Enlightened Conflict

the price of the tempestuous sea of liberty

May 14th, 2013

 

Well.liberty freedomnotfortimidthumb

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

 

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

 

First.

The actions committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were cowardly, heinous and unforgivable.

Four people dead and over 150 wounded.

Second.

This is certainly not the first time that homicidal killers have attacked a major American city.

In 2002, Washington DC was terrorized by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, an unhappy police officer murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles.

I would also note that on the same day as the Boston tragedy I believe 30+ other people were killed in America because of some type of violence.

Now.

I say this not to diminish the Boston tragedy but rather instead to suggest we fight this battle every day.

We are constantly at war with those who attack liberty.

 

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

 

We cannot allow ourselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the threat of terrorism.

We cannot allow fears for temporary safety permit us to be timid with liberty.

It would be easy to begin increasing restrictions, surveillance, and oversight of the citizenship under the overall <good> guise of safety.

I do believe people deserve to not actually feel safe … but also to be safe. But I say that also with an eye toward ‘we cannot always be 100% safe.’

It can easily go beyond punishing everyone for the evil transgressions of a few to punishing the foundation of liberty. We should be seeking to remain vigilant without superseding liberty.

 

Liberty is not for the timid.

 

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.” – George Washington

 

American liberty, democracy, is all about the freedom of citizens to speak their mind, choose their leaders, demand their rights, be entities in their society and be different <think and believe different thoughts>.

Now … democracy, to be truly effective, must be rooted in the hearts and souls of each individual within that citizenship.

But here is an uncomfortable <and unsafe> truth.

Within a citizenship of over 300million people not only are the roots going to vary <depth & breadth of belief> but also the simple meaning of democracy <how it is defined> will be different in each individual.

Some will abuse it.

That is a fact.

That is an unfortunate truth.

That means people will get hurt on occasion.

And that also does not mean we can deprive people of liberty because we ‘think’ they will abuse it.

Yes.

This is difficult.

And it makes you feel unsafe even thinking it.

There is risk in democracy and liberty.

Because this means we need to stop seeing ‘enemies’ everywhere … even though they may truly be everywhere.

 

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

 

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. liberty under_waterBut notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

 

A democracy seeks equality in liberty.

For good or for bad. The highs and the lows <of the people making up that society>.

I do not suggest this lightly … for death is a very high price to pay.

I am certainly not suggesting senseless sacrifice of life. Nor am I suggesting losing life through the ineptitude and irresponsibility of practical monitoring of the citizenship and its safety <note: I am not suggesting that anyone did that in the Boston tragedy>.

Nor am I suggesting any perpetrators of violence should not be pursued to the full extent of the law.

I am suggesting that sacrificing life for liberty … well … that I, personally, would do.

Restraint and servitude are not characteristics of democracy and the liberty our forefathers foresaw for the country’s citizens.

Freedom means … well … freedom.

“… what we call freedom … it is necessary to determine the justice or injustice of this phrase. Try to draw a circle with the ‘free’ hand, and with a single line. You cannot do it of your hand trembles, nor if it hesitates, nor if it is unmanageable, nor if it is in the common sense of the word ‘free.’ So far from being free , it must be under control as absolute and accurate as if it were fastened to an inflexible bar of steel. And yet it must move, under this necessary control, with perfect, untormented serenity of ease.” <1905 Evolution of Expression>

The circle must be drawn with a strong hand. And, yet, it must be absolute and accurate true with its intent. The circle, drawn with intent, does not wax and wane with fear or the thought of ‘what could happen.’ It remains resolute in its space.

Restricting liberty is not, should not, be what democracy & freedom is defined by.

Will some people abuse a broad definition of liberty? Absolutely.

Should they pay the price for that abuse? Absolutely.

<unfortunately> Will others pay the price when those few abuse it? Absolutely.

Does that mean we should restrict liberty? Absolutely not.

 

Liberty is not for the timid.

 

Lastly.

The tempestuous sea.

That sea called liberty.

 

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson

 

liberty Tempestuous ThomasEvery day, week, year, decade … whatever … we are buffeted on this sea of liberty. That is the challenge liberty to gives us all. We get tugged this way and that way by waves of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but our intent is to remain afloat … and not sink. Sink to tyranny or fear or … well … lack of liberty.

 

“It is of small importance to any of us whether we get liberty; but of the greatest that we deserve it. Whether we can win it, fate must determine; but that we will be worthy of it we may ourselves determine; and the sorrowfullest fate of all that we can suffer is to have it without deserving it.” <1905 Evolution of Expression>

Oh my.  “… that we will be worthy of it we may ourselves determine.” Yes. We <the people> determine whether we are worthy of Liberty.

Regardless.

A mistake <to me>?

Seeking absolute calm or safety. And I fully recognize that we could end up debating what constitutes ‘absolute’ or ‘acceptable’ and what a citizenship deserves.

All I suggest is that we remember Liberty rarely equals safety or calmness.

It most often provides the turmoil of great minds and great thinking and … well … greatness.

Is it an uncomfortable greatness? Surely.

It is the greatness insured by not remaining stagnant despite the temptation to find some calmness in the tempest.

Not a mistake <to me>?

Freedom and equality.

Liberty is a choice. And with that choice comes some responsibility … and some broad boundaries … an expansive circle as it were.

And certainly some uneasiness within that wide open space … that tumultuous sea.

And unequivocally some fear because of its broadness.

In the end … the enemy of liberty is fear & ignorance.

Therefore to enable liberty there must remain the courage in all of us to accept it even with its imperfections.

Sadly the cost of having true liberty may be lives.

But the true tragedy would be if the cost of liberty was our freedom.

It seems to me that the biggest tragedy would be to have lost lives, which most likely embraced the full liberty America had to offer, as means to kill or restrain liberty.

Harsh words? Maybe.

But.

 

Liberty is certainly not for the timid.

I have met the enemy (and it is we)

April 17th, 2013

 

“There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. boston terror photo_by_hahatango_30107Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.” – Pogo Possum

 

Pogo was a cartoon strip character … an amiable, humble, philosophical, personable, everyman opossum. Pogo was “the reasonable, patient, softhearted, naive, friendly person we all think we are.” He was also the wisest (and probably sanest) resident of the cartoon swamp

 

 

Ok.

 

The enemy … as in … ‘we the people.’

 

What happened at the Boston Marathon was a tragedy … a tragedy of human kind more than anything else.

 

A cowardly act committed by a misguided soul <or souls … yet to be determined>.

 

Oh.

 

I would like to take a moment and remind everyone that on that exact same day:

 

-          -  The Syrian Network for Human Rights said 126 people had been killed including 37 in Damascus. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based monitoring group, said 130 people were killed. These figures and reports cannot be verified because media access to Syria is limited.

 

-          -  A suicide bomber in Peshawar, Pakistan killed nine people and wounded dozens more at a Pakistan election campaign rally attended by a former cabinet minister in the northwestern city of Peshawar

 

 

Next.

 

This event reminded me of two others.

 

 

-          – 1996: The Olympics in Atlanta. Two people died and 111 were injured after pipe bombs in a rucksack exploded in the Centennial Olympic Park. Eric Rudolph, an anti-abortion extremist, was jailed for life in 2003 after pleading guilty to the bombing.

 

 

-          –  2008: Marathon in Sri Lanka. A suicide bomber killed 15 people including a government minister when he targeted the start of a marathon race near Colombo in Sri Lanka. The bomb killed 15 people, including a number of runners, and injured 90 others. The Sri Lankan government claimed the militant group Tamil Tigers were responsible for the attack.

 

 

Why did I begin there?

 

Boston Marathon tragedy. It would not surprise me in the least if we were to find there was no foreign influence or nefarious foreign underpinnings but rather this was some wackjob misguided American<s> making some point.

 

That said.

 

The day’s events made me think several thoughts:

 

-          -   An individual with intent to harm will harm. Especially if they are cowardly. If they hide from their actions and hide what they want to do and hide how they will do it … they will find a way to harm innocent people.  I don’t say that to lessen the event or to suggest we shouldn’t be outraged when it happens … just that it can, and inevitably will, happen. The best systems in the world will not stop, 100%, an individual with intent to harm.

 

-          -    Events like a marathon, or any large sporting event, is staffed and are surrounded by very capable people to minimize the effect of large ‘intent to harm’ acts <I hope misguided wackos read that>. Their intent may be to destroy people … their will as well as their bodies. But in the end they will fail. The good of the capable rise to the occasion. And while devastation is … well … devastating. In the moment the doctors, the medical people, the firemen & police … step up to the plate and accept responsibility to manage the devastation and protect citizens from future & additional harm. Not every harmful act can be deterred or stopped … but they can be managed.

 

-          -    Words. Whew. Terror, terrorism … acts of terror. Pick your poison. Who cares? This was the first news media salvo in the war on words … ‘Obama strangely avoided the use of the word “terrorism” to describe the incident in his first comments hours after the bombings, even as White House officials were quick to call it “an act of terror.” But on Tuesday morning he noted that investigators were pursuing it as an “act of terrorism.”’

 

While politicians make every effort to distance themselves from the politics of an event like this <initially> you can almost feel them preparing the groundwork for the moment they can shift into politicking. Their biggest weapon? Words. They wield them like little armies trying to outflank the enemy.

 

My words?

 

It was a tragedy. A tragedy of humans. It is our job, no, our responsibility, to insure it doesn’t create terror. Eliminate the terror and it is not a terrorist act but rather simply an inhuman act. Therefore we do not seek to eliminate terrorists <who claim to have some cause> but rather we seek to eliminate the inhuman <who have no cause anyone would want to stand behind>.

In the end … terror gives them exactly what they want. Let’s not give them what they want.

 

-          -   News on TV. Oh my. Rarely have I been so disappointed in American television. Flipping channels you saw a battle of who could use the word terrorism first, who could speculate <with caveats> the most extreme and who could bludgeon you with whatever they had to bludgeon you with at that moment.

 

If anyone could use a lesson in “less words communicate more” the news industry is it. The American president used less than 3 minutes to say “we are not sure what happened or who did it and we will tell you when we do. Do not jump to conclusions. We will hunt down who did it.” The American news television have spent 30 hours doing that. The difference? News has filled the additional 29 hours and 57 minutes with speculation.

 

-             Where we go from here.

 

First.

The London Marathon official … “we will proceed … send a very clear message to those responsible we will not be deterred.” The Brits have it right. In World War 2 it was “stay calm and carry on” <as bombs dropped nightly>. America is still shocked by domestic acts of terror. It happens other places … not here.  We can either become a paranoid nation driven by fear of “what’s next” or a country that remains calm and carries on. This is our choice.

 

Second.

Unity and the blame game. I imagine I could have just said any actions which create division among Americans. It is a separate bigger thought but philosopher Leszek Kolakowski  outlined something called “the Myth of Unity.” He suggested that there is a type of unity created as the result of a crisis or shock. He also suggests that is an artificial façade of unity which cannot survive where a consciousness of moral and political crisis has seeped through and taken root. I imagine my point is that not all moments are created equal. We can use this moment as one to focus on ongoing unity or diminish it by reverting back to the divisive path we seem to be moving forward on. Once again … this is our choice.  

 

 

Anyway.

 

america one heartbeatAs I stated earlier … I would not be surprised if this was an American tragedy … Americans harming other Americans.

 

Terror these days is created by those close to home. Everywhere. Libyans harming Libyans. Pakistanis harming Pakistanis. Norwegians harming Norwegians. Americans harming Americans.

 

The list goes on and on.

 

We may seek to find enemies from afar … but most of them seem to reside within the confines of our own countries borders.

 

 

“we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.”

 

 

I apologize if anyone believes I am diminishing the tragedy by using a quote from Pogo. But we seem often to seek evil anywhere but where we are <because we believe in good and believe we are a good country>. And even while that may be so <that we are a good country> there will always reside a ‘not good’ minority seeking to find a voice – going to whatever extent they need to do so.

 

Anarchists called terrorism “propaganda by the deed.”

 

Events like this are measured by the deed <by us> and by the propaganda <by them>.

 

 

Ultimately I would like the propaganda to be focused on whatever absurd irrational attitude that drove their behavior. But I am an attitudes & behavior guy.

 

Anarchists, wackjobs … the cowardly … actually have some attitudes or beliefs that drive them to this act of behavior. If we attack those things maybe we can deter people from having the attitude that creates this behavior. That is called “enlightening the ignorant” in my little world.

 

Anyway.

 

I was thinking about this and just began writing.

 

My thoughts go out to everyone and anyone effected by this act.

 

 

 

the 20 things (almost)

March 13th, 2013

Well.20 things

There is a neat thing called the “20 Things” which is a little assignment this small consulting company sometimes uses with people they are considering adding to staff:  “What are the 20 things that have defined you – experiences, books, movies, people, travel, challenges, etc.” 

When a friend told me about it I immediately began scribbling down ‘things.’

It was surprising how fast the important ones are noted.

And how easy it is to “fill in” to get to 20.

15 signThat said … and me being quite comfortable not following rules … I ended up with 15. They show up in no real order except number 1 and number 15. I purposefully bookended the list with the two most impactful in terms of immediate and ongoing impact. 2 thru 14 can be juggled any way you want.

 

-          My grandfather

The greatest man I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. A simple kind man who honored integrity, kindness and truth above all. He taught me more about me, life and how to live Life <without overtly teaching> than anyone I have ever known. He remains my North Star for my life. I can only hope to be half the man he ever was … but at least he gave me something to aim for.

-          the pulled foul ball

Sports always came quite easily to me. And then I pulled a foul ball off a Tom Seaver fastball <before I struck out swinging on a slider which disappeared just before I was sure I had the fat part of my bat on it … hey … the guy did win 3 Cy Youngs …>. Regardless. I realized this was as good as it was going to get with me & sports. It didn’t mean I stopped sports … it just meant that I realized I needed to get going on the rest of my life.

-          The Hobbit

The first “real” book I remember. I devoured Hardy Boys & Nancy Drew until there were no more … but when I heard The Hobbit read to me during reading period in elementary school I entered a world of words & imagery & imagination … and thinking of ‘what if.’  It hooked me on books and reading and thinking. The first time I read The Hobbit myself I was still too young to see anything but goblins & elves. I have read it maybe 10 times and I still see new things every time I read it.

-          Diplomacy <by Henry Kissinger>

I wish I had found this book earlier in my life. On the other hand … I may not have understood it earlier. Kissinger writes about diplomacy but he is really discussing problem solving. I will suffice it to say one thing … “studying history is not analogous but contextual.” More people should heed this lesson. I certainly have learned this lesson.

-          Supertramp <my first concert, and more specifically, their encore song “crime of the century”>

I grew up in a house with music. But it all changed at my first concert and especially the encore. Maybe 10 plus minutes of music and film with a growing image of hands on prison bars in space … and I walked out of there in a thoughtful excited daze. I had words & notes & imagery imprinted in my brain from that point on as a powerful tool to inspire me to think in different & creative ways. Music has never left my life <and I have forgiven Supertramp for doing Breakfast in America>. Music and imagery is at the core of how I think and like to express myself <when it is possible and relevant to do so>.

-          Spike Lee

I was in my early 30’s in the audience when I heard Spike Lee say these words about his films … “I recognize everything I do impacts how people think … and even what they do … I have a responsibility every time I create anything.” It changed how I viewed what I did and actually how I did it moving forward. Basically … I began assuming responsibility for everything I created.

-          Choose the Right Word <by Hayakawa>

It was a professional gift. I cannot remember from whom <although I owe that person a huge debt> but when I received the book “Choose the Right Word” by Hayakawa my writing & speaking took on a different hue. A richer hue I believe.

-          St. Chappelle

I grew up in a home where we were expected to understand religious choices but was, in general, ambivalent to religion. I was always indifferently interested in religion. I imagine I just took a pragmatic view on life in which God didn’t really enter into the equation. And then I visited St. Chappelle in Paris <across the street from Notre Dame>. As I entered the petit chapel and the sunlight filtered through the floor to ceiling stained glass it is the closest I have ever felt to not only believing in God but actually believing I was in the presence of God. I am still not religious but I respect religion and I imagine, in some small way, I better understand how God can positively affect someone’s life.

-          Madman Across the Water

The first time I heard Elton John’s Madman Across the Water album I think I immediately stole the lyrics from the album sleeve. The words made me think. The words made me create images in my head. The words inspired me to try and create words of my own that made others think & create images. That album made me a “words guy.” Plus. Every song on that album was just darn good.

-          Suicide

I believe anyone who has been impacted by someone close to them committing suicide is never the same again. She was beautiful, kind and a friend. And she left with an entire life ahead of her. I imagine I felt like I did not do my part to show her what great things lay ahead of her. I vowed to never make that mistake again.

-          “I do not really care”

Graduate school. Case study. “Mr. McTague … what would you do?” Me? “Well … I do not really care.” Flippant careless response. It ended up on the front board for the remainder of the semester. And I should have been hung out to dry. I was technically correct … the point <of which I seemed to have grasped fairly early in business life> is that there are several ‘right’ or even ‘best’ solutions to a challenge … but I should have realized that words … and how you articulate an idea & thought … are almost as important as the idea itself. I vowed to never make that mistake ever again. A good thought can die if it is not articulated well.

-          “do not go gentle into that good night”

actually i can

I have a love/hate relationship with poetry. I am fascinated with how words can be put together in ways that make you feel something inside … but all the rules of ‘effective and proper’ poetry drove me nuts. It was so constricting for something that should be so free. And then I came across Dylan Thomas’ “do not go gentle.” Whew. I found my anthem. Some call it ‘bull in a china shop living’ I simply point to ‘do not go gentle into the good night.’ It isn’t about dying it is about living. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. It was a great lesson.

-          Polly

My first boss. A woman in a man’s industry <advertising> who was in a senior position … and did it her way. But with the flexibility to permit the next generation to flourish. She didn’t know shit about these new fangled computers that all the young people were talking about <this was in the 80’s> but she put one on every one of our desks. She could do the same thing by hand faster than we could do it on the computer but she kept sending us back to our computers. She mentored the youngest, guided the more experienced and managed everyone. She permitted individuality and built a team. Oh. And she set me up with her daughter. Anyway. She taught me how to be a boss and I was straight out of school.

-          Kiev war museum <although I could have put the Holocaust Museum here>

Perspective. Nothing provides perspective in life than viewing death. And not just ordinary death but death in the extreme. I cried in both of these places. I could pound out some horrible numbers on my keyboard that would make your head hurt to express this learning tangibly … but why?

Simply. I cried. Humans can be very cruel if they are not careful.
-          To Kill a Mockingbirdto kill a mockingbird

My bookshelves are strewn with books I value and love. It is tempting to list the best of the best because they all made a positive impact and have been reread time and time again. But when one book is simply ‘the one’ why invest energy overthinking. To Kill a Mockingbird is my ‘one.’ I fell in love with Scout … her words and thoughts and questions. I still ask the same questions looking at today’s world and think of Scout’s thoughts daily. Harper Lee showed us that sometimes a child can see clearer than the most brilliant adults in the world. Listening to the young reminds us of things we have forgotten and they can actually teach us many things through the simplicity of youth. Regardless. Everyone should read this book.

 

That’s it.

I had a bunch fighting for the 16 thru 20 slots but, frankly, they were just at a different level than 1 thru 15. I believe lists like this should be about quality and not quantity.

Now.

I reserve the right to add something if I simply overlooked it.

This is a worthwhile exercise for everyone. Everyone’s list will look different … and some people may actually have 20 worthwhile events/learning moments instead of just 15 … but who cares. It isn’t a competition. It is simply reflecting upon who you are as a person.

This exercise reminded me we are all architects of our own Life. While many things are out of our control … many things are ours to do … or not do.

Is my list done? Gosh. I hope not. “This I am today … that I will be tomorrow.

the ‘Secret’ ain’t really a secret

March 9th, 2013

Forewarning. If you like The Secret … and live by The Secret … it will be no secret at the end of this rant that I do not believe the secret is a secret at all. So read on at your own peril.

<from the author of The Secret>secret good enough

“To create the life of your dreams, the time has come for you to love You. Focus on Your joy. Do all the things that make You feel good. Love You, inside and out. Everything will change in your life, when you change the inside of you. Allow the Universe to give you every good thing you deserve, by being a magnet to them all. To be a magnet for every single thing you deserve, you must be a magnet of love.” ― Rhonda Byrne

 

<not from the Secret>

“Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality. Act, look, feel successful, conduct yourself accordingly, and you will be amazed at the positive results.”William James

 

Oh boy.

I am going to discuss <rant about> The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

secret happiness chase lifeIt really isn’t anything more than a reformulation of William James or even Norman Vincent Peale’s ‘The Power of Positive Thinking.’

Bottom line. The book to me? Tripe. Useless drivel.

Look.

If you want to do something good … well … go ahead and do it.

If you need a self-motivation “I am happy and love life” speech to yourself in the morning … then do it.

But.

Suggesting simply choosing happiness leads to success, well, that is flawed logic. And the whole “magnet for good”? … oh my. We could only all wish it were so easy.

Now.

While I can’t buy this tripe I do love the idea.

But.

C’mon. If it was really this easy wouldn’t we all have everything we truly wanted? <because that’s all we would think about … and I actually guess all of us have actually wanted to do only the things we want to do … and the things that would make us happy>.

Anyway.

The challenge with challenging a book like this is that it actually leverages from a simple Life premise … … that our thoughts <and ultimately – actions> are usually a reflection of our beliefs and attitudes. And if we want to change our reality then we have to change these beliefs and attitudes that shape our thoughts.

But it becomes easier to challenge when it actually suggests that there is a scientific premise <which is actually a made up premise> … that the ‘Universal Law of Attraction’ is a Law in which if you focus on something enough <I assume this is unhappiness as well as happiness> it is not only drawn to you but actually expands.

This made up law says ‘The Law of Attraction states that you will attract to yourself those experiences that match your beliefs: These beliefs then create your EXPERIENCE of reality. So focus on what you DO want, rather than on what you don’t want.’

Therefore <scientifically> you will not only get what you want … but you also get to live a Life only doing what makes you happy.

<insert a sarcastic “yeah … right” here>

First. There is no Law of Attraction. Not even a postulate or a theorem. Just a made up law <maybe that is it’s secret?>.

Second. You do not always get what you want. Anything. Experiences included. But I can reverse the logic and guarantee all the things you actually do, and like to do, you actually wanted to do. Reality looked at backwards will always appear closer in the “I wanted to do” mirror. And as for ‘attraction’? What a bunch of bullhockey.

The Secret is a power of intention/power of positive thinking a get what you want formula <also like Tony Robbin>.

Here is the deal.

It will “work” for some based on mathematical probability alone <if enough people think “hard” enough to ‘attract’ whatever they are seeking to attract … a few will>.

And, of course, these few are the ones quoted in the book.

I wish it was actually that simple.

The Secret neglects to inform you, but suffice it to say, it is not “attraction” but rather this is more about discipline and focus and effort.

But.

If the happiness ‘secret’ keeps your eye on your own proverbial ball … then do it.

But to suggest it is a science let alone a law with proof <because you can de-isolate specific incidents and make the argument that they are exceptions to the rule> really does make the Secret untenable if not simply a criticism of our intelligence.

It is certainly sneaky. It uses smart quotes <albeit out of context> and the book takes advantage of the fact we all ask ourselves these questions <all of us do, or have done, at some point>. Things like:

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

How do some people find the courage to follow their dreams?

What makes happy successful people different <or what is their commonality>?

Well. Sorry. The truth is there is nothing special about the majority of them.

secret create happinessThe difference between a person who has an idea and a person who acts on that idea is one step … albeit a big step.

That step often comes down to knowing you are not alone and finding the courage within yourself. Dreaming big certainly encourages you to take that first step.

And to succeed, or find happiness, you do have to be willing to take at least some step. After that? Well. You gotta work hard. I <or anyone> can envision anything … but it ain’t just gonna be given to me.

Whenever I see a quote like “Every day when I wake up I realize I have a choice. I can be happy or unhappy. So what do I do? I’m not dumb. I choose to be happy” I kind of want to puke. Having a positive attitude, or making the best of the situation, is always good … but Life is meant to be a roller coaster ride <even if you hate roller coasters> and there will be highs & lows. You slug it out with the lows and enjoy the highs. No secret.

Now. I certainly do believe in committing to ‘show up’ in Life every day … but this quote? What a bunch of crap <or tripe>.

So.

I had drafted a brilliant <in my eyes> diatribe on how books like The Secret are worse for humanity than even the most misguided government but I found someone who did it for me <and even more smartly than I was going to do it>.

I apologize that I cannot provide the author because when I cut & pasted I neglected to capture that information but suffice it to say I need to credit someone other than me for these well crafted words:

I think a book like this, which makes some really big claims, should, roughly, do the following:

1) Present it’s premise clearly

2) Since it’s a self-help book explain clearly what you need to do

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

The book does a decent job of explaining its premise, which is that everything in your life is the result of the law of attraction.

I quote, “the law of attraction says like attracts like, so when you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.” In other words, think good thoughts and good things will come to you and if you think bad thoughts then bad things come to you.

I’ve simplified this a bit but not a whole lot as the concept isn’t rocket science.

Now, does this book explain clearly what you need to do? Actually, for a self-help book it does a very poor job of this. How do you control your thoughts? What kinds of practices and thinking produce the best results? The author and contributors basically tell you a bunch of stories about how “so and so did something and you can too by changing your thinking”.

And that’s it for the “how to” part of the book. There isn’t any.

Now, if I wanted to prove something worked from a scientific perspective it would seem to be easy to test this stuff out. You take two groups of people, teach one the secret, let the other go on with their lives and see what happens. In theory those that know the Secret would be happier and more successful than the control group. It might not be perfect but it’d be a whole lot better than what we get in this book. But, of course, you’d have to have an actual methodology to test.secret ask believe

 

Instead the authors cite numerous anecdotes of how the Secret worked. One person’s cancer went away. Another individual walks after a brutal accident. Still another finds romance. That’s all fine and perhaps it’s evidence but it’s not proof. How many people who were injured like the “Miracle Man” never walked again despite the best attitude and trying the approach perfectly?

The problem with anecdotes is that it’s easy to start with a result, work backward and assume the conclusion.

It’s also very easy with anecdotes to only present the ones that make your case and ignore those that don’t (when someone dies of cancer while practicing the secret for instance). It’s just not good enough to use anecdotes for large claims like those made in this book.

The following quote struck a nerve.

“People hold that for awhile, and they’re really a champion at it. They say, `I’m fired up, I saw this program and I’m going to change my life.’ And yet the results aren’t showing. Beneath the surface it’s just about ready to break through but the person will look just at the surface results and say, `This stuff doesn’t work.’ And you know what? The universe says, “your wish is my command.”

I thought it was interesting that the universe instantly manifest failure but isn’t quite so fast with success. In fact, a cynical individual might conclude that what they are really saying is, “when this program works it’s because the secret always works, but, on the off chance it doesn’t work, well, that’s your fault.” An even more cynical person might think, “gosh, I wonder what would help a person who failed? Maybe, a seminar with Bob Proctor would be just the thing to get them over the top?”

Lastly, is the Secret credible? On the one hand, I think a lot can be said for the idea that if you change your thinking you’d change your life.

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, if the secret actually was true, especially at the scope claimed by the book it would mean that everything that’s happened is the result of your thinking. So, when a child dies of pneumonia, well, it’s because they brought pneumonia into their lives. Michael J. Fox, not only did you bring Parkinson’s into your life but change your thinking and it will go away. Obviously these things aren’t true and they obliterate, in my opinion, any credibility in the book.

Not only does the book go too far but most (I’d argue nearly all) of the contributors aren’t credible. On a topic of this scope: the ability to 100% change your life and the world in an incredible fashion, does anyone really think you couldn’t find psychologists, top flight scientists, therapists and thousands of mainstream individuals to support it, if it worked? Wouldn’t there be tons of research instead of anecdotes? Instead we get a Feng Shui Master, a chiropractor, motivational speakers (err trainers), a metaphysicist, etc. combined with a half dozen anecdotal stories. So the most powerful like changing idea ever and you get it from the crew in this book presented in this fashion? I don’t think so!

 the secret big in life-is-that-there-is-no

If this idea really worked, at anything other than giving material to self-help speakers and generating repeat students, it just wouldn’t be found here. The book wouldn’t even have to be written because we’d all already know it and be practicing it. Remember, this is not a new idea, it’s been around for a very long time, and it’s been the topic of literally thousands of seminars and hundreds of books.

Catchy review title? Thought so. Robert Cialdini, renowned psychology researcher and author of Influence: The Power of Persuasion (perhaps the best book ever written on the subject) identifies six basic rules employed by politicians, advertisers and scam artists alike to persuade others. Each of them are employed quite adeptly by Rhonda Byrne in this book.

Cialdini’s first principle is SCARCITY; people want what’s expensive, exclusive, or otherwise attainable. Byrne’s mastery of this principle is clearly shown by the very name of the book: The Secret. We all learned this the first week of kindergarten as we felt the jealousy of watching two classmates, hands cupped over ears, sharing a secret out of earshot.

This message is reinforced throughout the book and its advertising campaign which pitches “The Secret” (whatever it actually is) as jealousy-guarded information hoarded by the happy, wealthy and successful. Whenever someone tries convincing you of something, whether it’s a way to make enormous sums of money, to lose weight, etc – be wary of when it’s pitched as “the knowledge THEY don’t want you to have.” Think about it – everything from the “secrets that Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” to “uncovered – celebrities’ secrets to staying young” are phrased not simply to pique your interest but to make you jealous. Appeals to our emotion are far more powerful than appeals to reason, and Byrne demonstrates mastery of this principle throughout “The Secret.”

Cialdini’s second principle is LIKING. We like those who like us, and in turn, we do business with them. Positive thinking and emotional intelligence has been linked to strong interpersonal relationships, academic and professional success, and good health, but there is a fine line when positive thinking crosses over to unjustified exuberance. Instead of simply noting the substantial benefits of positive thinking (a well-accepted principle which wouldn’t sell books), Byrne crosses the line so blatantly that anyone with a modicum of modesty would find it blasphemous.

AUTHORITY is another Cialdini principle, also in play in “The Secret” in quite subtle ways. Another technique which differentiates this book from just another book of positive thinking is the heavy use of quasiscientific language, which gives the impression that the “law of attraction” is (or will become) an accepted scientific principle, just like the law of gravity or the law of attraction of oppositely-charged particles in chemistry. Many people are both intimidated and confused by the authority of science, a fact exploited by manipulators ranging from Byrne to peddlers of magic weight-loss pills.

Since no respected physicist would ever publish a paper on the universality of the “law of attraction,” Byrne indirectly seeks experts in other ways. She attributes the success of people ranging from Einstein to Beethoven to adherence of “The Secret,” thereby manufacturing experts. After all, if Einstein and Shakespeare mastered “The Secret,” who are YOU to question it?

The last two Cialdini principles are CONSISTENCY and SOCIAL PROOF. The success of this book should leave little doubt it will be followed by more (and more expensive) forms of media peddling “The Secret.” The audio recordings, weekend seminars, advertising tie-ins, and other follow-up products certain to follow will exploit these two principles. Once people commit themselves to believing happiness will come from “The Secret,” they will attribute future successes, whether a promotion or a great new relationship, to adherence to it. Conversely, setbacks will be even more powerfully in committing people to “The Secret,” as people will attribute their failures to not living up to “The Secret” (and buying more of Byrne’s books). Consistency dictates it will be less painful to buy more books and immerse one’s self further into “The Secret” than to accept the whole premise is a quite ridiculous; while not as pernicious as a domineering cult, “The Secret” promises to charge you handsomely for a positive outlook on life.

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

On its face, it’s a manipulative marketing tool meant to flatter, confuse and deceive. It’s also pseudoscience at its best, the last thing we need to encourage in an increasingly technological world which requires healthy skepticism and critical thought. Most damaging, though, is how the book perverts reality by encouraging people to equate a positive outlook on life with a childish, idiotic narcissism. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave hearing about the modern manifestation of her objectivist movement reduced to the intellectual equivalent of canned pork.

In conclusion, I’m not opposed to the idea on a small scale but this book just goes way too far and I’m left with the feeling that all that’s really going on is a bunch of people trying to get their name out and get you to pay for their seminars.

do your best boy——–

<well written … better than what I could have written … but I agree>

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

Do what you need to do to keep moving forward in life.

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

They are all good aspects of “Life survival.” And are all good objectives.

And if this book helps you to focus on these things, well, then use it.

But.

The book is not a formula nor is it the bible/Koran guide to Life success or Life happiness.

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

Nor does simply envisioning success, or happiness, guarantee success or happiness. Someone in discussing this book suggested I was debating chicken or egg first. Nope. I break the egg by noting everyone who gains happiness <or 99.9%> will absolutely say they envisioned the happiness … but I can almost guarantee everyone who has not achieved happiness <or 99.9% of them> will absolutely say they have envisioned happiness. Someone doesn’t envision any better than someone else. Sometimes you may have more drive or you may work harder or you may even simply have more talent … or maybe the happiness is tied to something to unrealistic. I do not care which you choose. This logic kills the chicken and the egg.

Books like this drive me a little crazy in that they suggest they are ‘the key’ … because if Life were that simple well … Life would be simple.

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

Anyway. Because the book uses a lot of quotes I will end on a quote of my own from Arthur Rubenstein:

” Most people , in my opinion, have an unrealistic approach toward happiness because they invariably use the fatal conjunction “if” as a condition. You hear them say: ‘I would be happy if I were rich’, or … ‘if this girl loved me’ … or ‘if I had talent’ … or their most popular … ‘if I had good health.’ They often attain their goal, but they discover new ‘ifs.’As for myself, I love Life for better or for worse, unconditionally.”

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

 

iroquois and democracy (and the American constitution)

March 1st, 2013

Well.iriquois eagle-dollar-bill

The American Constitution is one of my favorite well written documents … so when I read in a book the idea that much of it was ‘borrowed’ from the Iroquois Indians … in fact that “we the people” was borrowed … that lit a fire under my ass to do some research.

I knew it had borrowed significantly from the ‘best of the best’ European & Greek/Roman democratic principals but I had not heard about the Iroquois.

In initial research I actually discovered a physical symbol first.

The 13 arrows <for the 13 colonies> bound together in the eagle talons.

 

-          Iroquois constitution Article 57:

Five arrows shall be bound together very strong and each arrow shall represent one nation. As the five arrows are strongly bound this shall symbolize the complete union of the nations. Thus are the Five Nations united completely and enfolded together, united into one head, one body and one mind. Therefore they shall labor, legislate and council together for the interest of future generations.

 

iriquois arrowsThe Iroquois used the arrows bound together. And they refer to ‘nations’ as we would ‘states.’

Well.

Further research showed that the committee tasked with developing the constitution struggled with how to formalize so many items being discussed into one document that would satisfy one and all. Samuel Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years.

While there were many desirable  models <and aspects within> from ancient and modern histories in Western & Eastern Europe and the Middle East it seemed that the Iroquois had a system which provided a basic national/state construct to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates.

<I did not know this>

Now.

I never did find “we the people” backed up in what writings there are concerning the ancient Iroquois.

But.

I DID find enough evidence to convince me that the Iroquois certainly influenced the drafting of the American Constitution … and we present-day Americans owe these Native Americans big thanks.

Some background on the Iroquois and their Constitution.

In about 1715, the Tuscarora Nation, once part of the Iroquois peoples in a much earlier period of their history, moved up from North Carolina to avoid warfare with the invading white settlers, and were adopted into the Confederacy. At this point in time, the Iroquois controlled many parts of our now eastern states from their homelands in what is now New York state. The original Five Nations were:

 

Mohawk: People Possessors of the Flint

Onondaga: People on the Hills

Seneca: Great Hill People

Oneida: Granite People

Cayuga: People at the Mucky Land

Tuscarora: Shirt Wearing People <became the Sixth Nation>.

 

I am including the most relevant aspects of their original Constitution <as best it can be reconstructed from legend and spoken history> which is titled: The Constitution of the Five Nations – or – The Iroquois Book of the Great Law.

Well.

It is pretty amazing. You can find close parallels to our Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government as originally described in our U. S. Constitution as well as many of the ‘freedoms’ and some verbiage. In addition if you assume their Nations as our current States the parallels increase significantly. I have not included the entire thing <I believe it has close to 100 articles> but just some relevant portions that make for good reading.

Oh.

I included the first section hoping that maybe someone in our current government would read this. It is a good reminder for what should be expected of elected officials <one could only hope they would actually follow some of the thinking … sigh …. Article 27, in particular, should be posted everywhere in Washington DC>.

 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IROQUOIS NATIONSamerica one heartbeat

 

24. The Lords of the Confederacy of the Five Nations shall be mentors of the people for all time. The thickness of their skin shall be seven spans — which is to say that they shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism. Their hearts shall be full of peace and good will and their minds filled with a yearning for the welfare of the people of the Confederacy. With endless patience they shall carry out their duty and their firmness shall be tempered with a tenderness for their people. Neither anger nor fury shall find lodgement in their minds and all their words and actions shall be marked by calm deliberation.

 

25. If a Lord of the Confederacy should seek to establish any authority independent of the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of the Great Peace, which is the Five Nations, he shall be warned three times in open council, first by the women relatives, second by the men relatives and finally by the Lords of the Confederacy of the Nation to which he belongs. If the offending Lord is still obdurate he shall be dismissed by the War Chief of his nation for refusing to conform to the laws of the Great Peace. His nation shall then install the candidate nominated by the female name holders of his family.

 

26. It shall be the duty of all of the Five Nations Confederate Lords, from time to time as occasion demands, to act as mentors and spiritual guides of their people and remind them of their Creator’s will and words.

Every Confederate Lord shall speak words to promote peace.

 

27. All Lords of the Five Nations Confederacy must be honest in all things. They must not idle or gossip, but be men possessing those honorable qualities that make true royaneh. It shall be a serious wrong for anyone to lead a Lord into trivial affairs, for the people must ever hold their Lords high in estimation out of respect to their honorable positions.

 

-          Freedom of Religion

99. The rites and festivals of each nation shall remain undisturbed and shall continue as before because they were given by the people of old times as useful and necessary for the good of men.

 

-          Rights of the People

93. Whenever a specially important matter or a great emergency is presented before the Confederate Council and the nature of the matter affects the entire body of the Five Nations, threatening their utter ruin, then the Lords of the Confederacy must submit the matter to the decision of their people and the decision of the people shall affect the decision of the Confederate Council. This decision shall be a confirmation of the voice of the people.

 

-          Rights of states <Nations>

Before the real people united their nations, each nation had its council fires. Before the Great Peace their councils were held. The five Council Fires shall continue to burn as before and they are not quenched. The Lords of each nation in future shall settle their nation’s affairs at this council fire governed always by the constitution american-flag-all-rights-reserved-by-jade-leyvalaws and rules of the council of the Confederacy and by the Great Peace.

 

-          Commander in chief: Rights and Powers of War

79. Skanawatih shall be vested with a double office, duty and with double authority. One-half of his being shall hold the Lordship title and the other half shall hold the title of War Chief. In the event of war he shall notify the five War Chiefs of the Confederacy and command them to prepare for war and have their men ready at the appointed time and place for engagement with the enemy of the Great Peace.

——–

Well.

This is good stuff. Research well worth the time I invested <the entire Constitution is fascinating in it’s detail>.

Native Americans <or Indians> not only were the original settlers in America but helped provide some of the original founding father thinking. And, frankly, some good thinking for us today if we actually were to pay attention to it.

This is continuing proof that I still have a lot to learn.

keeping perspective on greatness

February 10th, 2013

lofty piano thrones“On the loftiest throne in the world we are still sitting only on our own rump.”  – Michel de Montaigne from “Of Experience,” The Essays

 

Well.

Montaigne hung out with kings and dukes and duchesses.

Most of my friends are normal schmucks.

Regardless.

His words are relevant to any and all.

And I wish more people would remember these words <and the thought>.

Your lofty throne may simply be one moment in the spotlight … or a lifetime in the spotlight.

And on occasion you may even gain a glimpse of true greatness.

You may even deserve to be on such a lofty throne <even if but for a moment>.

It doesn’t really matter.

Even the highest of thrones simply is a comfortable seat for a simple, common, every day rump.

being better

December 18th, 2012

ok.

This is a follow-up to my stomach ache post. And it took me a little bit to gather my thoughts.

I received a number of emails from people wanting me to discuss gun control because of the elementary school tragedy.

I won’t <well … maybe I will at the very end>.

But I will give my thoughts on what I see as the real issue … people control.

And I got lucky as I thought about this … I sat next to 2 South Africans today and talked to them about this <just to get some perspective on my thoughts>.

Regardless.

That heinous act was not because of gun control or more effective school security systems or even better mental health initiatives … it is about us being better as people.

What I mean is … taking responsibility for the actions of others.

Especially adults with regard to children.

Yup. I meant what I typed.

Taking responsibility for the actions of others <even if we do not know them well>.

Sorry about that folks … but I believe it in my soul if we ever want to be ‘better’ we have to assume responsibility rather than blame or point fingers or wonder what systems we can create to resolve these things … all of it to become  better people and a better country.

Oh.

And there is an additional level to my thinking.

We need to be the best we can be … particularly when it comes to children.

And I fully understand I am suggesting different standards for children versus adults <which I am sure someone will take affront to> and even high school students. My standards are driven by innocent versus those who can actually protect themselves. Fair? I don’t know but it is my site and my opinion.

Also.

I fully understand there are bad people out there. And we cannot stop them from doing bad things all the time <yes … unfortunately … sometimes bad people win>. And sometimes I believe they, the bad people, are out there to remind the good people why ‘good is better than bad.’

Regardless.

Keep in mind … bad is a minority. Evil people are fewer than non evil people.

So when evil actually wins?

All that really means is that good people failed. Evil is never … and I mean NEVER … better than good.

To me? The only way evil ever wins is when good is not at its best.

This sets an exceptionally high bar for good people.

I recognize this thought … is it fair to think, let alone, type that? Heck. I don’t know. I am simply putting a burden on good.

By the way.

I could think of worse things to do.

Look.

I will use me as a hypothetical example.

Why? Because I cannot even faith in any scenario I would ever harm a child. But, frankly, I cannot fathom how anyone purposefully harm a child. So let’s assume I have hit the point … something has put me over the edge … and I am gonna go do something … something evil. In other words I am going to an elementary school and kill defenseless children.

Here is what I expect.

I expect when I open the door to be facing someone I know.

Kevin or Jim or David. Scott, Gary, Don or Donald, or someone else is I know, friend or acquaintance, facing me that morning.

And they say “stop.”

They say “no.”

They say “let’s get help.”

They say ..” it will not happen.’

And if I balk or be a lunatic … they are willing to sacrifice themselves if need be.

Maybe not for other adults <in which they may pause and think about it> but for the sake of children.

Oh.

And I expect this and many of them are parents in their own right.

I expect them to stop me.

I expect one of them to say “how many bullets do you have? Okay. Use them all on me. You will not harm one child.”

I expect to have to run a gauntlet of adults before I get to one child.

I expect even my new neighbor, who I don’t know well and has three beautiful children his own, to say “no … you go no further than me.”

Yeah.

I expect a lot of my friends.

Shit.

I expect a lot of adults when it comes to children.

Look.

I cried on that Friday.

I am sure I cried for the lost lives of children aged 5 to 7 but I think I may have also cried more because I expect better of us when it comes to children.

The big people need to take care of the little people.

That is the responsibility of adults.

A responsibility calling for any and all costs.

And I expect all adults to accept this responsibility and burden,

Oh.

I have a reporter friend who has told me that we will be amazed when we hear some of the details with regard to what teachers did to protect the children.

I will not be amazed.

I expect it.

I expect us all to be better when it comes to children.

I do not want to diminish anything that anyone did there that day … and I will here and now apologize to all the teachers families … but … with due respect … were they heroes?

Did they do something exceptional?

Shit. I don’t know.

In my pea like brain they were not.

They did what was right.

They did what was needed.

They fulfilled the responsibility that all ‘big people’ have with regard to ‘little people’.

And, honestly, I do not like the suggestion that what they did was exceptional … I would rather it was suggested that is was ordinary.

I am fine to suggest they are heroes for ‘doing what was right.’

I struggle a little because the moment it is suggested it is exceptional .. and well … then ordinary people  feel the pressure to be exceptional. And with children? It is not an exceptional act <in my eyes> but rather the ordinary responsibility of ‘big people.’ Heroes for doing what is right? Yes. Heroes for exceptional actions? I hesitate. I am willing to call them heroes to honor their actions. That is it.

Yes. I know what I just wrote may be controversial and may piss some people off. Sorry. But I do not believe it is an exceptional act to offer your life, as an adult, for a child’s life.

The lifetime value is unequal. Unless I am exceptional <which I am not> than I see no reason my value is any higher than the future value <the possible exceptional> of a child.

Yes. I put that in business terms, in MBA like terms to make a point.

In the end.

I could talk about gun control and systems and mental health programs but they are all kind of irrelevant because in my head … unrealistic as this may sound … that asshole should have never gotten to those defenseless children.

Is that unrealistic? Am I being unfair to someone? Your call on that but I don’t think so.

I am a pragmatic person and I know you cannot protect against every single situation and scenario … but … when it comes to protecting our children?

We should be unrealistic.

We should be willing to sacrifice all. Everything and all.

And I do not mean crazy security processes but being the best we can day on and day out to protect our children.

The Connecticut guy.

Jerry Sandusky.

Others.

They will always exist. And no process or procedure will ever stop them from existing. It is only us … yup … us … to stop them.

We need to be better.

Because if we are not … then we will end up failing our children.

And I cannot think that is anything that anyone wants on their tombstone.

“I failed our children.’

With that said … that means it is not an exceptional act but rather a normal act … an expected act to do what must, and should, be done.

Well.

Because I didn’t want to end on that <albeit a good thought for us all to ponder>.

The south africans.

We had a good conversation on responsibility and heroes. One suggested I was way too harsh … that any person who decided to offer their life to another human went beyond the normal and could constitute a hero.

The other agreed the rules, or guidelines, are different when you get to children.

Regardless.

What they did agree with is automatic weapons.

Yeah. This is gun control. And I happen to agree with their thought on this.

First.

You cannot stop a person who wants to do something bad. If they have it in their head they will do it.

Second.

If I could have figured out how to have this lunatic have only a hand gun and not an automatic weapon the deaths could have been lower. Now. Notice I said “could.” But that is an important ‘could,’ because we are talking about 5 to 7 year olds. If I ‘could’ have done something that limited the number it is a good idea.

Third.

People are people. And if they have access to the weapons they desire to do bad … they will do badder than bad. This is about limiting. Does that mean I am okay with 5 dead  5 to 7 year olds? Nope. But I like it better than 20 dead 5 to 7 year olds.

I just say that to make people think. I am not a gun control advocate nor am I card holding NRA guy. I kinda think this just may e be common sense.

But.

What do I know?

middle east thought for the day

November 18th, 2012

I read so much hate from people … mostly directed toward Israel, who do not even live in the Middle East, with regard to what is happening between Israel and Palestine.

How we have reached a point where we seem to be on the brink of a conventional on-the-ground war has been decades in the making.

One of which I have written about several times but suffice it to say Israel is on a geographic island surrounded by an ocean of people who would prefer Jews not have a country there <for some reasonable reasons … Muslim holy land … and some unreasonable reasons … Judaism is not a viable faith>.

I truly struggle with what I would do if I were in a decision making role with regard to going to ground war.

That is until I came across a visual posted by a teenager who I sense was also struggling with perspective.

The teen gave me perspective.

When I saw this graph I immediately starting thinking that for all those comments I have read about Israel being aggressive and ‘killers’ I wanted to jump online find the Israel haters and say “is it possible they are the most patient resilient country in the world?”

If anybody believes your own country wouldn’t have brought the wrath of Khan down on the missile shooters <on the ground, in the air and by water if they could find any> after looking at the chart I want whatever it is you are smoking.

It would have all been over by now if it were any of us.

a new Africa

November 12th, 2012

I like perspective. Especially when it addresses common misperceptions.

I have never been to Africa <and it is not on my bucket list>.

Therefore all my perspective of Africa is driven by maps <which are typically not, size-wise, indicative of true perspective>, pictures and stories <and all the economic & education stuff I like to weave my way through>.

I sense all of us who have never been to Africa have a skewed perspective.

And I came across a blog that I found interesting … and I chuckled a little when I read it because it directly addressed something I imagine I knew … but I didn’t know.

Africa – more than one story: http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/blogs/view/648

Africa is a huge continent.

From Cape Town in south Africa to Cairo in north Africa it is about 4500 miles <United States is a little less than 3000 miles across>.

In-between are about 1.3 billion people earning a living and raising families and doing the best they can.

News seems to focus on the dictators, riots, poverty and wars … and ignoring peaceful elections, thriving cultural industries and increasing wealth <and education>.

After reading this post <and the link below as well> I hope the narratives of Africa begin shifting. I would like to hear more discussion on the ‘new Africa.’

We have an entire world changing, and evolving, right before our eyes … I would hate t miss seeing it.

And I loved this blog:

African women can blog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/africa-blog/2012/oct/02/msafropolitan-minna-salami-blog?intcmp=239

Sometimes our perceptions are worth examining for a reality check.

Okay.

All the time.

Open, open … and open again

November 4th, 2012

Ok.

I have two pet peeves … or things that aggravate me, in business meetings.

(1)    Selling beyond the close.

(2)    Having multiple people say the same thing.

Selling beyond the close is going to be another post.

Because that really only aggravates me when it is an experienced person who does it.  Less experienced have to find the “feeling” associated with agreement and then have the strength, and fortitude, to keep their mouth shut <to leave unsaid words … well … left unsaid> because the idea had been agreed upon. And that just takes practice.

This is about “the repeat.”

It may be the single most aggravating common mistake business people do in meetings.

I bring it up because I just experienced it. <again>

In the opening of the meeting someone else came crashing in and … well … re-opened the meeting … oh … and then someone else steps in to reopen.

Yup. That would officially be three opens to the same meeting.

Three opens differentiated mostly by the sound of the voices … and maybe a word here or there.

I used the opening as an example mostly because it sets the tone for the rest of the meeting and I started scribbling notes for this post right then and there <yeah … even I started tuning out … and I had a role>.

So.

You would think experienced business people would not do this, but experienced people are actually the worst offenders <probably because they have the most bloated egos>.

Let’s think about this … because this repeating can occur in a variety of ways in a business meeting.

The most popular is three people answering a question … when the first answer was just fine (or 90% right which is just as good as fine).

This one is just frickin’ crazy.

It is crazy for 2 reasons <okay … there are more but I will stick with the two most common sense business craziness aspects>:

-          Multiple answering is acting like this is the one and only opportunity to answer the question. It looks like three dogs slobbering over a bowl of human food thinking they need to eat it fast before the bowl is completely empty because they will never ever get any food ever again <dogs have no sense of time>.

It is crazy because if it is important enough it will come up again.

Oh. And isn’t there something at the end of a meeting called “questions”? <silly me for pointing that out>

-          Multiple answering implies the business people on the opposite side of the table are stupid. Okay. It just implies that they are not smart enough to ask a clarification question if they actually need clarification. Oh. But here is the crazy part. You will never frickin’ know if they had needed clarification because you just bludgeoned them with three different clubs of words.

But I guess the open, open, open practice is the worst.

Or maybe it just feels the worst.

Because it is delaying the actual meeting.  And it is people just talking. And most of the words are saying the same thing (in different words).

And. It. Is. Painful.

And it shows lack of confidence (from the presenting group).

And it shows lack of understanding (in that if you are patient and the point you want to make is THAT important it can be discussed later).

And it shows lack of meeting dynamics understanding.

The only example I can come up with would be if you went to a symphony and they opened with a song. And at the end of the opening one of the band members said: ‘Let’s play that again <because I think we could do it better>’.

And then at the end of that opening … another band member said “ok, let’s do it once more” <because I think we could do it better>.

Oh.  And think of that example just as I explained it … but it is decided to do so … without telling the other band members you were going to do it.

Yeah.

You would kinda be tempted to shove a violin where the sun don’t shine on that person wouldn’t ya? <yes>

Now.

Because this is so aggravating and is so prevalent I know I have been part of several fairly creative techniques to halt things before it can even happen.

Just some tricks of the trade <but even they don’t work all the time>. I will begin with the infamous “one person could never answer a question correctly so several people will addend the initial answer.”

First.

Of course you tell everyone “just one answer to every question.” Get it out on the table. Even the worst offenders will take a reflective moment and ponder. They may not heed the advice in the heat of the battle but at least you have set the groundwork. Please note … 99% of the time this never works.

-          Designate a question answerer. Most companies have one or two people who are just … well … better than other people at answering questions. Just have all questions answered by this person. Now. This person doesn’t actually answer all the questions … but they redirect to the appropriate person.

“Sue knows the most about that … Sue … what do you think?” is the easy redirect.

The power of this solution is that all questions are being handled by your best question answerer. Depending on the type and length of the meeting it is very very effective … but puts a very heavy burden on that person. The only tip I really have on this option is that even though that person may be your best answerer, if you ask him/her to do this … do not ask them to close the meeting. They will have invested too much energy and thought to be the most effective in closing.

-          Designate a question follow-upper. This is most typically the person who you have decided to close the meeting because they also tend to be the ones who have listened the best, assimilated the data <who said what and asked what> and crafted a bunch of words that doesn’t sound like gobbledygook <a technical business term>. This person follows behind answers to questions and either adds a brief point or asks for permission to move on <it can be done like this … “if that answers the question we can go to …”>.

Trust me. It sounds smooth if you have the right person do it.

-          Coach everyone to end their answer with something like “did that answer your question? If not, someone else may have something to add.” It is a preemptive strike against your ‘repeat’ offenders on your side of the table … in addition it shows patience, care for your audience, desire to listen <and respond> and a sincere desire to insure something is covered well before you move on.

<by the way … this one is extremely difficult to have a broad group of question answerers actually do … but it is also probably the most effective meeting tactic of the bunch>

And directly to the rant topic of ‘open, open, open.’

-          Stick to the plan & the script.

Look. Most meetings using a full team have been discussed, discussed again, and most likely rehearsed. You have made some decisions. You have a plan. Stick to it.

Most likely you have made one of two decisions for the opening.

The first is ‘I am going to have my best opener and have that person set the tone’ or, the second option, ‘I am going to have the most relevant person open the meeting and have them set the functional groundwork’ <which isn’t exactly ‘tone’ as it is more functional>.

And because you have made that decision, either one, you have also made a conscious decision on two additional things for sure … who follows the opening … and who will close the meeting <the rest of the speakers are really all about delivering the information>.

The second talker will always know the risks of what happens if opener doesn’t have their “A” game that day. And will move in and do whatever it is their script suggests.

Oh. On that thought … people who step in and ‘re-open’ for some reason always seem to be clueless on the affect they have on the second speaker <which constantly amazes me in its lack of awareness>. Not only does a ‘second opening’ undermine the opening statements but also immediately suggests to the audience that the second planned speaker wouldn’t be smart enough, and aware enough, to know what to do.

Anyway. You have also selected the closer because … well … they know how to close a meeting. A good closer knows if you stumbled out of the gates or not, if you have picked up momentum or not as well as what was covered and what wasn’t. You picked that person because that is what they do. And if you stick with the script that closer will pick up whatever pieces which are important enough to be picked up as well as assimilate what has been shared and discussed.

Frankly, going off script can make the best closers in the world become the non-best closers in the world. Why? Mostly because it scatters even more random pieces out to be assessed and juggled.

Lastly on sticking to the script … not all openings go as well as planned … and some go better than planned … in either case it does a meeting no good to slow down.

You keep on keepin’ on.

Because meetings, just as in Life, if you are not going forward you are going backwards.

Oh. Someone is probably going to suggest all these guidelines and boundaries make for a rigid cold meeting. Well. I have three things to say with regard to that:

  1. No. <or … “nuts to that.”>

    Meeting & the Business World

  2. It sometimes seems like people put a higher priority when designing & discussing meetings on “casual” and likeable and a whole bunch of loosey-goosey nebulous feel good stuff versus information delivery. In meetings … pretty much any meeting … the number one priority, far and away from any other, is delivering relevant information. Worry, and focus, on that. The better, and more relaxed, you are on delivering the information the more casual/likeable/nebulous good you will look.
  3. Adaptability. The ability to adapt to a situation is the pinnacle of meeting effectiveness. But notice I used ‘pinnacle.’ I did because it is difficult … which is kind of funny for me to write because despite that ‘truth’ … I cannot remember the last time in discussing a meeting where it was almost discussed as a “well of course we will adapt if we need to.” Look. I love adaptability. That characteristic in a meeting is powerful. I also recognize it is very difficult. I only suggest being open to adapting if you have one of two things <there may be others but these are the easiest>:

-          a cohesive team with a track record together. Anything other than an experienced team is fraught with peril. And, no, you cannot bend this rule if you say “we have a senior experienced team.” Nope. No can do. Even the best of the best ,as individuals, need to play together as a team for a while, and particularly in pressure situations, before you actually become a cohesive team. So just being senior and experienced doesn’t meet these criteria.

<note: I cannot tell you how many times companies make the ‘this is a senior team’ mistake … and make it again and again>.

-          At least two senior great ‘listener/responder’ team members. If you have 2 co-captains who seem like they are two sides of the same coin you can sometimes pull this off. Of course the presentation/discussion has to be built to accommodate adapting <typically this means other people on the team have to have ‘pods’ of information to share and understand they can avoid the transition responsibilities> but a good team can pull this off if you have ‘the two.’ One? No can do.

To finish up …

Meetings, using a team, is all about choreography … in delivering information <not in delivering a show>. However I will use a show metaphor on why “opening, opening, opening” is not only aggravating but never good. In the performance arts even the best make mistakes. The audience groans. The rest of the cast visibly tightens up. But the best of the best pick themselves up and move forward like nothing bad ever happened. The audience doesn’t forget … but they relax … and recognize the best don’t dwell but move on. And the rest of the cast? Hmmmmmmmm … they typically not only relax but they also typically pick up their game ever so slightly because their best of the best decided to show them that mistakes does not mean failure.

It never fails to amaze me how often senior business people just completely miss the boat on this relatively simple thing.

Enlightened Conflict