Ghosts of Horatio Alger

Given US Soccer’s euphoric victory over Algeria today, and the subsequent qualification for the World Cup Round of 16, I thought it was a good time to share a feature article I wrote for my recent class “Public Relations and Public Affairs from a European Perspective” that just concluded last week in Bologna, Italy.

re·al: English [ree-uhl, reel] – adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.

re·al: Spanish (ray-ahl] – adjective
Translation to English: Royal
1. of or pertaining to a king, queen, or other sovereign: royal power; a royal palace.

Real Madrid CF, based in Madrid, Spain, is one of the most powerful, lucrative and popular club sports teams in the world. It averages about 75,000 fans per game in attendance and pays it’s player an average equivalent of $6.2 million. The locals call the sport it participates in football.

Real Salt Lake, Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, is not one of the most powerful, lucrative and popular club sports teams in Utah*. That honor would go to the city’s National Basketball Association participate, the Utah Jazz , let alone on the international scene. It averages 16,000 fans per game in attendance and it pays its entire team $1.6 million. The locals call the sport it participates in soccer.

The definitions of “real” and its translated Spanish twin “royal” help explain the discrepancy in popularity and financial success between two clubs with ostensibly similar names. If you ask a Spanish speaking individual, with no knowledge of the club, what Real Madrid CF may be, the chance is strong that this person will deduce, simply from the clarity of the name “Royal Madrid Club of Futbol”, that it is the Madrid-based football club that has a perhaps self-aggrandizing, but historically significant (and, indeed, very real) tie to royalty.

If you ask an American individual, with no knowledge of the club, what Real Salt Lake may be, the chance is strong that the person will stare at you blankly, or perhaps, ask if it is some sort of extension of the Utah Tea Party. You see, there is nothing “real” about Salt Lake – in the context of either the Spanish or English – except for that fact that it does, despite what its average attendance may suggest, exist in some tangible context. The team is neither “royal” nor is it representing what it truly stands for, an American colloquialism called “keeping it real.”

Similarly, FC Dallas, the Texas-based soccer club, is not a football club, as the “FC” would suggest. Because Americans don’t call it football. They call it soccer. As any American with a beating pulse can tell you, the real football team** oh yeah, another thing: they call them “teams” and not “clubs” from Dallas is called the Cowboys. They’re nickname, it should be noted, is America’s Team.

As coomunications or public relations practioners, we think there is a message strategy solution to every issue, and usually we are right. But something that practitioners tend to overlook is that for a message to be effective, the issue itself needs to be sound***. Of course, as any practitioner can tell you, it is also something organizational officials in general tend to overlook – or flat out ignore . What US soccer is dealing with is an issue that can’t be resolved solely by messaging.

American soccer’s communicative message is clear: The worlds most popular game, here in the USA! This message is ineffective though, because the product is ineffective. Major League Soccer – the 17 year old professional league in the United States – has simply taken the aspects which make soccer popular throughout the world and apply that to an American public. But the American public already has their own popular games and their own culture that has developed within those games. They don’t want an imported culture, they want a fundamentally changed soccer that fits within the already established sports culture in the United States.

MLS is misguided to impose the European perspectives of soccer on Americans. American football, baseball and basketball thrive in the States specifically because they are wholly American games with wholly American personalities. While naming your team after an influential team abroad may gain international attention (or, more likely, snickers) it is simply not going to register with the new American publics you hope to persuade.

This is an important lesson in public relations**** as well as, clearly – and perhaps more appropriately – marketing that cuts both ways. An American practitioner would do well to keep the case of American soccer in mind when dealing with a new European public. Just as you can’t sell a European knockoff to an American, you are going to have a hard time approaching your European publics from an American perspective. What are the unique characteristics of your publics? How can you cultivate your issue or message so that it adapts to these lessons?

An insightful case study, keeping within the realm of sports, would be the way that basketball – a wholly American sport – has been accepted throughout Europe. The clubs have not imported Americanized names; there are no Madrid Bulls or Bologna Lakers. Perhaps more importantly FIBA, the European basketball governing body, has adapted the rules to emphasize the technical aspects of the game that suit the culture that has developed around soccer; namely fundamentals. They have communicated to their prospective publics that this isn’t the American game, this is a European one***** right down to the name FIBA, a clear parallel is drawn to the instantly recognizable soccer governing body, FIFA . From both a messaging standpoint and a practical standpoint, FIBA has done everything the MLS has not, and so basketball has thrived in a formerly hostile foreign climate.

Every four years at this time Americans read countless articles like this about the country’s resistance to the world’s most popular game. Either they’re on the cusp (this next generation has played soccer since they were 5; they’ll love it!) or they’ll never get (it’s not aggressive enough; it’s not American enough).

What’s over looked in these argument is that simple messaging is not enough. The youth soccer argument clearly points to excitement and even interest in the game. But cultural differences in how the game is presented and how it is communicated have prevented the US from fully embracing this foreign product. Not only does soccer in America need a technical overhaul that takes into account these cultural differences, but it needs a communications strategy that takes these very same differences into account. And that’s a lesson that should apply to all communication and public relations practitioners.

*That honor would go to the city’s National Basketball Association participate, the Utah Jazz

**oh yeah, another thing: they call them “teams” and not “clubs”

***Of course, as any practitioner can tell you, it is also something organizational officials in general tend to overlook – or flat out ignore

****as well as, clearly – and perhaps more appropriately – marketing

***** right down to the name FIBA, a clear parallel is drawn to the instantly recognizable soccer governing body, FIFA

Rome, Rome, Rome, Rome,
Focus looking forward the Colosseum
Oh no, what did I say? What can I say?
Rome, Rome, many tears have fallen here
I’ll be driving, you look the other way
- Phoenix, Rome

It’s unfortunate, but typical, that I haven’t reflected on the past month in Italy until today – my final day in this beautiful and complex country. I walked through the archeological site of ancient Rome between the Modern Capitol and the Ancient Colosseum and came to the Arcade at its Western edge – with its panoramic view of the city and the ever present St. Peter’s Cathedral. The view provided a reference point for past month; an exciting, educational and unique experience in a country I have always dreamt of visiting.

It rained, of course. Which is fine. Some of my better final days have been marked by rain. It’s good. It makes one considerate. Every step counts; every action has implications. The rain adds a touch of melancholy that increases nostalgia and serves reflection well.

The sight of the Roman hillside, rolling and populated, is awash with the legacy of the Mediterranean. The topography perfectly encapsulates my vision of this area of the world, from that which I’ve seen (Tangiers; Malaga) to that which I hope to one day see (Athens; Istanbul; Jerusalem).

And it’s just now that I realize this trip is more than just a check in the box of world sites. It was an opportunity to learn, grow and advance – experientially, romantically, educationally – as a person on the whole.

While it appears I’ll be heading back to Europe in just one month, I still acknowledge and appreciate what this trip has meant. It marks a new chapter in my life (many new pictures, really). My first big adventure since leaving the security of my job (as well as the first big adventure with a new person in my life). But as the final class of my graduate studies, it is also the end of a chapter.

And so I sit on a bench, overlooking both Rome’s past and present, and see the cranes of construction that mark its future. And I can’t help but to see the parallels. Italy is my present; it marks just how far I’ve come, but also just how far I have left to go.

I’m currently in Bologna, Italy, taking a class called “Public Relations and Public Affairs from a European Perspective.” This is a cross-post from our class blog.

Perhaps one of the strongest messages our esteemed professor has stressed is that there is not a single European perspective.  There is a European Union, sure, but it is no where near a One Nation movement towards a United Europe that a communications professional can approach strategically.

In fact, in many of these countries, there isn’t even one nation. For example, I’ll point to the elections this past weekend in Belgium. A Flemish separatist party became Belgium’s largest on a platform calling for reform of French and Dutch speaking factions that, if not resolved, will result in the Dutch faction splintering off.

[New Flemish Alliance Leader Bart De Weaver] has made no secret of his belief that this is only a step to full Flemish independence, but his genius was to position himself as the most radical of the mainstream leaders, pushing the status quo as far as it can possibly go without triggering an existential crisis. He dangled before Flemish voters the idea that, armed with a thumping mandate from them, he would have the power to demand a constitutional structure that finally reflected the Flemish view of reality: that Belgium is made up of two societies, in which a thrifty, centre-right, Dutch-speaking north should no longer have to subsidise a poorer, welfare addicted French-speaking, socialist south.

Internal division rearing its head seems to be a trend. In elections last week  Slovakia produced moderate gains for their center-right parties, but produced a huge backlash of nationalism. Jan Slota, the head of the country’s nationalist party warned that “Homosexuals and Hungarians will begin to rule this state.” Similarly, Geert Wilders anti-Islam Freedom party showed strong gains in a recent election that nearly ended with the controversial extremist who wants to end all Islamic immigration to the Netherlands in a prominent ministerial position.

To keep with the tone of personal experience we have flourishing on this blog, I’ll point to three examples I have seen in the three weeks I have been in Italy.  In Florence, my travel companion and I were approached in a butcher shop by a woman who began a long and protracted declaration- in Italian – of the heartbreaking sadness she has witnessed in Florence over the past two decades.

My companion – who understands Italian quite well – and myself – who does not – can conceivably pass as Italian, so we nodded our heads politely and added the occasionally sympathetic “si” and “perche?” Afterwords, my companion explained that the woman complained that the tourists and foreigners have taken her once beautiful city and overrun and destroyed it – with graffiti, excrement and general filth.

At a hotel along my journey the proprietor explained a run-in with a German customer. “From now on, no Germans. No!”

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, I add a simple observation. Who are the beggars is Italian cities? I have seen no obvious Italians – only Indians, Africans and Roma (Gypsies to be un-PC). I found this startling.

Contrast this with the homeless or those asking for money in the United States. It is largely African American and Caucasian. I can not, for the life of me, ever remember an instance of a Hispanic, Asian or African asking for money in the United States.

My observation is that immigrants (both legal and illegal) have a status in the US that doesn’t appear to transfer to Italy. And their presence in Italy seems to put a strain on traditional Italians.

Now, any good sociologist will tell you that the plural of anecdote is not data. And I’ll agree. But this is a trend. And taken with the political gains (votes, however, are quantifiable) in Belgium, Slovakia and the Netherlands it adds up to a very real and very significant problem that must be taken into account when dealing with Europe from a public relations standpoint.

It would appear that there isn’t one Italy, one Belgium, one Slovakia or one Netherlands. So how could there possibly be one Europe. If there isn’t one Europe, there certainly isn’t one European Perspective.

So while I have learned a lot about Europe and its individual countries in this class, and a lot about public relations and corporate communication, I can honestly say that I haven’t learned a lot about the European perspective on anything (short of football). Except that it is more intricate and has vastly more layers than the countries themselves. And maybe that’s the lesson after all.

This is a cross-post from Dust Of Europe, which is now the official blog for our story, documentary and travel. Feel free to follow along there as well, or add it to your RSS Reader!

In a previous update, I mentioned that Mike had contacted a number of names associated with Turiysk through the geneology website Jewishgen.org. Mike has made some great progress with this effort, and a number of people from Turiysk – living in both America and Israel – shared their stories with us. The tales exemplify the precarious location of Turiysk in the period ranging from World War I to World War II.

As a borderland, the town and neighboring villages were under constant siege and the threat of violence was always close at hand. Through one response we have reason to believe that the village at one point was completely destroyed, then resurrected just across the Turia River. We plan on following up with these stories, hopefully conducting some interviews for the documentary.

Another respondent pointed us to this website, established by former residents of Turiysk and their offspring who have emigrated to Israel. From the site, we learn that Turiysk first appeared in 1094, as a small community built by Jews along the Turia River. The location, it seems, was under constant siege, being occupied at least six times, by six different neighboring countries. During World War I, the Germans occupied Turiysk – but as we’ll see in just a moment, it may have been a less aggressive occupation.

Post

Synagogue in Turiysk

One story we want to share, that particularly stood out, was that of Bathshava Chizik Landau. The story of Shava – as she was know – was relayed to us by her granddaughter Estelle Hardin. According to Estelle, Shava lived in Turiysk from her birth in 1886 until immigrating to the United States in 1920 – the same year Joseph returned to Turysk. Shava’s amazing story occurred during World War I, in 1915 or 1916. While we haven’t established factual verification of this story, it is a tale that is too good not to tell. And I’ll let Estelle handle it:

At some point during the First World War, there was word that the German army was on the edge of town, and they were threatening to invade and advance on the town of Turiysk. The mere thought put fear in the hearts of the people. The town’s people decided to hold a meeting to discuss what to do. It was decided that they needed to elect a spokesperson to represent their town. The only people left in town during WW I were elderly men, women, and young children. This spokesperson would have to go alone, and be the sole representative on behalf of the entire town. He or she would have to walk alone to the far edge of town, and would have to be brave enough to speak to the invading German commander and try to convince them to leave their town alone, without so much as being able to carry a gun for protection.

My paternal grandmother, Shava Chizik Landau was about 28 years old at the time. She was the one who was chosen by the town’s people to be that stoic spokesperson. Since Shava was considered the strongest woman in town (personality-wise as well as physically) the town’s people felt that she could stand up to the German soldiers and convince them to leave their town alone; she was the one chosen. Knowing full well that she was the sole support of her children, and she could have been killed on the spot, she accepted the challenge with full knowledge she would not be armed; yet she never feared.

Shava Landau with son Sam Landau, 1945 (courtesy Estelle Landau Hardin)

When the day came, she was ready. She plowed ahead, walking along lonely dirt roads to the far edge of town with a strong determination to save the town–her town and her family–from the German army and keep them from overrunning and destroying it. She had to walk through the German lines and come face to face to talk with the military commander, and try to convince them to bypass the town. She knew that getting the opportunity to communicate with them was risky, but necessary.

Because German and Yiddish language were so similar, when Shava stood face to face with the German commander, she accomplished her mission–she talked the Germans out of advancing on their town. As she spoke with the German soldiers, they were able to understand her. She informed the Germans that the people left in Turiysk were no threat, and not worth bothering. Since there were no Russian troops left in their town–and it was just a simple little village, with only a few remaining people, she pleaded for them to be left alone. She had chutzpah! There is no record of the exact words that Shava spoke as she talked with the German commander, but somehow she was successful; indeed. She was a hero; she saved the town. Shava new no fear at any time in her life! She was “some kind of woman!”

Some kind of woman, indeed. And a testament to the sad – yet inspiring? – history of this area. Mike and I are learning a lot about this area, this situations it endured and the people it produced. We hope to continue to learn and receive more excellent feedback that helps to not only construct our story, but learn more about a significant era and area of world history, as well as Mike’s personal familial past.

Aside from the hub-bub surrounding you know what*, I’m simultaneously prepping for a month-long trip to Italy.

I’m taking a two week course in Bologna on Public Relations and Corporate Communications in the EU. We had our first meeting last weekend and the course looks to be informative and exciting (follow our class blog here).

But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t psyched for the non-class aspect of my trip. Beforehand I plan to visit Venice, Florence and spend a few nights in Tuscany. I’ve never been to Italy, and, honestly, I think what I’m most looking forward to is the food.

So World Hum caught my eye today with an enticing piece by travel writer Rick Steves on his gluttonous trip to Verona. In that piece, Steves asks only the tough questions:

Giuliano brings a plate of various cold cuts—glistening in a way that lets you know it’s nothing but the best—and we ponder: If you had to choose between salami and cheese in life, which would you choose? We both agree that it would be a terrible choice, but we’d choose cheese.

I think I could live off of cold cuts, cheese and wine. Actually, I’m sure I could live off of just one of the three – any one. But I’m damn glad I won’t have to make a choice like that posed by Steves.

*Speaking of which, stay tuned the next few days. I’m heading up to Ellis Island for a research trip tomorrow to shoot some video, collect some interviews and take some photos. Obviously I’ll try to post some of that here.

It should be noted that one of the more helpful aspects of a publicly funded writing project is that those who contribute feel a responsibility for the success of the project. One of my motivations for using Kickstarter – aside from, ya know, getting people to pay for me to write – was that it creates a sense of community around a project and a sense of accountability to that public to write the screenplay and write it well. So it is both unsurprising and welcomed when people send us emails with thoughts, ideas and information relevant to the project.

A family member of Mike’s passed along this 2000 Cincinnati Enquirer piece on a man from Turijsk, Ukraine – the same town as Joseph that we hope to visit. Samuel Boymel encountered a situation similar to Joseph Kershner, albeit 20 years later, when he witnessed the death of 12,500 Jews, including his family, at the hands of German soldiers and Ukrainian militia and police

“Loif, mine kindt, loif,” he said, repeating the words his mother shouted to him when he was 12. Translated, it means “Run, my son, run away.”

It was Aug. 23, 1942, when 6,000 Jews were being marched by Ukrainian police and militia and German soldiers to the Walner brick factory, near the town of Kovel in Ukraine.

“As we were turned uphill to a dirt path, panic broke. There were screams because all of us believed we were being marched to our ultimate destiny,” Mr. Boymel said.

He ran into Rostov Forest in the town of Rostov, about nine miles away. That was the last time he saw his family.

On that day, 6,000 Jews from Turijsk and 6,500 from the nearby village of Shtetis were executed. He spent much of his life from 1942 to 1945 on the run, sleeping in pig pens and cattle barns. He said he was given food by a Ukrainian farmer and his daughter, and that a Ukrainian soldier helped him escape.

While Boymel’s horrifying experience was not directly related to Joseph’s, it does exemplify the type of acts commited against Jews in Eastern Europe that can rattle ones faith in humanity and beyond … though it should be noted that the same spirit that led Joseph to risk his life and the many individuals who helped Boymel escape does its part to restore that shaken faith.

It is, indeed, incidents like Boymel’s and Joseph’s that led to this Economist designed redrawn map of Europe. (via Kottke)

In Britain’s place should come Poland, which has suffered quite enough in its location between Russia and Germany and deserves a chance to enjoy the bracing winds of the North Atlantic and the security of sea water between it and any potential invaders.

It’s the sort of sublime reality that, perhaps, you can only laugh at the accuracy of. But this history emphasizes the indomitable of someone like Joseph Kershner, who clearly must have recognized the historical odds he faced in returning to a land and legacy he had done his best to cast off, and why his story is all the more compelling.

This is a crosspost from my Kickstarter screenwriting project. You can visit the project here.

Dear Kickstarter,

Two weeks into this, both Mike and I have to admit, we are surprised, excited and grateful. With 71 days to go and over 40% funding, it is hard not to be. The outpouring of support – not only in terms of giving but also who has given – has been overwhelming. Our very first supporter was my High School prom date! I’ll thank Facebook for that (and Erin, of course. Thanks!). We’ve received donations from a couple Mike has not even seen since his Bar Mitzvah. And while my Hebrew is non-existent, I do know that a Mitzvah is a good deed, and Mike and I consider each donation as a deed we will repay – with a finished screenplay and a documentary to boot!

Since the project has been progressing here on Kickstarter so splendidly, perhaps you’d like to hear how it is progressing offline as well. We’re both finishing up some other projects right now, but I have been spending a considerable amount of my personal time researching Poland in general and writing. We’re feeding new ideas off of each other constantly and meet up on G-Chat a few times a week to share our thoughts and develop the individual scenes.

It’s strange where inspiration comes from. Mike sent me a text message in the middle of the night with an idea for a visualization of how Israel Horder’s important letter reaches Joseph. It’s a damn good idea and I don’t have the foggiest clue how Mike came up with it.

I was in a Grad class two weeks ago and a visiting lecturer made an off-hand comment about the American view of history. It jarred something loose in my head and, right there in class, I scribble 5 pages of thoughts and dialogue for one of the most important scenes in the entire film.

So the story is developing and we are moving closer to our goal. What’s next is a trip to New York to meet with some of the records organizations Mike’s grandfather contacted when he first began putting this story together. Mike contacted Jewishgen.org, an organization that traces Jewish genealogies throughout Europe and may be helpful with gathering research. We also plan to visit Ellis Island to shoot some preliminary video and to visit a plaque engraved with Joseph’s name. It’s all very exciting to us – and hopefully you too. And don’t worry, we’ll be sure to keep you updated here on Kickstarter.

For those of you who have given, know that it fills our hearts with joy, our bodies with fortitude and our minds with ideas. Thank you for your support so far, wish us luck going forward and – with almost 60% left to go – tell your friends!

Yours in inspired satisfaction,
Zack Sherwood
Washington DC
May 3, 2010

There’s kinda this Grand Theory of Social Economy that exists in terms of the rise of social networking and the internet that has been touched on in books like The Long Tail and Here Come’s Everybody and recent article’s like Doree Shafir’s New York piece this week. No one has really put it out there, in full, yet and it is something that escapes my inexperienced and inadequately prepared comprehension of it. But I’m going to try to wrap my thought process around it anyway. We’ll see how this goes.

At the heart of this social economy is the the web (more accurately, perhaps, digital technology), which redefining long-held economic structures. An example of this is digital (e)books. The economics of the publishing industry developed under conditions such that pricing was based on physical production of a hard (or paper) bound physical object (less writer’s fees, agent fees, editors, advertising, etc., etc) that had to be stored, shipped and either sold in stores or delivered to the home. Digital technology has led to a profligacy of digital book editions which remove the economic costs of the physical product. reproduction is as easy as a click and shipping is as easy as a download button. But the publishing industry cannot seem to grasp how this upends their world. That is, they cannot come to terms with the core principal on which their entire industry rests: How much do we charge for this product?

(Now, that’s not to say that the printed book industry is going to disappear. It isn’t. But one has to concede that the “publishing” industry need to at least recognize that the market is shifting in a new, digitally dominated direction)

And no one within the industries themselves seem prepared to answer these questions. No one really seems invested enough to step back and say, we need to tear this whole thing down and start from scratch. It’s a lazy approach, but the motivation not to change is probably more fear than laziness. As Shirky points out: “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”

So what seems to be happening – and I’ll use the tired case of the newspaper – is that these institutions are failing. They cannot (or will not) reassess their situation, will not tear it down to start again, so they are, then, inadvertently tearing themselves down. And in their place step the startups that Shafir aptly profiles.

At the same time, we have a more social atmosphere on the web. The explanation for this is simple diffusion theory. That is, ideas and technology spread through a society through social networks and interpersonal communication. Facebook spread so quickly for this very reason. Your friends are on it, therefore you are on it. The same can be said of Foursquare, Tumblr or Kickstarter. These organizations use existing social networks to propagate their platform and spread it through society. At the same time, the users capitalize on their social networks for economic transactions.

I’ll point to the case of Kickstarter because a) it’s an excellent example and b) I have experience using it. Shafir writes (with my emphasis added):

When I went to Kickstarter, the projects that were seeking funding included everything from a documentary on Asian-elephant conservation and a project that will cover the funding to send journalist Ted Rall to Afghanistan to a pair of Brooklynites who make artisanal soda. People can put up whatever they want, and the people behind the projects agree to give their funders something from the venture. So if you give $10 to the artisanal-soda folks, you get a coupon for two free sodas, but if you give $50, you’ll get a printed tote bag, a mix CD, a coupon for four free sodas, and a handprinted card with one of their soda recipes. Give more than $500 to Rall and you’ll get personally thanked in the acknowledgments section of his book plus signed copies. People set a funding goal for their projects, and funders don’t get charged unless a project reaches its goal. It’s a way of not only encouraging creativity but also making consumers feel more connected to the things they buy. (Kickstarter takes a commission of 5 percent of all projects that get funded.) The biggest project funded so far was for $85,000 for a book of Obama-campaign images, Designing Obama, by Scott Thomas, the campaign’s design director.

“The value is in the exchange,” says 33-year-old Chen, when we go down the block to Schiller’s for a snack. Chen looks like a surfer, with shoulder-length black hair; he wore a navy hooded sweatshirt over a T-shirt. Born and raised in New York, he spent a few years in New Orleans and still owns a house there. “I think that’s how you create an economy, and a commercial market that is sustainable, rather than seeing donor fatigue enter into it.”

Chen sees the power in returning control to the creative producer, the way it could upend much of the way culture is produced. “If you’re in music and you have a record label, if you’re in fashion and you work for a studio, you are giving up the mass bulk of your intellectual property right off the bat,” he says. “And with Kickstarter, you keep 100 percent of your own intellectual property.”

Kickstarter is an economic platform in and of itself. It’s a marketplace for ideas, essentially, where projects are both funded and sold. A successful Kickstarter project is a project that connects with what Kevin Kelly calls the 1,000 true fans.

A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson, performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author – in other words, anyone producing works of art – needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living.

A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can’t wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans.

So Kickstarter offers a potential platform to gather your 1,000 True Fans and enter into an economic transaction. You aren’t just asking them to give you money so that they can create your work. You are offering your work to them in return. They key isn’t to say “give me $500 to make my documentary so I can become rich and famous.” The key is to say “give me $25 and I’ll make then give you this documentary that otherwise wouldn’t exist.” And therein lies the social aspect of the economy.

So the Social Economy is less about replacing economic structures as creating a new column. This is something that get’s overlooked in the hype and hubbub over the next great technology. There are always going to be Blockbuster Films (I mean, maybe not forever and ever and ever, but you know what I mean). But what we see is the rise of the niche for people to create products which heretofore wouldn’t have existed and to actually make a living and a profit from those products. And these niche products have more of a chance than ever of jumping into the mainstream, because they rely on social networks. That which built the project will also spread the project.

Through an interesting set of circumstance worthy of its own post, I came into possession recently of a perfectly functioning Minolta X-370 SLR camera. Since I’ve decide to embark on some travelling during my newly found, uh, freedom from work obligations, I thought it would be fun and exciting to get more involved in photography. But since funds are low and tied up in other projects I wanted a cheap, amateur solution, and the X-370 is a good, cheap solution for beginners.

Then, last weekend, as I was wondering around DC I ended up in a used book store. By pure happenstance I came across a section on photography and sticking half-way out of the shelf was The Amateur Photographer’s Handbook (6th Edition) by Aaron Sussman. Now, the book is 48 years old, but it was in pretty good condition and just 6 bucks, so I picked it up. It’s a pretty useful little book, contains excellent insight and is endearingly quirky in it’s prose. Sussman’s passion over photography really comes through in wonderfully descriptive metaphors.

One day you’re walking around grim and growling, like Herman Melville just before an escape to sea. Then, suddenly, you have a loaded camera in your hand and all is well.

Which, you know, is 100% correct … and encouraging!

I’m glad I picked up the book, though, because after my first roll of film it’s clear I have some learning to do. (This is a lie. It’s actually my third roll of film. The first I accidentally re-coiled back into the roll before taking one shot, and the second I neglected to properly press the release button, split it in half, and then exposed it to sunlight while figuring the former out. Blagh!) I thought I wasn’t too-bad a photographer with my Canon Elph and my iPhone, but my suppose-to-be rich and colorful shots of DC’s famed Cherry Blossums turned out faded and pale.

Then yesterday I saw this chart, and all was clear; I definitely have a long way to go.

Leaving a secure and well paying job was not an easy decision. But I had interests that I wanted to pursue and tethered to a desk 10 hours a day was no way to go about accomplishing them. When I left I didn’t have any concrete plans, but I had a few ideas that I hoped to quickly turn into goals and definite projects.

Today I am happy to announce my first project: Mike and Zack’s Righteous Journey.

My good friend Mike Kershner and I are writing a screenplay telling the true story of his Great Grandfather, a Polish-Jewish Immigrant in America in the first few decades of the 20th Century. One day, Joseph returned home from his successful tailoring business to find a letter from his wife’s family back in Poland. Jews at the time were targets of Pogroms, their family was no exception and they were now hiding out to avoid persecution. They needed Joseph to come save them.

It’s a beautiful story filled with determination, grit, sacrifice and love. And we’re going to write about it. Kickstarter is a super-cool microfinance community that allows writers, film makers, artists, photographers and other creative types to realize their dreams. I say a community, because each contributor becomes a part of the project. They share in the success and receive “rewards” for different donation points. Each project gets from 30-90 days to raise a specific amount of funding … if it fails to reach it’s target in the allotted time, the project does not go forward and the donation is never charged.

I’ve participated in a few Kickstarter projects in the past, and I can say that it is very rewarding to receive a copy of a book from someone who put it all on the line, quit their job and dedicated their life to one of their goals. That’s what I’m doing, and I can appreciate the type of risk something like this is.

So, if you have the time, head on over to Kickstarter and check it out. Maybe you’ll find a way to become a part of a project that resonates with you, or maybe, like me, you’ll find the inspiration to follow your own dream.

But for now:

There’s a whole new audience out there, and it’s never been easier to sell it, particularly at the lower levels. You don’t have to go to college, drag ’round a portfolio, mail off transparencies to snooty galleries or sleep with someone powerful. All you need now is a few ideas and a broadband connection.

- Banksy

Let’s hope so …

As I’ve occasionally mentioned here I recently left my career as video producer to devote my time to various writing projects. I’m trying to put together a few small projects and one potentially large project that I intend to discuss here as they advance.

Of course, simply leaving a reasonably well-paying gig for unemployment with no immediate income and virtually zero savings is a huge risk, and in the realm of options that I faced, was probably ill-advised. But I sincerely felt that it was the best way to narrow my focus to the projects I really cared about and that it would inevitably increase my productivity.

See, I had a routine for the past year that included – when the schedule permitted – getting up at 6, hitting the coffee shop to write/read/work on personal projects, head to work for 10 or so hours, then return home for an hour two of reading or writing before bed. Considering I was working full time and pursuing a graduate degree at night, this was really the only viable option to get anything done. So I assumed, as I approached my decision to quit, that I would continue this routine while substituting work on these new projects for the 10 hours of producing work.

The problem is that less than two weeks into this adventure I haven’t really accomplished anything.

What I’ve found is that working for yourself requires a very intense degree of focus and determination. When you are accountable only to yourself, it becomes much harder to find motivation to get things done. I’m now sleeping later. I’ve watched more TV and movies in the past two weeks than I had in all of 2010. Sometimes, I just sit around and do nothing at all. I’ve read less and produced less writing than I did while working full time.

I’m aware of it now, and that is a good thing. Late last week, I became very discouraged with my situation. I was frustrated that I wasn’t able to motivate myself. But self-reflection has helped. As has the realization that I need to impose a structure for myself. I’ve never been a particularly short-term goal-oriented person. The big picture was enough to get me through whatever task was at hand. That has changed. I now set multiple goals per day, determining a reasonable amount of time each day to accomplish each goal. And so far it has helped.

Going forward I still have doubts and fears about how my situation will turn out. Don’t get me wrong, I have confidence in myself – especially in the knowledge that if these projects fail to receive the proper funding or produce the expected financial return I have experience and a Master’s degree to fall back on. But there is still the overwhelming threat that this is the one big shot I’ll have to put my life and career in the direction that I’ve always wanted. And if that cannot serve as motivation enough, if that cannot provide the accountability to myself that produces my best effort, then perhaps I never deserved the success I envisioned for myself anyway.

…but you can REALLY hit them.

President Obama seems to be moving away from potential ballistic missile child abuse with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Some aren’t so sure about it. But, since the text of the treaty will not be released until it is signed later today, let’s do some speculating!

In an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, questions were raised about potential problems (provided the treaty says what they heard it says) in accounting (they know their audience) for disarmament,

For example, there are reportedly 76 Russian strategic bombers, and each one apparently can carry from six to 16 nuclear weapons (bombs and cruise missiles). Nevertheless, and unlike under the Moscow Treaty, these many hundreds of nuclear weapons would count as only 76 toward the 1,550 ceiling. Consequently, the New START Treaty includes the potential for a large increase in the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, not a reduction.

The same article goes on to point out that, while the US may have to reduce strategic delivery vehicles (like missile silos), concomitant Russian reductions would merely amount to getting rid of things they were already going to throw out.

Along similar lines, an article from February of this year, that appeared on the website of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which faulted President Obama’s requested increase in nuclear weapons spending. This article points out a statement from last July committing the US and Russia to between 1,500 and 1,675 deployed strategic warheads – which is what we are getting, but cautions that this is not much of a commitment.

Total arsenal numbers wouldn’t change, so strategic warheads could be taken from deployment and placed in a reserve–de-alerted, in effect. The treaty wouldn’t affect nonstrategic warheads. It wouldn’t require dismantlement. As Hans Kristensen at the Federation of American Scientists has explained, the delivery vehicle limits require little, if any, change from U.S. and Russian expected deployments.

As I pointed out, this was written in February (top marks for foresight) and consequently may or may not address what we actually get tomorrow. In any case, moving warheads to reserve status is still a START (get it?). The basics of a nuclear exchange, as explained by Austin Millbarge, or the even shorter estimates of Wikipedia, would give you very little time to deploy reserve warheads before your opponent’s missiles  knocked out most of your nuclear arsenal. So in effect, other than the odd shot that gets off later, most of the damage would be done in the initial exchange (note: I’m basing that purely on conjecture, but it sounds logical – right?).

Another issue that will surely be addressed is missile defense. We love the idea of it, however improbable. It’s the national security equivalent of an SUV. Sure it costs more, and offers much more limited capabilities than we like to think, but it’s nice to know you could drive off-road, or win a nuclear war.

I think a lot of people do understand the limitations of this system; it couldn’t stop 1,500 warheads, and the Russians know that. And I think most of its supporters really are concerned Kim Jong Il might take a couple of potshots at us; or even just hold, say, San Francisco hostage during some future crisis. But the reason this scares the Russians so much is because of the arguments outlined a couple of years ago in a fascinating article in Atlantic Monthly,

So a realistic counterforce plan might assign four warheads to each silo. The U.S. would “cross-target” the missiles, meaning that the warheads on each missile would each go to different silos, so that a silo would be spared only if many missiles malfunctioned. Even assuming that 20 percent of missiles malfunctioned—the standard, conservative assumption typically used by nuclear analysts—there is a 97 percent chance that every Chinese DF-5 silo would be destroyed in a 4-on-1 attack. (By comparison, a similar attack using Cold War–era Trident I missiles would have produced less than a 1 percent chance of success. The leap in American counterforce capabilities since the end of the Cold War is staggering.)

Though this article is primarily concerned with China, much of it is applicable to Russia. The overall point is, with a little luck and absolutely no regard for human life, we could potentially win a nuclear war if we struck first. Missile defense would come in to protect us from any straggler missiles that happened to somehow limp through the initial onslaught. The Russians know this, and they don’t like the idea of that kind of imbalance, so at the very least they want to be able to do some damage.

Speaking of North Korea, I’m sure there will be plenty of political grandstanding about things that are in no way germane to the issue at hand. Here’s some now,

“We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea,” according to a statement issued Tuesday by Arizona’s two Republican U.S. senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl. “The Obama Administration’s policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other would be proliferators and supporters of terrorism.”

Sadly, the late Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was unavailable for comment. But I think it is important to acknowledge statements like this (and by acknowledge I mean ridicule). At a time when President Obama is trying to limit the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world (while still leaving more than enough to kill every living thing – even most of the cockroaches – in both North Korea and Iran) these two are suggesting a more provocative stance on a completely separate topic.

Of course nuclear proliferation, especially to terrorists is a significant problem, and in part (a small part) this treaty is meant to limit that possibility. But if terrorism is all you have to say about an arms reduction treaty with Russia, you’re sorely missing the point. It’s like that one dumb guy everyone knows, who doesn’t know much: he’s always trying to steer the conversation back around to that one thing he thinks he knows something about just so he has something to say.

Nuclear combat toe to toe with the Ruskis is, of course, not as big a concern as it once was. However, for people so concerned with things like missile defense, on the off chance a paranoid dictator whose only concern is his own power and security, might – in a hilarious twist – have a death wish; it seems odd that they wouldn’t want to remove that ultimate temptation of fate that we’ve only narrowly avoided so many times.

The Millions Edan Lepucky takes a bold, unprecedented, unheard of and life-altering risk. Quitting Facebook and Twitter!!!!11!!11!:

I realized, too, how much news I was getting from Twitter. I have never read the newspaper on a daily basis; I’d much rather listen to NPR, or read long-form magazine articles, or, as I did increasingly over the last year, get linked to news from people I follow online, journalists and novelists and poets who keep up with current events far better than I ever could. A month into my detox, I was clueless–not just about the latest restaurant or movie, but about the new turn in the health care debate, for instance. I’d felt like this once before, when my husband and I got rid of cable, and effectively, television-watching. The level of my family’s discourse often centers around the best new television commercials (I always wanted to be raised by professors, discussing Marxism and whatnot, but as my father would say, “People in hell want ice water.”) In the post-television days, I remember feeling a vague alienation whenever these conversations began, my sister waxing poetic about the latest Volkswagen ad, everyone else nodding. During my internet detox, I began to feel this way a lot, and not just with my family, but with my friends, too. All conversations seemed to begin with, “Did you see on Facebook…” I was suddenly an outsider, and I felt equal parts annoyed, superior and wistful.

Which, Exactly! As much as people deride the always-on-media, and as much as annoying-as-hell social media gurus and mavens (even typing that made me vomit!) try to exploit these websites, social networks are an intricate part of how we live our lives. The internet has simply extended the fabric of our daily lives online.

As much as I don’t need to know what my college roommate had for lunch, I am very interested in his thoughts about Donovan McNabb’s trade to Washington. And speaking of that trade, as a rabid Eagles fan, I didn’t find out about it from ESPN or The700Level, I found out about it from a friend. Really, this is part of a two-step flow of communication. Media may be the source of information, but social networks are the channels through which the majority of the world receives their information.

So perhaps its time we just accepted the reality of networks like Facebook and Twitter. Granted, the systems aren’t perfect (for instance, the tracking/listing/numbering of followers or friends is a distracting and status-stressing metric that is wholly unnecessary). But they also are advancing our ability to learn and expose ourselves to new information and knowledge.

In the end, Lepucki’s journey ends much the way of Thoreau’s or, perhaps, Christopher McCandless‘ does; With self-expulsion from the social aspects of our society in the name of some unachievable and contrived “mystery and privacy.” The resolution has become predictably irritating, reflecting a cliched superiority for the conventions of “life unplugged.” But really, the unplugged myth is as old as social networks themselves, and will sadly be around just as long. Like Farmville status updates, it’s just something we’re going to have to live with.

Frontline’s episode on Haiti, “The Quake,” was very good. The program, I thought, did an serviceable job of establishing the context of Haiti’s situation pre-quake as well as the problems that may (and likely will) arise in the aftermath. Would I have liked to see more than a one-minute overview of America’s historical legacy with Haiti? Probably. But, hey, it’s a one hour program. And when you have the visuals that they had of the quake and its aftermath you’re going to have to make some sacrifices to fit in all the relevant content.

The program’s real strength lies in the effort of Martin Smith and the Frontline crew in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Aside from heartbreaking video of the vast devastation, the show portrays the shear magnitude of the logistical problems that arise from such an event. Revealing video of makeshift hospitals, on the spot conversations with frustrated doctors – using Motrin and Advil when Morphine is needed – and following the perspicacious but frantic effort of nurses to help whomever they can, Smith and his crew show just how all-encompassing, dire and at times hopeless the earthquake was.

I whole-heartedly recommend watching the program in full … and finding whatever way you can to help with the continuing relief. This is a story that does not deserve to fall out of our national consciousness.

Ed’s Note: I have a contributor. Gentleman Jack will be writing here, too. But less often and with more substance/opinion. -zack

In this weekend’s Times Nick Kristof tackles the revelation that boys are doing worse in school than girls. Here’s my unscientific two cents as to why. As a male whose academic record easily fits into the problems addressed in the article, the following will rely on neither legitimate research nor any expertise beyond my own life experience. Kristof writes:

Many theories have been proposed. Some people think that boys are hard-wired so that they learn more slowly, perhaps because they evolved to fight off wolves more than to raise their hands in classrooms. But that doesn’t explain why boys have been sinking in recent decades.

Mr. Whitmire argues that the basic problem is an increased emphasis on verbal skills, often taught in sedate ways that bore boys. “The world has gotten more verbal,” he writes. “Boys haven’t.”

I’ll address the second point first. I am bad at reading. I read very slowly and usually have to actively concentrate in order to keep my mind from drifting off mid-page (which I don’t realize until the bottom of the page, and then have to backtrack). I didn’t read a single book that was assigned in high school. At best I skimmed through, or made broad philosophical points based on another student’s comments. My problem was far less being discouraged by reading, than being discouraged from doing school work in general.

I was never one of the “bad” kids, but like many boys (and occasionally some girls) I was highly energetic, and often got carried away. From an early age, my teachers would crack down in a harsh, and often embarrassing way on any disruptive behavior. This led, very early, to the basic lessons that 1) school is something to suffer through; and 2) if you want to stay out of trouble, do not move or speak, and even think twice before you ask a question – lest you be chastised for not paying attention. The result was not only a disinterest in school work, but hostility toward performing well, or doing much of anything. Generally, I equated any serious effort with capitulating to oppression. The problem was perceived by teachers as one of motivation (which it was) that could be fixed by negative reinforcement (which it could not, since that was the problem). So my aversion to school work began in elementary school, multiplied exponentially in junior high, cooled (but remained) in high school, and by the time I got to a more relaxed college environment, I was not likely to develop any great passion – or respect – for academic excellence. Though this was only my personal experience, I believe a lot of males can relate to it.

The question that is not addressed in this article at all, is why are girls successful? My impression of school and my youth generally was that as much as boys were punished, their misbehavior was so readily expected as to be accepted. Girls on the other hand, were expected, to behave, be pleasant, and do as they were told. When they failed to live up to this, rather than grudging acceptance they met with complete disapproval and ostracism from both teachers and students. While doing what one is told clearly yields a better academic performance, does this kind of system create thoughtful leaders and independent thinkers? Or does it merely encourage subservience and following orders?

It’s probably a coincidence that writer/blogger Eric Barker’s “Birthday thoughts” post came at the beginning of the first week of a new phase of my life, but maybe it’s not. I mean, I don’t particularly subscribe to synchronicity, but I do find it odd when I find something online that perfectly jibes with my life at that point. Barker reveals:

You know what happens when you do something every day for two hours? In 13 years you’re a Malcolm Gladwell “Outliers” genius at it. 13 years might seem like a long time looking forward, but try looking back. 13 years ago? Maybe not as long. Feels like I started this blog yesterday.

Let me get to the big point here: You are what you do all day.

What does all this research about your body adapting to circumstances tell us? You are what you do all day.

What does all this research about brain plasticity and rewiring tell us? You are what you do all day.

That probably scares the shit out of a lot of people. And it should.

What did you do today? Is that what you want to be a genius at in 13 years? Is that what you want to become?

Wednesday will be my last day at the only job I’ve had since I left college over 5 years ago. I don’t have another job lined up, but I have some plans. I’m working on a screenplay with a friend out in LA. I’m finishing up grad school and studying in Bologna this summer. I’m writing a piece on U.S. Public Diplomacy and our relationship with Haiti, and hope to visit and help out our much maligned Caribbean neighbor.

But through everything I am going to be writing. Because, to answer Eric’s questions, what I did today was write. What I want to be a genius at in 13 years is writing. And, yes, what I want to become is a writer.

One of the first books I ever read related to film was David Mamet’s “True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor“. I had recently watched “Glengarry Glen Ross” for the first time, and stumbled across the book in the clearance rack of some long-since forgotten bookstore for 75% off the cover price. I’m not sure why it was so cheap, because I certainly got a lot out of it.

My interests in acting didn’t linger long, and I’ve forgotten most of what Mamet discussed in the book. I do remember he called Stanislavsky an amateur and his “method” not a system, but a cult. I didn’t know what the hell that was at the time, but it was certainly funny, and ballsy (which is amusing, because when I emailed this memo to my writing partner, the first thing he replied with is “Ballsy”). I also remember Mamet’s authoritative, yet simplistic, voice. There isn’t a method, he argued, it really is just common fucking sense.

So, with all that said, I certainly wasn’t surprised when Mamet’s expletive laced, all-caps 2005 memo to the writer’s of TV’s “The Unit” surfaced. To Mamet, what he was arguing was, in fact, common sense. Since I’m re-focusing my writing efforts, for the time being, on writing a screenplay, a lot of what Mamet discusses regarding drama stands out. The whole memo is great, but this portion is what resonates with me:

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

In the wake of Health Care Reform passage, Josh Marshall made an observation about Beltway group think:

I was in DC last week. And I was again struck, as I used to be when I lived there (1999-2004), by the powerful group-think that affects the place. It’s really no different than you’d see in any other company town. But it’s pervasive and hard to escape. When I was training down I read an update from a campaign watcher whose work I normally greatly respect. He clearly believed that Health Care Reform was not only a catastrophe for Democrats but that the actual passage of the bill would have no political effect. According to him, we’re on pretty much a straight line between today and the November elections.

Marshall’s observation struck a resonant tone with me, as I just returned from a short trip to LA. As beautiful as that Santa Monica sunset up there is, LA is just as poisoned by it’s Industry group think as DC is with politics (and I’m sure NY is with Wall Street and SF with tech). I was only in town for 4 days to work on a screenplay, and while the inundation of actors, producers and production assistants was interesting in the short term, I think it would have negative consequences in my writing in the long term. I’ll be sure to head back, though, when i need to escape the beltway for some political writing .