Culture and Leisure by W.H. Auden

My friend Matt Finn recommended this short essay on the meaning of work, play and labour and why we consume so darn much material goods.

Getting to Yes by Fischer, Ury and Patton

A classic how-to book on negotiation, should be read by all.

The Law of Dreams by Peter Behrens

A beautiful tale of an irish boy who comes of age during the famine and makes his way to Montréal. Worth reading.

Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda

Money quote, “Why be elated by material profit? The one who pursues a goal of even-mindedness is neither jubilant with gain nor depressed by loss. He knows that man arrives penniless in this world, and departs without a single rupee.”. Still working on this one, should be done soon though!

Zizek is quite clear he does not have the answers, but he is at least willing to have us ask questions. One of his key points in the interview below is the contradiction in our society’s position on possibilities. On the one hand, science and technology appear more and more limitless – cloning, organ transplants, cloud computing, green energy; on the other hand, whenever we propose policy changes about pressing issues such as education or healthcare reform, we proudly proclaim that we cannot change, don’t have the money or can’t find a reasonable solution people will be satisfied with. This dichotomy of attitudes is quite puzzling. Not too much to add, but do watch the interview and pay attention, the crazy Slovenian might be onto something!

Slavoj Žižek – Charlie Rose interview.27.10.2011 by laststudio

On this Christmas break I thought it made sense to discuss the most essential part of Jesus’s teachings – non-violence. As outlined in his sermon on the mount and by his actions towards the Roman occupation, non-violence is perhaps the bravest and most powerful form of combatting injustice.

Non-violence is the active attack of injustice using a wide range of methods – boycotts, petitions, sit-ins, strikes – but with the common element of absolute refusual to use physical violence. I have no doubt that non-violent resistance and civil disobedience are by far the most effective method for the long term improvement of society.

The natural urge to use violence to right an injustice is innate to all humans. In fact, it is so innate we see the use of violence in humans right from the moment we enter this world. Studies have clearly shown that children are in fact much more violent than adults and our use of violence decreses as we age. It is in fact society that breeds violence out of us, not the other way around. This point is clearly documented in Steven Pinker’s new book, “The Better Angels of our Nature“, for which there is an excellent free summary here at the The Edge.

Today, more than ever, it is clear that society breeds violence out of us through education, law, and common justice; Hobbes was right.

It is through disciplined systems that we manage to create a society without violence. In the same way, it is through disciplined systems that social activists must maintain a non-violent course when fighting injustice. It is so easy to stray from the non-violent path – it takes a single gunshot to undermine an entire movement. When Nelson Mandela confronted the Indian Congress during the South African fight for justice with the claim that non-violence had failed the movement, JN Singh of the Indian Congress retorted that  “Non-violence has not failed us, we have failed non-violence”. In my opinion, non-violence is much, much harder to realize than violent confrontation.

The benefits of a non-violent path are however much richer. First and foremost, non-violence limits the loss of life, something worthy in and of itself. Secondly, non-violence allows you to organically build up a civil society that can progressively take over roles that a government typically plays. Once the government has either been sufficiently changed or has been completly replaced, the non-violent actors can continue to act in their societies. In contrast, an insurgency that uses violence as its principal weapon typically lacks the diversity to create an inclusive democratic government after the conflict has ended. Lastly, and in a more pragmatic sense, by using violence as your means of attaining a change you are playing to the strength of the state, which has an army, police and a monopoly on force. Non-violent action plays to the state’s weakness and allows you to build up sympathy in the population. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of the success of non-violence are the concrete examples unfolding as we speak.

In 2011, both Egypt and Tunisia changed their governments with little loss of life and Syria has made significant progress towards a new system (though it may yet descend into civil war). Other governments have recently changed dramatically due to the efforts by non-violent activists, Bahrain, Yemen and Liberia. In fact, this year’s three Nobel Peace laureates were non-violent activists. Perhaps most promising is what is happening in Israel.

Israel

Julia Bacha, director of the excellent film Bodrus, gives a compelling argument for media coverage of non-violent protests and actions.

Perhaps the most promising non-violent action today are the actions by Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. Inspired by the events in Egypt and Tunisia, Palestinian protesters have finally found a path to liberation: non-violence. With the mass border crossings, the freedom flotillas and regular protests in the West Bank, Palestinians and their supporters are striking fear into the heart of the Israeli establishment. It is easy to bomb armed insurgents and demonize suicide bombers, it is much harder to shoot unarmed civilians (though even a tear gas canister can kill a protestor).

For each dead protestor, Israel further isolates itself on the world stage. In fact, the only country that still stands by Israel without reservations seems to be Canada, but that is largely due to our Prime Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that the shift towards non-violent non-cooperation and protests will lead to greater Palestinian autonomy. As with any non-violent movement, the key is willpower and discipline – can the protestors continue in the face of casualties and injury or will they resort back to violence? One simple suicide bomb would undermine the entire movement. Even Hamas (recently covered here by the Globe and Mail) has understood the power of non-violence and though they often still support violent action, there is evidence that is changing.

If the Palestinians they can match the tenacity of the Syrian protesters and if the media covers their actions, Israel may very well have to re-evaluate their options. Israel is quickly approaching an untenable situation of isolation and disrespect. We shall see what comes of it, but no meaningful change is likely to come with Netanyahu at the head of the government. Israel needs a F.W. de Klerk and Palestinians need a Mandela. Only non-violence will free the Palestinians and when they do succeed, no one fighting for injustice will be able to deny the power civil disobedience.

It is hard for me to add much to the experts in the field, so I will leave you with some fantastic resources that will hopefully convince you of a non-violent path.

Bibliography

There are no shortage of books to convince you of the merits of this method. “Non-Violence, the History of a Dangerous Idea” gives you an excellent overview of the history and various movements that have successfully employed non-violence. The auto-biographies of Gandhi and Mandela are also excellent. To better understand the philosophy behind the idea, you can read “The Kingdom of God is Within You” by Tolstoy, and many more.

Beyond the philosophy of non-violence it is essential to focus on concrete actions that can lead to social change. Perhaps the most influential book in that regard is the non-violence user manual by Gene Sharp, “From Dictatorship to Democracy“. This book, with its concrete examples and clear explanations has been translated into numerous languages and has been employed by activists around the world, most recently in the arab world and middle east, where it is having a very real impact. Gene Sharp was even shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize and is being profiled in an upcoming movie, How to Start a Revolution. And of course, the young 18 year old Étienne de la Boétie’s essay Discours sur la servitude volontaire, written in 1549 is simply mind blowing.

I recently had the chance to meet Francois Legault, founder of the Coalition pour l’Avenir du Québec – a new provincial political party. The party is positioning itself as a centre-right option to the Liberals and Parti Québecois. Most notably, he proposes to put aside sovereignty – for now. So far, they have proposed some interesting changes to the education system, healthcare, and the economy. Most of his proposals make sense – reform teacher pay, use mining revenues to reduce the deficit, encourage entrepreneurs with financing and push major overhauls to the health system’s administrative apparatus.

What is most appealing to me is his focus driven platform. He does not claim to have solutions for much, but he does propose to take major action on a few items. Francois Legault is a businessman in every sense of the word, so it’s no surprise he is going for the low hanging fruit that will have the biggest impact on the bottom line. We will see if he can stick to this tiny platform through an election campaign.

All that being said, one item he proposes seems out of step with the rest. He wants to temporarily freeze immigration.

Francois Legault, under the culture et langue (culture and language) part of his platform, recommends two things:

1. Improve the amount and quality of french language instruction for immigrants to Québec.
2. Put a freeze on immigration for 2 years at 45 000 people (in 2011, we expect approximatively 53000 immigrants to Québec in 2011,up from 41 683 in 2010 Wikipedia).

From his Plan d’Action,

Les ressources consacrées à l’intégration des immigrants à la majorité francophone doivent être substantiellement bonifiées. Le nombre des nouveaux arrivants au Québec devra être limité à 45 000 pendant
deux ans afin de redéployer les politiques d’intégration.

I agree 100% with idea number 1 on improved integration and french education. Though this blog post is in english, I fully support loi 101 and mandatory french immersion courses for immigrants to Québec. State business should be conducted in French and the government should continue to ensure French is the dominant language in Québec.

Though I support improving our use of French in government and business, I fundamentally disagree on point #2. Limiting immigration to Québec is extremely dangerous. If anything, we should quadruple immigration to Québec and put in place systems to encourage family growth. The surest path to sovereignty is through population stagnation.

Québec has progressively become a smaller and smaller portion of Canada. At confederation, Québec was over 50% of Canada and today, 2011, we represent less than 25%. As our population decreases, our political weight in Canada decreases. The house of commons will likely be rejigged, as it should be, to reflect today’s population and Québec will lose seats. We see an erosion of the use of French at the Federal government as demonstrated by the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General and a unilingual Supreme Court judge.

This shift should be very concerning to all Québecers – francophone, anglophone, and allophone.

So, my proposals are quite simple:

1. Increase immigration from Francophone countries to ensure at least 150 000 immigrants are welcomed to Québec annually by 2015.
2. Increase free french immersion courses and impose a basic french test for all permanent resident requests in Québec as well as out of province canadians who move here.
3. Offer a subsidy to Québec families for every child after their second, on the order of 10 000 $ that is payable only at age 18 and can only be used for higher education. This should be modelled on the Russian program which was recently cancelled.

To those who say this would cost too much or be too much immigration, a point of reference. In 1913, Canada welcomed over 400,870 immigrants – which represented, approximatively 5% of our population (Canada had 7,632,000 citizens). In today’s terms, Québec has an estimated population of 8 008 000 and we could therefore match those peaks with 5% immigration, or 400 000 immigrants per year.

If Québec wishes to remain as a principal partner of confederation and if we want Canada to remain a bilingual partnership between Francophones and Anglophones – we must take dramatic steps today.

I am very interested in your comments and ideas surrounding this idea.

Immigration also creats jobs, see here.

A good interview with the Président du congrès maghrébin here (though the news host is not great).

Due to my frustration, I ended up illegally downloading the film to watch it. In this blog post, I plan to lay out my thoughts on how film makers can more effectively market their documentary or small indie film.

Let’s face it, the industry’s distribution model is completely broken – it is based in a world where the Internet does not exist. Film makers must fix their marketing strategy so that they can increase revenues and facilitate financing for future films.

1. Don’t waste 80% of your marketing budget!

Movies spend most of their advertising budget in the run up to the theatrical release. But ,by the time the film is ready for distribution on iTunes, NetFlix, and other large scale platforms – the public has forgotten your ads.

Time your advertising with easy access to your film. Since the best way to distribute your movie today is through online systems, not theatres, your marketing budget for online and theatrical release should be adjusted accordingly. Obviously leverage social media for promotion – Facebook, Twitter, etc.

You could also release the film online from the start to maximize exposure from reviews and critical acclaim.

2. Don’t release your film by country, eh!

With the internet, it’s insane to try and stagger your releases by country. When someone in Canada has to wait months to see your US movie, they will inevitably turn to a pirated copy, I did.

Most of your marketing will and should be done online. Because online marketing can easily link to a purchase or rental of your film, it seems wise to ensure it is available everywhere simultaneously. Because the producers of the Matrix 2 knew their audience was tech savvy and would pirate the film; they decided to release it globally at the same time. It worked.

3. Theatres no longer guarantee a better viewing experience

The traditional argument for releasing to theatres has been that the theatre provides the most authentic experience of the film as intended by the creators. In 2011, millions of homes have amazing HD TVs, surround sound and great seating: the theatre -quality argument seems weaker by the day.

As a side note, the move to 3D films in theatres has clearly been to keep consumers coming out to theatres, theatre companies are very aware of this HD TV issue. For traditional 2D movies and especially films that play in smaller artistic theatres, the home often provides a higher quality experience than the theatre.

It all boils down to this: someone has to break the control theatres and distributors have on movie creators. I understand the prestige of releasing your film in theatres, but if your goal is to have as many people as possible pay to see it; theatres are no longer the best approach.

Film production costs have been dramatically reduced thanks to HD cameras and high power computers. Filmmakers have un-rivalled distribution channels to millions of people; yet, they still seem set on the old model of festivals and theatres.

Your goal as a movie creator should be to earn a healthy living and have your film enjoyed by as many people see it as possible, not to get awards and help movie theatres. Simply stated, I think movie creaters should bypass the existing distribution traps, market your film directly to your audience, and retain ownership of the entire process.

It took the music industry a decade and billions of dollars to learn this lesson, how long will it take the film industry?

If you have not read the Long Tail by Marc Anderson of Wired magazine, please do.

In 2003 my friend Louis introduced me to Apple, it’s been a one way trip. It’s sometimes hard to explain to people what makes Apple’s products different; how do you explain the nuance of serif and sans-serif font, the click of a keyboard or the lightness of a Macbook Air. Of course, it’s not one of these innovations that makes Apple stand out, but rather the uncomprimising combination of them.

Yes, Apple makes consumer products for relatively wealthy people. Yes, there are bigger problems and greater issues in the world. But, Apple and its undying devotion to perfection inspired and empowered many of us to do what we do today.

It is hard to imagine I’ve much to add to what will be said. Yet, it is however as simple as this; to honour Steve Jobs and his legacy, ask yourself: What would you do with your time on earth if it were limited to 56 years.

Do that, and nothing else, and the world will be a better place.

Personally, I’m continually trying to find ways to be more personal – going to events, participating in the community and caring about other peoples’ stories. Pay attention to details and lean into conversations.

In Québec, Jean-Noé Landry and I had the privelege to present open data to the Assemblée Nationale. We have been working insanely hard on Montréal Ouvert for 14 months now, so the the trip to Québec was definitly a personal highlight. Deputies, public servants and other great people came to meet us and discuss open-data. In partnership with the Gautrin Public consultation group, we presented in the Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine (a personal hero of mine) meeting room; the participants were very welcoming to the open data and will hopefully become enthousastic champions (our presentation is here). During the same trip, Jean-Noé and I managed to participate in the launch of Capitale Ouverte.

Capitale Ouverte is a citizen initiative for open data for the city of Québec and was inspired by the hard work done at Montréal Ouvert. With an open data policy and portal on the horizon for Montréal, I hope it will not be long before we see one at the provincial level and for Québec city.

Read more at the Montréal Ouvert Blog.

Chocolate is a delicious, delicious treat; however, it is far too often tainted with the sweat of child slaves. While slavery in the chocolate industry remains a small portion of the global slave population (~27 million people enslaved today), it is something that can easily be fixed.

Today, the cacao industry employees somewhere between 15 000 and 100 000 children in the Ivory Coast (as of 2002), which represents 40% of the world chocolate production of about 3.6 million tonnes. Hundreds (if not thousands) of children are trafficked every year from Burkina Faso, Ghana and other countries to work in the Ivory Coast, children go for 230 euros or less.

I don’t think anyone argues this is a good thing, so let’s move straight to possible solutions. To eat chocolate produced through slavery is to support slavery. Or as Frederick Douglas once said,

No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.

Chocolate is big business and requires a constant flow of cacao beans at low-cost. By making intelligent purchasing decisions and voicing your concern to cacao bean producers, the use of child labour can be addressed.

How can you help? The safest bet is to buy fair trade chocolate, though limited in availability, it does ensure a certain level of verification. Buying chocolate that uses beans from South America should also reduce your exposure to child slave labour.

The alternative is to try to avoid chocolate by the main companies who do not seem willing to enforce child labour laws in their supply chain (though some are doing more than others). Nestle (Nestle contact page), with 12% world market share, should be your first target, also consider Cargill (cocoa@cargill.com), Kraft (Contact Page), ADM (+1-800-558-9958 Contact Page) , Mars (Contact Page) and Barry Callebaut (Contact Page). You can also sign the Avaaz Petition here.

This comprehensive report from Norway lays out details of the chocolate industry in West Africa. A couple of organisations I fell upon include Slave Free Chocolate and work by the Anti Slavery group in the UK with their app (which seems to be down at time of writing) Choco-Coat.com (blog post about it here). Also take a look at this report on the chocolate slave industry entitled Bitter Harvest.

It seems high time to boycott or at least voice your concern to the main chocolate companies we inevitably purchase candy from. Turning a blind eye is no longer acceptable and a short email or tweet is an easy task we can all do. Some dare more.

To expose the truth behind our corner store candy, journalists risk their lives. In 2004, French Canadian journalist Guy-André Kieffer was kidnapped in Ivory Coast and is still missing. Just that should make us appreciate the risks that journalists take when filming these illicit industries. To better understand the situation, take 45 minutes to watch the great documentary “The Dark Side of Chocolate” which lays out the situation quite clearly:

For more information on the current global slavery situation, see this TED Talk by Kevin Bales from Free the Slaves.net

Longevity is what I  seek. Today, the majority of our social and economic system prizes instant gratification, quick money and the shortest path to completion. This is not a rant against our system or people’s material priorities, rather I hope to discuss the lack of long term vision amongst many of our brighter minds. You will die, but your creations can live on if you build a culture around them. If I had to boil it all down to one phrase it would be to say: We must figure out how to avoid shirtsleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations.

I work in the start-up and software world, which is a place that places IPOs, “fuck-you” money and fast growth as its raison d’être. John Doerr, the famed venture capitalist, proudly stated about his career, “we witnessed the largest, legal creation of wealth on the planet”. Venture capital firms relish in the glow of a fast and profitable sale to a large company. It is sad that so few companies, especially in the technology space, pride themselves on long-term thinking, durability and consistency.

In contrast to start-up culture, Japan prides itself on longevity. The Imperial House of Japan was founded in 660 BC by Emperor Jimma and is still running after nearly 2500 years. The oldest hotel in the world is in Japan and a disproportionate number of the oldest companies in the world are Japanese. Building something that lasts centuries is exponentially harder than building something that lasts decades, let alone years. Americans often criticize Europe and Japan for moving too slowly, having too little GDP growth, and too little speed. But, the real test of a social-economic system cannot be made over 20, 30 or even 60 years – you need centuries.

I am hardly the first to say this. The great minds at the LongNow foundation, which include Jeff Bezzos of Amazon.com, understand this. They wrote a great piece on the history of debt here and are building a clock that will last 10,000 years – that’s what I’m talking about!

Everywhere I look in the tech space I see a dangerous emphasis on speed. Though there is genuine long-term wealth creation going on, I think we are in another tech bubble. Yes, certain companies have a lot of cash, but this partly due to a taxation problem. The main tell-tale signs of a bubble are absurdly high salaries for developers who CEOs feel they can leverage, but are themselves leveraged by investors. There is nothing wrong with working with others to go faster, but it is a bit concerning when so much is being spent so fast. I might be wrong, take a look at the great discussion about a potential  2011 tech bubble at HackerNews here.

Part of the problem with tech investment is that it works. Technology can indeed be incredibly profitable incredibly fast. But those profits can disappear just as quickly as they came. Planning for the short-term has become endemic.

Fundamentally, to build for the long-term requires you need to resist temptation. Temptation comes in many forms – venture capital, buyouts, leverage, credit – but all leads down the same path of destruction as soon as you stop peddling fast enough.

The seminal study on temptation by Michelle vanDellen outlines how children who control temptation to eat a cookie turn out better – health, wealth, happiness – than children who can’t. Leverage is a cookie.

Despite the fact that most people in the tech space are very good at resisting personal temptation, they still seem to emphasize the quick payoff at the corporate level. It seems likely that the high levels of personal leverage from mortgages, credit cards, and student loans push us towards get rich quick schemes. Add onto that the jealousy of your neighbour or office mate’s stock options, car, house or wife. That is the foundation of a bubble.

Sometimes the best indicator of a bubble is your local taxi driver. As gold hit 815$ an ounce in 1980 (2150$ in 2011 inflation adjusted dollars), a Wall Street investor was riding in a taxi cab when the cab driver mentioned he was planning to buy gold as an investment. The investor got out of the cab, went upstairs to his office and sold all his gold positions. Gold plummeted to 300$, where it stayed for over 20 years. When everyone is doing one thing, do the opposite.

Rather than build something durable many companies are created with the aim of being sold to someone bigger, VCs want out in under 5 years, and people jump from one job to another every 6 months. This strikes me as an unhealthy system, but hey, that’s just me.

The second, and potentially worse, impact of short-term thinking is the shift in the workforce. Because of the pressure to relieve debt and the drive to buy the things others have, the smartest people move away from durable businesses that take decades to build and go towards get rich quick social media schemes. Just as Wall Street has absorbed some of the best minds of our generation to do high frequency trading (something that clearly adds no value to society), amazing software developers are being used to build social-media-analytic-optimizational-cross-promotional platforms, whatever that is. These great minds of our generation should be building technology that helps run society – hospitals, education, infrastructure, communication and yet unforeseen things only they can imagine.

I believe in the power of technology to change the world, but we need to frame our socio-economic system to value long-term thinking. As the three pigs should have taught you, you need to build in stone, not wood. The true test of a great company is not how much money it makes today, but how long it lasts as a value creation vehicle for society as a whole.

Think big, move fast and aim long. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned.

For your viewing enjoyment, the The Three Little Pigs.