~synthesis~

humane

What does it take to shape the essence of who we are? For an individual, it is likely to be one or a series of personal experiences. For a community it might be a shared experience, more often than not a calamity of some kind. But for the whole human race? Now that's something else.

Think of what has impacted us on that scale - religious figures like Buddha or Christ or Mohamed; evil figures like Pol Pot or Hitler or bin Laden. And then I think of Gandhi and King Jr. and Mandela.

They have affected me profoundly - not just in terms of who I am, but more than that, the type of person I aspire to be; and if I have one, what I would hope is the nature of my soul. I hope they have in some small way touched the better angels of all our natures.

If you think of the essence of India - Gandhi comes to mind. If you think of the essence of America, King Jr. comes to mind. If you think of the essence of Africa, Mandela comes to mind.

We are so very lucky to have had one of these men inhabit our lifetime, to have personally experienced and been touched by his essence.

As I was driving home today, not long after I heard the news of Madiba's death, I was thinking about my own experiences with racism and intolerance (in my home country of Tanzania, and my adopted countries of Canada and the US); how I acted, and how I wish I'd acted.

I wrote this blog about Madiba a few years ago, it includes the poem (Invictus by William Ernest Henley) that accompanied Mandela during his 27 years in jail. There is immense strength and power in Henley's words, and there is even more in Mandela's actions.

If his death (and life) are to have meaning in our world, then his actions (like those of Gandhi and King Jr.) can not, must not stand alone. We have to walk in their footsteps, to demand of ourselves and of our elected leaders the tolerance and care that goes along with the word "humanity."

Humane is a powerful word. It demands immense things of us; it asks us to transcend our Darwinian urge to survive even at the cost of our fellow man, and recognize that our individual freedom and opportunities for greatness only comes when all in our community are also free and great.

Amandla Awethu.

democracide

Churchill famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

A few months ago, I wrote that a democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

How naïve am I!

The basics of democratic politics, whether in America, Egypt, Israel, or Russia are simple. The job of the candidate (and their Party) is three things:

1. Find or fabricate a means to polarize "your" people vs. "their" people - make the "us-es" hate the "thems," and create the groundswell (of $ & advocacy) needed to win.
2. Whilst in power, focus ONLY on subverting and diminishing your opponent, and 
3. Altering the rules of the electoral system to assure a win next time, and the time after that.

If you are the leader of your Party, your ONLY job is to assure more wins than the last election. There is no other objective. On the face of it, that seems reasonable - the role of a Party should be to achieve perpetual success. After all, the ONLY reward in politics comes with winning. Unlike sport or business, there is no value, or prize, or credit for being second.

Pavlov showed that a dog can be conditioned to drool (reflex action) via an environmental event (bell ringing). Politicians in a democracy are conditioned to its binary nature. Their instinct/conditioning (and more precisely, their survival) requires that they pursue winning at all costs. Losing is fatal. As is the desire to be a real public servant. You can't serve if you don't win. But once you win, your priority staying "in" - you have to keep winning.

These venal, mercenary politicians (VMPs) also understand Pavlov, and realize that they have to condition the electorate to value (and vote for) rhetoric over public service. In America, the most effective VMPs are the Tea Party; the Democrats and Republicans are trying, but they're not as good at it ...yet. Once the citizenry is conditioned vote based on fear and anger vs informed reason, the game is over.

The game in America is perilously close to over...

The natural behavior of democratically-elected politicians (VMPs) is the willful evisceration of their opponents, in order to perpetually hold power; to achieve totalitarianism. Since it goes without saying that no-one's voting for anything in a totalitarian state, it is thus that democracy leads to democracide.

What would Churchill say now I wonder?

A popular answer is term limits, which does limit the damage any one politician can do, though it has the effect of making the Party more powerful - they are the constant; and as king-maker, the puppet master is running the game, and the politician is but an empty shirt.

Another favorite is election finance laws. While this might curb election "buyers," it does nothing to regulate the candidate selection process (Primaries in the US), which again puts the control of government in the hands of an unelected few. The Tea Party in the US recognized this, and has successfully manipulated the Republican Party through the Primary process, knowing that if their candidates win the Primaries, mainstream Republicans will vote for them because of their fear and hatred of Democrats.

These and other ideas are all similar in that they attempt to fix symptoms, but not cure anything.

Is that it? Are democracies screwed?

To create a government of the people, by the people, for the people, the people must do the work. There is no other way.

Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and all the others who have caused the tides to rise for all boats have one thing in common. They asked more of themselves (and the "oppressed") than they did of others (including the oppressors). Until we want it badly enough to do the hard work ourselves, we're doomed to voting for totalitarianism.

suppressing obsession

If a species thinks itself enlightened or evolved, it must go beyond violence to use reasoned and sustainable approaches to resolving differences.

Military actions lead to one of two outcomes - perpetual war between peoples whose antipathy grows stronger every day (ex. Israel v Palestine); or absolute destruction of one side combined with generational investment to hopefully forge peace (ex. Allies v Axis in WWII, and the resulting European Union).

Violence is a terrible answer, but if one is to use that tactic, then one must go in prepared to annihilate the other side, and then invest for decades to help create a new society. Surgical strikes, and limited engagements have proven pointless, and invariably lead to more violence.

If President Obama (or the UN or whomever) is seeking to intervene in Syria, they must either personally participate in mediating an accord between all parties, where peaceful coexistence is the outcome (unlikely); or they must eradicate all the violent elements, and prepare to spend the next several decades forging a new society (unpalatable).

There is another option. The West can urge the governments of surrounding Arab states step in. The Arab nations and Muslims in general have been under siege for years. "External" interventions have exacerbated both the internal situation, and their relationship with the rest of the world. They must come together to make their communities and peoples find lasting peace. It can not come from without.

If the majority of peaceful Arabs and Muslims in the world are not horrified by the violent acts of a malevolent minority, then the majority has a much bigger problem - their own similarly evil nature.

I don't believe this is the case, I think they are complacent because the West has always swooped in.

It is time for America and her cohorts to recognize their impotence; to suppress their compulsion to intervene; and to allow the Arabs and Muslims the room to forge their own tomorrow.

Lasting peace can not be imposed, it must be chosen.

the pope loop

My list of questions if the Papacy was a job won via interview, and if I were on that interview loop.

1. Name the one thing you believe every Catholic must be/have - the one thing without which you would not consider that person a Catholic.
2. Name the one thing that if a person was or believed it, you would consider them a non-Catholic.
3. Beyond the "typical" officiating work of a Cardinal, what ONE thing would you (as Pope) define as your priority for the next three years?
4. As Pope, will you focus more on regions where Catholicism is on the rise or in decline?
5. If you had to strengthen the Church's relationship (alliance) with another mainstream religion, which one would you select? What would your goal be in doing this?
6. Are there any aspects of the Church's teachings (traditions/rules vs. religious tenets) that you believe should be reevaluated based on changing times (between now and when these traditions/rules were established)?

My ideal candidate's answers (bearing in mind I have no affiliation with the Catholic Church, nor am I religious):

1. A practitioner of the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, combined with love thy neighbor, which I believe are two sides of the same coin.
2. That harming another or allowing them to come to harm is acceptable.
3. To turn our religion from a series of "No's" to a conversation about "Yes" - assuming the worst and a model that scares people into behaving seems antithetical.
4. I will focus on people in need no matter their faith or location.
5. I would pick Islam. The loudest fringe always subsumes people of moderate voices; this is and has been true in our faith, and it is so in others. It saddens me when the fringe uses faith to advance a self-serving agenda, and it scares me when they advance a violent agenda. I would seek to build a bridge between moderate Catholics and Muslims in the hope that our combined strength and tolerance will help the fringe find its way to the middle.
6. I believe Catholicism is centered on the notions of faith, love, tolerance, and service. Anything beyond this is a matter of time and place. I would look at homosexuality, contraception, celibacy, and the role of women in the Church as subject to reinterpretation.
   • I would rather people are guided by their faith in God and love for each other when it comes to which gender they should love and marry; our teachings should focus on faith and love, and we must trust in God that people will choose wisely, and then accept the guidance God gives them.
   • I would urge adults to view parenting as their most important role; one that must be entered into intentionally, and when ready. There is nothing worse in the world than a child suffering needlessly because their parents are not able to care for them; I would support the use of contraception to prevent this form of child abuse.
   • Rather than being celibate, I would like to see the leaders of our Church be exemplars of healthy, successful marriages and parenting.
   • I would hope that one day soon the person answering these questions is a woman - there is no reason why it should not be so.

the NRA is right - it’s not about the guns...

...it’s about the gun owners. According to Wayne LaPierre (head of NRA), “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s hard to argue with that, just as it is hard to implement an “only good guys may have guns” policy.

Proponents of gun control will say that access to certain (or all) weapons + ineffective buyer "qualification" are the issues. This might be true, but so what - it will not prevent gun violence in a country where there are ~9 times more gun dealers than McDonalds restaurants; where there are already ~300 million guns in circulation, and where 5-10 million guns are purchased every year.

The American Bill of Rights protects an individual’s right to bear arms; changing that is nigh impossible, so the real question is not how to prevent gun ownership; it is akin to what LaPierre said, how do we prevent bad guys from wanting to use guns.

I think the anti-gun lobbies/organizations are wasting their time and money. They ironically draw strength and impetus from killing sprees (especially where young people are involved), and sure they create a feverish signing of anti-gun petitions and calls to Congresspeople, but in the end, the outcome is status quo. And then comes another spree, the process begins anew, with the same outcome - status quo.

Back to LaPierre, who are these “bad” guys? The killers are almost always male, they often are killed or kill themselves in the process (society gets no justice), and they are deranged.

So most gun violence is committed by men; these men buy/get guns as an extension of their penis/machismo. They use guns to assert their maleness, and as a conduit for their anger and bravado. Their role models are gun-toting archetypes, like John Wayne/Rambo/etc., revolutionaries, survivalists, gangstas, soldiers, other spree-killers, etc.

They crave the luster of strength, confidence, coolness, assertiveness, heroism, etc. that comes from wielding a gun. Guns are perceived to be a supremely manly accessory.

Rather than relentlessly pursing the pointless cause of legislative relief, let us instead change the perception of guns. Let us reposition gun ownership and gun usage as something other than an expression of machismo.

It would take time; it would take persistence; it would certainly take creativity; but compare that to the multi-decade failure of every anti-gun organization to meet its goal. It is time to try a new approach.

Positioning is a powerful, powerful tool. It allows a thing to be conceptualized or re-conceptualized in a way that will endure. I wrote this a couple of years ago - if you have a moment, read it, and more importantly, watch the two videos. They are outstanding, and they are exactly what is needed to redefine the lure of “bearing arms.”

How would “men” feel if guns were associated with tampons, or as an indicator of erectile dysfunction? Will this happen overnight? No. But look at how we view cigarette smoking today vs. during the era of Mad Men.

If America’s love of guns is to be diminished, it will NOT be with laws; it will be because we redefined the notion of gun ownership to be insipid.

bloodied introspection

Why work hard to be "united" when "divided" is so much easier?

I wrote several months ago that the personal nature of the rift between the Middle/Southern (MS) states vs. the Northeast/Northwest (NEW) states has put America on a path to divorce - the differences are simply irreconcilable. That was in the midst of the Republican Primary. Have things changed since? Did the election resolve or reconcile anything?

No. America has never faced its mortality, and thus never grasped or faced the question of what it really stands for, what is at the core of being American. Without this, there is nothing with which to trump the red/blue emotional antipathy I referenced in that blog, and without which, I don't think America can be one nation.

I joined Microsoft in 1994, during its "cool" zenith (Windows 95): success was everywhere, the stock was rising, the world was happy. Then came the DOJ. Being a convicted monopolist put the company back on its heels. We became timid, cautious, and for a long while, without mojo. They are a different company today, Windows and Office are still the flagships, but now Servers, Xboxes, etc. are legitimate multi-$billion businesses unto themselves. Tablets and Phones are new, but the company is patient and tenacious and will keep trying.

Their size and diversity has put them in a position of potential success in a number of high-margin businesses. Each of their battles (DOJ, browser wars, open source, search, Apple, etc.) caused them to question who they are, what they are, and either re-up or abandon the idea that Microsoft could exist and thrive as a "new" entrant in non-PC markets. They have faced breakups, severe loss of cool, being viewed as insignificant, and yet, the profits keep coming in.

Look also at Germany through the 20^th century -- decimated in WWI, they rose from the ashes, became an industrial powerhouse in the hands of one man. Vanquished again in WWII, they were split in half and became servants of their Eastern and Western masters. Two generations on, Germany reasserted her independence and united as one nation with a clear identity that is informed by its past, understands its potential, and has the maturity to be a world leader. It is now a global powerhouse whose citizens enjoy a comprehensive social and economic foundation.

While the WWII/Holocaust generation is waning, that Germany's behavior still colors their thought process. Rather than diminish, it has strengthened their resolve to strive for success, but with a conscience. Over the years, they looked inward, explored what it really meant to be German, evaluated their past, understood the essence of who they were, and then emerged as the culture they are.

The desire to remain whole; diversify with a long-term view; and embrace conflict and introspection does pay off. If I were picking a long-term tech investment, or betting on a country's preeminence over time, I'd buy Microsoft or pick Germany -- they've been bloodied, faced their own good and bad, and shown that they can get back on the horse, and progress.

America is divisive and divided today because she has never been bloodied; the act of being American has never been questioned. 9-11 was a blip - there is no lasting effect. Support for the military and first responders at sporting events while touching, has not prevented budget cuts and reductions in force. America and Americans have never been sufficiently challenged or provoked to true introspection. The country remains successful, but also petulant, naive, and immature on the world stage.

Today Democrats hate Republicans for their passion for god and guns, and disdain for science. Republicans hate Democrats for their passion for socialistic services, secularism, and belief in science. If America is to be a beacon for pluralism and freedom, then it must experience the worst that can be thrown its way, and yet stay true to these ideals.

This isn't about any one issue, it is about never having questioned your fundamental identity, never having faced legitimate threats to your existence, and never having risen from such challenges as one.

America was most "American" when it faced the very real threat of identity and existence from the Soviet Union and Communism. It gave the country a higher purpose than childish partisan bickering - and while that threat was credible and imminent, the country was more together than apart. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the bickering returned, and as the threat to America diminished, so did our desire to put America above partisanship. It seems the experience of falling and then rising from the ashes is required to created sustained oneness.

Visit Fukushima, Japan, and then New Orleans, Louisiana and ask yourself which cataclysm happened seven years ago, and which one happened two years ago? Ask yourself which country is more persistent, more resilient, and more unified?

Despite their absurd and moronic efforts, our politicians can not make China another USSR - our economic interdependence and China's passion for capitalism are just two reasons.

Is it possible to become one without having to rise from the ashes? Can American ingenuity and "exceptionalism" extend this far? If the post election machinations of the White House and Congress are any indication, then no.

If America is to live, it must first die a little bit.

less walls

An act of God (Sandy) resulted in $billions committed to reparations, many benefit concerts by famous entertainers, and a ton of political action.

What, I wonder will an act of man (Sandy Hook) provoke?

It is not realistic to think that even the slaying of 20 children will create a sufficient change of heart to provoke new laws. So I don't expect this country will suddenly become anti-gun, nor do I expect that America will legislatively and enforcement-wise shift from being the most weaponized country on the planet.

What then is possible? What then is realistic? Many are comparing the regulation of cars and driving to guns, but this doesn’t apply either. There is simply no practical way to achieve this.

A knee-jerk reaction will be a demand for guards, stronger doors, and metal detectors in schools so that students are protected. But this is also wrong - I’m reminded of something I wrote a few years ago:

South Africa is one of my favorite places. In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they are surrounded by huge, thick concrete walls with broken glass on the top and steel gates. Safety is in being inside your jail-like walls. I've also been to Soweto a few times, and there, if there is one at all, the fences are low (3 feet) and decorative. I asked why they didn't use tall concrete walls and was told, "we feel safer when our neighbors can see into our homes and come to our aid if we're in trouble. The bigger the walls, the less safe we feel."

This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

In Soweto, they gain support and security from each other. Together they are stronger than as individuals.

In America, every time people do bad things, we act passionately and aggressively to build bigger walls - from tough on crime to anti-terrorism to anti-lunacy. The reward for every bad act is a curbing of everyone’s freedom. America imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other country in the world - by far. I imagine we also spend more on law enforcement than anyone else.

I believe all of this “tough on X” bluster actually creates more criminals. That the extolling of bad acts in the media actually spawns more bad actors.

Instead of improving things, building bigger walls has only made us more vulnerable.

I believe our friends in Soweto have it right - in the face of bad behavior, our reaction must be to demand more freedom, less or no walls, and more opportunities to be there for our neighbors; to be able to see that there is trouble and come to their aid. There is no shortage of heroes in our world let us give them a chance to save us.

As ever, I am inspired by Aaron Sorkin and Josiah Bartlett. These 3 minutes and 37 seconds are worth another look.

an imperfect union

A democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

Seems simple enough. What could possibly go wrong?

Ego.

Today “our” elected officials care little about governing; winning is the only thing, and they will do anything, anything to win.

Why do we tolerate this?

1. We are stupidly easy to manipulate.
2. We have very selective memories.
3. We can’t see past our fears.

Think back to any primary election - did even one candidate treat their opponents with respect? Can you name them? If you can (John Huntsman), did they have hope of winning? What happened?

What does it say when candidates within a Party family so viciously eviscerate each other? Sadly, despite the hate, the “base” rallies around the winner because they've been manipulated into thinking the other Party is even more evil.

Candidates actively avoid “thinking” voters; no one wants an open, cogent discussion on policy bereft of vitriol. Look at the Party platforms - they only come up when an opponent finds a weakness to exploit. They are completely ignored by the candidate.

How to win?

1. Raise a ton of $$.
2. Identify “wedge issues.”
3. Pepper the electorate with abusive ads.

Without #1, everything else is moot - fund raising is THE priority for every Party, even above the candidate. How to raise money? #2. Even the smartest among us are susceptible to #2. (Pun intended.) Pollsters are the most influential people in any campaign; they “help” the candidate focus the message for maximum provocation and agitation, and thus more donations. Evil.

Witness the recent Romney defense of free speech - no coherent person associates the embassy’s actions as siding with terrorists, but then coherent people aren’t the target audience, are they. He just needed to paint his opponent as pro-Islamic fanaticism and anti-America, and thus raise more $$. The President’s reaction was also wrong - why stoop to your opponent’s level? Maybe because that's also your level.

With the secret recording of the Romney fund raising speech, the Democrats (and media) went off on how evil Romney is because he doesn’t care about half the country. Romney was responding to a question about campaign strategy, not governing; he said the pro-Obama 47% will never vote for him anyway, so why bother campaigning to them. I guarantee President/candidate Obama has spoken similarly about demographics and districts that hate him. Romney was pandering to his audience and he chose words that resonated with them; tell me Obama has never done that.

When an election is based ONLY on vilification, both the winners and losers emerge as blood enemies. Their abject hatred prevents any hope of collaboration (governing), and even if they can rise above it, they can’t be seen to cooperate or #1 dries up.

What about the victims of our politicians’ hatred - the Chinese, Latinos, Muslims, Olympics, gays, pro/anti abortionists, etc? Can you guess at their “favorability” towards America, Americans, and the American government??

Are you really surprised that with every election in the last 30+ years, our country has become less happy, less sustainable, more hateful, and more hated? A recent president once said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos." Can you guess who it was?

It is time for we, the voters to reject cynicism and chaos, and reform our imperfect union.

politics and not getting stoned

The Democratic Convention happens this week; they now get to respond (in kind) to what was thrown their way last week at the Republican Convention.

American politics is full of many things, most are far from honorable. But one thing which is more present than ever in both parties does give me hope. It is not supposed to have a place in government, the Constitution makes that explicit; and yet both parties honor and celebrate it with vigor.

I didn't watch much of the Republican Convention (I missed the genesis of Eastwooding :-(). All I did see was the last of Mitt Romney's speech, and of course the 100,000 balloons + 500 lbs of confetti. Did you see what happened next? The Romney/Ryan families left the stage amid raucous celebration, and suddenly the entire stadium - tens of thousands of celebrants, fell silent. Why? This man came to the podium to lead everyone in the closing ceremony - the shift from partying to praying was remarkable.

This same phenomenon will no-doubt occur at the close of the Democratic Convention - religion is a powerful, powerful force in American politics. But instead of an instrument of spirituality, community, and moral purpose; it is a bludgeon of orthodoxy, divisiveness, and ultimatums.

If I were President Obama, I would ask that the invocation to open the Democratic Convention speak of this passage from the Gospel of John, where the people brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus, and asked if they should stone her as the Law of Moses commanded. He contemplated this, and then said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd then dispersed, and Jesus told the woman to "go, and sin no more."

If you have or know children, I'm sure that like me, you've counseled them with a variation of these words. We do this because we want them to turn the other cheek, and to do to others as you would have them do to you.

These simple yet powerful lessons which every politician has earnestly shared with his or her children, are fervently ignored when it comes to their own behavior.

Imagine how many undecided votes the candidate would attract if they began their convention with the promise that their party would henceforth (through to election day and beyond) act with respect and integrity? What if they would judge the other party only the way they wish to be judged, and seek to create bridges (even during the campaign) with all parties and candidates, for they know that once the votes are counted, all those elected are required to work together to serve the country.

They'd have my vote.

Divisiveness is difficult enough in good times, but in tough times it results in catastrophic dysfunction. We witnessed the invective in Congress and the White House over the last four years, and we have suffered because that made it impossible for them to accomplish anything.

Why can't we the electorate demand and expect civility? I have to believe the majority of American voters seek in their leaders a level of morality that at a minimum reflects what they were taught by their parents.

Religion is not supposed to influence politics but it does. There is no political risk greater than dismissing religious leaders or their opinions. Today, religion influences three issues - reproduction, homosexuality, and Israel.

Why such a narrow expression of religion??

Can we find a religious leader, a peer of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their brethren to advocate cooperation and respect? Can we help this voice become as powerful as those who care about abortion and gay marriage? Can we ensure that this voice is just as vigilant about holding government accountable?

It would be impossible for the Falwell/Dobson/Robertsons, the Democrats/Republicans, and even the left or right wing media to stand in opposition to a moral and effective government. Imagine if candidates had to condemn all forms of negative campaigning because they had to live up a moral standard?

America is a deeply religious state - over 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated, and every one of these religions espouses spirituality, community, and moral purpose. It took less than five years for the Tea Party to go from random disaffected pockets to a major political force. Why can't we create a pro-cooperation movement between now and the 2015 primaries?

Today religion in politics is an agent of divisiveness; whereas religion itself is a champion of community. It is up to us to transform the former into the latter.

divided

Something rather predictable happened in America yesterday. North Carolina became the 28^th State which overwhelmingly voted to amend their constitution to protect the "sanctity" of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

As a recent citizen of this much-vaunted nation, this and related events make me question two things I was required to learn to gain citizenship:

(1) Did the Boston Tea Party really occur? Was this country really formed in response to "a long train of abuses and usurpations" against the ideal that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."? Or is that all a sham?

(2) Are the fifty (50) United States of America really so, or is this just a geographically convenient artifact?

Today, 56% of American States are anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and anti-any-other-religion-but-ours. They ironically campaign for this using the very Declaration quoted in #1 above. They are strong in their conviction, persuasive with their campaigning, and (very) successful in their actions.

If an alien were tapping into American news over the last months, they would be convinced that this continent is on the brink of civil war pitting the Middle/South (MS) against the North East/West (NEW). They would be further convinced that the passion, state of weaponization, and ferocity of MS would prevail against the tepid passion and insipid NEW.

I think they'd be mostly right. MS wins referenda because they stir passion in an organized way, they instill fear by correlating any issue to the personal insecurities of their constituents. NEW on the other hand appeals to people's sense of what's right; they may agree, but are not provoked enough to rock the vote. Once again proving that when it comes to politics, the threat (actual, perceived, or fabricated) of imminent, personal danger far outweighs any intellectual discourse.

Notwithstanding their brains, NEW's density and lack of savvy are impressive -- if I were running the NEW campaign advocating that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, I would also argue that any two consenting married adults should be allowed to divorce. I would be sure to give the latter as much "air" as the former, secure in the knowledge that that would cause/require MS to oppose it. While incredibly obvious, I'm certain NEW will never do it.

Gay rights is but one rift in metaphoric Grand Canyon that separates Americans; it began with the Civil Rights movement and the US military presence in Vietnam (or perhaps with the abolition of slavery?), and fed by vitriol, violence, and politics, blossomed into our current state of "irreconcilable differences." The pundits claim that the upcoming presidential election is about the economy/debt, jobs, national security (energy self-sufficiency), and health care. They're wrong. These are surface issues, filled with gray; and both sides (politicians and voters) are mostly in agreement. The real issues, the most evocative, are personal and decidedly black/white.

Democrats and Republicans alike claim "what unites us is far greater than what divides us" and in the next breath, go on to paint "them" as against the core, fundamental, and personal issues that "we" share.

You can't have it both ways. Aaron Sorkin said this best with President Andrew Shepherd's speech in The American President:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship.You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

America (and democracy) can't exist when her citizenry is made to be personally severed from its neighbors. If we continue down this path of intolerance, metaphoric severance will become literal; either peacefully - "You (44%) go your way, and we (56%)'ll go ours.", or violently - "You're too evil to live, you need to be ended."

Maybe it's time to renew my Canadian passport...

prelude to discombobulation

I was reading a speech John F. Kennedy delivered in 1961 to the Canadian Parliament, and struck by this quote:

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us.

Over the last few months, I've been wondering whether the country President Kennedy represented still exists, whether his half of the "us" can in fact be represented as he did. Is there still a "we" in the "us" or is America no longer one country? Can the President legitimately "represent" US?

I thought the intra-American vitriol had peaked during the presidential election in 2008 - from calling candidates terrorists to questioning their birth and religious affiliation, because in the weeks that followed, it felt like we were moving back from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Wrong.

Today there is NOTHING the Republicans can do that will inspire Democrat support or approval, and vice versa. I bet if Speaker John Boehner(R) were to give money to a homeless person, Nancy (the idiot) Pelosi(D) would find a way to condemn it as a political act aimed at eliminating Federal social programs. Such is the lack of quality, maturity, and civility within the government.

The very concept of governing has lost meaning; American politicians' only goal is to win, and then raise enough money and create enough polarity to keep winning - there is no compulsion to actually do anything (serve) whilst in power, who cares about that!

Whatever "they" do, "we" have to hate and decry, even if we agree (or agreed) with it. If they do something that the electorate thinks is good, we have to spin it as misguided, anti-freedom, anti-common man, anti-jobs, or (last resort?) treasonous.

How did politics become so devoid of honor? I blame Karl Rove, who in crafting George W Bush's candidacy, saw that the only way to win was to target the religious right, prey on their fears, and make them hate, truly hate John Kerry. It was a brilliant strategy, and obviously successful. Now all politicians passionately embrace the low road.

Each side is so effective with their spin, they've erased the essential principle of democratic rule - that the wisdom of the broader electorate will attenuate the candidates' radicalism. When politics comes up at the coffee shop or at the dining table, it is easy to find "regular” people parroting either the MSNBC or Fox argument depending on their bias, and expressing the same vitriol against “them” that they hear on TV and from political talking heads.

The electorate has been manipulated, and can no longer do its job of keeping politicians honest and focused on governing.

The American government divides power among three branches so that no one agenda will or can dominate. But today the President (executive branch) largely controls his party in Congress (legislative), and with a majority in the House and Senate, is able to have his way on most things. The Supreme Court (judicial) is nine individuals with a lifetime tenure and the power to interpret laws as they choose. The current Court is comprised of five conservative and four liberal judges; many 5:4 rulings happen along "party" lines, and while the Court wishes to avoid this, it occurs more and more frequently, especially in cases where the Executives and Legislatives are also divided according to party propaganda.

If Mitt Romney wins his party's nomination (likely), and if he is able to activate the Tea Party with sufficient force to maintain the House majority and also win a Senate majority (possible), he will, with this "friendly" Supreme Court, essentially be a despot.

While he may have been (perhaps still is) more moderate than his rhetoric, he knows how to appease "them that brung him," in order to sustain majorities through the midterm elections, and then get reelected in 2016. Winning = radicalism + fear mongering.

Even within America, does the picture JFK painted still apply? Can Americans of both stripes be neighbors, friends, partners, and allies? Is there more that unites us than divides us? Or has Karl Rove put us asunder? It took a several years to foster the revulsion each feels for the other; I imagine it will take much longer to repair the rift and establish real trust. I do know that the longer we mistrust, the longer it will take to undo the damage.

Not ironically -- this rift was created by our leaders and blossomed with our assent. Not so long ago, a group of traitors wrote these words within a proclamation saying that enough is enough:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Here in the 21st century, the so-called Representatives inside the Beltway might well be worse than the despotic Brits of the 18th century.

So what will this primary and the upcoming election say about US?

Have we endured a long enough train of abuses and usurpations? Have they evinced a desire to once again establish new guards? Or will we just placidly whine about it and order another nonfat decaf half soy latte?

bondage

I spent a few weeks during December/January visiting West Africa - it was a wonderful and enlightening experience. One day while driving on a beautiful road alongside the ocean approaching Luanda (in Angola), we noted how quickly the city is growing (we were stuck in traffic, looking at tons of cranes); how much opportunity there is; and how odd it is that one of the most expensive cities to live in in the world is actually in Africa. Who would’ve thunk it!

This led us to contrast the differences in how business is done in Luanda vs the West. I recall this same phenomenon across much of the rest of Africa, in the Middle East, and some parts of Asia as well. For someone from America, business takes soooo much longer to get going, it moves at a glacial pace, and we feel totally out of the loop. It’s just plain “wrong,” and uncomfortably difficult to “manage.”

We long for the bang-bang-bang cadence so familiar in America.

Hearkening to my days in Microsoft’s HQ, there was an “indicator” that was used to measure process and progress; it doesn’t exist so much outside the West, which seems to throw many “Westerners” for a loop when they are over “there.”

Meetings.

Here in America, if you walk past a person’s office a few times and note that they’re always there and alone, you conclude they’re disconnected, ineffective, and not a team player.

This perception and the corresponding meeting-primacy-sensibility is modeled by the entire executive leadership (GMs/VPs and above) who are ALWAYS in meetings. Scheduling just 30 minutes requires at least two months’ notice - they’re that “busy.” (Doing what, I wonder?)

How much real estate might Western companies save by eliminating all the offices, and “storing” everyone in meeting rooms?? ‘Cause let’s face it, if you’re any “good,” you’re never in your office anyway.

My first job in the Middle East was for an American company. Before leaving the US, I was told that it is different "over there"; things were going to take much longer, business wasn’t going to close anywhere near quickly, and I was not be fooled, because even if progress was made in the first meeting, it wasn’t going to stick.

My first couple of meetings in the Middle East reflected this - the customer didn’t ever want to “get to it” or talk business. I kept looking at my watch, worried that our time would run out. I declined his offer of tea (not wanting to impose), and he seemed upset. My much vaunted Effective Meeting Skills were for naught. Being a good Western worker, I had another meeting scheduled right after, and had to depart abruptly, leaving an important customer with zero progress.

I reflected on this afterwards, recalling that the two customers I had met were much happier when I arrived than when I left. I also noted that “local” executives were much more available than expats, and that the locals seemed to have much lower stress levels that “we” did. Those who’d been around (particularly the locals) were much more effective despite hardly being in meetings at all, and the meetings they did have seemed mostly social and not “business,” but despite all this, their “numbers” were really good.

I reconnected with that first customer, keeping the rest of the afternoon free. We talked not at all about business, instead we drank awesome Turkish coffee and shared school and travel stories - I never once looked at my watch, instead just focused on getting to know him, and helping him get to know me. We met again a few days later, this time over food and did more of the same; we also talked about our families, and about our hopes and dreams for them.

A few days later, he invited me to his home for dinner - I was honored. I met his family, we ate amazing food and just (!) enjoyed each others company. After dinner, when the two of us were alone drinking coffee, he said this:

“Shafeen, we have gotten to know each other, you have met my family, I have learned about yours [I had no family there], and we are now brothers. We have a bond of trust, and I seek success for you just as you seek success for me.

“I also know that you’ve spent time learning my business, know what we are doing, how we are doing it, and how your company can help us do better.

“So my brother, tell me how should we do business, and let us make it so.” 

That last sentence left this unsaid: “because I know you have my best interests at heart and will only do what helps me, for we are family, and I trust you.”

An agreement was struck, hands were shaken, a partnership was forged. When stuff hit the fan, I was on it, and make sure we did right by our partner. We hardly met to check progress, etc., trust replaced that.

More than 15 years have passed, much has changed, but when he calls, I do take that call, enjoy hearing news of his family, share the same of mine. If the conversation includes a request, it will be done. Ours is not (and never was) a business affiliation, it was and is a relationship, one I hope will endure for many moons to come.

Returning to America was weird - meetings were about doing work, and most rooms had more than one clock. Process people drove the agenda, and people left with action items. “Effectiveness” was key, and a “productive” meeting was marked with dense slides, many charts, tables, follow-up activities, and, yes, the promise of more meetings. People are actually measured on how well they “show up” at meetings (not whether the business or customers were benefited, but whether they do good meetings)!!

It is said that matrixed management (still the vogue in the West) is a more efficient [I wonder if we really understand the meaning of that word] way to run a large organization. But fragmentation and zero-sum employee compensation models that come with it perpetuate mistrust among leaders and workers and across organizations. Meetings are the way to ensure your interests are protected.

Accountability, responsibility, and relationships have become corporate collateral damage.

The measurement model for most large organizations intentionally flaunts team performance for comparative individual achievement. I gain strength only if my teammates are weaker; my success requires them to fail; there is no “us.”

Driving along that road as we approached Luanda, I saw once more that the non-Western approach, while seemingly frivolous and hopelessly inefficient, created relationships and trust and built bonds of accountability that resulted in success. It is unthinkable to betray the trust of a brother or sister.

Today I live in Seattle; my work requires me to inhabit a Western business fabric. I have more meetings than I’d like, and sometimes experience a sense of sadness as I realize how little this/our culture values us as people, and how much it values what others can do for us.

I think of my times in the "3^rd world," and wonder how long it will be before we 1^st worlders finally evolve...

child abuse

Have you ever seen a therapist or a counselor? Does your employer have workplace policies that protect you from isms (ageism, sexism, racism, etc.) or undue physical hardship (excessive hours, moving heavy objects, etc.)? Are you able to take a day (or a few days) off if some thing personal comes up? Are there advocacy groups to support you if you feel in some way wronged by your employer, or if your life is in some kind of stress or distress?

Despite all this "help," many of us will come home after a tough day at the office and feel horrible, exhausted, drained, and just ...done. How often have you heard (or said) the words, “I need a drink”??

Adults have advantages: we are mature, we have freedoms, we can speak for ourselves, we have advocates and advocacy groups, there are laws that protect us, and perpetrators of “bad” behavior are prosecuted or sued everyday. Lawyers who specialize in these issues are prolific, and work on a pure contingency basis - caring for adults is a thriving business.

While it’s disappointing that all this is needed, at least we have access to support, friendly ears, and recourse.

What about our children?

They have access to a fraction of the resources or recourses that we do; they even have fewer legal rights! Worse, they’re going through one of the most difficult things in the world - transitioning from child to adult - puberty, growing pains, emotional transformation and upheaval, sexual awakening, first loves, responsibility...

Add to this, middle and high school are pivotal to their one (really only) ticket to happiness, good health, and independence in life. Without a great education, their destinies are ...uncertain at best.

Stress, complication, emotional overload, difficulty, rule changes, a persistent feeling of powerlessness. This is what confronts children in our society.

Talk about pressure.

Who is their advocate?

• Parents? Nope - most parents delegate their children's upbringing to school as soon as they're in full-time school. More often than not, they side with the “system,” telling the child it was much tougher when they were growing up.
• Teachers? Nope - they are similarly victimized by a system that mandates ridiculous measures of performance, absurd outcomes, embarrassing working conditions for relatively little pay, and lately, a ton of social vilification.
• Government? Nope - kids don’t vote.
• The legal system? Nope - it’s almost impossible to sue the government or a school. They are happy to sue teachers (who are the vogue target these days), but nothing else gets any traction, and teachers are broke anyway.
• The media? Nope - they love to hype stories of bullying, suicides, other abuse, but they don’t do anything about it or cause others to change.
• Who?

No one.

Humans are designed to forget the worst experiences we have - otherwise no woman would give birth to a second child. Teenagehood is not a happy time, but once past it, our memories become very selective. As proof, think of how many times you said, “I’ll NEVER be like them [parents/adults] when I grow up.” And then...

Adults (even parents) may not remember or even understand what it is like to be a teen/student; BUT they are CONVINCED they know what’s right for kids, what they need, and how best to help them become adults.

So here’s what we (adults) have decided is the optimal approach to “educating” children:

1. At the beginning of each year, they are notified of the school rules [you *must* click this link (note: this is for middle school)!], which presume every child is a cheating, lazy, misanthropic vandal. Animals are held in higher regard and given more love and understanding. [If you treat impressionable kids like criminals, how do you expect them to behave? Is it any wonder bullying, delinquency, etc. are on the rise?]
2. Each student in a grade is assumed to come in with same knowledge, context, motivation and home life, and expected to learn the same thing at the same time and in the same way. There is no room for individuality; there is no tolerance for “deviants.” [If they had their way, I think Education America would prefer every student to enter the factory as powdered potatoes and exit as identical, extruded McDonald’s fries/graduates.]
3. They must wake up at 6:30AM and be sitting in class by 7:30AM. Most walk through metal detectors, into buildings that more closely resemble factories or prisons; all are assessed for attendance and dress code. [Do you need a jolt of caffeine so you can face the morning? Do you feed your 6-year old a shot of Red Bull before school? "Of course not - that would be horrible and cruel! How dare you!" And yet you expect them to learn things at 7:30AM.]
4. Sit with 29 others in a room designed for fewer, where they are required to be attentive (silent), docile, take copious notes, and speak only when spoken to. [Schools, like prisons are designed to control and monitor the population, not to enable learning.]
5. Change rooms every 50 minutes, "enjoying" a steady stream of lectures covering new and altogether unrelated topics, and of course, be assigned copious quantities of homework. [Are you able to learn so many new and disconnected things everyday, with just a break for lunch (crappy food) and then pass the tests??]
6. “Learning” is measured by completion of homework assignments and of course lots and lots of tests. In all cases, students are judged individually - teachers are required to be vigilant in preventing plagiarism, cheating, and other bad acts. [When’s the last time you took a test that judged your whole year as a success or failure?]
7. The children are required to carry 15-20lb packs containing expensive and outdated textbooks to and from school. [Workforce rules protect most adults from carrying this much weight every day. But not so for our children and their growing bodies.]
8. Adults in "higher" institutions have deemed that grades alone wont get a student into their university - they need a gazillion extra curricular activities, to be a volunteer, have interned somewhere, and written an essay begging to be considered for admission. And if the gods smile and they are accepted, they have the privilege of graduating just slightly more educated, saddled with at least $75k in debt because of the exorbitant tuition.

So this is the best way to prepare our children for adulthood during their already difficult growing years. Who knew?

But wait, there’s more! Shrinking federal, state, and local budgets have resulted in teacher layoffs, equipment reductions (no more labs), increased class sizes, school closures, elimination of most “non-core” classes (arts, phys-ed, clubs, etc.), the killing of recess (yes, recess!), and even guidance counselor layoffs in middle schools.

Rest assured though, our Defense budget remains largely untouched. Whew!

Adult feelings, wants, needs, and satisfaction are routinely surveyed by our bosses, who at least try to be responsive. When is the last time a school district asked its students how they like to learn, or what environment is most conducive to learning? And if they did deign to ask, did they actually listen, much less change??

Abuse is defined as "any action that intentionally harms or injures another person."

It is time that America admitted that her 50 million public school students are victims of wide-spread, systemic child abuse.

Do you recognize these words?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I bet the younger amongst us will. When, I wonder will they heed them and declare their independence from us despots??

As for me, all this typing has really stressed me out, and I’m feeling a tad overwhelmed. I'm going to visit my therapist, get a massage, have a martini or three, and then take a few days off...

inhumanity

What do the June riots in Vancouver have in common with this week's events in London? This Independent article posted by a good friend made me see things in a whole new light.

Each riot was sparked by an event - the Canucks losing the Stanley Cup, and a black man killed by the police in a way that raised the community's suspicions. The rioters in both cases are young (teens and early 20s) people. The police are not designed for, and ill-equipped to quell riots and prevent innocent people and local buildings/stores from being harmed.

[ASIDE: Domestic police forces ought not be militias, armed to the teeth, and bent on suppressing the citizenry; this assume-the-worst-of-our-people attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.]

There's one other thing the countries have in common: while both invest heavily in, and are reputed to have excellent public education systems, their schools are becoming increasingly mechanistic and factory-like. Success is measured by test scores; effectiveness is based on numeric data; and students are viewed as numbers (vs. humans), and assumed to be cheaters and prone to bad behavior, read: mistrusted.

In good times, economic success can overcome these failings, but with increased unemployment and more people falling below the poverty line, no-one is present to model a "peaceful national character and an accepted moral outlook" or the idea of civility for young people. Parents are too busy making ends meet, and there are few "good" influences in the media, or in our increasingly aloof neighborhoods.

Their most formative experiences happen whilst in school, and if the "texture" of that experience is "you'll be held back if you don't do well on the tests"; "we know you're a truant or are cheating and we will catch you"; and being treated as a data point and not a person, how do we expect them to grow into anything but disenfranchised young adults, who when presented with an opportunity to rebel against "the man" will gleefully take it?? This BBC interview of two young British rioters is a classic example of the result.

Why doesn't this happen as much in America (which has an even more mistrustful public education system)? I think it's because the local police forces are more violent and better armed.

[ASIDE: Domestic militia can discourage violence, but at what cost? Prime Minister Cameron just said, "There are pockets of our society that are not only broken, but frankly sick...It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to feel that the world owes them something." His remarks are political peacocking, and by weaponizing his police forces, he creates an even greater rift with the citizenry. Being 'tough on crime' is a failed strategy, as evidenced in America, which boasts the highest percentage of incarcerations on the planet, but no corresponding reduction in crime.]

It is regrettable that politicians can't focus on root causes. In all three (and many other) countries, our children are victims of an increasingly dehumanized education system. The powers that manage (districts, departments/ministries of education, etc.) and influence (Gates, etc. Foundations) public schools are filled with too few real educators, and too many MBAs, whose training in micro-thinking leads to disastrous macro-outcomes.

"Take care of the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves" is a practice in most MBA programs (in their parlance: what gets measured gets done, just focus on optimizing your piece of the business), and is one of the worst things to happen to schools (and corporations) over the last generation. "Penny-wise and pound-foolish," or "missing the forest for the trees" are much more apt, but frequently ignored.

When you manage teachers based on their students' test scores, you demand that the teacher ignore the person in front of them, and focus ONLY on their preparation to answer a set of questions on a piece of paper. Learning is not a requirement; correct responses are.

More and more parents choose a school for their children based on test scores, in the mistaken belief that that's a "good education."

Is it at all surprising that young adults aggressively rebel when given the opportunity? Is it at all surprising that they have a diminished sense of civility and respect? Which adults treated them with civility and respect? What behaviors did their "models" exhibit towards them when they were most impressionable?

Learning is an inherently human act - the more you separate the person from their education, the less educated and "human" our younger generations will be.

The people to blame for the riots in Vancouver and London are not the kids (they are merely accountable), but rather the adults (parents and educators and policy makers) who created the education system in which they were dehumanized.

how can you be so obtuse?

Sound familiar? It will if you've seen The Shawshank Redemption, and recall when Andy Dufresne (protagonist) finds proof of his innocence, but Warden Norton (antagonist/scumbag) dismisses it. Andy "knows" he is innocent; the warden "knows" that all criminals are guilty. We are on Andy's side, and appalled that the warden doesn't even consider the possibility of innocence. In the end, the warden is vanquished and Dufresne is free, but both remain obstinately true to their beliefs.

I was reminded of this when reading The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - a brilliant analysis on the strength of our belief systems, and why persuasion is so difficult. Psychologists use the term cognitive dissonance to explain it - when we are faced with conflicting ideas, we "reposition" things to reduce the discomfort. Like when justifying an expensive purchase - "Sure this is an expensive car, but that's because it's well-engineered, safer, and will last so much longer than that cheap clunker you just bought - you get what you pay for."

Unprovoked, most of us are somewhat open-minded, but when pushed, we forsake reasonable for defensive and obstinate, and that leads to bad decision-making.

As American politics kicks into gear for the 2012 elections, apparently *every* politician feels pushed and under siege, and none are capable of making good decisions. The abject disinterest in governing has never been more present than during the recent debt ceiling and FAA debacles. The good of the nation is/was forsaken for the good of the Party or the individual politician.

Why? Because politics is a zero-sum game - there is only one winner. It used to be that candidates would campaign on the merits of their vision, their ideas, talk about who they were as a person, and "may the best (wo)man win." But as politics has "evolved," they've discovered that it is much easier to make your opponent(s) lose than it is to show why you should win. Rather than being the best candidate, it's about being the one with the best opposition research and counter-marketing.

Bizarrely, this new breed of politician's cognitive dissonance causes them to actually believe that integrity and good is about partisan one-upmanship and not about service and governing.

How can they be so obtuse?

On Friday Standard & Poor's lowered America's credit rating from AAA to AA+; their analysis wasn't based on numbers (i.e. is America actually a trusted investment), but rather on the politics - can Congress and the White House stop the posturing and juvenile finger-pointing, and focus on running the country?

Is this a reasonable basis for judging credit-worthiness? Will a loan officer at a bank decide to lend money to a couple based on the numbers, or on whether they keep bickering all the time? I'm sure the bickering should be a factor, but am not convinced it is the ONLY factor.

How can they be so obtuse?

Having said this, the reaction so far from both the White House and Congress is partisan drivel. The ONLY thing politicians are capable of is showing how the other side is to blame for everything that's bad, and how they are righteous and good (there is no pressure to talk about compromise, leadership or governing). If immaturity and petulance were the only factors, America should receive a rating below that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain - maybe closer to that of Syria or North Korea.

A strength of democracy is that the fringes are attenuated by the center; and that effective partisanship impedes government overreach. A weakness of democracy is that it is possible for enough of the electorate to be swayed in the moment, that the most fringe voices are rewarded, and the more honorable and insightful are ignored.

Today the American public is as polarized as her politicians, no-one is considering the ramifications of the downgrade or our economic state, instead we are each bent on making sure everyone knows how screwed up the other side is, and how we'd be better off if they didn't exist. This is our cognitive dissonance, founded on our deepened commitment to the votes we've cast.

How can we be so obtuse? 

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things; and no good thing ever dies." These are the last words spoken by Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption.

Does good come out of bad? I hope so. Has American been harmed enough by our politicians' failings to demand and expect more from ourselves than angry sound bytes? Not yet, but perhaps soon.

I was listening to a show on NPR asking, "What is life?" I agreed with the NASA definition - life exists when there is procreation and evolution. I was talking to a friend later about the unasked question, "What is humanity?" I think humanity exists when there is empathy and aspiration.

Survival requires community - we must have more empathy for our brothers and sisters, because the community prevails when the least among us survives and thrives. Success requires ability and desire - we must make our children more capable than we are, and we must imbue in them a desire and urgency to be greater than their parents.

Out of all that has happened recently, my hope is that we overcome our cognitive dissonance, and resurrect our humanity.

this above all

Seth Godin's post today on tiny media is spot-on. It reminded me of a social media panel I sat on a couple of years ago with the two people who respectively ran John McCain and Hilary Clinton's e-campaigns in the 2007/8 primaries and general election.

Despite having polarized political views, they were totally aligned on web2.0. Paraphrasing: "Everyone needs to jump on social media and web2.0 - if you're not in, you'll be left behind. This is the cheapest and easiest way for you to get the word out - if you post a video on YouTube that doesn't work, it's OK - you didn't lose anything by trying."

My argument: "Marketing is marketing, YouTube, Twitter, newspapers, TV, radio, etc. - are just channels. If your marketing fundamentals aren't strong, you will fail. The advantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The disadvantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The impact of social media is that anyone has a voice, and at any point in time, any voice can rise above the fray."

Seth's point - these "tiny media" voices, unlike mainstream press or traditional advertising, are not susceptible to conventional corporate PR machines and can't be bought. While corporations might be used to buying advertising and even editorial, it is impossible to manipulate "any" voice because you have to manipulate every voice. In his words:

If you're hoping that this now important form of media is going to sit there and promote your average stuff for average people made in bulk but pretty cheap product merely because you're used to paying media companies to run ads... I think you're wasting a lot of time and money.

This goes deeper than that. You'll need to take that money and change the product and the service instead.

I agree but I don't think Seth took it far enough. More than product and service, you also have to evaluate your philosophy for the intent to deceive will out. I wrote this last fall in response to a NY Times post about Apple's voice in media:

The reason Apple dominates is that they have no interest in PR per se vs. a fundamental desire to create and achieve incredible and inspiring consumer experiences. Their integrity and authenticity in this is obvious and undisputed. While there are product hiccups (recent iPhone 4 antenna issue), they weather these by staying true to their mission vs. via a well-crafted PR strategy.

Microsoft, Google, etc. on the other hand invest in efforts whose sole or overarching purpose is to drive PR and coverage; ironically making the message the medium. I don’t believe this is authentically who they are, but it is how they act.

Their (MSFT/GOOG, etc.) target audiences and the press can smell this, and obligatorily cover them vs. wanting to be a part of their world because of their products' compelling, profound, and far-reaching implications.

Your organization's purpose is to become a trusted adviser to your customers – a powerful mission to be sure. I wonder sometimes if proactive PR helps or hinders? If your greatest and most visible business successes are measured mostly on PR metrics, you run the risk of pursuing the wrong things, and diminishing your genuine and authentic commitment to the premise that technology can help achieve profound, pervasive, and sustainable improvement.

It’s the difference between doing things that happen to be coverage worthy vs. doing things because they are coverage-worthy…

Tiny media's advantage vs. conventional PR and media: their ONLY currency is integrity and authenticity; the "conventionals" can be bought. Since the former is by definition "any" voice, you can't find it, or buy it, or manipulate it - you don't know which one(s) will surface and be heard. We are increasingly more likely to seek out and believe tiny media because we're tired of the bias and lack of discipline and integrity of conventional media (witness Fox and MSNBC) - this is why I read Yelp reviews.

For "old-school" organizations that count on their secrets remaining intact, and on owning and controlling their image, beware. If your fundamentals aren't sound, and your beliefs and practices can't stand up to external scrutiny, you will be found out. But you won't realize it until it's too late - unbeknownst to you, your own marketing and PR people and agencies are now spending more time spinning you than spinning the market.

make tweets not war

I'm a pacifist - I don't believe that civilized people or societies ought to kill. I'm not saying you don't defend yourself, what I am saying is that killing and war perpetuate killing and war.

Take the situations in Tunisia and Egypt today - these are largely peaceful actions (the protesters in Egypt are actually searching fellow protesters for weapons to ensure this!), where the people in interest of self-determinism are asking their current leaders to step aside in favor of a new, populist government. Americans know this all too well, for this is how the US was founded. Democracy at its best.

Contrast this to Western attempts to impose democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan by invading these countries, killing soldiers and civilians alike; destroying lives, property and infrastructure; perpetrating corruption on a massive scale; and installing ineffective, destructive, corrupt and lawless governments.

Lest we forget, this has cost Western citizens $TRILLIONs and achieved nothing. The two countries are more violent, anarchy reigns, and the terrorists are stronger and better funded.

We can hope that as with America in the 1770s, Tunisia and Egypt will emerge as sustainable, vibrant, pluralist, democracies, simply because their motivation to change came from within. We can hope that their actions will lead other countries around the world to embrace a similar path to peacefully oust oppressive leaders in favor of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Rarely if ever does imposed rule prevail over self-imposed rule. In Tunisia and Egypt, the most powerful weapons used were Facebook and Twitter, the military stood by and watched. Imagine the outcome if these had been weaponized protests - more deaths, military suppression leading to Martial Law and more deaths.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is generally interpreted to mean, "we never want to be controlled by other nations or their armies - we have the right to create our own military to ensure our security." I couldn't agree more.

Oddly, many interpret the Second Amendment as an imperative to bear arms, where every American must be weaponized to ensure freedom and peace. It is this ethos that led to the many wars America has unilaterally declared on everything from drugs to terror to sovereign nations. It is this same ethos that has made the NRA such a strong political force in this country, and that created SCCC - Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (formed after the April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University), boasting over 42,000 members and chapters on > 350 campuses across America.

Civilized behavior requires that we exercise judgment, that we think and then act, and that we choose paths that lead to better than worse outcomes. Humans are not (yet) civilized - how often have you reacted without thinking? How often have you followed the crowd in a frenzy of emotion? Have you ever regretted things you have done as a result? Take a look at this video of a 15-year-old burglary suspect being assaulted by police officers in Houston, Texas. I bet these officers deeply regret their actions.

Houston police officers are carefully screened, evaluated, tested (polygraph, drugs, etc.), and trained for one full year (6 months each in the Academy and on the job), before being "given a badge." And yet they were unable to control their actions in this, a situation where they were not in danger (actual or perceived), and where they outnumbered the suspect 8:1. According to the SCCC, to carry a concealed weapon in Texas, you must be 21 or older, not have had trouble with the law, be of sound mind, attend 10-15 hours of training, pass a written test, and successfully shoot 50 rounds at the gun range.

I'm thinking back to how "civilized" I was at 21, or how much I retained from my driver's education classes (about 15 hours in class), and whether I might be suited to carrying a concealed weapon in the name of "personal protection"??

One of the rights of being an American citizen is that you get to vote; the 2008 national elections enjoyed the highest voter turnout since 1968 - 56.8%. This means that 43.2% of eligible voters chose not to participate, and yet there are five Constitutional Amendments + the Constitution itself that expand voting rights!!

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean that you should. "Shoot first, ask questions later" is not the mantra of a society aspiring to be civilized.

awakening

The recent uprising in Tunisia was sparked (sorry) by the act of one person, it (very) rapidly expanded into a national uprising that resulted in the ousting of a long time President whose resounding electoral victories (he won his fifth election in 2009 with his lowest mandate - 89%) were always suspicious. Despite his close call in 2009, it was not until January 13 of this year that he announced that he would not seek reelection in 2014, and then realizing this was not enough, fled the country the next day. I'm willing to bet that in the 29 days following Bouazizi's immolation, former President Ben Ali had NO idea that that one seemingly inconsequential event would so quickly evaporate his once-powerful stranglehold on Tunisia.

That one man's desperate act would have gone unnoticed without the amazing communication capabilities, which even the poorest among us now enjoy, is a powerful testament to the world we now live in.

President Hosni Mubarak is reeling from roughly the same kick in the groin, and wondering, "what the hell just happened?" Emboldened by these acts, the oppressed from Morocco to Pakistan are rising against their leaders; leaders who until very recently lived under a wonderful shelter of power, wealth, and comfort without accountability. These regimes (even the faux-democracies) have wielded power over their citizens (many of whom live in poverty) for generations without repercussions. How will things change?

I think there are three lessons to be learned - first, politics or leadership is a delicate balance between the application of power and serving the citizens. Second, the right (and ability) for people to assemble may not be pervasive, but it is unstoppable. Third, be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.

Politics - citizens expect that leaders will be somewhat heavy-handed; they also expect public safety, employment, the opportunity to feed, clothe and shelter their families, and in most places, education and health care. We are all willing to suffer, but there is a breaking point. The Middle East reached it recently; we saw it in Sudan with their referendum; it affected the dissolution of the Soviet Union; and caused America to declare her independence from Britain.

Are Western states immune? Nope - the Wars on Terror + the Patriot Act combined with severe domestic belt-tightening have created unrest across America and Western Europe. The difference in the West is that politicians give away more than they should to win, where in the East, they suppress the populace more than they should to remain in power. But either way, in the end, the people suffer.

I think sustainable leadership requires adherence to three absolutes - Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability. There can be no compromise. Once you cross this delicate line, you are either perceived as insipid (President Jimmy Carter) and lose respect, or as despotic (almost every other example of government gone bad) and subject to revolt. Most governments will use misdirection (Wars, etc.) to keep their citizens in line and resistance at bay, until they get found out.

Assembly - the Communication Revolution is upon us and there is no turning back. Anyone has the capacity to create and share and associate, though its implications are not fully grasped by all. Even the American government was caught off guard by the speed with which things progressed in Tunisia and then spread to other countries. Birds of a feather are able to find like-minded people, convene and create movements in ways that were not possible even five years ago. Once tightly-held secrets (Wikileaks) are also fair game. Governments simply can't keep up.

Wishes - the Egyptians want Mubarak ousted - he is why they live in poverty, suffer high unemployment, and a high cost of living, etc. They want free and fair elections to choose their next government, believing that once Mubarak is gone, Egypt will once again flourish and all will be better. I feel sorry for the eventual winner of the elections - the world markets are in crisis, oil and grain (and hence most food) will be more expensive due weather, this turmoil and the economy; and let's face it - the situation in Egypt (or anywhere else) is not caused solely by its leader - most of the contributing factors that caused these problems still remain, and are very difficult to fix. The next leader may not fare any better.

The world is holding its breath to see what happens in the Middle East - from economics to diplomacy to war, changes of this magnitude to the status quo will have gigantic repercussions. Bouazizi may have ended up doing a huge favor to the Ben Alis and Mubaraks of the world - they will leave (with $$ tucked away in offshore accounts), their successors will inherit the messes they presided over, and the citizens will need to start over.

But there is something to celebrate - rising against despotism is a good thing. Self-determination is a good thing. I hope the citizens of these countries will look inwardly to realize that they are now responsible for their destinies, that they can no longer blame "the man," and that they alone have the ability to create viable economies, and ensure the health, safety and well-being of their families.

curativity

Being charitable is an essential part of humanity. The definition of society is a community formed to (among other things) help those who can't help themselves. Humans are inherently giving beings.

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, as of August 2010, there are 980,000 nonprofits (that filed IRS returns; there are 1.6 million registered .orgs) in the United States alone; they earned $1.74 TRILLION, and have $3.89 TRILLION in assets. That's an average of $1.78 million in annual revenue, and $3.98 million in assets per organization.

Obviously the "big" foundations skew these numbers with their $multi-billion endowments, but still - $5,637 per American resident was donated in this last (economically tough) year. Impressive.

About a year ago, I received an email from Paul about giving - what's the motivation, why do people do it, etc.? Most people give money to relieve guilt or to (as Paul put it) "make a spectacle of themselves." You only have to look at how philanthropic organizations solicit money - guilt is the essential ingredient in .org marketing. Almost every advertisement or solicitation you see will in some way make you think, "there but for the grace of God go I."

In good times, this works well - those who have respond, and help those that don't. Tough times are often (sadly) also marked with major disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), and in these times, people will rally in support of these causes, taking money away from their normal nonprofits, and their beneficiaries can be left with nothing.

Back to the numbers, I'm most shocked by the almost one million nonprofit organizations - surely there aren't this many societal issues that Americans alone wish to address? Surely there aren't a million Americans who are skilled at managing philanthropic organizations? And ...surely there aren't a million+ people/potential employees skilled at eliminating societal problems??

Most nonprofit founders have either personally experienced, or observed a "problem" first hand, and are now compelled to do something about it. This is a great thing - the motivation to help others not suffer as much as you did or saw is truly heartwarming.

But as an old friend once said, in business as in life, you must put the right tool in the hands of the right person. The wrong tool in the hands of the wrong person creates unwanted results: if you give a dentist a jackhammer, dentistry will not occur (!).

We give because we care; we give because we feel guilty; we give because we can. But how do we know the ones to whom we are giving "can"??? What's the assurance that these 980,000 nonprofits have the ability to not just make a symptomatic difference in the moment (palliative care), but actually do work that creates real and sustainable improvement, that eventually eliminates the need for that nonprofit altogether?

There is no assurance - this is the problem. Rarely do the people that form nonprofits have the skills and experience to solve the problem. They may not even have the skills or aptitude to effectively operate a nonprofit. More often than not, their core skills are empathy and fund raising. These are both important, but not enough to get the job done. This is where the whole point of giving is at risk.

You might be asking yourself "what's wrong with hiring the people that can do the job?" Nothing! Except - most people who have the expertise/talent/experience to contribute to the solution and can afford to work for a pittance are already trying to set up their own .orgs! Hence the almost one million separate organizations! Irony abounds.

To Paul's question, I think this is why people make their giving visible - they recognize that motivating others to give is the only real difference they can make.

To the question of how you fix it - how to make giving curative and not palliative? I suggest two acts - first - raise the bar so that actually setting up a nonprofit is incredibly difficult. Second - the big foundations should use their marketing muscle to showcase successful interventions (ones that create sustainable improvement); and then show givers how they can contribute their time and money to helping proven interventions scale through the existing channels vs. setting up their own .orgs. "This is working - here's proof - help make this work in more places!"

Happy New Year everyone - here's to a curative 2011!

community v ambition

First, it's been quite a while since my last post. A lot's been going on over the last months, and as a result, I prioritized other things over ~synthesis~, but I intend to amend that from now on! I thank all of you who sent me emails and were concerned about my well-being - that was surprising and sincerely appreciated - a thousand times thank you.

Second, I've decided to leave Microsoft - my employer of many years - and embark on a new journey in the world of education and start-ups. The next weeks and months will be spent refining the vision, finalizing the business plan, and of course, securing the funding to make it happen. I may do some consulting work in the interim, but hope to devote most of my energy to creating this new future with the goal of making a difference.

Community v ambition: I was visiting with a friend recently and we got to talking about her recent adventure in India, and then about some of the differences in the way people approach life (broadly speaking) in "developing" vs. "developed" worlds. Out of this came this idea that there are two extremes in how we approach life - community and ambition.

For most of our existence on this planet, community has been fundamental to survival. As competition grew and threats increased, people coalesced into communities where roles were defined, and they took care of each other. For example, in a true community, there are people who will hunt, grow, prepare food, build shelters, heal, and defend the community; more often than not, the children will inherit their parents' roles as they grow older. Similarly, you won't see daycare or convalescence or retirement homes - the young, the recovering and the aged are cared for within the community. The very idea of saving for retirement doesn't occur or exist.

The community can and does sustain itself with relatively lower stress - certain issues that individuals face simply don't arise; and others (will there be enough food today, what if bad weather damages our homes) are dealt with more easily because the burden is shared by the entire community, and there is comfort in that. People never go it alone. The community creates a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, and a sense of beholdenness.

At the other end is ambition. It argues that the individual prevails over everything, that we each go it alone, and that success is self-created, and self-enjoyed. "Ambitious" parents expect their kids to leave the home after secondary school, go on to university (in another town) and then the working world, happily leaving them in the bliss of an "empty nest" - this concept simply doesn't exist in the community.

Ambition is also a zero-sum game - there are winners and losers in everything - and that's how "keep score" and gauge your progress. It's a bit weird that ambition requires us to prevail over fellow humans - a rather counter-to-Darwin strategy.

To and "outsider," community is an oddly stagnant thing - "don't they want/expect/desire more than the status quo?" I am an outsider (ambitious) - but I wonder where happiness lays, where less strain and stress, fulfillment lie, and whether individual outcomes are on an equal footing with community outcomes.

The recent election in the United States was largely a celebration of individual ambition over community impact. Most if not all of the issues in play asked why the one should pay for the many. Incumbents were vanquished because they supported legislation that required individuals to spend their money in support of others. While there is a party line, most members of the party only agree on one thing - that the other party must be stopped. Outside of that, their perspective is largely individual.

Most large corporations believe success comes by pitting individuals (their own employees) against each other (in a zero-sum performance management scheme) in an effort to achieve greater team performance. BUT because success comes comparatively, many of their own employees (presumably rigorously-selected and trained, etc.) must "fail" in order for some of their employees to succeed, and theoretically for the company to succeed. Hmmm... "For us to be a great company a proportion of our employees must be failures - we have therefore designed our system and set our expectations to achieve this."

Does that compute?

It is fair to argue that the community forsakes the individual - the "communistic" view requires each of us to sublimate our desire for the broader good; the innate artist must be a hunter; or the budding mathematician must be a seamstress because those are the things the community requires. They must forgo their uniqueness.

In my family - we often wonder at the fact that the only times we get together is for weddings and funerals, that as much as we say "we must do this more often," actions speak louder than words, and the next reunion is when someone else bites the dust.

Is there a happy medium where the individual is celebrated, and yet a vital and contributing, and nurtured member of the community? Or does the one implicitly pollute the other? Is individuality inherently a corruptive agent in the community? Is there a limit to the amount of corruption that a community can withstand before it evaporates? Does community suppress innovation? Does community perpetuate stagnation?

Over the last ~3 years, I've had the honor to be a part of an amazing community - those that are passionate and committed to improving education around the world. It is vibrant and passionate and energetic and able; but are we really a community or are we just ambitious individuals who share a common goal?

Is there a pendulum effect? Will Western society move back to a community base at some point? I was in Cape Town a couple of weeks ago, and saw community power first hand; but I fear that progress trumps stagnation, and while I appreciated what they have, inside me is the desire for it/them to be more...

reinforcement

How do we regard and celebrate good behavior? What are our expectations of people and how do we help reinforce what we want?

What would have happened during the 1992 Democratic Primary if Bill Clinton had said: "You know, while I'm devoted to my wife, I view sex as something altogether different. My wife and I have an arrangement, I do and will have other women in my life, but that in no way compromises my leadership."?

He would not have won the Democratic Primary, he would not have been President, but he would have been truthful (something we presumably value). Clinton is not the only politician to have ever strayed; one might argue that faithful politicians are the outliers. Do voters want to know about these affairs? Or would they prefer to assume goodness, hope the infidelity stays hidden, and then be self-righteous if it comes to light.

Of course infidelity is not particular to politics; it happens in sports, religion, business, and in everyday life. Despite this, "customers" - fans, congregants, employees, media, partners, friends, etc. - are always shocked at the behavior, wonder what mysterious and diabolical circumstances contrived to make it so, and wonder why these people are unable to "control" themselves?

What's more, by turning a blind eye to any one "bad" behavior, are we not tacitly sanctioning them all? Having "gotten away" with the fidelity lie, is it any wonder that President Clinton claimed not to have inhaled? Sure eyes rolled at that, but in the end, there was no accountability for either smoking pot (not that that really matters) or lying about it. There are many other peccadilloes that human nature says are within us, yet we persist in expecting people to transcend their genes.

Taking this to the next step, if we expect and forgive lies, surely we can't expect the lies to be limited to meaningless acts like smoking pot or having an Oval Office "O"? What else might a dishonest President lie about??? Are we ready to accept that?

In the business world, a smart company will under-promise and over-deliver. They do this knowing the value of setting clear expectations and the cost of failing to meet them. If the company develops a reputation for always achieving or exceeding expectations, they know that that currency is worth something - it could be a premium at the point of purchase or market value or even more critical, customer retention and loyalty. Equally, a smart company will not make a promise it can't keep. They will not set an expectation knowing that they can't meet it. This is good business. In both cases, the rewards are clear and the company benefits in the long run.

Facing your truth and setting the right expectations is what we should all aim to do; but our society doesn't want this; it prefers the illusion over reality. Look at Enron or Bernie Madoff or every too-good-to-be-true diet program, and the fact that people will flock to the next Enron or Madoff or diet pill to know that we prefer to gamble on goodness or outlandish promises despite the history or the massive odds against success, believing that this time we will buck the odds and find the one honest politician, or win the lottery. Either way, we mostly end up disappointed. And because we keep coming back for more, there is no shortage of predators creating "disappointment opportunities."

I think this phenomenon contributes to the downward morals/ethics/behavioral spiral. In the old days, we lived in (and were known within) communities. The community - your neighbors and friends and family helped ensure a broader ethos using both active and passive reinforcement; we don't have that today.

Instead the precepts of society and the canon of law expect us to fail; they spend all their energy anticipating and policing these (potential) failures, and publicly "recognizing" the miscreants with trials and the like. So what behavior is modeled for impressionable minds???

Are there societal examples where good behavior is rewarded (i.e. "Congratulations!! You get a free petrol/gas coupon because you adhered to the speed limits!")? I can think of two - first where good students or talented athletes (or both) are able to get scholarships to reduce higher education costs, and second, reduced prison sentences for good behavior.

So other than helping convicted felons reenter society early (a rather ironic incentive), when does society actively reward positive behavior? I did a quick search to see what I could find, take a look for yourself - it's not pretty.

Isn't it a shame that there's so little we do to reward ourselves when we've achieved more than expected? If human nature is so filled with "vices," why shouldn't Clinton have gotten some kind of reward for being honest and admitting that he's a horny old man, but still a good leader?

Instinctively, most parents (or pet owners) know that positive reinforcement leads to better (and more sustained) behavior in children or young animals than negative reinforcement. Why do we flip that as we become adults? Science tells us there is a big difference between telling someone "Don't forget to pay the rent" and "Remember to pay the rent." The parts in bold are the most likely outcome.

It is this simple - we must expect more of ourselves, and we must encourage others to do the same; we can do this by taking the energy we invest in finding and showcasing failure, and putting it into rewarding success.

local heroes?

The US Department of Defense can't account for $8.7 billion out of the $9.1 billion intended to help rebuild Iraq. Bell, California city officials were forced to cut their salaries by 90% because they were found out (the worst offenders were the city manager ($787,000/yr) + assistant city manager ($376,000) + chief of police ($457,000/yr) were all forced to resign). Also in California, while spending for K-12 education rose 22% over five years (from $45.6 to $55.6 billion), actual classroom spending fell from 59% to 57.8% of the budget, and 38,000 school teachers have lost their jobs; California has a $20 billion deficit. Where is the money going?

There is profound inefficiency in the American education system - California alone has over 1,000 school districts. First - why are so many districts required? Surely one is enough? With 1,000 separate district organizations (each of which has an average $55m budget), surely there is waste, fraud and excess staffing? With 1,000 districts, surely a percentage of them have leaders that are abusing the system, and siphoning money away from students and teachers? With 1,000 districts, surely there would have been a way to fire 38,000 bureaucrats, retain 38,000 teachers, and give tens of thousands of students a better education?

"They" say that we should keep the Federal government small, and leave as much work as possible to the states and below. Most politicians will argue that this is the key to success, but where's the proof?

While local government is theoretically more in tune with local needs, the price you pay is significant. By definition, a decentralized model with redundancy at every level is actually more government not less. Look around the world today and you see a dearth of great leaders and great managers. The more distributed government is the more leaders and managers and honest people it needs; and let's face it, there just aren't enough of those to go around. The result - bad management, shortsighted thinking, poor budgeting, massive inefficiencies, wasted money, wasted time, wasted lives, wasted air...

When the system is this fragmented, it is also impossible to ensure accountability - imagine how big, how pervasive and how resistant to "influence" the oversight organization would have to be to police the whole country's fiefdoms? The theory that local elections serve as the "cops" is laughable - just look at the "wonderful people" that keep getting reelected in local and regional (and federal I suppose) elections). It's too easy to hide, and people are too disengaged to pay attention. In the end, elections are not the best way to do anything other than win a popularity or fear-based contest.

The 8.7 billion dollar throwaway by the DOD means this isn't just a local problem; there are massive failures at the Federal level as well (this is but one).

Is there a way to prevent fraud and abuse and just plain stupidity? No - being unscrupulous is part of human nature (or better said, trying to get away with something you know to be wrong is human nature); and you only have to look at the Darwin awards to know that there are a whole lot of less-than-bright people that grace this planet, and many of those seem to be drawn to politics.

The arguments against federalizing everything are many - too much distance from people and local issues, too much bureaucracy, too much excess spending, and my favorite with budgets that big, any screw-up is sure to just as gigantic (at least locally it's only hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions, and not billions).

I don't buy that. Saying that this alternative sucks less so let's do it is not the way government should work, and it's certainly not the way citizens should be served.

My first instinct was to say we should accredit government workers - they must be trained and pass an exam to be judged "Competent to Spend the People's Money" (or CSPM ;-)). But that's a non-starter - just look at the fact that 90+% of politicians are lawyers (who had to graduate from university and pass the Bar), and how incompetent they are.

I wrote something a few months ago that I think might have merit - I was talking about how we incent or mandate a balanced budget:

Quid pro quo. If we're punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they've also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this - the better they do, the better they do.

But how do we prevent fraud? Two things - first, if everyone's pay is dependent on a more efficient system, maybe that creates an incentive to play better. Second, if the number of agencies is reduced profoundly (reducing the 14,866 school districts to 50 + 1 (for Washington DC) for example), then maybe it's possible for the GAO to police all of them? And what if the GAO is also similarly incented to find bad behavior and eliminate it? For example - one incentive I might consider for the GAO is they're penalized if a behavior is reported in one year, and remains just as bad in the next, and they're rewarded if it improves (their bonus pool could increase by a percentage of the improvement).

It should be noted that there are a ton of federal organizations that do have a local presence, and are able to tune their efforts according to local needs - it's just a matter of policy.

The three steps to reduce bad behavior - consolidate so that fewer more qualified people are doing the work; create a pay structure that rewards fiscal responsibility and improved service for the citizens; and motivate the oversight organization so that it wins if the citizens win.

Sadly - the easier way to do it - trust the citizens to vote well - hasn't worked...

culling the herd

According to the Census Bureau, in 2008, Education America (public primary/secondary) spent $593 billion, of which $582 billion was revenue-based, and $11 billion was borrowed. Of the revenue, 48.3% was local, 43.7% State, and 8% Federal.

<ASIDE>This represents $10,259 per pupil, which means that from K-12 and assuming the costs don't change too much, the state will spend $133K per child during their 13 years in school. If offered, I wonder how many parents would just take the money and leave their child in the dust?

One of the biggest casualties of the recent economic crisis is of course real estate prices; close behind are consumer spending and individual and corporate income (and hence income tax). The first is the biggest contributor to local revenue, and the latter two are the biggest contributors to state revenue. None of the three is forecast to return to pre-recession levels anytime soon, which means that the source of more than 90% of Education America's funding is at risk of being much less generous for the foreseeable future.

Since salaries and benefits are the largest chunk of education budgets, the states and districts are looking to nuke jobs. According to a recent Newsweek article, unions require that they respect tenure in this process, which means that urban/underserved students are the worst-affected, as younger teachers (with less/no tenure) tend to work in those schools.

The effect of the budget cuts is therefore a greater division between the haves and have-nots.

There are so many things wrong with this picture, I don't know where to begin. Education is often an early target for cuts because it doesn't directly affect voters. No-one pays attention to the fact that this is the surest way to perpetuate bad economic times and an increased future reliance on assistive public services (welfare, unemployment insurance, the whole legal system, supported healthcare, etc.), and hence a heavier burden on state and local budgets.

Paul Guppy of the Washington [State] Policy Center published an article last month that is worth a read:

• Student populations in Seattle and Spokane have declined over the last 30 years while adjusted education spending has doubled.
• Despite increased funding, almost 1/3 (half when looking just at minority students) of public school students drop out.
• Only 59 cents out of every dollar goes into the classroom!
• Average teacher pay (with benefits) in Spokane for example is $81k for a 10-month year; administrators in Spokane earn $107.670 in salary and benefits.
• Washington State has 101,700 public school employees, but less than half are teachers!

I'm guessing Washington State is not unique, that these data would be similar anywhere in the USA. A couple of things surprised me: teacher pay isn't horrible, but administrator pay is so much higher (though I suspect that's a full-year vs. 10 months); less than 60% of the budget goes towards the classroom; and more than half the employees are NOT teachers.

BUT - when you hear about layoffs, more often than not, it's the teachers getting nuked - hardly surprising given that the administrators manage budgets and hiring/firing.

So what to do? First there are 14,866 school districts in the United States, about 300 of which are in Washington State. Each district has its own administrative and operations machine, curriculum system, fund raising system, unions (both teacher and public service employees), and goodness knows what other redundancies.

I know that the Constitution (by omission) gives the States power over education, but why does Washington State have to have almost 300 districts? There's nothing in the Constitution that says that education must be that local? Maybe this was reasonable back in the horse & buggy days (literally), but surely modern roads and communications have obviated the need for that level of localness? Why not just have one district? Surely that's better for Washington students?

The 2008 Education budget for Washington State was $11.6 billion, and 66.2% or $7.7 billion was for wages and benefits. Since we know that there are more administrators than teachers, and that teachers get paid less than administrators, we can safely assume that more than half the payroll $$ go to administrators; let's call it half ($3.85 billion) for the sake of argument. Now let's say we are able to consolidate 300 districts into 1, and that that results in a 50% reduction in administrative staff (It should be higher, but...).

The result? The 2008 budget goes from $11.6 to $9.7 billion, saving $1.9 billion. Even better, there would be one consistent education system across the state, sharing curriculum, process, policy, etc.; and of course one consistent student experience.

Extrapolate this to the whole country (with the same assumptions), the budget would go from $593 - $492 billion, a savings of $101 billion, and we would have 50 school districts instead of 14,866.

This isn't innovation, simply process improvement. It does not require a Constitutional amendment. It simply requires that every state receive some percentage of local taxes (real estate), but in the end spend less money.

I would NOT suggest the savings go back into education - we should instead pay down the state deficits.

If we wanted innovation, I would put together a small (10 people) think tank, lock them in a room for three months, and task them with the following:

1. Design a primary/secondary education system where every child's success is assured, and where each child is treated equitably.
2. Prepare every graduate so that they are equipped to deal with an ever-changing future.

3. Do this with a budget of $2,500 per student per year, growing at the inflation rate.

I'd like to believe they'd emerge three months later with a plan, and also be able to say, "With the budget you gave us, we'll be able to set aside $500/student/year as a fund to cover us in tough times."

In today's world the 14,866:50 consolidation is political suicide, and the think tank's heresy. So why not do one and then the other?

aVOIDance

Lao Tzu was a brilliant, brilliant man - in Tao Te Ching, he wrote this:

We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.

We turn clay to make a vessel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.

We pierce doors and windows to make a house;

And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.

Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.

This should be tattooed on the foreheads of every leader and politician so that they can read it every time they look in the mirror (I presume mirror-looking is a frequent act). Governing (or leading in that rare case) is as much about what you do as what you don't do; it is as much (more) about the things you help happen as it is about the things you prevent from happening. It is indeed as much about the usefulness of what is not as it is about the structure we create. But most critically, governing is about creating a space in which the people it serves are allowed to be great, and to be happy.

I do believe the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence were aware of Lao Tzu and others, and were themselves brilliant and well-thinking men. Here's a bit of their work:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read this a couple of times to see how in a mere 202 words so many powerful ideas were collected; how so much power and possibility were granted to both the citizenry and its government. Knowing that this was written to set up the throwing off of one "such Government" is powerful. This document is one of the most eloquent demonstrations of creating a container; knowing full well that the value lies not in the shape or structure of the container, but the power of what it holds, and the potential that creates.

When you read of today's political machinations, you can't help but wonder why our politicians (I can't call them leaders) are bent on creating ever more walls. It's like saying that everything that could possibly happen needs a law to "manage" it.

But we fail to realize that humans are innately skilled at finding the 11th door out of a 10-door room. Every new wall we create invites (nay, demands) loophole seekers, makes it harder to find "miscreants" because the very walls obscure things, and forces us to waste energy policing existing walls.

We also ignore the very purpose of government - to secure their citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Today the purpose seems to be to enumerate and prevent misdeeds.

How sad that we're defined by what we mustn't do.

We are voidphobes. Whether it is a lull in conversation, or a lull in behavior, or a lull in regulation - we are much more comfortable when cocooned (straitjacketed?) in structure and "no."

Consider our schools and what we impose on children from the first moment of "institutionalization" - rules, constraints, expectations, examinations. I wonder if this is one reason we have so many more "atypical" children in schools today than ever before? Our definition of "normal" is compliance, living within walls, and accommodating adult expectations. We resist, as Seth put it, exposing ourselves. This might be the worst thing adults can do in service of human evolution, and caring for our young.

A free society, a free people, a free nation are powerful, powerful ideas. They live only when what is celebrated is not the walls around us, but the vast, possibility-filled spaces we inhabit.

Our future may well hinge on our ability to resist avoiding voids.

vulnerability

Oxford defines vulnerable as "susceptible to physical or emotional attack or harm"; empower is to "give (someone) the authority or power to do something."

Someone very close to me died recently, and I've been thinking a lot about the choices we make in life. I was struck by these two words on the flight home from the funeral.

Being vulnerable is viewed as a bad thing - giving up power or control or self-determination or... In relationships I've often heard it said that when you express your true feelings, or if you "give in" too quickly, etc., you're vulnerable - you've put yourself "out there," are weakened and at the mercy (and ridicule) of others.

In business, training classes say assertiveness, authority and decisiveness are the keys to leadership and creating a reputation for getting things done. If you "open up" or become too accessible, you risk losing respect, not being able to lead effectively, etc. It makes you less of a leader. Similarly your company can't appear to be anything but always correct and impervious to failings, or it will lose value in the eyes of the market and its customers.

Western society is obsessed with immediate gratification, with silver bullets, and with the idea that success is measured based on relative achievement vs. actual achievement.

When you buy into that article or book or class that promises you "Ten Sure-Fire Techniques to Find and Keep Your Wo/Man" or "Ten Management Techniques Guaranteed to Make You Succeed and Get Promoted" you are making the same bet for success as the person that buys the "Amazing Pill that Will Melt Away Your Unwanted Pounds in Minutes Without Dieting or Exercise." You are betting that someone else's approach, vision and values matter more than your own, or you.

When we treat people or "manage" people based on a formula or techniques like this, we have taken a shameful step towards treating our fellow humans as objects and not people. This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of most MBA programs - they tend to distill everything into simple lists and lessons which are then taught as gospel.

Why should I have "Ten Techniques" to solve every problem in my life? That seems insulting, dismissive and inhuman. when we honor our friends, lovers, family, co-workers, customers, constituents, etc. as people, we become better ourselves. When we avoid formulaic approaches, we are more genuine, and create simpler, more real, and more lasting results.

I was re-reading Management of the Absurd (a gift from my friend Larry) and noted an informal survey the author did asking people to recall great moments of parenting from when they were a child, or great moments in management as employees. In both cases, the vignettes that were shared (and remembered) were those that had nothing to do with top ten lists, or being in a teachable moment, or even having any real outcome or victory - they were points at which humanity was expressed and connections were made - it was when the partner/leader became a real person.

We all know that feelings are reciprocated. To think of your partner or employees as "things" to be "managed," you MUST lose respect for them as people. They are now corporate assets, and your loyalty is to the outcome and not the people. Their loyalty is unclear or perhaps irrelevant?

We can all tell when we're being treated as objects, we can all tell when a boy or girl is "working" us, we can all tell when organizations are spinning us. When we "smell" this, do we react with an outpouring of love?

If Toyota had immediately acknowledged the issues with their cars, responded with honestly and action vs. obfuscation and inaction, many cars would already be fixed and they would be secure in the knowledge that they had acted with integrity and lived up to their ethos of caring for their customers and the work they did. Their customers, having sensed that while vulnerable, Toyota acted with integrity and honor, would believe more deeply in the brand and re-purchase knowing that when problems came up, the company would face them. Toyota's vulnerability would become its strength. In fact, I bet that this approach would not only increase loyalty, it would attract new customers - this is the kind of product people want to trust.

When managers genuinely care about their people and their work, they engender a sense of loyalty that not only stands the test of time, but also results in the team doing everything possible (and even impossible) to make sure they don't let the boss down. They will say, "we all pulled together and got it done; when one of us is in trouble, we stand together and act, we take care of our own." They will say this with pride.

When I express myself and how I feel, when I don't hold back, I feel like a load has been lifted from me. That rather than making myself less, I am strengthened. I feel more embraced and less alone.

Being vulnerable is about caring, it is about being expressive and honest. Your vulnerability doesn't imprison you - it sets you free. It gives you the power to have faced and not hidden; it gives you the ability to live and not cope; it secures you in the knowledge that it is OK to care, to cry, to feel because we are human. We respond to genuine feelings articulated badly and tearfully much more than contrived, homogenized PR/legal speak.

Vulnerability empowers.

merits of merit

I work for a large corporation where compensation is based on merit. This theoretically ensures that everyone aspires and those who achieve are rewarded. In practice you need a way to normalize performance so that you can judge relative achievement, to pay the best performers appropriately.

In the hands of some managers, normalization (aka standardization) can be effective because they assess and value the tangible, intangible, and extraordinary; they override "the model" because certain people contribute the magic ingredient that creates greatness or inspires team performance but isn't easily documented. They also recognize that a team requires different types of contributors to achieve consistent success over time, some are visible, many are not; but without these "invisible" contributors, success doesn't happen. In the end, effective teams don't really have a normalized model.

The bigger the organization, the less latitude and appreciation there is for "abnormalized" performance. The natural result is competition between team members to the detriment of their customers, and tension between the team and its management, to the detriment of their mission.

David Warlick used this fabulous quote in a recent post: "We don’t stop playing games because we’re getting older – We get old because we stop playing games" (anon). Seth Godin wrote a brilliantly-titled post called the false solace of vilification, where he suggests that when stuff happens, we tend to lash out, often at the person in the best position to help us. Then there's Amanda Ripley's piece in The Atlantic which attempts to dissect the anatomy of a great teacher. The premise being that there are great teachers who can accomplish amazing things - so how do we make all teachers individually accountable for creating great students?

President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Chancellor Rhee, Amanda Ripley and a gazillion others are putting all their money on merit-based pay for teachers as the next panacea. They are doing what Seth cautioned us not to - vilifying the people that can help us.

Merit pay ONLY succeeds in individual, competitive games; i.e. when you have to beat someone else to win. It's really easy to motivate salespeople based on merit 'cause they control their destiny; they can only win when their employer wins; and when they win, their competition loses.

Unless you're the only educator in the school, merit pay will fail. The community must work together to help every child achieve their true potential. If the community members are competing against each other, the one person that matters most is ignored or abused. I have written about this here and here. But don't take my word for it - check out this fabulous article thanks to Larry.

Obama et al are grasping at the teacher merit pay straw because they're not teachers, they need to do something, and No Child Left Behind tried and failed to improve things by making schools accountable. So let's make teachers accountable. This will result in David's quote becoming more true - teachers will lose any desire to play, and their classes will grow old and decrepit before our eyes.

When teacher merit fails, should we then legislate that American students must be smart or we "fire" them? When that fails, maybe we'll legislate parenting - hmmm... that could be a good thing - let's let the US Government decide who should be a parent! The one "interesting" outcome with this is when it fails, there won't be a need for an education system at all!

I think NCLB was mostly right - we have to make schools accountable for student achievement. Everyone within the school should act as one team; all benefited equally when their graduates leave with the best preparation possible for the next step in their journey. NCLB's failure is in how they chose to manage and measure performance.

It gave schools and districts control over the definition of success - this is just plain dumb. I'll take your money every time if I get to decide whether or not I did a good job. The proof of this is profound increases in American per-student spending with no improvement (often a decline) in student achievement.

What would I do? Well, I wrote insanity defined over a year ago, when I was just learning about education, and my perspective hasn't changed. Since then I have visited many successful schools, and all employ something of the approach I advocated; all teach as a team and not as individuals; and all have leaders whose very essence is committed to student greatness first, and all measure their achievement based on their students' success after graduation.

acceptance

Ask ten people what the opposite of "love" is and chances are at least nine will say "hate." I don't agree. I think its indifference. When asked what "love" means, most will speak at length about many facets of what makes them feel good, but I think it's simpler - it's unequivocal acceptance. In most (ideally all) cases, this is how your mother feels about you. This acceptance is what we all seek.

There is power in knowing that you are accepted just as you are, just as you behave, just as you act, dress, think, play, whatever. When you are in this place of acceptance, you are empowered to be you; in fact, you're just plain empowered to be.

Most of us recognize the sense of comfort we feel when we arrive at a place where we are loved, a sense of ...de-burdening - the load lightens, the stress fades away, words flow smoothly, smiles are more frequent, expressiveness is more unfettered... There's more - we also feel safer, more cocooned, perhaps even impervious to harm. It's a sense of home isn't it?

I was talking with a good friend a couple of weeks ago about the differences in our two upbringings, how we were educated, and the role that people around us played. We looked at schools that are successful (measured by student success after graduation) and also have happy, energetic, and engaged students, and we saw that we had traveled similar paths. While we both successfully emerged from our respective public schools systems, many students don't. 25% of American students don't graduate from high school, of those that do, more than a third require remediation before entering tertiary schools (but it's really worse - more than 60% of those that were accepted into university required remediation). In our two cases, we saw also that others helped make sure we stayed on the straight and narrow, that we were given the impetus and support to stay in school, do well in school, and aspire.

I was talking yesterday with another close friend about binge drinking in the UK - more than half of all teenagers in Britain have been binge drinking in the last month. Scandinavians and Americans are also prone; and the drinkers are getting younger, developing other issues (poor academic performance, health issues, delinquency, etc.), and costing the system increasingly more money -£2.7 billion annually in injuries and illness in the UK alone.

Whether education or binge drinking, governments have attempted to isolate micro points of failure (poor teachers, drinking hours), and tried to fix these issues in the hopes that they will lead to widespread change. But things haven't improved; instead it's increased the tension with teachers, teacher unions and pub owners.

There is no research on macro common denominators that indicate increased learning performance or reduced drinking, so there's no data or foundation for what follows, it's my conjecture.

When you look at successes in education or when you look at places where binge drinking isn't as much of an issue, there is one (at least) common denominator - community. When I think of community, I think of a place where acceptance reigns - the group accepts and cares for the individual, and every adult is a parent to every child, every one a sibling to each other. Look at almost every successful school and you will find a community of people (parents, teachers, administrators and students) that share in the goal of raising great children; you can judge the strength of that community by whether students and their families stay connected to the school after graduation. Schools like this have a sustained record of success, and are led by people who care and people who are committed to the best for their community.

The indifference towards the individual, the absence of real community from birth onwards could be a predictor of poor academic performance, drinking, other addictions, the tendency towards criminal behavior, etc. Most people go out drinking because it's the only time they have a connection (albeit ephemeral) with others - a chance to belong for those moments to a group. Children join gangs because of the pride of belonging. When there is no alternative to real connection, real acceptance and real community, an easy way out is to drink your way into that feeling for at least those few hours where your behavior is accepted, your words are listened to (and enjoyed), your seat is held for you.

But if you can find a real and safe place to call home, a place where you belong, are accepted, and can just be, things change. Look at the Harlem Children's Zone and similar places where people invest in the community, and in turn the community invests in the individual, and you will find better students, less crime, less drinking, and a chance for redemption. Some centers are able to do this in a small way, but they will always struggle because they can't care for the whole child - that requires a broader effort.

Investing to build communities that live, that care, and that last are where I would put energy if I were running the show - I would center it on the youngest children and work upwards. It will take time, it will not yield immediate politically compelling results, but if we keep at it, it will work - acceptance will happen.