Terry Levine | Noggin Advertising | Copywriter | Digital + Direct Writer | Blogging | Toronto | Canada

ARE POLITICAL PARTIES LIKE THE MONSTER IN ALIEN?

Political parties have always struck me as a necessary evil. Individual candidates have a tough time raising money and promoting themselves throughout their riding, district, province, state or country. So instead, they create or join an organization of likeminded people with the idea being that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A party can raise more money, distribute it to candidates who need it most and build a brand that makes it easier for people to know who to vote for. For a long time, it's seemed like an effective shorthand way to lock up support from voters and represent their interests.

The challenge comes after the election, when political parties gain power or try to. For a party to preserve its brand, politicians from that party are expected to toe the line on most issues, which often means checking your own opinion, experience or values at the door if those who control the party decide another position is in the best interest of the party's base, powerbrokers, or its perceived prospects in the next election. If you're a Republican in the US, you usually need to support gun rights, low taxes and be against abortion rights, for instance. If you're a Liberal in Canada, you're expected to support universal health care. If you decide to be a maverick, you face retribution the next time you try to run. Either you play as a team or you go home.

In other words, the dark side of partisan politics is that it often stifles democracy. You often end up with parties that demand allegiance to parties over the will of the electorate. So that even if, say, a clear majority of voters support gay marriage, if a party that opposes gay marriage takes power because the economy happened to be in a shambles, people's will on the marriage issue gets sidelined in the interest of party unity or uniformity.

Another negative consequence of partisan politics is being played out right now in the 2012 GOP primaries. Republican Presidential candidates increasingly need to romance (ass-kiss) their far-right base to win the nomination to the point where Americans may end up with a radical Republican nominee who is to the right of 95 percent of all voters. While this is great news for Barack Obama's re-election prospects, it denies the majority of middle-of-the-roaders a real choice.

We need to take a serious look at whether partisan politics is still the best way to send people to represent us in government. Some political parties have begun experimenting with online voting to choose their leaders. That certainly comes closer to mitigating the backroom wheeling and dealing, but the party tenticles are still wrapped around the entire process and, ultimately, the pressure to toe the party line remains. Maybe we need a tiered system where we choose from a progressively smaller and smaller range of candidates in each riding until one of them garners 50%+1 in that riding. Then let everyone we voted for across the country or state or province get together and form a government that best represents those representatives and, by extension, the people who elected them. It may be a messier process and longer one, but it may make politics more honest and less beholden to fringe voters.

Or maybe we're all like Kane in the movie Alien and political parties are our own private baby xenomorph, attached to our brains whether we like it or not.

 Never mind.

THE QUEER CASE OF GAY RACISM: ONE YEAR LATER.

Nearly exactly a year ago, I blogged about racism in the gay community. In that time, nearly 6,000 people have viewed the post, it's been reblogged, retweeted, stumbledupon and quoted across the interwebs. I've been interviewed for a documentary on the subject and this week I was quoted in an article on gay.net, which at last count has 10 pages of thoughtful (and sometimes idiotic and racist) comments.

While it's been cool to get all this attention for something I wrote, playing a role in exposing and debating the issue is way more gratifying.

Over the last year, I've heard a lot of gay race-ish defenders say "being into X" is not racism, it's simply a preference. While I'm willing to accept that people have preferences for physical features, I refuse to believe people are born with an innate, locked-in attraction to their race or any race. I believe that "preference" is socialized behavior and the remnants of our racist past -- not to mention the racism that still goes on behind closed doors and in the media. And I still believe it's racist to unabashedly state, as so many gay men I've spoken to have, that they would never date a person from a race other than their own.

On the racism versus preference debate, one defense preference-ists bring up more than any other is that of comparing racism to the supposed inherent misogynist behavior of being gay.

The argument goes something like this: "I don't call you a misogynist for not wanting to have sex with women, so don't call me a racist for not wanting to have sex with blacks or Asians."

I've always found the comparison intuitively spurious, but philosophical arguments have never been my strong suit and I never quite knew how to answer. Until now. So here goes.

The way I see it, being gay does not make one a misogynist anymore than being straight makes someone a homophobe. A misogynist hates, attacks or demeans women. A homophobe hates, attacks or demeans gays. And a racist or anti-Semite hates, attacks or demeans people of another race or ethnic group. A gay racist, therefore, is not the same as a misogynist racist. A gay racist is simply a man who, hated, attacked or demeaned for being gay, incomprehensibly and coldly turns around and hates, attacks or demeans someone else for being born black, Asian, Indian or, yes, white. In short, he is someone who ought to know better.

Thank you for all your visits, hits and comments over the last year. Keep 'em coming.

 

Image

FRIENDS OR CUSTOMERS?

Repeatedly over the last couple of years, I've run into friends who've told me that, thanks to my Facebook posts and blog posts and tweets, they get a good chunk of their news from me. Aside from being really flattering to be thought of as a one-man Huffington Post or Terry News Network, there's a bigger story here.

It's no secret that social media -- particularly Facebook -- has changed the nature of friendships. But it's changing the nature of business too. And for those, like me, who've stumbled into the convergence of the two, there's huge potential -- and a little peril as well.

Entrepreneur Daniel Gulati explains:

"Just as a business sells goods and services in exchange for cash, people were producing content in exchange for their friends' and followers' attention. We've created the "social swap" — a new form of transaction underpinning our online connections."

Plenty of big businesses are using their Facebook fan pages to mimick person-to-person social interaction. But the social swap Gulati describes is also helping real people cultivate their brand and bolster their business in ways none of us -- least of all me -- thought possible just a few years ago.

You can read more about how our friends are becoming our new customers here.

IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST... IS IT REALLY THAT PRODUCTIVE?

When I started working at my first big ad agency, I would show up at work at 8 or 8:15. Not because I was trying to be a kiss-ass but because I liked to leave around 5 and figured if I came in early and worked with little or no interruption, I could leave at a reasonable hour. I soon discovered, however, that nearly no one saw me arrive first but everyone watched me leave first. And although no one ever said anything, I felt like I was getting funny looks. So I decided I had to play the same fake productivity game everyone else did -- show up and leave around the same time as everyone else.

"Long day?"

"Oh yeah. Can't you see that by leaving at the same time as you, I can sigh about my long day, thereby reinforcing how hard a worker I am?"

In fact, there were days, even weeks, when I hardly worked at all. Projects were with clients for approval, business was slow or I'd finished all my assignments quickly. I would surf the internet, take short walks around the mall downstairs or go to the bookstore. But I still had to appear to be present, at least between the 9 to 5 hours. Because the conventional wisdom has always been that, like the tree that falls in the forest when no one is around, if you're seen to be working you must be and if you're not around you couldn't possibly be productive.

But performance expert Tony Schwartz writes:

"Why not measure employees by the value they create, rather than by the number of hours they sit at a desk? Too many companies continue to operate by the premise that their employees can't be fully trusted, and so treat them as children, who must be continuously monitored.... What we've created is a variation on something called the "Results Only Work Environment," which was first launched among corporate employees at Best Buy. 'The simplest definition of a ROWE,' founders Cali Ressler and Jodi Thompson have written, 'is that each person is free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as the work gets done.'"

It's not an entirely new idea but it's one that's slowly gaining acceptance, lucky for me. I hardly ever see most of my clients but I create enough value for them that they don't care that they can't see me working in a veal pen around the corner from them. They pay me for the time I put in or simply for the project and if there's a perceived imbalance -- either in how much I'm charging or the amount of effort and time I'm putting in -- we can have a frank discussion about it.

It seems to me a much more mature and honest way to do business than simply pretending that, because I see you sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours, you've done 8 hours of work.

What do you think?

THE EMPATHY BLINDSPOT.

I've had my share lately of discussions (arguments?) -- about racism in the gay community, about rising tensions between Israel and Iran, about the plight of the poor and the undertaxing of the wealthy.

In each of these, the one element I've noticed missing in the opposing person's argument is empathy or a true appreciation for the other point of view.

Take racism in the gay community. Some -- almost always white people -- get offended when I call out their sexual rejection or comments toward Asians or blacks as racist. To them, writing "no fats, femmes or Asians" on an online dating profile or looking disgusted when you point out a good-looking person of color is simply a "preference." They seem incapable of unwilling to, even for an instant, put themselves in someone else's shoes and see how it might feel. I find this particularly shocking in the gay community where you simply have to think about having been called "faggot" or "cocksucker" by a straight person. Not many of these gay whites with racist tendencies would describe straight people who use these words as anything but homophobes or bigots.

Take the disturbing rise in tensions between Israel and Iran. Here, both sides have miserably failed to show any empathy for the other's position. (Please note, I'm not talking about sympathy here. I'm not asking for Iran and Israel to hold hands and sing kumbaya, though that would be nice, particularly in Farsi.) Israel sees Iran's nuclear technology development as an existential threat for good reason -- Iran finances Israel's enemies and Iran's leaders have denied the Holocaust, denied the Jewish people's moral right to a country of their own and talked repeatedly about wiping Israel off the map. Iran, on the other hand, sees itself surrounded by US troops and allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and by a right-wing Israeli government with its finger on 250 or so nuclear bombs aimed at Tehran and other sunny Middle East destinations. But when I've discussed this topic with an Iranian friend, Israel's fears and concerns about Iran's rhetoric are viewed as silly and unwarranted while every move by Israel is seen as an insidious threat against Iran or counterproductive to peace in the Middle East.

Finally, the "class warfare" debate going on in the US, in particular the demagogy from Republican candidates about poor people milking the system and rich people paying too many taxes. No one likes taxes and everyone thinks they pay too much. But for a country like the US that fetishizes Jesus as it does, you'd think more Americans would actually pay attention to his message and empathize with those who are less fortunate.

You'd think but sadly you'd be mistaken. There aren't a lot of quick fixes in this world. But one thing we can all do, on issues big and small, is to show a little respect and empathy for the other person's point of view. We may never completely agree on the rationale, but we can take the time to listen and imagine how we would feel faced with the person's plight. It won't solve all our problems, but it might bring us a little closer to understanding them.

More on the benefits of listening and acting empathically from Stephen Covey here.

 

THE COOLEST THING YOU'LL SEE TODAY, GUARANTEED.

The Scale of the Universe was created by Cary Huang, a 14-year-old ninth grader from Moraga, Calif., with technical help from his twin brother Michael.

Clicke here to see how we figure into the Universe, from the smallest to the largest. You will be humbled.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO LIKE THIS. I REALLY DO.

If someone asked you what the weather was like, how would you answer?

It turns out whether you said "It's hot." or "I think it's hot." says quite a bit about what your social status is, how emotionally stable you are and even if you're more likely to commit suicide.

So says researcher James Pennebaker, who helped develop a computer program that counts and categorizes words in texts:

"After analyzing 400,000 texts -- including essays by college students, instant messages between lovers, chat room discussions, and press conference transcripts -- he concluded that function words are important keys to someone's psychological state and reveal much more than content words do. [For instance,] if someone uses the pronoun 'I,' it's a sign of self-focus... Depressed people use the word 'I' much more often than emotionally stable people. People who are lower in status use 'I' much more frequently."

More here.

WHAT MAKES AN AD GO VIRAL?

I used to think anyone who said he knew how to create a successful viral ad was equal parts alchemist, astrologist and bullshit artist. It seemed to me it was a little like trying to figure out how to win the lottery.

Leave it to some clever researchers at Harvard Business School, however, to analyze why people like viral ads and what marketers can do to increase the chances of creating one. Their research pointed them to five key techniques:

1. Use brand pulsing -- unobtrusively weaving brand images throughout the ad instead of hitting viewers over the head with big, ever-present logos.
2. Create joy or surprise immediately -- if you're expecting viewers to wait for a climax near the end of the spot, they won't and you've lost them.
3. Build an emotional roller-coaster -- viewers are more likely to stick with a spot when they experience emotional ups and downs.
4. Surprise but don't shock -- Shock might get them to watch the ad but it might make it too embarrassing for them to share and help make it go viral.
5. Target the right viewers -- As social media evolves, targeting the right kind of viewer -- extroverts and egocentrics -- will become easier.

Read more about their research here.

 

SOMETIMES, IT DOESN'T GET BETTER.

We tend to think of the entertainment industry as progressive, supportive of minority rights, women's rights, gay rights. But the truth is that's largely a farce. While there are many actors, singers and artists who are progressive, the industry as a whole is anything but.

Take being gay. Big players in the entertainment industry are publicly supportive of gay rights, marriage equality, the battle against HIV/AIDS but it's the same industry that, for years, has manufactured marriages between their gay stars to preserve their straight brands.

These days, actors and singers tape heartfelt "It Gets Better" messages. Ellen DeGeneres speaks out against gay suicide, for instance. But isn't Ellen also part of the problem when she turns around and interviews Ryan Seacrest's "girlfriend" Julianne Hough on her show or chats about Ryan's "relationship" with Hough on his radio show knowing full well the man is gay?

Aren't these entertainers part of the problem when they tell gay youth it's okay to be who they are but they themselves don't have the balls to do it themselves? Isn't it hypocrisy for celebrities like Anderson Cooper to write books about their lives and family tragedies but when the gay question comes up, well, that's just off limits.

Maybe the most heartbreaking example was this week's passing of Whitney Houston. Ask anyone close to Whitney off the record and they will tell you she was a lesbian. But back in the 1980s when she was dating "lifelong friend" Robyn Crawford, she knew or she was told she'd never be a star if she was openly gay. So Bobby Brown was arranged and, well, we all know how that turned out.

Yes, it gets better and it's getting better. But it would be even better if people could live their lives as they truly are, rather than getting trapped in a self-hating vicious circle just to see their name in lights. It's sadly true Whitney Houston or Michael Jackson or Rock Hudson might never been the stars they became had they been open about who they were. But maybe, just maybe, they would have been alive and a little happier. And maybe they would have had a hand in helping millions of young people come to terms with their own sexual reality, instead of perpetuating the lie that to be somebody you can't ever be who you really are.

 

MAMMA MIA: 140 WORDS ON TWO GIRLS WITH DRAGON TATTOOS.

If Sweden until now only made you think of ABBA, Ikea, meatballs and Nokia, you're in for a surprise (and a slap upside the head -- Nokia is Finnish).

It was bound to happen. A country with a reputation for niceness surpassed perhaps only by Canada would eventually have to have its day of reckoning. And for me at least, that day came last weekend when I spent five hours watching the American then the original Swedish version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Rape. Murder. Nazis. More rape. More murders. Tattoos. Lesbianism. Incest. Pressed flowers. And another movie with Christopher Plummer. It was nearly too much to handle.

The US version of Stieg Larsson's posthumous bestseller is definitely more Hollywood and takes more shortcuts while its Swedish counterpart stays truer to the book and offers more insight into the characters' actions. Both however do a great job of keeping you squirming and on the edge of your seat.