Category Archives: News

The Best Piece of Advice: We’ll See…

One of the best pieces of advice I’ve ever come across is one with regard to . I’ve written about perspective and having a in posts before, but I think that this particular post, or more accurately, the content of this post, is the best summary of my “perspective” when it comes to perspective.

The I’m quoting this from says the story is Taoist, but I’ve heard other people say it’s from different traditions:

[There was] an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

“Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“We’ll see,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.

“How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“We’ll see,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“We’ll see,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“We’ll see” said the farmer.

This kind of story could keep going on and on and on — and it has relevance to every subject (you’ll notice that I’ve placed it in every category that I currently have for the posts I write). While there are some things that I categorically disagree with (the death penalty being one), I could see this story or as the answer to many hardships in people’s lives. Having lived through *some* hardships so far, I can understand how hearing these words are not necessarily comforting with regard to certain instances, but well after the fact (in my experience), the perspective created by these words can illuminate some unexpected insights.

~

I thought I’d present some examples from the news where we could apply this wisdom:

– Many Toronto Blue Jays’ fans are pleased (myself included) that they acquired Colby Rasmus (via trade). He may turn out to be a great player for the Jays, or he may not. We’ll see.

– Most economists (and people) following the “” will tell you that the US needs to raise its debt ceiling or there will be ramifications of epic proportions. Most of what I’ve heard/read on the issue seems to be a whole lot of politicking. If the US defaults on its loans will that be the worst thing in the world? If the US averts this “disaster,” will that be a good thing? We’ll see. (This particular We’ll See might not have a concrete answer for another 30 years).

– As Borders’ stores continue to close their doors for the final time, many speculate on what this may mean for other businesses similar to Borders. The outlook isn’t usually positive, but maybe this will free up time for other endeavors. We’ll see.

– (An odd bit of news, to say the least). This particular example is quite similar to the farmer’s son falling off the horse and breaking his leg. While I don’t expect Alex Trebek to be drafted to the military, who knows what this injury will do for his “perspective” on life. And the answer is: We’ll see.

As you can see, these “three” words can apply to pretty much anything you can come up with. I’d like to invite you to share with us in the comments some situations that you initially thought were poor (or great) that turned out to be great (or not so great) with us in the comments section.

For the folks who are visual learners:

The Timeless Wisdom of Commencement Speeches

It’s that time of year again (or maybe just after that time) where thousands of students across the world prepare to ‘graduate’ from college/university/high school and move on into a new place in their lives. Invariably, coupled with this rite of passage is some sort of speech given to them by an elder. Someone with wisdom and knowledge. Someone who is charged with the task of (motivating?) these wide-eyed youngsters into an assortment of possibility. I have yet to give a commencement speech (although I can see it happening at some point in the distant future), but I can’t imagine it’s a very easy speech to write/give.

Let me explain. In the audience you have a wide array of people. There are people who are conservative, people who are liberal. There are people who are (older), there are people who are young (some still have yet to full mature into themselves). There are parents, sometimes grandparents. There are siblings. There are people of varying intelligence. There are people at different stages of development and there are people with varying degrees of religiosity. There are people don’t care what you say and there are people who will hang on your every word. I understand that many will say that the characteristics I have described are not that much different from any other audience, but to me, it feels like there’s something different about a commencement audience. Maybe I haven’t quite captured the feeling that I’m trying to describe.

So, even though you might be communicating (specifically) to the graduates, their varying degrees of development, motivation, and aspiration, could make it hard to settle on a singular focus. I think that’s what makes speeches like so good. The wisdom he conveyed was timeless. It’s probably part of the reason why Time ranked it second on their .

Then there are speeches that are more aimed at humor. I found particularly amusing. There are also those (like Poehler’s) that are intended to be humorous and insightful. Some say could have been the best ever (I think that’s a tad overstatement). Even more recently, Stephen Colbert gave what some are calling .

Like the TIME article, you’ll find a variety of sites that have lists of some of the best (or just the ones that year) commencement speeches. There’s this from The Huffington Post and there’s also a list of from ‘Online College Degrees.’ I’m a little surprised to see Jobs’ 2005 speech at the top of this list, but maybe he wasn’t thought to be the speaker that he is today back in 2005.

It seems that this time of year also motivates people (or bloggers) to talk about their favorite commencement speeches of all-time. liked Bono’s speech at UPenn and JK Rowling’s speech at Harvard.

There are also the sites that seem to collect graduation speeches. There’s a of graduation speeches. I’ve also seen sites like that actually have a storehouse of commencement speeches that can be broken down by speaker (politics, business, technology, science, media, arts, sports, and entertainment). I’ve seen some “off-the-beaten path” commencement addresses that I thought were pretty good, but were not talked about by journalists or bloggers (at least that I had seen).

What are some of your favorite commencement speeches? How would you prepare and craft a commencement speech? I think before I sat down to write, I’d want to get some statistics on the class I was speaking to (not just their majors), but if there were a way, I’d want to know where they were going after school (do they already have jobs?) and if possible, maybe see if I could have an assessment of them based on . That might be asking a bit much (AQAL), but it would sure help to set the tone of the language of the speech.

Proof That Grassroots CAN Work: Germany Closing ALL Nuclear Plants by 2022

Germany has a history of being anti-nuclear. Put more accurately: the citizens of Germany have a history of being anti-nuclear. :

The anti-nuclear movement in Germany has a long history dating back to the early 1970s, when large demonstrations prevented the construction of a nuclear plant. . . an example of a local community challenging the nuclear industry through a strategy of direct action and civil disobedience. . . Anti-nuclear success at [here] inspired nuclear opposition throughout Germany, in other parts of Europe, and in North America. . . Germany’s anti-nuclear stance was strengthened [from the Chernobyl incident]. . . In September 2010, German government policy shifted back toward nuclear energy, and this generated some new anti-nuclear sentiment in Berlin and beyond. On September 18, 2010, tens of thousands of Germans surrounded Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office. In October 2010, tens of thousands of people protested in Munich. In November 2010, there were violent protests against a train carrying reprocessed nuclear waste.

The people of Germany do not want nuclear energy — they’ve made this abundantly clear in their recent history. An interesting (and somewhat inspiring) bit of protesting that wasn’t included in the introduction of this Wikipedia entry happened

A Human Chain along the Elbe River: Approximately 120,000 people formed a 120 kilometer-long chain between the nuclear power plants in Krummel and Brunsbuttel to take a stand against the federal government’s nuclear policy. At the same time around 20,000 people demonstrated in front of the Biblis Power plant in southern Hesse. Another 7,000 protesters gathered in front of an interim nuclear waste storage facility in North Rhine-Westphalia.

That is incredible. Seeing pictures of protests/marches at the National Mall can be kind of exhilarating, but a 120km chain of people — that’s quite a political statement. Forget political, that’s quite a statement in general. To be able to gather that many people together (not just in one place), but to span across a distance so great — that’s just inspiring. Moving forward to this year, after the , the Germans resolve for a nuclear-free country was reignited.

On Saturday [March 12th, the day after the Tsunami struck Japan], anti-nuclear protesters formed a 45-km (27 mile) human chain from the Baden-Wuerttemberg capital of Stuttgart to Neckarwestheim I. Between 50,000 and 60,000 demonstrators took part, according to police and organisers. [sic]

Three days after the disaster started in Japan, Chancellor Merkel announced a , during which the initial plans to extend the life of some of the older nuclear plants in the country . The next day, the Chancellor took it one step further by off the grid (temporarily). Some noted that this with the upcoming state elections.

While I’m sure that these decisions made the German citizens happy, it clearly was not enough for them. On March 26th, just two short weeks after the event in Japan, to “demand the irreversible phase out [of] nuclear power.” (Here’s a link to an , in case you don’t use Google Chrome/Translate to read the German article.) The protesting , with pockets of people protesting in different areas of the country totaling over 10,000.

… And now finally, the German citizens are getting what they asked for — . A country whose energy department will never again have to create plans and procedures for dealing with new radioactive waste. By the year 2022, Germany will have . How awesome is that? Forget for a second where you stand on nuclear energy and just take in the effect that the citizens of the country had on the policymakers of the country. The citizens of Germany did not want nuclear energy. Period. The policymakers thought that this position (of the people) may have softened and tried to open up the possibility for more nuclear power. Upon learning of this, the citizens revolted. Heeding the word of the people, the policymakers had to go back on their plans to increase nuclear energy in the country.

This is quite an amazing feat (to me). The people wanted something – desperately – and now they’re getting it. It seems similar in a way to some of the other things that have happened this year. There were the for union rights and more noteworthy, there was (and still is) the overwhelming number of . It has been quite a year for “small groups” of people, hasn’t it? It may seem a bit clichéd, (but it is most definitely not contrived); I wanted to end this post with a quote from a :

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

What Would You Do, If You Just Bought a House and Found Money In It?

Money, cash, bag of money, money bag, garbage bag of money, full of moneySo, what would you do? You have just bought your family’s first house — excitement abound. It’s mid-week and you pick up the keys to head on over and relish your investment. After walking through the house and feeling like a King (or Queen), you walk past the garage and notice a piece of cloth hanging from the attic door. Curious, you head on up to the attic to find… bags of money! Do you keep it? Do you tell anyone? What would you do?

Well, for a couple from Utah, the answer to this question is give it back. As with the human experience, this story is not as cut and dry as I’m making it out to be. The previous owner of the house had died recently, after having lived there since 1966! That’s a long time to live in one house, especially in this day and age. One of the children of the the previous owner talked about how she knew her father had been hiding money away because she once found a bundle of cash taped beneath a drawer. Saving money was typical for people of this time. In fact, it’s logical if you think about it. People who grew up in the Great Depression, would have been socialized into believing that there “wasn’t enough,” and that survival was predicated on one saving.

Anyway, this story about the couple giving back the money, I think, is a true testament to the ‘good‘ in people. I think that most of us would expect the couple who found the money to keep the money, and that’s probably a logical inference. Most importantly, I think that what we’ve seen with this couple is context-dependent. Maybe if they didn’t know that it was an old man who had lived in the house previously, maybe then they would have kept the money. Of course, I doubt this is the case for this particular couple (from what I’ve read about them), but I think for some people, knowing that there is a person on the other end of where the money used to belong to would change things for them.

In Part 1 of my series on American Public Policy, I refer to the book Superfreakonomics and in particular, a study they cite in talking about altruism. Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life InsuranceIn short, they found that when people are given the opportunity to, (on a continuum) give a complete stranger $10 right down to take $10, on average, people take about $1.30 from a complete stranger. (To better understand this, I recommend checking out Part 1.) In essence, the researchers have demonstrated that, when given the opportunity, people are likely to take from complete strangers. Maybe had the Utah couple not known who they bought the house from, they would have been more likely to keep the money.

As I stated above, I have a feeling that this is not the case. Utah is known for being a rather religious state. In fact, a 2009 Gallup poll places Utah as one of the top 15 states in the US (based on the question: Is religion an important part of your daily life?) Interesting to note: religiosity has been linked to morality since the time of Ancient Greece. Of course, there are others who think that morality without religion is possible, but could it be that Utah’s higher incidence of religiosity made it more likely that this Utah couple who found the money (is more likely to be religious), and by extension, moral?

Statue of Mother TeresaI’m not saying that you have to be religious to be moral, but there are some interesting factors at play. The first of which is the whole knowing the previous owner (as I elaborated on with the altruism study). The second would be religion/morality and the third, closely tied to this happening in Utah. This particular state is known for its residents being part of the Latter Day Saint Movement (Mormonism). One of the beliefs of this particular movement is that the people who subscribe to it, are referred to as “Saints.” This particular couple may not be of this religion/movement, but the question is still an interesting one to pose. If you thought of yourself as a “saint,” do you think that you’d keep a pile of money that you’ve found?

McDonald’s Aims for Fidelity Mirage

McDonald's, Mickey Dees, Mickey D's, McDonald's sign, Las Vegas,A couple of weeks ago, I read a book called Trade-Off: Why Some Things Catch On, and Others Don’t. I rather enjoyed it so much that I recommend it to businesses/organizations. The book was written by Kevin Maney who has a knack for predicting the success and failures of business based on their initiatives in what he calls “fidelity and convenience.” Here is the snippet I wrote that you can find through resources page of this website:

In Trade-Off, Kevin Maney thoroughly explains the successes and failures of businesses who have took aim at what he calls, “the fidelity mirage.” This ‘fidelity mirage,’ is when a company believes that they can create a product (or service) that is simultaneously of high fidelity and of high convenience. Maney defines fidelity as “the total experience of something.” Another way of looking at fidelity is quality. The higher the quality of experience,the higher the fidelity. Overall,  Trade-Off is an essential book for anyone looking to gain a better understanding of why some products or services succeed and others don’t. More importantly, for those aspiring entrepreneurs out there, Maney illustrates, by example, some sure-fire ways for your product to NOT make it off the ground. His advice is sound and based on years of experience.

Trade off, kevin maney, One of the cover-stories this morning of the USA Today is titled: “McDonald’s revamps stores to look more upscale.” The gist of the article can be gleaned from the title, too. McDonald’s, known for its super-convenience, is trying to buy their way into the ‘quality market.’ As Maney may put it, ‘they are attempting to break their way into the fidelity-game.’ At first glance, this may seem like a great idea for McDonald’s. They’ve had a stranglehold on the convenience market for quite some time, and now, they figure, why not expand our horizons and try to get a piece of the ‘fidelity’ pie.

I’m not Kevin Maney, but using his idea of the “fidelity mirage,” I think that McDonald’s is headed down a road that could lead to some major losses. In the book, Maney cites the examples of Coach bags and RAZR cell phones as trying to bridge the gap from fidelity, orMotorola RAZR, flip phone, razr, motorola, black phone, quality, to convenience, or quantity. In the Coach example, the handbag maker had been at the top of the luxury market with the likes of Louis Vuitton. Between 2004 and 2008, Coach opened nearly 100 new stores and lots of outlet shops. In doing so, one of the reasons their bags were selling so well [allure] quickly faded as the bags became more and more accessible, available, and prevalent. It was no longer unique to have a Coach bag. This same thing happened with RAZRs. Motorola took their sleek and fashionable phone, lowered the price (from $400), and flooded the market. Like Coach, RAZR had ruined the product that was based on fidelity.

With what was announced today, I think that McDonald’s is trying to make the leap from convenience to fidelity. The examples I’ve cited are of companies trying to make the leap from fidelity to convenience, but I still think that we can learn from those companies misfirings. For as long as McDonald’s has been serving Big Mac’s, they have been known as the super-convenient place to get food. This will be quite a paradigm shift for a company that has made their money on turning food production into an assembly-line-like process.

I don’t think that McDonald’s will draw customers that would have otherwise not gone to McDonald’s, but I think that this is what they are trying to do. Instead, I think that they may just enhance the ‘experience’ for those customers who already go to McDonald’s. Slow food, slow food cookout, buy slow food, farmer, tractor, slow food nation, farmer's market, friday farmer's market, That is, I don’t think we’ll find a sudden increase of people courting potential high-priced business clients at the local McDonald’s. I also don’t think that McDonald’s will lose any of their customers seeking super-convenience, although, it’s worth mentioning that those customers who are uncomfortable in “luxurious” environments might find it difficult to be in these newly designed McDonald’s.

I don’t know that it’s reasonable for McDonald’s to do so, but I’d like to see them make the leap into Slow Food. I understand that this kind of movement could not happen overnight and maybe not even under the same brand, but I really don’t like the state of health fostered by people eating at McDonald’s. Bringing it back to the issue of today, I think that this attempt to pair fidelity with convenience will not succeed as much as McDonald’s hopes it will.

Is An Eye For An Eye Ever Justified?

As I’m sure you’ve heard/read/seen, the United States conducted a mission in which Osama bin Laden “passed away.” At first, I was quite shocked. Everything we’d been told about bin Laden was that he was . Moreover, he hadn’t been in the news in ages, and all of a sudden — boom. Then, I felt empathy. Yes, I understand that this person was seen as a security threat to the United States and in some cases, the world, but it is my belief that no matter the crime, taking life is never the solution, nor is it justifiable.

Some of the archived footage of President Obama talking about bin Laden ( and ) and just my general feelings about President Obama make me think that Obama’s original intention in this mission was not to take an eye for an eye. President Obama doesn’t seem like the kind of president who is out for ‘revenge.’ Rather, I think the initial intent was to capture. Some have already , and others think . Others still, think that for the United States (and the world). Other than some of the footage I’ve seen of Obama talking about bin Laden, and my own intuition, I have no hard evidence. There may be some out there, but I haven’t come across it. Mind you, I haven’t looked very hard, either.

The “An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye… ends in making everybody blind,” is often to Mahatma Gandhi. In looking at the wiki article for “,” Jesus Christ is also quoted as saying: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” However, there is no reference to a specific passage from the Bible (or other book), so I don’t know if that’s accurate.

Byron Katie often says, “.” When I first heard that, it took me a some time to wrap my head around what that is really saying. Defense is the first act of war. So, not the aggressor, but the defender. Sounds a bit strange, yes? She’s so eloquent that instead of trying to paraphrase her ‘thoughts’ on the topic, I decided just to include a YouTube video of her talking about the concept:

While Katie is referring to defense in a communication-sense, I think that her ideas on this topic can be extrapolated to other areas of interaction. As an example: think about a school-yard bully. On the playground, the bully pushes another kid down. In one scenario, the kid gets up, retaliates, is seen by one of the people “on-duty” for lunch and is subsequently sent to the principal’s office. Another way this first scenario could play out is the two get into some sort of brawl whereby both are left injured. In the second scenario, the kid gets up and walks away. The kid does not allow the antagonism of the bully to get to her/him. The kid just ‘brushes it off’ and leaves the situation. More times than not, the bully, who is actually seeking some sort of reaction from someone, will not follow the kid as s/he walks away, but instead, will seek out another person to bully.

Now, the two scenarios I’ve presented leave little to be desired. Many people would want the kid to retaliate or have someone reprimand the bully for what they have done — and I can understand this. But looking at this scenario systemically, the problem is much deeper. The questions that need to be asked are less about the kid and the bully, and more about the environment’s in which these two roles have grown up in. That is, what kind of things are happening in the bully’s environment such that would make the bully more likely to be a bully and what kinds of things are happening in the kid’s environment such that would make the kid more likely to be bullied? If we begin looking into the roots of the problem, we see through the veil, so to speak, and gain a better understanding of the world around us, especially as it relates to ‘unrest.’

Could This Have Happened in Any Other Country: Only In America

A few years ago in a coffee shop “,” there was a man who was so desperate, we’ll call him , that he decided he was going to steal the money out of the tip jar, (which contained less than $5.00 — thus, Desperado). Another man, we’ll call him , saw what Desperado was trying to do and chased after him. Hero and Desperado struggled outside until Desperado was able to break free. Desperado raced to his car and tried to make a quick getaway. In doing so, he ‘accidentally’ backed over Hero. Hero was rushed to the hospital, but succumbed to his head injuries and passed away.

Now, given that this happened in “far, far away,” Hero’s estate decided it would be most appropriate to file a lawsuit claiming that the coffee shop was at fault! Only in “far, far away,” would Hero’s family sue the coffee shop (because they’re actually part of a larger corporation with oodles of money) and not Desperado. It is clear that “far, far away’s” legal system needs some adjusting.

While I have introduced this as a fictitious scenario that took place in a fictitious land, — in the USA — recently! In 2008, a Desperado-character really did try to steal money from the tip jar and a Hero-character really did try to stop him. The Desperado-character really did “accidentally” run over the Hero-character who later succumbed to the head trauma. And, the Hero-character’s family really is suing the coffee shop (Starbucks), and !

I think that there are a number of noteworthy things here and I’ll try to summarize them briefly.

  1. How can you accidentally run someone over? I don’t mean to be funny, but if you’re engaged in criminal activity, isn’t your intent somewhat, say, criminal, so in trying to get away from the scene of the crime, wouldn’t that just be lumped in with the criminality of it all? I can understand the semantics in that the Desperado-character was maybe backing his car out of a parking space and the Hero-character just happened to be on the ground behind his car, but still — it seems a bit strange that in every article I’ve read about this, it’s bluntly stated that the running over of the Hero-character was accidental.
    ~
  2. I’m not going to talk about the absurdity that some lawyer actually thinks that they can make a case against Starbucks in this scenario (they’re really just doing their job, right?), but more importantly, I think it’s absurd that the legal system is set-up such that this is even a possible outcome! I’ve heard of a number of , but this one seems to go beyond the bounds of frivolousness. Why? Because they’re not even suing the human directly responsible for the death! It’s clear that the prime directive is to gain retribution (in the form of money, of course), for the death of the Hero-character.
    ~
  3. Is our society in that much trouble, really? I realize that this happened in 2008 and some may attribute this happening to the , but this scenario played out in March of 2008. At that point, and statistically, was similar to where it had been for the last few months. The tip jar apparently had less than $5. I suppose stealing from a tip jar at Starbucks is infinitely easier than , (unless you’re interested in stealing the pen attached to the counter?), but is that really what we’re coming to as a society?

Behavior of Sports Fan(atic)s Rival Behavior of Religious Fanatics

A couple of days ago as I was driving into town, I heard the guy on the radio talking about some sort of . Given the , my attention wasn’t immediately tuned into what was happening. As the reporter expanded upon the story, I was appalled. The reporter proceeded to tell the listeners that one, , 42-year old and San Francisco Giants’ fan, is showing signs of brain damage after having been severely beaten by, Los Angeles Dodgers fans.

The history of violence involving fans is well documented, and typically, violence in spectator sports is more closely associated with football (or soccer for those folks in the US and Canada). The last incident of “fan violence” in baseball was in August of 2009, when a at and hit, Philadelphia Phillies centerfielder, Shane Victorino. The outfielder had some beer land on him, which is unacceptable of course, but other than that, nothing too serious.

Some of the more recent incidents of violence include a match between Italy and Serbia in October of 2010. The start of the game was delayed over half an hour. Once the game got underway, before they were ten minutes into the 1st half, a flare was thrown onto the field causing more rioting. The game was called and one team was later awarded the victory based on the fans that were causing trouble.  In March of 2010 during a game, climbed over the glass, into the bench of the opposing team, and proceeded to strike one of the goalies over the head several times with a stick. The goalie had to leave the bench area, as blood was running down his face, and he was later diagnosed with a concussion. If you’re interested, there’s a .

On the face of these myriad incidents of violence by fans in sports, I can’t help but think of the true meaning of the word fan. The word fan, comes from the word fanatic, which means, “. . .” In my opinion, these fans are definitely exhibiting “extreme enthusiasm” in support of their team. In the definition I provided, I left out five words that appear after the word zeal. These five words: “as in religion or politics.”

When I hear about these horrendous acts of violence committed in the “name of one’s team,” I can’t help but make the connection to another brand of fanaticism — religious fanaticism. After the events of , the world was led to believe that these attacks were committed by religious fanatics (and that may well be the case, but I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of any of the explanations for what happened). Since then, opening up the or the to find an article about someone killing in the name of religion has become somewhat normalized because of how often it happens. Is there really a big difference between religious fanaticism and sports fanaticism?

If there is, to me, the difference is negligible, and I for one, think this is awful. Fans identify with their teams so much so that they feel compelled to harm another human being! I was an athlete and I can tell you, after the game is over, life still goes on. You go on and eat your meals, sleep, read books, and do all of the other things that people do. To some fans, when the game ends, their life, in a way, ends. I think this kind of attachment to sports is unhealthy. Similarly, I think the attachment to religion that is displayed by those who believe they are doing right by their religion by killing in the name of their deity is also a little bit too far. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the thinking that goes into their decision and prosper in the afterlife, but it is my opinion, that there is never a valid reason to kill another human being, (or one’s self for that matter).

Aren’t We All Just Baby Chicks Following a Mother Hen?

Because of where I live, I have the great fortune of being able to look out my window and see an abundance of roosters. And because of this abundance of roosters, undoubtedly, there are a number of baby chicks. These baby chicks don’t just wander aimlessly across the lawn looking for food or something to do. These baby chicks, instead, are quite deliberate in their actions. In fact, these baby chicks follow around the mother hen. Partially, because their life depends upon it. Maybe not where I live, but in some parts of the world, if a baby chick strays to far from momma, it’s likely to be another creature’s tasty snack.

As I watched these baby chicks following the mother hen, I looked a little closer at their actions. I wanted to see why it was they were following mother around. From what I was able to gather, these baby chicks are following mother around because they’re safer (read: ), but more than that, mother hen shows them what’s foot and what’s not food. This may have been some sort of anomaly, but from the dozens of  minutes I was able to watch (on different days), the hens would go to an area of the lawn and then call the chicks over to where she was (usually a distance of mere away). The mother hen would then begin pecking away at the grass (or something on the lawn) and the baby chicks would follow suit.

I soon learned, just from watching, that this was how the baby chicks were able to eat. Either the mom was helping to pull something up out of the ground or she was identifying what was nutritious for the baby chicks. The mother hen would vary her time in how long she spent in an area. When she left one area, some of the baby chicks would immediately follow her, while others, remained behind (to pick-up the scraps?) As I continued to watch the dynamics of the situation, I began to be able to notice parallels to the news of society.

The different big-branded news corporations (, , , , , etc.) are all like mother hens and us, the viewers, are like baby chicks. When one of these news conglomerates reports on a story, immediately, our attention is drawn to that area of the world. When one of the mother hens calls the baby chicks attention to one area of the lawn, immediately, that is where their attention goes. The chicks run over to see what’s happening. Like the baby chicks, the viewers become immediately concerned with whatever is being reported to them.

When a reporter or hen talks about a certain story, they are drawing your attention to that story. Unintentionally or not, they are also drawing your attention away from any other story that they could have reported on. As the reporter moves onto another story the next day, some viewers move onto the next story with them, while some viewers stay enveloped in “yesterday’s news.” Sometimes, this is for good (maybe their favorite team won a big game) and sometimes it’s maybe for not so good reasons (?)

Being able to watch these baby chicks follow around the mother hen allowed me to see something that is played out in society time and time again. Somebody (the hen) says xyz is important, so instantly, everyone else (the baby chicks) buy-in to the story to see just what xyz about. My point in this story about the hen and the baby chicks is that all of us, in one way or another, is following around a hen. Whether we watch the news on any particular station, read about news on the internet, or get our news from our friends. Regardless, our attention is being drawn to a story (more times than not) because someone said it was important. I think it is paramount to remember that had we been following a different hen, our views, beliefs, and ideas about the world would likely be completely different.

Misrepresenting the News: Infer-mation Overload

In a previous post, I talked about how the . This post is about a blatant misrepresentation of fact.

In the first line of , the author writes:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that Al Jazeera is gaining more prominence in the U.S. because it offers “real news” — something she said American media were falling far short of doing.

If you watch the video that accompanies said article, or read the article on the , you see that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is actually saying:

“In fact viewership of al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”

Clinton does not explicitly say that the U.S. media does not offer real news. Instead, she says that American news is not particularly informative. One can see how this can be inferred from what she said, but it is not what she said. This is something that irks me about news agencies in general, but I can understand how it is necessary in our entertainment-driven society.

Why can’t we just have news that reports on the facts rather than one that tries to ‘‘ the news in one direction. This has gone so far that after debates between political candidates, representatives from either side are meant to spin what their respective candidate said in what is called the “.” We actually call the place where this happens the spin room. Isn’t that a little far? Shouldn’t we just be talking about what the candidate said?

Maybe my line of thinking is too utopian. Maybe my ideals are a little lofty in that there needn’t be a place for — intentionally or unintentionally. I’d really just like to have someone tell me the facts of the day and what that could potentially mean, from a systematic point of view.

In today’s world where there are proponents from both side jockeying for mine (and your) attention at 6pm to get the daily dose of the facts, it almost seems safer to watch both of the news to get a more accurate perspective on what’s been happening. However, some sources like one, and one, explain that watching the news can actually make you less informed about what’s going on. With the advance of social networking, maybe it’s almost safer just to follow the to see what’s happening in the world.