Thanks For The Memories

One common theme in this blog is the concept of the collapse of systems. Human beings survive and progress through the construction of various systems. The family is a system. As is school. Churches are systems. The government is a system. In nomadic societies there are more primitive tribal systems that are utilized to preserve order. In virtually all areas of life there are systems in place which people use in order to define themselves, leverage their efficiency, protect themselves, establish boundaries, and better communicate. Cultural and national classifications are used to identify people as a group, as well as to provide common ground. These systems are based on the premise that the group is inherently more powerful and effective than an individual could be. And in many cases, this is true.

Take a moment and think about how you identify yourself. For example, I am a woman. A mother. An American. I do not affiliate with a specific religious group, but many people do. I am Caucasian. Of European decent. I am a Californian. From a scientific perspective, I am a homo sapien. These are all categories utilized to give order to life. To create understanding and structure so that we can progress as a society from a basic point of common understanding. Language is a system. Math is a system. Use of these systems on a large scale allows for efficiency in communication and common parameters for growth.

Any student of science knows that inherent in the building of systems is the eventual breakdown of said systems. In biology, birth gives way to death. In physics, energy changes forms and eventually degrades. In social science, systems for the advancement of various groups are created, take on one form, then change, breakdown, and either cease to exist, or reemerge in another form. Sometimes this happens quickly, and sometimes it takes decades or even centuries to change. But eventually, the system will give way to new ideas and formats.

One example of a long held paradigm currently in flux, is that of the military industrial complex. Historically speaking, that term is mainly a cold war pejorative used in reference to the relationship between the military and the various industries that exist to support it.  In America, companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are large defense contractors; private businesses that earn enormous profits by developing and providing military equipment. The key term here is "private." These are private businesses. Operated by civilians. Not government owned and operated. This is a critical distinction because in other countries which are not operated as democracies, the government controls both the military and the production of technology. North Korea and Iran are both under constant scrutiny with regards to their government sponsored nuclear programs. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were both in totalitarian control of all tangentially relevant aspects of their military. Science, technology, aviation, manufacturing, weapon production and distribution, even agriculture; all government controlled.

Post World War II, this traditional alliance in America between the military and private business has been largely axiomatic. We have utilized fairly traditional and straightforward models of military aggression. We have four branches of the military.  We need uniforms, supplies, weapons, technology, transport. It's all pretty easy for people to wrap their minds around. We have all seen war movies or military news footage. We all have a common idea of what the face of the American military is. We accept that as a necessary part of our lives. We see it as the vanguard of our birthright as Americans. The need for a large military seems inherent in our quest to preserve and promote democracy. It defines us to a certain extent.

Enter 9/11. The game changer.

Technically, the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack on American soil. They were not an invasion. They were not intended to have permanence. They were a protest of sorts. An ideological temper tantrum. The attackers ostensibly have deep resentment of America and Western culture in general. So they made a statement. They showed us our vulnerability. They used our own freedom against us. Made us think twice about immigration. Made us question the safety of our transportation. Made us stop and and think about what we have. What we want. What we stand for. It was the seminal culturally redefining moment of my lifetime. The moment in which you realized that as great as your life in America is, the freedom you have comes at a very steep price. Every citizen, institution and ideal was and is forever changed by the events of that day. Not the least of which has been the traditional concept of military. On that day, rescue workers became surrogates of the military. Civilians were called upon to behave in valorous roles traditionally only reserved for men and women in uniform. Journalists were on the front lines, this time not as observers but as potential intended targets. In that moment, every soldier was a civilian and every civilian a soldier. We were united as never before. It was an exhilarating, terrifying, revolutionary and evolutionary. Long held boundaries and group identities were broken down. The bankers who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center were every bit the heroes that any soldier who raised a flag at Iwo Jima ever was. Who among us can hear the phrase "Let's Roll" without tearing up at the thought of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93, who put their own immediate safety firmly behind their patriotism in an attempt to derail an attack on the Pentagon? Each and every one of these Americans died a hero. The bankers, a living embodiment of our cherished free market which has provided a home for capitalist ideas. The rescue workers, a symbol of American selflessness and commitment to progress through ensuring the safety of our populace. The journalists, fierce protectors of our right to open information dissemination and free speech.

These are but a few examples of the new face of the American soldier.

This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the role of our men and women in uniform. They have always and will continue to set the standard in this country for the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice for the common gain. They are the front line. The public face of American strength. But what has changed since 9/11, is the idea of what it means to be a civilian. When all the wars are on foreign soil, it is easy to distinguish between military and non military. But when the war is at home, the enemy ambiguous and chameleon like in its form, this becomes a much more difficult task. The 9/11 attacks used our private corporations to expose our vulnerability. If the airline industry had been government owned and operated, it is unlikely that this type of attack would have even been conceived, let alone executed. So in this way, we as a nation now rest on a fulcrum. We have to decide how much influence the government can and should have on private businesses. For example, should Apple be forced to stop outsourcing the manufacturing of its goods to China for fear that there could be potential associated national security risks? What role does privately funded science and technology play in our efforts to thwart potential cyber attacks? Does there reach a point when private industry holds so much control over our safety and progress, that the LACK of governmental control creates vulnerability to foreign enemies? How do we balance those issues? And, correspondingly, aren't we all, in fact, soldiers for freedom at this point? Our ideology and way of life is certainly under attack. Isn't every teacher who helps a student understand Locke's "Social Contract Theory", in reality, preparing that student for an ideological battle in a world where the freedoms that we hold dear are increasingly becoming the exception and not the rule? The theories with which that teacher arms her students, that knowledge, is her contribution to the continuation of American life as we know it. Isn't every small business man who creates jobs by exercising his right to utilize the free market, actually demonstrating the power of the aggregate in a society that rewards creativity and progress instead of thwarting or stealing it? Is that man not also a soldier for economic freedom?

These are not new concepts. Every generation has had its wars. Every generation has felt its system breaking down around them and questioned what the future holds. The Civil War was fought over domestic ideological differences. During the Cold War, communism was the perceived threat to American life. Now it is Islamic terrorism. At each juncture of American history, its citizens have been called on to rise to the challenge, allow the old system to disintegrate, and make way for a better and more efficient model. This is no different. Our military industrial complex still exists as a viable force in the world, albeit a changing one. The armed forces remains our best line of defense, their immediate sacrifice is immeasurably valuable. But ask yourself today, the day we honor so many who have given so much on our behalf, what does it mean to you in a post 9/11 world to be an American civilian? What are you doing to keep the American dream of freedom and prosperity alive? Are you willing to soldier your ideals?

If so? Let's roll.

BB

Location. Location. Location.

This morning Facebook, one of the most highly anticipated IPO's in history, began trading on the NASDAQ. One question I hear asked frequently is "How can Facebook make any money when there is no charge for subscriptions?" People are constantly worried that this format will change, and somehow this free party will grind to a halt. The standard answer about profitability is, of course: advertising.  Conventional wisdom holds that Facebook, while posing as a social media website, is, in reality, the most prolific information cache currently available in private industry. People log in and voluntarily provide their names, birth dates, educational histories, employment information, relationship status, children's names and ages. hobbies and interests, vacation plans and pictures, political views and affiliations, and, (in my opinion) most importantly, their location. This is of tremendous interest to advertisers who could hypothetically spend millions on market research and yet never obtain access to such specificities about their intended victims - I mean, audience. Facebook has done the legwork for them and ostensibly provides a heretofore unavailable windfall of personalized information. The ultimate database. All provided with no subterfuge.  And all of this is done by offering the public the one thing that is irresistible to most human beings:

A chance to tell his or her side of the story.

A public resume. A voice. A visible record of life displayed as the participant wishes it to be. Maybe the record is accurate. Maybe it isn't. But each person has his or her free opportunity to set the record of his or her individual life straight. You got grounded unfairly for bad grades in school? Complain about it on Facebook.  You don't like the way something went on a particular day at work? Rant about it on Facebook. Your son got a baseball scholarship to UCLA? Brag about it on Facebook. Your hair happens to look perfect on that one day when no one was around to witness it? Memorialize it for posterity on Facebook. You shot a hole-in-one but no one can stand playing golf with you so you can't prove it? Get a cart guy to take your picture so you can post it on Facebook. People want to know why Facebook is so popular? It is not a mystery. It is human vanity.

One day a friend of mine and I were questioning why it suddenly seems to be so important for everyone in the world to be thought of as being "hot."  Attractiveness is a Darwinistic reality. It is a basic mating tool. People have always cared about being attractive to whatever person with which they wish to mate and that will never change. But the current trend seems to be this idea that somehow everyone has to be attractive to everyone else. Not just to the person he or she might wish to date or marry. Not even just to whatever group of people a person may be attracted to. Heterosexual females are supposed to be hot to homosexual males. Sixty year old men are supposed to be hot to twenty year old females. All women are supposed to judge and rate all other women based on attractiveness. Men are supposed to care if other men think they are hot. I found this confusing until one day my youngest daughter put a very simple spin on it by saying to me, "Mom, all people need to believe that they are attractive."

Indeed. Yes. A teenager sees it so clearly. All people need to believe that they are attractive. And Facebook offers all people that chance! Every day all people can demonstrate attractiveness. Not just physical attractiveness, but also intellectual prowess, spiritual strength, comedic superiority, compassionate courage, emotional resilience - all of these things can be promoted daily on a persons Facebook page. AND if you are sick of all the people in your immediate life, you may now reach a virtually unlimited audience! You can connect with people from your past whom you never would have possibly seen again if not for access to the internet. You can make new friends based on common interests. You can become friends with people from other cultures with whom you have no common ground and learn about their lives. The possibilities seem endless! And the best part is: You are in control. You can add or delete people from your friends list to demonstrate their relative importance in your life. You can block people from ever seeing you at all! You can take a picture that is average at best (we've all done it) photoshop it to an unrecognizable perfection, and use it as your public face to the world! You can show your life as a non stop party. A goodwill tour in which you are the star. Or you can showcase your political views. Perhaps use your page to promote your religious beliefs. You can tell the world your problems and seek sympathy and enlightenment from a larger pool. Whatever you like. It is your page.

This illusion of control, this daily vanity project is an intoxicating premise. Brilliant, actually. It combines the human need for acceptance and interaction with the previously unavailable ability to electronically manipulate and represent truths in whatever way best suits the user. It's not so much a lie, as it is a snapshot of life poised out there in virtual posterity. It's like a movie poster. Or a political ad. A moment in time captured and presented to achieve a specific purpose. It is groundbreaking because previously this kind of spin was only available to famous or wealthy people. So in this way, Facebook gives power to the proletariat. And that is a worthy enterprise.

Of course as movie stars and politicians have long known, this kind of scrutiny often becomes a double edged sword. Whatever face you present to the public, once accepted, can be either difficult to maintain; (Connor, you guys have been in a relationship for three years now, why aren't you married?) or it can be used against you in a legal battle (Emily, you told me you didn't have my money, but then you posted pictures of your new car online...). Checking in it at a movie when you told your parents that you were at a friends house will likely get you in trouble.  Once you go on the record, you are ON THE RECORD. Novice users of social media are learning the hard way that it may not always be the best idea to publicly record every move you make if you are not prepared for all the potential unintended consequences. As with any kind of major change, there will be lagging corresponding legal and governmental issues to contend with ranging from privacy issues to libel and beyond. It is a work in progress.

I am not a stock analyst nor do I profess to know what makes a company valuable. Most people will accept the premise that the seemingly infinite database that Facebook can access will translate into advertising revenue. I am certain there are other niches of the business that only insiders are privy to that are going to be profitable. From my point of view, however, I see the potential value in that Facebook users are more than willing to provide public knowledge of their locations. They will check in at restaurants and resorts. Promote car dealerships and specific brands. Tag photographers and event planners in pictures they post. The users insatiable need to showcase accomplishments (new house, celebratory dinner for latest promotion) added to the desire to be accepted by a group dynamic (latest iPad, advance tickets to movie screening) and wish to influence others perspectives (cool mantra learned at yoga studio, daily bible quote) all adds up to each individual person becoming his own living breathing advertisement. It is leverage upon leverage. In this way, the notion of collecting personal information for distribution to outside sources seems minuscule and outdated. Who needs advertising when each person is his own ad?  The traditional model of targeted advertising becomes archaic when contrasted with the ability to harness this potential international vanity project starring each person presenting him or herself as attractive; utilizing Facebook to promote whatever commercial interest is making that person feel most attractive. Getting your braces off. Buying new clothing. Restoring old cars. Hitting the gym. Attending church.  Hosting a charity function. Volunteering at a homeless shelter. Hiking a mountain you wish to have preserved. Traveling abroad. Whatever your cause. Facebook wants to know. You are the advertising. You are the message.

When you look at it that way, stop and ask yourself, who is actually providing the greater service?

BB

I Do Not Like Them In A Box...

If ever there was an overused phrase in modern American life, it has got to be "think outside the box." This mandate has become so tired and empty, it is utterly devoid of meaning at this point. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself what that phrase even means or why people use it so frequently? How many times in a given week do you hear people say things like..."That Steve Jobs really knew how to think outside the box" or  "What we need you to do right now, Jenny, is think outside the box..." It is hyperbole upon hyperbole. A mindless mantra that is chanted to the masses in the hopes of inspiring some sort of action. The question is: what kind of action does the person using this term actually seek to inspire?

If you break this idea down, one thing becomes clear. Use of the word "box" serves as some kind of metaphor for what ever the defining norms of a situation are. The "box" is societal norms. It is religious norms. It is governmental norms. It is corporate norms. It is something that confines you. Constricts you. Apparently, it keeps whoever is in it, from thinking creatively. It keeps that person from excelling. It keeps that person from achieving. So whatever you do, according to this mandate, you need to make sure you are doing it OUTSIDE the box. That much we know.

Here comes the confusing part. What, exactly, does it MEAN to be outside? And how far outside does one need to be? People who abuse this phrase love to use examples of successful endeavors that ostensibly came from "out of the box" thinking. Jefferson and The American Constitution. Kennedy and space exploration. Al Gore and the internet. (Ok, maybe just the first two). These represent new frontiers pioneered by people who didn't allow norms to keep their ideas from reaching fruition. And when you focus on those kinds of accomplishments, it would seem that the sky is literally the limit. That there is no way to be too far out of that suffocating tomb of a box. That norms can be stretched, redefined, remastered into new and better ways of living. But wait! If you stop and think about it another way, guys like Charles Manson and David Koresh were ALSO thinking outside the box. They didn't care about societal norms, nor government or religious standards. And they were able to convince other people to go along with their ideas. That's kind of upsetting. So taking their behavior at face value, it would appear that one can, in fact, be too far outside the box. Then, if you think about it yet another way, while these two may outside YOUR box, from Stalin's point of view, they were aiming pretty low, and are still firmly entrenched inside his box. And for that matter, didn't Jefferson own slaves and encourage mass slaughter of Native Americans in his quest to ensure "freedom"? So really, what kind of box did he have in the first place? When you put this kind of thought into these examples, you realize that, like anything else, thinking outside the box is a matter of context. The context of Jefferson's life is not the context of today's world. So it is impossible to know exactly what a person means when he encourages you to think in this manner. Which is why it has become such a meaningless thing to demand.

Lets say that you are in a sales meeting, and your boss tells you that you need to think outside the box in order to increase your productivity. Are you going to come back to him a few days later with some extra cool (but safe) sales pitches? Or are you going to suggest some kind of major overhaul in the organization that would allow autonomy, decentralization of power, and a potentially different compensation structure? And if you DID do the latter, would anyone at your job even take those suggestions seriously? Or would your manager be threatened and say "Wait a minute, Doug. That isn't what we meant when we said "out of the box." We just wanted you to think of a few nifty sales promos we could tie to our latest product launch." Would you be rewarded for your creativity or would you be shut down because you took it too far?

Therein lies the inherent problem with organizations and groups. In order for the group to remain powerful, it requires allegiance and loyalty. If too many people start to think for themselves, the group becomes fragmented and loses its authority. This is true of small groups, such as a clique of teenage girls who gain power by bullying other girls into conforming to their methods; and large groups, such as political parties who undermine new and modern thinking by bullying news organizations into keeping the focus on issues which they deem appropriate. If you hear a political candidate suggest that he will think "outside the box", do you take that to mean he will lower corporate taxes instead of raising them? Or does it mean that he will overhaul the entire tax system? When you see the Tea Party demand accountability in Washington, do you find that they are asking for an actual structural change that might result in a lower incidence of legislation? Or do you believe that they just want to gain power in the status quo system and utilize that power to achieve their own agenda without making any meaningful adjustments? One thing that is particularly telling, is that whenever groups such as the Tea Party or Green Party gain notoriety, they are immediately categorized by the media as offshoots of the right or the left, and subsequently claimed by the two existing parties in an effort to keep their death grip on the populace firmly in tact. These fledgling parties are never just taken at face value based on whatever their own tenants may be. There is always qualification.

To wit: "Well you know, Bob, the Tea Party is really just a bunch of angry white Republicans who want the party to lean further to the right."

"Yes, well, Susan, I did know that. That reminds me of the time the Green Party cost Al Gore the 2000 election, which was so unnecessary because when you stop and think about it, the Green Party is really just a bunch of angry hippies who want the Democrats to lean further to the left."

This is the rhetoric. This is the way the mainstream marginalizes the important message that potential third parties can deliver. The media claim to be frustrated with the state of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and any other issue that effects voters. Yet when enough people get together and try to think of "out of the box" solutions, all anyone with a public forum can do is immediately place those people within a known context of the existing two party system. In this way, it becomes increasingly difficult for any truly unconventional thinker to gain traction.  For a recent private sector example we can look at Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Why deal with a competitor who is a little edgier than you are when you can simply make them so much like you that you no longer have to be edgy? So in that way, Facebook becomes like General Motors. They cease to be the next big thing and become the norm. They go from being out of the box, to BEING the box. That is why change in this country is so incremental. The forward thinkers are either marginalized out of existence, or bought and paid for by existing entities.

Until the next person comes along and pushes boundaries in a way that is provocative or lucrative enough to make a difference. Change is slow. But it happens. Progress requires the dismantling of outdated systems and thoughts and the nurturing of more modern ideas. This applies to all areas of life. Don't let your progress be dictated by other peoples intellectual laziness and mental sluggishness. Don't become marginalized just because it is easier to be part of a larger group than it is to remain true to your ideals. I'm sure Instagram once had its own business goals that had nothing to do with Facebook. And Ariana Huffington is finding out the hard way that even $315 million isn't going to get her editorial control at AOL.

Perhaps the best way one can truly attempt to think outside the box, is to remember that the goal is to not eventually become the box.

BB