Posts tagged responsibility
separate but one
Jul 28th
“… be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” 
Booker Washington
Ok.
I am going to take this awesome quote and talk about two things: business and personal.
Business.
Whenever anyone asks me about “integration” this is the quote I use.
We talk so often of “staying on strategy” or “meeting objectives”.
Why? Because there is so much everyday other shit going on you worry about losing control. So you have one of two choices. Leverage off of something (strategy) or aim for something (objective).
That’s it. Let’s call it vectoring for success. Okay. Let’s not.
And you have to choose because today everyone is “integrating.” What I mean is everybody is seeking to implement a shitload of tactics in a shitload of different vehicles and it can all go to shit really really fast.
Ok. So you are on your ‘vector.’
You have one of two choices (in general).
Create chemistry through conflict management (think dictator insuring all the fingers stay on one hand or get chopped off if they start flipping you off). This hand can punch a bunch of people along the way but just as a boxer ages over time your career as a conflict hand organization will wear out in a relatively short time.
And then there are hands that face conflict with chemistry. Create a culture that thrives on that vector. (whenever I type that word I want to ask “what’s your vector? Victor” … anyway …) this one is a little scary because it contains that evil word “decentralization.”
Uh oh.
Great organizational chemistry almost always has a thread of some autonomy. But great organizational chemistry embodies the quote also. So. Choose your path. But if you like the quote you know which way to go now.
Personal.
Whenever someone asks me about what makes a great relationship this is the quote I use.
I believe being one while remaining two is the greatest thing that can ever happen in any relationship.
‘To be one yet remain two’ is the way I believe I have heard it said before. But Booker says it better.
I would imagine this means a balance between independence and dependence.
Uhm.
Yes. Dependence.
Being dependent isn’t a bad thing on occasion. In individual moments we all need someone. If we don’t … well… I would argue you aren’t human.
But having some independence keeps the partnership healthy and growing. And actually keeps the “ones” stronger as ‘ones’ so when they become ‘two’ they actually have strength far beyond the numbers. (I think Pythagoras proved this in his third marriage).
national program to support Childhood Curiosity
Jul 27th
So I saw a TV commercial encouraging maintaining arts/music in schools curriculum the other day. I didn’t pay much attention to the details and I am not really a government program gwonk (whatever that is) but I assume someone in their infinite wisdom is cutting money supporting these things in schools.
Well, in general, I would say I would jump on this soapbox.
But.
I won’t because of ignorance with regard to the choice. Huh? If I support this, does funding get cut from some other children’s education program? As I stated I am not a policy gwonk so I don’t really know how these things work.
But.
Here is what I do know.
Every child is born curious.
And every child has an unopened box of curiosity which has a key to open it.
And I do know every child needs a different key to open it.
For me it was words. Words in songs. Words in books. Whatever. I listened to the radio music incessantly and read every Nancy Drew and Hardy Boy book I could get my hands on. Somewhere in elementary school a teacher read us Tolkien’s The Hobbit during reading hour. (I couldn’t wait to be able to read it on my own.)
For others I assume it’s something else.
The stars and planets and space.
Playing an instrument.
Understanding what makes things run and go.
How do things live.
Why is the grass green and the sky blue.
Crap like that.
Frankly I don’t care about any individual program (music, math, social studies, chemistry, etc.).
What I care about is giving children a box of keys and let them figure out what opens their curiosity box. And then making sure that curiosity never grows hungry. That it can be fed for as long as they want to keep eating. Curiosity will never have an obesity issue .. there should be an all-you-can-eat buffet 24-7 for kids.
Is that realistic? Once again, frankly, I don’t care.
This is me being unreasonable. Having music fight for money from sciences who is trying to make sure they have money from machine shop/woodworking is kinda nuts. You are choosing among the children (literally and figuratively).
So while I am okay with a TV commercial fighting for something like music in schools I am not okay that money has to be spent on the fight (versus actually using the money for feeding kid’s curiosity).
This is not “no child left behind” (although I guess if I did some research I could be really sure about that statement).
In fact, I read somewhere that inadvertently the ‘no child left behind’ program kind of created the arts cutback situation because funds had to be diverted to sciences & math to insure the program met its goals (I don’t think anyone planned it to work that way).
Heck. President Obama announced a $250 million initiative to train math and science teachers and help meet his goal of pushing America’s students from the middle to the top of the pack in those subjects in the next decade. Obama said the $250 million in public and private investments for his “Educate to Innovate” campaign will help train more than 100,000 teachers and prepare more than 10,000 new educators in the next five years. I am all for that also. Just not at the expense of other curriculum options students could select.
Why do we have to choose one over the other? (I guess that is where I get stuck on this issue)
So. What would I do? (being the unreasonable guy I am)
Use that 250 million to train Curiosity Fulfillment teachers. Create a Curiosity Fund and go get stuff in front of kids. And keep shoving it at them until they find something they gravitate to. The only reason (in my opinion) kids “give up” in school is because they just don’t find anything relevant to them. I am NOT suggesting we should ignore a well rounded education (they do need to know 2 and 2 is 4 and stuff like that) but give them a “hook.” Something to hold on to. Something that inspires them to want to know more.
There you go – a National Childhood Curiosity Program. Educating to feed Curiosity.
the riches of Purging: Purged Living Part 2
Jul 24th
So you now have purged and are living “small space living.”
The functional benefits are really obvious – financial savings, less upkeep, etc. and they become obvious very quickly (which helps overcome some of the emotional shock of turning around and seeing your entire living space).
A good friend of mine suggested simplifying is all about a decision to live simply versus simply live. And it could be. That is a big big thought.
But big thoughts usually take a while to incubate in our pea like brains (well … at least mine for sure).
So. Possibly after a period of time it smacks you in the back of the head as such.
But in the beginning it may sometimes just be simply that it is … well … simpler.
Less choices. Less maintenance. Less expense.
So it means you have more of other things … one of which is time.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … but there’s the rub.
We Americans rarely accept “free time” as a gift to relax but rather we fill it up with other things. Therefore this “smaller space frees up time” slips through the cracks in the consciousness pretty quickly. (but I bring it up with the hope you try and remember it as a positive).
Shifting to living simply is also a neat opportunity to give life a “fresh start.”
And I imagine I never really thought about the outcome of the purging as having a variety of paths until my mother and I went through it at the same time. My mother and I going through it at exactly the same time showed us two paths:
- I simply consolidated my stuff and took the best of the best and created a space where I love everything that I have.
- My mother took a core favorite group of pieces and items, basically built her bedroom and kitchen with the comfortable stuff from her past things and then started from scratch in the living room (reupholstered comfortable chairs, bought new couch, used two of my paintings she liked, bought new lamps, etc). So she created a new look in her main living space.
So once you get through the purging gauntlet you do have a smaller space, a simpler life and, frankly, a space you have difficulty finding fault with.
While there are fewer things to fondle or juggle you have more to be happy with. It may sound odd but you don’t doubt any purchase you look at around you. Nothing seems like “wasted investment.”
And no matter how rich or material oriented you are there is a lot of satisfaction in “dollars invested well.” and smaller space living focuses you n this each and every day.
Smaller space living ain’t bad. That’s the net of it.
Lastly. The odd conversations.
Inevitably the people you know knew you as a “larger living space person.” So. You find yourself in many conversations explaining your smaller space living arrangement.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .. the harsh edge of perception versus reality. Another friend of mine when talking about our health issues in the United States stated it is because we Americans associate value with quantity (quantity of food in that case). It is similar with living space particularly if you are dealing with people who have seen you in ‘large space.’
You had quantity of space – you were happy.
You no longer have quantity of space – you cannot be happy.
It’s weird. You spend a lot of time trying to explain to people something you have already gone through (the pain of the purge .. which you don’t particularly want to relive but are constantly forced to) to explain you are happy in smaller space living.
Sure.
You rattle off all the functional reasons (smaller bills, less time cleaning, less chores) but people associate that with “you have less money and you had to do that.”
Well.
They may be right. But more likely they are wrong.
Sometimes you reach a point where doing something right for you just doesn’t seem right to others.
Okay sure. Maybe at some point after we get through this depression (oops. recession.) people will accept smaller space living decisions as something like “living life simpler” choices but for now?
Be prepared if you elect to do this.
Remember these three things:
- Purging sucks.
- Simpler life doesn’t suck.
- Explaining it sucks.
Hopefully over time #2 carries more weight in your life than 1 and 3 combined.
As I did all of this myself within the past year I am not positive I have reached the balance yet.
But I hope. And I am fairly sure it is a good place.
capitalism, crisis and cycles
Jul 22nd
So. I rarely simply cut & paste an existing article but then I came across this interview. I believe all of us think about the current economic situation and is it a recession or a depression and why it happened and what will happen. This interview with Richard Foster is probably one of the most concise down-to-earth every day language discussions on the topic I have ever seen.
In addition. The concept of creative destruction (which is not about advertising) is one I have always been interested in. Simply it suggests that creative minds in a marketplace, think entrepreneurs & innovators, will ultimately destroy the boundaries of the existing marketplace and in the wake of the destruction a new system will be created. And the cycle will resume. Of course, anyone who follows my thinking know I like cyclical behavioral patterns so of course I liked the interview. Below is a nice image I found from an innovations company which simply shows creative destruction concept.
There are a couple of real gems in here if you fight your way through equities and hedge funds.
- The essence of capitalism is capitalizing. Such a simple statement that explains the essence of not only our economy but our ethos as a nation. That means at our core we are “growers.” We are happiest when we see opportunities or innovations or new things and capitalize on them. Literally and figuratively this is a huge thought.
- Creation will happen again and will again leave behind the big guys trying to rely solely on operations. For those of us in the world who talk about brands (and really mean companies) and repositioning and revitalizing this thought is very important. As the marketplace cycles we so often seek to freshen stale imagery when the reality is we should be seeking to refresh some creativity WITHIN the company (that could be attitude, innovation or a variety of things) so that their world becomes bigger than ‘relying solely on operations.” Another huge thought.
Anyway. It’s interesting reading. Enjoy.
A coauthor of Creative Destruction explains how the business world—and the capitalist system—will change in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Richard Foster, a McKinsey director from 1982 to 2004, is a coauthor of Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them. In that book, he and Sarah Kaplan argue that to endure, companies must embrace what economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” and change at the pace and scale of the capital markets, without losing control over current operations. In a recent interview with the Quarterly, Foster offered his view of how the current financial crisis might change the business world and the capitalist system.
The Quarterly: How does your vision of creative destruction apply to today’s situation?
Richard Foster: Let’s start by looking back. In the 1970s, we had the “Nifty 50”—invulnerable companies that couldn’t possibly lose, and of course they all did. It will be the same today; there will be surprising losers, and survival will come down to simple things, like cash and margins. If you’re a low-margin company without a lot of cash or perhaps with too much leverage, you will not make it. Someone will figure out how to do better.
In the financial-services sector, the upheaval will create a new generation of leaders. Fifty years ago, we didn’t have 8,000 hedge fund managers. Then somebody said, “We can go short as well as long; we have much better information than people did in the 1930s, and the information comes to us instantaneously rather than days after the event. We can make a lot of money modeling and leveraging that information.” So the hedge funds were born. How many of those guys had been successful at mutual-fund management? I don’t think any. They might have been commodity traders, but few were mutual-fund managers. Today, other kinds of people with no experience or expertise will challenge incumbents from outside the industry, and there will be a lot of them. Most of the challengers will fail, but a few will succeed, and they’ll become the heroes of the next generation. If you had to bet on anything, that’s it because that’s what has happened in the past.
The Quarterly: Could you elaborate on this life cycle?
Richard Foster: In the book, Sarah Kaplan and I show that over the long term, the market performs better than companies do. There can be periods—5, 7, 10, even 15 years—when that isn’t the case, but corporate performance always reverts to a lower level than the market because the economy is changing at a faster pace and on a larger scale than any individual company so far has been able to do without losing control. That’s the challenge: to create, operate, and trade—to divest old businesses and acquire or build new businesses—at the pace and scale of the market without losing control.
The balance among creating, trading, and excelling operationally changes over time. When the economy is in a growth spurt, there’s more creating. Few companies are trading very much and operations are fine. In those circumstances, the newer companies in the economy tend to outperform the index, and the older companies that are only focused on operations underperform the market.
As the market collapses, the weaker upstarts get squeezed out. The survivors are the cash-rich “operators,” which perform at levels closer to the averages, which themselves are lower. Companies that operate well shine in down times, as they are now. Every investor on the planet is looking for companies that have cash left. The turmoil will clear away the weaker companies—the companies that have taken too much risk. This doesn’t mean they’re bad companies; it’s just that they’ve taken on too much risk given their balance sheet resources.
The Quarterly: What happens then?
Richard Foster: New, young companies that have conserved cash and have solid and often expanding margins surge ahead. When this happened in the ’70s, companies such as The Limited, The Gap, Home Depot, and John Malone’s TeleCommunications Inc. sprung from the burned forest. After the crash of 1987, Microsoft, Oracle, and Amgen took off. Then in the ’90s, we had the Internet companies. Creation will happen again and will again leave behind the big guys trying to rely solely on operations.
The Quarterly: To what extent is today’s financial crisis different from earlier ones?
Richard Foster: The granddaddy of cycles in this economy is the equity premium, which is the difference between the longer-term total returns to shareholders and the supposedly risk-free debt rate. It is the premium the equity investor gets for taking the equity risk. Looking back, we can see seven great cycles. During the boom times, when the equity premium goes way too high, everybody hocks everything to get in on the game, and this creates the conditions for a crash. When the crash occurs, the politicians come in and say it was this or that person’s fault. Then they create regulatory institutions, and virtually every one of those institutions—starting with the Federal Reserve, in 1913, as a result of the crash of 1907—has been quite productive for the nation in the longer term. This includes the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in 1934; the Investment Company Act, in 1940; the beginning of the end of fixed commission rates in 1970; and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, in the early 2000s.
The Quarterly: What happens in the aftermath of the new regulations?
Richard Foster: What do self-respecting entrepreneurs do when subjected to new regulations? They learn the regulations backward and forward and then vow never to start another business that falls within the scope of those regulations. And so off the entrepreneur goes to find a new way. That’s one reason credit default swaps eventually took the form they did—the other options were regulated.
The new entrepreneur often seeks ways to innovate outside the scope of the newly established regulations. In the beginning, all that works out fine. We have innovations, we love the people who created them, they’re great heroes, the returns are strong, everybody says, “I’m going to be one of those guys.” Eventually, all the truly good guys who are going to get into that business have done so. The opportunity starts drawing less savory figures—charlatans who overmarket, cut corners, establish usurious contracts, and do other clever things to generate profit for themselves. They end up bringing the system down. Then guess what happens? At the end of that period, after the equity premium has soared and collapsed again, the government steps in and regulates the systems, this time focusing on the last wave of abuse. And then we start over.
We were getting somewhat better at handling these cycles until 2000, but since then we’ve gotten worse. The collapse of 2008 isn’t like the crash of 1929, because we have the institutions that were created in the last century, and they are very effective. Understanding the differences between the ’30s and today is at least as important as understanding the similarities.
The Quarterly: Capitalism has just taken a beating. What will the future look like?
Richard Foster: The essence of capitalism is capitalizing—bringing forward the future value of cash to the present so that society can grow more quickly by taking risks. It goes back to the Dutchmen in the 16th century, sitting at their coffeehouses in Amsterdam and Leiden, loaning each other money for a guaranteed return. Someone said, “I’ll give you a little higher return if you give me a piece of the action”—and equity was invented. That had the effect of bringing forward, into real cash today, the net present value of future earnings. That levered society and allowed it to grow at a much higher rate than it would otherwise have. Equity was a very clever invention, and we are not going to give it up. This is the way people are. This is the way commerce works and will continue to work unless capitalism ends. And that won’t happen, regardless of what you read in the press.
cloning self image
Jul 20th
“Why are you trying so hard to fit in, when you’re born to stand out.”
- oliver james
So. I love this quote from a variety of perspectives.
But. Today I am going to use it to discuss self esteem. Especially a woman’s self esteem (I have an entire post on this coming up on the heels of my Unhealthy Eating posts).
Anyway.
Self esteem. It comes from the inside out. In its truest sense that means a woman is not dependent upon anyone else to make her feel good about herself. She feels fine just the way she is aware of strengths and abilities and is comfortable unequivocally sharing them with others (or let’s say unequivocally enough that it doesn’t affect pursuing relationship or having positive relationships).
Sure.
She is also aware of areas needing work and flaws. But is comfortable knowing no one can be perfect. So there is a basic understanding, and inner belief, that we all have our strengths and weaknesses and she has the self esteem to be independent (not dependent).
All you have to do is work in marketing for even a short time and you realize that self esteem is a core identity issue (and Maslow has an entire hierarchical chart reflecting this which I have probably used a half dozen times in presentations).
Maslow notes self esteem is essential to personal validation and the ability to experience happiness. But. Self esteem resides within.
So. A healthy self esteem is important on a number of levels.
But here is the deal.
Self esteem is attacked or stunted from the outside.
So. A woman with low self esteem does not feel good about herself mainly because she has absorbed negative messages about women from one, or a combination, of these – society, what culture communicates around her, relationships (parents and/or companions).
Let me cut to the chase.
Society seems to doom every woman to eventual failure (unless she is made of Teflon or looks like Angeline Jolie).
Magazines, from teens on, pound away on one message – focus all efforts on appearance.
Oh. And not just “appearance” but rather “approved appearance.”
It seems many girls are encouraged by their tweens to stop enjoyable fun activities they may have enjoyed up to that point and focus their energy in pursuit of social acceptance (or they go the exact opposite direction seeking to file themselves under “outcast”).
And how crazy does it become? Well. They become rabbits eating leaves without salad dressing, jog in hurricanes, and dance like nuts to disco and sweat in designer outfits and swear they love every minute of it.
Oh. And TV. Never ending cosmetic surgery ads encouraging women to “repair” flaws in pursuit of appearance perfection (or the somewhat dubious “approved appearance”).
Yet despite all efforts women find it difficult to feel like they are good enough.
Geez. How can they? Magazine models are airbrushed to perfection as well as so thin I am not sure it is physically possible to have bones. All the beautiful movie stars are whipped into perfect shape by 8 hour workouts and personal trainers and surgery is used as if it’s like brushing teeth in the morning to create a fairly unattainable ideal.
Let me note right now. This womens’ poor self esteem issue just steams me. I know all women do not have it but far far too many do.
And this is nuts. Absolutely nuts. And I am gonna swing into a guy’s perspective on this.
This is a huge generalization but the buck stops here. With guys (men).
Since when have men followed what society tells us to do? We need to find our inner rebel and take this on (either that or just get our heads out of our asses). It is kind of up to us to solve this issue. At least for the women around us that we actually care about.
Not magazines. Not TV.
Sure. They drive me nuts but, hey … I would start with American Idol or Bridezillas before I attacked women’s magazines and cosmetic ads.
Why us men?
- We are there and can make an impact.
- Because it matters.
This is not from me. This is from someone who has PhD’s out the wazzoo talking about self esteem:
“Because they don’t have the self-esteem to know that there is someone amazing out there for them.”
Or.
“They just don’t accept that someone really does not only accept them for who they are but could even possibly love them – as is.”
And they beat themselves up. And they compromise. And they find abusive companions. And they feed this self esteem machine running 24/7 inside of them and a lot of really smart, beautiful and amazing women get destroyed by this – and it is a slow destruction taking little bite after little bite from the inside out.
And I get steamed.
And the crazy thing? (and this is really crazy).
Society has us all so screwed up in our thinking that even the women who you wouldn’t even hesitate to put into the ‘beautiful’ category have self esteem issues.
See Audrey Hepburn quote:
Look. In my Unhealthy Eating diatribe I state my belief. Healthy comes in all shapes and sizes.
Well. Here’s is the corollary or postulate or frickin’ theorem if you want it – Beautiful comes in all shapes and sizes.
And I don’t want to hear this crap about “she has a great personality” or “beauty is within.”
Everyone has someone who finds them beautiful, as is, out there in this world.
If you haven’t found that person keep looking.
On that issue?
Do. Not. Compromise.
(deep breath here)
I would imagine I wrote this because I just finished my unhealthy eating posts and portions of this self esteem appearance issue keeps rattling around in discussions people are having over obesity versus unhealthy and eating.
And the discussions are taking place among women I value … respect … and frankly cannot understand how we (society) put them in a place where they would even question “oh, someone could never see me that way.”
Drives. Me. frickin’. Nuts.
So.
Bottom line. The quote.
The beautiful women I know are beautiful because they don’t fit into some magazine outlined appearance or whatever. They don’t meet the “approved appearance” criteria (but I also probably could count on one hand women who do).
They are beautiful because they are individuals. The package. The imperfections make them perfect. They should be encouraged to stand out not wear themselves out trying to fit in.
And, because I am a guy, I can say this.
I think more guys should step up to the plate and be more positive with women.
Especially if you care.
Nowhere in ‘caring’ do I see any derivative of “diminish.”
So guys if you want a clone, go get one. But for the women who want to stand out and maybe not fit exactly into society sameness standards please don’t try and make them into clones.
Let them find someone who loves them as is.
unhealthy eating Part 4: implementation
Jul 15th
A friend (I use that term loosely) asked me how the program I suggested in Part 3 could be effectively implemented when there is an economic cost of eating healthy and the role the government would have to play in altering that.
Well. First. He is correct.
It is a fact there are some significant subsidies and a lot of companies with great interests in keeping things the way they are:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/
Second. Look. I don’t really believe the wacky pyramid charts in the article (too many dimensions and % of %’s aspects that make it difficult to put in a useful pyramid).
But.
Let’s just agree in the current situation/environment the government subsidizes (for a number of good reasons as well as some wrong reasons) a variety of unhealthy focused items versus more healthy items.
Bottom line? The government spends an average of $4.6 billion on subsidies for corn and nothing on fruit/vegetables.
And according to a March ‘08 NY Times article, My Forbidden Fruits (and vegetables), farmers are actually fined when they plant fruits and veggies on land that is designated for corn (oh, here’s a random factoid for you, a Big Mac registers at 53% corn due to all the corn that the cows ate and the high fructose corn syrup so Big Macs – not picking on McDonalds although I like Wendy’s burgers better but they are also in the same situation – are actually partially subsidized by the government).
Anyway.
I guess the point of all these facts is to point out that the existing farm and government infrastructure is not really conducive to a large population shift in eating behavior.
Well.
You could pretty much have said the same thing about the tobacco & government relationship at the onset of the anti tobacco initiatives in the early 1970’s. In addition that battle continued for decades before subsidies and government programs actually swung in a different direction.
There were lots of subsidies and “keeping things the way they are.”
But. It has changed. It has been a long complex battle but in the end smoking (tobacco) has lost … or let’s say is in the process of losing.
All that said let’s go to implementation (because that will be the way to actually affect unhealthy eating behavior AND actually change the way that government looks at this issue).
So. I have suggested Unhealthy Eating as an addiction.
And Mortality education is the linchpin to a communications program.
My thoughts on implementation.
First. I do believe the recent healthcare reform where the government will become more active in day to day health insurance programs should benefit unhealthy addiction programs. Well. Let me take that back. IF the new healthcare reform (which, ladies & gentlemen, is unlikely to happen as the government argues over stupid stuff) happens, an unhealthy initiative would benefit.
Second. I have already written here I am not a big detractor of government developed programs. I do believe they do a nice job developing and initial implementation of national programs (ongoing management not so much). So some type of national federally funded initiative would work well here. Let me clarify this also. This does not mean it has to be an actual federal program but rather a national fund where states could access matching funds if they meet some specific criteria (portions of anti-tobacco does this same thing I believe).
Third. I would implement unhealthy eating programs on a state level (primarily).
Similar to anti tobacco (anti smoking) campaigns from day one the most successful case studies came from individual states and in fact success at an individual state level eventually drove a stake through the heart of federal subsidies and the tobacco lobbyist construct.
We should let states take this one on in the beginning.
Some will get it righter than others but they learn fast.
The key is getting some success and some trial & error things in place. State driven initiatives are incredibly good at ‘borrowing’ successful ideas from other states (as well as challenging ideas with the intent of always improving … or simply the competitiveness of ‘looking better than those jerks in that other state).
Going back to my “primarily” comment I would like to note that it was a federal program that created the controversial smoking black lung messaging and drugs scrambled egg and John Lennon ‘imagine’ gun control messaging. So a federal based campaign can create a strong messaging platform. That means, stating once again, I wouldn’t be opposed to a federal unhealthy eating campaign.
I just believe in the end if we really want to get some traction and develop campaigns that will affect behavior they should be implemented on the state level.
There you go. Nothing brilliant here. In fact I am stealing the successful learnings from the anti-tobacco initiatives. But why reinvent the wheel?
the moment thief
Jul 14th
“Suspect each moment, for it is a thief, tiptoeing away with more than it brings.”
John Updike (a month of Sundays)
While I love the thought behind this quote I probably love the way it is written even more. The ability to string together these words, the imagination to do so, the sheer understanding of life to be able to write this astounds me.
We have all seen quotes talking about treasuring the moment.
Live in the now. Seize the moment. All that stuff. Good stuff.
But sometimes while short pithy direct sayings are effective there are times when you can use words in such a way that creates an image. Tie an emotional energy to the thought.
(people who know me are now awaiting my Clotaire Rappaile reference to the fact that “emotion is the energy to cause action” … oops … said it.)
But Updike reminds us in a singular way that each moment, if you do not pay attention, steals the memory of it to be forever lost.
Time is a disposable product.
It’s kind of like a cruise ship leaving port with empty berths.
A plane taking off with empty seats.
A hotel at night with empty beds.
Its lost revenue.
Its lost opportunity.
When it’s gone it’s gone.
It’s not like on the next cruise the cruise line can cram in an extra person into each cabin and regain the opportunity.
Stolen moments are exactly the same.
Once gone they cannot be regained.
My business analogies are an attempt to show how moments almost always take away more than they bring. Sure.
Planes leave with a full load on occasion. But that is some fraction of a 100% of all “flight moments.”
All one can do is attempt to maximize moments and not regret that a moment left with some “open seats” as you look back.
On the other hand.
Moments are like thieves.
And you can protect moments from stealing things from you.
You can protect yourself from having something important stolen.
An opportunity. A memory. A moment within a moment maybe.
I guess in the end what I like about this quote is the fact that none of us like to have our things stolen.
And think about how you would feel if someone stole the most valuable thing you own or have (this is the infamous “what is the one thing you would grab if your house was on fire).
Well. There is a thief. And that thief steals time if you let your guard down.
That is why I like this quote.
Célébrons ! bastille day, baguettes & vel’ d’Hiv
Jul 14th
Bastille Day
So. Today, July 14th, France celebrates its national holiday in commemoration of the storming of the Bastille prison. Oh. Everyone should also note that if you want anything done in France today forget it. I flew through De Gaulle airport one 14th only to find out about 50% of the workers didn’t show up that day. Needless to say there were some delays.
Anyway. Bastille Day commemorates the storming of the Bastille, which took place on 14 July 1789 and marked the beginning of the French Revolution marked the end of absolute monarchy, the birth of the sovereign Nation, and, eventually, the creation of the (First) Republic, in 1792.
The Bastille was a prison and a symbol of the absolute and arbitrary power of Louis the 16th’s Ancient Regime. By capturing this symbol, the people signaled that the king’s power was no longer absolute: power should be based on the Nation and be limited by a separation of powers.
Although the Bastille only held seven prisoners at the time of its capture, the storming of the prison was a symbol of liberty and the fight against oppression for all French citizens. The other symbol remains the French Tricolore flag. It symbolizes the Republic’s three ideals: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity for all French citizens.
What English speakers call Bastille Day the French call le 14 juillet. If you want to wish French speaker a happy Bastille Day “Bonne Bastille !” is the simplest. But say Joyeux Quatorze Juillet ! and a Frenchman will smile.
“Une baguette de tradition, s’il vous plaît.”
Nothing beats a Parisian baguette which you can pick up at almost every corner in Paris as you walk. Oh. The “de tradition” part is important, because a traditional baguette tastes a whole lot better than a regular baguette. It’s usually slightly more expensive but worth it (a good baguette only costs around €1.20).
So. Ever wonder why the streets of Paris almost smell so nice (the fresh smell of bread and baking). An authentic baguette has a shelf life of only four hours so bakeries churn out fresh loaves throughout the day.
Oh, some other baguette protocols. If there’s a line, as there is at almost every boulangerie with excellent baguettes better have exact change ready (no fumbling at the counter or you can quickly uncover the surliness of the French). And say “Bonjour Madame/Monsieur” when it’s your turn, ask for your baguette (hesitating makes them move on to the next person in line) and put down the exact change when you get your baguette. With it, you are likely to hear the French word “Parfait!” and get a smile.
rue de Saintonge and Marais district and Vel’ d’Hiv
Famous for its 17th-century mansions, its Jewish heritage, a vibrant contemporary gay scene and edgy art galleries, the Marais district is also filled with quirky, unique boutiques specializing in the coolest fashion, the hottest design and the trendiest beauty products. The Marais is the labyrinth of streets stretching south from Boulevard du Temple in the 3rd arrondissement stretching into the 4th arrondissement. The Marais is interesting, sometimes not for the faint of heart and unlike walking the more touristy areas this Paris district is chockfull of a vivid mix of characters. Stroll its medieval lanes and you’ll rub shoulders with muscle-shirted gays and feather-boa transvestites and long-bearded rabbis and scruffy rock musicians and West African restaurateurs and Eastern European bakers.
Rue de Saintonge is in the 4th arrondissement near the center of the Marais (I think). This is one of my favorite neighborhoods as it is lively, eclectic and contains several of the oldest sections of the city as well as lots of trendy bars, shops, and restaurants. The rue des Rosiers is a centerpiece of Jewish lifestyle in Paris and the Ile St. Louis and the Ile de la Cité are the oldest parts of Paris.
A moment about rue de Saintonge
What makes this even more interesting is that I just finished reading a book called Sarah’s Key which centers its historical fiction story around an apartment on rue de Saintonge. The book’s back story revolves around a relatively unknown event during WW2 in occupied France involved with the Holocaust. An event, Vel’ d’Hiv, whose anniversary is on July 16th.
Vel’ d’Hiv (commonly called the Rafle du Vel’ d’Hiv – “Vel’ d’Hiv Police Roundup” – from the nickname for the Velodrome d’Hiver -”Winter Velodrome” cycle track) was a Nazi decreed raid in Paris on July 16 and 17, 1942, code named Operation Spring Breeze (Opération Vent printanier).
The roundup was one of several aimed at reducing the Jewish population in Occupied France. According to records 13,152 victims were arrested and held at the Vélodrome d’Hiver and the Drancy internment camp nearby, then shipped by rail to Auschwitz (of which almost 100% perished. The roundup, which was part of a continentwide plan to intern and kill Europe’s Jewish population, was a joint operation between the Germans and French leaders. The Vel’ d’Hiv roundup wasn’t the first. Nearly 4,000 Jewish men were arrested on 10 May 1941 and taken to Gare d’Austerlitz and then to internment camps and then to the “death” camps. Women and families followed in July 1942.
Roundups were conducted throughout France but public outrage was greatest in Paris because of the numbers involved in a concentrated area. The Roman Catholic church, which had not always been quick to condemn the Germans, even spoke out in protest. Public reaction obliged French leadership in occupied France to ask the Germans on 2 September not to demand more Jews.
The roundup accounted for more than a quarter of the 42,000 Jews sent from France to Auschwitz in 1942, of whom only 811 came home at the end of the war. I believe French Jews represented about 80,000 of the total 6 million Jewish people who died during the Holocaust.
Do I say this to diminish this event?
Nope.
I mention it to remind people that if you solely focus on 6 million you forget the smaller horrible events that took place in every country occupied by the Nazis during World War 2 that contributed to an incomprehensible number.
Everyone was accountable for the Holocaust. And it is very easy for us to suggest all those who did nothing to stop it should be shamed (and I believe all do feel it) but unless you were there, unless you know what it is like to be under the thumb of ferocious dictatorship it is simpler to just say “we were all accountable and a brave few knew how to have the courage to stand up.”
And while it may be easy to also focus on the complicity of the French police and government in this event (as well as any government in occupied Germany during this time) I will note to complete this particular section that 3,158 persons were awarded the Righteous among the Nations honor (of which 160 received a Legion of Honor).
- note: Righteous among the Nations (Chassidey Umot HaOlam, more literally: righteous men of the world’s nations, also translated as “Righteous Gentiles”) is an honorific used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis.
The French, as do many countries, refer to the days of WW2 occupation and the holocaust as “their darkest hour.”
So.
On Bastille Day I would ask that they remember the few (of probably many) who were recognized for standing up to evil.
And on the 16th they remember that evil is difficult to face.
Célébrons ! Bastille Day.
unhealthy eating Part 3: the campaign idea
Jul 12th
(foreword note) Ok. This has been a long time coming. My fault. I hadn’t mastered the link placement in post thing. Hang in there and maybe go back and peruse 1 &2 and 4 is actually now on its way.
Assuming you have read Parts 1 & 2 of this diatribe you are tagging along to see where I take the “unhealthy eating is an addiction” thought.
Suffice it to say it is counterproductive to continue pouring money and effort into attempts to make everyone slim, especially when this results in side effects that are disastrous for mental and physical health (widespread body dissatisfaction and poor self-image, eating disorders, appearance based prejudice, discrimination, stigmatization). We’ve had advice, admonition, instruction, rebuke, counsel and guidance through food columns, health columns, TV programs, government initiatives, and local campaigns. There have been guidelines, targets, programs and agendas, plans of action and series of measures.
None have worked.
Yet, as I read USAToday and other publications it seems we are doomed to experience more government anti-obesity campaigns and policies that have little effect on our collective health (or weight) but will make them feel good they are “doing something to solve the problem.
The demand for weight loss fueled by the notion that everyone has a moral obligation to achieve a slim body will continue to eat up more and more of individuals’ budgets and energy (only to fail again and again in their efforts and simply go back to existing behavior).
This is what awaits us (or worse), if we don’t change direction and stop trying to follow the ‘one objective’ (be slim) method.
Look. We are going to have to do something different because it’s not as if we hadn’t heard it all before. For the last 20 years we’ve been lectured, browbeaten, chided and scolded over weight issues.
And let me be clear. We may have the programs available to help resolve the issue but the majority of these programs marketing campaigns (and intent) are appealing to people’s vanity and avoiding a key emotional trigger to inspire ongoing behavior (because vanity isn’t it).
In fact these programs go after the “be slim” concept which is wrong, wrong, wrong.
But I have an idea.
I believe the most recent UK anti-obesity campaign comes close.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2009/jan/02/change4life-ad-campaign
By close I mean they wrap a story around what I would consider the idea that would get adults to really really care.
Almost hidden in the middle of the execution they show and say (basically) that obesity, or being overweight, kills. By the way, the reason they can say that (truthfully) is that there are numbers showing the current generation of kids are believed to be destined to live a shorter lifespan than prior generations (the first downward trend in a long time).
So. The campaign is leveraging an adult’s worst nightmare – they outlive their child.
But they soften the blow in a nice story.
On how to ‘unsoften the blow’ we should look to anti-smoking initiatives and attack this problem exactly like they did.
Now. Let’s be careful with this thought. A bunch of people are gonna start talking about the existing anti smoking programs and “how smoke affects other people” and “not scaring people to motivate them to act.” All those things are correct, and smart, but not what needs to be done now.
We need to go back to learnings from initial anti-smoking campaigns. We need to scare the bejesus out of people so they sit up and take notice.
This is “black lung” type of messaging time.
This is time to tie Unhealthy Eating with dire consequences.
I was recently at an agency where we developed a pro bono “Obesity Kills” campaign. Awesome idea. Well articulated. Made people gasp when we presented it. Half the room loved it. The entire room was scared of it. That made us feel like we had hit the nail on the head.
No one had the cahones to use it. (That didn’t make us feel as good.)
Anyway.
Similar to the UK campaign I would use the fact that Unhealthy Eating can affect the lifespan of children. I would highlight the fact Unhealthy Eating is an addiction.
I do believe a campaign can highlight the effects of an unhealthy eating addiction in children to change adult behavior (and therefore create a circular behavior effect – “I need to change my child’s eating behavior so they won’t die so I need to change my behavior as an example for them – and ultimately I will be healthier also).” It may sound indirect but adults do amazing things to protect kids.
Look. We hear a lot about “childhood obesity campaigns.” That’s stupid. A marketing campaign directed to children won’t address the issue. We can try and make sure the right things are available to them. But kids aren’t stupid. What kid doesn’t look to their mother and father or favorite aunt or uncle as an example of behavior? So. This behavior shift isn’t really about kids. Kids are kids. We can tell them about unhealthy eating until we are blue in the face. As soon as on their own they will grab the snickers bar over the apple. (cause that is pretty much what adults do).
So. In the end I believe we need to change adult behavior (and ultimately that will change children’s behavior).
Unhealthy Eating is an addiction that Kills.
The role of this umbrella campaign is to get people stimulated to do something. Get in a “quit program.”
Once in program we should be encouraging a practical systematic approach to healthy eating (that was in Part 2).
To me we should be driving people into an HAES system so “kicking the addiction” isn’t about getting slimmer it is about achievable ways to optimize health for each individual regardless of size or shape. Once again, HAES emphasizes the benefits of sound nutrition, active living and body confidence as ends in themselves, not as a route to weight management.
Bottom line. Weight control is NOT about being fat or obese or skinny or any body image word you want to write here. It is about being healthy or unhealthy in the body you have. Bodies come in all shapes and sizes. Let them come in all shapes and sizes. Let’s address how we treat those bodies. Unhealthy eating is an addiction. Treat is as such.
more important than fear
Jul 10th
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.”
Ambrose Redmoon
In one of the first posts I ever wrote I included this quote within a group of quotes. Here is what I wrote:
- I am fortunate enough to know a number of Marines. I don’t believe any of them have ever refuted the fact they felt fear at some point. At the same time I do not believe they have ever referred to themselves as showing courage. They simply state “the alternative wasn’t an option.” They found that something was more important than fear. We could all learn that lesson even without the actual bullets.
Looking back I wouldn’t change a word. I don’t know how soldiers do it. But notice, every time you ever hear the best …. they never talk about their courage. They signed up to do a job. And they do it.
It is here that looking back I would add some words. About life. And people. The capacity of people is stunning on occasion if you take a moment and look at it. And I mean just ordinary life and the sometimes overwhelming responsibilities that often try and crush the moment with fear of “how am I going to do it all.”
The kids first day of school. The air conditioning is broken (and you don’t live in Alaska). The car you just picked up from the body shop getting fixed from an accident isn’t right and needs additional work. All the extra expenses that come crashing in with all those things. Difficulty at work with an employee. Brand new tenant dealing with the broken air conditioning. The logistics associated with getting everything done and being at the right place at the right time and the seemingly endless check writing.
That’s just an example.
I would imagine all of us have ‘these days’ of some type. And all of us discover ‘judgment of something more important than fear’ and don’t just break down or freeze into inaction.
But just because we all do it shouldn’t stop us from looking around and recognize the courage of some of those people who find the courage to step up and run these types of gauntlets. I sometimes believe we are all so focused on dealing with our own shit that we are numbed to what other people around us are dealing with – and the stunning grace with which they handle that shit which make it easy to overlook.
While I began this post talking about courage in the sense of facing extraordinary situations where death is an option. I end this post focusing on everyday life where despite the fear that someone just may not be able to measure up to the everyday pressures and responsibilities that same person finds the courage to get through it. Sometimes in solitude so no one ever knows.
I guess the point of this is maybe take a moment and look around you. Courage takes shape in some of the most unlikely of people. I know I do it. If only because I find the depth of character to just do, sometimes in solitude, often in silence … awe inspiring.
