Imprisoned and Reeducated

China always seems like such a beautiful and mystical land to me. 

The innate beauty of this huge, yet sort of remote country, a homogenous people who have a raw brilliance yet type of innocence about them, and the ancient practices of natural medicine and martial arts, and a meditative demonstration of inner tranquility. 

In contrast to this image, I have read about forced labor and tough punishment on people in various Asian countries, with a poignant focus on the North Korean camps with untold horrors. But recently, there seems to be more information being shared about forced labor camps in China as well. 

First, I read about the notion by China's ruling elite that the individual is nothing, and the State is everything. Therefore, the sacrifice of one or tens of millions of individuals for the sake of the greater country and those in power is acceptable, perhaps even desirable. This aligns with an extreme of utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number, but irregardless of the effects on the individual. 

This is very different than Western Countries, which have a tremendous value that is put on each individual--their voices and opinions, their rights and freedoms, and the protection and safeguarding of each person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There is emphasis on the individual and the social contract that exists between them and their government. In this system, the whole (State) is greater because of the sum of it's parts (of individuals), not in spite of it. 

Last Friday, I read about the consequences of these differences in political philosophy in an article in the Washington Post about the grim conditions in Chinese labor and reeducation camps. 

What struck me the most was the opening of the article that described one of the Chinese reeducation camps.

"For the first weeks, Shen Yongmei was told to sit on a rough plastic stool from 6 a.m. to 8. p.m., her back absolutely straight, her hands on her knees, and stare in silence at three sentences painted on a wall.  

- What is this place?
- Why are you here?
- What attitude are you going to employee in order to comply with the police?"

The 55-year old women was told to contemplate on these and any slackening could result in a beating. 

After this, the women went through months of "reeducation through labor"--screwing on the plastic plugs on ballpoint pens--a quota of 12,000 a day. 

All this to wash clean her "disobedient thoughts"!

In Judaism, there is a teaching that we don't really get punished for thoughts, but for actions. A person can't fully control where their thoughts stray, although we can take steps to control our wondering eyes, mischievous speech, gluttonous eating, and so on. 

Similarly, in America, we are not punished for having a bad thought, but for committing a criminal act. 

Yet, in China just being suspected of harboring disobedient thoughts can get you (and your family) into a whole lot of trouble and necessitate your rehabilitation through coercion. 

For the last week, I have not been able to stop thinking about the image of the lady on the stool for 14-hours a day starting at those three questions in order to reform her. 

Treating people like misbehaving children who are put in a quiet corner of the classroom for a short time and told to think about what they did and when they are ready, they can come back and join the rest of the class. 

But these are not misbehaving, they are not children, they are not in a classroom, and it is not contemplative for a short time, but punitive and threatening of much worse to come if they don't comply. 

There are so many horrors out there that can be inflicted on human beings--not even for doing something wrong and violent, but for simply not agreeing with those in power. 

Of course the state is important. But perhaps it is not a state, but a prison, if the people are forced to consent both in body and mind?

I would suggest that we can learn from the Chinese that a hedonistic, near-constant focus on the "I" and immediate gratification does not achieve long-term, well being for the "us". And that there is an important place for individual self-sacrifice for the greater good.

This reminds me of the Jewish saying from Ethics of Our Fathers, where Hillel says that "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself what am I?"

Perhaps, a balance of looking after oneself and giving generously to others and the Nation can provide for both personal growth and satisfaction as well as a higher, long-term, purpose for the survival and advancement of the collective. 

My belief: Education and not reeducation is the answer. Good jobs with fair pay and benefits and not labor camps is the answer. Self-determination and sacrifice and not State protectionism is the answer. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Imprisoned and Reeducated

Mr. Universe of Leadership

A colleague at work told me about a book called Compelling People by Neffinger and Kohut.

The thesis of the book is that the most effective and powerful leaders balance projecting strength and warmth.

If you just show strength, then you would potentially be seen as dictatorial, a micromanager, unapproachable, all work and no personality, and maybe even a tyrant.

And if you just project warmth, then you would likely be seen as wimpy, emotional but not intellectual/skilled, managing by friendship and not professionally, and not focused on results. 

That's why combining and projecting a healthy balance of strength and warmth is effective in leading towards mission results, but also in being a "mensch" and caring for the people you work with. 

You can't have sustained strong performance without a happy workforce.

And you can't have a happy workforce without strength to achieve meaningful work performance.

In funny, but in a sense Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good example of someone who combines the two. 

On one hand, he represents the big and strong "Mr. Universe," and was able to play in numerous action movies, such as Terminator, Predator, Conan The Barbarian, and more.

At the same time, Schwarzenegger always had a warm, softer side and stared in comedies like Kindergarten Cop, Twins (as the intellectual twin of street-wise Danny Devito), and Junior (where he undergoes a male pregnancy!).

While no one is good at everything and it can be hard to effectively balance strength and warmth, leaders that master this can become the real Mr. Universe for their organizations and people. ;-)

(Source Photo: Left from Andy Blumenthal and Right from here with attribution to Eva Rinaldi)

Mr. Universe of Leadership

Instructions For the Modern Age

We went apple picking today and it was a nice time, thank G-d. 

The weather was beautiful and the apples were plentiful and delicious. 

One funny thing that I noticed was this sign with instructions for how to pick apples. 

Like we need instructions for one of the most natural things in the world. 

Even in the Bible, in the Garden of Eden, the first man and woman figured this one out. 

Perhaps, with all of our technology we now possess, there is a feeling or realization that we have lost touch with our more primitive instincts. 

Often, I wonder if a major calamity were to actually strike, how many of us, especially in the big cities would know the basic skills to survive. 

Heck, we can't even leave the house without our smartphones--we'd feel naked--like Adam and Eve after eating from the Tree of Knowledge. 

Technology has made us more capable, but it has left us lacking knowledge on how to grow things, build things, fish and hunt, and much more, leaving us in many ways more vulnerable.

How can we live in an information age, and yet be stupider for it?

As I learned in college, you can have wonderful book knowledge, but have little to no practical knowledge.

I would say we need to do a much better job balancing the teaching of theory and practice...so we won't need signs that have to tell us how to pick an apple anymore. ;-)

(Source Photos: Andy Blumenthal)

Instructions For the Modern Age

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Cell Phone?

Some people are averse to change and to technology--and then there is Gary Sernovitz. 

This guy in the Wall Street Journal today boasts how he is one of the last 9% of American society that goes without a cell phone (let alone a smartphone). 

At 40 and as a managing director of an investment firm, he says if he needs to make a call he uses one of the 30 working remaining payphones in Manhattan or borrows his wife or a strangers phone--so much for personal independence and self-sufficiency. Does this guy (and wife) live at home with his mommy too?

He calls himself a "technology holdout" and actually goes on to says that he is scared of getting a cell phone because he is afraid of losing himself.

While admittedly, many people do go overboard with technology, social media, and gaming to the point of addiction, I am not sure that getting a cell phone is alone a major risk factor.

Sernovtiz says he adheres to Henry David Thoreau's philosophy of simplicity--and that inventions "are but improved means to an unimproved end." 

Thoreau went to live in the woods to "live deliberately" and focus on "only the essential facts of life," perhaps like many ascetics and spiritual guides before him have. And as such, this is not a bad thing when done for the right reasons. 

But Sernovitz's one-sided message is a negative one, because technology as any tool is not bad in and of itself--it's how we exert control over the tool and ourselves, balancing productive use from misuse and abuse. 

If Sernovitz is so afraid of using technology, perhaps he should question himself as an investment manager and disavow use of money--which can be used for many evils from greed, hoarding, and selfishness to financing terrorism--and instead go back to bartering forest lumber and chicken eggs?

When I asked my 16-year old daughter what she thought of Sernovitz's article, she said he can't differentiate "simpler from easier."

Don't mind me if I pass on this guy's book, "The Contrarians." ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Cell Phone?

We're All Digitally Distracted

Focus, focus...forget it!

With smartphones, social media, email, texting, phone calls, meetings, and more...it takes a lot of discipline to not get distracted and actually get things done. 

The Wall Street Journal (11 December 2012) laid out half jokingly that most people wouldn't even be able to finish the article because of all the technological and people interruptions in our daily lives. 

There are various aspects to this problem:

1) Digital Addiction--We love and are addicted to the information, connectedness, convenience, and entertainment that computerization, digital communications, and the Internet provide. Loneliness be gone!

2) 24/7 Expectations--Employers, family, and friends expect that we will be available to them around the clock. We are tethered to our jobs and each other with computers, smartphones, Blackberries, telework, social media, and more. If I can't get to you, it's because you don't want to be gotten!

3) Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)--One of the concerns we have about getting off our devices is that we may miss out on something--that critical phone call or email may be regarding an important event, a special sale, a job interview, a long lost friend or lover, someone who needs help, or whatever. But if you shut yourself off, then you may just be missing the opportunity of a lifetime!

For most people the smartphone is the last thing they look at before going to sleep and the first thing they look at in the morning...assuming your significant other doesn't intervene. 

Even going on vacation, for many, means checking work and personal emails and voicemails...a vacation is no longer a real vacation, just perhaps less work than going into the office. 

On one hand, we have more information and connectedness at our fingertips than ever before, but on the other hand, we are living in virtual, and not physical, reality.

One example is how we sit with our families and friends, but every one is on their device and no one is interacting with each other in the room. 

No wonder there is a movement now to "Turn it off!" or "Leave it at home (or work)!"--We are desperately trying to balance between cyberspace and personal space. 

We can't afford to be distracted or to distract ourselves, incessantly--we need to focus on what's important, what needs to get done, and on those who love and need us. 

Whether you do a zero email day or just leave it all behind vacation--everyone needs some time be human with each other again. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

We're All Digitally Distracted

Dystopia Man

I love this picture that I saw in the art gallery here in Florida. 

I named the person in the portrait, Dystopia Man, because he reminds me of how people would look in a speculative futuristic society.

The way the man looks askew with bloodshot eyes, head split, and hand partially covering his mouth all make me feel like the future is quite unknown, somewhat risky, if not sort of ominous.

We have lots of national and global challenges--with security versus privacy, openness versus secrecy, sharing versus private ownership, social entitlements versus capitalism, theocracy versus democracy, control versus freedom, and man versus machine.

How will these turn out for society, for us?  Will we maintain a healthy balance and respect for individuals? Will these and other conflicts be resolved peacefully? 

Hopefully G-d will grant us the wisdom to solve these dilemmas and many others that await us in the present and not so distant future. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Dystopia Man

Is Bureaucracy Just Another Word For Governance?

Fascinating opinion piece by Fisman and Sullivan in the Wall Street Journal on Friday (15 March 2013) called "The Unsung Beauty of Bureaucracy."

The authors argue that bureaucratic rules and regulations serve important purposes in that while "less good stuff gets done--but it also puts a check on the kinds of initiatives that can lead to catastrophe."

And they give numerous examples of industries that perform sensitive functions that you would want to actually take some extra time to make sure they get it right.

A vary basic example given was the company Graco that makes infant car seat and strollers; they have five design phases and hundreds of tests that add up to two years to product development, but who would rationally argue against such quality controls processes to protect our children.

They make another good point, we always here about bureaucracy slowing the innovation and product development down, but what about the "bad ideas that were quashed as a result of the same rules?"

We all rail against having to jump through hoops to get things done and rightfully so. The mission is important, time is of the essence, and resources are limited--last thing anyone wants is to be told you have x process that must be followed, y gates to get through, z signatures to obtain--and that's just for the routine stuff! :-)

But as much as we hate to be slowed down to cross the t's and dot the i's, often that's just what we really need--to make sure we don't do anything half-a*sed, stupid, or jut plain reckless.

One mistake in an operational environment can bring things to a standstill for thousands, in a system it can have a dominos effect taking down others, and in product development it can bring deadly consequences to consumers, and so on. 

So putting up some "bureaucratic" hurdles that ensure good governance may be well worth its weight in gold. 

Frankly, I don't like the word bureaucracy because to me it means senseless rules and regulations, but good governance is not that.

We need to stop and think about what we are doing--sometimes even long and hard and this is difficult in a fast-paced market--but like a race car taking the turn too fast that ends up in a fiery heap--stopped not by their steady pacing, but by the retaining wall protecting the crowds from their folly.

One other thing the author state that I liked was their pointing out the government which is involved in so many life and death matters needs to maintain some heightened-level of governance (I'll use my word), to get the food supplies safe and the terrorists out.

From clear requirements to careful test plans, we need to ensure we know what we are doing and that it will work. 

At the same time, showing up after the party is over serves no purpose.

Like all things in an adult world, balance is critical to achieving anything real. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Is Bureaucracy Just Another Word For Governance?

What Are You Thinking?

This was a funny painting on the window of this eatery in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

The woman is thinking romance, but the man is thinking about his delicious sandwich. 

This fits in very well with John Gray's bestseller, Men Are Mars, Women Are From Venus--where one theme is that men tend to retreat to think about or distance themselves from problems (in this case with a sandwich) and women seek to grow emotionally close. 

See that happening here? 

In a relationship according to Gray, you are either going to have balance in giving and receiving or you will have resentment. 

Life's little lessons...better take heed. 

My guess is that if this guy in picture doesn't start paying better attention to the love and attention needs of the women, he is likely to get a sandwich right over his clueless head! ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

What Are You Thinking?

Have It When You Need it

At an event that I attended recently, I heard a young woman explain her philosophy on life. 

She said, her grandmother taught her: "Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

Thinking about it at the time, it seemed pretty wise--because you never want to be without something you really need. 

And good planning and survival skills say to always be prepared--you never know what happens. 

But then with the fiscal cliff and all the talk about social entitlements, I started to think about this some more. 

In a sense, as a society, we have come to think of social entitlements as something that we better have in case we need it--Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and more. 

You never know when it's your turn to get laid off, sick, old, or needy. 

And isn't that what's it for--it's a safety net--these are like personal insurance and you never want to need the coverage and not have it. 

But as we should know by now, having it--doesn't come for free. 

So the question is how much social entitlements or insurance do you need--and part of the answer is how much can you afford. 

So is it really better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it--if you can't afford what you're buying?  

In this case, our grandparents and parents having it and not really needing all of it--may mean that we and our children will not be able to have it when we do need it. 

To have social entitlements, we need to be able to pay into the system for it or borrow to finance it. 

Unfortunately, as a nation we have been doing more borrowing, because we have spent beyond our national means--we have even raided our very own social entitlement programs that we hold so dear, to pay for other things--maybe that's why they call it a trust fund, because you really do have to trust, almost blindly, that there will be something there, when it's your time to need it. 

It's great to have it, but if we are gluttons and don't responsibly plan for genuine needs--then as a nation, we really will be left needing and not having it when the time comes.

In short, spend all your money to soon, and tragically, there won't be any candy later. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Have It When You Need it

Never Thought I'd Be Up There

Somewhere between 600-1000 feet up in the air. 

Suspended by a parasail wing (like a parachute).

Teethered to a moving speed boat. 

With a birds eye view of the beaches, hotels, ocean, clouds, sun, and more.

I had always thought of myself as afraid of heights, but I guess it turns out I'm really not. 

It was calm--peaceful up there--like sitting in G-d's very hands. 

Before we went up, I asked my daughter if she was scared. 

She said to me: "No Dad. I am fearful of G-d. He is all powerful. But I have faith that He will protect me."

I appreciate her faith and adventurism, but while encouraging her to learn new things and have fun, I also caution her to be careful and use good common sense.

I guess that's the balance in life that I strive for and that I try to teach my kids--push yourself past your comfort zone to learn and grow, but not too far that you fall on your face (or in the ocean)!

In the end, it is probably my wife and kids that challenge me to be "more"--they've gotten me to do things that I never thought I would--and this was one of them.  Believe it or not, blogging is a close 2nd!  ;-) 

Anyway, we're already talking about (and looking forward) to the next adventure--please G-d it will be wonderful as well.

Never Thought I'd Be Up There

Feeling Groovy

It was interesting, I was reading about how humans have six universal emotions.

These emotions are considered largely involuntary responses to stimuli, and they are:

• Anger
• Happiness
• Fear
• Sadness
• Disgust
• Surprise

As I thought about these out of the six emotions, only happiness is the straight out good one. Hey, who doesn't want to be happy (maybe only an ascetic, but that's because they parodoxically get a type of happiness out of being unhappy)? 

Then, I thought about surprise and that is sort of a toss up--it can be a good surprise or a bad one. Most of the time, people don't like surprises and would rather have an element of control over what is coming, when, and how. So I would throw surprises in the you can keep it pile. 

And while the other four emotions--anger, fear, sadness, and disgust--may be helpful at times (in protecting us physically and emotionally), they all have negative connotations and implications. 

Anger usually means someone has hurt or slighted us. Fear impies that that there is something dangerous or scary to be feared out there. Sadness is the opposite of happiness, so it's a non-starter. And disgust is attributed to something vile or revolting and is usually something we want to get away from as quickly as possible. 

So, six primary human emotions and only one--happiness--makes us feel--happy!

Thinking about emotions as colors, we can feel blue (sad) or fiery red (anger), what about green (with envy)?  Uh, wonder why this emotion was missing from the list, but I would add it as number seven for universal emotions. 

Unfortunately, envy means we feel less than or jealous of the next person, so this is another one that doesn't make us feel very good. 

Maybe then expectations for how much happiness in life we should or can have should be tempered knowling there are six others to keep us busy and feeling--other things. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Feeling Groovy

Words Have Meaning

Recently, I heard a very smart mentor tell a crowd that "words have meaning."

The context was that even in relation to giving criticism, it is important to be constructive, and not destructive to those receiving it. 

Some are not good at giving criticism and others can be downright sadistic--humiliating, embarrassing, marginalizing, verbally abusing, and even throwing things. 

Words can really hurt people, and the kids song about "stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"--is just not true for children or adults. 

From a work perspective, I relate this to what I learned earlier in my life about being not only balanced with people and their performance, but also seeing the whole human being--listening to them and being empathetic. 

In performance terms, it's as important to say what people are doing well, as well as to point out areas where their is room for improvement--and yes, it's hard to admit it, but no one of us is perfect, and at the same time, no one really likes to be criticized. 

So it takes a special talent, but one that can be learned--if you have an open mind--to have a heart-to-heart with others, and show that you are not just criticizing to be an S.O.B., but that you genuinely accept the person for who they are, and want to help them learn and grow--and do even better in the future. 

We all have strengths and weakness, and with kindness, we can help others to rise above their limitations and break new barriers in their lives. 

I came across a different example of where words have meaning in terms of people looking for opportunity. 

I heard a story about this person who when asked why they should get a job, responded because they are a "good person."

Word do have meaning and we don't give opportunities to people because they like the person they are, but rather because they have "earned it" professionally--life is competitive and opportunities are not just handed out. 

One more example of how words have meaning, happened when I heard one lady ask another what her son was doing for the summer (given all the unemployment). The other lady replied, "oh, he's busy--sleeping and eating."

Ouch. Yes, times are tough out there, but to hear the mother say it--in that way--about her own child, just sounded perhaps a little harsh and judgmental, but who really knows their particular circumstance. 

Words have meaning--they can bring lovers together, hurt those you love the most, damage reputations, destroy lives, and tear nations apart or bring unity to them and determination to their cause. 

Watching what we say and how we say it--is important for us in growing as decent and thoughtful human beings and in becoming good leaders--in both, we have to have heart and treat others well in both word and deed. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Words Have Meaning

Leading Along The Continuum

There's a cliff.  

At the bottom is a body.

What do you think may have happened?

It's a matter of how you interpret what you find.

If you think the person:

1) Fell...
--then it is viewed as an accident.

2) Was pushed...
--then it was murder.

3) Jumped...
--then it was a suicide.

Three scenarios...three different interpretations.

With our personality attributes, it's the same way--they can viewed either positively or negatively.

Is the person?
- Trusting or gullible
- Optimistic or impractical
- Caring or smothering
- Self-confidant or arrogant
- Ambitious or ruthless
- Organized or controlling
- Persuasive or pressuring
- Decisive or rash
- Imaginative or a dreamer
- Entrepreneurial or reckless
- Cautious or suspicious
- Economical or stingy
- Reserved or cold
- Methodical or rigid
- Analytical or nit-picky
- Thorough or obsessive
- Principled or unbending
- Flexible or inconsistent
- Sociable or dependent
- An experimenter or aimless
- Curious or nosy

Every good trait, can be viewed and interpreted as bad and vice versa. 

When it comes to the workplace, you need to apply good situational leadership. 

Apply your strengths with the right amount of measure along the continuum and you're golden.

Lean too far toward either extreme, and you risk becoming a poor manager. 

The better leader can apply their traits in a purposeful way rather than being controlled by them.

While the weaker one is a victim of their personality flaws.

So was it an accident, murder, or suicide?

The facts are there somewhere, but when it comes to personality much depends on how you apply it. 

(Source photo: here with attribution to NYC Arthur)

Leading Along The Continuum

In Search of a True Patriot

This morning I saw Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota and professional wrestler, on Piers Morgan (CNN).

He was promoting his new book Democrips and ReBloodicans. 

He was comparing our two-party system to a bunch of L.A. street gangs!

On one hand, he sounded crazy—claiming our politicians were nothing but thugs --fighting each other to get and maintain street power, rather than doing the right thing for everyone in this country.

Yet, despite Ventura not being the most eloquent speaker, some of his craziness sounded spot on.

Politics has gotten way too political!

The politicians stick to their party lines—pointing fingers and denigrating the other side—for our country’s problems.  Each side claiming they can do better.

One side taxing and spending, the other side cutting both—both sides driving our countries finances over the financial cliff.

Dictators are driven by their desire to get and hold power as long as their military might and repression of the masses holds out. 

But democracy is supposed to be different—we are a nation that takes pride in looking at both sides of the equation and coming to a middle ground that makes the best sense for everyone.

What happened?

Each side has pushed things just a little too far and then farther—getting power and then abusing power for their aims, forgetting about compromise, and leaving the other side lying in wait for when they can pounce on their opponents and re-assume power to undue what the other has done and push ahead their agenda.

This is a vicious game of ping-pong, where a volley is never achieved, but rather each side treats every shot as their last.

Civility and political correctness has left the palace.

In its place, a desire to win power and keep power at all costs.

An infatuation with doing for themselves at the expense of others—all the while telling themselves, this is truly for the good of the country.

Or like they used to say on the TV show Hill Street Blues—“let’s do it to them, before they do it to us!”

A country cannot successfully govern, by doing and undoing or by looking out for only 1/2 of the constituents.

Some way must be found to restore leadership—where government is again recognized as by the people and for the people, where integrity is valued more than power, and where our country’s future prosperity and survival trumps a parties’ survival in the next election and their partisanship agendas.

The examples are almost too numerous to mention with our political parties locking horns while budget and tax showdowns loom, deficits continue to boom, government shutdowns are being groomed, healthcare reform is up for grabs, employment continues to sag, and we wax and wane between war and peace—now cyber and kinetic—in hot spots around the globe.

Civil war is such a strong term—and in the Civil War, this country saw the loss of more people than all the other wars we have been in combined. 

Again, we face a type of civil war, where one side is trying to beat the other rather than join forces in conquering our nation’s ills and building our capabilities.

The results can be a similar devastation where problems fester until they explode and lives are lost, not in one side picking up arms against the other, but because we self-destruct in our own greed and contempt.

Leadership bridges, not divides, from across the political spectrum and all our leaders are needed now more than ever.

Jesse you are a "crazy dog," but you say some things that are undeniable truth.

We need to look beyond the surface of unconventional people and hear the message that running politics like street gangs is a losing battle—but we can change rivalry to partnership if we see past the different colors, and instead focus on the red, white, and blue.

(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

In Search of a True Patriot

It's Not iStuff, It's Your iFuture

There is an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (11 May 2012) called "Make It a Summer Without iStuff."

It is written by David Gelernter, Professor of Computer Science at the prestigious Yale University and I was much dismayed to read it.

With all due respect, Gelernter makes the case--and a poor one at that--for keeping kids away from technology.

He calls technology devices and the Internet, "the perfect anti-concentration weapon...turning a child's life into a comedy of interruptions."

Gelernter states pejoratively that the "whole point of modern iToys...is not doing anything except turning into a click vegetable."

Moreover, Gelernter goes too far treating technology and the Internet as a waste of time, toys, and even as dangerous vices--"like liquor, fast cars, and sleeping pills"--that must be kept away from children.

Further, Gelernter indiscriminately calls en masse "children with computers...little digital Henry VIIIs," throwing temper tantrums when their problems cannot be solved by technology. 

While I agree with Gelernter that at the extreme, technology can be used to as a escape from real, everyday life--such as for people who make their primary interaction with others through social networking or for those who sit virtually round-the-clock playing video games.

And when technology is treated as a surrogate for real life experiences and problem solving, rather than a robust tool for us to live fuller lives, then it becomes an enabler for a much diminished, faux life and possibly even a pure addiction. 

However, Gelernter misses the best that technology has to offer our children--in terms of working smarter in everything we do. 

No longer is education a matter of memorizing textbooks and spitting back facts on exams in a purely academic fashion, but now being smart is knowing where to find answers quickly--how to search, access, and analyze information and apply it to real world problems. 

Information technology and communications are enablers for us do more with less--and kids growing up as computer natives provide the best chance for all of us to innovate and stay competitive globally. 

Rather then helping our nation bridge the digital divide and increase access to the latest technologies and advance our children's familiarity with all things science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), Gelernter wants to throw us back in time to the per-digital age.

With the ever rapid pace with which technology is evolving, Gelernter's abolishing technology for children needlessly sets them back in their technology prowess and acumen, while others around the world are pressing aggressively ahead. 

Gelernter may want his kids to be computer illiterate, but I want mine to be computer proficient.  

iStuff are not toys, they are not inherently dangerous vices, and they are not a waste of our children's time, they are their future--if we only teach and encourage them to use the technology well, balanced, and for the good. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to "Extra Ketchup," Michael Surran)

It's Not iStuff, It's Your iFuture

Oh Deer!

This is an amazing photo by my daughter, Michelle Blumenthal. 

This deer just tried to jump a fence, but got impaled right through its neck--yikes! 

Truly a life lesson--it is good to reach high for what you want, but not to overreach. 

It really is a fine balance and takes self-awareness, discipline, and some good fortune. 

We have to know how much and how quickly to push ourselves to grow past prior limitations, but also recognize just how far we can make it on the next leap. 

Maybe that's one reason an incremental or phased approach is good.

It enables us to move ever forward, carefully planning and navigating our next steps, while hopefully not getting unnecessarily hung up by the life obstacles we must overcome. 

Good luck everyone!

Oh Deer!

Returning From The Brink Of National Suicide

It is not only because we are in an election year that politics in Washington D.C. has become more cutting, oppositional, and unproductive.

Unfortunately, there has been a downward trend for some time and we saw this recently with everything from confrontations to raising the federal debt ceiling, passing a federal budget, near government shutdowns, and what has now become regular showdowns over every major legislation from healthcare to deficit reduction.

We are a nation with government at the crossroads of neuroticism where situations get treated as virtually unsolvable by oppositional political movements who themselves appear hopeless of genuinely working together. 

Harvard Business Review (March 2012) in an article titled "What's Wrong With U.S. Politics," described the "ineffectiveness of America's [current] political system," where instead of opposing sides coming together to craft compromise positions that bring together the best of multiple points of view to find a balanced approach and prudent course for the American people, now instead compromise is seen as surrender, and "the fervor to win too often appears to trump everything else."

While traditionally the source of political parties and politics itself in America is founded in the opposing views of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton--one who opposed strong central government and the other who favored it, these diametric opposites where a source of national strength, because they strived ultimately to find an almost perfect compromise to whatever ailed the nation.

However, something has profoundly changed--from where "rigorous rivalry between the two political philosophies used to be highly productive" to the current situation of absolutism, where like in July 2011 debt-ceiling crisis, "some politicians even suggested that a government default or shutdown would be less damaging than compromise."  

When last August, Standard and Poor took the historically unprecedented step of downgrading U.S. debt from AAA to AA+, they cited "that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions had weakened."

This should be of dire concern to everyone in this nation, because we all depend on government to solve problems and do what is ultimately right for the people. 

One of the suggestions that HBR makes is grounded in the techniques of negotiation, where we facilitate and help each side "not merely split the difference," but also "articulate their highest parties, with an eye toward facilitating the best of best of both over time."

While this is certainly an important element in moving to compromise, there is another core element that is missing and needs to be addressed and that is a mutual respect for all parties and points of view, one where we see ourselves first as one nation, and only second as political parties and positions--in other words, we recognize that our common values and goals obviate the more subtle differences between us.

This coming together as a nation can only happen when there is basic trust between the all sides, so that each knows that the other will not take advantage of them when they wield power, but rather that the views of all will be respected and duly represented in any solution, and moreover that the core beliefs of each will be protected at some fundamental level, even when they are not in power or outvoted.

What this means is that compromise, balance, and fairness prevail over whichever political party resides in power in at the time, and assures each side of the same treatment and protections under the other.  

Violating this ultimate balance of power is tantamount to taking the first shot in a situation akin to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), when each side wields destructive nuclear capability. 

With critical decisions coming up again on deficit reduction, federal debt ceiling, and social entitlements and national defense spending, and each side digging in, we are fast approaching the equivalent of a thermonuclear showdown in politics, and it is time for both sides to pull back from the brink of national suicide and to once again reinforce the basic principles of mutual respect and enduring compromise--even when one side, or another, has the upper hand. 

As a next step, let each side of the aisle demonstrate true compromise in negotiations with the other to reestablish confidence and trust that neither will be wholly overrun or defeated in the political wrangling and fighting that ensues.

The important question in politics must not be which side will wield power, but who can bring the best leadership to the nation to forge a path of sensibility, balance and mutual respect to any solution. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Elvert Barnes)

Returning From The Brink Of National Suicide

Platforms - Open or Closed

Ever since the battles of Windows versus Linux, there have been two strong competing philosophies on systems architecture.

Many have touted the benefits of open architecture--where system specifications are open to the public to view and to update.  

Open sourced systems provide for the power of crowdsourcing to innovate, add-on, and make the systems better as well as provides less vendor lock-in and lower costs.  

Open Source -----> Innovation, Choice, and Cost-Savings

While Microsoft--with it's Windows and Office products--was long the poster child for closed or proprietary systems and has a history of success with these, they have also come to be viewed, as TechRepublic (July 2011) points out as having an "evil, monopolistic nature."

However, with Apple's rise to the position of the World's most valuable company, closed solutions have made a strong philosophical comeback.

Apple has a closed architecture, where they develop and strictly control the entire ecosystem of their products. 

Closed systems provides for a planned, predictable, and quality-controlled architecture, where the the whole ecosystem--hardware, software and customer experience can be taken into account and controlled in a structured way.  

Closed Systems -----> Planning, Integration, and Quality Control

However, even though has a closed solutions architecture for it's products, Apple does open up development of the Apps to other developers (for use on the iPhone and iPad). This enables Apple to partner with others and win mind share, but still they can retain control of what ends-up getting approved for sale at the App Store. 
I think what Apple has done particularly well then is to balance the use of open and closed systems--by controlling their products and making them great, but also opening up to others to build Apps--now numbering over 500,000--that can leverage their high-performance products.

Additionally, the variety and number of free and 99 cent apps for example, show that even closed systems, by opening up parts of their vertical model to partners, can achieve cost-savings to their customers. 

In short, Apple has found that "sweet spot"--of a hybrid closed-open architecture--where they can design and build quality and highly desirable products, but at the same time, be partners with the larger development community. 

Apple builds a solid and magnificent foundation with their "iProducts," but then they let customers customize them with everything from the "skins" or cases on the outside to the Apps that run on them on the inside. 

Closed-Open Systems -----> Planned, Integrated, and Quality PLUS Innovation, Choice, and Cost-Savings

Closed-Open Systems represent a powerful third model for companies to choose from in developing products, and which benefits include those from both open and closed systems.

Platforms - Open or Closed

Social Media, Fulfilling Our Every Need?

One of my daughters sent me this article for my blog and said "you''ll like this," and she was right.

The article is called 10 Things You Don't Know About Teens And Social Networking--it was eye opening.

I read about kids' (ages 13-15) experiences with going online and their utter fascination and addiction to social media.

As I started to analyze and categorize these, I realized the power of social media is anchored in every layer of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: from physiological to self-actualization - not only for kids but also adults, as follows:

1) Physiological Needs--Foster social networks online, which is a powerful factor in developing productive and profitable life opportunities--as the old adage goes "It's not what you know, but who you know." As Hannah, age 13, states: "There is more life happening online than offline."

2) Safety Needs--Despite all the fears about people preying on others online and cyber bullying, people tend to feel safer behind their computer than not. Call it the anonymity factor or the distance of not being within range of a punch in a the nose. As Sadie, age 14, states: "I feel safer online, than I do offline."

3) Social Needs--They don't call it "social media" for nothing. Yes, it's all about reaching out to others from email to chat and from blogs to wikis, we're connecting with each other all virtually all the time. As Jasmine, age 13, states: "My friendships are really affected by social networking."

4) Esteem Needs--Your online image or brand matters a lot to people where they either get ego-boosted or deflated. People desperately want to be "liked," "friended," "mentioned," and "commented" about. As Samantha, age 14, states: "It affects our image and self-confidence."

5) Self-Actualization Needs--At the end of the day, we all want to realize our full potential and social media provide powerful tools to engage, be heard, influence, and ultimately make a difference.

As many of the kids self-report, the compulsion to be online is so strong for two reasons:

1) Personal Addiction--The satisfaction of our needs by doing social media creates an addiction that must be fulfilled or else like a drug addict, you experience the dire pain of withdrawal--as one girl, Nina, age 15 reported, "I feel like I'm losing control. I want my parents to tell me to get off the computer. Actually, they would need to literally take the computer away because I can't stop myself."

2) Peer Pressure--There is a social addiction that results in peer pressure to be online and participate or else. As Jasmine, age 13, states: "So you have to be online all the time, just to keep track, so you don't upset anyone."

While clearly much good comes from social media (in terms of human need fulfillment), anything that becomes an addiction--personal and societal--can be dangerous and a cause for concern.

As with all tools to satisfy human needs, we need to control the tools, rather than be controlled by them.

With social media, people should use it if and when it meets their needs and balance that with other important tools for fulfilling those needs, such as school, work, in-person relationships, real activities and so on.

We should never become so consumed by social media that we neglect other vital life activities, but rather we need to exert self-control and teach our children the same--to become well-rounded, functional people online and off.

Social Media, Fulfilling Our Every Need?

A Combat Vehicle That Rocks and Rolls

I don't endorse this vendor or product, but this BAE BvS 10 Viking military vehicle used by the UK Royal Marines (and others) is something to see.

It is amphibious, all terrain combat vehicle and can be configured for troop transport, command and control, repair and recovery, ambulance, and even carrying UAVs.

What is fascinating to me is the combination of the speed and versatility of this thing.

The 2-part vehicle (as well as the front antennas) give the effect of a caterpillar--rocking and rolling--making its way over any surface.

In theatre in Afghanistan since 2006, this combat technology is being tested and improved with additional armor and more power.

As mentioned by Defense Tech, it would be cool if in its next evolution, it could deflect Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) like the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles with their V-shaped hull, which is so important for protecting our troops.

(Credit Picture: Joost J. Bakker)

A Combat Vehicle That Rocks and Rolls