Life is full of possibilities, most which we don’t even consider.
It's Friday and tonight you could read a book and enjoy it thoroughly. You could read a book but if you do you'll miss out on hitting the clubs with your friends, attending a play, watching a live concert, rock wall climbing, dining at the new tapas restaurant you've been curious about, jogging in preparation for a half-marathon scheduled for this summer, trying out that new curried chicken recipe that looked so good, starting to write your own book, mustering up the courage to contact the Toastmaster's group, begin a weight-lifting program, drive out to Las Vegas for the weekend, wander around the mall with your friend, experiment with meditation, buy a DNA kit and send in a sample for analysis and family history, make sandwiches for 20 homeless people, volunteer at a youth club, visit a .... You get the idea. For every one thing you consciously choose to do you are consciously or unconsciously choosing not to do about a million other things.
Powerful leaders have the ability to tune us in to possibilities that we had not previously, or seriously, considered.
"By the end of this decade, we will put a man on the moon and return him safely," JFK said. We are going to make a personal computer that the average person will want to use. We will make our downtown areas so safe and so stimulating that families will feel delighted to have their children go downtown at any time. We will transform people's idea of fast food into meals that make people feel more vibrant, more alive, to feel healthy.
A leader works like a radio receiver, able to pull signals out of the air, signals that the rest of us perceive only as static, and broadcast that possibility as something compelling, into a tune we can dance to. After a leader speaks, static turns into a tune we hum.
So what is our job here in the blogosphere? It is to point out to the humming masses that there are alternatives to the tune they are humming. Opportunity costs suggests that we don't just judge the book you're reading but actually consider what else you could be doing. A social critic notes that we're about to spend $1.2 trillion on the occupation of Iraq and asks what else one could buy with that sum.
Your mission, should you accept it, is to sing songs of possibility that are so compelling that leaders and the humming masses have little choice but to tune in. It's hard work, but what else were you going to do with your blog?
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
19 January 2007
18 January 2007
Sounding the Alarm on Alarmism
Expectations have a huge influence over our resultant reality. If you expect that people will act rude towards you, the probability of that goes up. (You might perceive offense where others would see good-natured jesting. You may well bristle at the least provocation, triggering a series of responses that make rudeness of some form not just more probable but inevitable.) If you expect a region of the world to react like zealots, you may well get that reaction. And this scares me.
The current issue of Newsweek shows a small child in Iraq holding a weapon and states, The Next Jihadists. Right-wing talk show hosts have been blathering on about the threat of Islam with the glee that they once reserved only for Bill Clinton's libido. And now even the intelligentsia is sounding alarm bells; atheist Sam Harris, in part of his larger agenda against religion as a whole, warns that Muslims are bent on world conquest and death to non-believers.
And this is the problem with expectations: all of this is true. There are Jihadists, Islam does have recurring patterns of, or references to, violence in its scriptures, and there is plenty of evidence that some Muslims would gladly kill themselves in order to kill innocent civilians. Yet there is a difference between what is true and the whole truth, as is said in a court of law.
Our own society provides plenty of evidence of a violent streak. We are gun-toting extremists who believe that God has blessed us and our wars. Our God is the true God and we are willing to send in invading armies to make it possible for our ministers to teach non-believers in foreign land. Just as most of what the alarmists say about Islam is true, so is most of what critics of our culture and policy (people like Noam Chomsky) say is true.
Life is, at any moment, so full of possibility that our minds would be overwhelmed if we could truly perceive it all. So like a radio tuning in to a particular station, we focus on one set of possibilities and, very often, make those real. (You doubt this? Think about what you expect each day about how your day will unfold, from breakfast to commute, to work. Now think about how little difference you regularly get from that.) We see what is true but not the whole truth.
The Middle East is a place of moderates eager to modernize, temper religious extremism with tolerance, and raise their children in a peaceful place that encourages economic and scientific advances. This, too, is true and is at least as true as the alarmists’ notions that have by now hijacked the thoughts of the right and left, the reactionaries and the thoughtful. And what is so alarming about that is how often expectations steer us towards one set of possibilities.
The current issue of Newsweek shows a small child in Iraq holding a weapon and states, The Next Jihadists. Right-wing talk show hosts have been blathering on about the threat of Islam with the glee that they once reserved only for Bill Clinton's libido. And now even the intelligentsia is sounding alarm bells; atheist Sam Harris, in part of his larger agenda against religion as a whole, warns that Muslims are bent on world conquest and death to non-believers.
And this is the problem with expectations: all of this is true. There are Jihadists, Islam does have recurring patterns of, or references to, violence in its scriptures, and there is plenty of evidence that some Muslims would gladly kill themselves in order to kill innocent civilians. Yet there is a difference between what is true and the whole truth, as is said in a court of law.
Our own society provides plenty of evidence of a violent streak. We are gun-toting extremists who believe that God has blessed us and our wars. Our God is the true God and we are willing to send in invading armies to make it possible for our ministers to teach non-believers in foreign land. Just as most of what the alarmists say about Islam is true, so is most of what critics of our culture and policy (people like Noam Chomsky) say is true.
Life is, at any moment, so full of possibility that our minds would be overwhelmed if we could truly perceive it all. So like a radio tuning in to a particular station, we focus on one set of possibilities and, very often, make those real. (You doubt this? Think about what you expect each day about how your day will unfold, from breakfast to commute, to work. Now think about how little difference you regularly get from that.) We see what is true but not the whole truth.
The Middle East is a place of moderates eager to modernize, temper religious extremism with tolerance, and raise their children in a peaceful place that encourages economic and scientific advances. This, too, is true and is at least as true as the alarmists’ notions that have by now hijacked the thoughts of the right and left, the reactionaries and the thoughtful. And what is so alarming about that is how often expectations steer us towards one set of possibilities.
17 January 2007
If Hemingway Wrote a Blog
Bush spoke nonsense as he looked on, feeling oddly detached from what George was saying. “Is this what it means to be un-American?” he quietly wondered. Because of the nonsense George spoke, real people died. Now, to protect himself from a guilty conscience George chooses to continue believing nonsense. I have had my fill of nonsense, he thought. I am ready for something of substance, something that does not leave the taste of fear in my mouth.
The country is divided. Some care and some do not. Many are past anger and have, in disgust, begun to write. Their words change google search results and technorati ratings but do not change policy. This too divides them. Some are distracted by the stats and rankings. Some are made angry anew. Odd that economic abundance should ultimately produce so much anger, he thought. Very odd.
Blogging is a verb that makes it sound as if the writer’s soul is dribbling down his pant leg, to form a pool on the floor between the computer and the dog. Blog. That does not sound like a tool for social change. Blog. It sits in his mouth uneasily, like a drink from a foreign country. How could so many expect so much of such an oddly constructed word? Such a vague concept? What is the point of a public diary, he wondered. Is it simply a capitulation to the collusion of technology and government to rob us of our privacy? Bloggers become distracted by stats and rankings and adsense revenues. Adsense. Rhymes with nonsense. Adsense. Nonsense. It is no wonder that souls were so quick to flee the body in this time. The steady diet of fear, anger, and greed makes souls shrink so much that they could be lost in a single cough, like a particle dislodged from the back of the throat.
Bush spoke nonsense but then again, it was one of those days when everything sounded nonsensical. Humanity faces an unknown world, strangely convinced that words can change it. They desperately cling to the notion that their talk and typing can actually improve this world. It is a naïve and childish notion, one he finds oddly endearing. As he thought about this he gradually slumped forward. Later, much later, his wife found him lying face down on his computer keyboard, the screen filled with ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for pages.
The country is divided. Some care and some do not. Many are past anger and have, in disgust, begun to write. Their words change google search results and technorati ratings but do not change policy. This too divides them. Some are distracted by the stats and rankings. Some are made angry anew. Odd that economic abundance should ultimately produce so much anger, he thought. Very odd.
Blogging is a verb that makes it sound as if the writer’s soul is dribbling down his pant leg, to form a pool on the floor between the computer and the dog. Blog. That does not sound like a tool for social change. Blog. It sits in his mouth uneasily, like a drink from a foreign country. How could so many expect so much of such an oddly constructed word? Such a vague concept? What is the point of a public diary, he wondered. Is it simply a capitulation to the collusion of technology and government to rob us of our privacy? Bloggers become distracted by stats and rankings and adsense revenues. Adsense. Rhymes with nonsense. Adsense. Nonsense. It is no wonder that souls were so quick to flee the body in this time. The steady diet of fear, anger, and greed makes souls shrink so much that they could be lost in a single cough, like a particle dislodged from the back of the throat.
Bush spoke nonsense but then again, it was one of those days when everything sounded nonsensical. Humanity faces an unknown world, strangely convinced that words can change it. They desperately cling to the notion that their talk and typing can actually improve this world. It is a naïve and childish notion, one he finds oddly endearing. As he thought about this he gradually slumped forward. Later, much later, his wife found him lying face down on his computer keyboard, the screen filled with ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for pages.
16 January 2007
Iraq and the Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda
I remember how frustrated conservatives would get talking to liberals in the 70s. "Sure it would be wonderful to end poverty," they'd say. "But the question is whether it can be done with policy."
At the time I was what you might call politically agnostic. I lurched about from Libertarian to Socialist views before settling down into what Rush Limbaugh would call a "racial liberal" and what the Europeans would call a moderate. I no longer believe that markets or governments offer one-stop panaceas.
The left began to lose their lead in politics in this country was when they stubbornly held to the pursuit of policy that was noble (e.g., ending poverty) but for which they had no real solution. That is, while a majority of voters may have agreed that their policy objectives should been pursued, they stopped believing that the Democrats could have achieved those objectives. At this point, they cashed in their idealism for practical promises.
I say all this because George and his defenders have gotten themselves trapped in the “should have” box. It almost seems irrelevant to them whether the democratization of Iraq could be done - what matters to them is that it should be done. Yet the world is full of should be done tasks (Darfur not the least among them) that are not being done. There are a variety of reasons for this but one is that policy makers don't know how they could do the task.
And perhaps this is the definition of an ideologue - someone who sees adherence to practicality as akin to selling out. And ideologues do get their followers. But the critical mass of Americans are ultimately pragmatic and are, finally, less interested in the woulda and the shoulda than the coulda.
It is, finally, not George's intentions that are going to put his political successors into the dust bin of irrelevance. Rather, it will be his refusal to acknowledge that, in the end, the success of a policy must be realized outside of the minds of voters and in the real world. That is, no matter how "should have" it is, a policy must prove that it qualifies as"could have."
At the time I was what you might call politically agnostic. I lurched about from Libertarian to Socialist views before settling down into what Rush Limbaugh would call a "racial liberal" and what the Europeans would call a moderate. I no longer believe that markets or governments offer one-stop panaceas.
The left began to lose their lead in politics in this country was when they stubbornly held to the pursuit of policy that was noble (e.g., ending poverty) but for which they had no real solution. That is, while a majority of voters may have agreed that their policy objectives should been pursued, they stopped believing that the Democrats could have achieved those objectives. At this point, they cashed in their idealism for practical promises.
I say all this because George and his defenders have gotten themselves trapped in the “should have” box. It almost seems irrelevant to them whether the democratization of Iraq could be done - what matters to them is that it should be done. Yet the world is full of should be done tasks (Darfur not the least among them) that are not being done. There are a variety of reasons for this but one is that policy makers don't know how they could do the task.
And perhaps this is the definition of an ideologue - someone who sees adherence to practicality as akin to selling out. And ideologues do get their followers. But the critical mass of Americans are ultimately pragmatic and are, finally, less interested in the woulda and the shoulda than the coulda.
It is, finally, not George's intentions that are going to put his political successors into the dust bin of irrelevance. Rather, it will be his refusal to acknowledge that, in the end, the success of a policy must be realized outside of the minds of voters and in the real world. That is, no matter how "should have" it is, a policy must prove that it qualifies as"could have."
The Future of Prosperity - When More is Less
A fascinating post at http://virtualeconomics.typepad.com/virtualeconomics/ leads with this:
"Jeff Jarvis is blogging from the Davos world leaders conference, finding (amongst other things) that 53% of Western Europeans think that the next generation will be less prosperous than this one. That's compared to 37% in the US, and just 14% in China."
Why the optimism gap? It could be that the West has an intuitive sense that the model we've been using for more than a century may be appropriate for a place like China but is increasingly less so in the West. China's per capita income is about 5% what it is in Western Europe or the US and Canada, making their perspective very different.
A single scoop of ice cream is nice - two can be fine ... but at some point (3? 6?) the enjoyment turns to nausea. More is nice for those who have little but after a while more becomes less desirable. Many Chinese are only now beginning to enjoy the benefits of prosperity - getting bikes, cars, stereos, and fashionable clothes for the first time. But once they have that, what is the next stage of prosperity? What happens when more is no longer better?
For decades we have confused quantity of goods with quality of life. Given that the prosperity of the last couple of centuries was the equivalent of our first scoop or two of ice cream, this confusion has not been particularly important. But now that we're facing our third or fourth scoop, it is important to make the distinction.
Our economies are still largely geared towards more, towards quantity of goods. Walk through a Costco or a landfill to see how voluminous our appetite for "goods" is. Yet these goods to have are not the only kind of goods. In fact, philosophers distinguish between goods to have and goods to do - considering the goods to do a higher good than those we have. Quality of life is related to goods to have - it is hard to imagine aspiring to a quality of life that didn't include at least some modicum of shelter, clothing, and food - much less those delightful bits of technology like laptops, mp3 players, or cell phones. Yet the marginal utility - the additional joy we get - from more goods (to have) does gradually drop. Eventually, goods (to have) simply do less to increase our quality of life.
Those in the West may well see that we're geared for getting more even as getting more has less and less impact on our quality of life. This may be the reason for the optimism gap between the West and China. Until the West has shifted its economies to more directly go after improvements in quality of life, this sense of pessimism in the West may only get worse.
"Jeff Jarvis is blogging from the Davos world leaders conference, finding (amongst other things) that 53% of Western Europeans think that the next generation will be less prosperous than this one. That's compared to 37% in the US, and just 14% in China."
Why the optimism gap? It could be that the West has an intuitive sense that the model we've been using for more than a century may be appropriate for a place like China but is increasingly less so in the West. China's per capita income is about 5% what it is in Western Europe or the US and Canada, making their perspective very different.
A single scoop of ice cream is nice - two can be fine ... but at some point (3? 6?) the enjoyment turns to nausea. More is nice for those who have little but after a while more becomes less desirable. Many Chinese are only now beginning to enjoy the benefits of prosperity - getting bikes, cars, stereos, and fashionable clothes for the first time. But once they have that, what is the next stage of prosperity? What happens when more is no longer better?
For decades we have confused quantity of goods with quality of life. Given that the prosperity of the last couple of centuries was the equivalent of our first scoop or two of ice cream, this confusion has not been particularly important. But now that we're facing our third or fourth scoop, it is important to make the distinction.
Our economies are still largely geared towards more, towards quantity of goods. Walk through a Costco or a landfill to see how voluminous our appetite for "goods" is. Yet these goods to have are not the only kind of goods. In fact, philosophers distinguish between goods to have and goods to do - considering the goods to do a higher good than those we have. Quality of life is related to goods to have - it is hard to imagine aspiring to a quality of life that didn't include at least some modicum of shelter, clothing, and food - much less those delightful bits of technology like laptops, mp3 players, or cell phones. Yet the marginal utility - the additional joy we get - from more goods (to have) does gradually drop. Eventually, goods (to have) simply do less to increase our quality of life.
Those in the West may well see that we're geared for getting more even as getting more has less and less impact on our quality of life. This may be the reason for the optimism gap between the West and China. Until the West has shifted its economies to more directly go after improvements in quality of life, this sense of pessimism in the West may only get worse.
15 January 2007
Castro - Propped Up by US Policy for Nearly Half a Century
Castro’s rule overlapped with that of 10 American presidents. Each has made noises about getting rid of him. Each has pursued policies that probably helped keep him in power. By embargoing Cuba, American policy has arguably helped Fidel.
It’s generally true that as wealth and income disperses, so does political power. People with money insist on having some influence over policy as well. It was the land barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Charta when he came to them in search of tax money in the 13th century. Those disenfranchised politically are almost invariably first disenfranchised economically. Poverty breeds totalitarian rule, whether it be rule by gangsters in ghettoes or dictators in third-world countries.
What does an embargo do? It stunts economic development. As a country's people remain impoverished, they have fewer resources with which to challenge the state's monopoly on power.
Fidel ruled for nearly 50 years. It just may be that he has US policy to thank for that.
It’s generally true that as wealth and income disperses, so does political power. People with money insist on having some influence over policy as well. It was the land barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Charta when he came to them in search of tax money in the 13th century. Those disenfranchised politically are almost invariably first disenfranchised economically. Poverty breeds totalitarian rule, whether it be rule by gangsters in ghettoes or dictators in third-world countries.
What does an embargo do? It stunts economic development. As a country's people remain impoverished, they have fewer resources with which to challenge the state's monopoly on power.
Fidel ruled for nearly 50 years. It just may be that he has US policy to thank for that.
Past Data and Your Potential - Martin Luther King & Race
The physical world has some wondrous characteristics. If you have two pens, one white and one black, and believe that the white pen will drop more rapidly than the black one - neither pen cares a whit for your belief. They fall as they fall and your silly belief about the importance of color has no influence over their behavior.
By contrast, the social world doesn't so neatly defy expectations. Most of you will have heard about the teachers who were told about promising and not so promising students at the beginning of the year. They were told that some students had scored very high on a test indicating potential and that they, the teachers, should show more patience with those students, do more to encourage their performance, and, quite simply, expect more. Given that others had scored poorly, the teachers should not expect as much from them. As it turns out, the predictions were accurate. The problem? The students had been divided into the two groups randomly. This kind of predetermination happens outside of the classroom as well.
If a critical mass of the community believes that you are less human, there will be plenty of evidence to support this claim. The pen is not influenced by your beliefs about its performance; the individual within a particular social milieu is greatly influenced by social beliefs. To consider the power of changing beliefs just remember that Christ referred to the adoption of new beliefs as being born again.
This is the dirty little secret that liberals won't admit: the data that supports the racist claims of books like The Bell Curve is factual. There is evidence that blacks have lower IQs, just as there is data to support lower life expectancies, lower incomes, and higher jail rates. These differences may yet prove to be genetic, but such a claim seems highly suspect. The genes that control skin pigmentation are so minimal within the arsenal of human genes that the probability of their influencing intelligence, income, and incarceration seems questionable if not absurd. The problem with past data is that it tells you nothing about future potential.
This was the genius of Martin Luther King. He spoke to latent potential. Rather than dryly citing facts about what the data suggested, King spoke to the human spirit.
I think that Jacques Barzun articulated this difference best:
“[T]he very point of emancipation … is not to give power to those who have earned the right to it, but to lift the helpless to a level where they are free to learn how to use the right.“Those who oppose freedom argue that as illiterates, as slaves, as children, they cannot manage the household, which is true though illiberal. The political history of the West has been a running battle between the ‘realistic’ deniers of one freedom after another and the generous ones who gambled on another truth, that capacity is native to all and depends only on fair conditions for its development.[1]”
Martin Luther King’s appeal came from so many sources. One is the realization that our own potential is not seen in our past, regardless of our race or situation. And that is a reminder that all of us could use. Happy Martin Luther King’s Day!
[1] Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present (New York: HarperCollins, 2000) 534.
By contrast, the social world doesn't so neatly defy expectations. Most of you will have heard about the teachers who were told about promising and not so promising students at the beginning of the year. They were told that some students had scored very high on a test indicating potential and that they, the teachers, should show more patience with those students, do more to encourage their performance, and, quite simply, expect more. Given that others had scored poorly, the teachers should not expect as much from them. As it turns out, the predictions were accurate. The problem? The students had been divided into the two groups randomly. This kind of predetermination happens outside of the classroom as well.
If a critical mass of the community believes that you are less human, there will be plenty of evidence to support this claim. The pen is not influenced by your beliefs about its performance; the individual within a particular social milieu is greatly influenced by social beliefs. To consider the power of changing beliefs just remember that Christ referred to the adoption of new beliefs as being born again.
This is the dirty little secret that liberals won't admit: the data that supports the racist claims of books like The Bell Curve is factual. There is evidence that blacks have lower IQs, just as there is data to support lower life expectancies, lower incomes, and higher jail rates. These differences may yet prove to be genetic, but such a claim seems highly suspect. The genes that control skin pigmentation are so minimal within the arsenal of human genes that the probability of their influencing intelligence, income, and incarceration seems questionable if not absurd. The problem with past data is that it tells you nothing about future potential.
This was the genius of Martin Luther King. He spoke to latent potential. Rather than dryly citing facts about what the data suggested, King spoke to the human spirit.
I think that Jacques Barzun articulated this difference best:
“[T]he very point of emancipation … is not to give power to those who have earned the right to it, but to lift the helpless to a level where they are free to learn how to use the right.“Those who oppose freedom argue that as illiterates, as slaves, as children, they cannot manage the household, which is true though illiberal. The political history of the West has been a running battle between the ‘realistic’ deniers of one freedom after another and the generous ones who gambled on another truth, that capacity is native to all and depends only on fair conditions for its development.[1]”
Martin Luther King’s appeal came from so many sources. One is the realization that our own potential is not seen in our past, regardless of our race or situation. And that is a reminder that all of us could use. Happy Martin Luther King’s Day!
[1] Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present (New York: HarperCollins, 2000) 534.
13 January 2007
Neutral Press = Neutered Politicians
Blogging is merely the tip of the iceberg in a process of media fragmentation. The effect of this new model of journalism is going to significantly change politics. I'm less interested in web 2.0 than media 2.0 and what it will mean for politics.
In the old model, news pretended to be neutral. One of the flaws with operating under this guise of neutrality is that it makes the press biased towards certain stories. Scandal is a story for everyone, regardless of political persuasion, and can be reported freely without fear of seeming to have an agenda other than morality in politics. The result has a variety of consequences but the two main consequences have to do with the focus of politicians and the issues that are allowed into the national debate.
The issues allowed into the national debate are very meager. The press largely pretends to cover issues that are factual - our deficit went up, crime went down, GDP grew by 2.3%. The press does cover more controversial issues like climate change, globalization, and corporate governance but the coverage is typically about political votes and support (e.g., "Democrats oppose the president's new proposal ...") rather than engaging in reporting that takes a stance about what kind of world we'd live in with or without this legislation. The result of this is that politicians and experts find it nearly impossible to attract the attention of the press on issues that haven't already reached crisis proportions. Islamic extremism is of little import - or rarely reported - - until a tragedy like 9-11. Climate change is little reported until buildings in Alaska begin to sink as what was previously permafrost begins to thaw.
Given that the media hasn't bothered to report on issues for fear of being perceived as biased, politicians have been largely unable to push for actual policy. In lieu of policy they run focus groups to learn what sorts of key words they should use in speeches and debate. And most importantly, they run scared: scarred that their flaws should be revealed -whether through embarrassing gaps in their knowledge or zippers.
A neutral press and neutered politicians are tied together and there is a very real difference between a person focused on avoiding errors and a person focused on doing what is right. Of course, "what is right" is value-laden and we will rarely have complete agreement about its definition. But as long as the media refuses to take a stand on what is right, the media finds itself focused on libido more than policy.
One of the things so alluring about the blogosphere is that it promises an alternative to this. Bloggers focused on politics insist that their issues be taken seriously. Wherever there are people there will be interest in stories of personal flaws, but flawed people are all we ever get in politics. The real stories are not those of the inevitable peccadilloes but the stories of policy. Do you really care whether your china cabinet was made by a cheating Baptist or a faithful Buddhist? Why should something even more important than your furniture – as important as policy – be ignored because of the “facts” about the scandalous or virtuous life of its creator?
The best thing about the blogosphere and media 2.0 is that it will once again focus us on issues, values, and topics that are both sure to divide groups but, perhaps paradoxically, move them forward. A neutral press has neutered politicians and disabled the ability of communities to grapple with real issues, much less develop real strategies.
Call me an optimist, but I think that we'll look back at the politics of the period past as the equivalent of political elevator music - politics that is designed to offend no one that finally annoys everyone while avoiding any issue of substance or importance. Media 2.0 could result in politics 2.0.
The mantra for this new period? Let your soap operas be soap operas and your politics be politics.
In the old model, news pretended to be neutral. One of the flaws with operating under this guise of neutrality is that it makes the press biased towards certain stories. Scandal is a story for everyone, regardless of political persuasion, and can be reported freely without fear of seeming to have an agenda other than morality in politics. The result has a variety of consequences but the two main consequences have to do with the focus of politicians and the issues that are allowed into the national debate.
The issues allowed into the national debate are very meager. The press largely pretends to cover issues that are factual - our deficit went up, crime went down, GDP grew by 2.3%. The press does cover more controversial issues like climate change, globalization, and corporate governance but the coverage is typically about political votes and support (e.g., "Democrats oppose the president's new proposal ...") rather than engaging in reporting that takes a stance about what kind of world we'd live in with or without this legislation. The result of this is that politicians and experts find it nearly impossible to attract the attention of the press on issues that haven't already reached crisis proportions. Islamic extremism is of little import - or rarely reported - - until a tragedy like 9-11. Climate change is little reported until buildings in Alaska begin to sink as what was previously permafrost begins to thaw.
Given that the media hasn't bothered to report on issues for fear of being perceived as biased, politicians have been largely unable to push for actual policy. In lieu of policy they run focus groups to learn what sorts of key words they should use in speeches and debate. And most importantly, they run scared: scarred that their flaws should be revealed -whether through embarrassing gaps in their knowledge or zippers.
A neutral press and neutered politicians are tied together and there is a very real difference between a person focused on avoiding errors and a person focused on doing what is right. Of course, "what is right" is value-laden and we will rarely have complete agreement about its definition. But as long as the media refuses to take a stand on what is right, the media finds itself focused on libido more than policy.
One of the things so alluring about the blogosphere is that it promises an alternative to this. Bloggers focused on politics insist that their issues be taken seriously. Wherever there are people there will be interest in stories of personal flaws, but flawed people are all we ever get in politics. The real stories are not those of the inevitable peccadilloes but the stories of policy. Do you really care whether your china cabinet was made by a cheating Baptist or a faithful Buddhist? Why should something even more important than your furniture – as important as policy – be ignored because of the “facts” about the scandalous or virtuous life of its creator?
The best thing about the blogosphere and media 2.0 is that it will once again focus us on issues, values, and topics that are both sure to divide groups but, perhaps paradoxically, move them forward. A neutral press has neutered politicians and disabled the ability of communities to grapple with real issues, much less develop real strategies.
Call me an optimist, but I think that we'll look back at the politics of the period past as the equivalent of political elevator music - politics that is designed to offend no one that finally annoys everyone while avoiding any issue of substance or importance. Media 2.0 could result in politics 2.0.
The mantra for this new period? Let your soap operas be soap operas and your politics be politics.
12 January 2007
Blogging and Global Consciousness
"It is the ‘turning inward’ aspect of the self — its recursiveness — that gives it its peculiar paradoxical quality.”
UC San Diego professor V.S. Ramachandran on the "Neurology of Self-Awareness"
Some claim that through the Internet we have created a new kind of consciousness, a global self. They must be right. As I stroll through the blogosphere I find so many blogs about blogging. The catalyst may have once been to engage in a dialogue, to change the world, but the continual and seemingly inevitable distraction, towards which so many bloggers eventually flock like moths to a light, are rankings, stats, and market share. So busy looking for how to get readers they forget why they wanted them in the first place.
Blogging has become an act of chronicling blogging - a recursive act that seems certain to implode.
UC San Diego professor V.S. Ramachandran on the "Neurology of Self-Awareness"
Some claim that through the Internet we have created a new kind of consciousness, a global self. They must be right. As I stroll through the blogosphere I find so many blogs about blogging. The catalyst may have once been to engage in a dialogue, to change the world, but the continual and seemingly inevitable distraction, towards which so many bloggers eventually flock like moths to a light, are rankings, stats, and market share. So busy looking for how to get readers they forget why they wanted them in the first place.
Blogging has become an act of chronicling blogging - a recursive act that seems certain to implode.
11 January 2007
The "Truth" Shattered by Blogs
"There are facts and there are opinions. Our news offers up facts."
This odd little myth is one perpetuated by news organizations for decades. It was an odd supposition, resting as it did on a refusal to acknowledge how important context and culture were to even the choice of topics covered. A person living in Topeka, Kansas will not only be interested in different stories than a person living in London, much less Jakarta, but will come to the topic with different referents, comparisons, and values.
There are obviously "facts" that can be reported but the story doesn't start until one overlays meaning onto those facts. Investigative reporter Douglas Foster once said, "The only objective journalism is journalism with an objective."
The blogs have shattered the notion that there is a "truth" that is reported more or less effectively by the media. Rather, there are various goals that groups have - goals as diverse as a return to the 1950's to subordinating everything to the principle of continuous disruption in technology and business. Those various goals result in very different ideas about what constitutes a story and how to tell that story. Even more, those goals turn facts into stories.
This odd little myth is one perpetuated by news organizations for decades. It was an odd supposition, resting as it did on a refusal to acknowledge how important context and culture were to even the choice of topics covered. A person living in Topeka, Kansas will not only be interested in different stories than a person living in London, much less Jakarta, but will come to the topic with different referents, comparisons, and values.
There are obviously "facts" that can be reported but the story doesn't start until one overlays meaning onto those facts. Investigative reporter Douglas Foster once said, "The only objective journalism is journalism with an objective."
The blogs have shattered the notion that there is a "truth" that is reported more or less effectively by the media. Rather, there are various goals that groups have - goals as diverse as a return to the 1950's to subordinating everything to the principle of continuous disruption in technology and business. Those various goals result in very different ideas about what constitutes a story and how to tell that story. Even more, those goals turn facts into stories.
10 January 2007
The George-Free Media Network
It's time for a at least one new source- George-free Media.
Like a drunk at a dinner party waking up to insist that everyone repeat the conversation of the last hour, George has a genius for derailing progress. The Democrats are once again taking the bait, noisily reacting to his apparent madness. Ted Kennedy scuttled a speech to the National Press Club on domestic policy and instead addressed the troop surge. The Democrats are now in charge in the House and Senate, but their announcements for new policy have been drowned out. What the neocons have learned is that if they are outrageous enough in their policy pronouncements any attempt by moderates and liberals to shift the topic at all will get about as much coverage as a news conference announced by the local chapter of Neighborhood Watch.
Just about the time the family is about to serve an appetizer or entre, George insists that everyone have another round of drinks. Every time the political discussion in this country looks set to shift towards a topic of substance - climate change, minimum wage, universal health care, rising crime rates, or the best policy to respond to the reality of globalization - George announces some outrageous change (or refusal to change) in Iraq and the entire conversation is scuttled.
The only hope is to offer at least one channel, one website, one newspaper or magazine that imagines a George-free political world. This news source would cover events not forced upon it by George's pronouncements or actions. It would discuss long term policy that had a hope of making a positive impact. It would do the news equivalent of photo-shopping George out of the picture. Until we find some way of grounding George ("No addresses to the nation for three months, young man!"), this might be the best we can do.
George-free TV. George-free radio. George-free website. In the words of Louis Armstrong, What a wonderful, wonderful world.
Like a drunk at a dinner party waking up to insist that everyone repeat the conversation of the last hour, George has a genius for derailing progress. The Democrats are once again taking the bait, noisily reacting to his apparent madness. Ted Kennedy scuttled a speech to the National Press Club on domestic policy and instead addressed the troop surge. The Democrats are now in charge in the House and Senate, but their announcements for new policy have been drowned out. What the neocons have learned is that if they are outrageous enough in their policy pronouncements any attempt by moderates and liberals to shift the topic at all will get about as much coverage as a news conference announced by the local chapter of Neighborhood Watch.
Just about the time the family is about to serve an appetizer or entre, George insists that everyone have another round of drinks. Every time the political discussion in this country looks set to shift towards a topic of substance - climate change, minimum wage, universal health care, rising crime rates, or the best policy to respond to the reality of globalization - George announces some outrageous change (or refusal to change) in Iraq and the entire conversation is scuttled.
The only hope is to offer at least one channel, one website, one newspaper or magazine that imagines a George-free political world. This news source would cover events not forced upon it by George's pronouncements or actions. It would discuss long term policy that had a hope of making a positive impact. It would do the news equivalent of photo-shopping George out of the picture. Until we find some way of grounding George ("No addresses to the nation for three months, young man!"), this might be the best we can do.
George-free TV. George-free radio. George-free website. In the words of Louis Armstrong, What a wonderful, wonderful world.
The Punch Line for R World
The consensus coming out of the 20th century is that it is good and important to place a great deal of emphasis on technological invention and business entrepreneurship.
The consensus going into the 21st century should be that it is good and important to place an equivalent emphasis on social invention and social entrepreneurship.
Could anything be more fascinating than expecting social upgrades and innovation the way that we now expect technology upgrades and innovation?
The consensus going into the 21st century should be that it is good and important to place an equivalent emphasis on social invention and social entrepreneurship.
Could anything be more fascinating than expecting social upgrades and innovation the way that we now expect technology upgrades and innovation?
iPhone, uPhone, We All Phone Each Other
Yesterday Steve Jobs introduced a beautiful little product, the iPhone. As with all great hardware, it immediately creates demand for appropriate software: social networking software able to find friends as cool as the phone you're now using.
09 January 2007
Two Reasons to Pull Out of Iraq
By the time you read this, George will have announced his intention to send another 20,000+ troops into Iraq. Here are two reasons to resist this that you are unlikely to read in the mainstream media.
1. Climate change.
The first reason to pull out of Iraq is that spending there makes it difficult to afford research into alternative energy. As long as we're spending $100 billion a year in Iraq, we can't afford a serious program to transform our energy policy. We need the equivalent of a NASA program - billions of dollars in funding - to support an array of solutions to the problem of carbon dioxide build up. Just to stabilize carbon dioxide levels - not even reduce them - we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about 75% across the globe. This is not going to happen without serious investment in creative solutions. As long as we are pumping $100 billion a year into Iraq (a soon to be greater number, presumably, as Bush gets his surge in troop levels), funding for such programs is unlikely to emerge. This alone is reason enough to stop funding the aggravation of Iraqis and continuing to place our troops in harm's way as if they were the ducks at a shooting gallery, but there is another.
2. Terrorism.
Oil money from developed countries helps undeveloped countries to get money without modernizing. Our dependence on oil finances extremists in the Middle East, effectively subsidizing their refusal to modernize. Islam does encourage violent extremism, as did medieval Christianity. There is, however, one really big difference between the two. Christians could not enjoy economic advance without choosing to ignore traditions and teachings that contradicted progress. That is, they had to generate their own source of economic progress and fostering economic modernity required accepting philosophical modernity. Burning witches is one way to attempt an increase in crop yield, but it won't be as effective as adopting steel plows or fertilizer. The communities that cling to superstition about witches are going to have so little in resources in comparison to the communities that adopt the scientific method that those superstitious communities will be of little threat. Primitive communities may have dangerous philosophies, but their technology will not be dangerous. By contrast, Muslim states sitting atop of oil can cling to dangerous philosophies while earning enough income to finance dangerous technology. (Think of Iran and its nuclear program.) If they did not have oil revenues, they would face two paths: cling to religious authority in lieu of modernity and be of little threat because they would not have the resources or technology to become a threat; or modernize in thought and, consequently, technology and be of little threat because they now rely upon reason instead of religious extremism. As it is, they can refuse to modernize even while buying modern weaponry.
As long as we don’t sever our dependence on oil, we don’t force the Middle East to sever its dependence on religious extremism. Our continued reliance on oil effectively subsidizes the Middle East's continued reliance upon outdated, dangerous, and otherwise bankrupting ideologies.
The biggest problem with continuing to pursue an Iraqi policy that has yet to accomplish any of its stated goals? It continues to distract us from real issues, only two of which are listed above.
1. Climate change.
The first reason to pull out of Iraq is that spending there makes it difficult to afford research into alternative energy. As long as we're spending $100 billion a year in Iraq, we can't afford a serious program to transform our energy policy. We need the equivalent of a NASA program - billions of dollars in funding - to support an array of solutions to the problem of carbon dioxide build up. Just to stabilize carbon dioxide levels - not even reduce them - we need to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about 75% across the globe. This is not going to happen without serious investment in creative solutions. As long as we are pumping $100 billion a year into Iraq (a soon to be greater number, presumably, as Bush gets his surge in troop levels), funding for such programs is unlikely to emerge. This alone is reason enough to stop funding the aggravation of Iraqis and continuing to place our troops in harm's way as if they were the ducks at a shooting gallery, but there is another.
2. Terrorism.
Oil money from developed countries helps undeveloped countries to get money without modernizing. Our dependence on oil finances extremists in the Middle East, effectively subsidizing their refusal to modernize. Islam does encourage violent extremism, as did medieval Christianity. There is, however, one really big difference between the two. Christians could not enjoy economic advance without choosing to ignore traditions and teachings that contradicted progress. That is, they had to generate their own source of economic progress and fostering economic modernity required accepting philosophical modernity. Burning witches is one way to attempt an increase in crop yield, but it won't be as effective as adopting steel plows or fertilizer. The communities that cling to superstition about witches are going to have so little in resources in comparison to the communities that adopt the scientific method that those superstitious communities will be of little threat. Primitive communities may have dangerous philosophies, but their technology will not be dangerous. By contrast, Muslim states sitting atop of oil can cling to dangerous philosophies while earning enough income to finance dangerous technology. (Think of Iran and its nuclear program.) If they did not have oil revenues, they would face two paths: cling to religious authority in lieu of modernity and be of little threat because they would not have the resources or technology to become a threat; or modernize in thought and, consequently, technology and be of little threat because they now rely upon reason instead of religious extremism. As it is, they can refuse to modernize even while buying modern weaponry.
As long as we don’t sever our dependence on oil, we don’t force the Middle East to sever its dependence on religious extremism. Our continued reliance on oil effectively subsidizes the Middle East's continued reliance upon outdated, dangerous, and otherwise bankrupting ideologies.
The biggest problem with continuing to pursue an Iraqi policy that has yet to accomplish any of its stated goals? It continues to distract us from real issues, only two of which are listed above.
Political Primer: Institutions and Reactionaries, Conservatives, Liberals & Radicals
It helps me to understand politics from the perspective of institutions. I would argue that all political struggle has to do with what we institutionalize or not. From that perspective, here's a way to look at four groups: reactionaries, conservatives, liberals, and radicals. I'll use the church in the 16 to 18th century to illustrate each group.
Reactionaries felt that things had gone badly because society had strayed from the true church. For them, the Inquisition and the return to theocratic rule over wayward kings and princes would help to restore social order. Burn a few witches and philosophers to appease God and all would again be well.
Conservatives wanted to preserve the church but not necessarily return to its early state of complete illiteracy and crackdown on science and witches. They were quite happy with the church as the dominant institution but still saw a role for stronger states, and a modicum of commerce and science - just not any commerce (e.g., charging usury) or science (e.g., notions like the earth circling around the sun) that contradicted church teachings. Further, they didn't particularly trust the masses, preferring to see the power of the church retained in the hands of the elite (e.g., the pope).
Liberals wanted to transform the church, make it subordinate to the state. Put it in its place and it would no longer be a catalyst for killings or archaic practices in regards to business and commerce. And they wanted to disperse the power of the church, not trusting the elites and preferring the misjudgment of the masses to the abuse of power by the elites, best represented by Luther's cry: "we are all priests."
Radicals, finally, wanted to do away with the church, seeing it as a source of evil with a history of oppression, forcing Europeans to live in ignorance and squalor.
Four groups, each defined by their relationship to the dominant institution. Reactionaries wanting to return to a time when the institution in transition returned to its previously clear domination and clear rule by elites; conservatives wanting to stop change and maintain order by maintaining power among the elites; liberals wanting to encourage a dispersion of power outwards and to subordinate the institution to the community; and, finally, radicals who simply wanted to be rid of this anchor to the past, feeling that along with its domination, its reason for being had passed.
This perspective has helped me, a liberal, to understand American politics of today. The conservative movement is really a coalition, all wanting to preserve the power of the dominant institution; where they break down is in their agreement about which institution is (or should be) dominant. One sector, the social conservatives, seems to believe that the church is the institution that should be protected in its earlier (or at least current) form, decrying attacks to its authority and pronouncements on social standards. Another sector, the patriots, seems to believe that the state is the institution that should be protected in its earlier form of powerful military and high-waving flag. Finally, the business conservatives seem to believe that what needs defending is the American way of life as exercised through its corporations. All share in common a notion that the institutions need defending from the individual.
By contrast, the liberal seems to believe that the individual needs protecting from the institution. Perhaps the simplest way to see this contrast is in the issue of crime or welfare. The conservative is afraid that the individual will abuse the institution, cheating the state of money that he or she doesn't deserve, or abusing rights. The liberal is afraid that the institution will abuse the individual, ignoring his or her needs and rights.
It seems as though the real question is whether we're prepared to adopt fluent and changing institutions in order to accommodate individuals or whether we're planning to force individuals to conform to institutions. It's always a dance and any society needs to do both. The question is, Who is leading?
Some reading this would say that American conservatives actually want to shift more power to the individual and less to the institution. That, of course, depends on what one accepts as the dominant institution. Many conservatives want less state intervention, less state power, but the reason for that is because they trust markets and corporations more than they trust elections and governments. For them, the underdog is the corporation and the dominant institution is the state. But if the corporation has become the dominant institution, then the definition of conservative applies as it does in the example of the church: conservatives want to maintain the power of the corporation, allowing it to work with fewer encumbrances, regulations, and taxes. And, to complete the picture, they are perfectly content with the status quo of powerful elites running those corporations, a privileged few who get disproportionate benefits.
The alignment that would be very powerful is the alignment between liberals of every sector. By the definition given, many “conservatives” are actually liberals in terms of church, state, and even bank but are truly conservatives only in the matter of the corporation. If they were to see the parallels between these institutions, see how one constant through the history and progress of Western Civilization is the diffusion of power from elites to the many, they could likely be persuaded to consider a more liberal view of the corporation, working for reforms that would match the power over corporations with the composition of owners (via both equity capital as represented by stock and intellectual capital as represented by employee involvement).
Liberals who have reversed themselves in terms of state power, seeing a strong state as the one viable option for countering a strong corporation, might also find a common ground with conservatives within this perspective. The point is not to tradeoff power between corporations and governments; the one leads to abuses that lines the pockets of politicians and the other to abuses that lines the pockets of senior executives. Better to diffuse power to the grassroots in every forum, subordinating these institutions to the community rather than vice versa.
We have before us a possibility for a period of enormous social innovation – a period of history when society becomes as pliable as our technology. Accomplishing this will require a myriad of changes. One change that is essential is that we all become liberals, forcing our institutions to emerge, disappear and change as best suits individual and community goals.
Reactionaries felt that things had gone badly because society had strayed from the true church. For them, the Inquisition and the return to theocratic rule over wayward kings and princes would help to restore social order. Burn a few witches and philosophers to appease God and all would again be well.
Conservatives wanted to preserve the church but not necessarily return to its early state of complete illiteracy and crackdown on science and witches. They were quite happy with the church as the dominant institution but still saw a role for stronger states, and a modicum of commerce and science - just not any commerce (e.g., charging usury) or science (e.g., notions like the earth circling around the sun) that contradicted church teachings. Further, they didn't particularly trust the masses, preferring to see the power of the church retained in the hands of the elite (e.g., the pope).
Liberals wanted to transform the church, make it subordinate to the state. Put it in its place and it would no longer be a catalyst for killings or archaic practices in regards to business and commerce. And they wanted to disperse the power of the church, not trusting the elites and preferring the misjudgment of the masses to the abuse of power by the elites, best represented by Luther's cry: "we are all priests."
Radicals, finally, wanted to do away with the church, seeing it as a source of evil with a history of oppression, forcing Europeans to live in ignorance and squalor.
Four groups, each defined by their relationship to the dominant institution. Reactionaries wanting to return to a time when the institution in transition returned to its previously clear domination and clear rule by elites; conservatives wanting to stop change and maintain order by maintaining power among the elites; liberals wanting to encourage a dispersion of power outwards and to subordinate the institution to the community; and, finally, radicals who simply wanted to be rid of this anchor to the past, feeling that along with its domination, its reason for being had passed.
This perspective has helped me, a liberal, to understand American politics of today. The conservative movement is really a coalition, all wanting to preserve the power of the dominant institution; where they break down is in their agreement about which institution is (or should be) dominant. One sector, the social conservatives, seems to believe that the church is the institution that should be protected in its earlier (or at least current) form, decrying attacks to its authority and pronouncements on social standards. Another sector, the patriots, seems to believe that the state is the institution that should be protected in its earlier form of powerful military and high-waving flag. Finally, the business conservatives seem to believe that what needs defending is the American way of life as exercised through its corporations. All share in common a notion that the institutions need defending from the individual.
By contrast, the liberal seems to believe that the individual needs protecting from the institution. Perhaps the simplest way to see this contrast is in the issue of crime or welfare. The conservative is afraid that the individual will abuse the institution, cheating the state of money that he or she doesn't deserve, or abusing rights. The liberal is afraid that the institution will abuse the individual, ignoring his or her needs and rights.
It seems as though the real question is whether we're prepared to adopt fluent and changing institutions in order to accommodate individuals or whether we're planning to force individuals to conform to institutions. It's always a dance and any society needs to do both. The question is, Who is leading?
Some reading this would say that American conservatives actually want to shift more power to the individual and less to the institution. That, of course, depends on what one accepts as the dominant institution. Many conservatives want less state intervention, less state power, but the reason for that is because they trust markets and corporations more than they trust elections and governments. For them, the underdog is the corporation and the dominant institution is the state. But if the corporation has become the dominant institution, then the definition of conservative applies as it does in the example of the church: conservatives want to maintain the power of the corporation, allowing it to work with fewer encumbrances, regulations, and taxes. And, to complete the picture, they are perfectly content with the status quo of powerful elites running those corporations, a privileged few who get disproportionate benefits.
The alignment that would be very powerful is the alignment between liberals of every sector. By the definition given, many “conservatives” are actually liberals in terms of church, state, and even bank but are truly conservatives only in the matter of the corporation. If they were to see the parallels between these institutions, see how one constant through the history and progress of Western Civilization is the diffusion of power from elites to the many, they could likely be persuaded to consider a more liberal view of the corporation, working for reforms that would match the power over corporations with the composition of owners (via both equity capital as represented by stock and intellectual capital as represented by employee involvement).
Liberals who have reversed themselves in terms of state power, seeing a strong state as the one viable option for countering a strong corporation, might also find a common ground with conservatives within this perspective. The point is not to tradeoff power between corporations and governments; the one leads to abuses that lines the pockets of politicians and the other to abuses that lines the pockets of senior executives. Better to diffuse power to the grassroots in every forum, subordinating these institutions to the community rather than vice versa.
We have before us a possibility for a period of enormous social innovation – a period of history when society becomes as pliable as our technology. Accomplishing this will require a myriad of changes. One change that is essential is that we all become liberals, forcing our institutions to emerge, disappear and change as best suits individual and community goals.
How to Make a Trillion Dollars: Dee Hock, Systems Thinking & Modern Management
One of the proponents of systems thinking is Dee Hock (although he calls it by a more interesting name, one that reflects how he has customized many of the notions and principles of systems thinking: chaordic, a state on the border of chaos and order). You probably don't know his name but you should. It is yet another thing that baffles me about the modern world: so many people know of Bill Gates and Jack Welch and so few know about Robert Beyster and Dee Hock. (Beyster I'll save for another story.)
Dee Hock was the first CEO for a company that has now passed $1 trillion in sales. That's right. $1 trillion. The company is VISA and it represents Hock's attempt to fundamentally rethink the foundational notions of an organization. Before going into that, I'd like to speak briefly about what he was up against, as it was nothing less than the dominant and pervasive intellectual perspective of the 20th century.
Pragmatism is today's dominant perspective. This matters because it is this that the systems thinking proponent finds himself up against. A pragmatist (as most every manager and employee is) will want to know the answer to how. "How do I do this?" It is no coincidence that pragmatism’s creation and popularization has followed the creation and rise of the modern knowledge worker, a sea of experts who make their living because they know how to diagnosis an X-ray, write computer code, or negotiate legal contracts. A pragmatist looks at how to make it through the obstacle course more quickly; a systems thinker challenges the design of the obstacle course, wondering why it should be so difficult to navigate if, indeed, the goal is to reduce time. One doesn't get to trillion in sales by simply performing better inside of a million dollar company.
Back to systems thinking and Dee Hock. What Hock really did was create two things. One, he understood that money was, ultimately, a measure and symbol of exchange. Its natural evolution from sea shells to gold to fiat currency was to finally take the form of blips and bytes on a computer. The credit card was a perfect medium for this. Secondly, Hock created an ecosystem. He knew that any card that gained acceptance had to simultaneously be accepted by banks, merchants, and consumers. And yet no one party would accept a card that the other two parties had not accepted. Hock didn't tell banks how they could sign up households. Rather, he created a set of fairly minimal rules that allowed players within this context to perform. Dee Hock was not so much a Willie Mays or even Sparky Anderson. Rather, he was Abner Doubleday - inventing the game rather than telling people how to play or even playing himself. In this alone he could stand as an archetype of systems thinking.
YouTube recently sold for $1.65 billion. Those founders did not create content, generating millions of hours of video. That would have been as impossible as Dee Hock's quest to make a trillion in loans or sales. Rather, the YouTube founders created a context in which people can voluntarily create and distribute content, just as the sea of bankers who minute by minute grant loan approvals to consumers within the ecosystem Dee Hock helped to create.
There is so much to say about the distinction between pragmatism and systems thinking, but I will limit myself to this observation. A manager asks "how" will I get this done. An entrepreneur asks, "who" will I need to get this done? A pragmatist focuses on problem solving and making something work. A systems thinker focuses instead on creating a context (like Hock's credit card ecosystem or YouTube's site) that encourages participation and natural consequences for individual imitative and actions.
How does systems thinking change anything if it doesn’t directly address the question of how, leaving that instead to the pragmatists and players who will inevitably show up? As it is gradually adopted as a worldview, replacing pragmatism as pragmatism replaced Enlightenment philosophy before it, systems thinking will change the context of how we frame our world, articulate problems, and choose goals. How will systems thinking change anything? By changing the context and rules of the game, it will, eventually, change everything.
Dee Hock was the first CEO for a company that has now passed $1 trillion in sales. That's right. $1 trillion. The company is VISA and it represents Hock's attempt to fundamentally rethink the foundational notions of an organization. Before going into that, I'd like to speak briefly about what he was up against, as it was nothing less than the dominant and pervasive intellectual perspective of the 20th century.
Pragmatism is today's dominant perspective. This matters because it is this that the systems thinking proponent finds himself up against. A pragmatist (as most every manager and employee is) will want to know the answer to how. "How do I do this?" It is no coincidence that pragmatism’s creation and popularization has followed the creation and rise of the modern knowledge worker, a sea of experts who make their living because they know how to diagnosis an X-ray, write computer code, or negotiate legal contracts. A pragmatist looks at how to make it through the obstacle course more quickly; a systems thinker challenges the design of the obstacle course, wondering why it should be so difficult to navigate if, indeed, the goal is to reduce time. One doesn't get to trillion in sales by simply performing better inside of a million dollar company.
Back to systems thinking and Dee Hock. What Hock really did was create two things. One, he understood that money was, ultimately, a measure and symbol of exchange. Its natural evolution from sea shells to gold to fiat currency was to finally take the form of blips and bytes on a computer. The credit card was a perfect medium for this. Secondly, Hock created an ecosystem. He knew that any card that gained acceptance had to simultaneously be accepted by banks, merchants, and consumers. And yet no one party would accept a card that the other two parties had not accepted. Hock didn't tell banks how they could sign up households. Rather, he created a set of fairly minimal rules that allowed players within this context to perform. Dee Hock was not so much a Willie Mays or even Sparky Anderson. Rather, he was Abner Doubleday - inventing the game rather than telling people how to play or even playing himself. In this alone he could stand as an archetype of systems thinking.
YouTube recently sold for $1.65 billion. Those founders did not create content, generating millions of hours of video. That would have been as impossible as Dee Hock's quest to make a trillion in loans or sales. Rather, the YouTube founders created a context in which people can voluntarily create and distribute content, just as the sea of bankers who minute by minute grant loan approvals to consumers within the ecosystem Dee Hock helped to create.
There is so much to say about the distinction between pragmatism and systems thinking, but I will limit myself to this observation. A manager asks "how" will I get this done. An entrepreneur asks, "who" will I need to get this done? A pragmatist focuses on problem solving and making something work. A systems thinker focuses instead on creating a context (like Hock's credit card ecosystem or YouTube's site) that encourages participation and natural consequences for individual imitative and actions.
How does systems thinking change anything if it doesn’t directly address the question of how, leaving that instead to the pragmatists and players who will inevitably show up? As it is gradually adopted as a worldview, replacing pragmatism as pragmatism replaced Enlightenment philosophy before it, systems thinking will change the context of how we frame our world, articulate problems, and choose goals. How will systems thinking change anything? By changing the context and rules of the game, it will, eventually, change everything.
08 January 2007
Why Bush's New Iraqi Policy is Doomed to Failure
Wednesday, Bush is scheduled to announce a new policy. It sounds as though it'll focus on a surge in troop levels. Like so much of what he's done in Iraq, one can almost take his pick of reasons why this won't work. I will focus on the one reason most oddly passed over in the analysis and reporting I've seen.
The problem in Iraq is not a military problem. We have more military might than the opposition. The problem in Iraq is a social and political problem. The society has turned against us and there is no stable and convincing political center from which to formulate a coherent response to "the insurgency." The political forces within Iraq are not aligned to a nation-state. They are more tribal than national. And the rational response of individuals within this mileu is to align behind tribes or militias. And yet the rational thing for the individual is, of course, sadly and spectacularly irrational for the nation as a whole.
Bush has seemingly never taken the time to understand how the social dynamics of Iraq might differ from, say, the social dynamics of Switzerland. As long as he continues to think that what he faces is a military problem, he'll be unable to address this social / political problem. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but George's incuriosity about the peculiarities of social evolution and dynamics has killed thousands - with death tolls for Iraqi civilians and American soldiers rising in the last half of 2006. Like a Greek tragedy that traces its origins back to a character flaw, Iraq may become a warning about the dangers of making life and death decisions about topics for which one has no natural interest.
The problem in Iraq is not a military problem. We have more military might than the opposition. The problem in Iraq is a social and political problem. The society has turned against us and there is no stable and convincing political center from which to formulate a coherent response to "the insurgency." The political forces within Iraq are not aligned to a nation-state. They are more tribal than national. And the rational response of individuals within this mileu is to align behind tribes or militias. And yet the rational thing for the individual is, of course, sadly and spectacularly irrational for the nation as a whole.
Bush has seemingly never taken the time to understand how the social dynamics of Iraq might differ from, say, the social dynamics of Switzerland. As long as he continues to think that what he faces is a military problem, he'll be unable to address this social / political problem. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but George's incuriosity about the peculiarities of social evolution and dynamics has killed thousands - with death tolls for Iraqi civilians and American soldiers rising in the last half of 2006. Like a Greek tragedy that traces its origins back to a character flaw, Iraq may become a warning about the dangers of making life and death decisions about topics for which one has no natural interest.
A New Major for a New Generation
Last night my daughter told me what her first class was today, on this the first day of a new quarter at UC San Diego. For a couple of seconds, I could have sworn that she said "sushi-ology" rather than sociology. And as I thought about it, it seemed like a perfect major for this generation, raised on California Rolls and Miso soup.
Broke Your New's Year Resolution? You Need This!
This month, millions of earthlings will break a New Year's resolution. If you are one of those folks, you may find the following quote handy. Frances Fragos Townsend, a Bush homeland-security adviser, was asked about whether the fact that the U.S. government has not found Osama bin Laden should be termed a failure. Her response?
"It's a success that hasn't occurred yet."
There. You have my permission to use this quote to justify the "breaking" of any New Year's resolution. Haven't stopped chewing your nails? "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet." Still smoking? "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet." Haven't yet quit your job to start that business. "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet."
Now just this one last question. If your New Year's resolution is to break your New Year's resolution and you do, have you actually broken your New Year's resolution?
[quote courtesy of January 8 2006 version of Newsweek.]
"It's a success that hasn't occurred yet."
There. You have my permission to use this quote to justify the "breaking" of any New Year's resolution. Haven't stopped chewing your nails? "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet." Still smoking? "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet." Haven't yet quit your job to start that business. "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet."
Now just this one last question. If your New Year's resolution is to break your New Year's resolution and you do, have you actually broken your New Year's resolution?
[quote courtesy of January 8 2006 version of Newsweek.]
07 January 2007
Be Rupert Murdoch for only $5,000
The Gutenberg Press, arguably the first tool of mass communication, was invented in about 1440. The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1452, becoming the first volume produced book. (It's worth remembering that in Medieval Times it was a capital offense to have a Bible written in one's native language.) In 1517 - about 77 years after the Gutenberg Press was invented, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg, effectively igniting the first flames of the Protestant Revolution. In 1531, Henry VIII broke with Rome and made himself the head of the Church of England and by 1540, he had seized church land.
100 years from the time this tool of mass communication was invented to the time that it had effectively transformed the church and state - helping to transition power from the dominant institution of the church to newly dominant institution of the state and in the process forever changing the nature of the church in the West. By making the Bible available in private homes, it effectively helped to make real Martin Luther's declaration "We are all priests!" Power of the church was diffused and every part of life was impacted.
In 1989, Vincent Cerf made public his work that he'd been doing for the government that allowed computers to exchange email and for a person on one computer to remotely access anothe computer. (People tend to say that they "surf" the Internet as if they were riding waves. They really ought to be saying that they "cerf" the Internet in honor of the man who developed the technology they are using.) It has been only 18 years since the inception of the Internet, a technology that is arguably to our time what the Gutenberg Press was to its time. The Gutenberg Press transformed the church - that period's dominant institution. I predict that the Internet will transform the corporation - our dominant institution. And along the way, it will transform media.
One of the more fascinating steps in that transformation is a recent product by NewTek that effectively enables any person with $5,000 to create his or her own TV studio. You can learn more by clicking here:
http://www.bootcamp.com/report.jsp?reportId=2185
or read the excerpt of the report here: [start of excerpt]
In the new age of the net…anyone can become a TV network. Bloomberg Boot Camp, a report on today’s technology. Time Magazine took note….naming you…the person of the year in 2006. You meaning the millions of people who contributing content to the Web…through YouTube and other sites. Can you really compete with the TV networks?
A company called NewTek has built a ten pound box called the TriCaster…..that is essentially a self contained studio…that plugs into the Internet.
CEO Jim Plant … “It allows you to connect multiple cameras and do everything you do in a live studio…the graphics...the rolling in the tape… multiple cameras…live digital video effects… all those things that are the hallmark of a live production… you can now do that in a ten pound box. And also we can connect this to the Internet. So we can live stream that…that multi camera production… all in real time.” It essentially…is a specialized high end PC. The price…about five thousand dollars. It works so well…some professionals…such as ESPN Radio have been using it.
About the future…Plant says think YouTube…but think live… "And the Internet now has enough bandwidth to make that possible. That’s the distribution side of it. Now we come in on the production side and make sure that what you put out on the air…and I use on the air in quotations…looks like a professional broadcast. Because that does make a difference.” ------- [End of article]
Just think about how this could revolutionize media. Suddenly, you can be Rupert Murdoch. The Gutenberg Press was instrumental in dispersing power to the individual. Now, NewTek's TriCaster has become another revolutionary product. And I do mean revolutionary. Like Gutenberg's Press, the TriCaster disperses power from the elites to you. Even if you choose not to be a mini-Murdoch, you have to agree that this is a fascinating time to be alive.
[Full disclosure: NewTek CEO Jim Plant was a good buddy in junior high and my freshman year of high school. We were on a Little League Team together. So, you are free to dismiss the above as biased ... but if you do, you may well miss out on one of the most amazing developments of the next few years.]
100 years from the time this tool of mass communication was invented to the time that it had effectively transformed the church and state - helping to transition power from the dominant institution of the church to newly dominant institution of the state and in the process forever changing the nature of the church in the West. By making the Bible available in private homes, it effectively helped to make real Martin Luther's declaration "We are all priests!" Power of the church was diffused and every part of life was impacted.
In 1989, Vincent Cerf made public his work that he'd been doing for the government that allowed computers to exchange email and for a person on one computer to remotely access anothe computer. (People tend to say that they "surf" the Internet as if they were riding waves. They really ought to be saying that they "cerf" the Internet in honor of the man who developed the technology they are using.) It has been only 18 years since the inception of the Internet, a technology that is arguably to our time what the Gutenberg Press was to its time. The Gutenberg Press transformed the church - that period's dominant institution. I predict that the Internet will transform the corporation - our dominant institution. And along the way, it will transform media.
One of the more fascinating steps in that transformation is a recent product by NewTek that effectively enables any person with $5,000 to create his or her own TV studio. You can learn more by clicking here:
http://www.bootcamp.com/report.jsp?reportId=2185
or read the excerpt of the report here: [start of excerpt]
In the new age of the net…anyone can become a TV network. Bloomberg Boot Camp, a report on today’s technology. Time Magazine took note….naming you…the person of the year in 2006. You meaning the millions of people who contributing content to the Web…through YouTube and other sites. Can you really compete with the TV networks?
A company called NewTek has built a ten pound box called the TriCaster…..that is essentially a self contained studio…that plugs into the Internet.
CEO Jim Plant … “It allows you to connect multiple cameras and do everything you do in a live studio…the graphics...the rolling in the tape… multiple cameras…live digital video effects… all those things that are the hallmark of a live production… you can now do that in a ten pound box. And also we can connect this to the Internet. So we can live stream that…that multi camera production… all in real time.” It essentially…is a specialized high end PC. The price…about five thousand dollars. It works so well…some professionals…such as ESPN Radio have been using it.
About the future…Plant says think YouTube…but think live… "And the Internet now has enough bandwidth to make that possible. That’s the distribution side of it. Now we come in on the production side and make sure that what you put out on the air…and I use on the air in quotations…looks like a professional broadcast. Because that does make a difference.” ------- [End of article]
Just think about how this could revolutionize media. Suddenly, you can be Rupert Murdoch. The Gutenberg Press was instrumental in dispersing power to the individual. Now, NewTek's TriCaster has become another revolutionary product. And I do mean revolutionary. Like Gutenberg's Press, the TriCaster disperses power from the elites to you. Even if you choose not to be a mini-Murdoch, you have to agree that this is a fascinating time to be alive.
[Full disclosure: NewTek CEO Jim Plant was a good buddy in junior high and my freshman year of high school. We were on a Little League Team together. So, you are free to dismiss the above as biased ... but if you do, you may well miss out on one of the most amazing developments of the next few years.]
06 January 2007
David Geffen and The Future of Media
Rumors suggest that David Geffen might buy the LA Times. [http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1078] If he does, he could bring to it much more than his net worth of $4.4 billion. He could bring a proven model into a new arena, transforming the world of news media for the better.
Who is David Geffen? Geffen dropped out of college and eventually got a job in the mailroom at the William Morris Agency. Legend has it that he got his start rather ignominiously. He applied for a promotion to agent and included on his resume mention of his degree from the University of Texas at Austin. When the letter stating that he'd dropped out came through the mail room, he intercepted it, changed it, and was soon hired as an agent. He later formed Asylum Records in 1971 and signed greats like Jackson Browne and Linda Rondstadt. He since co-founded Dreamworks with Spielberg and Katzenberg.
During his career in music, he has signed artists like John Lennon, Nirvana, Neil Young, and Weezer. As a music nerd, I envy this proximity to genius more than I envy his ability to buy and sell art pieces for $140 million. And in this role, Geffen may have defined a model that the news media desperately needs.
Fewer people have heard of Geffen Records than have heard of John Lennon or Nirvana, Cher or Aerosmith. Yet if you bought an album by these artists, you bought from David Geffen. (Okay, not all of their albums, but the point is the same.) By contrast, in the old model of the newspaper business you buy a copy of the New York Times or Los Angeles Times. You don't buy an article from investigative reporter Seymour Hersh or opinion piece by Paul Krugman. These are two very different models and if Geffen applies his old music industry model to this new era of newspapers, he could transform the media for good.
Think about a music industry model similar to the model for newspapers. Everyday, everyone listens to the same music - whatever is broadcast by the daily paper, er, I mean daily music. Think about how bland the music would necessarily be if it were forced to appeal to a broad and diverse group. Many people would conclude, listening to the elevator music that regularly gets played, that they just didn't like music.
One of the reasons that we love music is that it comes in such variety. Los Lobos plays music and so does Glen Gould and Theolonius Monk and The Roots. But the music they create is very different. And the consumption of music is not consumption of, say, Warner Brothers or Geffen Records. That is incidental. People have a passion for the music of, say, Van Morrison or Emmylou Harris and may not even know what label represents them. They don't buy the label - they buy the artist. Taking this perspective could make a huge difference for the news media.
There are two fundamental forces that would be at Geffen's back should he move in this direction. One is the force of diversity. Malcolm Gladwell has a great piece (look at talks at ted.com) about pasta sauce. His point? As long as Ragu and Prego clung to the model of one perfect pasta sauce, they were missing a huge market. Once Prego realized that there were different schools of great pasta sauce (chunky or cheesy or traditional or garlic perhaps being akin to rock, soft jazz, calypso, or rap), and made a variety of sauces, Prego's sales grew by $600 million! The other force is the force of the Internet. It is now possible for media to create and present forms of music, or news and opinion that appeal to different markets for relatively little. Publishing costs have plummeted via the Internet, suggesting that the marginal cost of increased diversity is dropping rapidly (ala Chris Anderson's argument in The Long Tail). It is perhaps this that the blogosphere has most signaled with its plethora of strong opinions and niche discussion groups.
The diversity of products that the LA Times could create may be centered on particular news personalities like Paul Krugman, Michael Kinsley, Greg Easterbrook or Barbara Ehrenreich. There is, obviously, quite a bit of this kind of thing going on already in media. The other thing that the LA Times could do is recognize that the "news" is based less on facts than the interpretation of them - and that interpretation is a function of culture and worldview. If this point has not already been made by the diversity of magazines, it must surely be clear from the diversity of blogs and websites. Not even facts are generic - worldview determines both the how the news gets reported and, more importantly, what news gets reported. If the LA Times could do the equivalent of what Prego did and identify various cultures, creating a different product for each one (the equivalent of LA Times Chunky in the form of LA Times Americana or LA Times Beatnik or LA Times Whole Earth or LA Times Family), they could easily reverse the erosion in newspaper sales and create a base from which to launch a multimedia conglomerate that spilled across the web, newsstands, TV, radio, and magazine racks.
Finally, I have to confess that I'm inclined to be impressed by anything done by a guy who said this, one of my favorite quotes:
“I think we are all figments of our own imagination. We invent ourselves. We have a vision of ourselves and its takes us where it will take us. There may be a normal course for doing ordinary things, but there’s no normal course for doing extraordinary things. Very often your destiny is beyond your ability to imagine it.”
- David Geffen
When you think like that, it's easy to belive that you might transform an industry.
P. S. - the bid is no longer rumored - Geffen has reportedly bid $2 billion for the LA Times. The rumor has become real - it'll take a bit longer to see whether the analysis will.
Who is David Geffen? Geffen dropped out of college and eventually got a job in the mailroom at the William Morris Agency. Legend has it that he got his start rather ignominiously. He applied for a promotion to agent and included on his resume mention of his degree from the University of Texas at Austin. When the letter stating that he'd dropped out came through the mail room, he intercepted it, changed it, and was soon hired as an agent. He later formed Asylum Records in 1971 and signed greats like Jackson Browne and Linda Rondstadt. He since co-founded Dreamworks with Spielberg and Katzenberg.
During his career in music, he has signed artists like John Lennon, Nirvana, Neil Young, and Weezer. As a music nerd, I envy this proximity to genius more than I envy his ability to buy and sell art pieces for $140 million. And in this role, Geffen may have defined a model that the news media desperately needs.
Fewer people have heard of Geffen Records than have heard of John Lennon or Nirvana, Cher or Aerosmith. Yet if you bought an album by these artists, you bought from David Geffen. (Okay, not all of their albums, but the point is the same.) By contrast, in the old model of the newspaper business you buy a copy of the New York Times or Los Angeles Times. You don't buy an article from investigative reporter Seymour Hersh or opinion piece by Paul Krugman. These are two very different models and if Geffen applies his old music industry model to this new era of newspapers, he could transform the media for good.
Think about a music industry model similar to the model for newspapers. Everyday, everyone listens to the same music - whatever is broadcast by the daily paper, er, I mean daily music. Think about how bland the music would necessarily be if it were forced to appeal to a broad and diverse group. Many people would conclude, listening to the elevator music that regularly gets played, that they just didn't like music.
One of the reasons that we love music is that it comes in such variety. Los Lobos plays music and so does Glen Gould and Theolonius Monk and The Roots. But the music they create is very different. And the consumption of music is not consumption of, say, Warner Brothers or Geffen Records. That is incidental. People have a passion for the music of, say, Van Morrison or Emmylou Harris and may not even know what label represents them. They don't buy the label - they buy the artist. Taking this perspective could make a huge difference for the news media.
There are two fundamental forces that would be at Geffen's back should he move in this direction. One is the force of diversity. Malcolm Gladwell has a great piece (look at talks at ted.com) about pasta sauce. His point? As long as Ragu and Prego clung to the model of one perfect pasta sauce, they were missing a huge market. Once Prego realized that there were different schools of great pasta sauce (chunky or cheesy or traditional or garlic perhaps being akin to rock, soft jazz, calypso, or rap), and made a variety of sauces, Prego's sales grew by $600 million! The other force is the force of the Internet. It is now possible for media to create and present forms of music, or news and opinion that appeal to different markets for relatively little. Publishing costs have plummeted via the Internet, suggesting that the marginal cost of increased diversity is dropping rapidly (ala Chris Anderson's argument in The Long Tail). It is perhaps this that the blogosphere has most signaled with its plethora of strong opinions and niche discussion groups.
The diversity of products that the LA Times could create may be centered on particular news personalities like Paul Krugman, Michael Kinsley, Greg Easterbrook or Barbara Ehrenreich. There is, obviously, quite a bit of this kind of thing going on already in media. The other thing that the LA Times could do is recognize that the "news" is based less on facts than the interpretation of them - and that interpretation is a function of culture and worldview. If this point has not already been made by the diversity of magazines, it must surely be clear from the diversity of blogs and websites. Not even facts are generic - worldview determines both the how the news gets reported and, more importantly, what news gets reported. If the LA Times could do the equivalent of what Prego did and identify various cultures, creating a different product for each one (the equivalent of LA Times Chunky in the form of LA Times Americana or LA Times Beatnik or LA Times Whole Earth or LA Times Family), they could easily reverse the erosion in newspaper sales and create a base from which to launch a multimedia conglomerate that spilled across the web, newsstands, TV, radio, and magazine racks.
Finally, I have to confess that I'm inclined to be impressed by anything done by a guy who said this, one of my favorite quotes:
“I think we are all figments of our own imagination. We invent ourselves. We have a vision of ourselves and its takes us where it will take us. There may be a normal course for doing ordinary things, but there’s no normal course for doing extraordinary things. Very often your destiny is beyond your ability to imagine it.”
- David Geffen
When you think like that, it's easy to belive that you might transform an industry.
P. S. - the bid is no longer rumored - Geffen has reportedly bid $2 billion for the LA Times. The rumor has become real - it'll take a bit longer to see whether the analysis will.
05 January 2007
It's '007and I've got a license to blog
The other day a good buddy of mine, a conservative, suggested in an email that my recent blog comments about the president and his policy towards Iran had seemed rather egregious. He's right. I did not make the attempt that the writer of an Atlantic Magazine article might make to been evenhanded, to consider the facts, to show respect to each side of the argument or respect the office of the president. And as much as I love The Atlantic for that very reason, I think that this blogging liberty is great because I don't have that burden.
A boat can be splendid. It may be beautifully designed, well crafted, based on sound principles - but it can still have a hole in it. In this case, the policy of saber-rattling towards Iran is simply unsound. We can't even conduct one war and occupation and Bush thinks that we can credibly threaten (or worse - actually attempt) to invade Iran? This is simple nonsense and the facts about Iran's threat, their movement towards nuclear weaponry, etc., are all tangential to this simple fact. I could talk about the great aspects of the boat, but it seems that the most important feature of the boat to those about to board is the hole. You don’t write an essay about a hole in a boat. You quickly point it out, shouting if you have to. I felt that way about the nonsensical noise suggesting that the Pentagon was making preparations to attack Iran.
And that is the beauty of blogs. Unlike the columnists in DC and New York, we are unlikely to censor our comments because we're afraid of an awkward moment at the country club or because we're afraid that we'll offend someone we need to interview for a future story. We have no vested interest. This allows a certain freedom to comment, unhindered by a plethora of facts and analysis, sure, but also unhindered by the need to take time making points that are ultimately irrelevant. Bloggers are free to get to the heart of an issue as we see it. We know that Howard Dean, George Bush, and Tony Blair were never going to talk to us anyway, so we’ve no fear of offending them or even pointing out how unnecessarily pompous the mainstream media have gotten, shaking our heads at how seriously people like Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs take themselves. We’ve learned a little secret – these political and media celebrities haven’t actually got any exclusive on insight or analysis. And sometimes knowing a great deal about boats is irrelevant if you fail (or refuse) to notice the hole in the boat.
Perhaps no technology better allows the individual to realize the right to freedom of speech than blogging. Freedom of speech meant something in a small burg of, say, 300 when everyone knew and could hear one another. Freedom of speech is fairly meaningless in a community of 300 million. Fairly meaningless, that is, until blogging. We now have a means to express ourselves to as many people as we can attract the attention of – and all without the need for editorial or political approval.
It's the year '007 and I've got a license to blog. And so do you.
A boat can be splendid. It may be beautifully designed, well crafted, based on sound principles - but it can still have a hole in it. In this case, the policy of saber-rattling towards Iran is simply unsound. We can't even conduct one war and occupation and Bush thinks that we can credibly threaten (or worse - actually attempt) to invade Iran? This is simple nonsense and the facts about Iran's threat, their movement towards nuclear weaponry, etc., are all tangential to this simple fact. I could talk about the great aspects of the boat, but it seems that the most important feature of the boat to those about to board is the hole. You don’t write an essay about a hole in a boat. You quickly point it out, shouting if you have to. I felt that way about the nonsensical noise suggesting that the Pentagon was making preparations to attack Iran.
And that is the beauty of blogs. Unlike the columnists in DC and New York, we are unlikely to censor our comments because we're afraid of an awkward moment at the country club or because we're afraid that we'll offend someone we need to interview for a future story. We have no vested interest. This allows a certain freedom to comment, unhindered by a plethora of facts and analysis, sure, but also unhindered by the need to take time making points that are ultimately irrelevant. Bloggers are free to get to the heart of an issue as we see it. We know that Howard Dean, George Bush, and Tony Blair were never going to talk to us anyway, so we’ve no fear of offending them or even pointing out how unnecessarily pompous the mainstream media have gotten, shaking our heads at how seriously people like Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs take themselves. We’ve learned a little secret – these political and media celebrities haven’t actually got any exclusive on insight or analysis. And sometimes knowing a great deal about boats is irrelevant if you fail (or refuse) to notice the hole in the boat.
Perhaps no technology better allows the individual to realize the right to freedom of speech than blogging. Freedom of speech meant something in a small burg of, say, 300 when everyone knew and could hear one another. Freedom of speech is fairly meaningless in a community of 300 million. Fairly meaningless, that is, until blogging. We now have a means to express ourselves to as many people as we can attract the attention of – and all without the need for editorial or political approval.
It's the year '007 and I've got a license to blog. And so do you.
04 January 2007
Systems Thinking and the Corporation
I believe that systems thinking will be as tranformative of today's dominant institution (the corporation) as the Enlightenment was to that generation's dominant institution (the nation-state).
If you want a few great examples of real world success stories that stem from systems thinking, look at http://ceu-bse-fall2006.blogspot.com/
He points to how Toyota has so outdistanced its competitors through the use of systems thinking and how WalMart and Proctor and Gamble used systems thinking to both grow even more rapidly. Good and interesting stuff.
Here's an excerpt:
"What Toyota has so successfully done over 50 years is employ what Amory Lovins calls 'optimizing whole systems' rather than isolated parts of the system. By doing this Toyota will not only become the largest car maker in the world next year, they will also have annual profits and a market capitalization bigger than their next five competitors combined. And they are also the leading automaker in terms of environmental performance." [italics added]
If you want a few great examples of real world success stories that stem from systems thinking, look at http://ceu-bse-fall2006.blogspot.com/
He points to how Toyota has so outdistanced its competitors through the use of systems thinking and how WalMart and Proctor and Gamble used systems thinking to both grow even more rapidly. Good and interesting stuff.
Here's an excerpt:
"What Toyota has so successfully done over 50 years is employ what Amory Lovins calls 'optimizing whole systems' rather than isolated parts of the system. By doing this Toyota will not only become the largest car maker in the world next year, they will also have annual profits and a market capitalization bigger than their next five competitors combined. And they are also the leading automaker in terms of environmental performance." [italics added]
Representative Keith Ellison and His 1 Billion Informal Constituents
It seems as though we have a few choices in dealing with the Muslims who share the planet with us:
1. Send Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, around the world to convince them all to become atheists.
2. Send Pat Robertson around the world to convert them to Christianity (in which case Sam Harris may feel compelled to follow him around to convert them to ... well you get the point).
3. Try to convert the Islam-a-phobics in the West into becoming warm and friendly neighbors with their fellow Muslims.
4. Stop with the conversion fantasies and continue to focus on creating a further web of interdependency and familiarity through increased levels of trade.
1. Send Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, around the world to convince them all to become atheists.
2. Send Pat Robertson around the world to convert them to Christianity (in which case Sam Harris may feel compelled to follow him around to convert them to ... well you get the point).
3. Try to convert the Islam-a-phobics in the West into becoming warm and friendly neighbors with their fellow Muslims.
4. Stop with the conversion fantasies and continue to focus on creating a further web of interdependency and familiarity through increased levels of trade.
Government Secrecy
I have a simple equation for good government. A good government is very transparent and allows individual citizens privacy. A bad government reveals very little about its decisions and operations and can peer into the lives of its citizenry at will. (Think USSR or Orwell's 1984.)
This graph suggests that our government is getting worse, not better.
[Yellow line is the number of classified government documents and the blue line is the number of documents being declassified.]
03 January 2007
Nardelli at Home Depot (HD): One Third of a Billion in Pay for Losing $1 Billion a Year
Home Depot's (HD) CEO Nardelli left the company today. One of the big reasons? Stockholders thought his pay (about $124 million in six years) was too high given the performance of HD stock, which dropped about 5.6% under his tenure. Given Home Depot's market capitalization, he lost about $1 billion a year. His severance pay, triggered by his high pay, is $210 million. So, he gets total pay of about one third of a billion dollars for destroying about $5 billion in stock value. Amazing. I have no doub that Nardelli has above average ability in terms of negotiation and his mastery of the alpha male dynamics. What I (and most everyone probably) doubts is his ability to actually create wealth.
The CEO is the last of the monarchs. Whatever your beef with George W. Bush (and readers of this blog know I have plenty), he puts up with plenty of criticism from his own citizenry and press. By contrast, CEOs get almost no criticism from within their own companies. To speak out against a CEO in the same way that, say, Paul Krugman speaks out against George Bush would ensure a loss of citizenship, I mean employment.
The corporation has risen to great power. I would argue that it is today's dominant institution. But the power structure within the corporation is dated, echoing the power structure of medieval popes or Renaissance kings.
One of the biggest problems with the modern corporation is that it is now owned by the likes of me and you. Peter Drucker seemed to have been the lone voice pointing out that a silent revolution had taken place in recent decades: suddenly the biggest owners of stocks were common employees who held equity through mutual and retirement funds. Yet even though we own these stocks, we don't have a mechanism for influencing policy. CEOs still have disproportionate power over corporate policy.
If a CEO actually influences stock price enough to justify pay of a third of a billion in five years, he is simply exercising too much power, playing the autocrat far too much. A Renaissance king was easily the richest man in the kingdom. Today's presidents are rarely in the list of the top one hundred wealthiest. We'll know that the corporation has adopted a more sensible power structure when the top paid employees within a corporation are only rarely, rather than inevitably, the CEO. It's time for corporate revolution.
The CEO is the last of the monarchs. Whatever your beef with George W. Bush (and readers of this blog know I have plenty), he puts up with plenty of criticism from his own citizenry and press. By contrast, CEOs get almost no criticism from within their own companies. To speak out against a CEO in the same way that, say, Paul Krugman speaks out against George Bush would ensure a loss of citizenship, I mean employment.
The corporation has risen to great power. I would argue that it is today's dominant institution. But the power structure within the corporation is dated, echoing the power structure of medieval popes or Renaissance kings.
One of the biggest problems with the modern corporation is that it is now owned by the likes of me and you. Peter Drucker seemed to have been the lone voice pointing out that a silent revolution had taken place in recent decades: suddenly the biggest owners of stocks were common employees who held equity through mutual and retirement funds. Yet even though we own these stocks, we don't have a mechanism for influencing policy. CEOs still have disproportionate power over corporate policy.
If a CEO actually influences stock price enough to justify pay of a third of a billion in five years, he is simply exercising too much power, playing the autocrat far too much. A Renaissance king was easily the richest man in the kingdom. Today's presidents are rarely in the list of the top one hundred wealthiest. We'll know that the corporation has adopted a more sensible power structure when the top paid employees within a corporation are only rarely, rather than inevitably, the CEO. It's time for corporate revolution.
02 January 2007
Minimum Wage Boost
Minimum wage went up for California. If the Dems in the House and Senate have their way, it will soon rise across the nation.
Some members of the business community are once again bleating about how this simply won't work. Yet the truth about business is that there are so many variables that could be tweaked that management only tweaks a few at a time. When government regulators say it is important to, say, complete paperwork for drug approval, they manage to complete the paperwork. When the government makes them, say, pay their minimum wage employees fifty cents more per hour they comply. If they didn't have to complete the paperwork or pay their minimum wage employees more, they wouldn't.
Imagine the alternative to a minimum wage. What if the lowest-paid workers in the United States were paid no more than the lowest-paid workers across the world - workers who miraculously make it on $1 a day? Markets really don't care whether they pay workers 15 cents a day or 15 million a day, but communities don't have to show such callous disregard for the real needs of real people. There is no miracle equation that ensures that the least productive worker will just happen to make enough to buy food, clothing, and shelter. Management has many competing priorities and is unlikely to just spontaneously decide that of all those possibilities they will make raising the productivity and wages of their least productive workers the most important. Unlikely, that is, without regulatory compulsion.
Markets are great mechanisms but aren't any more prone to perfect solutions than are regulators. No one wants to buy a car that steers only right or left. Communities shouldn't rely only on regulation or markets; our least productive shouldn't rely on businesses raising wages out of boredom or sense of altruism.
Some members of the business community are once again bleating about how this simply won't work. Yet the truth about business is that there are so many variables that could be tweaked that management only tweaks a few at a time. When government regulators say it is important to, say, complete paperwork for drug approval, they manage to complete the paperwork. When the government makes them, say, pay their minimum wage employees fifty cents more per hour they comply. If they didn't have to complete the paperwork or pay their minimum wage employees more, they wouldn't.
Imagine the alternative to a minimum wage. What if the lowest-paid workers in the United States were paid no more than the lowest-paid workers across the world - workers who miraculously make it on $1 a day? Markets really don't care whether they pay workers 15 cents a day or 15 million a day, but communities don't have to show such callous disregard for the real needs of real people. There is no miracle equation that ensures that the least productive worker will just happen to make enough to buy food, clothing, and shelter. Management has many competing priorities and is unlikely to just spontaneously decide that of all those possibilities they will make raising the productivity and wages of their least productive workers the most important. Unlikely, that is, without regulatory compulsion.
Markets are great mechanisms but aren't any more prone to perfect solutions than are regulators. No one wants to buy a car that steers only right or left. Communities shouldn't rely only on regulation or markets; our least productive shouldn't rely on businesses raising wages out of boredom or sense of altruism.
The Voice in Your Head - Or Why It's Difficult to Live Your Life as an Experiment
In keeping with the Welcome to the New Year! posts, I'd like to build on the notion of living your life as an experiment. Before delving into that, I'm going to argue that it is difficult to conduct your life as an experiment when you don't get data on reality - or perhaps more accurately, when all the data you get is so heavily narrated that it scarcely breaks through.
Your access to reality is obscured by the running commentary of the voice in your head. You have likely experienced reality only rarely since you’ve been about two years old. Babies are all possibility and potential. They can learn any language, assimilate any culture, or manifest about any personality. They learn more rapidly than a lecture hall full of students. As we age, the voice in our head matures and bombards us with questions, criticisms, commentary and meaning. It reaches particular conclusions and begins to filter out reality that doesn’t support those conclusions. As we age, our way of being is more prescribed, less malleable, and more defined. Why? I’d argue that it has nothing to do with the host of possibilities in the world around us. Reality has not changed. The voice in our head has changed. Or, rather, the voice in our head has increasingly taken the place of reality.
This may sound abstract, obtuse, or even odd. It might be all that, but it also aligns pretty well with research on cognition, on how the mind works.
It is true that you perceive the world around you, processing what comes in from your senses in the way of sounds, sights, and tastes. You are aware enough of the world outside of your head that you can drive down the street and safely stay off of people’s lawns. So how could the voice in your head really change your perception of reality? It can do this because the flow of data from the world to your senses is a fraction of the flow of information from your consciousness to your senses. Let me explain.
Research indicates that we process incoming sensations in layers. If something is before you, for instance, the brain first processes a blur of white, a crude shape. It next matches that color and shape to a database of shapes and determines it is a flower. At the next level of processing it determines that the flower is actually an orchid. Next, you determine that an orchid would please your Grandmother but not be particularly effective if you wanted to signal romantic interest. And then you start to think about relationships and the failure you had the last time you tried to turn a friendship into a romance, and how mortified you were that you were rejected. And suddenly you don’t see the orchid at all – you are lost in the ugly memory of rejection, of failed love and the voice in your head may even go so far as to conclude that you have no hope for romance. All of this because you saw an orchid. Your consciousness is informed by the flower – but it is filled even more with the memories, feelings, and conclusions that the flower triggered.
“The neurotic person distorts reality, makes demands upon it, imposes premature conceptualizations upon it, is afraid of the unknown and of novelty, is too much determined by his interpersonal needs to be a good reporter of reality, is too easily frightened, is too eager for other people’s approval, etc. It may be expected that as a culture improves, thereby improving the health of all its citizens, truth seeking should improve.”
- Abraham Maslow
There “are 10 times as many nerve fibers carrying information down [from higher to lower levels of the brain] as there are carrying it up [from lower levels to higher levels].”[1] The implication is that what we perceive does impact our consciousness, but that the impact of our consciousness on what we perceive is even greater. We have a mental construct that interprets a confusing set of data, making sense of it and calling that reality. Do you perceive orchids or rejection?
One well known but rarely reported fact of consciousness is this: “every single second, millions of bits of information flood in through our senses. But our consciousness processes only perhaps forty bits a second – at most. Millions and millions of bits are condensed to a conscious experience that contains practically no information at all. Every single second, every one of us discards millions of bits in order to arrive at the special state known as consciousness.” “A million times more bits enter our heads than consciousness perceives.” [2] Your perception of reality is, at best, filtered. Worse, and all too commonly, it is distorted.
If you have ever seen a hypnotist at work, you know that our senses can be overridden by suggestion, by consciousness. Have you ever considered that a state of hypnosis might be closer to your normal state than simply perceiving reality for what it is?
So, why don’t we embrace reality? One reason is that we are simply compelled to make meaning, to assign interpretation, and make judgments. That’s what it means to be human. Another reason is that reality can seem overwhelming, the facts can seem too harsh. We retreat from accomplishment, which lives in the domain of reality, into reason, which lives in our mind. More specifically, we retreat from accomplishment and goals into reasons why we can’t accomplish our goals. Consider the possibility that you can’t face facts without faith that those facts are not a prison but are, rather, stepping stones. Reality is abuzz with possibilities. It is only the voice in your head that has already defined and bounded your life.
[1] Sandra Blakeslee, “Hypnosis gains respect, helps to see brain work: Those susceptible to suggestion see change in ‘truth,’” New York Times News Service, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Thursday, November 24, 2005, A25.
[2] Tor Norretranders, The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size (New York: Penguin, 1999) p. 125 – 6.
Your access to reality is obscured by the running commentary of the voice in your head. You have likely experienced reality only rarely since you’ve been about two years old. Babies are all possibility and potential. They can learn any language, assimilate any culture, or manifest about any personality. They learn more rapidly than a lecture hall full of students. As we age, the voice in our head matures and bombards us with questions, criticisms, commentary and meaning. It reaches particular conclusions and begins to filter out reality that doesn’t support those conclusions. As we age, our way of being is more prescribed, less malleable, and more defined. Why? I’d argue that it has nothing to do with the host of possibilities in the world around us. Reality has not changed. The voice in our head has changed. Or, rather, the voice in our head has increasingly taken the place of reality.
This may sound abstract, obtuse, or even odd. It might be all that, but it also aligns pretty well with research on cognition, on how the mind works.
It is true that you perceive the world around you, processing what comes in from your senses in the way of sounds, sights, and tastes. You are aware enough of the world outside of your head that you can drive down the street and safely stay off of people’s lawns. So how could the voice in your head really change your perception of reality? It can do this because the flow of data from the world to your senses is a fraction of the flow of information from your consciousness to your senses. Let me explain.
Research indicates that we process incoming sensations in layers. If something is before you, for instance, the brain first processes a blur of white, a crude shape. It next matches that color and shape to a database of shapes and determines it is a flower. At the next level of processing it determines that the flower is actually an orchid. Next, you determine that an orchid would please your Grandmother but not be particularly effective if you wanted to signal romantic interest. And then you start to think about relationships and the failure you had the last time you tried to turn a friendship into a romance, and how mortified you were that you were rejected. And suddenly you don’t see the orchid at all – you are lost in the ugly memory of rejection, of failed love and the voice in your head may even go so far as to conclude that you have no hope for romance. All of this because you saw an orchid. Your consciousness is informed by the flower – but it is filled even more with the memories, feelings, and conclusions that the flower triggered.
“The neurotic person distorts reality, makes demands upon it, imposes premature conceptualizations upon it, is afraid of the unknown and of novelty, is too much determined by his interpersonal needs to be a good reporter of reality, is too easily frightened, is too eager for other people’s approval, etc. It may be expected that as a culture improves, thereby improving the health of all its citizens, truth seeking should improve.”
- Abraham Maslow
There “are 10 times as many nerve fibers carrying information down [from higher to lower levels of the brain] as there are carrying it up [from lower levels to higher levels].”[1] The implication is that what we perceive does impact our consciousness, but that the impact of our consciousness on what we perceive is even greater. We have a mental construct that interprets a confusing set of data, making sense of it and calling that reality. Do you perceive orchids or rejection?
One well known but rarely reported fact of consciousness is this: “every single second, millions of bits of information flood in through our senses. But our consciousness processes only perhaps forty bits a second – at most. Millions and millions of bits are condensed to a conscious experience that contains practically no information at all. Every single second, every one of us discards millions of bits in order to arrive at the special state known as consciousness.” “A million times more bits enter our heads than consciousness perceives.” [2] Your perception of reality is, at best, filtered. Worse, and all too commonly, it is distorted.
If you have ever seen a hypnotist at work, you know that our senses can be overridden by suggestion, by consciousness. Have you ever considered that a state of hypnosis might be closer to your normal state than simply perceiving reality for what it is?
So, why don’t we embrace reality? One reason is that we are simply compelled to make meaning, to assign interpretation, and make judgments. That’s what it means to be human. Another reason is that reality can seem overwhelming, the facts can seem too harsh. We retreat from accomplishment, which lives in the domain of reality, into reason, which lives in our mind. More specifically, we retreat from accomplishment and goals into reasons why we can’t accomplish our goals. Consider the possibility that you can’t face facts without faith that those facts are not a prison but are, rather, stepping stones. Reality is abuzz with possibilities. It is only the voice in your head that has already defined and bounded your life.
[1] Sandra Blakeslee, “Hypnosis gains respect, helps to see brain work: Those susceptible to suggestion see change in ‘truth,’” New York Times News Service, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Thursday, November 24, 2005, A25.
[2] Tor Norretranders, The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size (New York: Penguin, 1999) p. 125 – 6.
01 January 2007
Bucky's Story - Living Life as an Experiment
In 1927, a 32 year-old man stood on the edge of Lake Michigan, ready to throw himself into the freezing waters. He was bankrupt, the result of his third business failure in a row. He’d been drinking heavily and was grief stricken over the death of his first child. He didn’t know how he would support his wife and newborn daughter. At that moment, his life seemed like a pattern of failures to him. Before the bankruptcies, years earlier, he’d been expelled from Harvard during his freshman year and never did complete his degree.
But fortunately, in this moment of drunken grief, Buckminster Fuller had the presence of mind to make an extraordinary decision. He realized that he was about to throw his life away and decided that if he was contemplating that, why not take half a step back and do something unorthodox. Rather than throw his life away, why not throw away his old notions of goals and achievement? He decided to turn his life into an experiment – an experiment to see how much difference one ordinary person could make. [1]
The difference that Fuller’s life made has yet to be fully understood or felt. He was a pioneer of ecological thinking and sustainability – balancing economic and environmental needs. His influence spreads as a growing number of people adopt the thinking that he helped to introduce. Although he never did complete his degree at Harvard, Fuller was awarded 44 honorary doctoral degrees, granted 25 US patents, and authored 28 books.
When Buckminster Fuller turned his life into an experiment (many called him Bucky, but he referred to himself as Guinea Pig B), he created the conditions for an extraordinary life. Perhaps best of all, his failures were feedback for an experiment, not a reflection of who he was, not something to take personally, not a reason to jump. Turning his life into an experiment gave him the best of both worlds: he ended his life even more accomplished than someone driven to achieve to prove something and remained more sanguine than someone who avoided risks altogether.
The modern world was born when scientists during the Enlightenment began testing hypotheses and conducting experiments rather than blindly quoting Aristotle or church authorities. The modern world – its science, technology, and even social institutions and practices – has emerged from the application of the empirical method to objective reality. Planning, or theorizing, followed by doing, studying the results and then adapting the plan or theory is the cycle of progress.
Consider the possibility that you could apply the empirical method to your personal, subjective reality. It’s possible that you will find similar breakthroughs in your own life if you make your development the product of intentional experiments rather blind adherence to advice from Napoleon Hill, Tony Robbins, the motivational thinker de jour or worse, the voice in your head that insists on narrating your life, the voice that we often mistake for reality.
[1] See http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-fuller.htm and http://www.bfi.org/introduction_to_bmf.htm for quick biographies of Richard Buckminster Fuller, 1895 to 1983.
But fortunately, in this moment of drunken grief, Buckminster Fuller had the presence of mind to make an extraordinary decision. He realized that he was about to throw his life away and decided that if he was contemplating that, why not take half a step back and do something unorthodox. Rather than throw his life away, why not throw away his old notions of goals and achievement? He decided to turn his life into an experiment – an experiment to see how much difference one ordinary person could make. [1]
The difference that Fuller’s life made has yet to be fully understood or felt. He was a pioneer of ecological thinking and sustainability – balancing economic and environmental needs. His influence spreads as a growing number of people adopt the thinking that he helped to introduce. Although he never did complete his degree at Harvard, Fuller was awarded 44 honorary doctoral degrees, granted 25 US patents, and authored 28 books.
When Buckminster Fuller turned his life into an experiment (many called him Bucky, but he referred to himself as Guinea Pig B), he created the conditions for an extraordinary life. Perhaps best of all, his failures were feedback for an experiment, not a reflection of who he was, not something to take personally, not a reason to jump. Turning his life into an experiment gave him the best of both worlds: he ended his life even more accomplished than someone driven to achieve to prove something and remained more sanguine than someone who avoided risks altogether.
The modern world was born when scientists during the Enlightenment began testing hypotheses and conducting experiments rather than blindly quoting Aristotle or church authorities. The modern world – its science, technology, and even social institutions and practices – has emerged from the application of the empirical method to objective reality. Planning, or theorizing, followed by doing, studying the results and then adapting the plan or theory is the cycle of progress.
Consider the possibility that you could apply the empirical method to your personal, subjective reality. It’s possible that you will find similar breakthroughs in your own life if you make your development the product of intentional experiments rather blind adherence to advice from Napoleon Hill, Tony Robbins, the motivational thinker de jour or worse, the voice in your head that insists on narrating your life, the voice that we often mistake for reality.
[1] See http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-fuller.htm and http://www.bfi.org/introduction_to_bmf.htm for quick biographies of Richard Buckminster Fuller, 1895 to 1983.
31 December 2006
Worth Remembering for 2007
Heard today, courtesy of one of our ministers:
"No one ever became less by giving their all."
- June McDonald
"No one ever became less by giving their all."
- June McDonald
30 December 2006
What if Saddam is the Best Iraq Can Do?
Last night at the gym, the TV news was flitting from one image to another to confirm that Saddam was evil and deserved execution. It's an easy sell to an American audience, raised as we are to be repulsed at the thought of such unchecked power.
But what the media will never allude to is that Saddam may have actually been exactly the kind of leader one would expect for a country like Iraq.
Iraq does not have the foundation of one nation on which to build a nation-state. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are three distinct groups that see themselves as Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds before they see themselves as Iraqis. Creating one nation-state with these three groups requires a strong leader.
For a significant portion of the population, the authority of religious dogma far outweighs the authority of the uncertain processes of law or science. Such a population cannot be reasoned with for the simple fact that they've little respect for reason. Force is the one alternative for dealing with such a population.
You don't have to make a formal study of children to know that what is appropriate for a child of 16 won't work for a child of 6. And to be fair to the Iraqi legal system that found him guilty, no people should have to endure the rule of a tyrant, as Saddam clearly was. But the type of rule appropriate for a country at the stage of development of Iraq is going to look more like the rule of Saddam than the rule of, say, contemporary Dutch Parliament.
Afghanistan, freed of Taliban rule, is gravitating back towards Taliban rule. Why? The fundamental social dynamics that led to the rise of the Taliban have yet to be changed. Don't be surprised if the same country that yesterday executed Saddam doesn't soon raise up a leader much like Saddam. History shows us that it is much easier to change individual leaders than it is to change the social reality that allows them to rule. But then, George doesn't even acknowledge the differences in social dynamics of San Francisco and Midland, TX, so how could he be expected to acknowledge differences as vast as those between a quasi-theocracy and modern democracy?
But what the media will never allude to is that Saddam may have actually been exactly the kind of leader one would expect for a country like Iraq.
Iraq does not have the foundation of one nation on which to build a nation-state. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are three distinct groups that see themselves as Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds before they see themselves as Iraqis. Creating one nation-state with these three groups requires a strong leader.
For a significant portion of the population, the authority of religious dogma far outweighs the authority of the uncertain processes of law or science. Such a population cannot be reasoned with for the simple fact that they've little respect for reason. Force is the one alternative for dealing with such a population.
You don't have to make a formal study of children to know that what is appropriate for a child of 16 won't work for a child of 6. And to be fair to the Iraqi legal system that found him guilty, no people should have to endure the rule of a tyrant, as Saddam clearly was. But the type of rule appropriate for a country at the stage of development of Iraq is going to look more like the rule of Saddam than the rule of, say, contemporary Dutch Parliament.
Afghanistan, freed of Taliban rule, is gravitating back towards Taliban rule. Why? The fundamental social dynamics that led to the rise of the Taliban have yet to be changed. Don't be surprised if the same country that yesterday executed Saddam doesn't soon raise up a leader much like Saddam. History shows us that it is much easier to change individual leaders than it is to change the social reality that allows them to rule. But then, George doesn't even acknowledge the differences in social dynamics of San Francisco and Midland, TX, so how could he be expected to acknowledge differences as vast as those between a quasi-theocracy and modern democracy?
29 December 2006
The Corporation is Today's Dominant Institution
Fortunately, you can't see air. If you could, it is unlikely that you could see anything else.
In a similar way, when a particular institution dominates a community, it is nearly invisible. In medieval times, that institution was the church; today, the dominant institution is the corporation. Its influence is so pervasive that we can’t even see it.
Think about the typical day of the average person.
The alarm goes off at 6:30. The programming is courtesy of a corporation - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The very thoughts that first enter her head aren’t daily prayers sanctioned by her church but are, instead, news items and commentary approved by employees of a corporation. The radio that conveys this programming is made by the Sony Corporation and was bought from a retail outlet the Best Buy Corporation. This person lifts herself off the bed, a bed made by the Select Comfort Corporation. The alarm goes off at 6:30 because the time it takes to commute in her car (made and sold by the Nissan Corporation) plus the time it takes to get ready (using products like toothpaste, shaving gel, hair gel, and deodorant provided by the Proctor & Gamble Corporation) equals the time that the corporate employer expects her to begin working. She has scarcely gained consciousness and already her day is defined by corporate norms, products, and expectations.
Even the context for the use of the products listed in the above paragraph is a product of corporations. The very notion of “body odor” is a product of corporate advertisers trying to create demand for deodorant early in the 20th century. The idea of time zones was not an idea of governments but of railroads that needed uniform time zones in order to create schedules. It is one thing to notice that we’re bombarded by about 3,000 advertisements a day. It is another to notice that the very expectation of wearing deodorant or chewing mints is created by corporations, much less the expectation that we’ll all synchronize our watches and alarm clocks.
Our clothes and transportation are defined by corporations. Our working hours and the number of years that we need to work are also defined by corporations. More than 90% of Americans are employees and their role as employees is either defined by a corporation or an institution that patterns itself after a corporation.
The level of pollution that we accept is defined by the needs of the corporation. Only when health needs of people and the planet are being too obviously ignored is that negotiated or changed. The extent to which children are allowed to be with their parents during the work day is defined by the corporation. Even our diet is defined by corporations and if the health consequences of this are harmful, then corporations are ready to offer prescription drugs that remedy the complications from the diet.
One of the real obstacles to transforming the medieval church was getting enough intellectual distance from it to see it, rather than simply see through the lens it provided. Our situation is little different today. Just take note of how pervasive is the corporation in defining your daily life. Once you do, you can begin to explore ways to define it rather than accept it defining you, taking to heart the warning that Emerson gave: "We have become the tools of our tools."
Why does this matter? It was impossible to change life, to make progress, coming out of medieval times without changing the church - and changing it fundamentally. Today, fundamental progress depends on changing the corporation, today's dominant institution.
In a similar way, when a particular institution dominates a community, it is nearly invisible. In medieval times, that institution was the church; today, the dominant institution is the corporation. Its influence is so pervasive that we can’t even see it.
Think about the typical day of the average person.
The alarm goes off at 6:30. The programming is courtesy of a corporation - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The very thoughts that first enter her head aren’t daily prayers sanctioned by her church but are, instead, news items and commentary approved by employees of a corporation. The radio that conveys this programming is made by the Sony Corporation and was bought from a retail outlet the Best Buy Corporation. This person lifts herself off the bed, a bed made by the Select Comfort Corporation. The alarm goes off at 6:30 because the time it takes to commute in her car (made and sold by the Nissan Corporation) plus the time it takes to get ready (using products like toothpaste, shaving gel, hair gel, and deodorant provided by the Proctor & Gamble Corporation) equals the time that the corporate employer expects her to begin working. She has scarcely gained consciousness and already her day is defined by corporate norms, products, and expectations.
Even the context for the use of the products listed in the above paragraph is a product of corporations. The very notion of “body odor” is a product of corporate advertisers trying to create demand for deodorant early in the 20th century. The idea of time zones was not an idea of governments but of railroads that needed uniform time zones in order to create schedules. It is one thing to notice that we’re bombarded by about 3,000 advertisements a day. It is another to notice that the very expectation of wearing deodorant or chewing mints is created by corporations, much less the expectation that we’ll all synchronize our watches and alarm clocks.
Our clothes and transportation are defined by corporations. Our working hours and the number of years that we need to work are also defined by corporations. More than 90% of Americans are employees and their role as employees is either defined by a corporation or an institution that patterns itself after a corporation.
The level of pollution that we accept is defined by the needs of the corporation. Only when health needs of people and the planet are being too obviously ignored is that negotiated or changed. The extent to which children are allowed to be with their parents during the work day is defined by the corporation. Even our diet is defined by corporations and if the health consequences of this are harmful, then corporations are ready to offer prescription drugs that remedy the complications from the diet.
One of the real obstacles to transforming the medieval church was getting enough intellectual distance from it to see it, rather than simply see through the lens it provided. Our situation is little different today. Just take note of how pervasive is the corporation in defining your daily life. Once you do, you can begin to explore ways to define it rather than accept it defining you, taking to heart the warning that Emerson gave: "We have become the tools of our tools."
Why does this matter? It was impossible to change life, to make progress, coming out of medieval times without changing the church - and changing it fundamentally. Today, fundamental progress depends on changing the corporation, today's dominant institution.
George: Hero or Villain?
"By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
WASHINGTON Dec 28, 2006 (AP)— Bad guy of 2006: President Bush. Good guy of 2006: President Bush. When people were asked in an AP-AOL News poll to name the villains and heroes of the year, Bush topped both lists, in a sign of these polarized times."
Somehow, this makes a great deal of sense. This is, after all, the USA, land of contradictions. We have more Olympic athletes and more obese people than any other country. We have more extremes of wealth and poverty than any other developed nation. We lead the world in the export of pornography and religion. We are the United Schizophrenics of America.
WASHINGTON Dec 28, 2006 (AP)— Bad guy of 2006: President Bush. Good guy of 2006: President Bush. When people were asked in an AP-AOL News poll to name the villains and heroes of the year, Bush topped both lists, in a sign of these polarized times."
Somehow, this makes a great deal of sense. This is, after all, the USA, land of contradictions. We have more Olympic athletes and more obese people than any other country. We have more extremes of wealth and poverty than any other developed nation. We lead the world in the export of pornography and religion. We are the United Schizophrenics of America.
Beyond the Church & State
Oddly, the argument about religion and politics continues. On the one hand are those worried about the drift from religious principles that ensure a certain level of morality. On the other hand are those worried about the intrusion of beliefs that can neither be proven nor disproved into our politics, the imposition of the religion of a few onto many. As long as some voters have religious beliefs, there will be a commingling of church and state. This seems inescapable. So what, really, did our founding fathers and their Enlightenment era peers bring us?
The transformation of religion in the West took place through two waves. The first wave was most simply illustrated when Henry VIII made himself the head of the Church of England and severed ties with Rome. The second wave was best articulated by John Locke about 200 years later, arguing that it made no sense for the state to force a particular kind of worship on its citizens. In the first wave, the church was subordinated to the state; in the second wave, religion was made a personal matter that could not be imposed onto the community.
This is worth mentioning because suddenly, in the last few years, this matter of religion and politics has reared its head again. It's as if a drunk at a dinner party has suddenly gained consciousness and forced the polite guests to repeat the conversation of the last hour. The neocons have revived this ludicrous notion that our laws should be based on religion; the neo-atheists have revived this amusingly unreasonable notion that our values and policy should be based only on reason. Personally, I find the revival of this argument tiresome. I find it tiresome because the church and state are so clearly no longer leading the parade of social development and norms that to spend an inordinate time worrying about which of the two deserves first place is like arguing about whether the Brooklyn Dodgers or Philadelphia Athletics are the better team.
A topic that is far more interesting is the question of why we are so endlessly fascinated by this topic of church and state. I suspect that it is because we have a wealth of arguments to draw from (to support either side) and prefer to parade our intellect in familiar garb rather than retire to the back room to sew new garments. More relevant than the separation of church and state is the separation of state and corporation, the role of the multinational corporation in modern communities, and the transformation of national identity as globalization accelerates.
The church and state argument is to intellectuals what the music of, say, Dylan and the Band is to folks born in the late 1950s and early 1960s: an argument that we can admire, that engages us, even as we are comforted by its predictability. Well, if New Year's resolutions are about nothing else they should be about stretching the comfort zone. Perhaps its time to shift our attention from church and state to question the role of the most powerful institution in our modern world: the corporation.
The transformation of religion in the West took place through two waves. The first wave was most simply illustrated when Henry VIII made himself the head of the Church of England and severed ties with Rome. The second wave was best articulated by John Locke about 200 years later, arguing that it made no sense for the state to force a particular kind of worship on its citizens. In the first wave, the church was subordinated to the state; in the second wave, religion was made a personal matter that could not be imposed onto the community.
This is worth mentioning because suddenly, in the last few years, this matter of religion and politics has reared its head again. It's as if a drunk at a dinner party has suddenly gained consciousness and forced the polite guests to repeat the conversation of the last hour. The neocons have revived this ludicrous notion that our laws should be based on religion; the neo-atheists have revived this amusingly unreasonable notion that our values and policy should be based only on reason. Personally, I find the revival of this argument tiresome. I find it tiresome because the church and state are so clearly no longer leading the parade of social development and norms that to spend an inordinate time worrying about which of the two deserves first place is like arguing about whether the Brooklyn Dodgers or Philadelphia Athletics are the better team.
A topic that is far more interesting is the question of why we are so endlessly fascinated by this topic of church and state. I suspect that it is because we have a wealth of arguments to draw from (to support either side) and prefer to parade our intellect in familiar garb rather than retire to the back room to sew new garments. More relevant than the separation of church and state is the separation of state and corporation, the role of the multinational corporation in modern communities, and the transformation of national identity as globalization accelerates.
The church and state argument is to intellectuals what the music of, say, Dylan and the Band is to folks born in the late 1950s and early 1960s: an argument that we can admire, that engages us, even as we are comforted by its predictability. Well, if New Year's resolutions are about nothing else they should be about stretching the comfort zone. Perhaps its time to shift our attention from church and state to question the role of the most powerful institution in our modern world: the corporation.
21 December 2006
When is a Blog Not a Blog?
When it's a blob.
Blog is a verb, an active, updated, and on-going monologue for others to hear.
Blob is a noun. It suggests something that just sits there - like a street sign or old book.
This next week, R World will be a blob. Tune in next week and witness it's return as a live broadcast, words streaming across your computer monitor like stock quotes across a ticker tape.
Have a very, merry Christmas. Do at least two things that seem unnecessarily kind: one for someone else and one for yourself.
Blog is a verb, an active, updated, and on-going monologue for others to hear.
Blob is a noun. It suggests something that just sits there - like a street sign or old book.
This next week, R World will be a blob. Tune in next week and witness it's return as a live broadcast, words streaming across your computer monitor like stock quotes across a ticker tape.
Have a very, merry Christmas. Do at least two things that seem unnecessarily kind: one for someone else and one for yourself.
20 December 2006
Cash Flow, a Career & a Calling
I think that an inordinate amount of grief is caused because of confusion between cash flow, a career, and a calling. All three represent very real needs and all three can be ignored - for awhile.
It still amazes me that our school system can keep children in class for 12 years and not bother to teach cash flow. It's my opinion that failure to understand this is the cause of a host of problems. A bill for property tax or car insurance or car repair suddenly comes at you, seemingly from nowhere, and that flush feeling you had just last month is suddenly and abruptly taken from you. You go from a feeling of financial relief to a feeling of dread. Why? You had no decent mechanism for seeing these things in advance. Cash flow is also key to building wealth. The person who resorts to financing a purchase with a credit card and subsequently pays it down at 18% over a period of, say, 3 years is going to have much less wealth accumulated than the person who waits 3 years to make that same purchase, accruing interest at, say, 8%. People who pretend that cash flow doesn't matter usually have a safety net of some kind and foist onto others their needs for money.
A career is different from cash flow. Probably the simplest example of the difference between the two is this: a 19 year-old who subordinates his career to cash flow will drop out of college in order to stay out of debt. His career will be set aside as he works a job in order to meet the demands of cash flow. He's being responsible, in a sense, and should be applauded for his good intentions. But he's being irrational, sacrificing a career path that could make his pressing cash flow problems fairly insignificant in about five to ten years. Ideally, a career represents the intersection between three things: what he's good at, what he does well, and what there is demand for - what someone would pay for. It does little good to ignore any one of these three because to do so is unstable - it's like sitting on a two-legged stool. Properly done, a career addresses the demands of cash flow. That is, the very real demands of cash flow will be met when career needs are properly addressed. Initially, however, the demands of a career conflict with the demands of cash flow.
Finally, we come to a calling. This is not merely a ringing in the ears. This is to career what career is to cash flow. What distinguishes it from a career is that it may well represent something that you don't do well and something for which there may be little obvious demand but it is something that seems inescapably fascinating, unavoidably alluring. Buckminster Fuller said that your purpose is to do what obviously (to you) needs to be done that no one else is doing. You may not be great at this, but this is what you need to do. Just as the need for cash flow seems to conflict with the needs of a career, so does the need for a career seem to conflict with the needs of a calling. Perhaps the way this most obviously shows up is when people take assignments or jobs within their career that preclude them putting their creative energies into anything other than work. The good news is that they make a little more than others; the bad news is that they never get time to reflect or define something bigger, something that feeds the soul. In Po Bronson's book What Should I Do With My Life, he quotes Sidney Ross who says, “The moral is to not set yourself goals which don’t leave you any freedom to maneuver.” Just as a college kid accumulating debt may seem to be sacrificing too much to his working class friends, so might a career guy passing on promotional opportunities seem to be sacrificing too much to his peers who think that a calling is just for professional actors or singers.
I'm of the opinion that you should only marry a person if you can't live without them. A calling seems to me similiar. If you can't pull yourself away from this thing, you need to do what you can to feed it, explore it, and somehow work it into your life. The important thing to remember is that even though each of these - cash flow, career, and calling - needs to be met, you want to subordinate them in the proper order. Don't be afraid to sacrifice the demands of cash flow for your career and don't be afraid to sacrifice the demands of your career for your calling.
The bad news is that this takes a long time to all work out. The great news is that you have your entire life in which to do so. And really, what else were you going to do with your life?
It still amazes me that our school system can keep children in class for 12 years and not bother to teach cash flow. It's my opinion that failure to understand this is the cause of a host of problems. A bill for property tax or car insurance or car repair suddenly comes at you, seemingly from nowhere, and that flush feeling you had just last month is suddenly and abruptly taken from you. You go from a feeling of financial relief to a feeling of dread. Why? You had no decent mechanism for seeing these things in advance. Cash flow is also key to building wealth. The person who resorts to financing a purchase with a credit card and subsequently pays it down at 18% over a period of, say, 3 years is going to have much less wealth accumulated than the person who waits 3 years to make that same purchase, accruing interest at, say, 8%. People who pretend that cash flow doesn't matter usually have a safety net of some kind and foist onto others their needs for money.
A career is different from cash flow. Probably the simplest example of the difference between the two is this: a 19 year-old who subordinates his career to cash flow will drop out of college in order to stay out of debt. His career will be set aside as he works a job in order to meet the demands of cash flow. He's being responsible, in a sense, and should be applauded for his good intentions. But he's being irrational, sacrificing a career path that could make his pressing cash flow problems fairly insignificant in about five to ten years. Ideally, a career represents the intersection between three things: what he's good at, what he does well, and what there is demand for - what someone would pay for. It does little good to ignore any one of these three because to do so is unstable - it's like sitting on a two-legged stool. Properly done, a career addresses the demands of cash flow. That is, the very real demands of cash flow will be met when career needs are properly addressed. Initially, however, the demands of a career conflict with the demands of cash flow.
Finally, we come to a calling. This is not merely a ringing in the ears. This is to career what career is to cash flow. What distinguishes it from a career is that it may well represent something that you don't do well and something for which there may be little obvious demand but it is something that seems inescapably fascinating, unavoidably alluring. Buckminster Fuller said that your purpose is to do what obviously (to you) needs to be done that no one else is doing. You may not be great at this, but this is what you need to do. Just as the need for cash flow seems to conflict with the needs of a career, so does the need for a career seem to conflict with the needs of a calling. Perhaps the way this most obviously shows up is when people take assignments or jobs within their career that preclude them putting their creative energies into anything other than work. The good news is that they make a little more than others; the bad news is that they never get time to reflect or define something bigger, something that feeds the soul. In Po Bronson's book What Should I Do With My Life, he quotes Sidney Ross who says, “The moral is to not set yourself goals which don’t leave you any freedom to maneuver.” Just as a college kid accumulating debt may seem to be sacrificing too much to his working class friends, so might a career guy passing on promotional opportunities seem to be sacrificing too much to his peers who think that a calling is just for professional actors or singers.
I'm of the opinion that you should only marry a person if you can't live without them. A calling seems to me similiar. If you can't pull yourself away from this thing, you need to do what you can to feed it, explore it, and somehow work it into your life. The important thing to remember is that even though each of these - cash flow, career, and calling - needs to be met, you want to subordinate them in the proper order. Don't be afraid to sacrifice the demands of cash flow for your career and don't be afraid to sacrifice the demands of your career for your calling.
The bad news is that this takes a long time to all work out. The great news is that you have your entire life in which to do so. And really, what else were you going to do with your life?
19 December 2006
Quick, Laura, Grab My Drugs! We're Invading Iran!
Pentagon officials have announced that they're building up forces for an invasion of Iran. This after the November election indicated that this nation has largely lost its confidence in the Bush administration's ability to start and conduct wars.
Baffles the mind, doesn't it? We require drug testing for grownups playing children's games like baseball and football but don't require psychiatric and drug testing for people who make policy? George has got to be doing cocaine again; his administration has been characterized by unmoored optimism interrupted by random bouts of paranoia. Unbelievable.
Baffles the mind, doesn't it? We require drug testing for grownups playing children's games like baseball and football but don't require psychiatric and drug testing for people who make policy? George has got to be doing cocaine again; his administration has been characterized by unmoored optimism interrupted by random bouts of paranoia. Unbelievable.
18 December 2006
Love Politics - Hate Policy
The media was obsessed with the question of whether the Democrats would be able to gain influence in DC. WAS. Now that the election is over, even before these newly elected representatives and senators are sworn in, the topic has shifted to the 2008 presidential election. Could Hillary beat McCain? Will Obama run? What is getting completely skipped is any discussion about actual policy changes that will result from the 2006 election.
Apparently the mainstream media and its audience have no interest in policy. Instead, like high school kids who watch study body elections for signs of popularity, they care only about politics. For them, the discussion of candidates is little different than the discussion of celebrities. "Barak Obama has so much charisma." "Paris Hilton is so hot."
Now if only the media would put as much effort and imagination into making policy as engaging to the common voter as they put into getting interviews with Obama or pictures of Britney Spears, we might finally get the media we pay for.
Apparently the mainstream media and its audience have no interest in policy. Instead, like high school kids who watch study body elections for signs of popularity, they care only about politics. For them, the discussion of candidates is little different than the discussion of celebrities. "Barak Obama has so much charisma." "Paris Hilton is so hot."
Now if only the media would put as much effort and imagination into making policy as engaging to the common voter as they put into getting interviews with Obama or pictures of Britney Spears, we might finally get the media we pay for.
Best Investment for 2007
The business and personal finance magazines are offering their usual advice about the best places to invest for 2007. I’d like to suggest that you look no further than you.
Imagine two 25 year-old people making $30,000 a year. One person invests $1,000 a year into seminars, books, tapes, classes, and activities that improves her productivity by 15% a year, half of which goes into her paycheck. Another spends his on season tickets, and his productivity grows by only 10% a year (more experience means greater productivity, whether or not the person gets further education), half of which goes into his paycheck. In other words, one is getting raises of about 7.5% a year and the other is getting raises of about 5% a year.
10 years into the career, she is making just over $60,000 a year and he is making just under $50,000. A significant, if not huge, difference. By the time they are 45, she is making about $125,000 a year and he is making nearly $80,000. By 55, she makes about a quarter of a million a year and he makes about half that. By 65, she is making about $500,000 a year and he is making about $200,000 a year – a really big deal.
But here is the most amazing thing. During this 40 year career, she makes $3.5 million more than he does. This little difference of 2.5% on an initial salary of $30,000 a year can make that big of a difference. What mutual fund or real estate investment offers that kind of investment return?
So, where best to invest in 2007? Perhaps you should look no further than you.
Imagine two 25 year-old people making $30,000 a year. One person invests $1,000 a year into seminars, books, tapes, classes, and activities that improves her productivity by 15% a year, half of which goes into her paycheck. Another spends his on season tickets, and his productivity grows by only 10% a year (more experience means greater productivity, whether or not the person gets further education), half of which goes into his paycheck. In other words, one is getting raises of about 7.5% a year and the other is getting raises of about 5% a year.
10 years into the career, she is making just over $60,000 a year and he is making just under $50,000. A significant, if not huge, difference. By the time they are 45, she is making about $125,000 a year and he is making nearly $80,000. By 55, she makes about a quarter of a million a year and he makes about half that. By 65, she is making about $500,000 a year and he is making about $200,000 a year – a really big deal.
But here is the most amazing thing. During this 40 year career, she makes $3.5 million more than he does. This little difference of 2.5% on an initial salary of $30,000 a year can make that big of a difference. What mutual fund or real estate investment offers that kind of investment return?
So, where best to invest in 2007? Perhaps you should look no further than you.
17 December 2006
The Difference Between Crime & Politics
In politics, you change the laws as pleases you; with crime, you ignore the laws as pleases you.
16 December 2006
Blogging, Video Games, the Progression of Art & the Future of Politics
I saw a recent report that suggested that blogging has peaked. I'd like to suggest that the full influence of blogging has yet to be felt.
Renaissance art changed how people thought about reality. The art went from iconic to realistic, from celebrating divinity that merely happened to take a human form to celebrating the human form. The Renaissance, with its emphasis on secular issues and response to market forces, represented a shift from heaven to earth. How people perceive the world through their art makes a huge difference in their expectations about how the world ought to be.
In the last generation, video games have become a huge market. It is not just true that the video game industry has become bigger than movie videos, but I would strongly suspect that time spent with any one video game is a multiple of the time spent with any one video; gamers play for hours and movie fans watch for about 100 minutes. Hence, the time spent on video games is even greater than the money spent on video games. These games have changed the consciousness of a generation of youth.
What makes video games unique in the progression of dominant art forms?
Through the history of the West, the dominant art has arguably progressed from the painting and sculptures of the Renaissance (think DaVinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli) the classical music of the Enlightenment (think Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach), and the novels of the age of capitalism (think Dickens, Faulkner, and Twain) and, most recently, movies. In each of these past forms, the spectator is expected to admire. You are expected to gaze in awe at Michelangelo's David, to listen enraptured to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or become engrossed in Faulkner's Sound & the Fury or sit in admiration of Benigni's film, Life is Beautiful. By contrast, I am expected to become a participant in the video games Civilization or Halo. Video games, although not yet the dominant art form, are different from any other “art” form in the history of the West.
Blogging is to news and commentary what video games are to entertainment; blogs thrust the spectator into the role (however briefly and for however small of an audience) of performer. Blogs blur the boundary between spectator and participant.
Has blogging peaked? I doubt it. Rather, I suspect that the real influence of blogging has only begun to be felt. Just as the orchestration and precision of classical music symphony presaged the factories of the industrial age and Renaissance art shifted focus to the here and now, video games and blogging have changed the definition of spectator and will change what it means to be consumers or voters. The generation that grows up blogging and playing video games is going to scoff at being excluded from participation in formulating policy or having to choose options that have been defined by others. Rather, the politics of this generation will be a politics of participation.
The successful politicians and parties won't pretend to offer a tightly plotted narrative like a filmmaker; rather, they will offer a context and platform for participation, like the designer of a video game. The successful policy makers won’t be those who craft the most admirable policy; they’ll be the policy-makers who are best able to create mechanisms for policy formulation that engage the average citizen.
Whoever first makes this shift will win over a new generation of voters. Has blogging peaked? No. Rather, the medium of blogging has only just begun to change our expectations of politics, policy, and community. As with all technology, the really interesting stage of adoption occurs when new technological inventions trigger new social inventions. This is the dance of social evolution and the popularity of blogging is just the first step in that dance. Get ready. Soon the floor will begin shaking.
Renaissance art changed how people thought about reality. The art went from iconic to realistic, from celebrating divinity that merely happened to take a human form to celebrating the human form. The Renaissance, with its emphasis on secular issues and response to market forces, represented a shift from heaven to earth. How people perceive the world through their art makes a huge difference in their expectations about how the world ought to be.
In the last generation, video games have become a huge market. It is not just true that the video game industry has become bigger than movie videos, but I would strongly suspect that time spent with any one video game is a multiple of the time spent with any one video; gamers play for hours and movie fans watch for about 100 minutes. Hence, the time spent on video games is even greater than the money spent on video games. These games have changed the consciousness of a generation of youth.
What makes video games unique in the progression of dominant art forms?
Through the history of the West, the dominant art has arguably progressed from the painting and sculptures of the Renaissance (think DaVinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli) the classical music of the Enlightenment (think Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach), and the novels of the age of capitalism (think Dickens, Faulkner, and Twain) and, most recently, movies. In each of these past forms, the spectator is expected to admire. You are expected to gaze in awe at Michelangelo's David, to listen enraptured to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or become engrossed in Faulkner's Sound & the Fury or sit in admiration of Benigni's film, Life is Beautiful. By contrast, I am expected to become a participant in the video games Civilization or Halo. Video games, although not yet the dominant art form, are different from any other “art” form in the history of the West.
Blogging is to news and commentary what video games are to entertainment; blogs thrust the spectator into the role (however briefly and for however small of an audience) of performer. Blogs blur the boundary between spectator and participant.
Has blogging peaked? I doubt it. Rather, I suspect that the real influence of blogging has only begun to be felt. Just as the orchestration and precision of classical music symphony presaged the factories of the industrial age and Renaissance art shifted focus to the here and now, video games and blogging have changed the definition of spectator and will change what it means to be consumers or voters. The generation that grows up blogging and playing video games is going to scoff at being excluded from participation in formulating policy or having to choose options that have been defined by others. Rather, the politics of this generation will be a politics of participation.
The successful politicians and parties won't pretend to offer a tightly plotted narrative like a filmmaker; rather, they will offer a context and platform for participation, like the designer of a video game. The successful policy makers won’t be those who craft the most admirable policy; they’ll be the policy-makers who are best able to create mechanisms for policy formulation that engage the average citizen.
Whoever first makes this shift will win over a new generation of voters. Has blogging peaked? No. Rather, the medium of blogging has only just begun to change our expectations of politics, policy, and community. As with all technology, the really interesting stage of adoption occurs when new technological inventions trigger new social inventions. This is the dance of social evolution and the popularity of blogging is just the first step in that dance. Get ready. Soon the floor will begin shaking.
The Lost Leaders of Viagra
Years ago I remember reading what one historian felt was a contributing factor to the cause of WWII - the fact that so many could-be leaders of that period had been killed in WWI. It's an odd source of speculation, this, wondering what derailed the would-be leaders of a generation.
Perhaps historians of the future will blame Viagra for our lack of leadership. Historically, men have eventually seen the influence of their libido wane, enabling them to think about grander things than mating. Napoleon Hill claims that the really remarkable men did not begin to do remarkable things until they were past 40 and their libido had diminished to the point that it, no longer acting like an excited dog yelping every 3 minutes, actually allowed these same men to divert their drive into something productive. And perhaps this was the way of the world - young men engaged in exploits designed to impress a mate and old men engaged in tasks designed to make the world better for their grandchildren.
Which brings us to today. Thanks to advances in medical science, men no longer have to divert their attention from the yapping dogs of libido. In fact, they can agitate that dog on command. The result? While problems as pressing as those faced by any generation loom before us, we lack the leadership that could formulate and execute a coherent response.
Where are our leaders? Not killed in a past war but, rather, made AWOL because they've perpetuated the distractions of youth.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Perhaps historians of the future will blame Viagra for our lack of leadership. Historically, men have eventually seen the influence of their libido wane, enabling them to think about grander things than mating. Napoleon Hill claims that the really remarkable men did not begin to do remarkable things until they were past 40 and their libido had diminished to the point that it, no longer acting like an excited dog yelping every 3 minutes, actually allowed these same men to divert their drive into something productive. And perhaps this was the way of the world - young men engaged in exploits designed to impress a mate and old men engaged in tasks designed to make the world better for their grandchildren.
Which brings us to today. Thanks to advances in medical science, men no longer have to divert their attention from the yapping dogs of libido. In fact, they can agitate that dog on command. The result? While problems as pressing as those faced by any generation loom before us, we lack the leadership that could formulate and execute a coherent response.
Where are our leaders? Not killed in a past war but, rather, made AWOL because they've perpetuated the distractions of youth.
Of course, I could be wrong.
15 December 2006
Bring me Data on the Future
"History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes."
- Mark Twain
Policy that makes perfect sense in the context of the past doesn't always make sense in the context of an ideal future.
People who frame policy decisions out of past events are largely defined by them.
If you want to see starkly different policies described, try this. Have one person or one group talk about the past and what has happened so far. (This could be a personal past, a past for their company or for their nation.) Once you see that they are firmly in that place, have them describe policy, strategy, tactical options. What you will hear will be variations on their past and will be as likely to describe desire to right wrongs as create an ideal.
If you want people to create fresh policy options, get them to tell you about the future. Have them describe an ideal that they could begin making real right now. Don't even let them engage in reminiscing. In that place, in that ideal future, have them describe who they are and what kind of thoughts and feelings they have. Then have them work backwards towards what policies, what choices, what strategies and tactics they've pursued to get there, starting from the present.
In the first instance, people drag the past into the future with them. In the second instance, they drag themselves into the future. In the first, they are busily mending past wrongs. In the second, they are creating future rights.
It's worth remembering that we have no data on the future - unless we chose to define it by our past. I recently made mention of changing the national dialogue. Part of that would be getting people to talk about possible futures and work backwards from that. Maybe it's time to start remembering the future.
- Mark Twain
Policy that makes perfect sense in the context of the past doesn't always make sense in the context of an ideal future.
People who frame policy decisions out of past events are largely defined by them.
If you want to see starkly different policies described, try this. Have one person or one group talk about the past and what has happened so far. (This could be a personal past, a past for their company or for their nation.) Once you see that they are firmly in that place, have them describe policy, strategy, tactical options. What you will hear will be variations on their past and will be as likely to describe desire to right wrongs as create an ideal.
If you want people to create fresh policy options, get them to tell you about the future. Have them describe an ideal that they could begin making real right now. Don't even let them engage in reminiscing. In that place, in that ideal future, have them describe who they are and what kind of thoughts and feelings they have. Then have them work backwards towards what policies, what choices, what strategies and tactics they've pursued to get there, starting from the present.
In the first instance, people drag the past into the future with them. In the second instance, they drag themselves into the future. In the first, they are busily mending past wrongs. In the second, they are creating future rights.
It's worth remembering that we have no data on the future - unless we chose to define it by our past. I recently made mention of changing the national dialogue. Part of that would be getting people to talk about possible futures and work backwards from that. Maybe it's time to start remembering the future.
Report on Senator Tim Johnson's Condition
CHULA VISTA (RD) — Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson is recovering from emergency brain surgery.
The family is optimistic about the positive signs of his physical recovery. There are lingering concerns though, that if this has diminished his cognitive functioning Johnson may begin voting with Senate Republicans.
The family is optimistic about the positive signs of his physical recovery. There are lingering concerns though, that if this has diminished his cognitive functioning Johnson may begin voting with Senate Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)