Power Vs. Strength

When dealing in abstract concepts like these, it can be difficult to have a real conversation without first agreeing on how to define the terms.  I think that a lot of people use power and strength interchangeably, yet I can’t help but think that they differ in very important ways.

Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I was taught that quote by a very influential history teacher in high school and it has continued to echo through my mind since.  I can’t help but be reminded of it when I see people in positions of power put the needs of the few before the needs of the many.  It’s as if there’s something inherently inefficient about power.

When I think of strength, it’s similar to power.  But not quite.  Strength is almost like the potential of power.  Unused power.  A visual of strength does not require a display of aggression.  Perhaps there’s a duality here.  Is power to offense as strength is to defense?

It’s interesting, you could say that someone is both powerful and weak at the same time.  A frail old king is both re(g)ally powerful and physically weak.  Politicians are known for having political power but weak integrity.  Movies are constantly filled with villains who wield vast power, but lack a strength of character.  I’m not sure if I know of any villains who have a great strength of character, but wield little power.  In many cases, is that not the hero?  The unassuming, jacked, strong jaw line with a warm smile kinda hero?

Analyzing this in the abstract is usually a journey down the rabbit hole, but there are some examples that help me clarify what I’m thinking.

Name calling has gotten out of control.  For most of my life, I was taught not to feed into it.  To walk away.  To appreciate that the person doing the name calling is probably doing so because they’re battling their own demons.  It was tough when I was younger but it’s second nature now.  Now, when someone’s hostile towards me, I’m much more likely to view the situation with compassion than anger and I can’t help but think that makes me strong.  Moving through life, invulnerable to the malicious attitudes of others is really something else… I highly recommend it.

Yet I seem to be in the minority.  Rather than seeing it as an issue of personal strength, compassion, and helping someone move beyond their own issues, it’s about power.  The victim being name called is no longer interested in making themselves stronger, they’re interested in becoming more powerful.  This is the era of the victim shaming the bully.

If we could teach everyone the simple philosophy of not taking things personally, the effectiveness of name calling would disappear.  When something is no longer effective, we tend to stop using it.  We become stronger, we become wiser, and we move forward.  Instead, we’re more interested in giving the victims the power to hurt them back.  Laws are being changed for compelled speech.  What does being triggered in this context mean?  What happens when being triggered is an excuse to tap into that power?

I also can’t help but see this dynamic in women’s empowerment.  I remember finding out that I was a feminist back in university because I believed in equality.  It made sense to me that men and women were different but equal.  But I struggle to resonate with parts of modern feminism.  There seems to be this pursuit of equal outcome over equal opportunity.  A denial of inconvenient biology.  A tendency to deal in absolutes instead of nuances.  And what drives it all, seems to be a pursuit of power over the pursuit of equality.

I don’t think it’s that complicated either.  For decades, centuries, or millennia (however you want to look at it), men have been powerful.  They’ve ruled, they’ve warred, they’ve killed, they’ve raped, and they’ve pillaged.  Things are different now.  In an age of equality, women want to be powerful too.  They’re no longer looking for a seat at the table, now they want equal rights to be the asshole boss at the table.  I suppose that is equality, I suppose I’m just a little bummed out that there isn’t a motivation to be better.

I sometimes joke that I feel sorry for Hilary Clinton for having lost the 2016 election.  She could’ve been a role model for feminism.  She lost when she ran against Obama, but had the composure to pick her self up and run again.  Then she went up against one of feminism’s greatest foes, keeping her composure throughout.  Had it not been for Russian interference, she probably would’ve won that presidency.  She couldn’t have been a role-model for feminism, right?  One of the bigger reasons why Hilary lost, was because for many, she was indistinguishable from the Washington establishment.  She literally spent her entire career learning how to play within a corrupt, man’s world to the point where she probably played it better than anyone else – Just in time for the American public to be fed up with it.  I felt bad for women that they missed out on their first female president, but I had hope.

My hope is that the first woman to be elected president, be the jaw-dropping, awe-inspiring, locomotion of intelligence, strength, integrity and all the qualities of a great leader, but without the sacrifice of feminine qualities like compassion, intuition, and ability to nurture.  I want her to be able to set the bar.  Not just for future women, but for future men and politics in general.  I want her to inspire us to look up to women, not to reasons to avoid looking down on them.

In the pursuit of equality, women are looking at men, and trying to draw the line 50/50 through it all.  You don’t want it all.  A lot of it is garbage.  Please don’t take the garbage too.  We’d all be way better off if we could leave it behind, and this is an opportunity to do so.  This power isn’t something you want, it’s something that none of us should want.  We need to let it go.  But we need help.  We need a little leadership.

It’s not power that you want, it’s strength.  It can be tough to tell the difference when you look at the people holding you down and the most obvious difference between you is power.  But they’re not strong.  That’s why your strength makes their power irrelevant.

You can have a world where everyone is strong, but not a world where everyone is powerful.  For someone to be powerful, someone else must be powerless.  Strength however, resides within.  A world in which everyone pursues power is chaos.  A world in which everyone pursues inner-strength is peace.

Decentralized journalism

Had an idea the other day.  I think it could be a big one.

Decentralization is something I’ve paid a great deal of attention to over the years.  We’ve seen it tackle the taxi industry, hotels, and several forms of media.  Next, I’m keen to see how it tackles things like energy and currency.  In each case, the premise seems rather simple:  Make better use of the resources we already have, and let technology shoulder the workload of keeping things organized.

Every great business is a solution to a very real problem.  In this case, the solution is to the problem of modern journalism.  Currently, journalism places a greater emphasis on being first than it does on being right.  Sensationalism has replaced accuracy.  Journalism has become more about producing ammunition than telling a story.  And it needs to change.

There’s a curious link between humans, size, power, and corruption.  The bigger we get, the more power we’re inclined to have, and the more power we’re inclined to have, the more susceptible we are to corruption.  The news industry in America became tremendously powerful over the decades, and was far more centralized than most people realized.  Even today, organizations like Sinclair and Fox are making significant moves to expand their political reach.  Anytime an industry gets big and corrupt like this, it’s time for decentralization to save the day.

My idea is a news platform which would allow journalists to earn a living while maintaining their independence and their integrity.  While also holding them accountable.  I realized that while I knew the names of all these news anchors, I couldn’t name the author of a single article I had read in the last week.  The twisted thing is that I barely watch any cable news – and I real a lot of articles.  Why didn’t I know their names?  It was because they were promoted as secondary to the organization they were reporting on behalf of.  I wonder what journalism would look like if journalists were front and center for their work?

Similar to a Google news feed or Reddit, your feed would be a collection of news articles curated around your interests.  What would make it different though, is that the person behind the article would also be well profiled.  These individuals deserve to be recognized for the work that they’re doing.  By letting good journalists be closely associated with their work, they can be recognized for what they’re doing and build a reputation for it.  By letting poor journalists be closely associated for their work, they can be recognized for what they’re doing as well.

How these journalists would be profiled is a very interesting question.  An overall 5 star review system would probably be part of it, but maybe not.  Maybe the 5 star rating system is a better predictor of popularity than competence.  I know that for me personally, the biggest concerns in journalism are honesty and accuracy.  So maybe the first thing that gets added to the profile is a bullshit meter.  If you used alternative facts in a story you wrote, the people reading should know that and be able to hold you accountable.  And that becomes part of your profile..

Most of our news today is delivered to us through a TV personality, quoting another news organization, using a piece of information gathered by one of their journalists, who used an anonymous source to report what they heard.  By the time you hear it, you’re not sure what to make of it.  Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not.  Who knows by the time it makes it to you.  But what if the journalist who broke this news, had an immaculate track record with their news releases?  What if they used anonymous sources?  Would you care if they’ve always been accurate?  Personally, I don’t mind the use of anonymous sources if they’re being verified by someone who I trust.  Not all anonymous sources should be treated equally.

So we would want everyone to be held accountable to the same standards of honesty.  How that would be accomplished exactly, I’m not sure.  I think it would probably do well to partner with an existing fact checking organization, but the best solution would involve the community holding its own community members accountable.  Something I enjoy thoroughly about the comment section on Reddit (depending on the subreddit), is that the most upvoted comment is often one that adds more clarity to the article.  Sometimes it’s for calling out the article on inaccuracies, sometimes it’s by providing additional sources to elaborate on a point.  I think that a community like this would be imperative to this platform’s long-term success.

The next thing I’d like to see on journalist prifles are accuracy of speculative statements.  If you have someone who’s always telling you how things are going to turn out, it’s important to know how often they’re right.  Those who are able to predict the future with a high degree of accuracy should probably be listened to more.  Those found to be crying wolf too often, should probably be heard less.  Allowing for people to be held accountable to these speculative statements will hopefully drive more practical discussions and limit unreasonable fear mongering.

However this profile ends up looking, it’s purpose is to give the audience context about who they’re hearing the story from.  It’s to help create an informed reader, while encouraging journalistic integrity.  Especially in a climate like this, I’m confident in the value of honesty.  I’m confident in the peoples’ value of journalistic integrity and honesty, but I’m also sympathetic to their distrust of large media corporations controlling the dialogue.  This would be a big step in separating the two.

I think this would have to work in tandem with a user profile as well.  One of the biggest issues we run into in modern media are thought bubbles and echo chambers.  Perhaps a way around that is having an algorithm track your bias.  For example, if your political bias shows that you’re off center, the algorithm would include some of the most credible articles that might disagree with your views.  A balanced perspective is key, and there’s no evidence to suggest that everything in your news feed should be something that you agree with.

Another element of this platform is that it would welcome all sources of media.  Podcasts are the new radio.  YouTube is the new TV.  This is about inclusivity of talent, and allowing merit to drive the spotlight.

Now how would you go about attracting all these high quality reporters away from their existing jobs?  Promise them the flexibility and freedom to write about whatever they’d like, at whatever place they’d like to write at?  Too easy.  Tell them they get to work from where ever they’d like, as little or as often as they’d like?  Meh.  Promise them that they’ll be the one’s who are recognized for their articles and that they have the ability to build a personal brand around their craft?  Maybe.  Or maybe tell them that they’ll have a 50% revenue split with all ad revenue generated by their articles.  Bam.

People might say that democracy is dying when Trump is elected while half the American voting population stays home.  Yet we’re liking, and up-voting more than ever.  I think we enjoy voting, it’s just that there’s a bit of a cost reward calculation going on.  Putting some big up-votes behind some talented journalists who aren’t afraid to put their neck on the line to expose those big truths… we could bring them to the mainstream.  We could make heroes out of them and remind ourselves of the ideals we should be striving for.  We could give journalism the home it deserves.

So where to start?  School news papers of course.  I\ve learned that when looking to the future, look to the kids.  Go to the high schools, universities and colleges, and show them how easy it is to move their school publication on to this platform.  Instead of having to run everything through the bureaucracy of a normal news paper or site, have your journalists operate independently.  Teachers might not be into it. Some parent’s might be concerned.  But that’s the point.  And the fun.  Have the conversations that they don’t want you to have.  Talk about the things that you’ve been told not to talk about.  Dig into the real.  And imagine how real that gets at a university paper.  And imagine the power of a platform like this taking hold at an academic level, and producing the fierce, confident, intelligent, rational journalists that are capable of providing us with an honest and accurate view of the world.

Wouldn’t that be something.

A Modern Marriage

I grew up wanting a high school sweetheart that I could marry and spend the rest of my life with.  Something about that seemed sensible and wholesome.  By the time I got to university, I was looking for brains and beauty.  I thought that if I set my standards super high, I’d be able to find a super awesome woman, and the rest would be easy enough to figure out.  As it turns out, compatibility and chemistry can be important, especially when I’m a bit of a basket case.

First girl I thought I’d marry laid out the ultimatum of 2 kids within 5 years, and working backwards meant that we were getting engaged in the coming year.  Considering that we had been together for less than a year, I couldn’t do it.  3 months after we broke up, she was engaged to another guy.  She’s still an awesome person and I hope that it all works out for her, but it was the first time I was really faced with the ridiculous concept of marriage.  Let me explain…

Marriage, as we know it, is a life-long commitment of a romantic relationship to another person.  Am I the only one who thinks that sounds absolutely crazy?

Maybe I need to back the truck up for a second.  With the exception of the last few years, I used to be a big romantic.  Flowers delivered at work, spontaneous cross-country surprises, breakfasts in bed, gifts from Tiffany’s… nothing made me happier than putting a huge smile on her face.  But just about all of my relationships lasted less than 6 months.  Once that initial stage of infatuation settled and the real dynamics of the relationship started to emerge, I would see issues.  Then I would try to solve these issues.  If I couldn’t solve them, I would try to put up with them.  Eventually, I would be disinterested or frustrated, and the relationship would end.  I can’t help but think that a big part of that is on me, but when I describe the situations to others, they usually agree that it just wasn’t the right fit.

Over the last few years, my time and my finances have been much tighter so I didn’t quite have the capacity to be the same happy-go-lucky romantic that I used to be.  Instead, I focused more on the inter-personal dynamics, trying to understand what it would take to build the foundation for something that would last forever.  What boxes would we need to tick over the next 2-4 years before we decided that this was what we wanted to do for the rest of our lives?  Physical chemistry was a must.  A deep friendship was a must.  An ability to work out our differences was a must.  Etc. Etc.  There was something that just wasn’t adding up though.

Back in my early 20s, I was watching this amateur comedian at a local bar… I think he was an English teacher.  He said that he had been with his girlfriend for about 20 years, but he still thought that marriage was a dubious proposition.  As he put it, he loved his girlfriend, enjoyed being with her, and wanted to keep being with her… and yet marriage still sounded like the most ridiculous proposition.  He went on to explain how marriage was first introduced when humans would barely live past 30.  That made sense.  Get married in your teens, have a few kids, and call it a night.  ‘Til death do us part is easy when you’re only going to last another 15-20 years.  When we’re expected to live into our 100s though…

Putting aside the idea that marriage was brought about in a manner that treated women like property, let’s just focus on what marriage today looks like.  I had this conversation with a friend’s girlfriend the other day.  I made the case that if our success rate for marriage was 50%, and that just about every couple enters into a marriage beaming with love, confidence, and hope, wouldn’t that suggest that we don’t have the capacity to pick life partners with accuracy or consistency?  She conceded.  But she protested, “What about the romance?”  There it is.

As with many things in life, I can’t help but think that a more logical approach would make for an emotionally healthier situation.  Her perspective on marriage was a little more traditional.  She thought that the grand gesture of marriage was romantic, and that committing yourself to someone for life was what helped you get through the rough patches.  There was something about taking that plunge into the unknown, together, that made it special.  I admire that.  But I also disagree with it.

My parents split when I was in my early teens.  Most of the families I grew up around were single parent households.  As an adult, personally and professionally, I’ve seen marriages breakdown.  There’s a yin and a yang to this dynamic.  All the optimism, hope, love and trust that usually exists during a wedding, is usually replaced by pessimism, hatred, and mistrust during a divorce.  When it comes to splitting the kids and the finances, things get downright ugly.

What about a prenup?  But that’s not very romantic.  The idea of getting married to someone is forever, and as soon as you introduce a prenup, you’re already planning for it not to be forever.  Well… if 50% of the time, it doesn’t last forever… what exactly is going on here?  If we took a more pragmatic approach to things, wouldn’t a prenup be standard protocol?  As I’ve often suggested to others, it’s best to make decisions about how to walk away when you still really love and want the best for each other.  It certainly beats figuring it out when all you care about is making the other person hurt as just much as you are.

So what’s the solution?  Glad you asked.

By no means will this be for everyone, but I can’t help but think I’m on to something with this.  First, you abandon the idea that marriage is forever.  If you’re 30 and plan on living to 100, appreciate the ridiculousness of being legally bound to someone else for the next 70 years.   If you want to make a commitment to that person, along with a grand gesture and a big party, you should go for it.  But maybe go for a 10 year commitment.  Say that for the next 10 years of my life, through thick and through thin, I want to be by your side.  If after 10 years, things are going great, extend that agreement.

If you’re planning on kids, and this is key, it should be a 20 year contract.  Parents really should do everything they can to keep their personal differences from disrupting the formative years of their children.  With a 20 year contract, it helps to emphasize that.  Not only are you making a commitment to that other person, you’re making a commitment to the kids.  You’re signing up for a team effort in raising the best damn offspring you can manage.  If you’re ready for a new phase of your life after your kids have moved out or are off to college, that’s cool.

The purpose of the contracts, agreements, or whatever euphemism you’d like to use, isn’t about putting a time limit on the relationship, but rather a minimum commitment.  It’s about understanding and accepting the knowns and unknowns that come with a decisin like this.   You can do your best to map out what the coming years look like personally and professionally.  You can set out who will contribute what.  You can make decisions about what happens with the finances if the marriage dissolves early, or if you reach the end of your agreement and want to go your separate ways.  It like a built-in prenup and I can’t emphasize enough the power of addressing this stuf when you still like each other.  The other things that you can tackle in here are things like infidelity or other deal breakers.  No landmines.  It’s really about building a long-term relationship on a stable foundation instead of unstable emotions and hoping for the best.

The next piece, and I’m a big fan of this, is screw taking anyone’s last name.  For the longest time, I was big on carrying my family name forward.  I can only see what I see today because I stand on the shoulders of giants.  What my dad did for me and my family will always be appreciated and will never be forgotten.  What his mom did for him, and so on and so forth.  I thought that carrying my family name forward would be the best way to honor them.  It’s bullshit.  The best way I can honor them is by taking everything that they’ve given me, and doing my best to make the world a better place.  The idea of a woman having to take a man’s last name, while a noble gesture, is rather silly.  The guy taking the girl’s last name is just as silly.  Hyphenating the name works for one generation, but what happens when that person wants to get married to another person with a hyphenated name?  Silly.  So what do you do?  Come up with your own last name!  Seriously.  I can’t be the only one excited about the idea of brainstorming with my significant other about our new last name.  You can come up with something that’s meaningful to both of you, sounds good with both of your names, and something that your kid can identify with.  You might as well come up with a new family crest while your at it.  Seriously, the more I think about this, the more it makes sense.  I think this would do a lot of good, on many levels.

Part 3, ditch the traditional wedding.  The idea of making everyone sit through a ceremony that we’ve all seen before, on uncomfortable church pews, in our best clothes, while we judge the parents who brought the crying baby… just doesn’t make much sense.  What makes even less sense is spending tens of thousands of dollars on hundreds of guests, at an overly fancy venue, with overly fancy food, all at a fat wedding mark-up.  Not cool.  You found someone that you wanna be with so bad that it’s worth throwing a party?  It’s a celebration bitches!  Treat it as such.  Throw the kinda party that you and your friends would love to go to.  Stop putting on this masquerade in the name of tradition.

Finally, and perhaps this speaks to some of my other motivations here… fuck the ring (pardon all this foul language).  Coming from a guy who’s spent thousands at Tiffany’s, I couldn’t be more confident in this statement.  For anyone who hasn’t looked up the history of the diamond wedding ring, it has nothing to do with romance and everything to do with marketing.  As someone with a business background, I can’t help but appreciate how effectively they were able to build an industry around the idea that the bigger the diamond, the more he loves you.  As a human being, I can’t help but be frustrated and annoyed that we’ve been this ignorant for this long.  What I do appreciate about the ring though is that it’s a marker that one wears proudly as if to say “I’m taken, and it’s awesome”.  I can get on board with that.  Does it have to be a ring?  Probably not, but that’s what we’re used to looking for so… maybe it does.  Either way, it definitely doesn’t have to be a diamond and that’s where things start to get fun again.  I used to be big on man made diamonds.  The girl could get a giant diamond, I wouldn’t have to spend much, and I would get the satisfaction of knowing I outsmarted the jewelry industry.  But why not explore a bit?  If you decide on a diamond for personal reasons, then go for it.  If you choose a different type of precious stone, or no stone at all, go for it.  Personally speaking, I’d love to have something cool like titanium carbide or maybe something made from tungsten.  Whatever it was, it would be designed specifically with us in mind.  Because when I look at the ring, it should be us that I have in mind.

We’re in an age where tradition is disappearing to make way for better ideas.  I reject the idea that being romantic means making poor life choices.  I reject the idea that a wedding is about anything other than celebrating their love.  And I reject the idea that marriage is anything more than a commitment where two people who love each other enough to consider a distant future where they’re still together.  I embrace the idea that this is 2018 and that it’s about time that marriage caught up to who we really are.

Why is Racism so Complicated?

So I had a moment last week.  A moment of confusion, a moment of frustration, and then a moment of weakness.

It started when I was talking to a friend about growing up as a minority.  The neighborhood I grew up in was right beside Chinatown and included most of the city’s low-income housing.  The neighborhood was predominately Asian with a mix of other minorities.  One of those minorities were the families of the middle class, artsy-entrepreneur crowd.  That was me.

I still have my grade 7 year book and looking at it now, I was one of 5 white kids in my grade.  I’ve learned a great deal reflecting back on all of this.

Growing up, the school and community did a great deal to teach us that racism was wrong.  We had leadership groups, speakers, engagement from the teachers, stories, VHS tapes… you name it.  But the lesson was always the same:  it was never OK to judge someone based on the color of their skin.  But kids can be mean.

By no means was this neighborhood like present day Detroit, but it had its rough patches.  I used to get asked if I knew what the KKK stood for.  I was told that it stood for ‘kill kocky kaucasians’.  On more than a few occasions, I would be picked last for a team because it would be funny to leave the white guy for last.  I was beaten up more than a few times, teased, picked on, all of it.  Oddly enough though, I rarely associated it with my skin tone.  I took it personally.  I thought they were picking on me, because of me.  Reflecting back on it, I don’t think my skin color was the driving factor, more of an excuse.  I think it had something to do with it, but for the most part, it was just kids being kids.

By the time I got to high school, things were a little more diverse but not by much.  The white minority was now probably closer to 15%.  By this time though, I didn’t identify as white.  I’m not sure if I ever did.  Why would I?  There were still some racial tensions in high school but again, I think it was mostly just kids being kids.  I had several circles of friends and they were never determined by race, just by what we had in common.  I had my friends through sports, my friends through the academics, my friends through computer games, my friends through work, and my core friends that I grew up with.  More often than not, I was the only white guy and it was more of a novelty than anything.  Now that I think about it, the nickname given to me in high school was actually whiteness.  I really didn’t mind though, because my friends were still my friends.  They made fun of me having a big nose in the same way that I would make fun of them for having small eyes.  There was no hate attached to our brand of racism, just humor and lightheartedness.  It was like our way of being… over it.  Perhaps that’s why when Dave Chappelle and Russel Peters started to bring that dynamic to the mainstream, we were huge fans.

The last time I punched a hole in the wall was a few years ago.  It was very out of character for me.  I was dating a girl who I thought had a deep understanding of who I was, but she was intent on checking my white privilege.  It was so confusing and frustrating for me.  It was as if she couldn’t appreciate that the path I had taken wasn’t exactly the best example of white privilege.  Last week, I was told that I didn’t grow up as a minority.  Sigh.

Instead of getting frustrated, I tried to ask why.  She said that if I were to watch the media, or read books, or look at anything outside my bubble, white was the norm.  As a kid who grew up watching Dragon Ball, Fresh Prince and The Simpsons, I’m not exactly sure that’s true, but I understood what she was saying.  I pushed back though, saying that even if that’s what was in the media, I was a kid who spent most of his time in school, community center programs, or with friends.  Even my nanny was an old Chinese lady who didn’t speak any English.  I can’t help but think that objectively speaking, I grew up as a minority.  And perhaps why I pushed back on it is because I have a tremendous amount of appreciation for having gone through that.  I think that’s a big part of who I am today and for someone to tell me otherwise can be rather frustrating.

Ironically, she actually went to the same high school as I did about 30 years earlier so she said she knew what I was talking about and went through some of the same dynamics but said it still wasn’t the same as growing up as a minority.  Maybe so, but what came next was even more confusing.  She said that I was a racist.  At first, I thought it was a comment about everyone being racist to some degree.  I think that’s probably true.  The color of someone’s skin still acts – to some degree – as a predictor of other qualities.  Asians tends to be better at math.  Blacks tend to be more athletic.  Whites tend to be better at… country music?  As far as I’m concerned, the reason why racism is silly, is because while the color of someone’s skin used to have some relevance in predicting other qualities, that relevance is decreasing rapidly, to the point of inaccuracy.

This is something I brought up in that conversation, that once upon a time, generalizing based on race or even gender may have come with enough accuracy to justify the assumptions that came with them.  Up until 100 years ago, assuming that a woman’s role within the family was based around raising the family, was correct far more often than not.  Back when travel between regions of the world was much more limited, you could use facial features and the color of someone’s skin to identify where they were likely from, and where they were from would usually tell you about their culture.  If you knew someone’s cultural background, perhaps more often than not, you could make somewhat accurate assumptions about their values.  That all falls apart in the modern age though.  We still actively look for markers that lend to a deeper understanding of the people we see, but I can’t help but think that race is an out-dated tool.

As global travel became easier, people started to move around.  The color of someone’s skin was no longer an accurate predictor of where someone was from.  As people of different ethnicities started to cozy up to each other, the prevalence of mixed-race couples was on the climb.  As everyone started to shift around and mix-and-match, skin color became just that – skin color.  I grew up with an understanding that I had way more in common with the Asian kid or the black kid from my neighborhood than the white kid one town over, let alone on the other side of the country, let alone from another country.  It wasn’t about race, it was about culture.  And your skin tone might still be able to predict the culture you were raised in once in a while, but since when is a tool worth using if it rarely works?

So when she said that I was a racist, I thought she was referring to the actual tool of racism which we’re all familiar with but rarely speak to out of fear of being labeled a racist.  Not quite.  So I asked her for an example, again, doing my best to understand where she was coming from.  The example she gave was that we always assume that the world’s accomplishments are a result of white men.  Huh?  I’m pretty sure I don’t do that… so I asked if she could give me a more specific example.  She asked me who invented the light bulb, I thought about it for a moment and replied with Thomas Edison.  She said wrong, it was a black guy and that this was a perfect example of how history was written in the white man’s favor.  I’m fully aware of how history’s inaccuracies come about but I was surprised that this was an example.  The science community tends to rise above these kinds of things so I thought I’d look it up.  What I found, I think speaks volumes about modern racism.

As with all great ideas, the light bulb was built upon past innovations.  It’s true that Thomas Edison filed the first patent for a commercially viable electric light bulb in 1879 but that was nearly 80 years after Allessandro Volta  invented the voltaic pile, history’s first manifestation of incandescent lighting.  Since the voltaic pile wasn’t commercially viable, other inventors continued to build out their own versions, each getting slightly closer to something that would be available to everyone.  Thomas Edison’s first iteration of his bulb made use of carbon filaments but they would only last a few days.  A few years later, he was able to extend the light of the filament significantly.  Shortly after that though, Lewis Latimer developed a technique of encasing the carbon filament in a cardboard envelope which would extend the life of the bulb even further.  It’s argued that this final step of the development of the incandescent bulb is what made it commercially viable, but this is where things get a little grey.

So what does this say about modern racism?  For starters, it’s a reminder that it’s better to do your own research than to take the word of someone of hasn’t done their own research.  When it comes to the topic of race, people get heated and sometimes, proving a point can be more important than being accurate.  I don’t doubt for a minute that my friend thought Latimer had invented the light bulb, but I also suspected that she hadn’t really looked into it.  My guess is that someone she trusted gave her this information.  Because it fit her understanding of the world, she accepted it and started telling others.  This is how misinformation spreads.  People tend to be less critical of new information when it fits their view of the world and I can’t help but think that this dynamic played a major role in the spread of racism in the first place.  Mexicans are lazy.  Blacks are dangerous.  Asians are bad drivers.  White people write history in their favor.  Each may be true at times, but they’re likely the exception to the rule.  Not to mention that each criticism could be said about a different race, and still be true at times.

Looking into this light bulb situation, it was still a reminder of the past’s racial dynamics as well.  Latimer didn’t invent the light bulb, but he did make a significant contribution to it just as many other scientists had – including Edison.  It was a group effort from the scientific community, just as all great inventions tend to be.  While the scientific community credits Latimer with his contribution here, I can’t help but think that the history books do a better job of rewarding the person who filed the patent than the people who were behind the invention.  Sure, it’s easier to say that Edison invented the light bulb, but if we had a clearer picture of how this all really came about, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Latimer, along with other scientists, played a more significant role.

Fortunately for me, I had google at my disposal and I’m pretty fearless when it comes to looking things up on the spot.  So I looked it up, and told her it looked like Latimer had contributed to the invention, but wasn’t solely responsible for the invention itself.  To her credit, she conceded that she would need to look into it further.  But she also insisted that the point was still the same, that white men wrote history in their favor and the Native Americans was a more well-recognized example.  I reminded her that I was very familiar with how history is written, but this did remind me of something I need to own up to.

When I think about whether or not I’ve ever been racist in the past, in the traditional sense, I have been.  Most of the friends I grew up with were children of immigrants who were raised in the projects.  When I spent time at their homes, I saw people working multiple jobs, and pinching pennies to do whatever they could to give their children a better life.  When my friends started working, they started chipping in at home.  It was inspiring.  It still is.  20 years later, most of them have moved out of the projects and while their parents will never be millionaires, the kids really were given an opportunity to make something of themselves and that’s a sacrifice I’ll always recognize and appreciate.  So I was confused when I got to high school and saw all these unmotivated Native Americans.

There were a few natives at my elementary school and while I got along with them for the most part, there was a lot of friction between them and the other students.  When I got to high school, there were more native kids than white kids but most of them were in the alternative programs for kids who were struggling academically.  It created this weird dynamic where they were basically segregated from the rest of the school.  A lot of them had issues with violence so that was part of it, but at the time, I never invested the time into learning the rest.  One of my problems was that I had a few friends who were native and we got along just fine.  It made it easy for me to write-off the rest as flawed.  In the most fundamental sense, that was racist.

It wasn’t until late high school that I wandered through one of the projects by my school.  It was almost all native kids.  There was an outdoor basketball court with a few kids playing.  It looked like a scene out of Harlem, except instead of black families, it was native families.  Even the dress code was similar.  Here’s the thing.  In high school, I played basketball, listened to hip hop, watched BET, and dressed way too thuggish for a middle class white kid.  I had a huge appreciation for that side of black culture.  So how was it that I could be so judgmental and dismissive of these native families who were going through such a similar struggle?  That was a big moment for me.

It wasn’t malicious, but I was genuinely racist towards Native Americans until that moment.  It was at that moment that I stopped looking at them like the other, and started looking at them like fellow humans.  It was in that turning point that I started asking why they were different.  Why was it that my friends who grew up in the projects were hustling hard in school while the native kids were skipping class? Why were the parents of my friends working 2-3 jobs while the parents of these native kids seemed content on welfare?  What was the difference?  Had I been born with their genetics and raised by their families, would I be any different?  I couldn’t help but try to understand what was happening here.  Native American culture was rich, and interesting, and had a connection to spirituality and nature that should be better appreciated in modern times, but something was missing.  My prejudice was replaced with compassion.  My assumptions were replaced with questions.  Now I just look to help where I can.  While it sucked to realize that I had been racist, I was grateful to have learned what it felt like, and why it was counter-productive.  While I had admitted this to myself in my own mind years ago, it wasn’t until that conversation that I said it out loud.

I half-expected my admission to be a moment within the conversation but it wasn’t.  That didn’t fit her argument.  What I learned recently is that people don’t always argue with you, as much as they argue with what they assume your argument is.  My admission of racism didn’t fit her dialogue so she skipped right past it and before long, it was time for BLM.  She said suspiciously, ‘you’re not one of those all lives matters people are you?’  I looked back, sheepishly, saying something to the effect of ‘I don’t know, probably…’

The truth is, I didn’t know all that much about the BLM movement besides the fact that they stood against police brutality against the black community and that they were referenced in the conservative media as one of the more violent factions of the alt-left movement.  More recently, I had also read that they had leveraged their muscle to keep uniformed police from marching in support of the Toronto and Vancouver Pride Parades – something which the founders of those parades found troubling.

I was plenty familiar with the ‘all lives matter’ rhetoric of Fox News, used to undermine the position of BLM.  Like most of what they put out, it’s an ounce of truth followed by a pound of bullshit.  But the ounce of truth was that all lives matter.  Maybe I should’ve kept my mouth shut… but I can’t help but speak my truth.

This seemed to really frustrate her.  It was as if saying that all lives mattered undermined the momentum that this virtuous movement has gained.  It didn’t matter that all lives mattered, this was their time in the spot light and anything to take that away from them was wrong.

I disagree.  There are solutions that create more solutions and there are solutions that create more problems.  United, we’re strong.  Divided, we’re weak.  I was fully aware of the racial discrimination that shows up in the statistics around police brutality and I’ve seen the body cam footage of just about all of them.  But I’ve also seen the body cam footage of white people getting gunned down by cops with an almost identical demeanor.  Race played a role, but this isn’t a race issue, it’s a police brutality issue.

I tried to tell her that we need to stop drawing these lines in the sand between us and that the more we focus on race, the more others focus on race.  I told her that we’re all human and that the sooner we realize that, the sooner we’ll realize that we’re all in this together — and that’s when we’ll have the power to create the change that we’re looking for.  Not when we’re fighting each other.  She said that I was being unrealistic, that what I was talking about was reserved for a distant future.  I’m convinced it isn’t, but we didn’t need to argue much further.

Then came my moment of weakness.  I was planning on doing a sober January in solidarity with a friend who was taking month off from cannabis for the first time in a long time.  Instead, I went home and busted out a vape pen I had mostly forgotten about.  I was so wound up that I needed help unwinding.  But then a very nice thing happened.  My friend called.  She wanted to check in on me.  It wasn’t necessary as I wasn’t going to let that affect our relationship, but I did tell her I was frustrated and that her call was appreciated.  I think I articulated it well… I wasn’t frustrated that she thought BLM was the way to go, I was frustrated that just because I wanted to take a more unified approach to solving the problem, I was being treated like the enemy.  That was my problem with the approach, it’s the ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’, kinda thing.  And we know that only Siths deal in absolutes.  She understood what I was saying, and then said something that I think was very valid.  She said that sometimes, before you can truly work on fixing a problem, you need to be seen.  You need to be recognized and appreciated by those around you, and only then is the soil fertile enough to plant a seed.  While I couldn’t necessarily relate, I could understand.

For the next few days, we sent a few messages back and forth.  I told her that the thought leaders I follow would suggest that together is better, and that together is on the horizon.  She asked who they were.  I told her Joe Rogan, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Trevor Noah, John Oliver, and Jordan Peterson.  Her husband who was a part of that chat blasted Jordan Peterson right away, saying he was pompous and arrogant, and included a link to a Toronto news article that was something to the effect of “Jordan Peterson is a dumb man’s smart person”, and started off with calling him the belle of the alt-right.  It was like reading an article from Fox News on Obama… all I could do is reply with a frowny face.

So I thought I’d do some more research on BLM and see what else I could find.  I started with a google search of ‘BLM divisive’, as the divisiveness and violence were the only issues I really had.  I came across a very interesting article from a black woman who had been a part of the civil rights movement back in the 60s.  I didn’t agree with everything she said, but I did agree with the theme of her article.  She was saying how she empathized with the BLM movement, but struggled to support the way they were going about it.  From her perspective, all lives did matter, and that the civil rights movement was about exactly that.  And their approach was with love being stronger than hate.  I can’t help but think that same approach would be even more effective today.  Imagine blacks, whites, latinos and everyone else marching together against police brutality.  That was my vision of all lives matter.  Curiously, she sent me a TED Talk with the founders of BLM and within the first few minutes, they spoke about how they hoped BLM would grow into a movement where all lives mattered as well.

The second thing that I found when searching for ‘BLM Divisive’ was the founder of the BLM Toronto Chapter.  I still don’t know much about what she’s gone through, but she’s got some issues.  I knew that she was in-part, responsible for keeping uniformed police officers from marching in support of the pride parades in Vancouver and Toronto, but I was surprised at what else I found.  On multiple occasions, through social media and at rallies, she seemed to be keen on black racial supremacy.  I won’t bother quoting any of that here as it’s easy enough to look up.  When I found that article, I sent it over to my friend and asked her if she was familiar with this side of BLM.  She said that person was an extremist, not well, and she was disappointed that I used her as an example of BLM.

Here’s the thing, it’s not just her.  It’s the people who are cheering at her rallies when she speaks.  It’s her followers on social media.  And when she’s helping the Toronto faction of BLM influence divisive policies within the Pride movement, one which has championed diversity and inclusivity for years… it’s not just her.  When she spoke, she was speaking to a group of people who people who were carrying around a tremendous amount of hurt and pain for past and present transgressions, and playing to their emotions.  She recognized them, gave them someone to blame, gave them a cause to rally behind, and I’m not sure what comes next.

The reason why I have a problem with this isn’t because systematic racism doesn’t exist, or because black people aren’t over-represented in the prison system or through police brutality.  The reason why I have a problem with this is that it’s the same problematic tactics that have been used for ages.  From Trump and the alt-right to Hitler with Nazi Germany.  You tell them that their pain is real, you tell them that it’s unfair, you give them someone to blame, you give them someone to hate, and then you leverage that power.  I don’t know if I’ve ever seen hate and fear used for good.

With so much going on with both of us, I haven’t forced the conversation any further.  I’m happy to let her come back to me on this one when we’re ready.  She did however mentioned something over dinner the other night about how love conquers hate, so I might be winning her over.. if only just.

The last dynamic that I thought might be worth mentioning here are the racial dynamics of those involved.  I’m a white guy in his early 30s that apparently looks like a model of white privilege.  She’s a white woman of Swedish decent, in her early 50s, who I don’t think has experienced all that much privilege in her life, but might assume she has.  Her husband, who I would also consider a good friend, is a black man who’ll be 50 this year.  Here’s where things get interesting, the family did an ancestry report recently.  If I remember correctly, her husband was about 40% black (Caribbean), about 40% German and the rest was a bit of a mix.  The two of them have 3 daughters.  The whole family is rather passionate about the BLM movement and racial injustice towards black people.  While she’s proud of her Swedish heritage, I’ve never heard them speak much about their German ancestry.

I really don’t identify with any of my genetic heritage.  I think I’m half Scotts-Irish a quarter Jewish, and a quarter Austrian.  The only thing I’ve ever assumed about my lineage was that they were all tough as nails in their own way.  If I was part black, I’d probably say the same.

I can’t help but think that people are going about this all wrong.  When my buddy told me that Meghan Markle was half black, I was surprised.  I thought a mix of something, but would not have guessed black.  Does she experience black prejudice?  What about white privilege?  Should she have the same emotional connection to BLM?  If someone is half black and half German, if they carry the pain of black slavery, should they also carry the guilt of Germany’s Nazi past?  How white do you have to be to experience white privilege?  How black do you have to be to be able to use the N-word?  If someone shares the genetics of a slave and a slaver, what then?  The answers to just about all of these questions, for me, are some variation of nonsense.

You are a human being.  You are unique.  The color of your skin will only tell you two things: How likely you are to get a sun burn, and how likely racist people are to make assumptions about who you are.  Skin color is not a measure of laziness, nor is it a measure of privilege.  If you want to know these things about a person, you’ll need to get to know who they are and the path they’ve traveled.  You are also not your ancestors.  The only thing you received from any of them was a slice of genetic code.  You didn’t inherit their accomplishments,  you didn’t inherit their pain, their prejudice, or any of it.  If you carry it, that’s on you.  That’s your baggage you have to deal with, and I think it’s about time you stop making the rest of the world deal with it.

My friend told me that racism was deeply seeded in North America, but I resisted and told her it was something we could solve.  She doesn’t think it can happen in her lifetime.  She may be right.  I hope not.

Something I realized in our conversation was the generational gap between us.  She talked about how she was raised to be a racist, assuming credit to the white man when that wasn’t necessarily the case.  She told me that it was the same for me.  It isn’t.  I don’t have that prejudice.  I was raised differently.  She was projecting.  I can’t help but think that she’s also projecting some of the hurt and pain which women have experienced through their own oppression.  It’s like the oppressed are getting together and fighting back, and they seem to have found a common enemy in the white man, especially the ones who wear a suit.  Lucky me.

I don’t doubt for a second that many of the shittiest people in the last 300 years have been white men.  From Stalin, to Hitler, to Nixon, to the Koch brothers, to Trump.. all white men.  But then I look at the list of Nobel Prize winners and I see the same bias to white men.  With how human history progressed, western civilization led a great deal of this, and western civilization happened to be white.  There was both good and bad in what they accomplished.  From slavery, to space travel.  Had the industrial revolution taken place in China or Africa first, we’d probably be having a very similar, but different conversation.  It’s a messy history, but it’s our history.  If we made more of an effort to understand it, rather than allow it to trigger emotions of pride, shame, anger, fear, or hate… I think we’d all have a much more honest understanding of who we actually are.

When I think of how I was raised, and the popularity of modern comedians who make light of race, I can’t help but think that our generation is largely over it.  Most of us are mixed-race, with more on the way.  Most of us couldn’t care less what color your skin is.  When we’re talking about systematic racism, it’s less about the laws and structures that are in place and more about the people who are behind those laws and structures.  Racism still exists, but I can’t help but think that the vast majority of these sentiments reside in the older generations.  These are the generations that grew up in racially charged times.  These are the people who had to deal with a government that played to racial tensions and made things worse.  Race is still very much a part of how they see the world, and they can’t help but think that of us as well.

Perhaps this is why I’m confident that we’ll turn this corner on racism sooner than later.  Once these people move out of their positions of power, those replacing them won’t share that prejudice.  There will always been exceptions to the rule, and the rest of the world is a different conversation entirely, but I see a big shift on the horizon.  Within a couple generations, mixed-race will be the norm.  Within my lifetime, we’ll get to a point where just about everyone is born some shade of beige.  I’m sure racism will still exist in some way shape or form, but I’m hopeful that it gets relegated to the realm of ridiculousness that it belongs in today.

Also… simple way to make a huge step forward?  Every kid leaves the hospital with a ancestry report.  Knowledge.


The Future of Advertising

Part of my degree was in marketing so I tend to see advertising through a different lens than most.  The other part of my degree was in psychology so I can’t help but see the psychological component as well.  One dynamic which I find particularly interesting is in how we actively tune out the noise for traditional advertising, but when we see someone we respect engaging positively with a brand, we take note.  The Starbucks cup or the Lululemon tote bag may be a bit played out today, but both are great examples of how this works.

Years ago, I was watching TV and noticed how the characters on the show had to avoid mentioning specific brands – likely because they didn’t have approval and seeking approval would’ve required legal paperwork and perhaps a fee.  In certain instances, it actually made for rather awkward speech.  In reality, we actually reference brands and products on a regular basis, in our regular speech, for the sake of accuracy.  Which means that not being able to use brand names in certain areas of media actually hurts the dialogue.  Wouldn’t it make sense to write the dialogue as you would naturally, and then approach the brands mentioned in a positive manner for ad revenue?

There are certainly some complexities to this strategy, but I doubt they’re beyond our ability to solve.  Based on how I’ve seen things progress, I think this is actually being done now to some extent.  What a concept, letting a character talk about their Mercedes or BMW, let them talk about their iPhone or Android, let them talk about their favorite restaurant or coffee shop.  Script writers would have to maintain integrity so that it didn’t come off as a plug or mini-infomercial, but I don’t think that would be too difficult.  The idea isn’t about sneaking an advertisement into something we’re already paying attention to, it’s about letting a brand impression exist where a brand impression would already naturally exist.


So maybe we’re starting to turn that corner, but where does it go from here?  I have an idea.

Right now, AI and computer vision allow YouTube to recognize most copy-written material and then defers action to the original owner.  As AI and computer division develop further, they won’t just be able to recognize the content, they’ll be able to recognize what’s in the content.  Watching a movie, and see a sweet car that you’ve never seen before?  No problem, hit pause, hover your mouse over the car and see a few quick details.  Super interested?  Click on the details and you’ll head straight to the website.  Now imagine being able to do that with clothes, foods, toys, and everything else.

If we approach this correctly, I can’t help but think it would be a massive win-win for everyone.  No more advertisements.  No more commercials.  No more jingles.  And especially no more manipulation of public perception in the hopes of earning a sale from someone who doesn’t actually need or want your product.  If this done correctly though, I think the biggest winners may actually be the businesses.

Rather than guessing at where to advertise, how to advertise, and how much to spend on advertising, just paying per click.  Every time someone sees a piece of media that includes your product and someone wants to know more about it, there’s your point of monetization.  Next-level pay-per-click advertising.  Effectively, you’re only paying to connect people to your product, when they’ve shown an interest in your product.  Not only is that a more streamlined approach, it builds trust rather than degrades it.

Efficiency is my North Star.  When someone sees something they’re interested in, they want to know more about it.  If they learn more about it and they want to buy it, they want a quick and easy way to complete that transaction.  Businesses want to provide those details and the option of that transaction to potential customers, however, they would prefer to only spend their advertising budget on people who are interested.  This strikes me as a remarkably efficient approach compared to what’s out there now.

Thinking it through a little further, I know there are bound to be a few hiccups.  What happens if someone you don’t like is wearing or using your product?  What if you’re just getting started and you need to get your product out there to begin with?  I could come up with a few other issues that would exist in today’s unspoken rules of advertising but I can’t help but think that it’s just not that complicated.  If you’re on the alt-left and someone on the alt-right is wearing one of your products?  Grow up.  Appreciate the extra revenue, and appreciate that if they’re wearing your stuff, you may have more in common with them than you might think.  Just getting started?  Send free products out to influencers who would appreciate them.  If you have solid product, they’ll show it off and you should end up with a cascading effect.  If you send your product out to the people who would appreciate it, and they don’t?  Maybe you picked the wrong influencers, or perhaps your product just isn’t very good.  Regardless of what obstacles I come up with, the solutions don’t seem very far away.

I’d estimate we’ll have the tools to do this within about 10 years.  Whether or not major industry players are interested in challenging the status quo is a different story though.  But this is why ‘revolutionary’ has become the holy grail of doing business.  Whoever breaks that mold, I’m rooting for you.

How Many Innocent Lives is a Police Officer Worth?

This is a very real question that we’ll have to try to answer in the near future.

Growing up, I had assumed zero.  I guess I was wrong.

I don’t like quoting stats because highlighting a single data point within a pattern can be misleading.  But 66 unarmed people were killed by the US police last year.  Up from 48 the year before.  I don’t know all of their stories.  I haven’t seen all the body cam footage.  But from what I have seen, something desperately needs to change.

I’ve known about the darker places of the internet for a long time.  I’ve watched the Yakuza chop fingers off, I’ve watched public beheadings in the middle east, I’ve seen military executions, and I even watched a Boeing exec get fucked to death by a horse.  I know what’s out there, but I don’t gravitate towards it.  When I watch, I see moments of weakness.  Moments of confusion.  Moments of darkness.  They inform, but they don’t inspire.  This year, I watched more footage of people being killed than any other year, and most of that was body cam footage from police officers.

I don’t watch them expecting to make excuses for the police or the people they’re pointing guns at.  I recognize that for all parties involved, it’s probably the most stressful moment of their entire lives and  people don’t always perform well under pressure.  What I try to do is understand what exactly is happening and how we could’ve avoided the loss of an innocent life.

In each video that I’ve seen, the person who was shot ‘reached’ for something.  Sometimes it was the waistband, sometimes the back pocket, but in every case, there was a motion that suggested to the police officer that they were drawing a concealed weapon.  That’s the moment where the officer went from pointing a weapon to taking an innocent life.  I think that’s a moment worth exploring.

I’ve never faced a situation like that before.  Perhaps it’s like pointing a rifle at a bear that’s getting closer and closer.  You don’t want to kill the bear, but you know that if the bear notices you, it’ll likely charge, and you’re unlikely to survive.  I always warn against making decisions out of fear.  It tends to use the least intelligent parts of the brain.  And I don’t think that analogy holds up anyways.  You can’t have a dialogue with a bear.  You don’t already have the bear in a position of submission.  You don’t have the other tools necessary to de-escalate the situation.  If that’s your state of mind in these situations, then they never should’ve let you out of basic training.  But that’s not what I’m seeing when I’m watching these videos.

I’m seeing people who lack the emotional stability to carry firearms.  I’m seeing people who have yet to grasp the value of a human life.  I’m seeing people grappling with their own issues while pointing a gun at another human being.  I’m seeing the fear that comes with a society who thinks everyone should be armed with deadly force.  I’m seeing a bad problem made worse with military grade weaponry.  I’m seeing a failure of training.  I see a corrupt organizational culture.  Worst of all, I see a problem that could be easily solved and that the police don’t seem motivated to fix.

All officers should be supported with an extensive psychological health program.  That starts with a screening process designed to keep the trigger-happy cosplay-commandos out.  Then it continues with ongoing evaluations and therapy.  We need to accept that the damage officers take out there isn’t just physical.  Rather than putting them through the shit and expecting them to sort things out on their own, we need to give them the tools and support necessary for them to stay healthy, inside and out.  If an officer watches his partner get lit up, or is first on the scene to something you think you’d only see in a Rob Zombie movie, we need to be there for them.  If that’s not something they can come back from, help them find something else.  And this all needs to be done by a third party which doesn’t have to answer to the politics of law enforcement.

The failure of training seems to be the one that everyone agrees on, including the police.  But it doesn’t seem to be working.  Perhaps I can make a few suggestions.  Don’t escalate the situation to the point where the person is so scared that they lose the ability to think rationally.  Don’t ask them to do something that might make them reach for something, when you’re going to assume that what they’re reaching for is a weapon.  I’d like to put that all under humanity 101 but here’s the real change I’d like to see:  If there are multiple officers targeting the same suspect, all with weapons-hot, wait until you can see an actual weapon.  You’re right, it’s only a split second between seeing the weapon and being shot at, but you should be trained to make that split second decision properly.

Mistakes will still be made.  Waiting until you see the weapon might mean a few extra dead officers.  But it’ll also mean that just about every single unarmed civilian who was murdered by a police officer this year would still be alive.  That’s the trade off.  A few brave souls who put their lives on the line so that the innocent may live in peace.  That’s what you signed up for.  That is your glory.  That is your honor.  Own it.  That is the proud and noble history of law enforcement.  What we’re seeing now is gang violence.

But that’s not going to change anytime soon.  Especially with the commander and chief excited about deploying more military grade equipment into local municipalities.  I can’t help but think that the general anxiety that the country is experiencing plays into this as well.  Protests, riots, terrorism, political instability, cultural divisions… maybe everyone is a little on edge.  There’s gotta be something else we can do.

I often say that if both people are looking for something reasonable, compromise is just a lack of imagination.  I think this qualifies.  Police officers would like to not be shot by a suspect who may or may not have a concealed weapon.  Suspects who are trying to comply, would like to not be shot whether or not they have a concealed weapon on them.  Police officers would like to not be at risk of being assaulted by a weapon as they try to place a suspect into custody.  Suspects who are trying to comply would like to not be shot by an officer while being placed into custody.  There’s always that risk that as soon as an officer takes his finger off the trigger, things go sideways.  There’s always a chance that when the suspect makes an unexpected movement, things go sideways.  So we need a way for officers to subdue suspects, without having to close the distance or take the finger off the trigger.  Tranquilizer darts.

I’m not going to bother looking up what’s on the market right now that might work because I think that if this was going to be deployed, it would have to be a custom job.  You’d need a compound that worked quickly, effectively, and left no side-effects.  When you approach the scene, and you can’t determine whether or not the person has a weapon?  Tell them that.  Tell them to go belly down with their arms where you can see them, and that you’re gonna shoot them with a tranquilizer dart.  When they wake up, they’ll be in cuffs in the back of a squad car and everyone can figure out what happened.  Crazy junkie on bath salts?  Tranq dart.  Guy pulls a knife from 20 feet away?  Tranq dart.  In just about every scenario short of someone firing live rounds at you, tranq dart.

The other solution that’s crossed my mind is gender equality.  The ratio of male to female officers in American law-enforcement is about 9:1.  I can’t help but wonder if the boys in blue would be a little less trigger happy if there were a few more girls around.  But women aren’t as big and strong as men, and etc., etc.  True, but are we so sure that size and strength are the most important qualities of a law enforcement officer?  Maybe thinking that size and strength are the most important qualities is an issue unto itself.  If we saw a 1:1 ratio of men to women in law-enforcement, I can’t help but think that the police would see a dramatic improvement across the board.  Reduced discrimination, reduced police brutality, and fewer shootings of unarmed civilians to start.  Right now, I see police walking the streets like the foot soldiers of law-enforcement.   In some of the uglier scenarios, they look like gang members protecting the turf of the police state.  I can’t help but think that if we encouraged gender equality within the police, they might just find their way back to protecting and serving.

Incest Porn

In my prime, I was probably just as interested in porn and masturbation as any other stereotypical male.  Perhaps one of my most embarrassing memories was being walked in on by a friend back in grade 11.  I still maintain he didn’t see anything, but holy shit was that awkward… then embarrassing when the rest of the school found out… and then a highly entertaining memory.

As the years have passed, it’s become more of a functional effort for me.  Sometimes it’s to help me get to sleep, sometimes it’s to de-stress, sometimes it’s because I saw boobies on TV and wasn’t sure what else to do with myself.  I’ve always enjoyed watching porn for a very different reason though – as a reflection of the human psyche.

If you were to ask 100,000 people what their sexual preferences or fantasies were, I don’t think you’d get an honest set of data.  I think most people would respond with some variation of vanilla + light bdsm.  If you were to take a look at the major porn sites right now, they’re dominated by incest porn.  Thanks Glasses Morty…

There’s an honesty to porn.  In the privacy of your own home (and incognito mode), you tend to care less about what people think and more about getting you to that mind-blowing orgasm.  For me, I’ve been through several phases but it’s always revolved around female pleasure.  Something about a girl looking like she’s experiencing levels of pleasure she’s never experienced before is totally my jam.  And when I think about who I am as a person, I see an alignment there.  One of my favorite states of mind is when I introduce someone to something they’ve never experienced before, and they have an awesome time.  I’m also super competitive and want to be the best at everything, including her body, haha.  So what does it say about the current state of the human condition when porn is being dominated by an incest fetish?

If I were to go onto any major free porn site, I’m saying close to half of the videos listed are either mother-son, brother-sister, or daddy-daughter.  Some aren’t even incest related, but they’ll toss it in the title for more clicks.  As someone who has a younger sister who lives in LA that has flirted with the idea of being a stripper, the last thing I want when watching porn is a reminder that the girl in the video could be my little sister.  As someone who has a complicated relationship with his mother, hearing ‘do you like that, son?’ is a quick way for me to lose all interest in what I’m doing.  The daddy-daughter stuff?  I’m not a fan of unbalanced power dynamics.

When I wanna watch porn, I now literally have to skip through the first 5-10 minutes of story line or risk it being ruined for me.  Kinda.  Because every once in a while, there’s one that I’m into.  In trying to understand what I was enjoying about it, a few things came to mind.

First and foremost, it was a step-sibling dynamic.  No incest, just pretend incest.  Second, there was no jacked up power dynamic where the brother was blackmailing his sister or something weird like that.  The stuff that I was into was when there were two good looking people, living under the same roof, not related, super attracted to one another, knowing that it’s taboo, and caving into their desires.  Hmm… that’s kinda hot isn’t it?

And when I think about the popularity of this genre and what it tells us about the people who are watching it, I see a few interesting elements.

First is the evolution of the blended family.  Blended families are becoming the norm which means step-siblings are more common than ever.  That means we’re putting a whole bunch of teenagers and young adults, who aren’t related to each other, under the same roof.  From time to time, at least one of them is going to be attractive.  And we’re expecting the other sibling not to be attracted?  But their parents have told them that they’re brother and sister and brothers and sisters don’t have those kinds of feelings or engage in those behaviors.  That’s like preaching abstinence to reduce pregnancies.

Next is the taboo element.  Remember when BDSM was taboo?  Anal?  Gay sex?  Even blow jobs were taboo at one point.  They all follow the same pattern of a bunch of people collectively deciding it’s wrong and trying to shame the rest of us into complying.  But then a few people explore those boundaries, find out it’s totally awesome, and the dynamic starts to shift.  Eventually the people who tried to impose limitations on sexual freedoms start to look silly.  In some cases, you feel sorry for them.  In others, you swear they’re doing all kinds of kinky shit when nobody’s looking.

Finally, and perhaps the most subtle.  Or maybe just something I see… is this dynamic of doing what you know makes sense even when others tell you that you’re wrong, or a bad person for doing it.  If you were gay, at a time where the world was telling you that you shouldn’t be gay, I would imagine that being with the person you wanted to be with was an incredibly liberating and joyful experience.  This dynamic of going against the grain when you know you’re right is something that exists well beyond sex.  It’s how great investors invest.  It’s how great love stories are told.  It’s how great leaders change the world.  It’s also why teenagers consistently push the boundaries which their parents impose on them.  Whether it’s staying out late, skipping class, studying less than you should… most kids aren’t doing these things because they’re trying to sabotage their future, it’s because they think that they’re more capable than the limitations being place on them.  In the case of incest porn, I think it just comes down to…. she’s hot, I think she’s into me, we’re not related as much as dad and his new wife would like me to think so – and there’s your fantasy.

The last piece I’ll mention is that if any of what I’ve written here has relevancy, the real story is appreciating the diversity of porn because it’s indicative of the diversity of sexual desire, which is indicative of the diversity of humanity.  Some people are into big, some people are into small, some people are into feet, some people are into dressing like stuffed animals.  If we could understand and accept that 99.9% of the time, sex is about pleasure and not procreation, we’re in a position to realize a sexual revolution.  As long as there’s consent, do what feels good.  The doors that will open, the marriages that will saved, the minds that will be blown… could be very exciting times ahead.