Enlightened Conflict

living below the line

October 17th, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

So.

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

Limits? <hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm>

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

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

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

And therein lies the issue to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well.

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

Let me try this out on you.

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

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

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

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

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

Well.

Here is why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approximately 1.2 billion in extreme poverty globally.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me?

I am not going to preach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have played it several times.

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

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

I am honest with myself.

I couldn’t.

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

Enlightening? You bet.

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

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

Okay.

Then I took the next step.

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

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

A confession.

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

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

I learned very quickly that it is pretty fucking hard.

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

My reward for all of this effort?

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

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

This reminded me of a couple of things:

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

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

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

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

Healthcare or no healthcare?

Do I feed my child a decent meal?

Clothing? Housing?

The list is … well … relentless.

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

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

None.

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

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

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

First …

Yes, folks, some do.

Second.

Okay. Try this on for size then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I offer no solution today.

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

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

the right to an education

October 15th, 2012

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

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

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

Here is the true shame.

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

Why was she shot?

Because Malala Yousufzai threatened the Taliban existence.

How could a 14 year old girl threaten the Taliban?

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

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

Okay.

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

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

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

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

Now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A generation hungry for knowledge.

A generation focused on enlightened decision making.

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

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

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

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

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

A side note <albeit an important one>.

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

As do I.

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

My point?

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

let the bout begin

October 5th, 2012

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

That said.

Here is what I believe.

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

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

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

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

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

The Romney debate strategy is former and president is latter.

Both extremely viable strategies.

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

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

First.

Attack.

Relentlessly attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next.

Deflect.

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

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

He deflected.

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

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

Parts:

Would he increase deficit? Of course not. Never.

Would he cut taxes for the rich? No.

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

Would he raise taxes on the middle class? No.

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

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

Sum?

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

Brilliant. Well played.

Now.

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

Lastly.

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

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

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

The risk?

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

- The proof that my theory may be right?

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

Moving on to the president.

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

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

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

Well. The president did what he was asked.

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

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

Let me give a hypothetical, but realistic, example.

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

Everyone says ‘hell yeah.’

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

Silence in the room as they think.

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

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

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

Someone give the republican Angelo a raise.

Now.

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

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

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

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

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

Now.

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

Someone knows their shit in the democrat camp.

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s my thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

global citizens

October 2nd, 2012

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

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

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

- Global festival music

- Global festival presentations

- Global Citizen poverty & education Initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

global citizen music

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great music for a great cause.

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

Their job was to entertain and they did.

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

global citizen speakers

So.

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

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

Really well done.

Okay. The videos were really well done .

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

But let me begin with the best presenter.

And she is only 20 years old.

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

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

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

Well.

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

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

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

Regardless.

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

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

- Figure out what you want to say

- Figure out how you want to say it

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

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

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

Next.

Figuring out how you want to say it.

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

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

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

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

- Forced rules of behavior

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

Nuts.

I just say ‘nuts’ to that.

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

Nuts to all the book rules.

- Forced passion

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

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

Well. It’s all forced.

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

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

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

- Forced relevance <or forced theme>

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

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

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

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

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

Excepting Selena. She stood out. Very well done.

global citizen education

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

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

First.

Some numbers:

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

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

Number of Children that live in Poverty 1 billion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

Last thoughts.

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

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

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

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

stepping up

September 7th, 2012

Ok.

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

I am calling it stepping up.

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

What do I mean?

Stepping up part 1.

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

She is correct.

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

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

And I fear they either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen sister.

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

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

Ok.

Stepping up part 2.

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

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

Fortunately I am not a politician.

Therefore I will talk about personal responsibility.

No marketer/company uses the phrase in communications.

It is typically the kiss of death.

People do not want to hear it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regardless.

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

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

Yeah. We pay taxes. And it is painful.

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

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

Voting is one stepping up … assuming some personal responsibility.

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

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

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

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

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

So.

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

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

What we do with it is up to us.

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

You are not done just because you voted.

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

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

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

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

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

That’s us continually stepping up.

Thought I would just remind us of that.

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

Is it work? Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.

elections & words used well

September 7th, 2012

Ok.

Politics, and American/democracy politics in particular, is the perfect time to remind everyone that how you present an idea is often as important, maybe even more important, than the idea itself. I am not diminishing the importance of the idea itself but I am maximizing the importance of the presentation. If you have ever doubted this thought I suggest you watch the American republican & democratic conventions (I watched both).

Now. Apparently the Romney crew disagrees with me … in watching the Democratic convention <although Mitt says he is not watching> they say things like “the speeches are nice, and well & good, but they are just speeches.” Well. In fact … oh my. I have said it before <about business> and I will say it again <this time on politics & policy> … I have seen more great ideas die because they were poorly presented then I have seen … well … let’s just say I have seen shitload. Great presentation of a thought, even a mediocre thought, will beat a poorly presented great thought. Sorry. That just happens.

Anyway. Romney team silliness aside … here is my point on this american election and the presentations.

Ideologically <or platform wise> Americans may have a clearer choice than they have ever had before between the candidates/party lines … and yet … it may come down to how it is presented.

Republican convention was plodding. Maybe it was because they focused n details? I don’t know. Mitt Romney is an uninspiring big room speaker <which makes people struggle to see how he plays on a global stage even if he may have the answers to a domestic problem>. Mrs. Romney was delightful & charming … and not used to the national stage <she is quite like Mrs. Obama 4 years ago>. Ryan is engaging when on a comfortable topic and shows signs of being an engaging speaker but needs seasoning on this large a stage. Although. Ryan. I will note that at some point in this election some Republicans will be wishing Ryan was the presidential candidate and Romney the VP because the boy is gonna deliver in town hall after town hall. Republicans? Good solid presenters but not American dream type presenters.

Democrats? Whew. They had a murderers row of killer presenters. The Ohio governor was a pistol. They gave him the hard edged stuff to deliver and he did. Mayor of San Antonio, an American Latino, was Ryan like. A little stilted in the overwhelming spotlight but you saw the foundation for what ‘could be.’ The Mayor of Newark is the rising star … Booker I think is his name. Wow. Great communicator. The vice president <Biden>? Well. He could be a Republican presenter … his lips move and it is like a Peanuts cartoon <bla .. bla … bla is what comes out>. But. I imagine all his bla, bla, blas lead to a lot of old white folk voting for democrats. Oh. And then there was the president’s wife. Michelle Obama has become a speaker juggernaut. People call her a political juggernaut but I would argue with that. I would simply say she has entered the spotlight and learned to embrace it. She is a better presenter than many of the politicians surrounding her. She was outstanding. An excellent presenter of ideas.

And this is before we even get to Bill Clinton who may be the greatest orator of our generation. People may call him slick … but the man can command an audience … an audience of millions. Many people can create a connection one on one. A smaller, but still large group, of presenters can create a connection with a larger audience <say 100 to 1000>. But there are very very few who know how to speak to a group of 20000+ and make 90% of that humongous group feel like they are being talked to one-on-one … and by one-on-one I mean that the speaker has done the trapeze like balancing act of hope & reality. The ability to teeter between “what could, and can, be” and “what is” in such a way that you feel like you can not only see a light at the end of the tunnel but you are willing to get up out of the chair and do something about getting to the end of the tunnel. Billy-boy can do that. Like him or dislike him the man can speak. His speech? Methodical yet personal. Substantive yet likeable. Long yet engaging. There is no one on the Republican side who can match Bill. Heck. There are a handful of people globally who may be able to match Bill.

And then the Obama presentation. Not overwhelming. Solid. But, frankly, I am not sure what else he could do. People argued he should detail what has to be done. Nope. He has shown a plan … why waste time sharing it again. He couldn’t defend his record because people cannot do that for themselves (and be believable or non arrogant). Clinton and Biden did that.

What he was left with were 2 things. Here is the type of leader I am and here is the choice you need to make if you want me. Carville (I think) said he and Biden were “muscular.” Yeah. I buy that. Anyway. Detail or no detail on a plan he was presidential. Good tone if that was goal.

Now. There was a teaching moment with his speech. And it wasn’t during the speech but just before it. Great presenters enter an important presentation in a variety of ways. For example I found it interesting to hear Hilary talk about how Bill sent her a variety of drafts for her thoughts. And for Barack while I envision there were a lot of discussions over words in Obama’s speech I guess there was no debate on one thing – I bet the first lady stepped up and said “no one else but me is going to be at that podium to introduce Barack.” Why? They are a delightful partnership and she was not going to leave that stage until she knew he was ready. And I believe he knew it was the best thing for him. Why do I say this? I pay attention to little shit with presentations. There was the charming little moment right after she introduced him and they hugged when she leaned back a little, like a protective proud mom, and straightened his tie for him because their hug messed it up. And then, well, I am not a lip reader but she has her hands on his shoulders and looks him right in the eye and says “you ready?” I personally believe she wouldn’t have stepped away until she saw what she needed to see.

Why is that an important detail? Great presenters find a ‘place’ before they present. Its hard to describe. Its the itty bitty calm place you go to before bringing it on. The lesson here? Obama is a great speaker. This was a big big moment. Standing in front of hundreds (which I know) you can feel very small in that pre-calm moment before it all clears away. But you have to clear the clutter and get into your space no matter what <or you are screwed>. I cannot even imagine when it is millions in front of you. So what? You do what you need to do to insure success. You do not have to do it alone. Do I know what Michelle would have done if she hadn’t seen what she needed to see? Nope. I imagine she would have hugged one more time and said whatever a great partner says to put the right frame of mind in place, the zone as it were, for Barack. But my guess is if I saw it right “you ready” placed Barack right into the “yes I am” cleared clutter space. Anyway. The real point. There is no presentation formula. And I tell kids that all the time. And I do it just because I see speech situations like this. You gotta figure out what is best for each presentation situation. I appreciate Obama was smart enough to recognize that and envy the fact he had someone who recognized the moment. But. That’s me.

Learning

The bottom line <on presenting and words>? People, especially young people, should watch these things to see how ideas and thoughts are presented. The good and the bad. The derived passion versus the natural passion. The forced schtick versus the relevant schtick. The trite story versus just good ole fashion story telling. Great presenters have a little natural gift of gab, tempered by a boatload of practice/rehearsal and honed by experience. And even with all of that … you just may not be a good presenter … and you will certainly have bad days with the good days. Conventions are a cornucopia of lessons to be learned.

Some examples.

Romney. Bet he is brilliant in a boardroom or management meeting. Appears to have that innate ability to listen, assimilate and provide concise strong direction. Short communication. Ryan. You can only sit back and be dazzled by his comfort in a small town hall environment. Walking around holding a mike in his hand. This is conversational communication at its best. Clinton (and sometimes Obama). Masters of millions. Innate ability to make individual listeners feel the heartbeat of millions. That’s aspirational communication. Each is a different ability … and strength. And as with everything in life … you can’t be good at everything. And it is good for young people to learn those lessons. And watch others.

I also love watching the governors speak. Some are obviously perfect for their state constituents and not fully translatable nationally. Some are obviously just gifted communicators. In fact I sometimes believe governors represent an inordinately high percentage of great speakers.

It seems I am tending to use democrats as speaker examples because they seemed to have more variety and took more risks. Mary J Blige is inspiring but she shouldn’t be speaking on the specifics of “why.” Dave Grohl used Foo Fighter music to scare the shit out of the old delegates and then you realize you want him speaking out more often than singing – the scraggly haired scruffy screamer singer is delightfully articulate. Scarlett Johansson reminds us that no matter what you do in your career … speaking to a 25000 audience and millions on tv is very difficult for a young person. Great message (of which I will write more about in a different post) and charming but giving a speech to that size audience was significantly more difficult for her than giving a strong movie monologue. And yet Eva Longoria, surely stunningly attractive, was stunningly articulate and charming – in one on one interviews and the big stage.

Look. All I am saying is young people should watch these events even if they don’t want to listen to politics. You can learn a lot just by watching how people speak and present their ideas and thoughts.

What I believe is good? I use Clinton’s 2008 convention speech as part of presentation training examples. It is one of the best presentations I have ever seen & heard. Now? I will add in his 2012 convention speech for a completely different reason. This speech was a great example of how to communicate details in an engaging way. Oh. And I will also be using Michelle Obama’s presentation. Outstanding in its pacing, content and delivery.

Anyway.

And, well, here is my election prediction based on this whole presentation diatribe <and I am only absolutely clear on two things at the moment … I will not vote for Romney and I do not want to vote for Obama … boy … that seems different than the “vote for anyone but Obama” which seems to be the media darling thought these days> the democrats will win because they have better presenters of ideas. I think Romney will lose simply because the Republicans just cannot inspire people. And you know what? That’s okay. We are living in some pragmatic times where we all need to take some really tough pragmatic steps … but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t forget aspirations & hope & American dreams and all that stuff. We shouldn’t have to trade one for another.

Anyway. Regardless. I wanted to end this post on some things about all these words and thoughts being tossed around and use some quotes I have been aching to use for awhile.

In a world, and an election, where everyone is shouting at the top of their lungs telling everyone what is wrong with the world and offering <what a friend of mine and I call> sound bite “there is no other right way to do this” solutions I was reminded of two literary thoughts:

- 1. Caution when hearing the solution prophets:

Do not fear ashes, do not fear curses,

Do not fear brimstone and fire.

But fear like the plague the man with the rage

To tell you, “I know what is required!”

Who tells you, “fall in and follow me

If heaven on earth’s your desire.” - <an unsourced Russian ballad>

I know. I know. We have all seen and heard thoughts like this and I believe we all know in our heart of hearts that we agree <although we may not discriminate as well as we could & should>. But I liked this because it had a slightly different twist.

The twist? Do not fear passion. I liked it because … well … there are a bunch of smart people out there who know that something is wrong … and may not be the person who can offer the solution. With brimstone, fire and curses they make people take note of the issue. And that is their role in the situation.

It is those who speak with the rage of solution certainty we should fear.

In today’s world we seem to be seeking the infamous ‘plan.’ Well … folks … I got news for you. We can certainly have a plan … and I can guarantee you that both parties have a plan <just as both are concerned with debt & unemployment & all the important issues just as equally> but everyone seems to be losing sight of adaptability. Great organizations, businesses, succeed because of vision <which both parties share> and the ability to adapt to the situation as it occurs <because, trust me, if anyone believes solving any country’s issues is a straight line solution than they belong in a loony bin>.

A thought.

In America everyone today wants ‘the plan.’ Well. Everyone but me I guess.

The current administration has been plugging holes in the dike as they occurred.

Could they have planned for them? No frickin’ way.

Does that mean they don’t have a longer term plan <or vision>? Nope <they do>.

But, when you are plugging holes to keep the dike in place, it’s tough to do everything at once. And it is even tougher to share “the infamous vision” <beyond doing what is best for America> when you aren’t really sure what next month will bring in terms of a crisis that needs to be solved.

Regardless.

The point here is that I want to remind everyone that what I do like <one of the few things> about the Obama administration is that they are not running around saying “I know what is required” … they have shown an ability to adapt to the challenges they have faced.

- 2. Caution with the silence and inaction of the majority <masses>

“The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify a cat.” Armenian proverb

“Insurrection is a machine that makes no noise.” – Trotsky

Metaphorically the bulk of a population are the mice. Sorry. I know that doesn’t sound good but you get the point. I hesitate to call it the 99% <because the 99% is not all the same> but suffice it to say the 1 to 5% who lead and guide, and misguide, are the cats.

And they pretty much do look the same because, well, they are cats.

Beyond that silly notion is a non silly thought. We dream of things the cats cannot envision … despite the fact I keep on hearing that they think they do. These politicians live in La-La land. They have no frickin’ clue what keeps most of us awake at night every frickin’ night we go to sleep. They have no frickin’ idea what we are thinking as we slog our way through the day. And they are absolutely clueless as to what we feel as we sit at the dinner table opening up our pay stub on one side and all the bills we have to pay on the left side. They say it … and I think they believe it … but …

No.

Frickin’.

Clue.

And that leads me to the second quote from Trotsky.

As the leaders tell everyone what they are dreaming and talking and talking … and well … talking … the possibility of insurrection is occurring with little or no noise. The point is that it is gaining momentum without warning.

Now.

I am not using insurrection as Trotsky actually did, and was involved in, but the point is the point.

When people (the mice) get fed up <or fired up>. When they stop being satisfied with simply dreaming dreams <which would terrify the cats> they do something. And that is called ‘insurrection.’

So. All that scary stuff said … I typed all of that because I don’t think it matters who wins the US election … the mice are pissed at the cats.

Partisan politics may not need to cease but there has to be a compromise. Or in the end there will be some type of insurrection. Because, in the end, that is what democracy is about … people … and what they want. While elections bring out the best, and worst, of the everyday people’s opinions in the end all they really want is something to be done. Ok. Things done that are well crafted and not compromised into ineffectiveness through partisan politicking.

Insurrection is a quiet machine.

We are focused on the vocal/noisy … the ones shouting on sidewalks and streetcorners and talk shows. Silly silly us.

Visit a bar.

The machine of insurrection is churning on bar stools and neighborhood tables and friendly playground discussions as children play.

It is weird to me but we Americans have short memories.

We look at the French or Russians for insurrections/revolutions. And, yet, we are a country built upon revolution/insurrection … and have adapted through ‘revolution-like’ activity <maybe it is because we are too ‘civilized’ or tie it too closely to communism to understand this>.

Labor strikes in the 1800’s, peace demonstrations in the 70’s, civil war, segregation, etc. … we are a community that thrives on some type of insurrection to create cultural shifts. If politicians don’t see this, or even recognize the possibility, then … well … I question whether they really have their eye on the ball <the fact that they are elected to represent the people>.

All those things I just typed, despite all the archival footage of street demonstrations and such, were borne in the neighborhood bar and home.

Ok.

All that said despite my relative indifference to Obama … he gets re-elected <which I actually believe is the lesser of two evils>.

Why?

Hope & what is in place.

Hope wins out over pragmatism <and the reality which a certain % of the American population will realize is that whatever “plan” is presented will be torn up and have to adapt to a changing environment anyway>. What is in place has some solid underpinnings. More needs to be done but things have been done, and have been proposed, which are solid. Plus. I am not thrilled with the thought of someone coming in and ripping out everything and starting all over.

From there?

Well. I don’t need to get out of the fucking tunnel in the next 4 years but I sure as hell need to see the light at the end of it.

I like hope.

No. I love hope.

And I love the American dream <and what it is that makes up the gestalt of America> but at some point I think Americans should be happy … and not scared. I actually believe that about every country & population but for now I am talking about the good ole USofA.

I just want the Obama administration to show us the light at the end of the tunnel for god’s sake.

If they do that? Well. We Americans are tough. I know I am tough when people make promises and say they are going to do a job. And, inevitably, in our ‘toughness’ we will always find fault in anyone … or anything … that is done … but … while this will not matter to Mr. Obama, or even Mrs. Obama, I would fly to wherever the Obamas were <on my dime mind you> and shake their hands and say thank you if they got us out of this hole.

It probably won’t matter to them but I envision I would not be the only one to be there that day.

Oh.

And while I was there I may ask for a presentation lesson … because by gosh, by golly … those democrats sure can present an idea.

katy perry’s message to teens

May 30th, 2012

“Do you know that there’s still a chance for you, cause there’s a spark in you”

“you’re original, cannot be replaced”

“It’s always been inside of you, and now it’s time to let it through, cause baby you’re a firework, come on show ‘em what your worth” – Katy Perry “Firework.”

Before I get to Katy Perry and her song Firework <and why I am writing about Katy> let me begin with the fact I try and define musicians based on three factors.

- How bad is their really bad work.

- The songs that are just songs.

- What they do with the few opportunities to make a difference with those special songs.

Some artists never get in the third category. And we shouldn’t underrate category 2. Sometimes a musician creates a great hook. A great lyrical chorus. Just a great fun song. And we should give them credit for not only generating it but not trying to make it anything other than what it is (for example – Sheryl Crow’s all I wanna be is just a great fun song … but she didn’t waste the opportunity to do something good and say something meaningful with “strong enough“…another well written song).

Regardless.

This is about Katy Perry.

And you may just think she is a wacky eccentric sickly sweet pop queen but, while I do not know her personally, I think she is more than that.

Being a musician is tough. Sometimes you have a schtick <persona> you build for marketing yourself and it begins to overshadow the music … and the message.

In situations like that … category 3 of my criteria becomes really really important … not just to lil ole me but to the artist.

Because someone like Katy Perry has an incredible platform to do … well … something good. Make an impact on a shitload of young people who are hanging on every note and word she sings and says.

So we should measure someone like Katy Perry on those moments.

And I have to tell you … she measures up really well if you do that.

Her song “Firework” is an amazing message to every teen out there.

Yeah. I am serious.

The lyrics are empowering. The video is relatable.

This version of Firework is from a charity event <despite the fact it says Grammy’s>. First of all I give her HUGE credit for how she changed her typically wacky schtick to make it appropriate for her audience and the event and, secondly, just take a second, even if you don’t like her or the song, and watch the audience. If you don’t believe a musician can make a real impact after seeing this I will never be able to convince you.

Firework live at event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilyCH7C7A

Ok.

The actual video.

Relatable.

Each kid shown suffers some self esteem … insecurity driven real life situation <yeah … she could have done without the cancer victim but I will overlook it as creative cinematic license>. Each kid not only has captured the loneliness but also the lack of hope associated with being different (or thinking you are different).

The lyrics are pretty simple … just reminding kids that they all have something special inside of no matter how badly they may feel about themselves.

It’s a little thing but she avoids the obvious ‘spark inside’ but rather goes for it … goes for the big message … that we all have fireworks inside to share if we let it out.

Here is the official video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGJuMBdaqIw&ob=av2e

The video gets joked about because there is a scene where it looks like her rather spectacular chest is shooting fireworks <of which I would personally have fired the video director for screwing up what should have been an empowering scene and it turns out to be a joke that makes people overlook the bigger issue> but the entire video supports the idea that we all have fireworks within. Fireworks burst from the kids as the light inside them becomes free for all to see.

A doubly good message.

Each kid is overcoming insecurities.

Each kid is letting themselves ‘shine.’

Symbolically I love the end.

With fireworks bursting from all the children it implies an entire generation, all kids, can light the sky and make a difference. Empowering for not only individuals but also the entire generation <well done Katy>.

Am I giving her too much credit? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … I don’t think so.

At her acceptance speech at some award show (I cannot keep track of them all) for Firework she simply says “thank you, I am really proud of this.” <plus … I will always give kudos to Katie for bringing her grandmother – her own Grammy – to the Grammys … good sense of humor and kind of a once in a lifetime treat for her ‘grammy’ who got to wear versace>.

She knew exactly what she was doing. She knew exactly what her opportunity was. She knew exactly what she accomplished.

She took the opportunity to give kids some perspective. And they were very thoughtful in the way they did it in the video … no kid in the video ever changes physically … cured of anything or becoming thinner or changing … it is simply accepting who they are. That the obstacle isn’t external but internal.

Gotta tell ya.

That’s a pretty good message to be sharing with kids.

It’s actually a pretty good message not just to teens but Katy knows exactly who listens to her music, who watches her videos … and who she can communicate with.

Is she Robert Frost or even Hemingwayesque? Certainly not.

Is it a fun song with a great message? Certainly yes.

“let your colors burst” … thank you Katy.

accepting for Firework

Probably doesn’t matter to you but you have my respect. Well done.

Most of Firework lyrics:

Do you ever feel, feel so paper thin

Like a house of cards

One blow from caving in

Do you ever feel already buried deep

Six feet under scream

But no one seems to hear a thing

Do you know that there’s still a chance for you

Cause there’s a spark in you

You just gotta unite the light

And let it shine

Just own the night

Like the Fourth of July

Cause baby you’re a firework

Come on show ‘em what your worth

Baby you’re a firework

Come on let your colors burst

Make ‘em go “Oh, oh, oh!”

You’re gonna leave ‘em fallin’ down-own-own

You don’t have to feel like a waste of space

You’re original, cannot be replaced

If you only knew what the future holds

After a hurricane comes a rainbow

Maybe you’re reason why all the doors are closed

So you can open one that leads you to the perfect road

Like a lightning bolt, your heart will blow

And when it’s time, you’ll know

You just gotta unite the light

And let it shine

Just own the night

Like the Fourth of July

Cause baby you’re a firework

Come on show ‘em what your worth

Make ‘em go “Oh, oh, oh!”

As you shoot across the sky-y-y

Baby you’re a firework

Come on let your colors burst

Make ‘em go “Oh, oh, oh!”

You’re gonna leave ‘em fallin’ down-own-own

Boom, boom, boom

Even brighter than the moon, moon, moon

It’s always been inside of you, you, you

And now it’s time to let it through

Cause baby you’re a firework

Come on show ‘em what your worth

Make ‘em go “Oh, oh, oh!”

As you shoot across the sky-y-y

Baby you’re a firework

Come on let your colors burst

project global generation enlightened update

March 6th, 2012

So.

Here is what I hope to do that will “echo in eternity.”

Project Global Generation.

I have updated project global generation, about 75+ pages of it, with sources including TED, The Economist, Time Magazine, multiple foreign education programs (including Singapore & Korea), PewResearch, UNESCO and additional research studies … all as best I can.

www.projectglobalgeneration.com

I would have had to rewrite complete posts if I wanted to eliminate all redundancy (and … sigh … I was not up to the task) so most articles were updated to insure they had the most up-to-date thoughts.

Why update now? Time magazine had two recent articles on web based education.

“… hopes that the internet can improve teaching may at last be bearing fruit” – Time Magazine (Flipping the Classroom) 9/17

“… many people now believe that the internet can make a real difference educating children.” – Time Magazine (The Great Schools Revolution) 9/17

Maybe I am not as nuts as I thought I was (at least with regard to this idea).

Since 2008 or 9 I have been writing about Project Global Generation – a web based global children’s education initiative (and I am probably done because re-reading everything I am not sure I can write anything new or prove why it is a good idea and it is the time to do it).

Most people thought the idea was nuts … okay … they just thought (a) teaching via web was not going to be effective <in school hands on teaching was best> and (2) it wasn’t practical to implement <they couldn’t envision how it could actually happen>.

Maybe some people don’t think it’s that nuts anymore.

Regardless. I still believe it is a good idea.

If you want everything from strategy underpinnings, rationale, specific tactics, implementation plan of action and real costs, the project global generation website has it all.

Read it if you are interested.

Forward it to anyone you believe would be interested in it.

And.

If this isn’t your thing … please … at minimum … be interested in kid’s education.

Someday we will be dependent on them.

So. Care now.

And.

If you elect to visit the site here is what you will find. Here is the table of contents:

- About Project Global Generation

The welcome to the site and why I created this idea/initiative.

- Table of contents and summary

If you read only one thing this would be it. Right here (this post is the contents/summary). A cliff notes version of everything you can find on the site.

- 1. global generation: dawn of enlightened individuality (the global generation)

using a variety of sources I outline what I believe the generation after the Millennials, called The Global Generation, will look like attitudinally and how they ‘fit’ in the cycle of generations.

- 1a. The global generation student: about their abilities & attitude

using a Fischler study and the Singapore Ministry of Education I try and overcome some misperceptions about the abilities and attitudes of a younger generation of students

- 2. global generation: a look at millennials (and why they are not the global generation)

in this post I take a deeper dive into why I believe the Millennials will end up facilitating the Global Generation opportunity and not be the generation that will impact education & enlightened conflict directly.

- 3. global generation: sociology & the internet platform

there are some inherent sociological benefits to a we based education initiative and in this post I outline them.

- 4. global generation: developing critical thinking skills

in this post I outline how the Global generation, facilitated by a web based program, will be the greatest critical thinking generation we have seen.

- 5. global generation: education messaging underpinnings

in this article I outline the specifics of what makes up the educational aspects (and what does not).

- 6. global generation: learning by lurking

in addition to the sociological benefits as outlined in GG 3 we have seen some possible improvements a web based model can offer to learning/education.

- 7. global generation: tactics & implementation

after outlining the thinking behind the initiative in this post I outline the specific tactics & costs.

- 8. global generation: the role of the web (versus existing education systems)

in this post I outline the benefits of using a web based model for education trying to explain why flipping the existing education model is better and more practical for the future generations

- global generation 9: measuring the initiative impact (attitudinally and global attendance)

now that I have outlined the thinking behind the program, the specific tactics & costs to implement I suggest measurement objectives and will also using the most recent UNESCO global education report I outline how the initiative will assist in reaching the UN Millennium goals.

- 10. global generation: more on impact – conflict & enlightenment

Using an article from The Economist I outline how the initiative impacts value systems

- 11. global generation: implementing a conflict prevention program

I compare the initiative against other existing global initiatives to outline how this initiative will be more effective than most other programs because it affects ongoing behavior as a ‘preventative’ initiative rather than a ‘intervention’ type program

- 12. global generation: not too close a link to human rights

I outline my thoughts that this initiative is an education program and not a Human rights program and part of its challenge is to not judge different cultural/governmental/religious systems but rather through education there is a high potential for a stronger tolerance of different views as the generation moves into adulthood.

Some additional conclusion thoughts:

- global generation finds a voice

A number of well known celebrities have stepped forward to discuss the importance of improving education globally. In this article I highlight the “free your mind” award and spectacularly articulated award speech from an unlikely source – Jared Leto of 30 Seconds to Mars

- Thomas Jefferson on Ignorance and Enlightened Conflict

using some Thomas Jefferson thoughts I leave you with some more philosophical ‘bigger picture’ things to ponder.

- me and my thoughts on conflict & people

just some last thoughts … because this is all about enlightened conflict anyway …

That’s it.

Oh. Why do I care?

“What we do in life echoes in eternity.”

fearless & young people & hook in your head

February 23rd, 2012

“Guess I need to unhook these thoughts.”

- Throwing Muses lyric from ‘hook in your head’

Ok.

I began writing this to remind us that young people are smarter and more innovative than we give them credit for as well as we typically have to look to the youth for trends and what the horizon has in store for us (whether we like it or not).

Oh. And this is is also just a reminder to us old folk how short our memories are.

So I began this with lyrics from a Throwing Muses song because it was written by Kristen Hersh (maybe 20 at the time) and Tonya Donnelly (maybe 20 at the time). And I used music as an example because … well … that’s what I do.

Two young 20somethings from Rhode Island creating things that would influence musicians for decades.

That said. I will say that aging, getting older, is consistent.

We begin to doubt that which we believed in when we were younger.

So this is a reminder.

Since I read Rat Girl it has re-instilled my belief that the youth is our future.

And the early 90s provides some good proof. And the Throwing Muses are proof. And Kristen Hersh (and Tanya Donnelly who has made every band she has played in sound awesome … not only did she co-found Throwing Muses with stepsister Kristin Hersh but then went on to work in The Breeders and Belly).

Anyway.

Hook in your Head is proof.

The song isn’t for everyone.

But it is a spectacular piece of song writing. In its 6:30+ length it is kind of 3 different songs.

In my words … it is a “clean messy” song.

(definition: the constant incredibly hooky rolling bass and drum riff is clean allowing Tonya and Kristen to be spectacularly messy).

Hook in Her Head remains one of my favorite Throwing Muses songs of all time (and no it isn’t a real hook it is something that is just stuck, or hooked, in your head).

Certain things I love, Spend my time

I guess I’ll have to unhook those hooks

This woman literally

Felt she had a hook in her head

When I first heard the song I listened to it … and listened to it over and over. Typical of the Muses it was odd … a fusion of alternative sections in one song(within 6:32). It has a brilliant drum steadying it with an awesome rolling bass riff holding it together.

And all the rest is messy.

But it sounds messy great.

The song is “ridiculously intense” as one commenter suggests (this is a live version but an almost perfect rendition of what you would hear on The Real Ramona): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcnDsTpO-CY&feature=related

And, most importantly, it is timeless (you could play this on any current alternative radio station I will guarantee multiple calls will come in asking who the heck the band was).

And they were teen-young 20’s defining a future sound.

Unpopular then? Sure.

Fearless ? Sure.

Young? You bet.

Old people hated it? Absolutely.

Acceptable today? It is what all alternative does and sounds like.

Truth? <as in “what can we learn” truth>

The youth are fearless and therefore, inevitably, they are influencers. Oh. Influencers of not only their own generation but of everyone.

At least everyone who pays attention.

At least to everyone who would quit bitching for “the good old days.”

And we shouldn’t forget it.

And any time us old folk do forget this I encourage you to go back to your youth and take a good hard look, and listen, and remind yourself.

And, frankly, we should remind ourselves more often.

Because too many of us are pretty frickin’ stubborn about today’s youth (and how irresponsible and immature we are so sure they are).

I have one suggestion for the old folk (say 40+).

Get your head out of your ass.

Young people are smart.

And they are innovative.

And, yeah, some of the innovations are aggravating … but we are supposed to be mature enough to delineate between “aggravating because it is simply aggravating” and “aggravating because now I am going to have to change.”

And, frankly, young people think of things we older people not only don’t – but can’t.

And if you ignore it or dismiss it (teen thinking) you are going to miss out on a lot.

Maybe worse?

You will have failed that generation. The young’s innovative thinking should be nurtured and fertilized like young plants that you want to blossom. For like flowers or trees they are the foliage that will line our horizons in the future.

If we kill their ideas our horizons will lie barren. Or worse. Our horizons will be lined in our ideas. And while we may be comforted in the sight of things we have created we are leaving nothing for future generations to look to on the horizon as their own.

(sorry … I felt kind of poetic as I banged away on the keys … ignore that bad imagery but accept the point … please)

Anyway.

Here is a thought for you as you think about today’s young people.

The Throwing Muses weren’t ahead of their time.

They were at their time.

But originality is often unpopular.

Play their music today and they would be a top 10 alternative band.

Does that mean they missed out? Nope.

Because they created. They were influential. They were a voice of the youth innovators of that generation.

Ignore the Throwing Muses music if you want.

But don’t ignore the youth.

Nurture the voices of this generation. Don’t mute them in your non understanding of what they say.

Just because originality is unpopular doesn’t mean we should discourage originality.

No matter what age the originality occurs.

Bottom line?

Unhook those thoughts from your head about young people.

voices of a generation

February 21st, 2012

Well.

This is about teens and what they are thinking and how the respond to reading <or claims they are not reading> and, frankly, a view from their perspective. And I am going to use their words. I am gonna use a lot of their words.

I am going to do this one in parts. First. A website dedicated to giving voice to teens globally. Second. Some response comments pulled from an article written … well … I cannot remember. Suffice it to say the article was from a reputable publication and the article was a bunch of moronic drivel written by an old guy waxing on about how this generation of young people are missing out on what his generation did (mostly reading) and are turning out to be a generation of illiterate mindless dweebs (sorry … it probably wasn’t that bad but you get the point).

I get tired of this (bashing today’s youth).

So … the first. The voice of the global teen. A blog created and written by teens. As a good friend of mine said “it is humbling.” Beyond that it is smart, insightful and extremely well articulated. And if anyone tries to tell me that this is a minority from a generation made up of a majority of morons I respond with a simple “bullshit.”

All generations think thoughts. But all generations have individuals who give voice to those thoughts. In fact all generations need an articulate few to create the voice of a generation.

Here is the site: http://voicesofyouth.org/users/11472

If you have any doubts that this generation doesn’t “get it” you can read the words of the younger generation globally right here … in one spot.

Do not doubt for one minute they are not extremely qualified to step into our shoes if not throw away our shoes and do us even better.

Second.

Reading.

Whew. This is one never ending gripe from old folk.

So I will begin with reading and literacy and … well … books, e-books and whatever else you want to consider reading.

Here is how one teen responds:

A major source of confusion is the fact that information from reputable sources is increasingly available on the Internet, which is far more convenient to use than hauling your ass to a library, browsing through the book collection, finding a giant tome, browsing through it to find what you need, and then rinse and repeat.

We’re keeping up with the modern world. And we’re definitely reading. We’re just not reading on physical paper, which is apparently a crime against humanity or something.

Hell, we’re reading plenty of things on physical paper too. Just not what we “should” be reading according to these “Damned-Whippersnappers”-crying adults. We’re reading not only fiction and fantasy (Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc.), but also memoirs (The Glass Castle and Night) and many other genres.

We’re reading, just not what and how you think we should – GuywiththeContacts commenter

(amen)

Look.

I have read Hunger Games (a youth book … and I am looking forward to the movies) … the Immortal Nicholas Flamel book series (an excellent smart series) as well as I rarely read a newspaper anymore … oops … rather I read newspaper online. And, in fact, I probably read a wider variety of opinions and articles because I gather information online versus one paper newspaper than ever before.

So maybe I am also ‘just not reading what and how you think I should.’ Uh oh. I guess that means I owe an apology to the 50000 some people who visit my site each month.

Aw.

Bullshit.

Guywithcontacts is right. We adults need to stop crying. Reading (and writing maybe even more so) is alive and well. And prospering.

And the world is not losing its moral foundation nor is it crumbling …

Is Western Civilization coming to an end again? So soon after the last time? Actually, this article made me nostalgic for all of the other times Western Civilization was on its last legs. The symptoms are always the same – teenagers are distracted, can’t pay attention, and don’t have patience or empathy. The cure is always the same – read more, especially books from the canon. But the cause is different each time.
Remember when it was Facebook and Twitter that was going to bring us to an end? And before that, it was the internet? And before that, it was MTV? Before then, I think the culprit was supposed to be blockbuster movies (for killing our imaginations and preventing us from reading). Before that, it was television. And before that it was comic books. Then radio, movies, jazz, and vaudeville. And dime novels. And let’s not forget the assembly line and the automobile. All of them were, at one time or another, the cause of the demise of our culture.
I also recall, when I was a teenager, being told that I was the reason Western Civilization was doomed. Because all teenagers would lack the wisdom and common sense necessary to function. I heard the story about the high school student who hadn’t been aware that the U.S. and Japan had once been at war. “Who won?” she asked. I heard the story about the teenagers who saw a movie poster for “Amadeus” and wondered to each other who wrote the soundtrack. They sounded like jokes to me, but were presented as Actual Facts by adults. All it taught me at the time was that: (a) adults could be awfully credulous at times; and (b) backhanded put-downs weren’t much of an inducement to read more. But articles like this one are never aimed at the teenagers who are putting Western Civilization in peril. They are aimed at people who want to rail at the annoying, careless behavior of those who are just beginning to acquire the means to act independently, when carelessness or obnoxiousness could actually do someone harm. I propose that Newsweek retitle this article, “Kids today!” and leave it at that.

That being said, I have found texting to be both useful and terribly, terribly annoying. It depends on the context. – Maura commenter

(amen)

Get on the train or get run over by the train.

This generation is going to be managing our future one day.

Quit bitching.

If our generation didn’t kill civilization no generation will be able to. We have certainly done our best to do so … therefore … maybe this generation will pull our proverbial asses out of the fire and make all good as it should be.

But, as Maura so rightfully points out, ‘backhanded put downs are not an inducement’ for anyone to want to do anything.

This generation is not going to destroy civilization they are going to rebuild, recreate and renovate civilization. That said … we adults better quit bitching about reading and make sure we let them learn the good stuff any way they want.

Yeah.

Any way they want …..

“I’m so incredibly tired of everyone railing my generation for using the technology available to us. Yeah, cell phones allow us to communicate with each other easier. Awesome. That’s why they were invented. And the reason we use them a lot isn’t because the act of typing a message on a tiny keyboard gives us some immeasurable thrill. It’s because there’s someone on the other end whom we care about and want to be in contact with. Text-speak just makes things go faster. Is there anyone who honestly thinks that there are teenagers out there who don’t know how to spell ‘you’?
It’s like Maura said– you don’t think your parents said the same things about you? And their parents about them and on and on until you get back to neanderthals and the invention of the wheel. It’s just scapegoating and fear of change. It’s old news, buddy.
Also, I don’t hear people complaining about how Facebook and Twitter led an entire region to overthrow tyranny and oust dictators. Someone who did a great job of finding the real heart of the problem– and not maligning technology and advancement–was Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451.
So please, stop accusing teenagers of destroying the world before we’re even allowed to vote, and quit blaming my generation for things we haven’t even gotten the chance to do yet (such as, you know, spike the US deficit to over a trillion). – chrissy a commenter on a site

(amen)

In the end … maybe let’s try some of these words on for size and today’s youth …

Resilience.

Adaptability.

Innovative.

Optimistic.

Yeah. Optimistic. Instead of cynicism … which seems to appear in older generations … this youth remains optimistic.

Think about this … a Pew survey found most young adults today believe they have a harder time than their parents did:

- 82% say it’s harder to find a job.

- 75% say it’s harder to save for the future.

- 71% say it’s harder to pay for college.

- 69% say it’s harder to buy a home.

<note: I tend to believe ALL younger generations believe they will have a more difficult time then their parents.> Yet. Despite all of that … the same Pew study found high levels of optimism among young adults. Although the survey found young people are less likely now than before the recession to say they have enough income, their level of optimism hasn’t shrunk from where it was in 2004, the report notes.

“Their optimism is just as high as it was in a booming economy or a stronger economy” before the recession.

There you go. I bring up optimism to close this post because, dammit, it’s not up to older generations to kill this optimism … or bitch about how “they don’t do it the way we do/did” … rather … it is up to us to fuel this optimism and let this generation find its true voice … and foster the generation to create whatever innovations it is destined to create .. and reach whatever new horizons they are destined to reach … all of which “civilization” will benefit from.

Oh.

We will benefit to (just wanted to remind everyone about that).