The Apple and the Sandbox - Different Rules for Different Operators

Please folks bear with me as I attempt to set this discussion up.

I’m sure by this point we’ve all seen and read about the unfortunate picture of some of our warriors posing with the SS colors in Afghanistan.  If not you can gander and read about it here,  http://ow.ly/91hZq. 

I’m equally certain most of us have at least heard about Apple manufacturer Foxconn’s child slaves and “inhumane” working conditions; you can read about this fiasco here http://ow.ly/91i4y

And finally, this week our Air Force announced it plans to purchase 18,000 iPad2 for flight crew use, details here http://ow.ly/91iap.

So establishes the variables for my question.

How can America (our military and government - politicians and bureaucrats) investigate and probably punish those warriors who sacrifice everything for us, for posing in front of a flag representing torture, death and oppression?  While simultaneously that same military and government plans to hand over somewhere around $8,982,000 to an organization, Apple, that we know for a fact directly funds torture, death and oppression, of children no less?

Does this seem absolutely absurd, even within the context of the military and political bureaucracy, to anyone but me? It really seems like this is yet another instance of our political masters holding our troops to a standard they could never hope to nor even bother attempting to maintain in their own conduct?

I’m interested in your thoughts and insights?

GOOGLE’S SOCIAL MEDIA PLAY – OR – HOW FACEBOOK PANICKED AND KILLED SOCIAL MEDIA

So I’ve been reading the unending whining going on about FaceBook’s recent changes. My favorite, from a friend likening the New FB to New Coke; and if you remember that you’re both old and probably in marketing.

And I thought, hey I liked New Coke, holy crap does this mean I’m going to like the new FB?  Probably no danger of that, but I do feel bad for FB and you can quote me and mark this point in technology history… “This is the beginning of the end for FaceBook and maybe even the death of the socialized web as we know it.”

There I said it.  FACEBOOK is killing itself and this latest round changes are a symptom of the disease.

The changes are not going kill Facbook, but the fact they were scared, pushed, forced choose your excuse, and ultimately were willing to make these changes tell me FB has done a couple things that signal it no longer believes in itself.

First by responding to Google+ launch by making sweeping changes at launch tells me they fear Google far too much for their own survival and second, by allowing Google to dictate a change FB is surrendering its market leadership position to Google or anyone else with the digital balls to take it.

So there it is, Facebook helped create our present version and vision of social media and the socialized biosphere… it helped create a modern technology revolution no less significant than the World Wide Web itself.

And while no one can discount Google’s mad rise to power nor debate its willingness to wield and continue to acquire and hoard its information power, FaceBook was a social biosphere apex player… no one was above it and it had the power which can only come from numbers of real users.

So shame on you FB for surrendering to the Madness that is Google’s desire to gather, hoard and miserly distribute information to us, the poor wretched and huddled cyber-masses.

How Social is Too Social?

Yep, a good Social primer for the newbie, as in be afraid, be very afraid.  Take to heart the underlying message, be very careful in the social biosphere. Like any place promising huge rewards, there are tremendous risks to identify and manage within the social biosphere and you'll need to expect and prepare for a few bumps and brusies along the way.

To Know Your Audience, Is Not Necessarily to Love Them -- OR -- A Tale of Two Watches

It is important to have a clear picture of who and what you’re dealing with when considering any sort of social remodeling, building or engineering.  It’s unfortunate sometimes what we learn leaves us with a sinking feeling that all hope for the future is lost.

I can sum it all with the tale of two watches.  I met this week with a senior corporate executive from a VERY large company in the financial services sector.  It makes perfect sense they would go to a PR consultancy named, “Outlaw.”

I noticed a rather large and impressive, like $20k+ impressive, dive watch on the young exec’s wrist and I inquired if he was a fellow SCUBA diver, showing him my admittedly battered and aged Seiko Divemaster.  He huffed at my sub-par watch and informed me his watch was the BEST dive watch made and though he was not a diver he appreciated expensive, fine things.

I suppose that summed it up in a way no single person can sum up an entire generation’s philosophical leanings.  It’s all about the trophy for some folks.

My Divemaster has been in the mouth of a Bull Shark, fended off Barracuda, partially swallowed by a Wolf Eel (all while still attached to my wrist) and gently stroked the body of Humpbacked Whale and her Calf and, of course, ridden on the back of  several dolphins. 

To me this makes my Seiko Divemaster worth far more than Richie Rich's expensive dive watch could ever be simply because it’s real and it serves a true purpose and delivers value.  It never once left me gasping for air, literally, and has proved effective shark, barracuda and eel repellent while simultaneously attracting the most gentle of ocean going giants.

I may not agree with or like the worldview of everyone I encounter or work with… but understanding what motivates people is the air we breathe as PR pros and we need it, even when it tastes foul.

A Look Inside Congresswoman Lowey’s PR Machine – OR – How Messages Are Created

Have you ever wondered why we receive the messages we do from our politicians and what, if anything, determines the contents and timing of communications like Saturday’s email from Congresswoman Lowey?

If you live in NY’s 18^th Congressional District you may have received an email from Congresswoman Nita Lowey Saturday reminding us of the Congresswoman’s support for the Respect for Marriage Act, how much she enjoyed meeting with and looks forward to meeting more LGBT people and how discrimination and bullying have no place in our 18^th District.  

Notice she specifically highlights her support for anti-bullying efforts.  I’ve included a copy of the note from Congresswoman Lowey below.

So why did Congresswoman Lowey send this particular note on this particular Saturday and why choose to highlight support for bills that have been languishing in Congress for some time and for which her support has been previously announced and is well known. 

And most of all, why would a politician feel it necessary to draw specific attention to the fact they support anti-bullying initiatives?  Would you not assume Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey, NY 18^th District opposes bullying – doesn’t this seem like a no-brainer?

If you, like me, assumed Congresswoman Lowey opposed bullying, you would be wrong. Until this past week I did assume Congresswoman Lowey opposed bullying, bullies and all those who support them. But this simply is not true.

So why make a point of saying something specifically about bullying and why now?

I’m about to give you a rare look inside the PR machine that decided Congresswoman Lowey needed to make a specific statement about bullying on this specific day.

I’m 15+ year professional communicator and spent 10 years before that in tactical uniformed service, so I understand how the public relations machine works and I understand combat.

And make no mistake, much of the communications we receive from our elected representatives are part of larger political battles we never see and are never told we’re being drawn in to.

A tremendous amount of thought, effort, money and resources are invested in crafting these communications to constituents. They are designed to leave we the people, we the targets, with a very specific take-away message. 

Such is the case with Saturday’s email from Congresswoman Lowey.  The communication is designed to remind her targets that she is a decent American, just like us, who would never support a bully’s right to bully other children.

Okay, before I go any further, let me state without any ambiguity I certainly cannot and do not speak for Congresswoman Lowey. I was warned in no uncertain terms by Congresswoman Lowey’s Director of Constituent Services there would be consequences if I attempted to tamper with the carefully crafted messaging from the Congresswoman.

Also take note I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I believe in a meritocracy and in the integrity and positions of an INDIVIDUAL, not the political party they represent.  To be honest, the blind devotion to a particular political party always struck me as more a communist thing than an American one.  But I digress.

Please understand my interpretation, examination and dissection of Congresswoman Lowey’s message below is based solely on my more than 25 years combined communications and tactical operations experience along with specific conversations I had with members of Congresswoman Lowey’s staff over the last few days.  

Before you scroll down to read the note again or for the first time, take a few minutes as I walk you through what all my experience, training and personal involvement with Congresswoman Lowey and her stance on the anti-bullying movement tells me went on behind the scenes and just how this note found its way to your Inbox on a Saturday evening.

Before we begin the dissection it’s important to take a look at the whole picture.  Any coroner, fatality investigator, market researcher or combat vet will tell you to examine the whole as presented before digging around and tearing things apart to look at how it is assembled.

.

First off, at the most basic level the purpose of any communication is to deliver a message from one person or group to another person or group.  Presumably that specific message is ultimately in support of a larger business, organizational or personal goal.  Buy my product; support me in the next election, etc.

In this example Congresswoman Lowey wants her constituents to know she supports a same-sex marriage bill currently making its way through our legislative process and is concerned and engaged with LGBT people in her District and does not tolerate or support discrimination or bullying.

Notice Congresswoman Lowey specifically calls out her support for anti-bullying initiatives.  This is a crucial point in the communication as it ultimately turns out to be in direct contradiction to the position stated to me by her staff earlier this week and described in detail in this article.

That’s certainly a strong statement to make so, how do I know the Congresswoman doesn’t support ant--bullying? 

On 17 February, 2012 a staff member attempted to explain the Congresswoman’s position on bullying and those who support the bullies. 

I recently brought an individual named Israel Kalman, to Congresswoman Lowey’s attention, as not merely a supporter of bullies but someone who travels our Country giving lectures and teaching community officials and mental healthcare professionals not to take a stand against bullying or bullies.  

This staff member, who later in the conversation backpedaled saying she could not speak for the Congresswoman after speaking for nearly half an hour for the Congresswoman, told me that while she personally did not think she would approve of Israel Kalman but he had the RIGHT to support bullies and bullying and that Congresswoman Lowey supported his RIGHT to support bullies and bullying.  She called it free speech.

The staffer proceeded to explain by supporting Mr. Kalman’s right to lobby our schools, police, medical and other community leaders to support bullies and the bullying of our children did not mean that Congresswoman Lowey in any way supported bullying or bullies.

What?

It is fortunate the staffer stated this directly because I feel that if you support something you support it, if you oppose it then you oppose it.  Perhaps my view of the World is more limited, simplistic and naïve than the Congresswoman’s because I cannot follow the logic of her reasoning here.

If you support Mr. Kalman’s right to educate people in our communities to support the bullies of our children, then you are supporting those same bullies.

So how do I know any of this?  And how did I come to be involved in this discussion with my local Congresswoman? Fair questions both.

I recently engaged both my own time and my company’s resources in support of the anti-bullying movement. I learned according to our very own Centers for Disease Control (CDC), some 4,400 kids are dead after tragically taking their own lives directly because of being bullied. I wanted to help do something, I wanted to save children’s lives and stop the terror and torture of bullying. 

Did you know that fewer Americans were murdered in all the 9/11 terrorist attacks, than children die from being terrorized and tortured by bullies.  I do now and I will help make my community a better and safer place for all children.

Imagine my surprise as I looked for support from local politicians, including Senator Gillibrand, Congresswoman Lowey and Assemblyman Castelli, to simply take a public stand against bullying and those who support bullying.  So far Senator Gillibrand has managed to remain silernt and detached while Assemblyman Castelli’s staff is looking into Mr. Kalman and his lecture series.

Shockingly though, Congresswoman Lowey’s aid told me that Mr. Kalman’s right to support bullies is more important to the Congresswoman than our children’s right to be  safe in our own neighborhoods.  Again, it’s a freedom of speech thing, she embarrassingly explained and the Congresswoman’s hands were pretty much tied by the First Amendment. 

I had no idea Congresswoman had such a fundamentalist view of our Constitution and was such a staunch defender of freedom of speech.

So I did some checking and found the Congresswoman condemned talk show host Jimmy Fallon’s choice of introduction music for Michele Bachmann’s appearance last year on 21 November, 2011.

The Congresswoman said, “The choice of song to introduce Michele Bachmann on ‘Late Night With Jimmy Fallon’ last night was insulting and inappropriate,” and went on to add, “I do not share Michele Bachmann’s politics, but she deserves to be treated with respect. No female politician — and no woman — should be subjected to sexist and offensive innuendo like she was last night.”  Damn well, said Congresswoman and well done and I agree. The Congresswoman further called on Fallon’s to publically apologize for the hurt and harm they caused Representative Bachman and all women.

The question burns as to why Congresswoman Lowey suddenly decides that Kalman’s preaching and education to support those who bully our children to death falls should be protected under freedom of speech and yet Fallon’s band is not entitled to the same protection in the Congresswoman’s opinion.

You be the judge; if protecting our children from bullies who directly cause them to take their own lives is at least as important as playing a few seconds of an offensive song to grown and powerful political adult.

To me it is the same as arguing that Osama bin Laden’s right to preach hatred against Americans and Israel and train others to this philosophy who ultimately kill innocent people, which is exactly what Mr. Kalman does,   is more important than our right to live in safety and without fear of terrorist attacks. Whether they come from Al Qaeda or the local bully; terror is terror, hurt is hurt and 4,400 dead kids and 2,752 dead Americans on 9/11 are still dead.

I’ll be the first to admit I can be aggressive when pursuing a goal on behalf of a client and I cannot think of more deserving clients then our kids or a better cause than preventing children from killing themselves – but I never expected to be threatened by my own Congresswoman’s staff simply for asking her to say bullying is wrong and supporting bullying is wrong. 

All I ask of the Congresswoman is to put a link on her Website or Re-Tweet or share on Facebook that she stands against bullies and Israel Kalman who comes into our communities preaching his support for bullies. In the same way she proactively spoke out against the bullying of Bachman by Fallon’s band.  It’s a form or terrorism against our kids that kills them.  Israel Kalman’s teachings are no different than any other terrorists’ they kill even if not by their own hands. 

Osama bin Laden didn’t kill any Americans on 9/11; but for years dedicated his life traveling World and teaching terror, supporting the terrorists and training people to be terrorists and terrorist supporters, just as Israel Kalman does in our communities.

And on 11 May, 2011 the heroes of SEAL Team VI shot bin Laden dead on the direct orders of President Obama. Hooyah! God bless our Navy SEALS.

I asked Congresswoman Lowey’s staffer how a person can support another person’s right to be a terrorist supporter and yet claim they are not supporting the terrorist themselves.  

For example let’s say Congresswoman Lowey argued Americans have the right to donate money and weapons to Al Qaeda or the Taliban because it’s a form of freedom of expression. And at the same time claim she cares about protecting America from terrorism and does not support terrorists or terrorism. 

That seems to be the Congresswoman’s argument. Frankly I find it more than a little hard to swallow.

Well fortunately Congresswoman Lowey’s aid informed me she is an expert on First Amendment issues and provided an example that would clear the whole misunderstanding up and clarify how supporting a terrorist supporter is not the same as supporting the terrorist themselves. 

I can hardly wait, I thought.

The example the staffer, an expert, in First Amendment issues choose to provide went something like this. 

Many years ago the Ku Klux Klan decided to march in and carry out KKK operations (whatever these may entail) in a predominately Jewish American community.  The ACLU defended the Klan’s right to carry out operations and their right spread hate and this is really what the Congresswoman was doing here with regard to bullies and those who support them.

Huh?

So in this example is Congresswoman Lowey a member of the KKK or one of those who defended the Klan’s right to promote genocide against Jewish, African and myriad other Americans. Either way it seems like the Congresswoman is on the wrong side of what’s right and decent.

In light of the KKK loving, Jewish genocide supporting example chosen by Congresswoman Lowey’s aid; I pointed out to the expert the KKK was declared a terrorist organization by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 also known as the KKK Act which made the organization illegal precisely because they promoted hatred against people which all too often resulted in real terror and death.

When I told the staffer she had really proven my point, that supporting those who support terror, torture, bullying or genocide IS the same as supporting terror, torture, bullying and genocide and, I thought most other Americans would probably see it the same way I do, she became flustered and threatening.

I further told her I planned on continuing to proactively look for support against the bullying of our children through articles like this one and see if national news organizations would also see it the way I do, I was told to wait for Congresswoman Lowey’s PR Machine to craft a specific response and clarify her position on her support of terrorism against our kids. 

Okay, now read the communication below from Congresswoman Lowey’s office. And decide for yourself how and why this specific message was targeted to you at this specific time.  Telling you she does not support bullies.

Dear Friend,         

 

   I recently met with representatives from the LGBT community in the Lower Hudson Valley to discuss the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and anti-bullying campaigns for gay and lesbian youth. 

 

         Discrimination and hate have no place in our community. Unfortunately, LGBT students and their families have limited resources to fight discrimination and hate in schools. I am proud to have cosponsored H.R. 998, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide recourse for students who are victims of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. 

 

         In addition, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1116, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA and provide equal rights for gay and lesbian couples under federal law. I strongly believe that individuals should be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of gender, and should receive all rights available to other couples.

 

         I look forward to continuing the conversation with members of the LGBT community to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to fully participate in every aspect of our society.

         As always, please do not hesitate to contact my office at www.lowey.house.gov if I can ever be of assistance.  If you do not already receive my regular electronic newsletter, News from Nita, I hope you will click YES and SUBMIT in the box to the left to subscribe.


Sincerely,









Nita Lowey
Member of Congress

The Power of Messaging – OR – Don’t Be Fooled by The Spin Machine

public relations messaging Dharun Ravi Tyler Clementi media  social media bullying bully bullies

I recently published an article deconstructing the note from NY’s 17^th District Congresswoman Nita Lowey, where she attempts to reinforce her misguided support for bullies’ rights to freedom of speech over a child’s right to live without fear, harm or the terror of being bullied.

NY's 18th District Congresswoman Nita Lowey
Says Bullying is a Form of Free Speech

And now this week the much publicized cyber-bullying trial of Dharun Ravi begins and we see fist-hand the tragic results that Congresswoman Lowey’s and those who, like her, defend a bully’s right to terrorize others under the protective veil of free speech have on our children.

Ian Parker, features writer for New Yorker Magazine offers up an in-depth piece on the tragic suicide of Tyler Clementi and paints a picture of the accused Dharun Ravi as a slightly aggressive, spoiled, entitled and tough-talking semi-boastful man-child, without coming to any specific judgment as to Ravi's guilt or innocence.

This is going to be a difficult case for jurors and citizens to wrap their minds around as Ravi's defense team attempts to somehow paint Ravi's actions as normal, if not acceptable, adolescent behavior. We’re only a few days into the trial and Ravi’s messaging is clear in portraying any involvement in Tyler Clementi’s death as a purely coincidental and resulting from harmless boyish high-jinks.

Tyler Clementi - Bullying Victim

Unfortunately Tyler’s suicide presents an unimpeachable argument against the “harmless” part of Ravi’s defense messaging.

As a former law enforcement officer and member of a fatality investigation team I know that, even if the jury accepts Ravi's, "childish prank - defense," the result is a crime and necessitates some form of punishment.

Take for example other types of behaviors that are criminal though not necessarily pre-meditated and result in horrendous consequences for innocents; like drunk driving or firing a weapon into the air.

In New Jersey, for instance, if Ravi killed Clementi, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, rather than merely his desire to shame, terrorize and bully Clementi, he would face a mandatory 5-10 year prison sentence. So the question begs to be answered, why killing someone by bullying is considered them less an offence than running them down while intoxicated.

Dharun Ravi - Accused of Bullying Tyler Clementi to Death

Partying and being intoxicated is a common behavior in college-aged individuals (and those of other ages as well) and if and when this behavior extends to operating a motor vehicle under the influence, becomes a crime. If someone is killed by a DUI driver - it probably is not pre-meditated homicide, it has however homicide.

The same idea goes for firing a weapon into the air, if that round strikes an individual when it comes back to earth; the act becomes criminal regardless of the original intention of the shooter.

And there it is, after all the arguments and disassembling by Ravi's defense team, Tyler Clementi would most likely still be alive today were it not for Ravi's terrifying intersection with Tyler's life... exactly the way a victim of a DUI driver or random bullet would most likely be alive were it not for the DUI driver's or shooter's decision to get behind the wheel intoxicated or fire the weapon into the air without regard for the safety of others.