Heroes Belong to All of Us

Boyce said the fact so many "complete strangers" donated cash to ensure a little boy they never met will never be forgotten is "a testament to the human spirit."

 

The tribute to the tot briefly hit a roadblock earlier this year when DC Entertainment initially refused to grant permission for its famous Superman logo to be emblazoned across Jeffrey's chest.

 

But the company later had a change of heart. 

 

DC is a for-profit company.  They exist to make money.  Why should they do something that doesn't serve that purpose?  Why should any of us do things that don't serve our direct interest?  If there's no immediate ROI, if there's risk and the potential that our efforts may not succeed, what's the point?

 

But there's more to being a human being that self-interest.  Our ability to be more than the sum of our parts, together, is core to what makes us human.  It can be very hard to do, though - in a world that often seems petty, self-interested and cruel, it's can be a frightening thing to be the first one to think and do differently.  There's always the chance no one will follow, and then you're out there alone.

 

Superman is a trademark, but the idea behind him is as old as story telling.  Superman is the adult in the room, the strength to carry us when we're weak, the shield at the front that gives us all courage to move forward. 

 

Superman inspires - that's what heroes do best.

 

Poor Jeffrey Baldwin is an unconventional hero; he saved no lives and fought no wars, expect perhaps the one that was his short life.  For a moment, though, despite everything that he endured, in spite of the hardship that was all he knew, Jeffrey Baldwin was Superman.

 

And thanks to the heroic efforts of Todd Boyce, he will remain Superman.

 

That's it - the big secret, the thing left in the box, the piece of the puzzle we simply need to raise our gaze to see.

 

Heroes aren't brands to be bought into; heroism is human aspiration we crave, reach out for with tentative hands but, when the light shines bright enough, we embrace.

 

We need heroes - that's why we create them.

I believe there's a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally allows us to die with pride, even though sometimes we have to be steady, and give up the thing we want the most. Even our dreams.

 

Terri Chu: What Leadership Is

 

"Great things are accomplished by great people who share a common goal.  One thing for certain is I’m surrounded by great people." - Terri Chu

 

Far too many people think politics is about picking fights - getting folks mad at a candidate or party so that they'll react against.  But that's not leadership.

 

Leaders point the way forward and inspire others to move in the same direction. 

 

I just received an email from Terri Chu, the candidate I'm supporting for Ward 20 Councilor.  The quote above was the closing sentence.  There was no specific cause for it - she just wanted to express gratitude to her team and send a bit of positive energy our way as we head into the last act of the campaign.

 

Things like this matter.  Leadership matters.

 

This is the sort of thing Terri just does, because she believes it matters - that the people on her team and in her community matter. 

 

I've worked with some pretty amazing leaders in my time; Terri is one of my favourites.  I don't say this because I'm supporting her for Council; it works the other way around.  Terri Chu has my support because she's a leader I believe in.

 

That's why I'm proud to be part of her team and am looking forward to seeing her on Council. 

Terri Chu is the kind of leader Toronto deserves.

IGNtegrity

 

 

WILX-10's source agreed to disclose the information as long as he/she remains anonymous. The person is currently at risk of a $5 million penalty for releasing the information.

 

It's unfortunate the extra didn't have the discipline or respect for the film he's working on to hold his tongue, but how responsible is ILX-10 or for that matter IGN for publishing this?

 

Clearly, a bit of film gossip isn't as damaging as the hacking and release of a celebrity's personal pictures, but it's hardly as relevant to the public as WikiLeaks (or Shield/Hydra's info dump which copied it).

 

Integrity, folks - of the system, of the product, and of self.  It kinda matters.

 

Weathering the Storm Together

 

People come together in times of disaster, in times of war and terror. They set aside their differences.

 

Kinsella's piece talks about political leaders; it makes sense, as that's his playground.  I'm sure we can all think of moments and individuals - even if never new their names - who reached out a hand to help a stranger in a moment of crisis.

 

I've never seen TTC operators better than in times of crisis.  Instead of feeling miserable at a mundane job, they feel empowered as conduits for community action - and are recognized as such.  I can remember the last big blackout in Toronto, everyone turned to whoever they could find in uniform for updates, direction, confidence.

 

There are big storms on the horizon - ebola could get bad.  ISIS is one of many overseas crises that are really bad already.  Then we get into infrastructure problems here, unpruned trees, leaves blown onto roads where they blog drains, etc., etc.

 

Forget the whole self-interest-is-the-only-interest nonsense; when we look out for ourselves only, we fail collectively.  When we work together, we transcend - and only then can we rise above.

 

Money in a bank account means little in a crisis.   Fancy titles mean little in a crisis.  What matters when things get ugly is leadership.

 

As the storm edges closer, we're going to start recognizing leadership from quarters we haven't been looking for it.

Thinking Outside the Partisan Box with @GHoakz + @ZPaikin

 

We live in an era in which centralization around party leaders has made it less evident to the public what potential prime ministers wish to do with power.  After nearly 15 hears of hyper-partisanship and absence of big ideas, national coalition governments could reinvigorate our country at a time of major global change.

 

Now is an opportune time for both the Canadian people and its political leaders to ask themselves whether we want to do what it takes to become a serious global player in an evolving world order, and whether we believe it is time to reject politics as usual in favour of something better.

 

 

Full confession - I consider both Zach and Greta to be friends (though one of them still owes me a non-coffee). 

 

The first time I had a serious chat with Zach, we ended up talking philosophy, politics and occupational mental health - in about four different languages.  I consider myself a polyglot, but Zach's facility with language (right down to regional accents) is awesome to behold.

 

I've got a particular soft spot for Greta.  I first met her on the last Ontario Liberal Leadership race, where we both were part of Team GK.  17 at the time, she first walked into the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It didn't take me long to realize that behind those bright eyes was a burning intellect, a passion for positive change and a wicked organizational mind.  It wasn't 'til later that I learned she'd been an entrepreneur since she was 13.

 

Both Zach and Greta are part of a growing movement that doesn't see gaining power through the existing system as the only means to effect change; they see the as-is system as part of the problem to be addressed.  You can see this movement reflected in organizations like Samara, civic engagement groups like Why Should I Care and of course, all things Open Government.

 

I love the fact that they're willing to challenge the status quo and present an idea that transcends partisan politics.  I would argue, however, that they need to dig a bit deeper to discern the core problem and then work out from there towards a viable solution.

 

A couple of key quotes that stood out to me:

 

- centralization around party leaders has made it less evident to the public what potential prime ministers wish to do with power.

 

- a theoretical Liberal prime minister would have a tough time explaining to his caucus why he was putting a handful of Tories and New Democrats in cabinet in place of some of his fellow Grits.

 

- A theoretical Liberal prime minister would have a tough time explaining to his caucus why he was putting a handful of Tories and New Democrats in cabinet in place of some of his fellow Grits.

 

- establishing a coalition-government norm would reaffirm the fact that we elect Parliaments, and not governments, in this country.

The role of Parliament is to hold government to account on the people's behalf - such has been the case since Magna Carta.  Government is the Crown and the Crown's Ministers.  It's not part of our constitution that Ministers need to be selected from among elected Members of Parliament; that's convention, not law.  The Party system evolved as a way to ensure broader interest groups had sufficient voice for their collective concerns to impact policy.

 

Understanding where we came from helps in seeing why things have gone so screwy.

 

When politicians elected to represent specific, geographic constituencies become subservient to the interests of political parties as a means to ensure support in their riding, but also to build the brand necessary to get "promoted" from the Parliamentarian side to the Crown's side - who is serving who?

 

As Samara's MP exit interviews demonstrated, Parliamentarians don't know who they're supposed to answer to or even have a clear sense of what their role is.

 

While I commend the idea of increasing the plurality of voices and views at the decision-making top, I wonder if opening up all Parliamentarians to compete for higher position would make them more, not less subjective to centralized power (the PM and the PMO).  From a real-world perspective, if I'm the guy/gal making choices about who's in cabinet from a broader range of players and I know that "getting the promotion" is a key motivator for MPs, I'm playing them off one another to get more of what I want across the board.

 

That's the opposite direction of where we need Parliament to be heading. 

Knowing how clever and committed Greta and Zach are to strengthening our system of democracy, I would encourage them to turn their energies towards Open Government, participatory budgeting, etc.  Also, the emerging field of workplace culture change is worth considering; the House of Commons is all-too-often a toxic environment that hinders rather than supports the development of shared solutions as we focus on stopping what we don't like rather than collaboratively creating things we do like.

 

That, and civic engagement.  Perhaps the best thing that bright, engaged and thoughtful leaders like Greta and Zach can do is share their passion, networks and understanding of the system with other Canadians of all rank and file.

 

The kind of structural change we need isn't going to be flowed from top to bottom; it's got to be grown from the bottom up.

 

 

Incompetence, Greed, Neglect, Dishonesty: The Association Game

 

 

Decades of incompetence, neglect, greed and dishonesty by a succession of owners, engineers and municipal officials led to the deadly cave-in of a northern Ontario mall two years ago, a judicial inquiry reported Wednesday.

 

Somehow, this story sounds familiar.  What does it remind me of?

 

Oh yeah, this:

 

"It's important to bear in mind that the mess in Bangladesh was created over a period of 20 years by brands and retailers and their local factory partners and the Bangladesh government," says Nova.  "It's going to take substantial time to clean it up."

 

What went wrong in Bangladesh?  Incompetence, greed, neglect, dishonesty.

 

But at the time, it wasn't framed that way.  Instead, bold, profit-minded entrepreneurs were focusing on the production and delivery of low-cost goods demanded by the market.

 

Greed is good, remember?  We are supposed to applaud business-minded individuals who add value to the economy and not ask so many questions about the back-end.  Regulations are deterrents to entrepreneurialism, not essential frameworks for the safety of individuals.

 

I mean, this is the real world, right?  People have to learn to fight for what they want.  All the workers in that factory (or in the mall) should have proactively known there was a problem and withheld their labour/dollars until such time as the space was corrected.

 

Clearly, none of this is the fault of the businesses involved.  Policy makers can only deliver what the people want, right?  It's the way the economy works; governments can support whatever adds value to the economy in good conscience.

 

It's worth adding that there are a lot of non-City apartment complexes in Neighbourhood Improvement Areas that are falling apart; owners get around having to do repairs by switching ownership before the city-mandated repair dates post-ownership come up.  This way, they get profit without having to worry about stuff like safety or responsibility.

Then, there are all these new condos being built for demand, not durability.

 

Except this is a problem Council knows exists.

 

When you know a problem exists, have clear examples of what happens when the problem isn't addressed and the responsibility to do something about it - but don't - that's not incompetence or neglect, its criminal.

Leading by Example: Political Responsibility

How many people are upset with politics-as-usual?

How many people feel that it's a gotcha game played by self-serving folk who care more about how much copy they get than what they deliver for constituents?

Far too many.  This is why voter turnout is down, political disengagement is high and the public mood is stewing.

 

It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, really - the more disengaged citizens become, the harder candidates need to sell.  The ones best able to cut through the data smog, unfortunately, are all-too-often the ones who abuse the system the most.

 

While I understand, begrudgingly, the need to message and sell to gain traction in politics, I am much less forgiving when it comes to candidates teaching their volunteers that this is the way the game should work.  That it's okay to bend the truth, skirt the rules and put the individual win ahead of the health of our democratic process.

 

I can remember one of the first campaigns I worked on where I was told complete untruths about an opposition candidate as a motivation tactic.  It got me upset to the point where I vented to friends about what I'd heard.  When I'd calmed down and did some homework, I realized that the line I'd been fed had no validity, at all.  But by then the damage had been done.

 

This is how escalation happens.  Impressionable young minds are given the wrong marching orders, find themselves in bitter contests without end and strangle civic discourse that much more.  It's why there's a reduced oxygen flow in our politics.

 

It's also why there's such demand for authenticity in our politicians these days.  We've learned to see the rhetoric as a reflection of the character of the speaker, not of those they are targeting.

 

Leaders have a responsibility to put the people and their communities before their wins.  It means teaching youth how the system is supposed to function and empowering them with the ideals to get it back on track.  It means leading by example.

 

When I see young people spouting divisive, manipulative rhetoric and smiling to themselves at their cleverness, knowing it'll earn a pat on the head from their candidate, I cringe.  That sort of damage is hard to undo.

 

We deserve better.  We demand better.

 

And thankfully, there are authentic leaders out there bold enough to deliver.