Michael Brown

A few days ago a Snohomish County Sheriff threatened to arrest me for trespassing in a public park if I ever parked my car there again while going to work.  I had parked there for 3 hours (the sign says that parking is limited to 3 hours) and had come back to move my car when the officer confronted me.

I am white, middle-aged female.  I have never been arrested or threatened to be arrested in my life.  I have always respected and trusted the police as public servants trying to do their job.  Having the officer in my face threatening me and telling me that I should not continue to argue with him because I would "lose" in the end, made me realize how simplistic my thinking was.  He had the gun and the power.  I should stop arguing with him - and I did.  But I was incredulous and offended by his abuse of power.

What if I had not been white, middle-aged female?  What if I had been Michael Brown parking my car at this public park?  Or Michael Brown just walking through the park?  What would have happened to me then?

---T

Women's Issues Are Our Issues

The presidential debates have provided sound bites from President Obama and Governor Romney when they discuss women’s issues. But what do the candidates’ official websites reveal regarding what they believe on issues of equal rights, women in the workplace, or equal pay?

SEATTLE — Women make up half of the electorate and their opinions are valued because they vote in greater numbers in all presidential elections. Both candidates take opportunities on the campaign trail and in the debates to highlight their support of women and women’s issues. But when I examined the presidential candidates’ official websites I immediately noticed a tone difference.

See full post here.

--- Tarja

Time to Talk About Guns

I wrote this post on the Seattle Times Electioneye blog:

The fear of gun violence is an ever-present reality to parents, kids, teachers, neighbors, passers-by in America.  But our politicians are not discussing it in any serious manner – even during the presidential campaign.  It is time to change that.

Courtesy of www.millionmommarch.org

SHORELINE — Last May, when I had just finished a meeting at work, I received a text message from a friend saying that there had been a shooting in Shoreline the previous evening, and two youths had been shot.  One of them, a 17 year old girl, had died.

She was a student in my daughter’s high school at Shorecrest.

The shooting had taken place on the same street on which my daughter’s Metro bus travels from school to home every day.  At that moment the police had no suspect or motive – it looked like a random act of violence.

I was petrified.

I texted my daughter, “DO NOT TAKE THE BUS” home after school, and that I would pick her up.  I left work early with an uneasy feeling in my stomach: something terrible had just happened and my life was directly affected by it.  I could not control the events in my neighborhood, and I could not protect my daughter from the reality of gun violence and death.

Twelve years ago I participated in the first Million Mom March on Mothers’ Day in Seattle.  My daughter was just a toddler, and I was concerned about her growing up in fear of gun violence and a sense of insecurity.  The Columbine school shooting was still fresh on my mind.  Since that first march, there have been an estimated 872,247 deaths or injuries caused by firearms in the United States, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.  Million Mom March has united forces with the Brady Campaign, and together they have made some modest gains in preventing access to guns, but neither political party has made a serious attempt to enact gun control.

During the presidential election season, I would like to posit a few serious questions regarding the view of candidates — for any level of office — on gun control, and their interpretations of the Second Amendment.  Do candidates care about decreasing gun violence in America?  Are they going to address the easy access to weapons that are meant to kill many in an instant?  Will any ask questions about gun laws and violence prevention?

After the first two presidential debates I am pessimistic about getting any of these questions answered.  It appears that gun control is taboo and cannot be discussed in an adult-like manner with either Republicans or Democrats.  If we don’t talk about it in the public forum, it doesn’t exist, right?

Stephen Barton is trying to change that.

He survived the recent, horrific shooting incident in a Colorado movie theater.  He made a TV ad,Demand a Plan, which was aired during the first presidential debate.  Barton, who considers himself “lucky,” tries to draw attention to the horrific consequences of gun violence.  In his own words: “At some point we have to demand a certain level of courage and independence among politicians. At some point you just have to expect more, even in an election season… It’s really just a very basic request that both candidates start talking about this, that they take the situation seriously.”

Gun advocates like to say that guns don’t kill people, people do.  Cars don’t kill people either, drivers in cars do.  Cars are big and powerful, and made of metal.  They are not intended to be driven haphazardly.  That’s why we have created a sensible set of rules about how to drive cars and who can drive them, and what people must do to obtain a license to drive them.  We even require people to have insurance before they can drive cars.  These rules give us a sense of safety on the road.  We follow them because it makes sense.  And because we know we must.

It’s time we had a conversation about gun control. I’ll be tuning into the next two presidential debates, waiting.

Posted from Shoreline, Washington, United States

A Walk on the Beach

This morning it was sunny and beautiful on the south Puget Sound.  I walked from our cabin through the woods onto the north-eastern shore on Harstine Island to enjoy the warmth of the sun and the low tide.  Just me, my dogs and a few ducks.  I didn't have to walk far though, to be disturbed by an unusually large amount of thrash on the beach.  I tried to ignore it at first as I did not have proper tools to collect it, but soon I realized I had to improvise and pick up all the trash into a doggie bag.  In about twenty minutes my hands were too full to go on.  All the trash was coffee cups and PVC pipe ends.  No Starbucks, just "Eco-friendly" Greenware cups... Nice.

Hillary Would Have been Better

Everyone else seems to agree: Hillary would have been better.  I told you so.  T

Hillary Told You So (By Leslie Bennetts at The Daily Beast)

As Democratic disgust with Obama’s debt fumbling spreads, Clinton supporters recall her '3 a.m. phone call' warnings—and angry, frustrated liberals are muttering that she should mount a 2012 challenge.

At a New York political event last week, Republican and Democratic office-holders were all bemoaning President Obama’s handling of the debt-ceiling crisis when someone said, “Hillary would have been a better president.”

“Every single person nodded, including the Republicans,” reported one observer.

At a luncheon in the members’ dining room at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Saturday, a 64-year-old African-American from the Bronx was complaining about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the implacable hostility of congressional Republicans when an 80-year-old lawyer chimed in about the president’s unwillingness to stand up to his opponents. “I want to see blood on the floor,” she said grimly.

A 61-year-old white woman at the table nodded. “He never understood about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,’” she said. (Read whole article via link.)

Below is what I wrote in March of 2008.  One of the reasons I supported Hillary over Obama: experience.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Open Letter to Keith Olberman

Keith,

I have been a faithful viewer of Countdown for about a year and a half. I have loved your no-nonsense approach to politics. You spoke up to George W. Bush when nobody else dared; you were courageous and funny, and your suits and your haircut are nice.
But since the democratic presidential campaigns heated up this winter your antipathy toward Hillary Clinton has become just too much to bear. You love Barack Obama, that's clear, but for God's sake give Hillary a break. She is not as evil and conniving as you would like to think. Why do you frame every conversation about her so negatively?

I have not been able to watch Countdown for the last two, three weeks because of your overly obvious bias against Hillary Clinton. Yes, I support her but I also think Obama is a decent candidate. I just think that Hillary is better qualified at this time.

When people run for office they try their best to paint the opponent in less favorable light. It has been done for years - Hillary is not the first one to do it. Obama has done his best to paint Hillary in dark colors ("You are likable enough") - why is it bad only when Hillary does it?

Tonight I tried to watch Countdown again (I miss the show) but my stomach was in knots listening to you frame Hillary in such harsh, pessimistic terms. According to you she has hit the new low by "preferring McCain over Obama" with his lifetime of experience. Have you ever thought that maybe what she means is lifetime of experience. Both McCain and Clinton are quite a bit older than Obama and have experienced many more things in this world than Obama - that alone teaches one humility and understanding that only comes with age. It does not mean that Hillary agrees with McCain's politics or thinks that his politics are better that Obama's. (And no, it doesn't mean that every "old" person is wise, but it gives an opportunity to be wise.) And for a position such as president of the United States we do want life experience.

Keith, give Hillary a break! I know you can and I know you think you should!

Thanks, T

Visiting Europe

I have just returned from three weeks in Europe: two in Finland and one in Paris.   What a lovely trip it was!  Seeing family in good health was a relief, seeing Helsinki progress into an international hub of culture with its soul still intact, and experiencing Lapland in its beauty and solitude was truly rewarding.

We drove across the whole country, swam in the lakes, shopped in the local markets, and marveled at the midnight sun in the north.  Sauna was always at the center of social life.  No meeting of friends takes place without sitting in the heat of the sauna at some point.

In Lapland the reindeer wandered across the road several times and we had to keep one foot on the brake just in case.  While walking in the woods several lemmings crossed our path.  They are the cutest little creatures with hamster shape and size but colored like a calico cat.  They say this is the year of the lemming.  Thousands begin their migration as I write.  Mosquitos were scarce this year - lucky us!

We also drove into Norway through Kilpisjarvi just a day or two after the horrible tragedy in Oslo.  We visited Skibotn and Nordkjosbotn, two tiny towns in the north.  We did not notice anything unusual except that there was a moment of silence at noon.  The horror of the recent events had not sunk in yet.  (I don't know if it ever will.)

Our last week was reserved for Paris!  A city so full of life and wonder it is difficult to put it into words!  Versailles, Louvre, Arc de Triomphe, Sainte-Chapelle, Musee d'Orsay, Eiffel, Seine, Latin Quarter...  And we just scratched the surface.  Paris is so big and full of history it's mind-boggling.  And all those locks on the bridges across the Seine!

Although I felt like I could have stayed in Europe, returning to Seattle was sweet: own bed, our little dogs, an efficient clothes dryer, my iPhone (did not want to turn it on in Europe except in free wifi spots).

Someone told me that I am a gentler person in Europe than in the States.  Made me think about the way of life here: hectic, competitive, non-trusting.  How can I preserve the gentleness and trust without being exploited?
I must try.

Social Production as Catalyst for Change

Capitalism won the Cold War just twenty years ago; it was a triumph of entrepreneurship, free markets and private ownership.  But now, in 2011, we are faced with new, unprecedented problems: our capitalistic system continues to create wealth but it is increasingly benefiting only a few at the very top of the economic ladder.  The near-collapse of the world banking system two years ago made us question our unwavering faith in the free-market system, and it opened our eyes to see that we must change course.  As we struggle to find a new economic equilibrium, our market ecology is being challenged by a completely new paradigm: social production of information and culture.

What exactly is social production?

This research paper examines how social production of information and culture is changing our thinking about what’s possible in a networked society.  No longer are we passively waiting to be told what’s newsworthy, or what a good story should look and feel like: we make our own news and stories. Sharing and collaboration is the new black – but not just a fad – it’s a way to create lasting wealth.

Please follow the link to read the whole post on my WordPress blog!

Adopting New Inventions

When I was 13 years old I had a dream that some day I would have a telephone I could carry in my pocket.  How cool it would be to talk to my friends while walking outside, or hiding in the woods!  This was in the mid-70’s; mobile phones were still years away and the only thing resembling a mobile was Maxwell Smart’s famous shoe phone.

     DonAdams.jpg

I bought my first Nokiaphone in 1996, when I was pregnant with my first (and only) child.  It was important to have a phone available, in case something happened while I was riding the bus, we thought.  Ever since our first Nokia phone I was very loyal to the brand; it was, after all, a Finnish phone.  I had several Nokia phone models, and each new phone seemed better with more useful features.  I had sliders and shells and music and texting.  These were all pre-smartphone.

In 2007, when the first iPhone appeared I was not moved.  I had my iPod and I was happy with it as my music device: it was easy to use and very handy for storing all my music.  I did not need another gadget that was less a phone and more a multi tool for the web, music and applications.  I was using “selective exposure” in my relationship to the iPhone (Rodgers, 1995).  My continued loyalty to the Nokia brand kept me from getting too familiar with this new invention called the “iPhone”.   The iPhone was not consistent with my “existing attitudes and beliefs” about what a phone should be ( p. 171).  I did, however, purchase an Apple desktop computer in 2008.  My first.  For many years several of my friends had recommended an Apple computer for its reliability, superior performance and virus-free operation.  I had had some exposure to an Apple ten years earlier but now was a PC user.  We needed a new desk top with a big screen, and my daughter was also using Apple computers at school; it was time to make the switch.  In my case, the “awareness-knowledge” of this invention preceded the need, but once the need (justification) was there, the purchase decision was easy (p. 172).

My ongoing exposure to the new Apple computer made me more curious about the iPhone.  I loved the computer, my daughter loved the computer; it was reliable and quite easy to use (although there was a bit of a learning curve with Apple software).  Many of my friends and colleagues had purchased an iPhone – they seemed to spring up everywhere.  I heard them discuss the many ‘amazing’ features of the phone, such as the downloadable applications, maps, email, etc.  According to Rodgers (1995), this was for me, “trial by others” (p. 177).  My friends were vicariously testing the device and reporting to me how useful it was.

It was time to get more exposure to the device.  I stopped at a Mac Store several times to familiarize myself with the iPhone.  I was impressed how easily I was able to manipulate the phone and how it responded to my requests.  It seemed like magic!  Rodgers (1995) states that “ Principles-knowledge consists of information dealing with the functioning principles underlying how an innovation works… It is usually possible to adopt an innovation without principles-knowledge, but the danger of misusing an idea is greater and discontinuance may result” (p. 173).  I had be sure I was comfortable using the iPhone before I rejected my Nokia brand.  It was an emotional decision for me but in the end functionality, esthetics and sex-appeal won.

References

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York, NY.

Wikipedia.org  Retrieved April 15, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DonAdams.jpg

Amerikan vauraus

Suomen Kuvalehden pääkirjoitus (SK 44/2010) kertoi vakuuttavasti Yhdysvaltain viime syksyn kongressin vaaleista ja republikaanien voitosta edustajainhuoneessa.  Olin kuitenkin erittain hämmästynyt, kun kirjoitus sanoi että “Talouden kannalta oikeiston voitto kuitenkin on yleensä merkinnyt hyviä aikoja – ja sehän ratkaisee tässä maailmassa.”  Suomen Kuvalehti, jota arvostan ja luen uskollisesti (joskin aikamoisella viiveellä), on yleensä erittäin tarkka Yhdysvaltain analyyseissään, mutta tällä kertaa meni ihan metsään.  Amerikan politiikka on kääntynyt huimasti oikealle sitten Ronald Reaganin vaalivoiton vuonna 1980, mutta talous on heikentynyt suhteellisesti kansalaisten osalta melkein koko ajan viimeiset vuosikymmenet.  Amerikan talous on edelleen mahtava ja BKT huima, mutta jos tuijottaa vain näihin numeroihin ei saa käsitystä siita mitä on tapahtunut tavallisille kansalaisille: vaikka Amerikan talous on kohonnut 62% vuodesta 1989 työntekijöiden todelliset palkat ovat nousseet vain 11%.  Tuottavuus on kasvanut huimasti, mutta työntekijät eivät ole saaneet paljolti nauttia kättensä työstä.  Suurin osa vauraudesta on mennyt huippurikkaille ja suurille yhtiöille.

Ohessa linkki josta näkee tilastoja siitä mihin Amerikan vauraus on mennyt viimeisten vuosien aikana. Economic Policy Institute seuraa tarkkaan Yhdysvaltain taloudellista kehitystä. 

Se, missä republikaanit ja oikeisto ovat onnistuneet, on kansalaisten uskottaminen siihen, että heidän politiikkansa tuo vaurautta koko kansalle (sokaistuihan koko muu maailma republikaanien toittottamaan neoliberalismiin enemmän tai vähemmän viime vuosina).  Amerikkalaiset ovat äänestäneet omaa taloudellista etuaan vastaan Reaganista lähtien - “arvojen” pohjalta.  Vain demokraattisen presidentti Clintonin aikana kansalaiset vaurastuivat oikeasti, vaikka Clintonkin oli hyvaksynyt neoliberalismin opit omakseen ainakin osittain.

Nyt käytävat poliittiset taistelut eri osavaltioissa joissa republikaanit saivat enemmistön ja kuvernöörin paikan, ovat luonnollinen seuraus jo Reaganin aikana pohjustetuista periaatteista: (osa)valtio ja (osa)valtion menot on kutistettava äärimmaisen pieniksi; kaikki mikä vain on mahdollista, on yksityistettavä; (osa)valtion työntekijät on nujerrettava ottamalla heiltä pois lakko-oikeus, sillä he “syövat” (osa)valtion varoja.  Periaatteena on pieni ja voimaton osavaltio, ja vahva yksityissektori.  Kansalainen on yksin, ja vastuussa vain itsestään.

Wisconsinin osavaltiossa alkanut kuvernööri Scott Walkerin taistelu ammattiliittoja vastaan on herättänyt demokraatit ja ammattiliitot 30 vuoden unestaan: he taistelevat nyt olemassaolostaan.  Mielenosoitukset ovat levinneet muihinkin osavaltioihin, joissa republikaanit ovat ryhtyneet riistämään työntekijöiden oikeuksia: Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee ovat saaneet kansalaisensa barrikaadeille.  Aika näyttää, kääntyykö Amerikan kelkka takaisin vasemmalle (“vasen” amerikkalaisessa mielessä ei ole sama kuin eurooppalainen vasen, vaan paremminkin “vähemmän oikea”).

T

Sally Clark and Linda Mitchell Interview

Watch this video I made!  I interviewed Sally Clark, Seattle City council member, and Linda Mitchell, National Women's Political Caucus of WA President.  We talked about leadership in the digital age, authenticity, and women as leaders.

T

The Problem with Lisa Jackson

The EPA turned 40 years old yesterday.  Tavis Smiley interviewed Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, on KUOW today, asking her about highlights and lowlights of the EPA over the last 40 years.  Jackson listed lots of accomplishments of the EPA: banning DDT, stopping acid rain, etc.; finally Smiley asked her about the BP Gulf oil spill: was that one of the "lowlights"?  Jackson's response disturbed me.  She said that the Gulf spill was not the company's fault, they're "in the business of making money", so you can't expect them to think about protecting the environment.

Lisa Jackson's answer hit the nail on the head of what is wrong with America; she has bought into the notion that business is value-free.  We have elevated profit-making above all else.  Making money has its own intrinsic value, it is above reproach and we cannot judge it with moral standards.  While businesses are making money the rest of us play catch-up trying to figure out how they have cheated or diverted rules and regulations, or gotten away with murder.  Businesses are not responsible because they are "in the business of making money".

This kind of thinking is rotting the core of the nation.  We worship money, and whoever makes lots of it must be right.  Even those who seem to have other values bow down at the altar of money.  How can we begin the change if we don't see the need to?  Obama, who spoke eloquently about "hope and change" is giving us more of the same: banks and rich people first, they are, after all, what counts.

What did Jesus say about the rich man?

T

America Needs Universities to Drive Innovation — More Than Ever!

Flip The Media

Hanson Hosein from the University of Washington interviews Margaret O'Mara, a history professor at the same university about what really created Silicon Valley.  This is a very interesting interview that gives you some perspective on how creativity and innovation are encouraged and nurtured over time.  It really does take a village to establish a supportive environment for something like the Silicon Valley; it doesn’t just happen by an “invisible hand”.  Somehow this message is not coming across American culture though.  Americans are known for their lack of historical perspective, and the prevailing myth is still that of Horatio Alger’s: you alone are responsible for your own success (or failure), and government should stay out of the business of business.

According to a recent report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 

http://www.aau.edu/assets/0/76/400/4544/07043e259cc743768bb63142edbb813e.pdf

the Federal government provided 57% of all funding for basic research in the United States in 2008, and the study concluded that the funding should be doubled to be sufficient.  This is easy to understand when you think about the risk associated with basic research - businesses cannot afford to invest as much in research that may not produce commercially viable results.

Margaret O’Mara’s interview prompted me to think about Richard Florida’s book “The Rise of the Creative Class”.  

Florida examines what it takes for one region to draw a creative work force versus another that loses its most creative, dynamic population.  He posits that geography is more important than ever in attracting highly educated and highly skilled people to “places that are centers of creativity and also where they like to live”, such as Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area or Austin.  These places are “multidimensional and diverse” and they also offer lots of choice in recreation and other activities.  To top it off these locations are also known for high quality universities and hight tech jobs.

The United States needs to continue funding university research and partner with businesses in creative ways to be able to compete with other rising (technology) powers.

T

Don't Worry, You Can Still Make Money!

   The Cluetrain Manifesto declared in 1999, that digital technology will change the way we do business. The relationship between companies and customers is going to change because people have access to information - and to each other, like never before.Information flow will not be one-way any more as digital technology becomes as common as the morning cup of coffee. The average consumer will be empowered with real-time information about the products he or she buys and about the companies that produce them. This enables consumers to make informed choices about how they spend their money. Businesses can no longer afford to remain distant or indifferent to their customers’ needs.

One of the theses in the Cluetrain Manifesto states: “Don’t worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it’s not the only thing on your mind” (Levine, Locke, Searls, Weinberger, & McKee, 1999, p. #80). This is a bold statement spoken to American businesses, which seem to have only been concerned about making money, at any cost. The business culture in America has increasingly become more cut-throat, winner-takes-all, and value-less (other than making money). I experienced this personally when working in the exhibits business, which is on the cutting edge of ‘making money’. I was involved in creating million-dollar exhibits that stood for a few days glamorizing a sexy new product, only to be thrown in a trash pile a few days later. The same applied to how people were treated: they were used to exhaustion, and thrown under the bus when they weren’t useful any more.But businesses were making money - a lot of it, it seemed - and that seemed to justify the means.

Since my exhibit days the economic collapse of 2008 happened, and the exuberance of ‘money growing on trees’ has ended. Does this mean that businesses are going to change their desire only to make money? Is the era of ‘end justifies the means’ over?With the internet maturing and people becoming more internet-literate business leaders must consider their customers in their business plans. Is this the perfect storm that creates a new set of values for businesses? Charlene Li discusses this in her book “Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead” (2010). She asserts that the new business-customer relationship must be built on trust, and humility:

Leadership requires a new approach, new mind-set, and new skills. It isn’t enough to be a good communicator. You must be comfortable sharing personal perspectives and feelings to develop closer relationships… You must come to embrace each openness-enabled encounter as an opportunity to learn. And it is not sufficient to just be humble. You need to seek out opportunities to be humbled … (Li, 2010)

This is the polar opposite of winner-takes-all culture permeating American business. I would like to believe that Li is correct in her assessment, but such a cultural shift does not happen overnight. It took at least thirty years for the business culture to become so audacious, so thoroughly lacking a sense of reciprocity or humility. It will take some time to regenerate a new business culture that embraces moderation, or, as Cluetrain Manifesto declared, a business culture that does not focus only on making money.

According to Li the new business leadership model requires mutual respect and an acknowledgment that customers and employees also have power (Li, 2010, p. 123 iPhone). This power is to be shared “constantly to build trust” (Li, 2010, p. 124 iPhone). Only then will the companies survive the upheaval of the cultural shift brought about by digital technology and a more informed customer base. The notion of ‘trust’ also goes against the grain of American (business) culture. You are considered naïve and exploitable if you show openness or vulnerability. But due to our new capability to communicate cheaply, quickly and spontaneously via digital technology, the old economic model has turned upside down. Trickle-down communication from top to bottom in a fully controlled environment is no longer possible. Perhaps, as Clay Shirky states: “When we change the way we communicate, we change society” (Shirky, 2008).

American style business with its raw, greed-based hunger for profit and growth is the most finely-tuned capitalist machine, five centuries in the making. Like the mythical phoenix, who burns itself to death every 500 years only to emerge anew out of the ashes,a new economic model will rise. A model that is based on reciprocity, information-sharing and respect. I am not sure if this will be the case, but I do believe that history goes in cycles, and it seems as though our current cycle is coming to an end.

Bibliography

Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., Weinberger, D., & McKee, J. (1999). Cluetrain Manifesto. New York, NY.

Li, C. (2010). Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.