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

“Developing our abilities to think more clearly, richly, fully — individually and collectively — is absolutely crucial [to solving world problems].”

——–

Adrian West, research director at the Edward de Bono Foundation U.K.

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

So.

I was asked the other day about what I believed the internet, and connectivity’s, greatest impact on business was.

After chuckling that there was no one thing and we didn’t have enough time to talk about all the aspects that have impacted us … I did suggest one thing we don’t talk about which has a larger ripple effect on the future of business – connectivity’s impact on decision making and how we teach decision making.

Simplistically, technological connectivity has killed maybe 90% of the delegation of critical thinking & decision making.

Yeah.

There are a couple of other sociological insidious things seeping into organizational culture – discouragement of risk taking, particularly among younger employees, ‘flat’ organizations which tend to only put the senior decision makers closer to actual tactical decisions and things like that.

But what connectivity has done is make the most experienced decision makers more available 24/7 and younger people more likely to “send them a quick text asking them what to do” or an email with the question at hand … so that the younger person doesn’t have to make the decision. This translates into less decision making experience, less real ‘outcome of decision experience’ as well as all the critical thinking that gets crammed into one’s head when forced to make some decision <which always takes on some extraordinary size & significance when younger and less experienced>.

I believe this is a real issue.

In fact … I believed it was so important I googled it to do some research for this post.

• ‘how connectivity has killed decision making’ … 0 results.

• how the internet has killed decision making’ … 0 results on the topic … most on ‘overthinking’ or ‘Information overload is killing our ability to make decisions’

I even tried ‘how the smartphone has killed decision making’ and got zilch other than some crap about how ‘smartphones are destroying a generation’ and shit like that.

Lets be clear.

This isn’t about ‘distractions’ or ‘short attention span’ this is about circumventing critical decision making skills through easy connectivity to someone who can make the decision <instead of you>.

And I found it extremely odd that there is nothing obvious in terms of the discussion online because society views technology through an extremely critical eye on perceptions of how it forms, or doesn’t form, critical thinking skills. And nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in the business world where in a seemingly non-stop 24/7 world where we deem “speed” as having some absurd value above anything else we force more and more decisions ‘up’ in an organization.

Let me tell you how it worked in a disconnected world.

As an old guy we had no smartphones and computers weren’t chugging out hundreds of emails between employees all the time.

My bosses sat with other bosses in some high falutin’ section of the office space <most often with doors and big desks> and I didn’t have easy access to my bosses because … well … they were not within shouting distance and they had their own shit to do.

I had team members, clients and other departments who always needed answers so they could do shit and make some progress <to meet deadlines that I had inevitably placed on them> and, when they needed a decision, 90+% of the time they didn’t want me hanging up the phone saying “I will get back to you after I speak to ‘x’ person.”

And many times I was out of town in meetings and … well … decisions had to be made.

In this disconnected world 25 year old Bruce had to make some decisions … hopefully some good ones.

This didn’t mean that afterwards I didn’t sit there going … “fuck me, was that the right thing to do?” … because I did.

So in that disconnected world I would have to get up when I had a free minute and track down my boss and walk them through what was going to happen because I had made some decision.

I could go to Pat, who would sometimes be laying on his back under his desk looking at a world map he had taped under his desk thinking <claiming it gave him a different view of the world>, who would 99% of the time asking me why I thought it was the right decision, what other things we could have considered and start tearing apart the decision to better understand it.

I could go to Charlie who would 99% of the time go ‘okay’ … and then in a burst of energy start talking about what we could do now, a kind of “what’s next attitude” now that the decision had been made.

I could go to Beth who would always, always, just listen … and then start talking about how we could follow up with some research, or data, or support so that <in her words> “the decision doesn’t get killed by someone else’s opinions.”

I could go to any number of other bosses throughout my younger years and discuss a decision that I had made after the fact.

In a disconnected world a less experienced person was demanded to assume some responsibility.

The bottom line it was my decision and I had to live with it. I didn’t have a shitload of bosses who tried to kill the decision but rather seemed to accept it, warts & all, and figure out how to move forward from it.

Now.

A shitload of people may argue that in a connected world better decisions are made <slightly> faster <assuming you can reach the decision maker in some timely fashion> therefore business has benefited.

They may be partially right.

But I would argue 3 things:

<1> Most decisions made at a lower more tactical, or less strategically influential, level are not really business killers nor are they even ‘not fixable’,

<2> by delegating responsibility for a decision ‘upwards’ … someone never learns the critical thinking necessary, sometimes under time duress, nor the burden of responsibility,

<3> and ability to bear burden of responsibility is actually an indicator of future leadership skills.

I have gone on ad nausea over the years with regard to our short term paranoia within the business world and how it is killing us … and this ‘delegate decisions upwards because connectivity permits it’ is just one additional example.

Look.

The people who have the most confidence in their decision making skills, unless they are narcissistic asshats, are the ones with most experience in making decisions. And examining decisions made by someone else <which is what a younger person does if a more senior person makes a decision> is not even close to the actual experience of running the mental gauntlet of making the decision yourself … and understanding he burden of responsibility you assume by doing so.

By outsourcing our decisions to more experienced people, or even the false ‘certainty’ in data, we cheat ourselves.

We are left responding rather than thinking creatively, critically and autonomously.

And maybe worse we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to unlearn what we believe we have learned <which truly can only happen through trial & error>.

Gut feelings, and instincts, or even data … are not the best tools for an uncertain world … they only offer the illusion of certainty.  The business world is a complex world with thousands of decisions and a relentless onslaught of uncertainty.

About the only thing to maneuver your way through all of this complexity & uncertainty is by using the skill of critical thinking.

When we deny people the challenge of thinking critically, evaluating situations, making your own decisions and bearing the burden of responsibility we are heading towards a future where future manager will lack the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills, to effectively think and make good decisions.

While I have several worries with regard to what technology and connectivity is doing to our business world … this is one we do not discuss enough if we are truly interested in the next generation of business people to be better than us.

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

“More isn’t always better. Sometimes it’s just more.”

―

Barbara Benedek

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

“Our company? 

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better.  Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect. 

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’ 

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.” 

—–

Bruce McTague

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

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.” And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy  I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note: <a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by  ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way. These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts. This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important. It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label. And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects. The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said. I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle? Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas. This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s crap (bullshit). The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that with two thoughts in mind:

• something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

• smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway. In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked. This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this. New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something. I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it. Conventions train us to do the conventional. I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar. All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.” Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of. The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless. I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success. I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness’ and the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>. Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard. All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’, I get a lot of cocked heads  as they think about it a little.

That’s got to count for something.

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

Seth Meyers

—–

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you?

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

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

Ok.

Today, in this world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on some topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that?” … and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” … and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” … and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>” … I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart but, unfortunately, on … well … some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with or anyone who espouses a different view than you is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with.

Let’s be clear.

Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own views but non professionals, and opinion people, are biased.

The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased.

Placing those important nuances aside … everyone should assume a fact is a fact and a fact can be delivered in a variety of ways – slanted, biased, fair, straightforward, misused – but it still remains a fact.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased.

Fox News. Biased.

MSNBC. Biased.

The Nation. Biased.

Federalist. Biased.

Pravda. Biased.

Yep. All of them.

Biased.

I, personally, do not call them biased <at least their news programming/pieces … not their opinion programming/pieces>.

I would call them intellectually slanted toward a specific view but still factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through.

Yeah.

Some of the stories they publish are great, helpful, and insightful.

Yeah.

Some of them are extremely one-sided.

And while this one-sidedness may be well intended all it really does is drive us into deeper separation and make the ‘bias gap’ seem deep & wide.

Here is where the real trouble begins.

If everything is biased … who offers the truth?

Who you view as biased I view as a purveyor of truth … well … where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh.

If it fits than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again.

This is crazy.

I tend to believe this is a reflection of a number of things all grounded in the inability to know who to trust <because if I accepted an expert as an expert then I would be able to accept an expert speaking truth I could believe as unbiased>. I tend to believe there is a strong strain of “anti-intellectualism” or maybe it is better called “a gut instinct opinion world” in which facts only confuse the issue <therefore shouldn’t be pursued> and rational thinking is actually ‘common sense.’

Sigh.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

Yeah.

It is a wacky world.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information.

I believe we can find fair, even and biased wherever we may choose to look. I can find it on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and almost every venue with professional journalism employees. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out.

But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views.

I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true … and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

  ==============

“Maybe growing up was really nothing more than growing away: from your old life, from your old self, from all those things that kept you tethered to your past.”

—-

Jennifer E. Smith

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

Forever is a long, long time.

And has a way of changing things.

—-

The Fox and the Hound

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

Ok.

Forever.

Forever is about time and it isn’t. What I mean is we associate forever with time and, yet, it is timeless so time … in a slightly absurd twist of truth … is almost irrelevant to ‘forever.’

But.

We always associate Forever with a long, long time.

And time is a funny thing.

It can ebb and flow all within a finite amount of time.

It can increase speed and decrease speed and yet remain an extremely identifiable finite amount of time.

It can take years of asking and creating questions … and a second to answer everything.

Forever is all of that and more.

That said.

While I think we get better with the concept of forever as we get older I am fairly sure we don’t really realize how vast forever is.

And what I mean by that is it seemingly contains everything and, yet, all of a sudden … we realize that we will not last forever and it runs the risk of containing … uh oh … nothing.

Yeah.

Basically, being the type of outcome oriented people we are; we actually try and apply some measurement to forever.

Yeah.

But think about it.

Forever is everything until it is nothing.

Forever is hope until it is emptied of everything … and hope no longer exists.

All that said.

I, personally, wish the word didn’t exist. To me it captures everything bad about false hope and, therefore, provides a nice well wrapped excuse for us to not face what Emerson suggests “God offers to every mind its choice between truth & repose. Take which you please – you can never have both.”

The whole idea of forever far too often tethers us to our past or inertia. Neither of which is very productive.

While I do believe growing up, for those who do actually grow up, is more like growing away … or unlearning shit … I also believe growing up, more often than not, is growing away from the belief in forever.

In other words … we grow away from infiniteness and grow closer to an understanding of finiteness.

I actually don’t think that is a bad thing. It most likely actually helps us live Life a little better and maybe even manage Life choices and behavior a little better.

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

“Let me tell you a truth … no matter what choice you make, it doesn’t define you.

Not forever.

People can make bad choices and change their minds and hearts and do good things later; just as people can make good choices and then turn around and walk a bad path. No choice we make lasts our whole life. If there’s ever a choice you’ve made that you no longer agree with, you can make another choice.”

–

Jonathan Maberry

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

Look.

Life is a mixed bag of contradictory events, outcomes and feelings all of which can careen through your Life with wild abandon like a bunch of bulls in your china shop.

This means in assessing forever it really isn’t like assessing a balance sheet but more like trying to judge a handful of marbles rolling around a tilting table.

The good news on that is, more often than not, bad shit is not indicative of Life Armageddon and good shit is not indicative of future ongoing bliss.

Forever is simply an endless array of moments crashing into each other and away from each other in which present moments look bigger than they truly are and then … well …than we have another moment.

And another.

And, well, another.

Until we don’t have any moments left.

And in the end we most likely look back at all the moments in what we deemed our forever and if we are lucky, and did things the best we could whenever we could, we most likely see that our forever is filled with somethings that don’t look too bad.

I sometimes believe this is a lesson learned of experience.

That said.

Forever is an empty concept.

It can only be filled if you actively fill it with something. you have to choose between truth or repose … you cannot have both.

Anyway.

Here is what I do know about forever.

It doesn’t really exist to an everyday schmuck like me and my Life. It only exists in the minds of astrophysicist and … well … smart intellectual types in some theoretical way.

Time is finite in everyday Life and that reality smacks us in the face each and every day. It is a reality in which we tend to define forever in terms of minutes not eons.

Sure.

Everyday schmucks like me love the idea of forever <on some things>… and hate the idea of forever <on some things> … and constantly misapply the idea of forever to our time and, yet, all the while do our best to fucking kill the concept of forever in tiny scraps of time … choice by choice.

But I would argue until … well … my forever is done … that thinking about anything in terms of forever is a fool’s errand. It is foolish because if you think you have forever you will most likely remain tethered to the past and, well, forever is most likely best explored by growing up by growing away.

But … that’s me.

==========

“What horrifies me most is the idea of being useless: well-educated, brilliantly promising, and fading out into an indifferent middle age.”

―

Sylvia Plath

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

“My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean.

Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?”

–

David Mitchell

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

Being useless.

Whew.

Can you think of anything worse than feeling like you are, or have been, useless?

Well.

Of course.

What is worse is actually being a useless fuck.

Regardless.

99% of us think we are smart <or smart enough>.

99% of us have felt a sense of promise.

99% of us want our Life to amount to something.

So what happens if that 99% actually thinks they may … uhm … be useless?

While I imagine depression or becoming extremely depressed would be the first thing most people would think about … ‘horrified’ may actually be the more appropriate sense.

Maybe it is a general sense of meaninglessness?

Ah shit … I don’t know.

But just thinking about the possibility of thinking I am useless is a fucking depressing thought. And I am not a wildly ambitious person and I think it would be pretty fucking depressing to think that way.

This came to mind after I had a discussion with one of the kindest, nicest, most generous … and smart … people I know.

After scanning Facebook updates and thinking a little bit about Life and ‘what do I have to show for it all’ their mind, quite expectedly from my point of view, started going down the ‘fucking useless Life’ rabbit hole.

<note: I did remind them that Facebook is not typically where you advertise your losses, disappointments and failures but rather is a place where one goes to conflate their wins, supposed happiness and successes>

But the conversation did remind me that assessing usefulness is not an easy task.

Yeah. yeah. yeah.

We talk about integrity, doing things the right way, honesty and kindness as well as the infamous “a flower doesn’t judge itself next to the flower beside it … it just grows” but reality continuously punches us in the face with ‘proof, proof, proof.’

Where is the proof for your Life and usefulness?

And this gets even more difficult when you look around and see people who obviously are not doing things the right way, who have a dubious relationship with integrity, truth is something they store in some closet to pull out for special occasions and, yet, they have a lot of useful stuff to showcase proof that in some way they have been useful.

Usefulness can occur in a variety of ways.

And 99% of us know that but it sure don’t make it any easier to actually not be horrified when looking around and assessing one’s own usefulness.

It doesn’t make it any easier when we realize we may actually be no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Because I tend to believe 99% of us know that but felt we would be smarter enough, have enough promise and do things the right way just enough to be a little more than just one drop in a limitless ocean.

All that said.

Feeling useless, or feeling like what you have to offer is being wasted, or even feeling that doing it the right way and having integrity hasn’t got you shit compared to others assholes who have no real desire to do things the right way or do not really care much about integrity <unless they feel a need to check that box> … well … sucks.

I feel like I should offer some optimistic and hopeful and positive thought now … but I don’t really have one to offer at the moment.

Why?

Because what horrifies me is the thought that I may end up useless despite not being the dullest knife in the drawer, despite that fact I most likely still have some promise and despite the fact I imagine I would really like to contribute to Life in some positive morally driven thoughtful way.

Because what horrifies me is the thought that I could pass over into an indifferent age in which I would be viewed as useless.

Because what horrifies me is that I do not have any advice or can even offer some semblance of an answer today.

Because what horrifies me is that I had no answer for the person who teetered on the edge of feeling useless … and, well, that kind of made me feel a little useless too.

And THAT horrifies me to no have an answer for someone else … because what happens if it is me at some point?

Here is what I know.

Just thinking about the possibility of thinking I am useless is a fucking depressing thought.

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

“It’s more interesting to ask the question about America itself, not the America of Trump or the America of Obama, but what is today the appetite of the Americans, really, to have an active role in the world affairs?”

———–

French Ambassador Gérard Araud

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

―

Horton Hears a Who!

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

So.

I almost called this the shrinking of America.

What I mean by that is America is shrinking in the eyes of the world.

That said.

Let me begin by framing this from a business perspective.

Business leaders are responsible for the growth of their business on a number of dimensions not just $’s.

You can only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the company brand and image is suffering.

You can also only hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but the board views it as a poor long term strategy.

You can also hold on to your position for so long if you are having some economic success but perceptions of your leadership are not very good.

But that’s business <and we assume anyone who rises to a business leadership position knows this … as they should>.

I say that because a business can grow in a variety of dimensions not just profit & sales … there is also strategy, positioning and leadership. And if people start to doubt your business on any of those dimensions it is kind of like a balloon … they become little pin pricks and your ‘balloon’ starts shrinking.

And that is what is happening to America from a global perspective.

Pinpricks in the American balloon.

The pinpricks are doubts … in leadership, reliability, consistency and … well … civility <note: I could have added intelligence but I will not>.

I am not making this up.

A Pew poll of 37 countries ranging from large to smaller shows attitudes toward the United States have collapsed since Trump took office. At the end of Obama’s presidency, 64% of people in these countries said they were confident in the US president. Today, that has fallen to 22%.

In addition. Opinions of America overall have fallen by 15 points.

This Pew study examined global attitudes toward America since Obama left office and Trump has assumed the leadership role. Suffice it to say … it is really tough reading for any American.

On all attitudes America is shrinking.

The only places in which Trump’s numbers rose versus Obama are … uhm … Russia <which rose a staggering 43 points, 11% to 54% confidence>and Israel.  And, I would note, that despite the common perception Obama was loathed by Israel, Obama’s confidence ratings varied from 49% to 71% during his administration as compared to Trump’s current 58%.

Just to drive a nail into this particular coffin a little deeper … if I were to pull Russia and Israel out of the study … uh oh … confidence in America would drop into the teens <gulp>.

6 months into a Trump presidency and the pace and the depth of the decline driven by Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, is stunning. Trump’s belligerent style and immature substance is not only affecting his approval scores domestically … but also internationally. He currently wears the mantle of “shrinker in chief.”

Whether one believes in the accuracy of polling or not, and not many sane people doubt PewResearch> the consistency between domestic numbers and international numbers should make anyone and everyone take a moment and pause.

I could even argue the domestic numbers only look better than international numbers because Republicans are stubbornly hanging on to Trump despite having some serious doubts. If I were in the Trump White House I would be eyeing this Pew report and thinking “yikes, this is my floor here in the USA <22% or the teens>.”

We are shrinking.

And it is sad.

Now.

Trump supporters will flippantly suggest they don’t care about what other countries think about Trump & the USA because it just doesn’t matter.

Which leads me to my point <other than expressing some sadness> … a word to the wise <and even a word to the intellectual dwarfs>.

It does matter.

And it really matters if there is a lack of alignment between perception & reality as well as domestic attitudes & perceptions and international attitudes & perceptions.

That matters because alignment is what makes countries, and businesses, effective AND efficient. It eliminates the herky jerky of misunderstanding and the slowing inherent in having to overcome any negative aspects which could be obstacles.

Yes.

Alignment is important.

Any sane business leader knows that sustainable success is not found in some transaction or some event or even being viewed positively by some others <here & there>. They know success inevitably begins and ends in internal alignment.

Instead of promoting American leadership & unity, Trump is leaving a vacuum internally, domestically, by stubbornly gripping onto a minority view with regard to what people want and what is actually best for the country long term.

This gets exacerbated by the fact he is doing so within his own management team as well as within his ‘employees’ <the citizens … all … even the ones who did not vote for him and did not vote>.

In addition.

An “every man for himself” attitude doesn’t really encourage a positive transaction relationship but rather it encourages a sense of chaos … which leaves Trump and the US with fewer friends and less influence.

I have said it before and I will say it again … this is solvable. And it is solvable not through transactions but rather by … well … internal <domestic> alignment. Trump often argues that words don’t matter and behavior is more important.

Oftentimes this is true, however, words can often build the doorway through which skeptics & doubters can walk through to get a little closer to the alignment America needs to progress – economically and mentally.

If Trump were to triple down NOW on building unity domestically, it would go a long way to stopping the shrinking of America <note: but I seriously doubt something like this is within his DNA>.

Finally.

The deal.

Negotiating.

Or the art of the deal as a leader.

It seems his single-minded pursuit of individual challenges or countries does not translate to the complex politics of … well … the EU, China, Russia, the Arab & Muslim world, or anywhere.

As a result, the “best” dealmaker is starting to look like he cannot make a deal.

Sure.

He can complete some transactions <albeit they all seem to be about getting paid to arm the rest of the world with as many weapons as possible> but transactions are not ‘deals.’ NAFTA is a deal. The TPP was a deal. We have trade deals with people. These are not “let’s make a deal for this space” but rather a more complex web of multiple variants in which over time the variants will … well … vary and yet the ultimate outcome overall is positive.

That’s not his kind of deal.

And, frankly, that’s not the kind of ‘deal’ other countries truly desire.

But Trump’s dealing and his character are so intertwined it is almost like a Gordian knot.

That matters as we discuss shrinking.

PewResearch, who makes every attempt to be unemotional and unbiased, said this in their report:

Confidence in President Trump is influenced by reactions to both his policies and his character. With regard to the former, some of his signature policy initiatives are widely opposed around the globe.

Trump’s character is also a factor in how he is viewed abroad. In the eyes of most people surveyed around the world, the White House’s new occupant is arrogant, intolerant and even dangerous. Fewer believe he is charismatic, well-qualified or cares about ordinary people.

Look.

The truth remains that the US economy, just as it was with Obama, has remained mostly healthy and Trump has not to date significantly altered any signs of the health. The end of the Obama economic era and the start of the Trump economic era represent an ongoing good, not great, economy.

This is good.

But as I noted initially … economic success is just one dimension and while a powerful dimension you can only hold on to your position for so long if that is the only ‘positive benefit’ you are offering your organization as a leader.

Trump is a myopic bully and, just as with almost every bully, I worry America will remain large in physical stature but small in everything else.

In the end.

I brought up alignment and shrinking for a reason. Alignment is a double edged sword.

Positive alignment greases progress.

Negative alignment can suffocate and squeeze.

And that is my point on the current shrinking of America.

Poll numbers showcase directional negativity which is difficult to ignore … especially since the numbers reside in both domestic and international framing.

Call it perceptions or call it reality … I don’t care.

As long as it exists America will continue to shrink.

And ignore the most recent PewResearch at your own peril because it sure as shit looks like we are shrinking.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

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

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.

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

“Being honest may not get you a lot of friends but it’ll always get you the right ones”

—

John Lennon

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

“I spoke the truth, but no one believed me, so I took to deceit.”

–

Lermontov

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

Ok.

Honesty sure seems like it would be one of the simplest things in the world to agree upon … “be honest, don’t lie.”

But, sure as shit, talk about the specifics with regard to honesty or ‘being honest’ or even ‘is a lie a lie?’ and … holy shit … bring the beer and settle in. It is gonna take some time.

Yeah.

Everyone wants to be honest … but if honest with themselves … we are far too often less than honest.

And that is why I opened with the quote I did … being relentlessly non-equivocating honest will limit your circle of friends, but the ones you do have will be good ones.

Sadly … being honest comes at a cost.

To think about that cost I had to revisit the essays of Montaigne to help me think about why. In his essay “giving the lie” he says this:

—————-

Would it not also be that this reproach seems to involve cowardice and lack of courage? is there any more obvious cowardice that to deny what we have said? nay, worse yet, to lie against a man’s own knowledge?

Lying is an ugly vice; a vice that one of the ancients portrays in the most odious colours when he says, “that it is to manifest a contempt of God, and withal a fear of men.” It is not possible more fully to represent the horror, baseness, and irregularity of it; for what can a man imagine more hateful and contemptible than to be a coward towards men, and valiant against his Maker? Since mutual understanding is brought about solely by way of words, he who falsifies that betrays human society. ’

Tis the only way by which we communicate our thoughts and wills; ’tis the interpreter of the soul, and if it deceive us, we no longer know nor have further tie upon one another; if that deceive us, it breaks all our correspondence, and dissolves all the bonds of government.

—————–

What this means is that lying dissolves the bonds of friendship therefore, in this case, it suggests if you lie your friendships will contain little dissolved fissures in the complex web of what makes friends friends <all of which subtly weaken the bonds>.

That sounds reasonable but, whew, the alternative … being honest all the time … is difficult. I will say that although honesty is not always easy easy route to take it will always lead you to the destination called ‘trust’ … which is the most solid place in every healthy relationship.

Oddly enough … honesty takes more work than lies.

Lies are a peace offering … an offering you give to avoid possible conflict.

Honesty, on the other hand, almost encourages some conflict and therefore you need to stand your ground and help others know why you are telling the truth and why you are being honest about what you really think.

Whew.

This suggests the best friendships and relationships take work and involve some conflict.

<they do>

This can get a little trickier because lies are sneaky. In fact it was the US Supreme Court who just ruled that a lie can actually … well … not be a lie.

Well.

Not really.

They assessed a value to a lie in order to judge it. While I have always felt that a lie was a lie. And I have never really cared to try and measure & assess the depth & breadth of a lie because … well … a lie was a lie to me.

The Supreme Court made us question … do different lies have a different value?

“… the court ruled unanimously that a lie told in the course of gaining citizenship can be used against the applicant only if it was relevant to the reward.”

Who would have ever thought we would judge a lie in a cause & effect manner?

<not me>

So a lie only has value if it had a consequence of some tangible reward or gain <peace or avoiding conflict is not a tangible gain>?

Well.

That creates some philosophical challenges.

They actually called these “irrelevant lies.”

And maybe this is where I circle back to friendship. In finding the strongest bonds of friendship there is no irrelevant honesty. All honesty is relevant. I say that because … well … relevance can be harshly illuminating. There are harsh words empty of relevance and then there are the harshly relevant words which strip you bare for all to see.

This will … well … certainly create some uncomfortable silence at times … and certainly cost you some friends at other times.

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

“Isn’t it because there’s more truth in it than you might wish? … I told him. This brought the conversation to an end and we walked along side by side in silence.

——

<A hero of our time: Lermontov>

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

Let me come back to what Montaigne because, once again, here’s what he believes is the ultimate harm of lying:

Our understanding is conducted solely by means of the word: anyone who falsifies it betrays public society. It is the only tool by which we communicate our wishes and our thoughts; it is our soul’s interpreter: if we lack that, we can no longer hold together; we can no longer know each other. When words deceive us, it breaks all intercourse and loosens the bonds of our polity.

He’s obviously right — lying destroys trust and destroys bonds. And they do so in sometimes little sneaky ways dissolving or loosening little threads holding us together. And, yes, sometimes they just cut all threads and you ‘lose’ whatever you had as it floats away on the restless sea of Life.

But if you turn Montaigne’s words around … being honest offers a path to what lies destroy. We know each other, our souls are interpreted to each other and we hold together because we know each other – a stark reality bared to each.

And therein lies what being honest offers — reality.

And for many people reality sucks.

===========

“In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we neither seek nor want honesty or reality.

Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion.”

—–

Ryan Holiday

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

Suck or not … I have said again and again <and will continue saying> that reality is reality. just like facts are facts. It is what it is and you can either face it or ignore it … but it will be there regardless of whether you look or not.

And that is why honest friends are the ‘good things.’ For in their honesty they also offer a companion to face reality, look at it straight in the eye and say “I am here, I will not go away, and I will do good things.”

Well.

That sure seems worth being honest to me, doesn’t it? I mean … well … having the rights ones with you to face reality rather than try and avoid reality sure seems good. Shit. Just standing up and facing reality rather than ignore it sounds good to me.

Being honest comes with a cost … sometimes friends.

Being honest comes with a benefit … the ability to face reality

Seems like a fair value equation.

But that’s me.

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

“If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs.

But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants”.

–

 David Ogilvy

<political correctness caveat:

Mr. Ogilvy said this in the 1950’s as a vivid metaphor for the importance of hiring the best and not suggesting dwarfs are incapable of bigness, in fact, he hired a number of short people who were intellectual & creative giants>

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

“Never write and advertisement you wouldn’t want your own family to read.

You wouldn’t tell lies to your own wife.

Don’t tell them to mine.”

——

David Ogilvy

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

“It seems to me that we can observe the same set of facts yet some of us see the tragedy of the human comedy while other see the comedy of the human tragedy.”

————–

<Google couldn’t tell me who said this>

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

So.

Yesterday was the first time I worried that America is running the risk of becoming a country of dwarfs.

Forget greatness … I am thinking ‘littleness.’

Little intellectually, little integrity, little dignity, little respect and little honor.

This worry came to me yesterday as a couple of Donald J Trump’s tweets popped up on my computer and I sat back and said “WTF … what is fucking wrong with him.”

Needless to say … this was not the first time I have said that to myself <or yelled at the TV> but yesterday … one in which he not only utilized his mastery of immature grade school name calling but he also diminished a successful woman’s intelligence <low IQ>, her mental state <crazy> and appearance <blood flowing from face lift> … I found myself thinking this is truly horrible.

This is horrible in that in one tweet Donald J asshat delivered the diminishing trifecta against all women everywhere <albeit he directed it to one woman>.

And this is not just horrible from my perspective … or even from a “dignity of the Presidential position” perspective … but just horrible from anyone’s perspective <father, parent, brother, human>.
That said.

I have now reached a point where I have a method in evaluating what the President tweets and says because while I know very little he says is anything I would ever say, or believe is appropriate to say, I am willing to admit I may be biased in judging this incompetent intellectual dwarf.

Here is what I do.

First.

Jury of US President peers. How would I feel if Merkel, Macron, May, Xi or even Putin & Erdogan said this? Would I be outraged or simply nod my head sagely?

These, by the way, regardless of their physical stature are the intellectual and leadership giants of the world <some are also moral giants>.

Second.

Jury of Business peers. How would I feel if the CEO of Amazon, GE, Ford, Goldman Sachs or even the president of your local chamber of commerce, city’s largest pest control company or the head of the School Board said this? <and would they most likely get fired?>

These, by the way, regardless of their physical stature are the economic & social giants, or aspiring giants, of the world <some are also moral giants>.

Third.

Jury of parents. How likely do I think a parent would go out of their way to tell their child “see this … this is exactly the way you should handle it!” For example … how many homes do I believe a father said to his son “Donald Jr., this is exactly what I would tweet your mother if she ever said anything bad about me to the Moose Lodge!”

These, by the way, regardless of their stature are the nurturers of the future giants of the world.

Fourth.

Jury of the young. How would I feel if I saw this comment or thought said by one teen to another … or if I saw my son send this to a classmate … or if I ever saw any young person send this message out to 33 million people? Heck. How would they feel if their girlfriend, or any friend, received a message like this? <although I will note that back in March 2016 I did suggest Teens celebrated Trump as one of them — from a maturity perspective>.

These, by the way, regardless of their stature will most likely be the giants of the world <and our fates will be in their hands>.

Fifth.

Jury of the trolls. How would the statement and words look if I placed them below any viable article in any viable online publication next to the slew of online trolls spewing their hateful bile?

These, by the way, are the intellectual and moral dwarfs of the world.

All that said.

More and more often I am finding Donald J Trump dwelling in the comfortable abode of the intellectual and moral dwarfs.

Regardless.

Ogilvy was, and is, right.

Hiring people smaller than you insures your company will never be a giant … but what if the hirer himself is a dwarf?

Sigh.

I cannot fire Donald J Trump. You cannot fire Donald J Trump. He is our president <that still hurts to type> and I have to start thinking not just about what policies he may actually someday implement but also how his actions, as THE leader of the country, affect the size, economically, morally and dignity, of the country … in other words … will we be a country of giants or dwarfs with his leadership?

Well.

We actually have two paths thanks to our mental dwarf of a President.

The first is to accept his behavior as normal and permit it to become more normal outside the purview of the oval office and on our tween/teen smartphones, in the classrooms, on softball and soccer fields, in the bars and in the office.

This path has one destination … a country of dwarfs.

The second is to not accept this behavior as normal, or acceptable, or even good, and create a counter culture in which we recreate the foundation of civil discourse, respect, dignity and an increased valuation of maturity not bullying <under the guise of ‘fighter’>.

This path has several destinations but one certainly is a country of giants.

This choice may seem easy at first glance but the truth is that I do know, having run a business, maintaining an organization of giants takes leadership. And if your leader is a dwarf the path to becoming giants becomes more difficult.

Look.

I wrote recently that Donald J struggles with ‘staying above’ but I would be remiss to not point out that in the business world it takes a special manager to maximize people’s potential <even if it means outstripping your own ability & potential> AND keep your job AND keep your status as a leader.

I will admit that it takes a little bit of self-courage, a shitload of conviction and even some craftiness in your own responsibilities.

That said <now that I have given him an excuse>.

……… little Trump pouting …….

I think what will help America overcome the intellectual and moral dwarf we current have in office is that the majority of people truly want to be a country of giants and we would prefer leaders who foster the attitude.

I can honestly say that I don’t care what generation you are <millennial, boomer, Xer, etc> or what your upbringing was or even what attitudes you may have … I can guarantee one behavior … and I will guarantee it.

The guarantee? Give us a giant as a boss and we will run thru walls.

And therein lies my larger call out. In my small corner of the world I will never be a giant <although I like to think giant integrity-like thoughts> but there are those out there who can do something bigger … and they should look in the mirror and start thinking like a giant, acting like a frickin’ giant and maybe all those people casting about for some guidance will take giant steps for the giants who stand up to lead.

Wow.

That would a giant leap of faith to attempt that.

Surprisingly, great organizations take giant leaps sometimes.

That is what makes them giant.

Correspondingly, great countries take giant leaps sometimes.

That is what makes them giant.

Sigh.

I would be naïve to not understand that we can observe the same set of facts yet some of us see the tragedy of the human comedy while other see the comedy of the human tragedy.

I can only hope that as the facts accumulate more and more people will see that USA has an intellectual and moral dwarf as president and he isn’t making America greater he is making it smaller.

Personally, I want to live in a country of giants. But that’s me.

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

“In London, everyone is different and that means that anyone can fit in.”

—–

Paddington Bear

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

The great advantage of having a bear as a central character is that he can combine the innocence of a child with the sophistication of an adult. He gets involved in everyday situations. He has a strong sense of right and wrong and doesn’t take kindly to the red tape bureaucracy of the sillier rules and regulations with which we humans surround ourselves.

As a bear he gets away with things. Paddington is humanised, but he couldn’t possibly be ‘human’. It just wouldn’t work.

Michael Bond <Paddington author>

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

Well.

Michael Bond, the Paddington Bear author, died yesterday.

First.

Michael … thank you for a fabulous contribution to millions of people’s lives.

My sister and I poured through your books as children.

I still have the original set of Paddington books our parents bought for us and in the first book, A Bear Called Paddington <where the marmalade-loving bear from Peru arrives in London>, you would find a neatly placed label where my sister’s name is written as the owner of the book.

Second.

To many in this generation Paddington is a charming movie. But it is within the books where children find some of the lessons which bear fruit in growing up and viewing Life.

In general … it is a story about fitting in and helping someone fit in … and the struggles that inherently come with this.

While Paddington is a refugee … or a likeable harmless immigrant without a home … what child hasn’t found themself looking in the mirror thinking they were different? How many children have found themselves in a new school or a new home or a new neighborhood facing the struggles of what you think you know and what other people think they know? Paddington, as a bear, permitted any child to step into his life and see what he sees.

He also taught us we can change not by changing but by seeing things about ourselves or about Life that we have overlooked.

He taught us to always polite and well-meaning <always addressing people as “Mr.”, “Mrs.” or “Miss”> but through his simplistic well-meaning ways he is consistently faced with spectacular gaffe after spectacular gaffe within the traditional 1950’s middle class world.

He also taught us to view Life as if in a mirror to showcase some of the absurdities we place upon ourselves and … well … how we have a nasty habit of making the unimportant important and the truly important often gets overlooked.

For example.

When he makes his well-intended errors he finds that ‘very proper persons’ <adults and those in authority positions> tend to glare at him.

What does he do?

He responds with a penetrating, long hard stare of his own <thinking this is the proper response>.

Lastly.

One of my favorite parts is this:

Mary: We can’t just leave him here.

Henry: Of course we can, he’s not our responsibility.

Paddington is as much about the people around Paddington as it is about Paddington himself. Time after time in his simplistic slightly bumbling way he reminds people of … well … our general source of humanity.

Responsibility for others.

The importance of home.

Friends.

Intentions.

Perspective.

Not all mistakes are created equal.

The list goes on and on.

Within a charming tale about a Peruvian bear in London a child gets glimpses of many things that adults seem to have forgotten.

Within this charming tale a child learns some of the little lessons parents forget to tell you when you are growing up.

Within this charming tale adults, like me, can pull a well-worn book off the shelf and be reminded that a good heart and good intentions can defeat the most established stuffy rules adulthood can often, quite absurdly, place upon all of us.

RIP Mr. Bond. Paddington finally found his home.