Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Trying as hard as we can for positive change

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday June 29th, 2009

Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong."

While driving this week I saw a car with two bumper stickers; one in French and one English, which said: "I do not trust Shawn Graham."

Instantly I thought of the flurry of activity around the switching of the cabinet and how huge the sigh of relief was that Kelly Lamrock was no longer in charge of the education portfolio.

I have always been involved in organizations that are trying to make a difference. In university it was Greenpeace and Amnesty International, later I worked for Peace Brigades, and on it went. In almost every case the return on investment has been dismally small.

What I mean to say is that no matter how hard you work for change, what you actually see change is slow, minimal, and long term. I liken it to changing the direction of a 100 car freight train by hanging off the back and leaning. It will make a difference, you just might not notice it as the train is going.

Politicians must necessarily be self-assured people.

To believe that they personally can make a difference and be the voice of thousands of people, some level of humility has to be left at the door. At the same time, it is a job that one could not possibly do for more than a year unless you believed in it.

Now, imagine for a moment that you invest all of your energy into something, that you sacrifice higher paying jobs, that you leave your family home alone most nights of the week, say, to try and make the educational system better.

Now, imagine that the response to this is almost entirely criticism and hatred.

I maintain that individual ministers, individual governments, individual countries, work within political systems that are very hard to change.

Almost universally when someone tries to colour outside the lines, by changing the health care system concretely like Obama, by revamping the educational system like Lamrock, people turn on you.

Don't get me wrong. I am literally quaking in my boots that my daughter has to go to school in two years. I wonder how to get her educated and not destroy her innate intelligence. I am pretty sure our educational system is off the rails.

But, back to the bumper sticker, "I do not trust, Shawn Graham, Kelly Lamrock, Stephen Harper," whoever you wish to place in that category; and why it is wrong.

Trust is a judgment on the personal morality of the individual. When we say it in regard to politics, it is a judgment on the morality of the motivation for the political action.

In almost every single case I can think of, I trust that the politician was doing what they believed to be the best policy for the most people.

This does not mean they were right. Sometimes they are blind to certain aspects of a decision, sometimes too many advisors stir up too much dust and cloud the issue, sometimes they rely on trusted officials who have separate beliefs.

Just think about this; when Bush signed an order to invade Iraq he trusted there were weapons of mass destruction; and thought it was the best and safest reaction.

The intelligence community thought that Iraq was causing problems and either believed there were weapons, or thought there could be some day and the right thing to do was attack.

Whether most of the reasons behind the attacks were fabricated or not, there is no reason to make a moral judgment against the people at the top levels of government for doing what they truly and wholeheartedly believed would save the most lives.

Turns out that their decisions were wrong; a lot of mine are too. That does not mean I cannot be trusted.

To base the entire personal worth of a politician on the outcome of decisions that they make, perhaps that they are forced into by circumstances, is wrong.

Of course, it happens every day. Too often we judge the worth of people on the wrong criteria. Look at the United States and their almost constant sex scandals. It would seem that every politician down there has an affair at one point in their lives. Almost instantly they are deemed morally unfit to be in office.

Are they really?

Does anyone making these judgments compare them to the achievements done while in office? Does anyone doubt that the stress and personal attacks, and family sacrifice lead one to have to make tough personal choices?

I am not saying that everyone who offers themselves for public office should have carte blanche on morality.

I am, however, suggesting that they might not need it if we could just learn to separate the person and what they are truly hoping for from the decisions that they have to make.

Despite what we would hope, in the last few decades there have really been very few changes to anything on the political front, and most of the changes that have been made have been for the better.

We fight the wrong battles. We make issues like taxation a defining characterization of individual politicians.

Anyone who wants to raise the GST is greedy, right?

Most of us could not hope to do any better at rationing money to shifting priorities, or maybe we could. . . if so, do we have the courage to run?

Someday my children will be old enough to not need as much of my time, and I will try on different hats to continue my quest to make the world a better place.

I know that I will be attacked for doing so; it is part of the price of admission.

Perhaps we all need to learn to be a little gentler and stop assuming the worst motivations.

Most of the people we ever meet are trying as hard as they can, politicians included.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Instant global communications constitute a revolution

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday June 22nd, 2009

If you are not a cartoon character and you call yourself "Supreme Leader" you are already headed for trouble.

That is just one of the many comments about the Iran election protests which can be overheard right now on Twitter.

The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, The Business Review and the Globe and Mail, and the Times & Transcript have all had news articles in the last few days talking about the "revolution that is happening online."

By that, they do not mean that online things are revolutionary, they mean there is an actual revolution; and it can be seen through social networking.

The quick recap behind all this is that Iran has a governmental system that is different than ours, with a Supreme Leader who elects a 12-cleric Guardian Council, who oversees the Parliament. On June 12 the current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was re-elected with 66 per cent of the vote.

Almost immediately the opposition, headed by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, alleged that there had been vote tampering and that the election was not legal.

There have been almost constant rallies in Tehran since then, pro- and anti- the current government, and with it has come a lot of violence.

I might be getting a little cynical this week, but can you imagine this happening here?

I mean, no one expected Harper to win the last election, and yet. . .

Perhaps I have trouble imagining tens of thousands of us taking to the streets in protest. After all, only about 64 per cent of us even bother to vote; and out of that, there isn't even a clear majority.

What we have in Canada is more like a disagreement about which sibling should make the decisions this month; not a real politically active conflict.

Provincial and municipal elections are even worse. Few people vote in these and yet they affect us more.

We live in one of those few places where our personal opinion matters without the necessity of bloodshed and rebellion and yet we throw it away as if it did not matter.

Iran, on the other hand, is a place where voicing an opinion can get you killed.

Imagine what it would take to stand up and be counted in a world where doing so might mean instant and painful death.

Enter Web 2.0.

There has not been such protest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution; and the protest has almost become a global movement, fought on and fuelled by the world wide web.

And it all started on Twitter.

Remember, last week I said that Twitter could change the world; well, it has proved to be an extremely effective way for activists to post rapid-fire updates on the situation on the ground in Iran.

Iranian Twitterers, many writing in English, posted photos of huge demonstrations and bloodied protesters throughout the weekend, detailing crackdowns on students at Tehran University and giving out proxy web addresses that let users bypass the Islamic Republic's censors.

By Monday evening, it had become such a movement that Twitter postponed maintenance scheduled for the wee hours of the morning, California time -- midday Tuesday in Iran.

The maintenance was rescheduled to be between 2-3 p.m. in California which happens to be 1:30 a.m. in Iran.

A couple of Twitter feeds have become virtual media offices for the supporters of Moussavi. One feed, mousavi1388 (1388 is the year in the Persian calendar), is filled with news of protests and exhortations to keep up the fight, in Persian and in English. It has more than 15,000 followers.

Mr. Moussavi's fan group on Facebook has swelled to well over 50,000 members, a significant increase since Election Day.

Now, in support of Iran, many of the users of Twitter, Facebook, and other networking sites have changed their icons to dark green, the colour of support for the people if Iran.

Here are two things that I see coming out of this; first of all, I knew nothing, or next to nothing, about the politics of Iran three days ago. I am someone who follows news, I knew who the president was, I knew that the U.S. seems to have a bad opinion of him, but after that, nothing.

Now I know so much more because of links provided by people both inside and outside of the country.

Not only that, but I know, albeit virtually, some Iranians; and I have to admit that they are not a unified, anti-world bunch of terrorists like they have been painted to be.

Secondly, I see a united front towards human rights. There are lawyers, artists, writers, actors, doctors, surveyors and everyone else, who have shown their support for these people and their freedom. They are from every country that I can imagine, and they all are trying, in their own small way, to make a difference.

Sure, it is token support, but it is also forming a community of people who care enough to get involved, perhaps in small ways, but it is a step in the right direction.

What you surely have here is international leverage that did not exist before. The American State Department even got involved asking Twitter not to shut down for maintenance.

The thing is, the way we communicate is getting even faster, and even more complex. At the same time, the power of communication is getting even simpler to understand.

The thing is, we have to start caring more and more about the information we receive. Other people are willing to die for what they believe, and that message in itself can be a powerful motivator to help us stand up and be counted.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Why are some things legal and others not?

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday June 15th, 2009

Why are some things legal and others not?

Alcohol is legal, even promoted, while marijuana is illegal, for example. Alcohol does go back in recorded history a little longer. Apparently beer first came on the scene during the Neolithic period around 10,000 BC. Wine is first seen in Egypt around 4000 BC.

At the same time, Marijuana was first used "medicinally" in 4000 BC in China. Zorastrian and Hindu religious practices dating from 3,000 years ago liberally use marijuana; and the first European use seems to have been around 500 BC when the Scythians brought it north.

As recreational drugs they are probably about on a par, and they would probably cause an equal amount of strain on the health system as both destroy the body in some way.

So why is one legal and one illegal?

How about prostitution?

This has always seemed rather stilted to me. Think about what I am allowed by law to sell in terms of my own body. I can be a labourer and use my strength to make a profit. I can use my mind and fingers to type this column. I can volunteer for psychological and medical testing. I can cook for someone, or even become a taster. I can sell my sperm, or my eggs, or become a surrogate mother; I can even choose to leave my organs behind after I die. Heck I can get paid for taking off my clothes, but if I want to use any sexual skill I might possess it is illegal?

The point I am trying to make is that a lot of laws are as much cultural as they are legal. North Americans have a real problem on the whole with sex and so most of our swear words are sexual, and most of the "worst behaviour" we can imagine revolves around sex.

Europe, by contrast, has different hang-ups and so sexuality is not seen us such a terrible thing. Prostitution is legal or just ignored in a lot of places.

If you don't think that laws are influenced by culture, just look at slavery during the 1800s. It was totally legal almost everywhere. Not only legal, but the vast majority of people could not even fathom a world without slaves. It was only when culture began to change, first in England and then in North America, that slavery went out of fashion and then became illegal.

Although I very much believe that we would eliminate many of society's problems by legalizing prostitution and marijuana; for example, unnecessary court and prison time; secondly it would reduce violence; third it would give prostitutes legal rights they do not have right now: the main point of using them as an example was simply to say that our cultural norms decide what is legal and what is not when it comes to things that are based on "moral" understandings.

Not only that, but what is written down as a law and the importance we give to that law is based on our feelings more than on any quantifiable test.

For example, speeding in a subdivision when children are playing is really, really wrong. Speeding on a four lane highway, is really not so bad.

I bet any one of us could come up with other laws, or variations of laws that we feel really aren't "bad" to break.

And so we do not condemn people with outraged voices when they break laws we think are silly anyway.

There were a slew of philosophers in the Enlightenment who took this on as a hobby. What they eventually got to was that there must exist certain axial laws or understandings that are primal. There must be laws which just have to be true. Some believed there were, and some argued that it all comes down to practicality. For example, it is easier to stay alive if you do not kill other people. Once you start killing, someone is going to come after you, so it is a practical decision not to kill.

In the end, rules are a socially agreed to contract that are based on the idea that we have to keep our group moving together with as little friction as possible. We all somehow agree to certain rules in order to make it work better. Do not steal helps us to keep a handle on ownership. Do not kill helps us to guarantee our old age. Do not walk on the grass makes landscaping easier. Keep your dog tied up means less dog bites or destroyed gardens.

The question is, do we blindly follow the laws of the past, or do we consciously rewrite them to fit our current societal norms?

This is no abstract question. We are in a period of great change and uncertainty. For the most part people seem to be trying to fix the world's current problems by re-invigorating the rules and laws already in place. No one seems to be stepping outside and taking a broader view and asking, if it brought us to this place of war, environmental destruction, and economic ruin; might there not be a better way to live?

I hope someone starts coming up with the answers. Perhaps if we all work together we can bring about a cultural shift in the way we see the world and everything will be all right.

Euripides, a Greek playwright in the 400s BC wrote something we need to adopt as our slogan: --Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing."

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Social media, shoes and targeting people

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday June 8th, 2009

I know; social media again. I bring it up a lot and I am truly sorry. I will move on soon. Unfortunately I have it in my head that Twitter is changing the universe.

The reason that Twitter and, in a lot of ways, Facebook are changing the way we live our lives is targeted information.

I came to this realization while being a captive audience at a conference in Toronto. I am here with writers, editors, advertising and design folks who all contribute to the world of magazines. Now, around every corner and outside every room there are booths set up where some big league players in terms of corporations are selling their wares.

Markets Initiative will help you learn to go green. Quebecor can provide environmentally friendly and really excellent quality paper for your mass distribution needs.

The News Group can mass market your magazines. BPA Worldwide can audit your entire corporate structure from a media point of view and help you achieve maximum efficiency. Ryerson University will offer you continuing education. Texterity will help you publish digitally.

Transcontinental Paper, Rogers Communications, IBM Global Software, you get the picture.

The point is, this is stuff people in the magazine industry really care about -- and here it is gathered together under one roof, not as a trade show, but because they know the people who buy their products are going to be walking the halls.

It really got me thinking about how most of us do not use targeted information and marketing the way we should.

The only people that do it better are social media organizations. Google ads change their content based on what web searches you do, Facebook targets ads based on locale and group status, Twitter is based entirely on the idea of transmitting targeted information to specific groups of people.

And yet, we fail miserably at this ourselves.

I blame political correctness and lack of risk taking.

In order to truly target a market you need to do a lot of homework, that is a given. Research what it is people want, research the demographics in the area, research the viability of products and lifespan of purchase decisions . . . but then, ultimately, you have to take a risk.

Every company here has gambled on two unexpected things: quality and the environment.

Given that we are in an economic recession, and given that digital media is outpacing print media; the idea that people will want to pay more for environmentally friendly products, and buy "the best" for their employees is frankly a risky gamble. Mind you, by setting up booths in the same place where the awards for best magazine of the year are happening, you sort of win by association. It is hard not to make the assumption that The Beaver, having won an award, uses Quebecor ink. After all, it is right there outside the door, and they say it is the best too.

What I am trying to say is that taking the risk will probably pay off for that company because of association.

Now, aside from helping you to see the many ways that advertising and marketing approaches create false reality which makes the consumer make assumptions; I am trying to make a point about the average Jane and Joe; that point being, we could make our way through the world much more easily by adopting some risk taking targeted approaches.

We need to make assumptions and target our approach to the person we are interacting with. If someone looks tired, sad, lonely, happy, or bored, how you approach them will make all the difference. We really need to stop assuming that everyone is equal and not waste our time on approaches that will not work.

This is a lesson for local business owners, for government officials, for churches, and for each and every one of us who goes out into the world today trying to accomplish something.

If you are passionate about animal rights, for example, how you talk to a hunter has to be different than how you talk to a vegetarian. I am not arguing against authenticity, simply arguing for recognizing diversity in the way our world functions and people think. You need to be able to target your approach no matter whether you are meeting in a bar, a grocery store line-up, or at the bus stop.

So I am going to go out on a limb and suggest a way that a group of us writers determined to quickly judge target audiences in any group: Shoes. Specifically, compare shoes with clothing and situation and you can make an almost completely accurate prediction of the person.

I know I will get in trouble for saying something that sounds so banal and simple; but try it out yourself and you will see.

A group of us did it at a reception at the conference. For example, I was wearing a blue oxford shirt, khaki pants, and black Doc Martins. My colleague, who I had never previously met, made this assumption: "You are sort of confused about identity, wishing you were more rebellious than you are, but because they are real Doc Martins, you are authentic about it."

Now, anyone who knows me at all will totally agree with this summary and wonder why we pay psychoanalysts $100 per hour. Her turn, she was wearing toe thong sandals, jeans, a purple satin shirt, faux amethyst necklace and was drinking a vodka and tonic. My guess: "free spirited non-conformist who is extremely creative and wants to be noticed." Again, this pretty much coincided with what her friends would have said.

Seriously, try it out. But even if you find my approach a little too weird, remember, choose how you interact carefully, targeting what you say and do. It can make all the difference.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Getting out of the silos to change the world

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday June 1st, 2009

We live in a world of silos.

Of course, when I say that word two things probably come to mind: first, grain silos on farms; and second, missile silos.

I am talking about neither of those even if they do evoke the imagery I mean to get across. We live in a world where we inhabit long dark concrete tubes.

Metaphorically, that is.

I am sure all of us want to believe that we are horizontal, that our relationships are equal, open and honest. In truth we have barriers that keep us locked in, or keep others locked in to their own group. Any time you can assign a label you are creating a silo. I am white, I am male, I am hyper-educated, I am a New Brunswicker, I live in Moncton, I am middle class, I am 40, I am generation X, I am a writer, I am a Christian, and the list could go on and on.

There is no problem with self identifying. In fact, we need to know something about who we are to be self aware. The problem comes because we tend to not bother to try and understand others once we categorize them.

Because I am a male I think like a guy, I feel like a guy, and only people who do that are right. Everyone should think like that, shouldn't they?

Would not the world be a better place if everyone just acted like those of us who live in Moncton?

You could even use the dreaded word: those. Those people don't understand. Women don't understand. Conservatives don't understand. Poor people don't understand. Uneducated people don't understand. You get the point.

I think we can all get this point. It is always there in the background of our lives. What we do not do is make the next leap. The only way to possibly do anything is to engage people outside of our own silo.

Let me use a concrete example.

If I believe that poverty is an issue that needs to be addressed, I will tend to discuss this most with people who are already in my silo. In other words, people who are already on board, and who I know about. So I begin by talking about poverty strategies with white middle class United Church socially conscious people.

We might even make plans, start initiatives, and carry the message forth. But for the most part, it will not go anywhere because we are aiming to engage people just like us.

If I am to be successful I need right off the bat to engage on the level of five silos: the people like me, the people affected, the stakeholders who have the most to lose, the bureaucracy involved, the media.

So to take my example and push it to an even more concrete level; the Karing Kitchen averages 8,000 meals served a month in Moncton. Since they serve only one meal a day and only six days a week, I imagine that this means there are a little more than 300 people who cannot feed themselves for whatever reason. This does not even begin to count those who rely on food banks and Mobile One and church aid programs.

If I wanted to do something about this I first need to get a support group of peers together, then I need to somehow engage those who use the program itself and say, what do you think is wrong, what do you need? Then we have to go to businesses and agencies in downtown Moncton and say, how is poverty affecting you? Then we need to go to the city with ideas and proposals to get them on side. And somehow we have to make sure the media is on side and supports us.

Only then can anything really be done.

You see, real change depends on building relationships of trust and respect. As long as someone can dismiss you because of the silo they imagine you belong in, you are relatively powerless.

Here is another example for you. Barack Obama; or as he is inexplicably addressed now, Mr. President.

If you asked anyone, perhaps even three years ago if he would be president they would all have said no. First off he is an African American. Secondly he has lived most of his life outside of the continental United States, including Kenya. Third he is not from one of those wealthy families that control the world. In fact, he has been poor. Fourth he has family background in another religion, and it is Islam to boot.

So how did he accomplish this? Basically by not staying inside the silos; he intentionally went outside to every different group and convinced them that he not only intimately understood them, but that he could bring all of their issues together under one umbrella and create a new reality that would bring hope to their own issues.

If there is one thing this should tell us, it is that nothing is impossible.

In fact, when we do take the time to engage those who are most unlike us we might possibly find that the issues that concern us are the issues that concern us all.

Or perhaps we will find that other people bring their own issues and when we attempt to work together we solve more and more of the world's problems at the same time.