Today I discuss mandating standing for the national anthem <as President Donald J Trump appears to be advocating>.

While I will share my views and while I doubt Mr. Trump has ever looked at the Constitution or googled “Supreme Court decisions with regard to enforcing patriotic compulsory routines” I will share what the US Supreme Court HAS said about this:

===================

 

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

 

——

US Supreme Court 1943

 

==============================

To be clear.

I stand for the national anthem.

I don’t burn flags.

I believe people should do the former and the latter.

That said.

I could give a shit if people stand, place their hand on their heart or sing along. It’s a ridiculous empty faux act of patriotism to simply do something because <a> you have to or <b> you do it because everyone else is doing it.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try not acting like an asshole to those who have served.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try conducting yourself in ways that make this country look like it’s less full of shitheads and more like a country whose military teaches dignity, honor & integrity.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try and act like we are not at war or our freedom is under attack from some outside enemy and recognize that the only attack we are under are from dickheads like Trump who claim to value freedom and independence but espouse conformity & hollow patriotism.

Beyond all of that, and whatever constitutional freedom of speech stuff you want to attach to this discussion, there is an additional fairly basic business management aspect – building an organizational culture is never about enforced conformity.

===========================

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”

―

John F. Kennedy

=============

“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”

―

Rollo May

================================

Yeah.

I admit.

I hate codes of conduct <in general>.

I have never been a fan of conformity in general … and absolutely hate forced conformity.

I hate dress codes.

I hate office rules.

I hate meeting rules.

Yeah.

I say that tied to the thought of how some people are discussing creating laws, or establishing rules, for standing for the national anthem.

I say that because this entire discussion isn’t just about being patriotic, and being a ‘patriot’… but enforcing conformity or specific behavior.

We try and do that shit in business all the time.

Well.

Leaders who do not understand how to build a strong self-sustaining organizational culture try this shit all the time.

To be clear.

90% of the time, enforced behavior, fails miserably.

What do I mean>?

90% of the time the desired behavior, which you have always forced & enforced, stops when you stop looking and stop enforcing.

At the core of ‘enforced’ is that it isn’t something people want to do, or maybe it isn’t something they naturally inherently do, and they do it because they have to do it.

At the core of ‘enforced’ is failure. People, in general, don’t like to be told to be honest, do things certain way and how to think. Trying to enforce organizational attitudes & behaviors works just as well as forced changes of behavior in personal Life <diets, quitting smoking, chewing on your fingernails, etc> — it does not work

By the way.

Here is the other weird thing about ‘enforced conformity.’

Failure even happens with the shit that <a> people really don’t mind doing and <b> people kind of know is the right thing to do.

It’s just that people do not like to be forced to do things … even things they kind of want to do anyway.

—————————-

Seek to impose your will, and more men will kneel (if they’re permitted), and when they rise, it will be with resentment in their hearts.

Embrace liberty, and more men will rise, and they’ll do so with joy.

I want those players to stand.

I want to see their hands over their hearts.

But I want to see that happen out of love, not fear, and so long as the fear remains, a decision to stand means nothing but an empty victory in a culture war that will tear this nation apart.
———————————

Look.

We would love it in business if everyone did what you wanted them to do.

We would love it if everyone in a society did things the way they were supposed to do.

But you cannot enforce conformity and, in fact, just as the Supreme Court suggested with the national anthem in 1943 … you really do not want to force behavior. You want behavior to come from within the individual and not enforced from ‘without.’

Oh.

This is where the role of “social norms” can come into play.

Different from enforcement, that promotes top-down direction, administration and monitoring, encouraging social norms can spur, and inspire … uhm … conformity.

It is conformity by choice.

It is having the freedom to conform … and choosing to do so.

This is a powerful conformity.

Anyway.

The Supreme Court got it right back in 1943 when a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses declined to salute the flag. They were patriots but their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to demonstrate reverence for a flag <a symbol>. The Supreme Court rendered its verdict — with words that should be etched into the minds of anyone who truly cares about who and what America is:

 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Those are the most famous words of Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Barnette, but it is these words which any true patriot, or leader, should ponder:

–—————

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

——————-

In other words, the power of the symbolism & patriotism lies with the choice to honor & dignify the symbolism of a fag & an anthem.

In other words, compelled patriotism … the effort to force a person to say or do what they do not believe … doesn’t touch upon the true spirit of what the country stands for.

In other words, if I have to compel someone to be patriotic, or do acts which imply patriotism, the American Idea isn’t working.

In other words, mandatory patriotism isn’t patriotism at all.

In other words, the government cannot force someone to violate their conscience and they shouldn’t bully private businesses into doing what a government cannot legally dictate.

I will say this over and over and over again until the day I die — the cure for bad speech is better speech, the cure for bad behavior is better behavior and the cure for dealing with any ‘the American ideal (and idea)’ doubts is not bad enforced conformity.

We should inform, educate, and recommend policies, ideas & behavior that improve America but allow its citizens their freedom of choice.

For the best compliance, don’t just enforce the rules, establish the norms.

Yeah.

I am sure some NFL owners will attempt some behavior-shaping constraints <fines, suspensions, etc.>. And they have that right as a business owner managing their own business & culture.

But I will tell them a secret <and I am hoping President Trump, who has never managed a business which demanded building a culture, is listening in> … that will not shape behavior but it will certainly shape attitudes <unfortunately, most likely not the attitudes truly desired>.

Forcing functional behavior is not always the best approach to shaping behavior.

Here is what any business leader who has ever run a business knows:

It takes your own to govern your own.

Not rules of conduct.

Not enforced conformity.

Lastly.

Just to conclude this piece.

Trump the asshat.

He has no fucking clue how to build a company culture. To him culture is having all the women wear their hair the same way, everyone wear a certain type of clothes that appeal to him and wear name tags with the Trump brand on it.

How do I know he has no clue how to build a culture without ‘enforcing conformity’?

The one people skill he has exhibited to date – it seems like Trump has this unique capability of bringing out the worst of people on actually the best of things.

Huh?

By using patriotism and pride in country <good> he encourages … well … wrong thinking, wrong thoughts and wrong behavior.

What he has done is bring out the worst in people who actually believe in a good thing.

What an asshat.

I would remind President Asshat what every god business leader knows about their employees and their culture … both good and evil lies within the hearts of most men (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) .

Most of us have the capacity to do great and good things … uhm … do very bad and evil things.

Leaders have a choice.

Either bring the best of the good out of people or bring the worst of the bad out of people.

You cannot bring out ‘good’ from within through some type of enforcement nor should you be seeking to try to ‘conform’ good.

Good has to be encouraged, not enforced <someone should print that off and put it on Trump’s mirror so he can see it every morning>.

======

Richard Lugar <Indiana senator for 35 years>

It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance.

They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own.

======

So.

This is a followup to my battlefield of ideas society version — on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is being discussed at the Supreme Court level in the United States.

Here is the one thing I have not heard discussed, yet, when debating gerrymandering – a desire to create battlefields of ideas.

Let me explain.

Inherent to gerrymandering is a lack of conflicting ideas to debate. When there is no ideology to compete against the one which will … well … win … then the only ideas which are discussed are the ones that people already deem to be worthy already <this is an ideology discussion and not a battle of ideas>.

This creates an environment in which a citizenry gets trapped in the same doom loop of existing ideas and ideology never to be freed to view new ideas <or unearn the ones they currently have>.

Gerrymandering is driven by politics in America which is an eat or be eaten world.  I could, and will, suggest this is not only not healthy for democracy it is also unhelpful to progress.

====

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.”

―

James Freeman Clarke

====

I would be arguing to the Supreme Court <and most likely would be laughed out of the court> that democracy is about progress and gerrymandering is not about progress. My rationale for that argument is that lacking any real battle of any ideas there is no progress.

But, maybe more concerning, is that if you do not battle over ideas the people, the citizenry, become intellectually hollow. I am not suggesting everyone needs to be an intellectual but I do believe people should be more invested in a better understanding of facts, ideas & pragmatic realities versus ideological opinions & perceptions of truth.

Look.

Simplistically … I think this is what people want in a candidate from an economic & success standpoint:

1. Correct identification of the actual, major problems.

2. Plausible, workable solutions <ideas>.

I am not sure we want Politicians who deal in the pragmatic reality of governing and how it matters to the everyday business & person … but that is what we need.

Without a battlefield of ideas, which gerrymandering eliminates, we don’t discuss what we need … we end up discussing what we want.

That is bad.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for an environment which is capable of sustain our children’s children.

I listen to the rantings of politicians discussing what is right and what is wrong <with regard to citizen assistance> and then witness hurricanes, wildfires and poverty destroying lives and property and then begin to question our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately.

Gerrymandering should be discussed not as a structural democratic decision but rather a societal “idea debating structure” discussion. We should be discussing that we want a voting construct which actually FORCES a battle of ideas so that we, the people, can be sure we actually GET the best ideas.

I want to listen to the rantings of politicians who are caught up in ideas and the battle to articulate their ideas so that … well … we are here because we have a better idea.

What would I do?

Back on February 1^st 2016 I offered this thought:

• Stop districting voting blocks.

Having republican voting blocks <districts> and democrat voting districts is crazy.

Make a politician win the popular vote in the area they will be representing is in that district. All the people.

I don’t want a republican county or a democrat county … I want a ‘people county’ selecting by popular vote a person to represent their county interests.

Oh.

If you do this, it permits you to choose ALL politicians by popular vote <President included>.

In almost every Gallup poll since 1944 only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state <about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided>.

Regardless.

Politicians designed redistricting so that politicians could benefit. This is political reengineering at its crudest and worst.

What bullshit.

If we are truly a Republic <which USA is> than the people should design district policies and idea <so that they encapsulate their needs and wants – schools, taxes, infrastructure, etc.> and then by popular vote select a representative who wins the battlefield of ideas.

Remove districting as a variable.

I don’t want a district predestined to select a specific party.

I want voting districts to become battlefields of ideas not partisanship.

—————————

That was just a thought.

I also believe we should have mandatory voting.

If I truly believe I have a societal problem in that people are not invested enough intellectually in the ideas that matter to them and to the country then maybe I should enforce some involvement.

Do I believe everyone will be an engaged spectator in the battle field of ideas?

No. Of course not.

Do I believe MORE people will be an engaged spectator in the battlefield of ideas?

Yes. I surely do.

In the end.

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult me with superficial promises and silly diatribes that stoke fear.

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult the intelligence of any and all people and a political system which not only does NOT encourage this but actually penalizes politicians who pander.

What I would like is for political campaigns to become battlefields of ideas.

I would also like a leader to … well … lead in this discussion.

And … well … Trump is not that leader. He continues to not want to battle on ideas but rather try and win battles by process & procedure <and pandering and superficial promises>.

Frankly, this does nothing to improve society or true understanding of what is right or wrong.

And … well … Obama was that kind of leader. He continued to battle on ideas. He didn’t always win but he battled on ideas. Just as a reminder <because there is some untrue criticism of Obama with regard to Fox News> this is what he said in an interview with Bill O’ Reilly:

What Obama actually said about Fox:

Asked if he was unfair to Obama, the president responded to O’Reilly: “Of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway.”

“This list of issues you asked about – they’re defined by you guys in a certain way,” Obama continued. “But this is OK. If you want to be president of the United States, then you know you’re going to be subject to criticism.”

I bring up the Obama/Trump comparison to state that while I wish we had a president who would encourage a battlefield of ideas … we do not.

Therefore I think the entire gerrymandering discussion takes on a completely different hue. It shouldn’t be about who wins from a political party perspective but rather who wins on the battlefield of ideas.

The only way I know to do that is to drive debates in a geography which demands some aspects of centrist-type ideas and , inevitably, to a more centrist position where people begin to understand compromise, the trade offs of ideas and neighbor’s wants & needs and wh0 & what represents a greater good rather than “what I think.”

And the only way I know to do that is to eliminate gerrymandering and use whatever basic districting which creates a mish  mash of … well … parties, races, incomes, whatever … and force a battlefield of ideas.

=======

 “The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea.

We are here because we have a better idea.”

—–

Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria

===================

“It’s no longer the case that technologies of communication merely accelerate the public discourse, they now ensure that every possible public discourse happens simultaneously. It’s not one damned thing after another. It’s every damned thing all the time.

And so in place of a deliberative democracy, in which we as a people could acknowledge, and even tolerate, our differences while working through complex tensions at a pace consistent with social cohesion, we get a no-holds-barred battle royale in which all things are always at stake — in which we’re fighting every culture battle, past, present, and future, right the hell now.”

—–

Daniel Foster

===============

Ok.

I tend to believe everyone knows that we are in a world in which ideas are getting the shit kicked out of them.  For the majority of people ideas float on the superficial surface of our awareness waiting for us to pick one out when it catches our eye.

What that means is rarely do we do any deeper dive to see what else may lie under the surface.

This is happening for a variety of reasons … but the one that bothers me the most is the overall lack of interest in ‘deliberative discussion.’

It seems like in the battlefield of ideas it is a kill or be killed world in which we instantaneously shoot one death ray, attempt to deflect the one which was launched at us, and assumes, in this assault, only one walks away alive.

Ideas do not fare well in battles like this.

The battles in which ideas thrive are the grind it out battles. The ones in which there is an ebb & flow with strategy and strategic maneuvering and there are … well … strategic compromises made in order to win or achieve the objective.

As I have said before … to truly win on the battlefield of ideas you actually need to suffocate bad ideas, suffocate objections and suffocate ignorance not by shouting <which just adds oxygen to a room and an idea> but rather by squeezing the air out of the idea.

But in order to do that you need to engage in deliberative discussion and … well … not be a coward.

Battles are for neither the lazy nor the cowardly.

Deliberative discussion means you just cannot randomly pick up an idea off the superficial surface and walk away.

You need to engage … well … deliberately. You need to step onto the battlefield of ideas <either as an engaged spectator or a deliberate contestant>.

And maybe this is where I get most grumpy with ‘we the people.’ While we may have a shitload of good excuses it almost seems like the majority of people deliberately resist the invasion of ideas.  This almost takes as much effort & energy as actually deliberately participating in the invasion of ideas.

This grumpiness on my part made me revisit something I wrote back in 2016:

The conflict of ideas does not have to reside in any open debate. You don’t even need another person. Ideas invade in any number of ways. They plant themselves in boxes you have forgotten you even had. They grow to a point where you cannot ignore them anymore and begin to battle existing ideas you have. It becomes … well … a war between learning and unlearning … new and old … what you knew and what you know.

I imagine my point is that we are on the battlefield of ideas whether we choose to deliberately be there or not.

In general, I this means we are failing society if we do not deliberately participate in some way.

In general, this means we are failing society <and ourselves> if we deliberately  curb the ‘art of the idea battle’ by deliberately deciding to  curb the art of critique & criticism <which is at the core of the deliberate discussion>.

This is almost societal malpractice on our part because criticism has a role in an effective battlefield of ideas in that it tends to hone the point of attack and … well … sharp edges break through ignorance & well-formed opinions.

Some would call this “the ability to unlearn.”

But ,maybe more importantly, by avoiding this battlefield of ideas we have ceded the ground to not only the cowards but also the assholes. The ones who do not seek to battle over real ideas but rather simply to win an opinion <note: opinions CAN be ideas but real ideas are rarely just opinions>.

Look.

I have nothing against my idea winning <in fact … I like it a lot> but I imagine my point is that the bar for acceptable good behavior to win has dropped significantly.

Studies show it.

Shit.

Just watch the people around you or watch some tv and you will actually see it.

And this lack of acceptable behavior affects how we battle. And, well, that matters because a battle poorly fought means ideas lose or suffer and opinions <and assholes> increase their odds of winning.

Anyway.

I think we all know that Life isn’t just solely about winning and losing … and this is even more relevant on the battlefield of ideas.

I think we all know that some basic good behavior isn’t something that needs to be dictated but rather it is simply something good for common humanity within a population with a desire to have better things and do better things than we are doing today … and this includes better ideas.

I think we all know that behaving well, at least relatively speaking the majority of the time, has a reward that may not always show up in pride, power & pay but rather almost always in dignity, honor & … well … certainty … and this is important in the actual battle of ideas.

I would argue that the three things I just outlined matter a shitload because if we do this then we will … uhm … treat ideas more fairly and less divisively … even as we battle over them.

If we do these things,it tends to lead people to an overall belief, and understanding,  that the idea is fairer for the greater good & society, that the institutions <and the people battling the ideas in the institutions> will treat them more fairly and the world, in general, will end up treating them more fairly <because the ideas are fairer and better understood>.

Ah.

Better ideas better understood –that is the outcome of not only behaving better on the battlefield but permitting a real battlefield of ideas.

I do believe we are behaving more badly.

Suffice it to say that if everyone took one step back and viewed the battlefield of ideas and the behavior on the battlefield and viewed the wide spectrum of current behavior from good to heinous, well, it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Not only are there not a shitload of pretty ideas out there being battled over but how we are battling ain’t so pretty either.

Frankly, we are acting more like assholes every day.

Even the people who are trying to stand up against the assholes.

And in doing so while societal discourse suffers the largest loser in all of this assholishness are the ideas.

==================

“Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

———-

Barak Obama

===========

Lastly.

With all of this assholishness behavior floating around and ideas suffer … you have to hunker down and understand it’s not personal … it’s about ideas.

I know. I know.

Conceptually this is a tasty high road we like to offer everyone who sits at the idea table.

Realistically … well … this one is difficult to swallow.

On the battlefield of ideas while the ideas can often do some mighty hand to hand combat far too often the messenger gets personally attacked.

But.

Here’s the deal.

I could care less if I turned on the TV and saw Bruce McTague sucks on every channel I went to. Sure. It would sting but, well, at least in the good ole USofA I have the right to speak my ideas and have the opportunity to rationalize my ideas … and others have the right to criticize … me & my ideas.

It’s not personal.

At least it’s not if you believe it is a battlefield of ideas and not a battlefield of ‘messengers’ or personalities.

We need a battlefield of ideas. And we need this battle to be fought every week, every day, every hour and possibly every minute.

Why?

The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea. We are here because we have a better idea.

We deserve not only better ideas but the best ideas. And the only way I know to get the best ideas is … well … to have a battlefield of ideas. The world, and society, would be a much better place if we actually stopped battling over meaningless things and battled more over the truly meaningful things — ideas.

=============

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

———-

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

=================

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

–

Leonardo da Vinci

=================

59squared.

3,481.

3481 squared.

12,117,361.

12,117,361 squared.

1.5 billion.

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5^th of the entire world.

Yeah.

The numbers are really not that neat but you get the point.

With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>.

I didn’t make up the squared concept … in some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness. And … sadly … it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to the 59 people who died, the 500+ injured, in the Las Vegas shooting.

I say this because it makes it personal. Shit. This IS personal.

The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

Yet.

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before.

The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place or not you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections.

And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds.

In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

On a day like today, a day after an event like what happened in Las Vegas, this rings true.

However .. .on most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time?

Yup.

The Internet connects and it isolates.

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected.

Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc.

We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

That is the connected aspect which … uhm … creates the whole disconnected aspect.

Well.

Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way … uhm … until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links … all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

We are brought together and something that happens to 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>.

Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is … well … we have to face a truth whether we want to or not.

In this case … we are touched, connected and affected by one person with weapons of destruction destroying the lives of someone, and someones, which in some way we are connected to.

I imagine I thought to say this today because now we will end up entering into the gauntlet of what to do about this to stop events like this in the future or if we can even do something at all.

And I fear, in the end, we will do nothing.

We will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

That was a sad sentence to type.

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

 

 

====== back in October 2015 I shared my thoughts on what to do =======

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. A gun, an individual & a society.

=======================

“Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written.

And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes.

I personally resent it bitterly.”

―

Isaac Asimov

===============

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

—

Samuel Johnson

=======================

“When tyranny comes to the United States, she will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.”

——

Gore Vidal

=============

Well.

Trump is exhausting. I think not only to me but to America. Day after day, week after week, he seems to attack … well … e pluribus unim <out of many, one>.

Trump seems to thrive on dividing and the conflict that arises from dividing.

I admit.

On occasion I sit back and think of Alfred in Batman … some people just want to see the world burn.

Anyway.

Donald J Trump went to war against professional black athletes this weekend under the guise of patriotism <albeit his attack is blended with that instinctual subconscious racism which Trump seems to invariably inculcate almost everything he does with>.

They fought back.

That said.

I just had to explain to someone this weekend that I don’t hate Trump – in fact I don’t believe he is worthy of any emotional energy on my part – but that I hate his inability to lead, to unite and to … well … offer a north star with regard to some fairly important discussions that any country should have and must have … and will have.

I hate that his take on America is not e pluribus unim <out of many, one> but rather unim pluribus e <I made that up> … or … out of one, many.

He has done some absurdly horrible leadership things since he has taken office but this weekend, in which he unequivocally used patriotism to suggest that black athletes peacefully protesting what they believe is a social injustice were not only unpatriotic … but should be fired for not showing patriotism, is just … well … horrible. Horribly unpatriotic in fact.

Uhm.

That last thing said. Like it or not … patriotism is not a prerequisite for citizenship. In fact … I would suggest that on any given day a fairly significant swath of the USA population is relatively disappointed in the America. That doesn’t make them any less patriotic, nor does it make them disrespect America, it is like having a quarrel with a loved one … I still love you but at the moment I am not the happiest person in the world with you.

Regardless.

It is absurd to make this a patriot versus non-patriot issue <but that is what Trump is doing>.

Frankly … it is absurd that some people suggest this is a ‘political’ issue … this is a social issue.

And Trump is our head absurdity – he is our scoundrel.

Scoundrels, when challenged, will often use false patriotism in order to shut up their opponents.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to suggest a black athletes who earns more money for their skills than a hard working white American is a lesser ‘American’.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism, tweeted or yelled, to attempt to affect the economic realities of an industry or specific individual’s income.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to flirt with some casual racism.

Scoundrels will use false patriotism to … well … actually attack what could be construed ‘patriotic freedoms’ <items actually listed in the Constitution>.

I don’t find it hard to believe Trump is a scoundrel … and, yet, I continue to be shocked by the numerous things that Trump does to violate the norms of not only the Presidential office but the norms of American freedoms as well as the norms of … well … business.

He represents 330 million people and the economic wellbeing of all businesses <which benefit all people> and, yet, he seems to have no problem calling out individuals and individual companies as ‘unpatriotic’ <because they balk at his self defined “america first”>.

It’s hard to think of a group President Trump hasn’t offended or attacked as a candidate or in office:

Women.

Establishment Republicans.

Democrats.

………. Trump attacking … well … everyone ……..

Journalists <“sick people … thieves and crooks”>.

TV hosts.

Pollsters.

NFL players.

NBA players.

Gold Star parents.

POWs <McCain>.

The “Hamilton” cast.

Jews <several times … and, yet, “Israel” is good>.

Catholics <Pope Francis criticisms “disgraceful”>.

Muslims.

Immigrants.

African Americans.

Latinos.

<never white people … even if they carry Nazi flags and say “Jews will not replace us”>.

LGBTQ community.

New Hampshire residents <“a drug-infested den”>.

Mexico.

Belgium.

Germany.

London.

Paris.

<add in another dozen countries>.

NATO.

The UN.

A variety of individual companies.

A union leader <or two>.

Steph Curry.

Snoop Dogg.

Whew.

I think the only ones left are nuns, white/straight/Christian men, Putin and Ivanka.

I could argue that Trump is offering us the most insidious unpatriotic thought of all … “anyone who does not agree with my self defined version of America First is not patriotic — a true American.”

Whew. That’s … well … insidious.

But … you know what? All of this means that Trump is demanding we fight not only for the soul of the nation but also make a decision with regard to “e pluibus unim.”

Fight?

Out of many, one slips off the tongue easily. We like it … maybe even love it. And it becomes easy to say “well, the flag embodies this.”

It is easy because it is tangible and simplistic.

Here is the unfortunate truth we must all face; even our scoundrel of a president, America is an idea. This does not diminish the importance of the flag as emblematic of America as a whole because … well … the flag IS actually emblematic of the whole. By that I mean the military does not have the sole ownership of the flag <and I have the utmost respect for the military with multiple friends in the military> but rather all, the many/pluribus unim, use the flag as representative of ALL the ideas that make up America. Many have died for those ideas … some military and some not.

America is an idea lived out by ALL the people.

America is an idea lived out by people who embrace the soul of the idea of which America is founded upon.

I wrote once a while back that “with our new President I recognize we are now in a struggle for the soul of America – a struggle for our moral core.” And while I still believe that he has brought an entirely different dimension into this struggle … a struggle over patriotism.

One would think this is a relatively easy discussion but Donnie Two Scoops, in his intellectually hollow way, simplistically has decided that patriotism is defined by “not kneeling” or “not burning the flag” … in other words … ”flag above all”.

Look.

I would not kneel during the national anthem but I am not black nor have I faced the social injustice that African Americans face day after day. But I would certainly show support, and respect the choice, of anyone who believed they should.

That is patriotic and that is America. Freedom to show protest and freedom to show support in the way I choose.

Ah.

Maybe the bigger question is would I kneel if I was so disappointed in America so much that I needed to make a stand? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … I imagine I would.

I don’t know what the issue is but I could envision it.

But this whole NFL/sports/black athlete versus Trump issue is simply one more data point showcasing the ongoing struggle for the soul of our nation AND what ‘e pluribus unim’ really & truly means.

I am personally determined to take up this struggle in any way I can … and anywhere. That, to me, is the patriotic thing to do.

……. my little corner of the world ……….

And I will do whatever I can in my little corner of the world. I will fight back by showcasing individual norms which I believe should help guide societal norms & patriotic norms and ‘e pluribus unim’ norms… better than what I believe our current President offers.

We need some people to stand up and hold our moral compass up high so that we can rediscover the soul of America and set forth toward the North Star.

We need to stand up and recognize how easy it is to overlook false patriotism <because patriotism seems to be something we can all agree on>.

Sigh.

Day after day this scoundrel sitting in the Oval office does things that remind us that we are now not only in a struggle for the soul of America and a struggle for our moral core … but he is challenging “e pluribus unim.”

Let us be clear on one thing.

One incredibly important thing.

Our President does not appear to have a soul of integrity & dignity only a core of ‘win at all and any costs’ nor does he appear to believe America has a soul other than a platitude of ‘patriotism’ <which he seems to think is made up of solely of military, law & order and power> nor does he appear to be centered on any moral imperative beyond ‘winning’ <and looking impressive & strong>.

To be clear. That is false patriotism based on some incredibly hollow thinking.

Regardless.

This, simplistically, a false narrative of false patriotism offered to us by a false leader.

I believe there is a time to stand with strength, there is a time to be competitive, there are winners and losers and not everyone should get a trophy and that being nice isn’t an imperative with regard to how you play the game or be competitive.

I believe in America, respect for the flag and that patriotism is a powerful energy underlying ‘e pluribus unim.’

I can almost 99% guarantee the American Symbolic Chief, or our President, only cares about how you look while you play the game <the ‘trappings as it were> and wraps himself in an American flag without understanding what the flag stands for.

Everyone should remember in this struggle that Trump is hollow and in his lack of leadership ‘e pluribus unim’ runs the risk of being driven by platitudes an superficial ‘branding’ exercises rather than true understanding of what makes ‘one out of many.’

And everyone should be thinking that Trump should be the last fucking person to be defining patriotism for us.

Sigh.

If anyone doubts the patriotism of someone who kneels during the national anthem, I will end with this thought.

==============

“I got a daughter, she’s going to have to live in this world. I’m going to do whatever I got to do to make sure she can look at her dad and be like, ‘Hey, you did something, you tried to make a change.’”

—————

Miami Dolphins player Michael Thomas

=============

I cannot figure out how that is not patriotic.

====================

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.”

–

Jonah Berger

==================

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.”  

–

Bruce McTague

<author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

===================

So.

This is about how we have a simplification crisis.

Ok.

This is actually about how we have an oversimplification crisis.

This crisis is making us … well … stupid.

Ok.

This crisis is actually making us stupider.

Look.

What I mean is that in a world in which we know that everything is complex, and more often than not, more complex than our own pea like brains can handle, we unerringly swerve toward simplistic headline conclusions and oversimplifications and absurd bullet point conclusions. We have hollowed out communication of the truly meaningful parts.

This surface skating intellectualism just makes us stupider.

Now.

We may convince ourselves we do this simply as a mental survival technique but I would argue, and I do, that it actually is the opposite of a survival technique … it is destructive behavior. It is destructive in that it destroys the overall thinking of what is actually a population quite capable of being intelligent, if not intellectual.

Yeah.

It makes us stupider.

I thought about this the other day because I have conversations with some incredibly smart and talented people who know a shitload more about more things than I could ever imagine and this topic came up. I note the smartness of these people to highlight how unusual it is that I can say something that actually can make a group of these people stop, be silent and then go “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

It is a rare thing.

And, yet, it happened the other day.

How did it happen? After some extensive conversation on North Korea, global trade challenges, Trump <of course> & foreign policy we opened the discussion to “what is the biggest challenge facing us …”

I spoke up & my thought drew some <thoughtful> silence.

I said “oversimplification.” <insert group silence afterwards>

To me … oversimplification misleads and creates bad decisions and, worse, creates bad thinking <which leads to bad opinions, attitudes and thoughts>. To me we have created this oversimplification shithole we currently reside in. And I offered a couple reasons why I believe this is happening <I did this because if you can identify the issues you can find solutions>:

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

Going back to the ‘destructive behavior’ thought I shared earlier …  oversimplification is anything but efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we over invest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest explain everything beyond the simplistic tripe initially offered, to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to the oversimplified offering & to redefine the oversimplification into bifurcated parts of the oversimplified whole.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that people best retain “one thing.”

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to topline everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention the only way to capture someone’s attention is in some pithy soundbite.

Basically we have convinced ourselves that hollowing out an idea and a thought actually benefits not only the idea and the thought … but us! This is fucking nuts. Absolutely crazy.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately … it is a combination of those things. Yeah. Effective communication is … uhm … complex.

We have convinced ourselves that simple & simplicity is reflective of common sense.

I admit.

I have never been shy about calling bullshit on the simplistic tripe being spewed under the guise of ‘expert advice’ or ‘common sense.’

That said. I will suggest no topic has  been tortured more by common sense than simplicity.

Common sense suggests the simplest thing is the best.

Common sense suggests it is easier for a person to remember one thing and one word.

Common sense suggests in a complex world we humans crave simplicity.

Common sense suggests in a busy world we only have time for simplicity.

Common sense suggests a lot of nonsensical bullshit.

I will not argue that making something as simple as it can be is good but … well … simplistically … oversimplification is misleading and ultimately creates bad less-than-informed decision making AND thinking.

We have used this common sense simplicity bullshit for one simple reason — it serves us well in challenging the most established legitimate rule of Life & things. And that rule is “the world is complex.”

We embrace simplistic solution after simplistic solution, all labeled as ‘common sense ideas’, which are often counter to what an expert would suggest <which is often deemed “too complex”>…  only to find 90% of the time common sense was not only just simply wrong but also made us stupider.

I have written about simplicity and the complexity of finding the simplest way to communicate the complex many times and as I do so today I would remind everyone of what Jonah Berger offered us for a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

–          Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

–          Triggers: Easily memorable information means its top of mind and tip of the tongue.

–          Emotion: When we care, we share.

–          Public: Built to show, built to grow.

–          Practical Value: News people can use.

–          Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

And while this Berger thought is about “making things go viral” it is actually about finding the simplest way to communicate complex shit in a way that it is actually retained in a cognitive way.

I would also note that this dos not reflect “one simple thing”, it does reflect the complexity of reality and the mind and it reflects how to … well … help make us less stupider.

Ah.

Cognitive way.

As in “we actually understand what it is we heard, saw or read.” That is an important thing to ponder because over simplification cheats cognitive value as well as the value of whatever it is you have to offer people. Simplicity may be “memorable” but it doesn’t really lodge itself in anyone’s mind & memory in any meaningful way.

In fact.

The less depth you offer in your oversimplification the more you are at the mercy of the mind that decides to remember you. What I mean by that is if you don’t provide the depth the mind will create some perceptions around whatever it lodges in the pea like brain.

Uhm.

This means the pea like brain lodges only what is actually the brain’s perceptions of what to remember and not what you <a> know to be true, <b> think it may be important for that mind to know or <c> want the brain to store away in its mind.

I imagine what I am talking about is some wacky version of awareness versus engagement … but that shit is bullshit too.

It’s all bullshit because we should be turning away from simplification and engagement and connection and simply focus on “say what you need to say to persuade someone to think or do what you want them to think or do.”

All the other bullshit just confuses things.

If I tell someone that ‘being noticed ‘ is the most important thing, than some asshat is gonna come up with some zany oversimplified shit that gets noticed but doesn’t effectively communicate one thing <let alone all the things you may have deemed truly important in the beginning>.

I admit … I balk at a lot of the bullshit offered online about simplification <and the importance thereof> because … well … it is an oversimplification which diminishes the importance of ‘communicating depth’ and increases the importance of ‘being noticed.’

I do not like that equation. Effective communication is not a binary choice.

Effective communication, as with almost everything, is a complex challenge in communicating a complex thing well – because if you can communicate a couple things well it actually increases the perceived value <which then inevitably creates a stronger “memory stamp” … with value attached!>.

Which brings me back to our oversimplification crisis.

I could clearly argue that in today’s fragmented messaging world where information multiplies at light speed and a day still remains 24 hours that we humans are constantly honing our “incoming thoughts” filtering mechanisms.

I could also argue that our filtering system, as it exists today, sucks. We have dumbed down our communication and thinking behavior to such a hollowed out status the majority of time we skate along the superficial irrelevant surface of reality.

If we are lucky, the ice doesn’t crack.

But the truth is that oversimplification only offers the thinnest of ice to skate on and inevitably we fall thru the ice … over and over and over again.

Uhm.

And in the business world falling through the ice is bad. It is, metaphorically, making a bad decision based on shallow thinking and paying for it.

Yeah.

I did say the biggest issue we face is oversimplification.

I said that because if I can solve this, if I can have smarter people communicating complex things more smartly and I can have more everyday schmucks understanding that simple solutions are more often like trying to place a square peg in a round hole … well … I think it unravels a shitload of other problems we face in today’s world.

I imagine I am arguing that if more people are less stupid and more aware of the reality of things the more effective & efficient we will be in addressing the difficulties reality tends to place in front of us.

In the end.

I will go back to where I began … “say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

There are no rules nor boundaries in this statement.

You use as many words, or as few, as you need to say … to say something meaningful in an interesting way with the intent for it to be understood … and, ultimately, persuade someone to think something. I would say that the hollower the communication the less true persuasion engagement occurs and, conversely, the fuller the communication the more true persuasion engagement occurs.

Period.

Well.

Be prepared. I almost always open with a quote but today I open with a sentence … a 198 word sentence written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr <father of US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.>:

—————————

Many times, when I have got upon the cars, expecting to be magnetized into an hour or two of blissful reverie, my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand in Chladni’s famous experiment,—fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon,—all this without volition, the mechanical impulse alone keeping the thoughts in motion, as the mere act of carrying certain watches in the pocket keeps them wound up,—many times, I say, just as my brain was beginning to creep and hum with this delicious locomotive intoxication, some dear detestable friend, cordial, intelligent, social, radiant, has come up and sat down by me and opened a conversation which has broken my day-dream, unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along my fancies and hitched on the old weary omnibus-team of every-day associations, fatigued my hearing and attention, exhausted my voice, and milked the breasts of my thought dry during the hour when they should have been filling themselves full of fresh juices.

——————————–

So.

When I read this sentence <read it several times in fact> I thought of “filling up” and “emptying out.”

Huh?

Oliver Sr. was no dumb shit. His brain was filled with more “kernels of knowledge sand” than most of us will ever be filled with. And, yet, he outlines how the knowledge works best when emptied of structured thinking and any specific destination but rather when “without volition” new thoughts are unharnessed by old learning rearranged.

Couple lessons in that:

• New thinking is almost always simply a new way of looking at something everybody already knows.

• In an age of instant gratification, smartphone access to any answer you would ever want and a belief that the fastest answer is the best answer it is good to remember that thinking is like baking. You have ingredients and you need to properly bake them to arrive at something special.

This isn’t to suggest that there is no hurry but rather you use the allotted time in the best possible way.

I worry more about the latter than I do the former in today’s world.

I worry about it because thinking is more often like what someone referred to Emerson’s writing as “a chaos full of shooting-stars, a jumble of creative forces.”

That is thinking.

Thinking doesn’t pretend to follow rules, enact some methodology or even use the words it is ‘supposed to use.’

—–

unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along

my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand

fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon

—-

And more often than not, in an attempt to be more efficient in a time constrained world, we try and micro-structure our thinking.

It seems like as the world became more enlightened by mass media, structured education systems and “college for all” we have become … well … more sensible in our thinking.

Which brings me back to my opening sentence.

It breaks all the rules of not only how to write but how to think.

And, yet, it captures the essence of thinking … it certainly captures the magic of thinking … and, unfortunately to the thinking methodology Nazis, it certainly captures the practicality of freedom in thinking.

Our world today is strewn with catchy incorrect memes, rewritten history, faulty logic and misleading statistics all offered to us out of context.

The internet, while offering us a boundless offering of truth & facts, has only encouraged sloppy, lazy thinking.

It should be enlightening us but, far too often; it actually encourages some fairly absurd unenlightened thinking.

Thinking, and I mean real thinking, can cure this unenlightened cancer. The cancer is not social media or this absurd love of brevity … it is us and our thinking.

In thoughtful moments I tend to believe people know this. They know social media and smartphones and the internet is not the problem … it is us. Yeah. All those things make us susceptible to these wacky conspiracy theories, false statistics and alternative facts but they do not live unless we breathe life into them.

Look.

I do worry about thinking on occasion. Shit. I have even written about how I cried about thinking in today’s world.

I have a number of friends who send me memes and out of context quotes to make a point and ask me my view.

I probably send more time fact correct and making people aware of truth than I do sharing my own opinion. That worries me. in fact this is a direct quote from me:

======

But here is what really worries me.

If you, not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination, can truly believe even 75% of what you shared with me then what does the everyday schmuck believe?

That is what worries me.

=========

Thinking does take time and some space and … well … even some work <even if that work is to find empty space and not working>.

And, even then, the problem is that you can search the internet far and wide without finding a clear repudiation of some falsely stated, good sounding piece of untrue crap.

In fact.

If you do spend some time researching something you will more likely find a massive gap between public belief and expert knowledge.

There is often such a delusional gap between reality and “belief” it often seems absurd … and absurdly difficult to bridge the gap.

We need more thinking today than ever before. And, sadly, we need more thinking on simpler things than ever before.

Oliver Sr. was thinking on big things and big thoughts. And we need people like that.

What worries me is that in today’s world we need more people doing more thinking on the kernels of corn, the grains of sand and the horses themselves.

I worry about that because if we don’t have more people doing that kind of thinking all we will end up doing is rearranging unfortunately misguided untrue kernels of corn, fake grains of sand and unicorns not horses.

I imagine my real point today is that effective thinking is dependent upon tow things:

• insuring we have lots of “true grains” of sand in our heads <not alternative facts or falsehoods>

• insuring we have some time to properly jostle the kernels of corn <or grains of sand if you don’t want me to mix my metaphors> to rearrange them in new configurations

I don’t believe the world, society or any business wants us rearranging lies, fake and unicorns in order to form a better union.

================

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

——

Frederick Douglas 1850

============================

“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”

―

Gaylord Nelson

====================

Ok.

Because of the business I am in <marketing advertising & business strategic consulting> I am constantly inundated with the hyperbole associated with “new and unique.”

So, I admit, I am always skeptical of “worst ever”, “best ever” and “whatever superlative you want to toss out” ever.

That’s why I almost always step up to the plate when I hear someone suggest how the world is changing like it has never changed before.

Or that our situation has never been worse.

Or something is better than it has ever been before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

I often seem to create a maelstrom of conversational misery when I state things like “change is the constant companion of every generation” … or say something like “it isn’t any more difficult for this generation … it is just different.”

Or even when I pull out the quotes I used to open this piece.

Frankly.

Most people my age think I am nuts when I say it.

Shit.

Most people any age.

Or think I am out of touch with what is happening around us.

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care.

Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

Sure sounds like something you may have heard recently from some pundit on TV.

But.

This is mid 1800’s in a speech in NYC.

It is a fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude shift.

Yup.

I could argue <and I have> that the more things change the more they stay the same.

They stay the same because … well … we move on, we progress, we improve upon what is. Inevitably, as that happens, each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.

Think of it as tectonic plates in which friction occurs as the new plate slowly <and sometimes quickly> surges over the older plate.

Yeah.

The older tectonic plate.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

The one that “got us to where we are today.”

The one that suggests “why throw away what appears to be good.” 

Well.

The one has someone scraps of truth in what they are thinking.

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?

Yes. Sure.

On the whole?

Nope.

Why?

You don’t know what you don’t know … and if you hunker down on only what you do know … well … that is called “stagnant.”

Ok.

To be fair.

A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the change an the friction and the conflict. These are the ones who empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy the ride toward “what will be.”

But they are a minority.

On the whole the majority of any older generation holds on for dear life to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay of they did that and remained silent … but instead they complain and gripe about what is lost within the following generations and, ultimately, go to some fairly absurd lengths to try and slow change.

It is too bad.

For by focusing on what is lost they neglect to have the amazing opportunity to see what is gained.

But.

Regardless.

In the end.

Change comes upon us whether we want it or not.  As Frederick Douglas said in 1850 … ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’ Change is our constant companion <and mostly a friend> … at all times we face “a change has come over the affairs of mankind.’

True in 1850.

True in 2017.

True in 2150.

This doesn’t mean that we are not slow to change … because we are. Change in mankind is like turning a full tanker ship.

Part of this slow change is actually a reflection of mankind’s survival DNA.

And if you want to debate the ‘slow change’ than maybe accept thinking of it more like Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. The small rise up disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ … and through their destruction <eating away at the status quo> they begin recreating what is into what could be and what will be.

Now.

I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. But it is a fact, a truth, that the older generation needs to be able to let go of some ‘beliefs’ in order to free the change that is inevitable in the affairs of mankind.

I say that recognizing this is not a truth because they were wrong in the past but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’

Effective change demands a healthy dialogue and relationship between the past perspective and a new perspective.

And this is where the current affairs of mankind tend to fall short … they lose perspective as time goes on because they have cocooned themselves within their successful behavior.

Regardless.

This post all comes down to several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

Each generation facilitates extraordinary change <typically beneficial as a whole>.

Each older generation is extraordinarily reluctant to release that which is comfortable to them <and what they “know” … or believe to know>.

And, lastly.

We older folk, manager types, should reflect upon this.

Why?

Because we are managers.

And we are managers of those who will foster the abilities of those who will beget what will be better than what we have done or created.  That doesn’t diminish what we have done. And we should embrace the fact we have created an environment for others to go farther than we were able to go.

We wonder why managing young people <call them millennials if you would like> is so difficult?

Well.

It is because we are holding them back <in general>. It’s like trying to tame mustangs in the Wild West. Except we, unlike the savvy old cowboys, don’t reflect on the beauty of the wildness of the mustang as we try and tame them. We simply see the wild untamedness and believe it is a shame they are so wild.

Older managers, to be successful, need to admire the beauty of the untamed.  And not seek to break the mustangs but rather guide their energy to enable them to take the herd to the heights it deserves.

And maybe even more important … older managers need to remember they are not the mustang’s mothers & fathers but rather we are savvy cowboys seeking to guide energy.

Anyway.

Is this poetic metaphor a bad one? Maybe.

But certainly something worth thinking about.

A change has come over the affairs of mankind … uhm … the more things change the more they stay the same. This is not anything unique … this is called “progress.”

================

 

“Those who stand for different causes during different generations often experience the same oppositions and the same difficulties as those of the previous and the next generations. That is the basis of history repeating itself.”

 

―

Criss Jami

============

=============

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

—–

Aristotle

=====================

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

——

Ronald Reagan

==================

Well.

If there is one thing the Trump administration does well, really well <great again even> … is to find some scrap of equivalency to suggest what they have done or said is “normal.”

In addition, they gird their normalizing arguments with “because he can” simplistic tripe.

This is the Trump business mantra applied to the presidency … ‘it is technically legal & norms are irrelevant’.

This is the lesson that Trump appears to have ignored, the one where parents teach every child “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

Look.

Presidents can pardon whoever they want convicted of a federal crime … not a state crime. Technically Trump was within his ‘technical rights’ to pardon Sherriff Joe Arpaio and, literally, he wins because “the left” and Republicans’ with any sense of norms will go ballistic.

But I would suggest society actually loses on this one <as does the American legal system>.

In a normal world this pardon may appear in the overall scheme of things as small potatoes … but it is not. With this president it edges onto the slippery slope of a new normal <which is not normal nor desired normal>. It edges into an undermining of the justice system.

Hear me out.

2 things make me say this.

How Trump gave the pardon verbally.

He suggested in his words that the Sheriff was just doing his job well. In other words … the laws were either wrong or the law of the land restricts people from doing their jobs. Uhm. And that the president is the judge of whether the laws are right or wrong, constricting or supportive.

The words matter just as much as the pardon itself. The words send a message with regard to how people should view laws and the legal system.

By the way … the words are as much Trump as anything we have ever seen … only he knows what laws are truly worthy and he rules his business that way. In his mind Trump is the sole arbiter of right versus wrong & legal versus ‘useless law.’

How Trump came to the pardon.

He offered the pardon without his Dept. of Justice. In other words … the DOJ and what they thought <or knew> was irrelevant. Process and legal minds are irrelevant … he is the law <a shiver went down my spine as I typed that>. It should be disconcerting to any and all that Trump appears to come to a conclusion about something, particularly what is legal and what isn’t, without seeking the legal process to back it up.

But.

At the root of the issue is that a “law & order” president just pardoned a ‘law & order employee’ who … well … not only flaunted the law but broke the law of rights. The fact is he is not a law abiding sheriff if he’s disobeying a court order <let us remind ourselves that this charming fellow was a convicted sheriff, who ran sweltering, punishing jails where inmates died and was accused of targeting Latino residents … AND … during the litigation that led to his conviction for criminal contempt, he hired a private detective to investigate the wife of a federal judge hearing a case against his office >.

And at the root of the Trump issue <as if there is just one rotten root> is, as USA Today points out, Arpaio didn’t meet the Justice Department guidelines for a pardon. His conviction wasn’t five years old, he hadn’t expressed remorse and he hadn’t even applied to the Office of Pardon Attorney.

The day before, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president would follow a “thorough and standard process” in considering the pardon.

That process usually requires seven layers of review and an FBI background check.

That did not happen.

Past Bush ethics Chief counsel Richard Painter said:

—————–

Well, I don’t see how this would have made it through any normal process.

This sheriff has been known for lawless acts for many years. I don’t think he would have lasted one week as a sheriff in my home state of Minnesota. We are a law and order state. Many places are. We favor law and order in the United States.

When a judge tells a sheriff to do something, the sheriff does it. That’s what law and order is all about. And if you’re in contempt of court and you’re a law enforcement official, you’re abusing your power. You should not be pardoned by the President of the United States.

And the message here is very clear: the President likes sheriff Joe because he likes going after immigrants. He was going after minorities. And that’s the clear message here. And I think it’s really reprehensible and I wish that something could be done about it. We gotta think seriously about whether Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States.

I’ve been a Republican for thirty years and we’ve got a lot of great people in the Republican Party. Who can serve honorably in this United States government and can serve this President of the United States.

This is just one more stick in the eye to the minority community and to those victimized by the very few people in law enforcement like sheriff Joe who choose to use their power abusively. And choose to ignore the orders of the judiciary. And that is lawlessness. And that should not be tolerated in the United States.

————————-

Sigh.

The legal system is degraded because it is politicized in the way that it looks like the president wants to do what he wants to do which, in the end, undermines the utility of the legal system overall.

But watch.

All the Trump surrogates will be flocking to the TV shows to start shaking their fists and defiantly spouting out some false equivalence to justify this non-normal presidential behavior.

They will use scraps of truth and facts to weave a story that suggest Trump is normal, thought normally and even acted normally.

This is not normal and there are few fair equivalences.

In the most harsh view … with the pardoning of Joe Arpaio … Trump has established his place in history alongside those who exercised the same executive and dictatorial rights such as Stalin of Russia, Mussolini of Italy and Hitler <as well as Erdogan, Putin and Duterte>. That does not mean he IS them just that he is utilizing some of the same tactics.

To be clear.

While I fear that Trump and Arpaio are bigots and nationalists and authoritarians … that doesn’t make them Nazis <so I wish some people would tone down some of the rhetoric>.

It just makes them bigoted, nationalistic authoritarians. That’s bad enough and I see little value in bringing up Nazis.

That is a false equivalency.

I have said this before and I will say it until I die … the Trump presidency nor the Trump behavior is normal and we need to stop suggesting it is normal. We should be seeking to explain and justify his uniqueness in behavior <and if we cannot then he should be penalized> but no one … and I mean no one … should be using scraps of normalcy to create a false equivalency of a larger whole normalcy to a non-normal president.

This is NOT normal in how we should be viewing our legal system and legal decisions.

Trump is certainly no Reagan but maybe we, all of us, should heed Reagan’s words in the age of Trump … we must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

—-

President Donald Trump on Thursday denounced the removal of monuments to Confederate figures as “sad” and “so foolish:

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments. You can’t change history, but you can learn from it.”

Uhm.

“Beautiful statues and monuments.”

He is referring to memorials to Confederate leaders as if they were lawn decorations which, if taken away, would make my perfectly coiffed yard seem a little ‘less than’ compared to my neighbor’s yard.

Please don’t take way my hand made gnomes!

This is horrible.

Simply horrible.

The lack of any intellectual awareness from Donald J Trump continues to be stunning no matter how often we are exposed to it.

Despite what our 140 character intellectual-in-chief may suggest not all the 1,500 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces <source: SPLC> are created equal — 718 are monuments.

Look.

No sane person blames Trump for a divided country … although one could argue he is clearly exacerbating division on what used to be clearly what was right and what is wrong … and dark skinned people versus white people.

Okay. He is exacerbating divisive thinking.

However.

What he is being blamed for is not offering moral leadership in the discussion.

If anything he is stripping the conversation of any morality to suggest a naked choice. If only it were that simple. His vagueness begs people to fill in the hollowness with whatever nonsense they want to believe.  And then, to make it worse, he offers his own intellectually vapid nonsense.

This is not a vapid simple issue but I will still offer how Bruce would resolve this:

• This statue thing is not a democrat versus republican issue it is a country issue. We should celebrate soldiers who died fighting bravely for what they believed was right.

We should never celebrate the leaders who made bad decisions, no matter how much we want to justify their difficult personal choices, which created the deaths of individual brave soldiers. If I go to Europe and world war 1 battlefields I see memorials to dead soldiers on both sides … but I don’t see statues of German generals.

• oddly … in a world in which we throw around absurd words like ‘snowflakes’ and ‘politically correct’ and ‘erasing history’ far too often … we seem to forget there are winners and there are losers.

We should celebrate winners, particularly the ones who stood for something right, rather than celebrate losers <who stood for something wrong>.  I want statues of Abraham Lincoln … not Jefferson Davis.  I want statues of Grant not Lee.

• Statues dedicated to solders bravery stay up … no matter which side they were on.

Statues that celebrate leaders of the ‘wrong side’ should be in museums as ‘lessons in history.’  I could argue any confederate statue erected in the 1910’s & 1920’s should simply be destroyed because their intent was to celebrate segregation <and this would eliminate something like 50% of monuments>.

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.”

Trump is an idiot.

Okay.

He is stupid.

Yes. I just said stupid.

I say stupid in this case because not only is he intellectually hollow & amoral he also cannot seem to swim out of the shallow end of the thinking pool to see how he could appeal to the people who deemed him worthy of voting for him … and elevating them and their thinking.

He continues to miss opportunities to make a point with regard to what he suggested he stood for <the forgotten everyday schmuck>. In this situation if he stood up and was able to put any semblance of a thought together in his word salad way he would say “the everyday soldier who served bravely should never be dishonored by the flaws of their leaders. Families sent their sons and many paid the ultimate price bravely. Memorials should stand to honor their families, them and their choice to serve. Statues of their leaders, who led them for a cause which was not for what makes America great, deserve to only remain in museums so that we can learn the lessons of their mistakes.”  

While this is an incredibly complex issue, taking statues down isn’t about rewriting country history … it is about rewriting family choices and family history. If I pull them down indiscriminately I dishonor families who lost sons and take away a part of their personal history.

We need to separate the individual sacrifices made, honor them, and dishonor the larger cause and leaders who propagated it.

Sigh.

We will inevitably see hundreds of intellectual, and semi-intellectual, articles written about culture, the civil war and how a country faces its demons. People will spin this so many different ways trying to justify Trump words or demonize Trump lack of thinking you will get dizzy.

Stop spinning and take a deep breath and think with a little clarity.

I have stated ad nausea, this should be a debate of ideas and thinking because, in the end, the solution shouldn’t be some simplistic ‘take them down’ or ‘leave them up’ but rather an overall understanding and semi-alignment on the purpose of wherever we land decision-wise as a country.

And maybe that is my larger point today … Trump is not leading the discussion … he is offering the simplistic tripe of some guy on his 6^th beer at the corner of the bar.

Donald J Trump is not just a horrible president … he is a horrible man … a horrible leader … and I even, at times, think he is a horrible American.

Complex issues demand leaders to not offer simplistic tripe which appeals to one sliver of America.

Complex issues demand leaders to be their best and appeal to the better aspects of people … and America in this case.

In business … complex issues demand business leaders to develop solutions which unite an organization and show a way forward.

And let me use business leadership to head off my good friends who will send me notes about my ‘white guilt’ and ‘bleeding heart liberal inclinations.’

I am president of a 400 person company. I just told about 75 of my employees, me <an old white guy> told them, that they should lighten up and look at those statues as beautiful statements of our history blessing the appearance of our public parks.

“… start a conversation within their beautiful shadows.”

Uhm.

Seems to me about 75 of my employees may look at me and say “fuck you old white man” which doesn’t necessarily breed organizational unity.

Look.

I am an everyday schmuck. I think the last Confederate statue I can actually remember paying attention to was in New Orleans <which means I have most likely walked by a dozen others and never even noticed>. But that’s not the point … I am not a leader nor am I the leader of a 330 million person country.

Complex issues reside in the deep end of the intellectual pool and good leaders learn to swim well enough to venture to that end of the pool. Trump can only stand in the shallow end.