.

I am the one who gets up early in our marriage, usually hours before my wife. Since I enjoy cooking, it's become our tradition to make a big deal about Sunday breakfast. I don't mind the extra time it takes to make a special meal form scratch. I also think the scents of a cooked breakfast lures my wife out of bed.

This is my recipe for breakfast pizza. It fills the kitchen with the aroma of toasted cheese and onions. My wife is never late to breakfast when I pull this out of the oven.

Ingredients

• 1 pre-made, thin pizza crust
• 3 green onions
• 4 tablespoons olive oil
• 1/3 tsp red pepper or more to taste
• Cheese: either mozzarella, asiago or a mixture of both
• 4 eggs
• 5 strips of cooked bacon
• 1 tsp thyme
• Red pepper flakes, to taste
• 1/2 tsp Kosher salt

Preparation

1. Preheat oven to 450F.
2. Wash onions. Trim off ends but keep the green stalks. Slice thin.
3. Slice the red pepper into thin, nearly translucent rings.
4. Mix olive oil, onion and thyme in a small bowl. Let set for ten minutes.
5. Crumble bacon. Set aside.
6. Spread onion-oil mix over the pre-made crust to about 1/2 inch from the edge. Reserve 1/2 tablespoon oil.
7. Sprinkle with cheese(s).
8. Arrange the red pepper slices on top of the chees
9. Sprinkle bacon atop the pepper slices.
10. Season with salt and pepper flakes.

Some Notes:

You can use other pizza toppings like Italian sausage or mushrooms. Less is more with the cheese. Just sprinkle enough to cover the crust.

Timing is everything! Do your best to pull the pizza out of the oven as soon as the eggs are done.

This would be a great brunch or dinner entree.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Romney and Gingrich shoot each other while Conservatives rally to Santorum

The GOP race for the 2012 presidential election is still as volatile as it was when I last wrote about it. GOP leadership was hoping for an early end to primary uncertainty with a single front-runner. This would give skeptical Republicans a chance to warm up to the inevitable 'last man standing.'

That hasn't happened. Front-runners Romney and Gingrich each won a primary but mutual attacks exposed their many flaws to conservative voters. Paul kept a steady-state in voter percentage. Rick Santorum, the one person almost all conservatives like -- or at least don't dislike, surprised the pundits by sweeping three caucuses in a big way. Everyone likes an underdog-coming-from-behind story. It may be that GOP voters have made Santorum their 'Not-Romney' of choice.

I reworked my spreadsheets based on the latest candidate developments. Romney and Gingrich both fell in my 'Worth' spreadsheet. I am no longer convinced either of them will do much to remake entitlement programs. Romney's MBA skills make him more of a COO than a CEO. Operations men manage, they don't reform. Gingrich is too tied to big government entities for my taste. ('Historian?' What is that?) Romney also fell because of his past support for abortion and homosexual marriage. I still remain surprised that Ron Paul is the most Worth-y to me, but I like the things he says, except for his isolationist opinions.

The big shift is in the Real-Win-Worth grid. Santorum has pulled ahead of his competitors in the Win axis. He now has the highest score for a consistent, motivational message. Santorum doesn't sound like he's reading from a script like Romney, and his strong wins in MO, MN and CO show he can inspire voters to action. Gingrich lost points for 'presence and style.' The media is pulling away from him. Romney also lost 'presence and style' ground with his comments about "the poor."

On the Real axis, the candidates' positions shifted: President Bush The First walked back his Romney endorsement; Gingrich lost his biggest financial backer; and Santorum got the blessing of some very important conservative media superstars.

Looking at all the candidates, the two closest to the true 'electable' zone (strong campaign plus voter connection) are Obama and Santorum. Obama risks  sliding the wrong direction in the 'Win' direction if voters are turned off by his negative rhetoric. Obama remains financially strong, but it takes more than expensive advertisement to motivate unhappy voters.

It's do or die these next few weeks for Santorum. He's already the most appealing to the conservative base. That's a plus. Still, his 'ifs' must quickly align: IF Romney goes on the negative attack, IF Gingrich descends further into vengeful neurosis, and IF Santorum scores a big win against Romney in Michigan, the former Pennsylvania senator may pull a surprise win.

.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Conservatives find their voice: Romney is unacceptable

No one is in the upper right quadrant, the best place to be

There have been three primaries since I last posted about the 2012 race for the U.S. presidency. The weakest candidates have dropped out (Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry). The four remaining candidates are pretty much where they were three weeks ago. None of them have improved their electability or acceptance scores very much. Neither has Obama, who continues to have high disapproval poll ratings despite some moderate economic improvement. The primary has just begun with only a handful of delegates set aside. The campaign promises a frisky, contentious year full surges and pull-backs. It will be quite exciting.

GOP party elites are dancing with a dilemma: should they continue supporting the most 'electable' candidate (Real) or the one who can best connect with the voters (Win)? Up until now, they thought 'electability' was enough. Romney had been preparing for four years, laying down an army of supporters. So what if he's bland?  People will vote for a rock if they think it can beat Obama in the national election.

It turns out they were wrong. 'Not-Romney' got more votes in each state, every time. Their man on the pedestal only took one of the three primaries. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, a man who causes internal bleeding in GOP aristocrats and this week's leading Not-Romney, blazes ahead of Morose Mitt. Why? Because Gingrich connects with people and his passion touches an anger inside their hearts. Likewise, Santorum outshone Romney in Iowa with his common man message. Romney looks more like Thurston Howell.

So, GOP leaders, what's it going to be? Continue to support Mitt, but send him to Wal-Mart to observe proles? Put an arm around Newt and douse him with Ritalin when he's in the public eye? Or send some money to Santorum, the one candidate who seems human and not neurotic? Your current strategy isn't working.

My thoughts on the candidates:

• Bachmann never stood a chance: she lacked relevant experience and her presence annoyed most people despite her conviction and intelligence. Huntsman never connected with normals and his accomplishments were mostly invisible to them. Perry, the strongest candidate (and the one I thought best suited to run) started too late. I hope Perry tries again in 2016.

• Gingrich just cannot stay knocked down. The press wrote him off several times after he self-wounded his campaign for the presidency. But oh, can he give a good debate! And his speeches this summer were stirring. Gingrich has high potential on the Win score if he can control himself and gain strength (Real) to dethrone The One Who Calms The Oceans.

  A caution: Gingrich is also a big black testosterone cloud that shoots blue lighting. Are voters flocking to him because he blasts media creatures like George Stephanopolous? Are they hoping he gets a few good ones on Obama's upturned nose? With Newt Gingrich, you get revenge. That's guaranteed. Is he a leader?

• Santorum has done very well in the recent debates. He barely pulled ahead of Romney in Iowa. Although he is not the Comeback Kid like Gingrich is, Santorum has steadily improved his position. Of all the candidates, he is the only one who connects with regular people. Santorum comes from immigrant  background. Unlike Romney, he knows how ordinary people live and the pressures they face. Santorum seems to like people.

  Santorum is the impoverished candidate. He needs funds and highly-placed friends to stay in the race much longer. He also has made some bad decisions (Arlen Specter, union support ... illegal immigration). Santorum has some baggage, though not the full-sized steamer trunks Romney has.

• Ron Paul has been a consistent player, although never on the highest pedestal. In many ways he is like Romney with lots of campaign 'oomf.' But Paul connects with with Paul People. I don't see him as a serious candidate for regular voters. Ron Paul has very little experience and few accomplishments in his thirty years in government.

• Mitt Romney? He's Poppy Bush but tainted Massachusetts Blue. 'RomneyCare' is reappearing in the race again. Voters don't buy his message that he is the most "electable." Is "most likely to beat Obama" just campaign spin? Is Mitt Romney's image merely generated? Is he sincere? These are not helpful questions but voters are now asking them.

• And there there is Barak Obama, the man with a -17% approval rating. America is ignoring him right now: all the attention is on the GOP race. Even so, his failed promises and the weak economy are holding his numbers down. When he speaks or when he just does something, his numbers plummet.

  Honestly, I can see any of the GOP candidates prevail against Obama, even Romney.

  It should be easy to push over a statue, especially with feet of clay.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Organizations Have Lizard Brains

From the Panama Canal Museum

It took ten years to build the Panama Canal with shovels and steam power over a century ago. Many people lost their fortunes and lives digging the "Trench." The end result was an engineering marvel: a continent was severed in half and two oceans were conjoined. Humanity did what Nature takes eons to do. Determination, focus and courage saw the project to completion. Gaia said "WOW!"

George Will wrote about the latest Panama Canal expansion in his column last Sunday. Today, there is another project  to expand the Panama for larger, modern container ships. Building new locks will take eight years to complete. Sad to say, many of  the eastern U.S. ports cannot accept the new 'post-Panamax' ships once they start chugging through. Their harbors are not deep enough to accommodate the behemoth's larger drafts.

Savannah,Georgia, knew this would be a problem back in 1999, but thirteen years later, the city has yet to complete any dredging studies. Assuming Savannah starts the five-year project immediately, she loses three years of large ship commerce. Mr. Will goes on to blame bureaucracy and litigation, (the point of his column), but at a deeper level, Savannah's problems are based in civic fear and hesitation. Environmentalists toss lawsuits, governments commission additional studies and bankers prolong reviews. Everyone seems afraid to commit. Why?

Savannah's lizard brain has taken over. If you don't know about lizard brains, you probably haven't read any Seth Godin. He knows that every person has primitive reptilian brain underneath their highly advanced mammalian lobes. This lizard brain is concerned with self-preservation at all costs. Lizard brains were useful for dealing with velociraptors; today they convince us to stonewall projects, insist on workflows, and demand approvals and second opinions. It keeps scary things away.

Resistance to change, to bold action, is a natural consequence of age. When cities, countries, companies or people get comfortable, they tend to resist bold action. And self-interest relies on the lizard to keep a status quo. As the decades pass, large groups become more inert. Barricades of process-based bureaucracy insure stability. Sameness is rewarded.

Eventually Savannah may dredge its harbors, but it may take a while. In the meantime, the post-Supermax ships will be happily unloading cargo in the nice, deep harbors of a hungrier, (younger?) port city.

"The successful completion of the Panama Canal in 1914 was a great psychological moment for the United States, providing powerful evidence that this country could do anything it set its mind to. That attitude built the Hoover Dam, produced the industrial miracle that won World War II, constructed the Interstate Highway System, and sent men to the moon. Today, it seems, we can’t even dredge a harbor, a technology that goes back centuries."

-- John Gordon Steel

.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Money? Yes. Pundit Favorite? Yes. Acceptable? No.

From the Swamp blog

The man who never gets above 25% in the GOP polls has the party nomination in the bag. Most of my favorite pundits think so -- in fact, they have been saying this for several months now. Their reasoning? Romney is the most electable: he has the money; he's played a shrewd game by letting his more conservative opponents fight amongst themselves; and Romney gives good debate. It's just a matter of time. Resitance is futile.

Conservative commentators agree that Romney is not a real conservative, but they reason all conservative voters will hold their noses and vote for Romney when he runs against Obama. What choice is there? Just deal with it, get behind the man and move on.

Not so fast. Romney has low -- LOW -- acceptance amongst conservatives. If they choose to not vote in the 2012 U.S. Presidential elections, Obama will win.

We went down this way before, just four years ago. Remember John McCain? The GOP brought forward a boring old man, a moderate Republican who inspired no one at all. Romney is McCain, Part Deux, but without the distinguished war record.

What is Mitt Romney?

1. He's part of the political class. The son of George Romney, Mitt is a political aristocrat like the Bushes or Kennedys. The political class is disconnected from the values and worries of most Americans. House Romney never mingled with the hoi polloi. Regardless of political party, the politcal class attends to its own needs first. Average Americans are not a priority.

2. He's fan of the Value-Added Tax.

3. Romney is tainted blue. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the epicenter of liberal wierdness. Massachusetts is the Land of Bawney Fwank and Sister Elizabeth Warren. The Kennedys spawn there. Newt Gingrich calls Romney a 'Massachusetts Moderate.' He's right.

4. He is the father of RomneyCare. Romney's personal health insurance mandate is an assault on personal liberty. RomneyCare is abhorrent to conservatives. The man will not renounce this health care fiasco. What assurance do they that he won't sustain ObamaCare in some fashion? Romney promised to undo ObamaCare, but ...

5. ... he is a flip-flopper. The man lacks a core on most points. He is on record being "for" and "against" the same issues, depending on the polling of the electorate at the moment.

6. Romney was a of LDS leader, the leader of the Boston Stake. I expect problems with separating church and state from a man who is a 'spiritual leader.' Americans expect their presidents to be influenced by their faith, not bishops influencing others.

The GOP is making a strategic mistake promoting a candidate who is merely 'electable.' That's not enough. America wants a leader, an inspirational person with an appealing message, and a persuader who will convince them to take a difficult road. They do not need a milquetoast-y technocrat.

Winning the election is not the end game. Winning hearts is.

Mitt Romney will not get many votes from conservative Americans. Without this block, he will certainly lose the 2012 election. Romney is not very electable after all.

 I am a conservative independent. I want someone better.

Mitt versus Mitt

.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Each day some of my 'What I Can Do' becomes 'What I Used To Do.' It hurts my eyes to read lables on cans and little boxes. I strain to see my fingernails when I am cutting them.

Dr Optometrist says my eyes are still good. I'm not ready for bifocals, yet, but he suggested 'readers.' I bought a three-pack at the drug store. They are wonderful!

Other news: I used my first senior discount at the movies. First time. Asking for it was easy, but realizing I could use it anytime thereafter for the rest of my life bothered me.

I looked into the mirror and saw my father. Yay.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Using Business Tools to Sort The Candidates

Bubble size reflects candidate 'worth' based on my values

I've become a political hobbyist since I came to social media. I read the local newspaper, get RSS feeds, follow Twitter politicos and I watch news twice a day. I seek balance so I can stay informed. I am a conservative person: fiscally, socially and on international affairs.

As I write this in late December, 2011, there are seven candidates campaigning for the GOP caucus in Iowa. Barack Obama has already been campaigning for reelection since the start of the year. I'm overwhelmed. Each poll, each newsflash, each morning analysis throws me back to Point A. Who do I want to be U.S. president? Maybe I should use my business toolkit to sort things out.

Treating the presidential candidates as 'products' with votes as 'market share,' it becomes easier to sort things out. I used two tools: a modified Cause and Effect Matrix (C&E) to identify each candidate's 'worth' to me, and a Real-Win-Worth.

Each C&E criterion was chosen by me and its relative importance to the other criteria are also mine. For example, I see the Economy as the top priority, 'Family Values' as further down, and 'Immigration' isn't a priority at all. If you were to do this, you would have different criteria, weights and values. See mine, below.

See the full gallery on Posterous

The RWW is a little more objective. For Real, I subsitituted campaign strength (war chest, foot soldiers, experience). Win is market-based and emotion, so I used criteria based on the assumption that voters were customers. Here were the emotional criteria (trust, inspiration, message and presence).

See the full gallery on Posterous

What do the charts tell us?

1. None of the candidates are in the happy quadrant, in the upper right corner. They are clustered in the weakest place, which is to be expected this early in the race. Most will drop out soon because 'Real' will cull them. They can't sustain a campaign to move them into a better place.
    
2. Romney scores very well on 'Real' with his financial backing and prudent planning. Even so, Romney is no more acceptable to the overall voter market than his competitors. Romney is unappealing to me ('Worth') compared to the others. He better start connecting more with voters. My favorite pundits keep saying Romney owns the GOP race, mostly because he scores well on Real criteria. They are ignoring how unacceptable he is to conservatives. If it comes down to a Obama vs. Romney race, I won't "hold my nose and vote;" I'll stay home.
    
3. Obama, like Romney, is well positioned on the 'Real' axis. Still, Obama is no more acceptable than the flock of GOP candidates. Obama can move to the positive quadrant if he can encourage people to trust him. His strategy based on a negative campaign will not help move him in the direction he wants. He has the smallest Worth bubble because I think the man is incompetent and lazy.
    
4. Gingrich has a weak 'Real,' but a good Win. I have heard him speak. He can motivate people through difficult choices, which we need even though there is some baggage from the 90s. I also scored Gingrich high on Worth. He is the only proven candidate to fix a major U.S. entitlement problem -- Welfare -- with Bill Clinton.
    
5. Ron Paul has the highest Worth score. This shocked me, because I really fear him. He does hit my value points well. Real problems in the Win score -- I don't think voters will accept Paul despite his loyal foot soldiers.
    
6. Santorum was lower when I first ran the spreadsheet, but he's been doing well in Iowa this week. He scores higher than Romney for me. I would like to see Santorum run against Obama instead of Romney.
    
7. Bachmann has no chance. She is loathed by the media and she has a grating personal style. People just hate her. I have heard her speak -- she is my representative -- and I think this is undeserved. Bachmann lacks executive experience and her campaign team has collapsed.
    
8. Perry could be better. I do not understand how he could be so successful (his high Worth) with the Texas market and fail with the U.S. electorate and press.

     

9. Huntsman? Well, the media likes him. I don't. And like Bachmann, Hunstman has no 'oomph' to gain any 'Real' points

I work for a corporation that always deals with uncertainty. We use analytical tools to parse mushy data. In teams and no small amount of debate, we define success criteria. The comptroller is there to keep us down to earth. Marketing brings data about competitors and customers, and wants and needs of the market. Engineers know materials, manufacturing and their capabilities to produce.

I've been on teams who have used Real-Win-Worth (RWW) analysis to decide whether to enter a market with a new product. RWW is great for forcing teams to think through what's important and what is not. If the team decides to proceed with product development, they revisit the RWW periodically when time reveals more useful data. 

RWW tells business teams to run after those projects where there is a real chance of Winning the market share with superior (Real)  manufacturing or technical expertise. You want projects that score in the upper right corner with nice large bubbles (Worth). If your project is too small or it is too far down the axis, then either stop the project or change something to improve Real or Win.

This RWW analysis would be more accurate if it came from a team of people with different political perspectives and values. Discussion would uncover other criteria. We can assume the scores would be better balanced.

I am a former Six Sigma Black Belt and DFSS engineer. I've lead teams through RWW workshops. I plan to stay the course on this RWW through the year and I'll 'vote' or 'buy' a few times through the year.

Right now, none of them are worth 'buying.'

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Change Agents are a little odd

From the Vecci Blog

Change agents are just a bit off-kilter. Why? They must be nervy enough to challenge the status quo and get away with it, and they must be seen as different to encourage other employees to follow them. It's in the job profile. Ghandi was eccentric. So was Steve Jobs, John The Baptist and Jack Welch.

We can use gentler descriptors: panache, style ... 'different drummer,' but we know them when we see them. Along with intelligence, empathy and passion, weirdness is an essential attribute for change evangelists. Often a change fails for no other reason than  its leader is a boring person. People tend not to notice things when they're yawning.

Too much weirdness is ineffective. Maybe dangerous. Did you know there is a Perceived Weirdness Index (PWI)?  Leaders are either ignored, not taken seriously or fired if they are outside the optimal range

I doubt 'Weirdness; will ever make it to your company's leadership handbook. But I bet you know a few successful weirdos working there.

Are you one of them?

.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

There are Clouds in your company's horizon

'Cloud' is a service, usually a platform or software, delivered  to you from somewhere else  over the Internet.  Also known as 'cloud computing,' corporate clouds aren't totally  new -- many companies have been using services (Fidelity, Siebel, Hewitt...) for years.

"Cloud computing is the delivery of computing as a service rather than a product, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices as a metered service over a network (typically the Internet)." (Wikipedia)

So why is 'cloud' suddenly on the opportunity list of corporations everywhere? 

• Cloud has become quite good and it is proven to be highly reliable to manage the software they built themselves. Companies like Amazon and Rackspace provide platform-as-a-service (PaaS) with near-instant scalability and 99.9 % availability. Businesses can host their software there and not fret over capital costs, performance or up-time. Just buy what you require and release what you don't need. Companies become renters. At the same time, the platform providers offer better cost for higher performance and reliability. Smart enterprises know Amazon is never down.

   

• Software-as-a-service (SaaS) like Google's Docs has also proven itself. Consumers needn't download new software to use the latest functionality; it's just 'there.' For enterprises, SaaS lowers the cost of software delivery, training and development. Because it is often Web-based, a cloud application performs nicely on  most computers with an up-to-date browser.
   
• Speed is king for agile companies. Why write software when you can buy it, especially when it comes as a service? Frugal companies can shift IT budget to new priorities like bolstering internal network capacity and building a robust mobile architecture.

'On-premise' is the opposite of cloud. It's the traditional data center service that companies managed for decades. Company computers encircled in a firewall deliver customized applications direct to employees. There are many advantages with 'on-premise:' security, direct access to data, flexible development and a strategic, customized application architecture. Such a diverse architecture reflects the evolution of the company and is a best-fit for optimized business process. The downside? 'On-premise' is expensive to maintain.

It's doubtful a company can migrate all its software and data to the cloud. Scientific and manufacturing  information streams from special non-cloud devices. Agile companies that use strategic information will never surrender the right to ad hoc business analytics from Big Data hiding on both sides of the firewall. Legally, there is some highly secure information that cannot exist off-premise, at least for now.

It might be better to imagine smaller enterprise clouds instead of a single, large cloud. Employee productivity software (documents, spreadsheets, files...) could be a little cloud. Email could be a cloud. Non-integrated, workflow-free applications could be another little cloud. Big, interconnected systems probably won't make it to the cloud.

Andrew McAfee, author of Enterprise 2.0, recently wrote a though-provoking blog post about clouds and the enterprise. He compared today's cloud opportunity with last century's steam-versus-electricity choice. U.S. manufacturing was driven by steam power in 1910. Companies heavily invested in it were reluctant to change to electric power. Two decades later, those who disdained conversion were the minority. Newer manufacturers either chose electricity from the get-go or they switched. McAfee won't make a prediction, but his intuition says cloud is going to grow in the enterprise.

I agree. Companies already have a few clouds; there will certainly be several more.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Saw these in a store front window. The new boutique was setting these big girls out. There's a leopard-skin shoe in the back. $350 each.  (Angel2Diva.com)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Marquetry, is the art of making hanging art or decorations from wood veneers. I saw this at the R.H. Stafford Library in Woodbury, MN. This map was one of several pieces in a temporary display. 

This large map has 128 species of wood veneers. Gorgeous. Richly beautiful.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Have fun learning about your 'Identity'

People of different aspect, background and heritage talk about their identity

Yesterday I spent an hour in the newly opened 'Identity' exhibit in the Science Museum of Minnesota. The hands-on exhibit explores the different variables that contributes to identity perception, both self-perception and how we perceive each other. The exhibit opened last week and runs through January 8, 2012.

I learned a few things at the many stations. I could have easily spent another hour there and I will probably return to finish it. I learned I am more extroverted than I thought; I am as feminine as masculine in the way I observe the world; and I value science and math. I am also more oblong than DaVinci's Vitruvian Man.

I managed quite well at the displays though the audio was too low in several of them. Older visitors will have trouble hearing -- I did.

Environment can change your appearance. 'Older Me' if ... I minded my health ... ate poorly ... or smoked. The last image looks just like my father! I was startled to see his face. Yes, he is a former heavy smoker.

You can also alter your face to different gender or ethnicity. Here I am black, female and Asian. I recommend trying this -- you won't forget the faces looking  back at you.

.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There's a backlash of sorts against the Occupy Wall Street protests in U.S. cities. It's called We Are The 53 Percent, a rebuke to the posters on the We Are The 99 Percent Web site. I submitted this picture, above, to the 53 Percent site. The site managers didn't choose my entry that day, so I am posting it here.

The 99 Percenters' gripe centers on their feelings of powerlessness. They claim only 1% of the US population controls the wealth and power here, and the top income people are not paying their fair share of federal taxes.

Actually, the wealthiest, the top 1%, pay 37% of the U.S. income taxes, but apparently that's not enough. Or the 99 Percenters don't understand math. The undertone to their postings channels resentment, covetousness, and well, greed. The protesters are mostly young, at the start of adult life.

Almost half of America pays no federal income taxes while the other half, 53%, does. This is supposed top be progressive and fair, but conservative people, the 53%, don't like paying the bills for everyone. The 53 Percenters know if ALL Americans paid income taxes, we would have a true ownership society. The 47 % want things -- more government goodies -- because they are free. 'We Are The 53 Percent' is about resentment, too, but towards entitlement mentality of people they consider freeloaders.

Resentment and anger, regardless of tax percentile, is destructive. I look at the youthful faces on the 99 percent site and see despair. I posted this entry because there is ALWAYS hope if you are optimistic and set a course for yourself. America is a remarkable place. There is so much opportunity here. My picture isn't about fury at all. It's about accomplishment.

When I was 23 I set my goals for family, health, wealth and career (in that order) and stayed to the plan. Things are good now. No dark clouds overhead.

Dear Occupy Wall Street protesters, imagine a happy future for yourself. Make a life plan. Be self-sufficient. Push aside silly things. Attain your destiny. Anger and fear lead to powerlessness. Do good works. And pay your taxes.

God bless you all.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

From 'Village of the Damned' (1960)

I was chatting with an associate when out of the blue he said "By the way, dealing with Millennials is exhausting. I'm worn down." This gentleman is no indolent plodder; he's a man with a reputation for accomplishment across companies. "Exhausted" is not the first word I would use to describe him. He pounced on an opportunity to work with a young team of entrepreneurs. A seasoned man experienced in the language of the C-suites, he could help them hone their flashy product. Yet a few months in, there were problems. Why was this guy under siege? Was there a GenY -- Boomer friction? He said "yes." Things weren't going smoothly.

What was going on? Do Millennials require new rules of engagement? Must the rest of us go to Y-School?

We've been reading about the march of the generations for a long time now. The Greatest Generation, the Boomers, Generation X,  and now the Millennials, Generation Y. There are attributes unique to each of them: toe-the-line and sacrifice, (Greatest), rebellion and ego (Boomers), anomie (Gen X) and "look at me" (GenY). In the Zodiac Of The Decades, each generation is molded by world events. Technology and prosperity are important as well.

Does when you are born define who you are? The ancient Chinese thought so. Their Zodiac defines people by birth year, each with an avatar and a defined set of superior attributes. Shortcomings, too, unless you are a Dragon.

Thank goodness I didn't marry a Tiger.

Got a problem with someone? Want to hook up with a Snake? Visit your nearby Chinese restaurant and find out. We chuckle at the absurdity of birth year personality, so why do we accept the concept of 'Generation Y?'

Are the generations really that different? PewReseachCenter thinks otherwise, at least in the areas you would assume they would be. How about, say, technology and acceptance of social change?

Courtesy PewResearchCenter

Members of the Millennial generation also give generally high marks to societal changes such as the greater availability of green products and more racial and ethnic diversity. But, as was true of technological innovations, in many cases their views are not much different from those of the age groups that precede them.

Academics and marketers make their living exploiting differences between groups of people. Marketers seek "segmentation." Sociologist pursue "demographics." People aren't people; they are generations.

But Boomer pundits forget a few things. If they climb into the 1980 Wayback Machine and turn themselves into 25 year-olds what would they find? Maybe Time articles like "Here They Come, the Baby Boomers. Confident and Educated," or "Will the TV Generation Fit In The Workforce?" They would see older employees recoil when PCs came into the office. Boomers were social and free in their youth, just like the Millennials are now.

Could it be that Generations are not innately different, that differences are merely the point in life they are in at that moment? I work with younger men and women and I see myself thirty years ago. Millennials are the most independent, attention-deficit and idealistic of the generations? Oh, please.

Each human is an individual and it is as individuals that we respond to the world. I know parents who Facebook-stalk their kids. I know of Millennials who don't like Facebook. Mom and Dad got the iPads first. And most of Generation Y doesn't like Twitter or Google Plus.

I'll agree Generation Y grew up with instant-on, SMS and video games. They will always be better at those things than their elders. Electronic gadgets don't make them a different species, however. At some point, Generation Y won't be any good at them, either.

Boomer friends, I have a thought for you: the young who walk your office halls are you. Or, maybe you were them. Did you change? We are the ones who became different; we are more cautious. Conservative. That is normal. As more older employees leave the work force, those who remain will be outnumbered.

But only if we view ourselves as 'Boomers' and their younger colleagues as 'Generation Y.'

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

How Social Business platforms extend the reach and value of document-centric knowledge

Knowledge is not just approved and categorized documents, but it's also the 'little knowledge' that flows about us during the workday. I call this "knowledge in motion," the kinetic information that flows by and nearly always disappears. Online collaboration persists this kind of knowledge. It's really 'wisdom:' knowledge enhanced with context (value, when, who) . Via links and tags, all knowledge can be more findable -- exploitable -- across the boundaries of time, team and culture.

Allow me illustrate via a story in Prezi. I introduce Thomas, now a senior scientist, who has a legacy of documented knowledge and profitable accomplishment for his company. Younger scientists from other countries find his documents and they release this content-centric knowledge into the company's social business environment. Furthermore, they augment it with what they know, what they find outside and even things Thomas doesn't know. Thus his 'legacy' grows. Eventually, Thomas is drawn into the emergent social network. I also show how Thomas attempts to collaborate with himself over time, and fails because he can't find his own 'little knowledge.'

Happy zooming! I hope you don't need a Dramamine.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A smartphone, a subway, a grocery list

Steven Johnson, author of my favorite book of the moment, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, holds that there are very few 'Eureka!' innovations. Instead, most innovations happen slowly over time. Social networks, open information are key. He also says invention happens atop existing platforms. Johnson claimed Youtube couldn't happen until WWW and digital media standards emerged. The WWW couldn't happen until HTML existed and so on. Innovation happens when observant, intuitive people dabble in many areas. The seize upon something that is suddenly obvious and assemble the parts.

Tesco is a shopping store that used innovation to assail a much larger competitor in the Korean groceries market. By paying attention to the lives of working Korean people and looking at the available technologies, Tesco assembled something amazing out of existing parts. Tesco quickly gained market share and admiration from its new customers. And, I think, they developed a new platform for future innovation.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

'Fake Food' Is Probably Why You Are Fat

If you exercise properly and often, and you are still overweight, it may be your diet that is the problem. Portion control and what you eat are key factors for weight gain. Although exercise is essential for fitness and cardiovascular health, it is the food you eat that makes people obese.

Proponents of primal diets insist that our species, Homo sapiens, evolved over the millennia as omnivores. Until a short few thousand years ago, a mere page in our history book, our ancestors were foragers, not farmers. A root, some leaves, maybe a frog, might be all they would eat in a day. They hunted when they could or ate carrion when they found it. Oona and Thag were lean and small, and free of disease. None of them were overweight. Diabetes didn't exist.

Grain farming came late in the family history. We haven't had time to evolve for a high-calorie, grain-based diet. Grains, whole or refined, are foreign to our metabolism. Our body can digest them only if they are cooked, but once cooked the human gut processes grain carbohydrates too well. Bread, beer and pasta, as delicious as they are, were the first 'fake' foods to arrive at the table.

Modern food scientists think they can tinker some more. Highly processed food is inexpensive to produce and store. Their goal is to create profitable food. Tasty food. It needn't be nutritious or healthy. We got snacks instead of sustenence.

Nope. Highly processed. Mostly fake. There are better choices.

And so for the last century we've gorged on repurposed lamp fuel (Crisco) and genetically modified animal feed (Canola). High-fructose corn syrup and margarine cannot be produced by nature. Only now, after years of consumption, do we suspect a correlation between these 'fake foods' and the obesity-diabetes epidemic.

My grandmother always said "you are what you eat." She shopped for fresh food every day. Fish, meat, nuts, greens, fruit and potatoes were served at her table. As kids she never gave us Coke or chips ("garbage!"). My grandparents were lean people because they ate well. Abuela cooked her food every day. "Pick it, Catch it or Milk it" she intoned. I've (mostly) followed her advice. I'm in my fifties now and have never been fat. I don't want to be a high-fructose blob.

Totally fake. Unnatural. Extruded. Chemical.

Think about it. Are you fatter than your grandparents? If so, are you eating a different diet than them? How much of your food is artifical? Does the list of ingredients in your pre-processed food say "modified," "hydrogenated" or "BHT?" Do the additives require a degree in organic chemistry to decipher?

Eat less prepared food. Stop drinking beer. Avoid the fakes. Cook your own meals. You will loose weight.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

Will G+ send Facebook to MySpaceLand?

I’ve had a chance to test drive the new Google Plus (G+ for short) this past week. I think Google finally has a serious entry in the social media oeuvre. G+ will be an additional social media venue, not a replacement. It will take time for humanity -- each person, really -- to decide how to balance the choices.   

G+ is that good. If I were a Mark Zuckerberg, I would shuffle that Facebook IPO to next week.

Google trickled out G+ invites in pulses through the week, mainly to early adopters. The ‘wait-in-line’ strategy seemed to work. All the technerati clamored for ‘invites’ from fortunate friends who had them. Those who got through the chute immediately set to testing the functionality. The general opinion so far is “WOW.”

My first favorable G+ impression was of the simple, clean design. There are no games and no ads… just a lot of beautiful white space and the Google primary colors. I knew at a glance what I could do. Intuition was enough to figure G+ out. And I love that G+ is not blue like its competition (What is it with blue and social media, anyway?)

Google introduces some new concepts in G+. There are ‘Circles,’ groups that give the user simple control of who-sees-what. People in a circle can ‘Hangout’ via crisp video chat with up to ten people in a delightful way. Google Chat is in there as well. Finally, there are ‘Sparks,’ suggested news feeds you may subscribe to.

Since I use my iDevices as much as my corporate laptop and home iMac, I gave G+ a once-over on my iPad and iPhone. The mobile Web interface was exceptional and quite fast. Android users do have a true app in the Android Marketplace. Google promises Apple users their own app “soon.” (As they should, since mobile drives social content more than desktop usage.)

Google has some work to do: my Google Contacts, Reader,  Voice, Docs and Gmail still look different from each other and G+. None seems integrated with G+. At times my profile picture shifts. Circles are deceptively simple, an easy concept at first glance, thorough mastery requires a good understanding of logic and Set Theory. I predict normals making ‘circular’ mistakes.

I'd also like to see tagging, tag clouds and trending topics. Google disdains human-managed discovery and 'folksonomies,' preferring to nudge the user with search-based algorithms. A shame, because social media means social exploration. People are pretty good at finding things. We like the adjacencies other Homo sapiens create. I have observed people adding hashtags in G+ posts knowing they are useless. Tags are the adjectives of social media language. They are a standard. They must be there.

Another caution: the gossipy technerati love new toys and are happily distracted by them. Early adopters read Mashable first thing each morning with their coffee, parsing through the latest media toy reviews. Could G+ a fad? A social media fashion? This summer's pink? 

Remember Quora? That social phenomenon enflamed them -- for a week. Quora was to be the new way to bring worldwide knowledge and collaboration togther. Quora is still here, but the social media class got bored and moved on. Are we seeing an intensified Quora-like infatuation with G+? Perhaps.

G+ is a keeper IF Google decides to keep it. Google is notoriously business-addled with many of its products. Acquired or developed, Google has disappointed fans before by abandoning exciting products like Orkut, Blogger, Wave, and Buzz. One never knows with enigmatic Google. I’ve commented before that Google doesn’t “get” social. Google’s Gnomes are happy to tinker with code and algorithms. Solutions based on human activity seem to bore them.

But maybe not this time.

G+ is good, promisingly good. Will it affect other social media venues? Absolutely. People are tired of devious, cavalier Facebook. Skype should be worried about G+ video Hangouts which are free, have equivalent functionality and just as easy (easier?) to use.

Resistance doesn't seem futile anymore.

If Google leans into G+ and follows through on its mobile UI and integration intentions, you can expect a migration away from other social media platforms. It will be a matter of how much and how soon.  Facebook and LinkedIn may linger for a few years because people have imprinted on them and that is where their social ties are. But humans are fickle. Brokers who add little value and a lot of worry, and treat their customers like raw materials, are readily abandoned. Let's hope G+ competition improves Facebook, LinkedIn and Skype. Diversity and choices are healthy for the social media ecosystem.

What about Twitter? Early adopters are saying it will lose ground as well. G+ seems to offer overlapping functionality to Twitter’s, I disagree and I’ll argue that Twitter will continue to thrive because it is so simple and fast. It takes seconds to tweet something. Furthermore, Apple is basing its mobile operating system, OS 5, on Twitter. Twitter is not a destination like G+; Twitter is liquid network.

Companies should enroll into G+ when Google gives the 'all clear'. The +1 button via G+ will have equal market wattage as Facebook’s ‘Like.’ Social SEO? You bet. Google will introduce ‘Pages’ into G+ in the near future. Pages will be the way enterprises cultivate community, brand and presence.

Google's plans for G+ and businesses

And how about inside the enterprise, that ‘Enterprise 2.0’ stuff? I’m a little more reserved here. Google spooks companies and I don’t see anything in G+ to will change that opinion. I'm not sure Google even cares. Employees will use it anyway, and G+, like any other Socially Transmitted Software (STS) will find its way into the enterprise.

I read this week that "Google+ is a chance for social networkers to start over." Perhaps we are yearning to free ourselves of adolescent Facebook and boring Linkedin. G+ may be the reset button we seek.

 .

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

.

AT&T predicted "you will" (back in 1993)

Have you  ever...

• watched a movie you wanted to watch the minute you want to watch it?
• made a phone call on your wrist?
• put your heads together when you're not together?
• kept your eye on your home when you're not at home?
• faxed someone from the beach?
• browsed a book from a thousand miles away?
• crossed the country without stopping for directions?
• attended a meeting in your bare feet?

The above video is a compilation of the 'You Will' AT&T television commercials from 1993-4. I found several things remarkable about them. The most obvious is the way most of them came true, either as consumer products or things IT has delivered to the workplace. Also remarkable is how AT&T has remained in the middle of most of these solutions -- TODAY.

Setting an aspirational vision with yourself and your customers helps to make things happen.

But the most astonishing thing was that they are not remarkable in 2011; we take these for granted just 18 years later. We have them. That's astounding. We have grown accustomed to the Remarkable.

"Fax from the beach" makes us laugh; who faxes anymore? Phone booth? They're extinct.

When I was a boy in 1964, my father took me to the World's Fair in New York City. I remember riding a monorail in the world of tomorrow. The pavilion said by 1990 Americans would take hover cars to work. We all had personal robots. Food was instant and delicious. A Jetsons world with fins. Today we have sleek, computerized automobiles and smartphones. Sadly, technology failed us with the Prius and SlimFast.

And who remembers '2001, A Space Odyssey?' Released in 1968, the movie predicted moon colonies, suspended animation, intelligent computers and personal video communication by 2001. It's 2011 and we have Watson and Skype. We went to the Moon in 1968 but haven't set up home yet.

Let's predict what will be remarkably unremarkable in 2029:

• Holographic television.
• Snap-on body parts
• Robots. (Why not?)
• Personal luminescence
• Wireless appliances
• Machine control via mental command
• Actual smartness food
• Auto [hair,teeth,skin] regeneration

What am I missing? Unleash your futuristic self!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Have you ever worked for an exceptional leader in your career? Did they have an emotional bond with their team? Was the team brilliant?

Hope. Vision, Empathy. Love. Yes, Love.

But fondness is okay. We'll take that.

And we can return it, too.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »