A word of caution on modern “tolerance.”

A word of caution on modern “tolerance.”

In 2008, Brendan Eich (along with 52% of Californians), expressed his position on prop 8 financially (and also presumably by voting the same way), donating $1,000.00 in support of it.

Some four years later, the founder of Mozilla – as well as creator of JavaScript – cum reluctant CEO candidate, has resigned his position due to the backlash against his personal position on an issue.

This begs the question, what truly comprises “tolerance” in this day and age? It seems now it’s simply a matter of being on the right side of an issue, and that means, then, that nothing has really changed. The classic struggle paradigm typically features the oppressed/disenfranchised/minority component passionately pleading and fighting for their case, and continuing to persevere until they win the right to be recognized for their beliefs – right or wrong, mind you – by society at large.

Why then, should this same courtesy and privilege not be extended to those whose position is deemed unpopular, or wrong? It seems tolerance is only demanded and fought for by a certain group until it’s won, in which case, the victors are then afforded the spoils, which are comprised of now being the ones with the big thumbs.

Personally I disagree with Eich’s position and beliefs (I debated about whether or not to include that bit of information in this posting), but that doesn’t make me right, or him wrong, me superior, or him inferior. Tolerance should entail leeway, and space, for those around us, and equally as important, the opportunity to disagree on issues, civilly, while also refraining from imposing our will or beliefs on others.

After all, as I like to posit, people should be able to do, think, and feel, whatever they want, provided of course they’re not hurting or otherwise obstructing anyone else from doing the same. If we cannot learn to “tolerate” the beliefs and lifestyles of those around us with whom we differ (regardless of which position on an issue is most popular), then in the long run, prejudice, ignorance, and strife will never be removed from the social paradigm.

What to do when you’re asked to go get the coffee.

What to do when you’re asked to go get the coffee.

One of my favorite sayings, which has become a bit of a mantra, is ‘Those who are willing to be vulnerable move among mysteries.’ Now it’s not always the easiest bit of advice to follow, as it can be scary out there, beyond your comfort zone, but of course, that’s where most of life is taking place.

In a recent article on LinkedIn, Jeff Stibel – Chairman & CEO of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp –  tells the story of the time a Venture Capitalist he was to be pitching his company to asked Jeff to go get him a coffee. Instead of informing the VC of his self-perceived importance, or assigning an “underling” to the seemingly menial task, Jeff did exactly as asked.

The takeaway from this could very well be several different conclusions. That Jeff lacks a backbone, that Jeff did not think highly enough of himself to delegate the task, but really, it was simply that Jeff thinks highly enough of everyone around him to realize that it might as well be him taking care of this VC (or anyone else in the same asking position, for that matter).

Jeff goes on to relate how the VC was justifiably embarrassed when he realized the subsequent delay of the meeting he was there to attend was caused by his sending the CEO out for coffee. But more importantly, Jeff had seized on an opportunity:

It was a great way to show some humility and demonstrate to my team that we are all in it together as equals.

That point of equality is often lost on people, as if it is a nothing more than an abstract idea. As someone who has studied the brain, I value variations in intelligence. But there is an important twist. Our brains are mostly alike. Even our closest kin, chimpanzees, share 98.8% of our DNA. Across the human spectrum, the dumbest of us are even more similar than that to the most intelligent. For all intents and purposes, our brains are virtually identical. That means we can learn a tremendous amount from just about anyone, if we are willing to be respectful and listen. For this reason alone, it’s downright stupid to treat anyone else as anything but our equal (a distinction we should probably also extend to the animal kingdom, but I digress). Maybe the VC should have gotten his own coffee, but if he had to choose someone, I was as good a choice as anyone else.

You’re missing out if you’re not giving yourself the same opportunity to learn something each day from the janitor as well as the CEO. That doesn’t mean you should be “nice,” it means you must take genuine interest.

Realistically, not everything in life happens for a reason. This does not mean that we are not afforded the chance to grow, and learn from, everything that happens in life. Accordingly, if we could truly recognize opportunity in life, or what that next big break looks like, we’d realize it’s everywhere around us, constantly.

The Outernet is coming, the world may never be the same.

The Outernet is coming, the world may never be the same.

The Outernet, scheduled to be up and running in 2016 will effectively be an array of low orbit satellites which will bring (hopefully the better and more helpful parts of) the world wide web to the 4 billion+ unconnected inhabitants of planet earth. The Outernet will also restore connectivity to populations otherwise cut off by natural disasters, political oppression, or myriad cataclysmic events where access to information is akin to life and death.

Conservatively, this could perhaps be one of the most significant events in the history of the world when one considers the profound and immediate impact it can have on over two-thirds of the world’s population.

Jack Kerouac, 3-12-1920

On soft Spring nights I’ll stand in the yard under the stars – Something good will come out of all things yet – And it will be golden and eternal just like that – There’s no need to say another word.

– Jack Kerouac, 3-12-1920

On the Road had a profound impact on my life – like so many others, I’m sure. It has the distinction of being one of my most re-read books…and still it never fails to conjure up itches not unlike the ones Jack ran around his whole life long trying to scratch.

The WWE is disrupting the world of sports broadcasting.

The WWE is disrupting the world of sports broadcasting.

With the recent launch of the WWE Network, Vince McMahon is cutting out the middle man (traditional broadcast television providers) and bringing the content directly to the masses.

If he is successful, it is only a matter of time before the major sports follow suit – NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB – and one would be hard pressed not to assume the UFC and other forms of prize fighting won’t be far behind.

Admittedly the WWE operates in a different arena (sports entertainment) and the groundwork was laid over multiple decades, namely the buying up and out of competing wrestling enterprises and their video archives, but the potential is here for a win win for both the producer of content and the consumer itself, leaving the cable and dish companies on the sidelines. 

All of this is possible as live entertainment is one of the last bastions of significant broadcast revenue, if you care, and you can, you want to see it live. If you care even more, you want to see it over and over again. The WWE is providing that, the traditional broadcasters cannot be happy about it.

Wrestler Inspires With Sportsmanship After Losing In State Title Match

Wrestler Inspires With Sportsmanship After Losing In State Title Match

A high school wrestler’s amazing gesture after a loss in the state championship match brought tears to the eyes of many spectators, and it’s not hard to see why.

After falling to Mitchell McKee in Minnesota’s 120-pound class, Malik Stewart went over and embraced McKee’s father, Steve, who is battling terminal cancer.

In life (and in business) we learn the most about ourselves and those around us in times of trouble, and adversity. We will all face setbacks, defeat, and rejection, the choice then, is in our response, and our reaction. This kid gets it.

Say what you mean (and email only that).

Say what you mean (and email only that).

We live in an always on, always sharing world. And while it seems more and more people are falling in love with disseminating information (pictures, tweets, videos, snaps, blogs!), predictably, we are becoming less and less inclined to consume anything longer than 140 characters.

So why send long, verbose, confusing emails, if we already (sub-consciously) know people aren’t going to read them?

The Daily Muse’s Elliot Bell posits that it’s because we don’t want to be rude (even though wasting someone’s time is probably far worse than being short).

A lot of times, we’re afraid to be brief in emails because we don’t want to sound mean, or because we think we need to give a lot of information or directions to get our point across. And that’s fair. But I think we’d all agree that less email would make our working lives a whole lot easier. And that starts with making each one just a little bit shorter.

I suspect this hits the nail on the head, though, if we’re being practical with ourselves, we’d appreciate keeping things short and sweet, as getting to the point sooner > fear of offending, or wasting someone’s time. The sole caveat involved is recognizing and avoiding being brief at the expense of salience.

But then I suppose that’s why it’s called the point, if you go too far, or not far enough, you’ve missed it.

 

 

The thing about Arizona’s SB 1062

The thing about Arizona’s SB 1062

Predictably Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed SB 1062, which otherwise in effect would’ve made redundant the right to refuse service in the state of Arizona on the basis of freedom of religion.

The quick and easy takeaway here would be a victory for the good guys, and a loss for the bad guys, which to an extent is true. Though, if we dial down a few notches, there are other perhaps more interesting points to consider.

• The government should protect the rights of the individual at all times, this of course is sacrosanct.
• At the same time, forcing a business or individuals to offer their services to people or groups whose beliefs they disagree with (rightly or wrongly), is equally encroaching on rights.

Perhaps the takeaway here is that there are missed opportunities, when individuals are not allowed to reveal their true colors. As an example, say businesses in New York State were empowered to deny service based on baseball team loyalties (a much more trivial paradigm, I know). As a Red Sox fan, I suspect I’d be denied service at a few different establishments in my area, and yet, at the same time, I suspect that overwhelmingly businesses would operate with the thought in mind that making money is good, and would decide that making more of it (by catering to all baseball and non-baseball fans alike, regardless of affiliation) is even better. On the other side of that coin, I would also now be afforded the opportunity to refuse to patronize businesses that had policies I disagreed with, which otherwise would’ve been masked by government legislation.

Per Barry Hess, Communications Director for the Arizona Libertarian Department:

“While all individuals and non-government businesses retain an absolute right to refuse to do business with anyone (including government) for any reason, proposing a law to that effect is not only redundant, but unnecessarily incites argument,” the statement says. “Worse yet, it is an invitation and encouragement for businesses to discriminate against a specific group for purely political reasons.”

The statement continues: “The ‘bread and butter’ for the kind of politicians who would propose such legislation is the division of the electorate. They seek only to divide us (the American People) up into groups, pit them against one another, and then offer to referee. Libertarians are of the opinion that here, in America (Arizona included), all individuals are equal under the law, without regard to the usual attempts to divide us based on spiritual beliefs, sex, sexual preferences, skin color, mental capabilities or national or ethnic origins. Our strength as a nation depends upon our common beliefs as a free People, and the protection of our inherent, God-given rights as individuals.”

 

Effectively, if a business opts to conduct itself in such a manner that is deemed offensive by a given group (rightly or wrongly), while also not harming or denying an essential service to that group, it should always be their prerogative to do so (wisely, foolishly, or otherwise). Accordingly, those same groups in question have now been afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion with their dollar, their patronage, and their esteem. The idea being that discrimination/bigotry/etc is more effectively punished by economic realities rather than governmental influence, while also being more revealing to individuals on either side of an issue.

The movement towards (embracing) results continues.

The movement towards (embracing) results continues.

From qz.com: 

In a conversation with The New York Times’ Tom Friedman, Google’s head of people operations, Laszlo Bock, detailed what the company looks for. And increasingly, it’s not about credentials.

Many schools don’t deliver on what they promise, Bock says, but generate a ton of debt in return for not learning what’s most useful. It’s an “extended adolescence.”

 

To parallel an event currently taking place in the sports world, flashy numbers at the NFL Combine (where prospective NFL hires from the college football ranks showcase the individual talents and abilities – such as their speed it the 40 yard dash – which are supposed to be indicative of their future success, professionally)  are great, but if they don’t translate well – or indicate future success, which is not at all uncommon – on the field, they’re worthless.

The Bitterness of Poor Quality

If someone is selling you on price, consider what that says about everything else.