Pittsburgh

The title of this post almost sounds like a song title for something Spingsteen might have written, but instead it leads into something I’ve been wondering about ever since President Obama announced the next G20 was to be hosted here in my hometown of Pittsburgh.

Because when the G20 comes to town, bringing leaders of nations, economics and industry together, it also brings plenty of vocal protesters too.

Now, I’ve got nothing against civil protest, I believe in it as an effective tool for spawning change where change is necessary. But my problem with G20 protesting is I simply can’t figure out what exactly the majority of these protesters are protesting for, or against?

G20 Protests

For example, I watched the events unfold in London, then the following days of non-stop coverage, analysis and sensationalism of those events on cable news… and while it was all very entertaining (how sick we’ve become), to this day I don’t understand the actual motivations behind the most roudy and vocal of the protesting groups.

They had no clear message or agenda that I could grasp, it just seemed as though they showed up to cause trouble and unrest simply for the sake of causing trouble and unrest.

How is that helpful to any cause?

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t valid reasons and causes that could be advanced–or at least raised into an ongoing International discussion–through taking advantage of the spotlight shining on the G20; I’m just saying that they should be clear and never accompanied by violence and vandalism.

Otherwise, the agendas aren’t advanced, they’re just stripped of any meaningful discourse that an organized and peaceful demonstration could have spawned.

So, as I watch conversations and discussions taking place across Twitter and other social networks right now, and I see idiots–most of whom aren’t from Pittsburgh–making calls for protest gathering here during the G20 without giving any specific explanations for what or why they’re calling for the protest, but using words like “anarchy”…

I’m just thankful that our local leaders have made the necessary plans to have enough police on hand to deal with any trouble seeking posers–and keep our streets safe for residents, G20 attendees and legitimate demonstrators or protesters wanting to be heard.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Police should put more resources into training says G20 report (telegraph.co.uk)

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: G20, Pittsburgh, protests

Fighting Against Problems

We’re all passionate about something, and often passionate about numerous things. Maybe you care most about reversing Global Warming, or want legislation that restricts or bans abortions, or maybe your passion is for getting Nipple Clamps to be socially accepted as fashionable outer-wear.

Whatever the causes may be, there’s probably something that matters deeply enough to you that you would be willing to get involved and be active on some level.

So here is my question, when you are active, involved and participating–are you spending your efforts fighting against the problems you see, or for solutions to them? There is a difference in the two approaches.

I recently wrote a review of The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones, and he touches on this in a much more eloquent way than I ever could when he puts it simply as seeing “issues vs. solutions”.

Issues are often equated to problems and promote thoughts of the  more negative aspects of society which can prompt people to tune out your message while solutions represent hope and the better characteristics of society; all suggesting that the perspective from which you begin and focus your efforts has a direct impact on “if and how” you will gain support and bring about the change you desire.

Working for Solutions

When you begin by expending energy fighting against the problems of your cause, rather than working towards the solutions you setup a situation where anyone who thinks or feels even slightly different than yourself is naturally placed on the defensive.

And that forces you to become more aggressive, and ultimately everyone is fighting to win–often silly–semantic debates rather than working to find practical solutions that could be agreeable to all.

I’m guilty of this myself. I’m deeply passionate about Green Technologies. I believe they offer not just a cleaner and safer future, but a far more economically sound future that offers more–and better–jobs for people of all backgrounds; from laborers to CEO’s.

Yet I’ve spent far more time engaging with those who oppose change and want to continue relying on limited and dirty energy than I have spent helping to actually advance Greener solutions.

Because I’m typically positioned firmly against the continued reliance on fossil fuels, I’ve framed much of my activism from that perspective. I’ve wasted time trying to “win the debate” with others who are as deeply rooted in their positions as myself, rather than investing my efforts in helping those willing to listen to understand how shifting to green technologies will benefit them, their communities and our nation on multiple fronts.

Problems or Hope

I don’t think any of us needs to change the topics we believe strongly in (well, maybe those of us supporting Nipple Clamps as acceptable outer-wear), but it sure wouldn’t hurt the cause if some of us spent more time being for solutions from the start and wasted less time and energy being against the problems or our opponent’s positions.

So, what are you passionate about, and are you fighting against the problems or for the solutions?

Related Writings

• I’m Decided, It’s None of the Above

Technorati Tags: Activism, debate

This may be insightful for some of you who do know me as well, as I know a few think I keep this blog out of some self-destructive character trait.

That’s because this blog does not help me professionally by any means, in-fact it tends to turn some people away from doing business with me–hence the self-destructive theory some of my friends have.

But I accept that politics and business rarely mix well, and I do the best job I can to keep the two separate for myself by not allowing either my passions nor my professional needs to intrude upon or block each other for myself. But, if others take offense to my positions and decide not to work with me for them I accept that as their right.

Still, over the years I’ve found that running this blog has never once led to additional business for me, but has caused me to lose some gigs–so there is an unbalanced nature to this beast and it makes sense that friends might view my determination to keep blogging here about these topics as self-destructive because of it.

It’s The Passion, Plain and Simple

The bottom line is that I’m just passionate about certain issues, and I’m passionate about seeing better tomorrows than yesterdays. And that takes the work and commitment of people who care–and my commitment is such that I’m willing to risk a few clients or contracts along the way for myself.

There’s nothing noble or unselfish about that though, in-fact to the contrary my deep convictions really stem from a fairly selfish and vindictive place.

See, I grew up living in rental apartments in city neighborhoods, but I shouldn’t have. I should have grown up on a small family farm with acres of corn, cattle and horses on the outskirts of town.

That’s where my family on my Mother’s side had settled and built their life after coming to America in the early 1900’s; along with a dozen other families from the same ‘Old Country’ region.

It was a quite community of farm folk. A dozen family farms, and as each new generation of children within the families grew to adulthood land on each of the farms was partitioned off… so what started as 12 mid-sized family farms had become dozens of small family farms over the years, but all were still connected to those original dozen families. Talk about a close-knit community.

Then just a couple years before I was born the local government came along and stripped everyone of these families of their homes and land under “Eminent Domain” for infrastructure improvements. They wanted to build a connector to the Interstate a few miles away and needed the land.

This image shows the area that was family farms and the proposed highway connector:

Now, I understand the need for progress, and absolutely agree that there are times when people have to be moved out of the way. But those people lose more than a home and the time spent moving when this is done, they lose traditions, memories and often their livelihoods as was the case for all the family farmers in this instance…so I believe these decisions–though necessary at times–need to be weighed and made very carefully.

So, lets take a look at the highway connector that was built in this instance:

Yep, 40 yards of concrete that leads to nowhere and has never been traveled by anyone.

The project was never completed, and I’ve been told it was never meant to be finished. That the whole thing was done to spend money from the budget just to justify the size of the budget and  prevent it from being reduced in the following fiscal year. I can’t confirm this, but I can confirm that dozens of families were stripped of their homes and livelihoods for 40 yards of useless concrete to be poured.

I can also confirm that folks who were once proud, self-sustaining, able to make livings off of the land, owned cattle and horses, never made waves and generation after generation served their country became depressed, poor,  often alcoholic night watchmen, fry cooks and mean-spirited factory hands…for 40 yards of useless concrete.

You see, it’s not that I didn’t get to grow up on the family farm, playing with the animals and riding the horses that bothers me.

It’s that I didn’t get to grow up knowing the proud, self-sufficient and happy people of my family, but rather I got the depressed and disappointed people they had become…for 40 yards of useless concrete.

And that’s why I blog about issues and politics, even when it clearly has a negative impact on my professional life at times.

Again, I’m not anti-progress and I would feel 100% differently if there were a highway connector running through that land (it would make my travels easier after all). But I believe someone has to point out…no, shout out when they see the people who are supposed to be serving us doing things that are wrong or stupid. If for no other reason than to just spread a little shame around on those who abuse their offices and authority at our expense.

Care to join me? Anyone can start a blog like this in minutes and for just $3 or $4 per month and make their opinions known, their voices heard and bring their elected leaders into the spotlight for the good and bad they do. I encourage you to be active, be persistent and not be sheep.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: blooging for change

Our nation was founded on dissension. The Declaration of Independence was the first; and to date largest act of dissension by Americans. Now I ask, can anything be more patriotic than dissension?

Tom Delay(R-TX) would agree with me. Here are a few of his own comments:

–You can support the troops but not the president.

–American foreign policy is now one huge mystery.

–History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now.

–The President began this mission with vary vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions.

–There was no strategic plan for the war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.

Each of these comments was made in dissension during periods when our troops were involved in operations within hostile environments. None make Tom Delay unpatriotic nor were intended to embolden our enemies, they simply offered an opposing view to American involvement on foreign lands–as the voices of dissension do today. No more and no less.

I offer this writing for one single purpose, to remind all Americans as we move closer to the mid-term elections that the only thing we ever have to agree upon is the right to disagree on anything. That an opposing point of view is not automatically unpatriotic nor wrong, it’s the very foundation of freedom and Democracy.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: Declaration of Independence, dissension

I get it, corporate greed, the purchase of politicians, using illegal workers, the selling of guns and refusals to sell the morning after pill upsets people, but get over yourself already.

Wal-Mart is a business, and like any business in a free society and free-market has the right to decide what products it will or will not carry. If the upper management of Wal-Mart has opted to sell guns (which some claim are often used to execute post-birth abortions) but not sell the morning after pill, this isn’t a political issue to waste our time debating, it’s a business decision. As consumers, you have the same right to decide whether or not you will spend your money at Wal-Mart, K-Mart or Carla’s Corner Crap-’n-Crap.

Beyond that, it’s a motivated waste of time and energy for people to attempt to influence the inventory decisions of any company.

Don’t get me wrong, gun control is a real issue, so is the individual right to privacy and abortions. But Wal-Mart isn’t the battleground.

Placing blame on Wal-Mart for senseless shootings just because they sell guns and ammo is like blaming the bartender for your alcoholism. It doesn’t display a true concern or passion in your convictions, it shows that you lack personal accountability.

Someone once said to me, “but, kids get hold of those guns and kill each other”. So what? That’s Wal-Mart’s fault? Maybe, if they illegally sold the guns or ammunition to kids. But since I haven’t heard of that case in courts I’ll assume the obvious happens, kids get hold of Dad’s, Grandpa’s or Uncle Dave’s gun and kill each other. Or, in home burglarys bad people get hold of Dad’s, Grandpa’s or Uncle Dave’s gun and kill each other.

In either of these instances, it’s Dad, Grandpa or Uncle Dave who should be shouldering the guilt over how their possessions were used, not Wal-Mart for legally selling a product to a lawful adult consumer in the first place.

As for the purchasing of politicians, again I’ll argue that the corruption is with the system that not only allows this to happen but encourages it, not the individual or corporation who operates within. It’s the dirty secret we don’t seem capable of acknowledging, in America anyone running for an elected position is for sale. They make themselves for sale because they know without the funds they can’t get the position. It’s a corrupt system no doubt, but to place the blame on people or entities who have to operate within it for playing by the rules they’re given is just wrong.

Oh, yes, the illegal workers issue. I can’t justify or argue in favor of this one. However, I will say that law enforcement has to be allowed to do its job here, and the masses can show their support or condemnation for Wal-Mart by simply spending their money there or not.

I honestly doubt that Jane Doe and family will stop buying at Wal-Mart over this though, after all she’s still wearing Nike shoes, driving on Bridgestone Firestone tires and dressing in Gifford’s clothing line (sold at Wal-Mart). All of these products have been tied to child and slave labor in Third World nations over recent times.

Image source: HuffingtonPost.com

Related Writings

• Killed For Cheap Socks

Technorati Tags: Wal-Mart

Personally, I find it offensive every time I hear someone moan about celebrities who speak up for or against politicians or policy. The entire notion that somehow one gives up their rights to opinions or free speech when they achieve fame is preposterous.

The difference between celebrities and Johnny Doe is venue. Celebrities, by position and station have a larger crowd listening to their voice, but ain’t that America? The American Dream is that anyone, of any background can rise to fame and fortune — so why should those who do have to tip-toe around issues of importance just to appease opponents of their opinions? They shouldn’t.

Still, it seems that some republicans in congress feel justified in ‘punishing’ Americans for rising above the crowd and having opinions that oppose their own. This became clear today when I learned that some Republican senators had shot-down an effort in the Senate to honor Bruce Springsteen for his long and iconic career.

My first thought was, why would the Senate honor a celebrity in the first place? Well, it seems that this is done all the time to celebrate and promote the success of the American Dream with real life examples.

It also seems that these honors tend to always pass without debate and normally by unanimous consent.

Yet Springsteen, who epitomizes both the American Dream and the American Troubadour with his rise to fame from blue-collar roots by writing and singing of every-day Americans is being scorned and ‘taught a lesson’ for his actions one year ago during the 2004 Presidential race when he publicly endorsed the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Is this really what we’ve become? A nation so divided, nit-picky and vindictive that celebrities or individuals who have opinions and subscribe to free-thinking risk being targeted by politicians with opposing views in the future? I asked this earlier, but I’ll answer it now, that ain’t America.

Image source: AP/Alan Diaz

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: Bruce Springsteen

Let me preface this with a few personal facts: I oppose war as anything but a last resort – I fully support free speech and activism – I love a really good protest (especially when there’s music and grilling) – Truth be known I love breasts – I’m in no way prudish.

Now, having read my list of personal facts you may be thinking that I would be right beside / behind / down-with the BnB’s (Breasts Not Bombs) desires to protest topless on the steps of California’s State Capitol.

Well, I’m not.

I believe the BnB’s message is just and worthy of attention, but when you add cute slogans or gimmicks to the fight you begin to lose me.

Anytime you have something worth saying and need to spread the word, don’t resort to “media getters” like this. It completely takes away any qualitative value in your words. Sure, you’ll get headlines and mentions on the local evening news, but everyone who sees it is left with just one of two thoughts, “what fruit-cakes” or “holy hooters, Batman!”. Nobody will be left thinking about your message.

So please, respect your cause and put your clothes on. Save the topless prancing for Mr. Happy’s on friday night and I’ll bring the dollar bills.

Popular Writings

• My God is better than your God
• Wasteful Washington Spending
• Hey Joe, where you going with that petition in your hand?
• Illegal Immigration

Technorati Tags: breasts not bombs