay on the sidelines. They do not get involved. They just won’t step up … or step in to the game.

What do I mean?

Stepping up part 1.

Scarlett Johansson (and I assume some younger republicans did the same I just didn’t see them) didn’t call it stepping up but she certainly, in a charming slightly nervous way, suggested people had a responsibility to be involved … at minimum … by voting.

She is correct.

And I worry about this. Because I do not believe voter turnout will be as high as 2008 <or let’s just say as high as it should be>. And that our best people will stay on the sidelines. And not just the smartest but the young.

Frankly … the young are our best. Best hope. Best future. Best whatever word you want to add.

And I fear they either:

a.) don’t care because it is just politics, or

b.) have decided because they did vote in 2008 and they didn’t see the change they hoped for … that voting doesn’t matter (or create change).

I will partially address b. in stepping up part 2.

My concern was crystallized when I was at the gym the other day and they were showing video of the Clinton speech. Of course because it was a gym there was no sound but there was good ole Bill dominating the screen and gesturing <his lips were moving too>. A young 20something and a mid20something stopped for a moment and said “I wonder what happened and what Bill Clinton is talking about.” Whew. I don’t think they are a minority. They had no clue the conventions were going on and frankly could care less even if they did.

And this is where I give celebrities who get involved with politics a break.

Not all celebrities are as articulate with regard to their thoughts as Eva Longoria or Dave Grohl … but who cares. They are stepping up and suggesting people who are involved with their celebrity status <who think they are cool> to step up and be involved in the discussion and issues. You know something …. I could care less if it is shameless borrowed interest if it gets people off the sidelines.

Scarlett Johansson says “I am not going to tell you who to vote for…I am just telling you to register and vote.”

Amen sister.

Obama even said in his speech with all the noise it becomes easy to tune it out …even he gets tired of it. Americans, in general, should never feel so helpless that they believe their vote doesn’t matter. Whether they are on the winning side or the losing side it’s about participating and not standing on the sidelines.

This goes double (ok …exponentially) for the young people. We need people involved in the election and the choices that need to be made. Get off the sidelines. Because frankly you are our ‘best people.’

Ok.

Stepping up part 2.

Obama did an interesting dance on this part of stepping up in his speech. And it is a dangerous dance for a politician.

In fact he teetered across the line once. He used a phrase in the “book of banned phrases in marketing” <no … there is not really a book> … the phrase is ‘personal responsibility.” In other words … he actually suggested in a nationally televised speech that people, yes, people had some work to do.

Fortunately I am not a politician.

Therefore I will talk about personal responsibility.

No marketer/company uses the phrase in communications.

It is typically the kiss of death.

People do not want to hear it.

nowadays it seems like the concept of personal responsibility <or 95% of it> gets transferred with the cash in the transaction. In fact … if you can find a black light and hold up a dollar bill under it I believe you will find that the Latin ‘E Pluribus Unum’ <which means ‘out of many, one’> on the dollar bill actually says “this transfers responsibility to you once you accept it.”

Sure. As soon as a person pays cash, writes a check and, yes, pays taxes they want “goods in return.” Uhm. With no if, ands or buts … or added responsibility.

What you may not realize is that exactly the same time … all the while … every company is screaming and banging their heads against the walls somewhere in the depths of their organizations saying “if you use it, maintain it, prepare it properly it will be better, last longer, taste better, cost you less in the future …” <even Coca-Cola wants to scream at the bonehead, who complains despite having only spend 100 pennies that his Coke tasted flat, that maybe if you had chilled it slightly rather than drink it close to boiling temperature it may have tasted better>.

You see this supplier desire to tell you this in any service industry and many goods industries … healthcare, pest control, automotive, pharmaceutical, etc.

All want to scream that if you do stuff <something> you will find higher value.

But. That is asking someone to do work when they have already paid something.

Most times companies get sneaky even if they have the brass balls to come close to the issue. Ritz Carlton outlines personal responsibility in their credo “ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentlemen.” They are saying “yeah … you are paying me a shitload of money to be a guest here and I will bend over backwards to serve you as you deserve … but your responsibility is to act like a lady & gentleman.”

Regardless.

That is the personal responsibility aspect in a consumer goods & services example.

But this isn’t about when you buy something or even whether Barack should or shouldn’t have used the “phrase that typically doesn’t pay” but rather this is about truth and personal responsibility and stepping up.

Yeah. We pay taxes. And it is painful.

And at the same time we are sometimes quite flippant with regard to “your tax dollars at work.”

Well. Dollars don’t work on their own <at least I haven’t seen a bunch of them chugging along all by their lonesome making shit lately>.

Voting is one stepping up … assuming some personal responsibility.

But just because you voted (or didn’t vote) doesn’t mean you are done (sorry).

It is an ongoing “we” thing. I have been struggling to find the right word to use here so I will use the harshest wrong word and then backtrack – we have become lazy.

And I don’t mean in a working hard way of lazy … anyone struggling is most likely paddling hard. This is solution to problem lazy. What I mean is that we want someone to do something to just make it right. We vote.

We say “ok, we voted you in so fix it.”

And then we wait for it to be better for us.

So.

Lazy isn’t the right word (but it sure got your attention).

Maybe it is impatient or “immediate satisfaction” directed. Look. A government policy, or initiative, is just that … a government policy or initiative.

What we do with it is up to us.

We can use it to our advantage, abuse it in terms of self interest or ignore it assuming we will benefit at the effort of others.

You are not done just because you voted.

Do not misconstrue “bigger government” for “they are going to do it for me.”

The easiest way to insure less government involvement? Step up. The more we the people do the less a government will do. it is exactly like a see saw <despite the fact each party wants to suggest the other wants to weight one end of the see saw>.

Any government (republican or democrat) recognizes government is an enabler. And, just as in life situations, enablers are involved in different degrees depending on the situation.

And what is the most important factor in deciding the degree? The one who is being enabled (and ultimately how self sufficient their sustainability is).

My friends … this is a ‘we the people’ thing. That is personal responsibility.

That’s us continually stepping up.

Thought I would just remind us of that.

It ain’t just gonna happen. We need to be involved. And step up.

Is it work? Sure.

Is it maybe harder in an already hard life? Sure.

Is there a reward? Sure. And it is not just money. It is that whole citizen thing Obama talked about. I didn’t like the way he used the word but his point is, and will always be, valid in America.

We are a unique country with a unique character … complex intertwining of just do it and we the people. And in the end we are as separate as fingers yet one hand <Booker Washington reference> raised in a fist of pride, dignity, honor and integrity.

It may sound like patriotic tripe but in the end … we is what we is.

And we like it. And we like feeling it. We just gotta step up and do it.

Which means we may have to do something we do not like … assume some personal responsibility.

E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: global collaboration and learning

Enlightened Conflict