challenge the status quo – My Mental Model

Schultz 2020

A couple years ago I got involved with a cool little cannabis company. It was retail, and very early stage, but it had a ton of character and was being done really, really well. As I was preparing them for a capital raise, I had to create a quick comparison with an existing business that others would recognize. We landed on, ‘the young Starbucks of cannabis’. I figured that if I was going to make a bold claim of that nature, I had better know that company inside and out. Part of that was reading Howard Schultz’s book, Pour Your Heart Into It.

I actually listened to it while on a mini-road trip and I was immediately a fan of the guy. He had true humble beginnings. His path did not lack adversity. And his success did not cost him his humility. In hearing how he approached the obstacles he faced throughout his career, you could tell that he was a person of integrity and strong values. Not just a smart person, but the kind of person who uses their smarts to try and make life better for others.

When Donald Trump ran for president, a lot of people were saying that getting a business mind into the White House was a great idea and that Donald Trump was an ideal candidate. I think that someone who truly understands the fundamentals of business is capable of running an organization of any shape or size. I also think that those who are most capable of running a government are not in politics. I had actually been hoping to see a great business mind in the White House for years but I also knew that Donald Trump was not that person. His approach to building and running businesses (into bankruptcy) was not transferable to building and running a government. I still think that Hillary would’ve been a far more competent and far less corrupt leader than Trump, but it still shows that the American voter is looking for a change from the status quo. They can sense that the talent pool within the political system is thin and that our best and brightest operate in the private sector.

Over the last 3 years or so, I’ve paid a great deal of attention to American politics. Far more than I ever had in my life. And in order to keep up, I had to learn a ton about how things work. And like many of us, it led me to a place where I wanted help create change for the better. I think Howard Schultz has ended up there as well. He’s been asked about running for office various times over the years and in most cases, he’s suggested that he’s interested but not that interested. My impression is that he was motivated to make the world a better place but that he would rather do that through Starbucks and his charitable work than attempt to navigate the corrupt landscape of politics. But that all changed when Trump came along. Schultz sees what I see, and it means that his sense of responsibility to make the world a better place now weighs more heavily on him than his desire to stay out of politics.

When I say that both Trump and Clinton were terrible candidates, people ask me who I would vote for or who I would want to run. For the last two years, I’ve been saying Howard Schultz. The guy actually grew up in the projects so he knows what it means to come from humble beginnings and what it takes to rise up out of those circumstances. In Starbucks, he built a world-class organization that made a name for itself by treating its employees really well. As an individual, he’s demonstrated that he’s a person of character and integrity. And the bonus, if he ran, I was pretty sure it would be as an independent.

Well, a couple days ago, Schultz was interviewed on the news and he told the audience that he was considering a run in 2020. Fuck ya. Not just that, but that he was going to run as an independent and a centrist. He called out both parties for doing more politicking than governing and I expected no less from the guy. As a real life billionaire, he’s capable of funding his own campaign and doesn’t need to hitch himself to any special interests. And that seems to be ruffling some feathers.

First you had Trump that managed to embarrass himself more effectively in one tweet than any dig from Schultz would have. Trump started by saying that Schultz didn’t have the guts to run for president. Weird flex considering that if Schultz does run, he starts the game 1 – 0 against Trump. Then Trump takes a shot at Schultz’s intelligence, claiming that he himself is the smartest person in America. Meanwhile, what Trump was referencing was when Schultz said that he’s not always the smartest person in the room. From what I’ve observed, this is what smart people say when they’re being modest and it’s often because they’re smart enough to spent time with even smarter people. Finally, Trump tries to wrap it up by establishing dominance, asking if Schultz has paid him his rent for the Starbucks location inside Trump tower. Cringe-worthy.

What I saw from Trump was expected. Trump’s tactics are reminiscent of a bully on a playground. He starts with, “you don’t have the guts to play here”. Then he teases him and calls him stupid. Then he brags about something that’s clearly a lie. Then he makes play for his lunch money. Straight off the playground. And if Schultz has any political strategists already on board, they’re loving it. Trump plays the role of the bully well, but he’s a shadow of himself when it doesn’t work. It’s also why I don’t think you should protect kids from bullying as much as you should prepare them to overcome it. Schultz was no stranger to bullies growing up and has dealt with bullies of all shapes and sizes in the private sector. If someone of Trump’s character is easy pickings for someone like me, Schultz is going to eat him alive. I really do think that of all the potential candidates that may run against Trump, Trump would fear Schultz the most. Fortunately for Trump, there’s a good chance he won’t make it to 2020.

While that was Trump’s reaction, the republican reaction has been more muted. I don’t think they know what to say just yet. The republican national committee seems to have thrown their full weight behind Trump which seems a bit suspicious given his current poll numbers and impending proceedings. I guess we’ll see how that turns out. But either way, right wing media has been more focused on the democrats response to Schultz’s announcement than anything.. and perhaps rightfully so.

The Democrat’s response to Schultz looking into a 2020 presidential run has been a giant, steaming pile of horse shit. Every democrat that I’ve seen speak on this, including some top brass, has been strongly against Schultz running for president. As they’ll tell you, it has almost nothing to do with his policies or his credentials, and everything with him running as an independent. As they put it, the greatest concern is defeating Donald Trump and by introducing a popular independent candidate, you risk ‘splitting the anti-Trump vote’. They’re afraid that Donald Trump has 40% of the voter base on lock, and that if you split the remaining 60% of voters between Schultz and a democrat candidate, you end up with another 4 years of Trump. Fuck that.

From what I understand, one of the biggest flaws in American politics is a 2 party system. It’s an effective duopoly of American democracy. One in which *both* parties have demonstrated that they are deeply corrupt and beholden to special interest groups. One of the best things we could do for democracy is to have elected representatives who voted exclusively on what their constituents want, rather than voting along party lines or voting for special interests on promises of future campaign contributions. This change isn’t only grass roots, in large organizations, it happens from the top down. But how would we accomplish that it costs a billion dollars to run for president and most people can only access that kind of capital as a democrat or republican candidate? 99.9% can’t, and that’s the point. That’s why it’s a duopoly. That’s why every president in the last however many years has been produced by one of two organizations. It’s why no matter who’s in office, nothing ever seems to change. And we’re now at a point where it all desperately needs to change. And the democrats are now the ones trying to stand in the way.

This isn’t the first time it’s happened either. This is literally what happened with Bernie Sanders in 2016. Bernie was a better candidate than Hillary and he was certainly a better candidate than Trump. The democrats thought Hillary was a stronger candidate and did what they could to give her the party’s nomination. Considering that Bernie is an independent, I wonder if someone from the democrats approached him before he decided to run and encouraged him to run as a democrat instead of as an independent. You know, because of how important it was to not split the anti-trump vote.

Things are a bit different this time though. Trump is the dumpster fire that everyone predicted and it’s left the republicans in a tight spot. Trump has solidified about 20% of voters into a cult of personality who, right now, would follow him off a cliff. As long as Trump stays out of jail, keeps yelling at immigrants, and the economy keeps growing, he’s probably their only candidate for 2020. Meanwhile, democrats had their blue wave during the midterm, and bunch of new blood in congress, and Pelosi is just starting to flex her muscles. They’re primed for a big comeback in 2020 with a broad selection of candidates from career politicians to career politicians. As far as they’re concerned, 2020 is theirs to lose. The problem with that though, is that this isn’t about them. It’s about the country. And the people. And the democratic process. And they’re treating it like trying to win a big, 4 year government contract. Fuck that.

Right now, my full weight is behind Schultz. This notion that we should avoid putting our best leaders forward because it might reduce the chances of a democrat candidate beating a republican candidate sound remarkably undemocratic. First and foremost, both political parties are playing divisive politics and catering to the more vocal and extreme ends of their base. Most of us are not represented by these individuals and together, we represent the silent majority. We are people who might lean left or right, but generally speaking, hold a balanced view. It’s people who are here that realize that good and bad ideas can be found on either end of the political spectrum. And that despite all our differences, we have far more in common with one another. Someone needs to step up for the silent majority.. and represent reason.. and common sense.. and community.. and being good to one another again. Right now I think Schultz is our best chance at giving those people a voice.

The second reason, which should be obvious, is that Schultz has just as much of a chance to take votes off of the republican candidate as it would with the democrat one. Most people who voted for Trump did so because he was a challenge to Washington’s status quo. They wanted an outsider with a background in business to come and shake things up. They wanted it so desperately that they didn’t bother looking too close when Trump said he was exactly what they were looking for. If Trump goes down in flames, which I bet he will.. his base sure as hell won’t be voting for a rank and file democrat.. but I could certainly see them voting for someone like Schultz. Someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the ridiculous politics of the left, I think that’s going to mean a lot for them. Someone who can go on to Fox News and lay down the boom as a self-made billionaire who was the CEO of a fortune 500 company. I think there’s a strong contingency in the Trump base who would love a guy who did all that. And if they had someone they trusted to root for, who was also telling us that we all gotta get along with one another if we’re going to make any progress… I think things get a lot better.

Third, and perhaps the biggest reason.. is dishonesty. You have the democrat brass coming out of the wood work sternly telling Schultz not to run because it’ll improve the chances of Trump being elected. Bullshit. You don’t want Schultz to run because it’ll decrease the chances of a democrat candidate taking office. And not just in 2020. If Schultz gets in there and does a good job, he’s getting another 4 years. And within that 8 year period, as we learn the lessons of identity politics and learn to embrace our individuality… what happens to the relevancy of the two-party system? How many others run as independents? How many of us in hindsight want nothing to do with the political tactics of the democrats and republicans? Howard Schultz winning the 2020 election could quite possibly be the death of the 2 party system in America and that could easily be the best thing to happen to American politics in the last 100 years.

Where I Draw the Line with the Left

I spent a great deal of time and effort staying off the political spectrum. I strongly suspect that the political divide of left and right, or red and blue is a product of the governing class. Government reform would require a united voter base. So they divide and conquer.

Something I’ve observed is that those on the far ends of the political spectrum tend to have a great deal in common. They’re loud. They’re aggressive. They assume the moral high ground. They have questionable beliefs. And they aren’t very reasonable when those beliefs are challenged. I’m not the first to have noticed this either. I think it’s referred to as the horseshoe diagram, and it suggests that the silent majority tend to agree on most reasonable issues.

On this political spectrum, it’s been well documented when the right can go too far. Nazis. When a right-wing ideology starts talking about racial supremacy, that’s a red flag. When they start targeting those of a particular race or religion, blaming them for the country’s problems, that’s a red flag. When they start to deny science to advance their own political agenda, that’s a red flag. An entire generation of Germans learned that in the most painful of ways. So… if that’s where the right can go too far, do we not have similar standards for the left? Equality is not equality unless we are all held to account.

Jordan Peterson has made this question a cornerstone of his debates. He’s often confronted by media personalities who assume that he represents the ‘alt-right’. In most cases, he addresses that claim and acknowledges that while conservatism and tradition can have value, there is absolutely a point at which it goes too far. He often suggests Nazis are a clear example of when the right can go too far. He’ll then ask the interviewer if they could give an example of where the left has gone too far. In most cases, they can’t answer the question. I’ve tried it myself and had a similar experience. On the extreme ends of the political spectrum, it would seem as though you can do no wrong. As long as you’re fighting for a righteous cause, your actions are justified. But when both sides take this approach, and both sides believe in their righteousness, there is no middle ground.

I have no issues holding someone to account for a flawed ideology, regardless of it’s right, left, up, down or sideways. Today, I saw a tweet that was posted to social media that has motivated me to say something. This was a tweet by @legal_feminista. It said:

Let’s enter 2019 with the right energy:

Trans women are women. Sex work is work. Black lives matter. Rape culture is real. Yes all men. Fuck white supremacy. Abolish borders. Free Palestine. Protect indigenous rights. Support mental health. Believe women.

Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to something like this as I’ve seen or heard most of it before. But this tweet received about 60,000 likes and 17,000 retweets in about 48 hours. This perspective isn’t an outlier, it’s mainstream. So… let’s dig in and see what we find.

Trans women are women. That depends on how you define women. If gender is a social construct and not determined by biology, then sure, trans women are women. But what about biology? If gender is a social construct, surely, sex must be biological. Otherwise, we’re ignoring the significance of things like the female and male reproductive systems, or the Y chromosome. And what happens when trans women start using the natural advantages afforded to a biological male to put women at a disadvantage? There are now various stories about trans women dominating against female athletes. I’m not sure these competitors would agree that all trans women are women. At some point, I think we’ll have to acknowledge that there is a very real biological component to being a male or a female. But in addition to that, we have masculinity and femininity. Part biology, part psychology, part sociology.. this is what gives us masculine women and feminine men, and really masculine men and really feminine women. Traditionally, we thought that we should all be masculine men or feminine women and it forced many of us to pretend to be people we weren’t. Now we’re a little more open minded. Sex comes primarily in 2 flavors.. with a swirl here and there. But who we become as individuals, well that’s a flavor that’s unique to each individual. It includes how masculine or feminine you are, who you’re attracted to, how you choose to dress.. and as long as it’s consensual, it’s all good. I genuinely think that if we had a little more love for all the unusual ways we turn out, people would be more secure and confident in who they are and less consumed with trying to become someone else.

Sex work is work. Damn right. Got your back on this one sister. Making prostitution illegal is about as sensible as making alcohol and cannabis illegal. By pushing it into the shadows, you put good people at risk. By bringing it into the light, we give ourselves a chance of doing it right.

Black lives matter. Yes, because all lives matter. My issue with the black lives matters movement was that they weren’t on board with all lives matter. I agree that racism against black people exists. I agree that it shows up in matters of police brutality. But I disagree that police brutality is a race issue. Black lives matter had an opportunity to open their doors and champion an All Lives Matters movement that would’ve forced police everywhere to reevaluate how they interact with the public. It could’ve been the solution to police brutality for people of every color. It could’ve been an opportunity for the black community to be leaders for all of America. Instead, ‘all lives matters’ was understood to be an attempt at dismissing their cause or taking the spotlight off the black community. What a missed opportunity. And meanwhile, you have prominent leaders within the BLM community speaking about black racial supremacy to crowds of cheering fans.

Rape culture is real. Maybe. It depends on how you define it. Growing up, my understanding of rape was someone being held down against their will, being fully aware of the experience as it’s happening, kicking and screaming for help, and dealing with the emotional trauma afterwards. It was easy to understand that as one of the most terrible crimes a person could commit. I’m now told that if two people get drunk and have sex, they’ve effectively raped each other because you can’t consent if you’re drunk. I was also told that if a woman gives consent, but changes her mind during sex without telling her partner, if the partner continues, he’s a rapist. I think we’re losing sight of the difference between a violent rape and a regrettable sexual encounter. By no means am I condoning any behavior that remotely resembles rape, but I do think that it’s important to recognize degrees of severity. I think it would be more accurate to say that we have a culture of sexual harassment. But if you stop here without asking why, you’re missing half the equation. I don’t think men want the responsibility of pursuing women for sex. Most are terrible at knowing whether or not a woman is interested in them. Most are clueless at figuring out how to flirt. And most take rejection pretty hard. And to make it worse, in the same way that men have been socialized to pursue sex, women have been socialized to withhold it. If we’re going to find our way out of this mess, I think it starts with honesty and respect. Personally, I vote for women to take over the role of asking guys out for a bit.

Yes all men. No. This is literally sexism 101. It’s like saying that all women are neurotic. Or all black people are prone to crime. Or all Muslims are terrorists. Just because you’ve had bad experiences with some men doesn’t justify you treating all men with the same contempt.

Fuck white supremacy. Fuck all racial supremacy.

Abolish borders. Sure. but how? Who would you pay your taxes to? What area would your democratically elected official preside over? What would be the jurisdiction for the laws you voted for? Or was this just about firing back at Trump for garbage immigration policies?

Free Palestine. We should all look for opportunities to put the guns down and hash things out like like reasonable adults. Unfortunately, religion prevents that.

Protect indigenous rights. Or maybe recognize that indigenous rights, voluntary segregation, and systematic exploitation have destroyed America’s indigenous cultures. I think it’s time to try integration. There’s a great deal we can learn from Native American culture, including finding a more balanced relationship with nature. I think it’s about time we took a real look at their history, and show respect where respect is due. And once we’ve rewritten history to accurately reflect the role of Native American’s in the development of modern western culture, we can begin to heal. And part of that will be learning to heal as one family. If done right, indigenous rights should be no different than any other human rights.

Support mental health. Absolutely. Mental health isn’t as obvious as physical health… but can be that much more impactful. We’re waking up to this reality now.. and there’s a lot of work to be done.

Believe women. No. It would be just as foolish to say, ‘Believe men’. It’s interesting because the last time I saw this, it was ‘believe the victim’. But what happens when the victim is a man? Is it still so believable? The problem isn’t in who we believe, but rather the fact that we should to believe anyone in the first place. Believing someone is assuming they’re telling the truth without knowing if they are. Once you have evidence, you can understand whether or not someone is telling the truth. Without that evidence, you’re left with assumptions. While some women might think so what, it’ll do more good than harm, consider this: What would stop someone from paying a woman to make false claims against a man? Do you believe the woman? Or do you presume innocent until proven guilty? On multiple occasions, people have paid women to make false claims against men. If we believe all women, this will keep happening. No victim is worth abandoning the right to innocence until proven guilty. We should trust those who tell the truth. We should support those who have experienced hardship. We should hold accountable, those who caused harm to others. Regardless of what’s between your legs.

A New Economy

I find it interesting that so much of what we consume, we consume for free. At least when it comes to the internet. Looking for a recipe? Good chance it’ll come from a blog or site that you don’t have to pay for. Wanna watch something on YouTube? Also free. Wanna cruise through a slideshow of cool pictures? Instagram. Wanna listen to music? Spotify. Have a weird question that you hope someone has an answer for? Quora.

How is it that so much of the value we consume on a daily basis, we consume for free? These companies aren’t exactly operating at a loss either. I wonder if these platforms have anything else in common? Like sourcing most of their content from their audience.. or monetizing via ad revenue.. or monetizing data collected from their users.

Well, are the content producers at least earning a living wage? Some are but the vast majority aren’t. Maybe these platforms just need to charge more for their services so they can pass some of that income along to the content creators. I don’t think the audience has the disposable income for that model. Why? Because the blogs people are writing, the pictures people are taking, the videos people are making, and questions people are answering are being paid for in views and likes instead of dollars. Ironically, those who are the exception to the rule tend to be paid in ad revenue.

Our economy seems to be based on the consumption of goods or services. Yet so much of what we’re producing now is based in knowledge or art. It also seems like the only way we’re interested in compensating the production of knowledge or art is through a cut of consumerism. There’s something very backwards about that.

It’s occurred to me that our economy is evolving. The introduction of the internet ushered in the information age and it’s an era where knowledge is the most important asset we can generate. Yet we have an economy which doesn’t know how to value this asset or appropriately compensate those who have produced it without a direct application to a good or a service. The traditional capitalist might suggest that without a direct application to a good or service, something is worthless. To that individual, I would remind them of our efforts in space exploration. These aren’t goods or services for the sake of consumption. At it’s core, it’s exploration for the sake of exploration, something that’s been a very real part of the human spirit for all of recorded history. And throughout history, our sense of exploration has always led to new found prosperity. Not least because we have to invent a whole bunch of cool new stuff to get us to where we want to go.

Whatever this next economy looks like, it needs to find a way to better allocate resources and value. No longer should a home take 20 years to pay for. No longer should a luxury brand command a high price on a poorly manufactured item. No longer should the internet need to rely on ad revenue to provide their services. No longer should research facilities rely on government funding. No longer should content producers require millions of fans to make a living wage. It’s time to spread the wealth. Not for the sake of spreading it or creating ‘equality’, but because we need to find a way to deliver the wealth back into the hands of those who are creating value we consume. The world we currently live in is one where you could inherit a house from your parents and never have to work again. Meanwhile, rent is so expensive that saving up for a home is unrealistic for most. In that world, financial prosperity is largely determined by how wealthy your family was. That’s taking us back to the feudal times where a divide existed between land owners and peasants. Fuck that. That’s not good for anyone.

Centuries ago, we used to have an economy based in farming, back when 90% of the population had to farm in order for us to get enough food. Now, less than 5% of the world’s population produces all the food that we eat. It led the way for a the industrial revolution where production shifted to factories. And it was through that manufacturing boom that we developed an economy based in goods. Once we started automating more and more of the manufacturing process, the economy shifted again to the consumption of goods and services. Well with automation making another push, what happens to our economy when 10% of the world’s population can produce 100% of the goods and services we require? I would predict another industrial revolution. One where goods are manufactured at home by your 3D printer. One where services are more likely to be provided by an AI than by a person. In this economy, do we continue to insist that knowledge and art have no value on their own? That unless you are the producer of a good or service, you are not valuable to our economy?

If we stay on this path, we would require a basic income to afford our basic needs. Those who own the companies which provide these services would be the only ones generating an income. I’m not sure how they would charge the rest of us for their services so they’d probably be free. But they’d have to pay their own bills, so ad revenue? But who’s buying their stuff when everyone’s broke? And you know how the government will fund everyone’s basic income? By taxing the few companies and individuals who are making money. Meanwhile, everyone else is doing one of two things. Wasting away in depression with a lack of purpose in life…. or producing something of value for the rest of us to consume.. for free.

It would be downright remarkable for someone to introduce a currency, unique to the free-economy. Upvotes, blog views, likes, listens… when someone consumes the value you’ve produced, you receive those points and those points can be spent on the goods and services produced by others in this economy. Imagine if food was available via that currency. Imagine rent.

Now that’s disruptive.

Politics/Finance Need New Metrics

I just got a notification from Yahoo finance (a surprisingly good app), “Nobody has a clue what’s happening: Bumper jobs growth after Poloz calls economy disappointing.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard a stat suggesting that job growth and unemployment are at their best numbers ever. Not the first time I’ve heard someone refer to the economy as disappointing either. What I personally find disappointing is the comment that nobody has a clue as to what’s going on.

Let’s start by pointing out a few key facts. Wealth has systematically shifted from the many to the few. Cost of living has grown several times faster than wages. Full-time work no longer guarantees a living wage. The majority of North America is now living paycheck to paycheck. Automation has replaced most unskilled labor. Millennials are the most educated generation yet. Student loan debt is at an all time high. Depression is at an all-time high. Drug use is at an all-time high. Suicide rates are at all-time highs.

Damn right we need new metrics.

Every time someone says unemployment rates are at all-time lows, I get rather frustrated. It’s only part of the picture. The idea of a job for everyone who wants a job is a great idea. But you know what else has a 100% employment rate? Slavery. The difference between the two is that with employment, you’re paid for your services and can choose to work elsewhere. And that you’re responsible for your own cost of living. And if nobody is willing to pay you a livable wage, that’s your problem.

Where I live, someone came up with the stat that it cost a little over $300,000 in annual income to support a middle class lifestyle. This was defined as owning a modest home, 2 cars, 2 kids, university educations, and annual vacations. The average household income here is about $75,000. The unemployment rate takes none of that into consideration. We could have a 0% unemployment rate and the city would still be filled with people who couldn’t afford to buy a home, raise a family, or any of what we have come to understand as basic entitlements. Perhaps home ownership isn’t something we should feel entitled towards.. perhaps the same with having a family. But then I ask why we’ve had to give these up, and it just doesn’t add up. Then I ask what happens if we just accept it.. and it’s not good for anyone.

First things first, we have to agree on what we’re all aiming for. I think the most universal answer to that is happiness. Everyone just wants to be happy, and for those who prefer things like power.. well.. they have the current system. If happiness is the goal, we need to start focusing on the metrics that are most closely correlated. Two things that we know of that are strongly and negatively correlated with happiness are cost of living and debt. While breaking unemployment records, North America is also setting new records in debt and cost of living. That seems to tell a story: The average American is educated, overworked, underpaid, in debt, and losing hope.

Tell me again about how great our unemployment rates are.

Or maybe recognize that an unemployment rate is only part of the equation and that equal attention much be paid to the rest. First would be the alignment between the skills of your workforce and the jobs they’re in. If you have a nation of computer programmers, scientists, and writers but your job market is filled with part-time customer service jobs, you did it wrong. Second would be whether or not your workforce was being fairly compensated. If you have a low unemployment rate and most of most of your workforce can’t afford a basic cost of living, you did it wrong. Third would be how well prepared your workforce is for the future. Jobs are being lost to automation at an increasing rate and we’re likely approaching an economy where AI and robotics will be able to handle 80% of the existing jobs within the next 20 years. If you’re bragging about anything that’s happening this year without preparing for that future, you’re doing it wrong.

You see a lot of stats when you read articles or watch the news. We use them to try and understand what’s important.. but in the process of doing so, we seem to have lost sight of what’s important. It really is about being happy. Imagine a national happiness index being reporting on quarterly. Imagine politicians seeing that number as their most important metric. If you knew that increasing the cost of living would lead to stress and unhappiness, why would you celebrate a real estate boom? If you knew that the bottom 80% of Americans only own about 7% of the stock market’s value, would you really be celebrating a booming stock market?

How about this stat, a ratio of healthcare spending against military spending. Let’s be honest about it and see how much we’re willing to spend on healing people versus harming people. Or let’s push that a step further and compare military spending to humanitarian spending. How much money are you willing to spend on helping versus hurting. I can just about guarantee that would be a far better foreign policy than what we’ve seen play out of the last 20 years.

What about a stat that shows up how much tax large multi-national corporations are paying? Something that takes all sources of government funding into consideration so we know just how much of their operations are subsidized by tax-payers. Military defense contracts anyone? What about major tax breaks for fossil fuel companies..

We gotta have something that covers national debt too. A big deal was made of this years ago but the story got stale. Now we have a president who was notorious for running up debt and bankrupting businesses. As a result, in a matter of a few years, the country’s single largest expense will be it’s debt payment. Maybe we need a catastrophe more than we need a metric on this one.

The whole point of statistics is to reduce a great deal of information down into key points. When done well, those key points illuminate the important parts of what should be an ongoing conversation. Unfortunately, we now have stats for the sake of stats. And it’s no longer a conversation but an argument. It’s not a pursuit of the truth or a more accurate understanding of the situation, it’s a tribal battle for power in which stats are only used to support your argument or undermine theirs. I wish we could get back to the same side of the table.

An Alternative to Prison

It occurred to me that there are multiple cases where someone couldn’t be tried for a crime they couldn’t remember having committed. I think it usually had to do with severe brain damage. Effectively, as a society, we found it to be unethical to punish someone for a crime which they genuinely had no recollection of having committed. I think that in many cases, the brain damage was severe enough to warrant keeping them in psychiatric care.. but it gave me an idea.

People joke about going back in time to kill baby Hitler. The joke isn’t so much about stopping the Nazi movement but rather about the ethical dilemma of killing a baby who for all intents and purposes was an innocent person at that moment in time. People playfully debate over whether or not they would do it and it becomes a discussion about whether or not you would trade one innocent live to save many innocent lives. The compassionate crowd doesn’t want to sacrifice any lives. The intelligent crowd think it’s easy math. I would encourage using both parts of the brain in pursuit of a better option… reform. Find baby hitler and guide him towards a better life. For all intents and purposes, he was an gifted individual pointed in a terrible direction. Why not show him a better way and see all that energy spent on the collective good.

So if we are born innocent, and destined for prison, there’s an inflection point at which society has deemed us no longer fit for the general population. For those of us who are to be locked up forever… what if they could go back? Like a back-up? Like with a computer? Go back to before the files were corrupted?

Clearly, this is some sci-fi shit and while fun to think about, it’s not a realistic solution for the near future. What is likely to be a far better option and is readily available is a complete overhaul of our prison system. At this point in time, the system is designed to punish those who have committed a crime. The idea is that prison is such an unenjoyable place to be, that once released, they’ll do whatever it takes to not return. It’s unfortunate that we still think we can control people with fear, because the numbers would suggest otherwise. The culture within the prisons just like the culture within a company is enough to change who you are by the time you leave. If that culture was one of intense negativity, who are we releasing back into the wild? In what ways have they ‘paid their debt to society?’ There’s gotta be a better way.

As with all my ideas, they’re built on the ideas of others. Prison shouldn’t be about punishment, prison should be about rehab. It’s not that complicated. I think that in many ways, it comes down to having compassion for people who are not your own. Think of a wealthy family who has a kid that gets addicted to drugs. And let’s say that kid gets up to no good while supporting that drug habit. Does the world look at that person in the same manner as the crackhead trying to steal a TV. One is likely to end up in the Mayo clinic as an act of compassion and rehabilitation while the other is likely to end up in prison as an act of punishment. I would argue that this situations are much more similar than they are different and the rehab would be the best approach for each. I would maintain that stance even if drugs weren’t the issue.

If I’m not mistaken, Sweden is one of the countries leading the way in this approach. Prison isn’t about punishment, it’s about reform. Through whatever path these individuals have had through life, it’s led them to a point where they’re extremely disruptive to society, or even dangerous. The solution isn’t to lock them all away together in an environment which encourages their worst behaviors. Especially when the plan is to release them back into the environments that they found to be so challenging in the first place. The solution is to help them learn and grow into a productive member of society.

How many of these individuals lack truly employable skills? How many people are in jail for crimes relating to poverty? How many of these people have struggled to find an honest way to make a living? How often does someone serve their sentence, only to find it harder to get a job than before? I’m willing to bet good money that someone with a stable career and healthy income is much less interested in stealing. I’m also willing to bet good money that a person who came from having to steal to put food on the table, to being able to do it with honest work will make one hell of a role-model for others. But not everyone would agree. Something to the effect of these are bad people, they committed crimes and should be punished and not rewarded. And what about the costs of these rehab programs, tax payers shouldn’t be responsible for footing these bills. These individuals would be shortsighted.

The brilliance of rehab over punishment is the increase in value of human capital. In the current system, an average inmate will chew up government resources while incarcerated and come out in worse condition than when they went in. As a result, they’re more likely to go back. In more extreme cases, people learn to prefer the inside to the outside. There’s a reason we don’t take this approach with our own children. When we truly care about the well-being of others, it becomes paramount that we help build them back up. The current system takes problematic individuals of society and puts them through a process that on average, greatly reduces their ability to be a healthy, contributing member to society. As a result, in one way or another, they’re likely going to cost tax-payers more money.

At one point, we even thought that the issue was threatening more jail time. What if we tell them that if they go back for the third time, we won’t ever let them out? And all of the sudden, the tax-payer is on the hook for a life-time of food, board, and supervision. Why does it sound like such an extreme idea to invest the resources necessary so that this person can go out there and be a happy, healthy, productive member of society? I can all but guarantee that over the long-term, costs would go down, and quality of life for everyone would go way up.

Within this idea, there’s plenty of room to explore as well. Perhaps those receiving an education in prison would be able to commute their sentence by working it off through an apprenticeship. A different approach to paying off your debt to society. Prison labor is one of the biggest rackets in the country and has more in common with slave labor that paid labor but it doesn’t have to stay that way. If these individuals are capable of doing quality work and earning a proper rate, why would we withhold that from them? Why would it be paramount that we keep them from contributing to society? If you consider how large the prison system is, there seems to be plenty of work to be done internally as well. Imagine, a prison system powered by the minds, skills and labor of inmates who are committed to bettering themselves, supporting each other, and making this a generally positive experience. Imagine the cultural shift. Imagine someone going through a rough patch, and looking forward to prison, knowing that by the end of it, they’ll be on a better path. At a certain point, perhaps prison is much more reminiscent of rehab, where you have the option to check yourself in if you think you really need it.

And yes, the whole thing is still funded by tax payers because as a society we realize that over time, this is a more cost-effective option than what we’re currently doing. Not just because people will be less likely to return to prison. Or because law enforcement will have an easier time with a rehabilitated population than a criminalized one. Or because someone with a career pays more taxes than someone without. Or because someone who’s been through that journey will be able to inspire others to avoid similar mistakes. No matter how you break this down, it’s not that hard to see why this works.

Prison reform could be an entire series of books to itself so there’s a temptation for me to write everything else that I’ve considered on the topic but for today, I’d like to focus on just one more. As long as time served in prison is viewed as punishment, the measuring stick for paying off your debt to society is the amount of months or years spent in prison. As far as I can tell, there’s no data suggesting that the length of your sentence is designed to maximizes the chances of you being a law-biding citizen once back in society. If true, time served is a terrible indicator of when someone is ready. We certainly don’t provide a degree to someone based on the number of years spent in school. If we’re going to be objective and accurate, we need a new set of criteria. Maybe one based on the crime? And the person? And the dynamics that led them to be a criminal? What if you genuinely treated it like rehab and released them when they were ready, not before and not after? Those who invested the effort and made real progress would return to their friends and family sooner. Those who struggled wouldn’t be released prematurely. And my favorite part? If you were wrongly convicted, for whatever reason, you’d be out in a hurry because you wouldn’t require the rehab. Genius 🙂

Power Vs. Efficiency

I’ve been trying to understand power. What is it? Why do people want it? What does it help you accomplish? Is it something I should pursue?

A younger me sought power for the sake of doing good. Average me could do some good, powerful me could do lots of good. Seemed like power was only a bad thing when in the hands of bad people. I suspect that’s the understanding most people are under. I’m not so sure.

Consider this… If we accept this idea that only good people should be powerful, then we’ll actively look to empower those who we think are good while tearing down those who we think are bad. Sounds like most of history right? But who gets to decide who is good and who is bad? It’s not always so obvious. And what happens when the powerless become powerful? Do we achieve balance? Or do we create another dominance hierarchy?

The first quote that ever stuck with me was, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So by empowering someone, what are we really doing? If we look throughout history, the powerful have never been without corruption. It didn’t matter at which point in history, or which culture, or which political ideology you followed, power corrupted all. Yet when we see corruption among the powerful and call foul, our first instinct is to take the power from them.

That’s probably the beauty of democracy, the power of the people is distributed among the people. At least that’s how it’s supposed to go.

So is everything just about power? Being the oppressor or being the oppressed? I doubt it. There has to be another level to this.

What about me? What would I do if I had power? As someone who prioritizes integrity and the good of others, how would I be corrupted. What if my intentions were to do the best I could for everyone I was responsible for. What if my inner circle included everyone? Why doesn’t that sound like power?

I have an idea.

What if power was the anti-thesis of efficiency? Here’s a simple example: You have someone within a company who gets to hire any person of their choosing for a position. When that person hires their friend instead of the best candidate, it’s a demonstration of power. When that person hires the best candidate, it’s a demonstration of efficiency. It doesn’t matter how powerful a person is, as long as they’re making the best decision for everyone involved, it’s an exercise in efficiency. It only becomes an exercise in power when those involved disagree with the decision being made. Why would you need to impose your will when your decisions are best for everyone and are being welcomed by others?

This idea of only the good should be powerful… there’s another level to it. The reason why we have such a hard time agreeing on who should be powerful is because we have such a hard time agreeing on who (or what) is good. If we could come up with a decision which we universally recognized as good… it would be because it was what was most beneficial to those involved. If that decision was to the immense benefit of everyone involved, I have a hard time perceiving that as power. Taking everyone’s needs into consideration and deciding what was best for everyone involved seems like a remarkable if not impossible exercise in efficiency.

Perhaps we’ve established two ends of a spectrum.

Our Most Sensible Division

I do a lot of thinking in the car. It’s almost like a shower for me.. very meditative. Yesterday, I literally pulled over to make a note of this thought.

The western world is clearly divided right now. Democrats vs. Republicans. Liberals vs. Conservatives. Blue vs. Red. Left vs. Right. Sometimes it seems downright silly… like division for the sake of division. I can confidently say that I don’t identify with either side. One champions a compassionate approach but fails to act intelligently. One champions an intelligent approach but fails to act compassionately. Neither seems very interested in accountability or honest conversation. And neither seems to realize that for one side to win, both must win.

With tribalism continuing to be one of my biggest personal frustrations, I’m motivated to understand it. When I think about why people choose to be divided, the reasons usually aren’t that hard to find. More often than not, it seems to be driven by fear. And that fear tends to be driven by scarcity in some way. Perhaps a scarcity of resources, opportunity, or safety. In a position of abundance and security, we are much more likely to extend a helping hand to a stranger. In a position of scarcity and fear, we only take care of those close to us. As scarcity and fear increase, that circle gets smaller.

This would suggest that in times of peace and abundance, things like Left vs. Right don’t exist. Yet the liberal and conservative mindset have existed since well before modern politics. While the politicians certainly have a hand in playing up that narrative, today, perhaps there’s something else worth exploring here.

Humanity seems to be defined by some mode of evolutionary progress. If you look at what separates our species from other intelligent animals, it’s the rate at which we’ve progressed. Genetically, we’re almost identical to chimpanzees but in a more practical sense, we couldn’t be more different. Comparing humans to all other known life, we seem to have stumbled onto the secret sauce of forward progress. Yet we have such a hard time agreeing on which direction is forward and what should be considered progress. Maybe, whatever this secret sauce is, it exists primarily is the collective subconscious.

If I were to guess at what that secret sauce might be, I would say it’s how we’ve evolved to instinctually understand the status quo. Quite simply, there are those who would prefer to maintain it and those who would prefer to challenge it. Generally speaking, you’re more interested in maintaining the status quo when you’re happy with your situation and challenging the status quo when you’re unhappy with your situation. Sounds rather sensible doesn’t it?

I had a Eureka moment yesterday: You can’t challenge a status quo which doesn’t exist. I’m big on challenging the status quo and I’m no stranger to the frustrations of those who look to maintain it in the face of progress. Yet I was never dismissive of their value to the bigger picture and I think I now understand why. The status quo seems to provide the foundation on which forward progress is most likely. If everyone looked to challenge the status quo, what would they challenge? Sounds like chaos. Ironically, maintaining the status quo seems like an exercise in order. Perhaps forward progress is a fine balance between chaos and order.

When I step back and think about how this perspective applies to modern society, a lot starts to make sense. The right tends to be defined by their conservative approach – aka maintaining the status quo. The left tends to be defined by their liberal approach – aka challenging the status quo. Many of history’s great cultural and political clashes can be distilled down to those who wanted change and those who wanted to keep things the same. And yet both were and probably are necessary.

One dynamic which ties in here is the dichotomy of intelligence vs. compassion. I’ve found that the left behaves significantly more compassionately than the right while the right behaves significantly more intelligent than the left. It has crossed my mind that those who lean more towards intelligence are more likely to find success in their lives, especially in their careers. This would lead towards greater financial prosperity and a higher quality of life. If you’re aware that you’re enjoying a higher quality of life than the average, would you not be motivated to maintain the status quo? Would you not be more motivated to support those around you who have used intelligence as a path to success? Would you not begin to assume that a path of intelligence is more rewarding than a path of compassion? But what if you leaned more towards compassion? What if you were sensitive to the injustices in the world and were motivated to pursue equality and social justice more than income? And what if you were willing to accept financial disparity for the sake of helping others? And what if you’re aware that you’re enjoying a lower quality of life than average because of that sacrifice, would you not be motivated to challenge the status quo?

The political division of our species sucks. It often leads me to think that the best solution is no division at all and that we’re destined to arrive at some variation of a cybernetic hive mind. Perhaps that’s still the case, but maybe not. There seem to be some evolutionary divisions which have proven rather practical. Males and females might be the most classic example.. having evolved a remarkably well balanced partnership over the course of evolution (albeit a little bumpy at the moment). When it comes to the progress we’ve made over the last 10,000 years though, I might just attribute that to the balanced partnership between those who look to challenge the status quo and those who look to maintain it.

If we could learn to see one another as partners in forward progress instead of obstacles between us and power.. I can’t help but think everything would run a little more smoothly.

The Companion Experience (Part 2)

In my last post, I explored the idea of bringing one of our oldest professions into the 21st century. I tried to make a case for understanding sex as a natural element of the human experience rather than something to be pursued or withheld for social gain. I also tried to make case for why it would improve the lives of everyone involved. Much like the legalization of alcohol and now cannabis, perhaps it’s time to let go of our prejudice and do what’s sensible for all those involved. But it’s not enough to say we should do it. We need to find a way to do it with intelligence and compassion.

While I’m inclined to say that the first step is legalization, it really isn’t. The first step is education for the purpose of destigmatization. From what I can tell, the general public has a rather skewed idea of what prostitution is and very little interest in how it could be done better. A dear friend once told me that you have to plant seeds in fertile soil. I think it would be education that makes this soil fertile.

I’ve often said that dishonesty is the most counter-productive force known to humanity. If we could have a honest look at who uses escorts and why, I think our perception would change dramatically. There are certainly some seedy characters in the mix, but there’s also a full spectrum of service providers and clients. From high-powered women looking to unwind, to couples looking to spice things up, to newbies looking to learn a few moves.. there are a lot of reasons to look to this industry. And for those with a high sex drive, a desire to pleasure, an affinity for polyamory and an ability to tune into the well-being of others…. there are a lot of good reasons to be interested in the profession. If we could show people that this doesn’t have to be about exploitation, we could open their minds to what this could be about.

If we could get to the point where the general public is willing to look at this industry with an open mind, they might start to value an approach which was both intelligent in its design and compassionate to all of those involved. In my last post, I described what I called the companion experience. It was this idea that sex was only one element of companionship, and not even a mandatory one. It was recognizing that within the human experience, we have gaps in our ability to connect with others in the way we want. Some may lack the time to generate those connections, while others may lack the social skills. Whatever the reason, having those connections are an important part of being a balanced and healthy human being. History has shown us that there has always been those in search of companionship and those motivated to provide. This is connecting those dots in a respectful and productive way.

So once minds are open and people are willing to leave their prejudice behind, it’s time to roll out a plan. Something where a reasonable person could say, “It might not be for me, but I understand this and I would support it”.

Step 1 would be legalization. There are certainly criminal elements within the industry today, but that has more to do with it being illegal than the actual profession. We saw that with alcohol in the 1920s and we’re seeing that again with cannabis today. When you make it legal, you bring it into the light. Good operators shine while bad operators go out of business. For those who continue to treat the industry as one of exploitation, there will be fewer and fewer places to hide. The transition wouldn’t be immediate, but every journey starts with a first step. Legalization would be the first step in creating a culture that encouraged the positive elements while discouraging the negative.

Step 2, would be regulation. Most speaking about legalization and regulations as the same thing but I’ve learned to separate the two because of what they tend to mean. Legalization, in a broad sense, refers to the public acknowledgement that something is socially acceptable. Regulation determines the way in which we would allow it. In the spirit of full transparency, I have some strong reservations around regulations in general. Too often, those who are charged with the responsibility of deciding how we should allow something are incapable of deciding what’s best for all those involved. Sometimes it’s politics, sometimes it’s prejudice, sometimes its a lack of motivation, and sometimes it’s just incompetence. That said, perhaps we can set a few ground rules:

A companion will always have the ability to choose their own clients.
A companion will always reserve the right to excuse themselves from a situation
A client will always reserve the right to excuse themselves from a situation

Beyond this, I’m having a hard time coming up with any other rules which should always be in effect. I’m not saying there aren’t any others, but I’m having a hard time coming up with rules for which I can’t find obvious exceptions. I’m also not much for rules…

What tends to be more effective than rules is a culture. I’ve given a lot of thought to what culture is an where I keep landing is a collective intelligence. So rather than write a set of rules which may or may not encompass all the complexities of something like this, how about we collectively and intelligently find the best ways of moving forward? I’ve learned that with complex issues like these, there is no right way of doing something, only a continuum of finding ways to do it better.

I suppose this leads us to step 3. As much as the experience between the companion and client is one of human connection, the exchange of value for a service is a function of business. One reason why I’m not a fan of regulation is that those with the best policies tend to run the best businesses. We would want to create ground rules for the respect and safety of those involved, but we would also want great businesses to have the freedom to find the best path to lift this industry up.

I’m not entirely sure what the best approach here would be as I can’t think of any modern examples where this approach has been applied. That said, I have a few ideas:

Ahead of legalization and regulation, build a think-tank consisting of the world’s most respected industry professionals and clients. Provide them with an open-minded board of advisers who would be able to provide insight with respect to government relations, general and sexual health, technology, psychology, law enforcement, education and anything else that would help us make informed decisions. Then ask them to produce a set of best practices which could be used as a template for all those looking to get involved in the business of companionship.
Allow the members of this think-tank to play the role of adviser to a government funded investment firm with the mandate of investing in the companionship industry. The best way to change someone’s behavior is to give them an option they’re more interested in. The best way to move this industry from the black market to a place of respect, is to provide a better option to all those who are looking. The way in which you accomplish that is by supporting a new generation of businesses who are looking to do it better. And there’s no better way to do that than by giving opportunities to the entrepreneurs with the right motivations.
Provide the opportunity for companions to work as independents. I’m not a fan of forcing someone into the employment of someone else. If this is your chosen profession, there should be a way for you to be your own boss and not have to compromise on things like personal safety. Perhaps some of the businesses would be like the Air Bnb of companionship… where your accommodation comes with some in-house entertainment.

With a new generation of businesses equipped with the knowledge, motivation, and resources to do things better, I think we would see a massive transition from the black market to the white market. The best companions would seek out employment with the best businesses, or perhaps choose a more independent route. Clients could align themselves with the businesses which expressed values they identified with, just like we do with other businesses. As certain businesses developed competitive advantages over others, and clients ebbed and flowed accordingly, better policies would be developed. Ultimately, we’re trying to set the foundation for an industry which could evolve alongside our best understanding of it.

Part of me is tempted to unload some more ideas on best practices… things like:

The disclosure of sexual health.
The Education and training of companions to be more than just sex workers.
Perhaps a database of clients so companions can better understand who they’re getting involved with.
A blacklist of clients who have crossed lines which should not be crossed.
Mediators who can peacefully and compassionately resolve disputes as they arise.
I’m not the biggest fan of licenses which can act as barriers to good operators, but what about certifications? Being certified in different practices and techniques would be one direction. We could also talk about being certified by an organization which represents for integrity and high standards.

No shortage of ideas… but that’s mostly because there’s so much room for improvement. But I’m careful to remind myself that I don’t have all the answers. This isn’t about the few telling the many how it should be done. This is about recognizing and appreciating a dynamic which has existed for at least as long as human nature. It’s about recognizing that a modern society has room for this and opening the door to finding our best way of doing it.

Dating in 2018: WTF?

February, 2017

That’s when my last relationship ended. It didn’t officially end until the spring, but I was going through some things that made it tough for me to be in the right head-space for a relationship. In January, I was fired from a career I had put my everything into. A month later, I went snowboarding for the first time that season and ended up breaking my arm badly. At that point, I wasn’t a boyfriend in any meaningful way.. I had too much that I needed to figure out. Bless her heart, she was awesome and supportive the whole way through. Probably the most amicable breakup I’ve ever had.

May, 2017

One of the relationships I kept reflecting on last year was with Max. We had dated a couple years prior. There was so much chemistry between us and so much that we had in common. It seemed to work on every level. Except she was bugging to go explore the world and I was committed to my career. I was also too dominant in that relationship, more controlling than I would’ve liked to be. There were times where her free-spirited nature was at odds with my career goals and I would try to convince her that my career goals were a higher priority than her being herself at all times. I wish I hadn’t.

In understanding why I had been fired, I realized that it was a matter of fit. In trying to understand where I would fit best, I realized that I needed to do a better job of understanding myself. That journey mirrored so much of what Max had learned leaving a big 4 accounting firm and working for a start-up. I wish I had done a better job of understanding that story. She helped inspire a lot of growth on my part, and I thought she might appreciate knowing that.

December 2017

I wrote a blog post about her. Flushed out every thought and emotion I had on the subject and realized a lot of things I still hadn’t considered. It was a good experience. At the end, I figured I would tell her about the ground that I had covered and thank her for her part in all of this. I made a YouTube video and send it to her on Christmas. I was clear that I wasn’t looking to get back together, but I’d be lying if I said a part of me wasn’t trying to plant a seed for the future.

January 2018

After about month of radio silence, she emailed. She said some nice things and asked if I was up for a video call. I said sure – and then proceeded to hear nothing from her for another month. I knew she probably had a full plate so I eventually just emailed, “whats on your mind?” Her reply was more direct this time. Said she was busy, was happy for me, then questioned much of what I had said, and seemed to have forgotten about that video call. I replied, tried to explain, but then said it would probably be easier over the phone. No reply.

March 2018

Another month of radio silence. All I wanted to do was let her know what I had gone through, and hoped that she would be happy for me. Maybe I should send her a link to the blog post about her? At least it would be the full story. So I messaged her on WhatsApp but before the opportunity presented itself, it became a conversation. She began to question who I had ‘become’, suggesting that I was still the same person. It was tough trying to explain how and why over text. But I tried. At one point, she even ceded that it seemed like I was a whole new person. Maybe she was just saying that hoping I would stop trying to argue my point. Regardless, it was clear she lacked the motivation to invest the time into understanding that person.. and everything that I had felt towards her had shifted. One of the things I appreciated about her most was that understanding me seemed effortless. Now, not only was there effort involved, but she had no interest in putting the effort in. A bummer at first, but it felt good to have clarity.

Right around that time, I was trying to go on a date with a girl named Mia. Someone I dated for a bit a few years ago, and someone who I had a bunch of fun, nerdy stuff in common with. She’s all kinds of cool, but she’s also working through some things. When things get difficult or confusing, she hides. She tried that with me before and I just walked away.. it’s why we stopped dating the last time. This time, I was more interested in helping her rise above that. So we tried to go on a date, but then she got busy. We rescheduled, but then she got busy again. I told her I knew this pattern, and I was happy to walk away if she wanted me to, but she didn’t – she was struggling with old habits.

April 2018

So we tried again, but work. And again, but work. I was on my way out this time, but did so with a link to a post I had written about her, so she would at least know what my honest feelings towards her were. She was surprised. She opened up to me more than she ever had, and seemed that much more motivated to see me. Seemed like progress. So we rescheduled.. and she ghosted again. This time, it was because she had read the rest of my blog and found out about Max. She was afraid that I was using her to fill a Max-shaped void. I couldn’t hold it against her, it was a legitimate question that I also had to ask myself. We talked it through, and agreed that we would make attempt number 6.

Had I been stood up 6 times with no difference in the context, I’d be worried about my mental health.. but that wasn’t the case. With each time, progress was being made. And I could tell that these were big steps for someone who didn’t have a lot of opportunities to take these steps. Unfortunately, it was also creating an imbalance in the relationship which I knew was unhealthy. She pleaded that work was being unfair, and that she wasn’t leading me on, and how interested she was… but she couldn’t get her actions to match her texts. The outcome was disappointing, but I’m happy that I treated the situation with compassion and understanding instead of walking away at the first sign of getting hurt.

April 25th, 2018

The very next day, Max texts me. Said she’s in-town, and would ‘love’ to get together. Well then. We book a late dinner for Sunday. She also wants to smoke a joint together, so we plan to get together later in the week too. Easy way to get my mind off Mia, I guess.

April 27th, 2018

Arrive to a 3-day self-help seminar on Friday. Pretty skeptical about what I’m walking into, but doing it with an open mind and the best of intentions. A girl catches my eye. Was partnered up with her at the end of the day for an exercise where we’re asked to sit directly across from each other and tell a victim story while looking into each others eyes. We spend most of that time looking at each other and cracking up, because neither one of us is any good at pretending to be a victim. A fun introduction. We shall call her.. Lulu.

On the way home, I text my buddy who invited me to the seminar, letting him know how it went. He asks if I met anyone interesting. I say everyone’s interesting if you ask the right questions (holding back from saying I met this really cute girl). He tells me that he has another friend who’s there doing the seminar and he hopes that we have a chance to meet.. and that her name is Lulu. As he puts it, we’re two of his closest friends and the ones he goes to for good conversation. Wow.. that’s kinda cool. I ask if he’s interested in her, or if she’s in a relationship. Says he dated her for a bit way back, and he thinks she’s in a relationship with someone. Well, never mind then…

April 28th, 2018

Saturday’s part of the seminar put me and Lelu back in close proximity. I do my best to avoid creating interactions, but don’t avoid them either. Our chemistry continues to build. I text my buddy again that night, asking if he’s sure that she’s in a relationship. He says yes. I tell him that while my instincts around these things are a bit rusty, pretty sure this girl is into me. He tells me a bit more about her and shows some enthusiasm around us connecting beyond this seminar.

April 29th, 2018

Lulu was definitely the best part of my Sunday seminar. We sat beside each other a few times and ended up doing a couple of the 1 on 1 sessions together too. I eventually asked if she knew we had both been invited by the same friend – she didn’t. She was excited, especially because it meant that there was a good chance we’d see each other again. As the day went by, everything suggested more chemistry and more interest. At the end of Sunday’s seminar, we were supposed to thank people who we had connected with and tell them what we appreciated about them. She approached me and opened with “Thanks for being the best looking guy here, it gave me something to look at”, and followed with a few very thoughtful compliments. I replied, telling her that she was the highlight of my weekend and that I hope to see her again.

Now to go directly from that self-help seminar to dinner with Max. Along the way, I text my buddy and ask if he’s sure that Lelu is in a relationship because everything that happened that day would suggest otherwise. He ended up taking her out for dinner and dug in. Said she’s only been dating this guy a short while, but she doesn’t see it going anywhere. Tells me not to worry, and he’ll connect the two of us before long. I have no interest in being the guy that breaks up a healthy relationship, but if she’s already on her way out.. I can’t help but want to see her again.

So I arrive at dinner with Max – fancy sushi. She gives me a big smile and a big, but not too big of a hug. We get seated and start talking. Eventually, she asks me about my aspirations. I think I say something like creating the most significant positive impact I’m capable of. She says that’s a bit vague and asks what the most significant positive impact I think I’m capable of. I may have told her President of Mars. She called bullshit. That probably needed a little more explaining.

I guess for starters, I really do think that the upper-limit of the human mind is often well beyond the limits we place on ourselves. Mars though? I told her that the bigger the problem, the more motivated I am to solve it and I can’t help but want to find solutions to the big problems we as a species are facing today. Ok, but why Mars? Well, I’ve seen well-intentioned people come and go, only for their ideas to fall on the deaf ears of a system which is designed to protect itself from change. I often think that what the world desperately needs today, is a blank canvas where a new government could be established with modern policies. If we only had the opportunity to lead by example, how quick would the world be to adopt those good ideas? Unless I’m missing something, Mars will most likely be our first opportunity to build something from scratch.

I think she made an attempt here to bring me back to reality and asked me to connect that to a real goal. I told her that while I have these ideas, and they seem logical in my mind, I still need to prove that they can exist outside my head. I need to take my personal philosophies, my ideas, and my ability to execute, and make something special. If I could make something special, that something that people can understand as an expression of my mind and my vision, people would notice. If people noticed, they might appreciate, and if people appreciated, they might just be willing to hear what I have to say. While that something special can take on different shapes and forms, no form comes more naturally to me than building a business. So I told her I was working on building a billion dollar company.

She said back up the “B”. What? Back up the “B” in billion. What do you mean? She asked if I knew how hard it was to build a billion dollar company or how rare they were. She didn’t take kindly to what she thought were grandiose exaggerations of what I was really up to. She knew that I was working for a cannabis retail start-up, but I don’t think she understood the potential behind it. I told her about the awards, and the industry growth, how visible our founders were, and how ahead of the curve we were. She didn’t seem to care. I said that if you had to pick an early winner in cannabis retail, it would probably be us, and to say that wasn’t an opportunity to build a billion dollar company was untrue. She still didn’t believe me. Or maybe she didn’t believe that I would do it.

I did my best to ask her about what she was up to throughout the evening. She sounded like she was dealing with a lot, but persisted that she was happy. She certainly valued all that she had gone through in the last year. I asked her what her goals were and she said to land a job this fall. It looked like she was lined up for a fancy title at a mid-sized private equity firm doing some level of analytics. I asked if she had any big goals. She seemed less sure about this… maybe something to the effect of using big data in driving HR policy, limiting inequality in the work place. Sounds neat.

Despite all my efforts to guide things in a positive direction, we kept finding our way back to my aspirations, and her lack of confidence in my ability to accomplish them. I wish I had been able to tell the story of how I got from being fired to wanting to set up camp on Mars.. pretty sure things would’ve made more sense that way.

The night largely seemed like an exercise in her trying to cut me down. I was used to her being an optimist, a big thinker, open-minded, and supportive. Now I wonder if it’s her that’s changed or if it was just my memory of her. I was all but convinced that who I had become was a better fit for who she was. But as soon as I realized that, I also knew that who I had become, might not be a fit to who she is today. I think that’s what I was facing. Somewhere between her big corporate gig in silicon valley and her MBA, her mindset seems to have changed. Where she was once about possibilities, she was now about limitations. There’s probably also an element of trying to stick it to your ex-boyfriend… and I probably deserved it.

At one point, I said, “This is unexpected, you’re usually more..” I cut myself off, and apologized, saying that it wasn’t my place to say something like that. It threw her off, she knew what I was getting at.

It was getting late, we asked for the bill. We hugged again outside and she apologized for being less supportive than she used to be be. We said goodbye.

April 30th, 2018

Knowing that we had made pseudo plans to hang out later in the week, I sent her a text. I basically thanked her for dinner (she insisted on paying), then thanked her for challenging my goals. I said that I’m steadfast in dreaming big, working relentlessly towards those goals, and being at peace with where that takes me (I’m all about shooting for the stars and landing on the moon). I said I’m rarely challenged on these things and if nothing else, it was good exercise. I also said that based on our conversation, I had the impression that there were probably other people in town she’d rather spend time with and that if I was right, it was all good with me. No response.

The day before she left, I sent a text saying I hope I didn’t upset her with what I had said. I told her I was happy for her, and wished her the best of luck. She responded back saying she had been busy and yes, lots of people to see.

May 1st, 2018

Speaking of radio silence, Mia messages me the next day. Apologizes for the incoming wall of text, and the proceeds to say some very nice things. She talks about how strongly she feels about the potential between her and I. Then talks about her struggles and the progress she’s made. Then she talks about her feelings. Then she says something to the effect of, ‘and I won’t hold it against you if you never want to talk to me again’.

I agreed with a lot of the things she said about the potential between her and I, and I appreciated that she recognized and appreciated the progress she had made. So we get into a text conversation where I thank her for opening up to me and we get into the possibility of trying one more time. I ask her what the difference this time would be, and she says a strong effort. I ask if that means that the last 6 times weren’t strong efforts. She says that this time, she’s just going to go for it – be less cerebral about it. I told her it didn’t sound all that convincing. She reminded me that she wasn’t very good at explaining this stuff over text. The conversation kinda fizzled after that.

Went to bed, had a dream that she had made an effort the following day to make something happen between us and I was happy about it. Woke up to no such effort. Decided that I was being unfair. Told her that if she wanted to explain things to me in person, I would make the time for that. My ask was that it was on the weekend and at my office (so if she pulled a no-show, that I could just keep working). She was receptive. She planned to come by on Saturday but on Friday she asked if she could move it to Sunday. This looked familiar. She didn’t come by on Saturday or even get back to me about Sunday. And that was the last I heard from her.

May, 2018

A friend of mine cracked a joke a couple months ago saying that I should jump on Tinder with a bio that says something to the effect of, ‘Dating is confusing, anyone wanna blaze and hang out?’ Dude is sounding like a genius right about now.

Ironically, back in April, I was talking with a couple female friends about the challenges of dating and I suggested this was why dating apps had become so popular. One friend was in her 50s and had been married for 27 years so she had zero interest Tinder. She said that people need to get outside and engage each other in real life. I asked where that might be appropriate these days given all the tension between men and women. Every answer she gave was immediately turned down by my 20-something friend. At the gym? Nope, don’t be gross, I’m just here to work out. At a book store? Just because I’m here buying books doesn’t mean I wanna be hit on. In-line at a cafe? Nope. I told them I found it all very confusing and hoped they would find some empathy for the other men out there feeling the same way.

Only a few weeks ago, my sister and sister-in-law were in town. I asked them about the dating scene and the tension between men and women. I get that some men are shitty people. I’ve even lost friendships over that kinda stuff. But this general negativity towards men seemed unhealthy. They responded with an analogy which they were quite eager to share: Think about men like a bowl full of skittles. One of them is poison, but you don’t know which one. Why would you risk it? It wasn’t the right time to tell them that they’re using the same logic as those who avoid Muslims in fear of Muslim extremists.

My mind is searching for a connection between all these interactions. Considering the rise of neo-feminism and the #metoo movement. Considering the impact of social media. Considering the heightened levels of anxiety, stress, and drug use. I’m trying to see through it and to the other side… and I can’t. I’m not saying we won’t get through it. I would bet that we do. I just don’t yet see how. I think this gets worse before it gets better and that concerns me.

Some men have learned the advantages of identifying themselves as an ‘ally’. Some have learned that you can improve your odds by dating multiple women at the same time. Some have learned that it’s easier to get turned down if you turn into a giant asshole afterwards. There’s even a sub-culture of men who are downright confused and losing hope of ever figuring it out. Everyone’s dealing with it in their own way… but none of these are about how we make it better.

This is a big problem, and I have a swell of motivation to find a solution for everyone out there that’s struggling to find meaningful connections. I think much of the solution is based in honesty and real communication. Not just honesty with others, but honesty with ourselves as well. We’ve also romanced the concept of love since we could first tell stories, and it’s warped our expectations of what it is, where to find it, and how long it lasts. If we would only make the effort to understand ourselves and then to understand one another, I can’t help but think that things would get better. To get there, perhaps we need to be reminded of why we should be courageous when facing those we fear. Or why we should be compassionate towards those who have hurt us.

… or sex robots for everyone?

Starbucks: Not Discussing the Complexity of Racism

Not long after it happened, a friend of mine posted the viral video of the two black guys getting arrested and taken out of Starbucks. I had a few initial thoughts.

That sucks.
This is going to trigger some serious outrage from the internet crowd.
I wonder what actually happened here..

As the story goes, two young black men entered into a Starbucks waiting to meet a friend. Without buying something first, one of them asks to use the washroom. A Starbucks employee says that washrooms are for customers only. Instead of making a purchase, the men simply grab a seat and wait for their friend to arrive. At this time an employee, possibly the manager asks the men to leave. They decline, saying that they’re waiting for a friend. Whether or not they said something to the effect of we’ll buy something when our friend arrives isn’t something I’ve been able to track down. After refusing to leave, the manager calls the police to remove them. The police arrive a short time after and ask the men to leave again. They decline again, saying that they’re waiting for a friend. After the police ask multiple times without success, they’re placed under arrest. As they’re being walked out, their friend (who happens to be a middle aged white guy) shows up and this is pretty much where the viral video starts.

There’s a lot to unpack here, and I can’t help but think that very few people are having a meaningful conversation about this. It’s becoming formulaic at this point. Minority is marginalized, video goes viral, internet produces outrage, company goes into damage control and *repeat*. This isn’t how we make progress. We have to make the effort to understand what really happened here if we want to avoid things like this happening in the future. I’ll make that effort here.

I’ve spent plenty of time in Starbucks and I don’t even drink coffee. When I used to work in finance, most meeting were coffee meetings and about half of them were at Starbucks. I’ve also studied the history and operations of Starbucks quite closely for a variety of reasons. Consider me a Starbucks pro. I have a thing about being punctual so if I’m doing a Starbucks meeting, there’s a good chance I’m there 5-10 minutes early. More often than not, I’ll grab my drink order when I arrive rather than waiting for the other person to avoid the perception of being a non-paying customer. That said, on more than a few occasions, I’ve waited for the other person to arrive before placing an order and have never been approached by the staff. I’ve also asked to use the washroom before making a purchase more than once and have never been told that it was for customers only. This is where we need to start asking why and being honest with the answers we find.

Most of the Starbucks I’ve been to were in the finance district or in nice neighborhoods, the areas without much crime and where Starbucks employees generally felt safe. I think that when you feel safe, you tend to care more about the well-being of others and are more likely to let things like this slide. The neighborhood that I grew up in was different. Washrooms at local gas stations or McDonalds would have special lights installed so that you couldn’t see your veins; preventing heroin addicts from using those washrooms for shooting up. Employees at these establishments were much more guarded in how and when they would allow washroom access. I don’t know Philadelphia that well, but looked up the crime rate in that area and it received an ‘F’.

Something else worth mentioning is that about a year ago, there was a robbery at a different Starbucks in Philadelphia. In the early afternoon, a man walked up to the register with a gun and told the 19 year old female Starbucks employee to empty the register. She quickly walked away from the register towards the back room and the man left shortly after. The security footage shows a black man in his 30s, wearing a black hoodie. Was this person the same person that refused to leave the Starbucks a few days ago? Definitely not. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that this incident has no relevance to what happened last week. I would guess that word of this robbery probably spread quickly through the Philadelphia Starbucks scene. I would also guess that there was some kind of message to those employees about following procedure around these things.

A year later, two black men, both dressed mostly in black and appearing to be in their mid-30s enter into a Starbucks in a rougher side of town. After declining to make a purchase and declining to leave, what should the Starbucks employee do? Follow procedure? Procedure likely suggests to call the police. The call to the police was simple,

“Hi, I have two gentleman in my cafe who are refusing to make a purchase and refusing to leave.”

The message from dispatch was also relatively simple, “We have a disturbance there, a group of males refusing to leave.”

When the police arrived, they calmly and politely asked the men several times to leave. It was only after refusing over and over that they were arrested.

Unless they’re withholding parts of the transcript, this wasn’t as much of a racial issue as it’s being made out to be. Mostly, this was an issue of two people refusing to make a purchase and refusing to leave. Mostly. There is an element of racism here which needs to be discussed.

I actually began writing this entry a couple days ago but wasn’t able to return to it until now. I’m happy I had that time as I was able to learn an important detail which hadn’t been mentioned in the dozen or so articles I read about this. The men entered the Starbucks at 4:35. The police were called at 4:37. 2 minutes? Really?? That smells heavily of prejudice. I’m having a hard time not jumping to the conclusion of racial prejudice… but for the sake of discussion, I’ll carry on.

The first question I ask myself in these situations is how would this played out had we swapped black for white? Two white men enter a Starbucks, refuse to make a purchase and refuse to leave. Police are called to enforce company policy and the law, and the two white men still refuse to leave. The two white men are arrested and removed from the premises. Would the internet have reacted the same way? Would we have considered this normal? If that’s the story I had heard, my first reaction would’ve been “why didn’t these dummies just make a purchase?” Because these gentlemen were black, we dare not say it.

My understanding of racism is not discriminating based on the color of someone’s skin. Instead you judge someone based on the merits of their actions and the contents of their soul – good or bad. I’m a big fan of Trevor Noah and he said something interesting about this situation, “I bet from now on, they’re going to be more careful when it comes to dealing with race. You know what, I was thinking what black people should do? I think we should see just how far we can push Starbucks now. Just to mess with them. Like, ya, now we go back after they’ve done the racial bias training and just use the bathroom but take all the toilet paper home with us. Ya, y’all have a problem with this? No? No? No? No? You don’t? I appreciate your sensitivity, ya I do.” He went on to give several entertaining examples of ‘how to mess with them’. The beauty of good comedy is that it communicates hard truths in ways that people don’t mind hearing them.

When I see incidents perceived as racially charged, I often ask if it’s strictly a skin color thing. I say this because I often wonder what has a greater impact on prejudice, skin color or dress code? How would things have played out had these gentlemen been wearing suits? How would it have played out if it was a couple of thugged out white guys with neck tattoos? What if it was a well dressed white guy and a thugged out black guy? What if it was a suited up black guy and a thugged out white guy? What if it was a couple of Latinos wearing exactly what these black guys were wearing? When does the color of your skin just become just one variable in your appearance?

Better understanding racism is something that’s very important to me. This past weekend, I took a friend of mine out for breakfast and we had a great conversation about this stuff. He’s Wesley Snipes black, originally from Somalia, but has spent most of his life living in major cities here. As he put it, nobody second guesses him when he’s wearing a suit. But once he goes out with a hoodie and fitted cap, people start making assumptions. The truth is, I could probably go out wearing the exact same hoodie and cap and people wouldn’t make the same assumptions about me. And there’s no way around it, that’s racism.

And after all that, I’ve now set the stage for what I think the real issue is: Tribalism.

I grew up tribal just like many of us, but my tribe wasn’t based on race, it was based on where we were from. We were from the hood. We were proud to be from the hood and dressed like it to make sure people knew. We wanted to carry the tribal markers of thugged out gangsters, making sure people knew that we were not to be taken lightly. Getting looks from old white people was a point of pride. Knowing that we had made them feel uneasy humored us. Especially because we were also raised with good morals and values. Despite the way we dressed, we weren’t the type to cause trouble. Ironically, we were much more the type to hold doors open for others and walk old ladies across the street. Maybe that’s why we got such a kick out of it. But how were the old white people supposed to know this when all they had to go on was the way we dressed?

This is where I think it’s important to discuss what I’ve started to call tribal markers. I had a conversation with a co-worker yesterday which I found to be illuminating and extremely impressive on their part. We’ll call this individual Taylor. Taylor has had a tough go of it, having been bullied excessively in school for being different and not having a strong support system at home to help rise above it. Now in his 20s, Taylor’s navigating his sexuality with what seems to be a lack of clarity and certainty. From what I understand, Taylor’s not quite sure where he falls on the spectrum of gender or even which gender he’s attracted to. He’s exploring those dynamics and I truly admire it. Around me, Taylor’s always been fairly soft spoken, and very kind. At times, I would even notice him going out of his way to be nice to me. Picking up on some subtleties in body language and how he interacts with me, I could tell that Taylor was struggling with something around me. I had some ideas as to what it was, but didn’t focus on it since he had always made a clear effort for things to be positive between us. Yesterday, he apologized for being weird around me. He told me he was dealing with a lot of misplaced hate as a result of being bullied when he was younger. With most of that bullying coming from straight white males, Taylor learned to identify them as the enemy, and that had unintentionally extended to myself. He apologized because as he put it, in a way, that was a form of racism. I thanked him for bringing this up, complemented the courage it took for him to do it, and told him I genuinely admired his weirdness. It was my most honest answer and I’m very grateful to have had that conversation.

For the record, I tried to write this without using the word ‘he’ or ‘his’ and it’s just not how the English language is built at the moment. I’m not big on compelled speech or having to memorize 50 new pronouns, but I certainly see the value in introducing a single non-gendered pronoun. Anyways, I’m pretty sure he’s identifying more with the male side of that gender spectrum right now so I don’t feel like a total ass. Carrying on..

I really appreciate the perspective Taylor shared with me because it helped me confirm part of my theory around tribalism and tribal markers. Growing up, Taylor was bullied, I assume predominantly by straight white males. As a result, Taylor saw a pattern that was worth being protected from. Of course not all straight white males were bullies , but if he perceived that all the people who bullied him were straight white males, where do you draw that between us and them? Here, he was faced with someone who carried all the tribal markers of someone who would harm him, but who has treated him with nothing but respect and appreciation. I can’t understate how much I appreciate him facing this the way he did. Not only does it show a tremendous amount of personal growth on his part, but it gave confidence to my strategy of just being a good person and waiting this kinda stuff out.

I’m familiar with what discrimination looks and feels like because I grew up as a minority. For the most part, that discrimination faded away in my teens and 20s. Now in my 30s, it’s back. This time, it’s because I’m a straight white male. Add the fact that I have a background in finance and drive an SUV, I seem to tick all the boxes for an oppressor. Yet I’m not oppressive… and in reality, I’m big on liberation. I’m big on exploring and embracing our weirdness, whatever that may be. I’m big on supporting others in their pursuit of happiness and do my best to bring positivity to the world on a daily basis. So why is it that in the age of open-mindedness, progressiveness, and acceptance, that so many are so quick to assume that I’m such a shitty person?

Tribalism.

Throughout history, when times get tough, people get tribal. The United States was probably never more united than they were during WWII. Times were tough, but they had a common enemy. My friend from Somalia said that as bad as racism is here, it’s nothing compared to the racism back in Africa. In Africa, almost everyone’s black but there are different kinds of black. As he put it, they’re super close with one another when they have a common enemy, but once they lose that common enemy, they go back to being racist towards each other. In many ways, times are even tougher today. But without an obvious enemy, we’re drawing lines in the sand for the sake of protecting ourselves from an enemy we can’t identify. The rich vs. the poor. Men vs. Women. LGBTQ+ vs. Cysgendered. Religious vs. Atheist. Black vs. White. Liberal vs. Conservative. Democrat vs. Republican. Left vs. Right. Seriously…. when we get to the point of drawing the line between left and right, especially without any real or consistent definition of what left or right is, we need to take a second to think about what we’re doing to ourselves. We’re picking a team and turning the others into our enemies in the pursuit of emotional safety, but in the process, we’re tearing ourselves apart.

When every major media outlet has that video of the black guys getting arrested at the Starbucks set to auto-play as soon as you visit the site, of course the video goes viral. And when you don’t include the context of all the things that led up to it, of course people will assume that it was an act of egregious racism. And when the internet outrage machine goes into maximum overdrive, of course Starbucks will overreact in hopes that their overreaction is more significant than the public’s overreaction and that this somehow puts everything back in balance. This is all craziness, and doesn’t provide a solution to the problem, only more hostility towards a situation which people don’t seem to want to invest the time into understanding.

Those two black men had every right to be the color they are and wear what they wanted to wear. Starbucks had every right to enforce a policy of asking someone to leave if they weren’t willing to make a purchase. The police had every right to ask them to leave and to remove them when they wouldn’t. And those two black men had every right to choose this as a moment to make a stand. What happened here is rich in details and things that we should be having real conversations about – but we’re not. I wish we were..

Had I been in the shoes of the manager, I would’ve let them use the washroom and probably would’ve let them hang out even if their friend never arrived. Had I been the black guys, I would’ve bought a coffee. If I was the dispatch, I would’ve asked for more details and had I been told that they weren’t being violent, I would’ve suggested waiting a few more minutes before sending anyone over. If I was the police, I probably would’ve bought them a coffee and hung out with them until their friend arrived. But I’m not one to follow policy when it doesn’t make sense. I’m one to try and understand the situation for what it is and act like an intelligent and compassionate human being.

… but that’s just me.