« April 2012 | Main | June 2012 »
I no sooner finished reading Sherry Turkle's excellent book Alone Together-- talking of the phenomenon of our getting more intimate with technology just as we are getting less connected with other humans-- than I heard of Andrew Keen and his book Digital Vertigo, which argues that the Facebook impact on people's lives--especially the young--is a dangerous thing.
He wrote a piece for CNN today that is so good, I'll direct you to it here.
I was struck by the story that has gone viral, about the fellow who left a beer standing on a bar in Bennigan's restaurant near Borger, Texas, accompanied by a note on a napkin indicating it was his toast to a fallen sailor killed in Iraq. As you may know by now, the bartender took a picture of the beer and note and put it up on Facebook, asking people to "like" it.
And, of yes, they have liked it. And liked it. And liked it. Nearly 1.5 million have viewed it and have been moved in some way, apparently the fact that it is a tribute to a fallen American military hero and they feel respect should be paid.
But what does it mean to "like" a note like this? It takes no effort to like something on Facebook. Do people get a warm feeling that they have just acted in a way that is somehow patriotic, by indicating they "liked" this note? Certainly it has garnered great publicity for Bennigan's. Not to mention the possibility of business, since they have now instigated a process whereby you can do the same thing--buy a beer and attach your note--and for each person who pays for a beer thusly "memorialized," Bennigan's will put up one dollar toward a fund to go to a wounded warrior noon-profit organization.
Call me cynical, but just what does this do after all, for our military fallen? Does it bring them and their families attention that amounts to more than a passing nod? A passing "like?"
We've made it awfully easy for people to "take action" about something they feel is a worthy cause. But do they extend themselves beyond a mere on-line "like?" That seem so paltry to me...so gratuitous. Nothing has happened, no sacrifice has been made. That warm fuzzy feeling for having "liked" a mention of a fallen sailor just doesn't seem worthy to me of what Memorial Day is intended to be.
Have we outsourced everything, including paying our respects to our Nation's fallen military heroes?
The CNN site had a story recently of a family where Dad is a Navy pilot, deployed for the third time to the Middle East. Mom is an amazing Mom living in Bangor, Maine with three rambunctious sons who have already dealt with Dad's absence on the first two deployments.
This time around, they talked early on of how much they would miss seeing Dad sitting in his chair at the dining room table. So Mom suggested they invite someone special once a week for every week that Dad is gone.
Turns out the first guest was Susan Collins, the senator from Maine. After that, it seemed to the kids they could get anyone they wanted so they started writing letters of invitation to a variety of people, some famous, some not so famous. And looks like most of them have come or plan to.
Susan Smiley, the Mom in the story, says that she serves spaghetti, lasagna, whatever she would normally serve to the kids. The dinners are neither elaborate nor huge; they're just family supper fare.
Here's what got me thinking. These kids and their Mom have now had fascinating dinner conversations--yes, one a week--for nearly a year, with people they find interesting and they say they've learned lots from all of them. One of the guest's was the youngest boy's teacher. They've had a local policeman. They've had celebrities, even the guy who designed R2-D2 and, yes, he brought R2-D2 to dinner with the kids.
What if every family--yes, your family, too--decided that part of the routine as a family would be to have a dinner guest once a week? Who would you invite? What would you like to learn from him or her?
And now the bigger question, why not do it? What keeps you from asking a next door neighbor you've been intrigued about? Or the policeman in your neighborhood? Or a teacher? Or your local mayor? Or even a celebrity? It would be terrific practice in letter writing (that old fashioned thing, even using a stamp!). And it would be a terrific exercise in meaningful conversation.
You could tell your invitees your family is practicing its conversation skills and would love to include them in those lively, interactive exchanges.
You may be surprised. Maybe you should get your whole church group, or bridge club, or basketball team or car pool to do the same and compare notes.
You could get us all talking again. Not to mention having dinner together again.
Here's the CNN article in its entirety if you'd like to get inspired.
Do you know Bret Stephens? He's the foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal and I'd like to meet him. I like the way he thinks. With the one exception that he places blame for our current economic mess on President Obama. I disagree with that. But it's a quibble because the other stuff he says is good.
While thinking of the pretty predictable commencement addresses discussed in the media so far this year, I was hoping that someone would break the mold and tell these kids something new, something provocative.
Bret Stephens did that. Not in an actual commencement address but in his recent column. It's so good I want you to read it for yourself. What's more, even if you're not a new grad, no matter. It's still good advice. I especially like his tagline to the article: "Tone down your egos; shape up your minds..."
And even better, I like his positive example of the young woman who is a recent West Point grad. Here's Bret Stephens' advice for life.
Last Sunday, I was in the congregation at All Souls Unitarian Church in Manhattan when Assistant Minister Lissa Anne Gundlach gave her sermon.
She started by acknowledging President's statement, earlier in the week, fin favor of legitimizing same-sex marriage. The congregation erupted in spontaneous, enthusiastic cheering. It was a surprising moment for me, surprising in the intensity and exuberance of the response to her remarks. I was caught up in the enthusiasm and have thought about it since. Is this particular congregation especially interested in gay rights? Well, yes, in that the Unitarian faith prides itself on accepting all people, from whatever religious, political or racial background, to its fold. And under former Pastor Forrest Church, All Souls became actively involved in gay rights here in New York City.
It's interesting that in conversations since Sunday, several people have commented on what they see as the gutsiness of Obama's pronouncement in light of the political risk his statement holds in the coming election. An equal number of people have commented on what they see as the johnny-come-lately, very ungutsy nature of President Obama's statement, saying he was forced into making it by Vice President Biden's strong statement only days before, approving of same-sex marriage on prime time television.
What all the people with whom I've talked agree on is that we really don't know what impact this will have on voting preferences come November. Perhaps it will be blown over by then, replaced by other big issues. Like the economy, Stupid! Or perhaps it will become an even bigger topic of conversation, since it conflicts with many people's strongly held religious beliefs.
Or maybe, just maybe, it will lead to a more public discussion of just what kind of Nation we want America to be. As Michael Bloomberg approvingly said when he got the news of Obama's comment, there has never been a personal rights issue on which a President has taken a public stance that did not, eventually, turn that stance into legislation.
Let's hope that's the case. I for one would like us to move beyond the unfairness inherent in denying people the right to marry whom they choose. We need all the great parents out there we can get. And in the gay families I know, the children are model citizens. Can't say that for many of the heterosexually parented families I know. How about you?
And as for Bristol Palin's take on things--saying that rather than use his daughters as a sounding board on the issue of same-sex marriage, President Obama should have told them that every child needs to be raised in a family with a mother and father--I thought again of how easy it is in this age of ubiquitous media. For even the misguided and foolish to gather an audience. Let's hope that kind of thinking doesn't drive the conversation going forward.
I joined a small group of Stanford alums one evening last week to talk with Jim Steyer, the peripatetic guy who manages to be a well-loved professor at Stanford, the Founder and CEO of Common Sense Media (a big think tank focused on media and families), an author, a civil rights lawyer, father of four kids, and probably more I don't know about.
Jim is passionate about media's impact on kids, both good and bad. The book he is touting just came out last week and it's entitled Talking Back to Facebook: The Common Sense Guide to Raising Kids in the Digital Age. Jim makes a provocative point that without guidance, kids are ill equipped to deal with the onslaught of media in their lives. When you consider that kids are now spending more time each day on media and technology than they do with their families or in school (think of it!), you have to have some concern about just what impact is all this relationship with media and technology having on kids?
He is especially concerned about three major challenges to kids that are write large with the impact of technology: relationships, addiction/attention, and privacy. Steyer referred to Shelly Turkle (whose book Alone Together I commented on a few posts ago) and her extensive research on the depth of relationships that kids form with their phones and computers--with a resulting loss in their relationship with other flesh and blood people in their loves. As to addictive and attention deficit issues, any adult who uses a smart phone and/or a computer is aware of how easy it is to get compulsive about staying connected to one's on-line connections.
I was especially struck by Steyer's talk of privacy. He made a distinction between boys and girls, noting that girls are more likely to reveal what they are thinking and feeling before they reflect on it. That leads to the kind of comments that get on to Facebook and are forever there, out in the ether. Boys do this kind of thing as well (we've all seen the photos taken at the drunken frat party), but apparently are less inclined to the kind of almost daily revelations that some girls are prone to make.
I have to admit that I'd become resigned to thinking that frankly there is no privacy any longer and to think that there is is to be simply naive. Steyer doesn't agree.
He feels that there are real privacy issues that can and should be addressed and that it is imperative we do so as a nation. As he puts it, "There is no watchdog and there needs to be" protecting major privacy issues that concern each of us, let alone our children. It's true, we have governmental watchdogs for drugs, for food, for airport security, for lots of stuff...but we have no oversight of this digital Goliath in our midst that is changing the way our rains are wired. It all happened so fact, we system of checks and balances has simply not caught up with the smart phone phenomenon.
As you can imagine, Steyer really got to me when he said "We need to have a big national--if not global--conversation about the pros and cons of Facebook's impact on our kids."
No kidding. So how is that going to happen? It may be that we have to start in our homes, setting up simple grounds rules for families to follow if they want to get the upper hand on the smart phone beast. That's why Steyer wrote the book, basically to provide a guide to parents to do just that.
My name is Yun Jeaung Chung from Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea studying urban planning and design. In my six months in New York City, I have experienced a great deal of interesting and meaningful events. My internship at Wf360 is one of the most memorable. I met great people here and was able to be part of creative projects and brilliant ideas. The Inner Circle is one of Wf360’s programs that engage senior executives to discuss timely business topics. I’ve seen how many great ideas come out of it. It is not just a simple breakfast meeting; I now realize that the ideas and thoughts shared among the attendees could affect their employees, colleagues and businesses.
As a current student majoring in urban planning, one of my study subjects is how to revitalize the communities in big, modern, cities. It is a big issue not only in the field but also in our society. We’ve seen that the more urbanized a city gets, the people in those cities are less likely to interact with each other and actually prefer solitude. Sadly in Korea, you often hear about people dying and not having their bodies discovered until days later. This is because no one knows about their death. There is no communication among neighbors. This has become a serious problem in Korean cities.
When I worked on this study, I spoke with many people - from government officials, to residents in these cities - that were disturbed by this problem. This is clearly a rising issue and something needs to be done about it. Sure, many people “communicate” on social networking sites but that isn’t true conversation. We learned that something we could do as urban planners and designers is to create a community and allow for neighbors to physically get together and talk. Face-to-face. Communicating and interacting with others can result in a more lively community. It allows these people to feel like they are part of something important in their village and it has a positive effect on them as a whole.
Since I have been in New York City, I’ve found it impressive that New Yorkers are less hesitant than Koreans to talk to others. I feel like I am more alive and friendly here because of that and thereby, I would like to stay in NYC longer. Every time I get on a subway, I hear random yet interesting dialogue between strangers. I’m not used to that but it is very refreshing. They talk about different things- from the books they are reading to the clothes there are wearing… they talk about anything. Yes, I do eavesdrop on these strangers and listen to what they are talking about. It’s interesting for me and a great way to improve my English. At times they can get pretty loud and be very chatty but I prefer that over silence!
It is great to see that people are willing to talk to each other. Through this exchange, not only will this individual be vitalized, but their communities will be as well. I think that is the power of Wf360's Inner Circle and why I am inspired by it. Not only does it bring smart people together to discuss business topics but it creates an important interaction that is clearly much needed in our society. There should be Inner Circles everywhere! Who knew that conversation could be such a powerful thing and change lives for the better.
Thank you all for giving me this great opportunity to post my thoughts. I hope everyone can talk with someone today and create something meaningful!
Are hats making a comeback? I mean, aside from the annual women's lunch at the wonderful New York Conservatory in Central Park, an annual affair now referred to as the "Hat Luncheon," where women wear wonderful concoctions on their head.
And, of course, the Ascot races.
And, I guess hats are a big deal in Louisville at the Kentucky Derby.
What about the rest of the time? Are hats cool again?
Hedda Hopper, the famous gossip columnist who hobnobbed with the best of them in the early 1900's, is supposed to have once said "I can wear a hat or take it off, but either way it's a conversation."
I'm not sure if she meant that her putting on or taking off her hat was itself a subject of importance to others, or whether she meant that every hat is somehow a conversation piece. It's true. A hat can look entirely different, depending on the wearer. Frank Sinatra is supposed to have said that "angles are attitudes" and it was clear from the way he angled his hat, he had attitude and plenty of it.
Do you see hats simply as covering to keep out the cold? Or the sun? Or are they an expression of your personal style? I read recently that baseball caps are suddenly becoming an object of fashion. Tell that to the guys I see every day on the subway in New York. Whether they wear it with the bill in the front, back, or sideways, they all make statements with their hats.
Kate Middleton's embrace of hats may be part of the impetus behind new-found enthusiasm for wearing something on one's head that is worthy of conversation. Apparently, no matter what she puts on her head, it is copied quickly by milliners in God knows where and quickly becomes a "must-have" item among many women. I think I prefer the kind of hats that say not who you would like to look like, but how you wish to express your own personality.
Me? I like to wear men's hats. Not sure what that says but I like their look and invariably, as I walk down the street wearing one of my men's hats, someone--almost always a man--says "Nice hat." Makes my day.
Regardless of what some of the pundits are saying, President Obama's statement yesterday was audacious. He didn't have to do it: many leaders in the gay and lesbian community say their troops were planning to vote for him anyway. And yes, it looks like his hand was forced by Vice President Biden's televised support for same sex marriage last Sunday.
Nonetheless, as Mike Bloomberg has opined, this is a big deal. No civil rights activity endorsed by a sitting US President has failed to eventually become law.
What I've been thinking about is the conversation around gay-ness, the kinds of assumptions so many people have about homosexuality being a not-right, not normal, ultimately weird thing. We've all heard kids call each other out for behavior or dress saying, "that's so gay!" and meaning it in a derogatory way. The fact that in only a handful of states same-sex marriages are legal has seemed to support--in some people's minds--the view that homosexuality is something to be avoided and the sense that it's a sad day for a family when a son or daughter comes out of the closet to siblings and parents.
Is it possible that the groundswell of acceptance--especially among young people--will change the conversation on the topic? Well, not in North Carolina, that is true. But then, as some may not have realized, that state's new legislation also bars straight unmarried couples from rights usually afforded them as well. As Jon Stewart says, "I guess that's North Carolina's version of equality. If you can't have it, neither can we..."Seriously, I'm hoping that the jokes, the innuendos, the "That's so gay!" comments will become things of the past. The conversation will change. Once our country acknowledges that basic human rights should be afforded to all citizens, and that includes the right to marry whomever you choose, there will be less punch to such jokes and comments.
Except maybe in North Carolina.
There is ice cream. And there is gelato. And there is pistachio gelato, my all-time favorite, especially if it is two scoops from Sant Ambroeus, the high class restaurant on Madison Avenue in Manhattan which, somewhat incongruously, also dispenses gelato for take-out at the front of the white-tablecloth establishment. The pistachio flavor is guaranteed to take me back to the wonderful Tuscany town of Lucca, where my husband and I and a group of friends experienced the Italian win of the World Cup in 2006. What a blast! Everyone in that town, regardless of their true nationality, was "Italian" that night and we reveled in the win as if we were home-towners.
So for the most part, in the years following that Italian summer of pistachio, I've ignored ice cream. Too sugary, too icy, too, too, too not gelato.
All ice cream, that is, except for Jeni's. Have you heard of it? Jeni's is the brainchild of Jeni Britton Bauer, who together with her husband Charly and his brother Tom has turned a little neighborhood ice cream business in Columbus, Ohio, into a superstar dispenser of the best cream anywhere. Bar none. I'm serious. They use fresh local farm ingredients to do crazy stuff to ice cream,. It's not just the salty caramel--ok, probably the best thing ever to happen to ice cream. It's also the Bangkok Peanut, and the gorgeous Wildberry Lavender and the amazing Whiskey and Pecan. And all the others.
I was in Columbus this past weekend and we made the obligatory stop at one of Jeni's stores there. These home town Columbus people stood in line as if it was just another trip to the ice cream shop. No biggie for them.
Not me. I was transfixed by the flavor board, eagerly running the various taste possibilities over and over in my head for inspiration as to the very best one. I tried a few tastings of new flavors, using those little bitty plastic scoops they give you for checking our just how loyal you are to your favorites, just how willing you are to break with your habit and be tempted by a newcomer.
But when all the tasting was done, I had to remain loyal to salty caramel. And then, well, I added another scoop, this one of Brown Butter Almost Brittle. Oh my gosh, what a combo. Could possibly be illegal it's so wildly good.
Conversation is pretty predictable at Jeni's. It's mostly oohs, aahs, and "isn't this the best?" In other words, all conversation stops as you take in the best of all ice creams. They do sell Jeni's at Dean and Deluca here in New York. I understand they told Jeni it was the best ice cream they found and it is the first--and only one--they carry. In fact, Jeni's people tell me there are other places in New York that sell Jeni's, too. But then, paying for ice cream that they had to ship here from Columbus...that's just too much carbon footprint for ice cream. And, besides, it doesn't taste the same as when you can watch it get scooped in front of you right at the counter.
That's worth talking of going to Columbus. As Marvin Gaye sings it, "Ain't nothn' like the real thing, Baby."
Author of I is for Intercourse: The ABC's of Conversation, Susan Bird is the visionary behind Wf360, and a sought-after speaker around the world for her views on leadership, the strategic importance of conversation, entrepreneurship, and the role of women business leaders.
