From now through November 8 you will be inundated with political ads, tweets, postings, robo-calls, etc.

It’s worse for me. I live on the Washington/Oregon border, so I have the displeasure of being snowed by two of everything, both states, local (Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR) and, of course, Federal.

Of course, my area’s not alone; I’m sure the same thing happens to others in similar geographical areas.

So, in honor of the season, I thought I’d share something I wrote that is worth keeping uppermost in your mind at least through November 9 — and probably all year long.

“Once there was a talking horse named Mr. Ed on TV. These days there are dozens of talking asses on all kinds of media.”

Flickr image credit: #mr_ed

Assuming, that is, you care at all about the future.

Sometimes I post about subjects not really business-oriented.

In this case, because 300 years isn’t all that long…

And disruption isn’t always progress.

Video credit: Business Insider

My friend Emily lives in Mountain View, CA.

In spite of all the stories about high rents and corporate bussing not much has been said about companies such as Prometheus Real Estate Group and its ilk that are responsible for much of the actual destruction of community in the name of progress and greed.

They do it by buying up properties, telling the tenants to move, and then doubling (or more) the rents.

Like other Peninsula landlords, Prometheus sets a baseline criteria for tenants to prove they earn more than three times the monthly rent. With that requirement, a household would have to earn more than $144,000 annually to be eligible to rent a $4,000-per-month unit, Scarboro pointed out.

Emily recently sent a letter to the City Council, which resulted in the story linked to above and a report on NBC Bay Area.

And here’s the letter that started it all (edited for length and clarity).

I have been a resident of Mountain View since 1999. Since I earn fewer than six figures I am a low – middle income professional by this City’s standards (and the word in the street is that the voice of folks like me carries little weight).

I am writing anyway because today I realized that if I am not for myself – who will be for me? Certainly not my current hometown.

I live on a private street with 24 town homes and most of us are low to middle income (by Silicon Valley standards). We are teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals, doctors (residents), beauticians, and more. We have patients, clients, customers and businesses in town. We are in our 30-70’s. Some of us have young children. Some are single Mom’s or just plain single. Several younger residents have disabilities. We are a diverse group by skin color, religion, culture, age and education representing what’s great about this City (or what used to be). Many of us were born here or have lived in Mountain View over 30 years. Some have lived on this street for 12 years or more. Our rents are not cheap. They range from $2500-3500 per month for our 1970’s style 2-3 bedrooms. We all pay our bills. Most of us love coming home and we have become a closely-knit community—which is increasingly rare in this town.

As you must already know, Prometheus Property Management’s latest takeover team has informed the 100+ residents on Forest Glen Street and at “Granada”, a nearby parcel with 14 townhomes (purchased at the same time) that we all need to pack up and “permanently evacuate” due to the new renovations allowing them to collect “considerable rent increases” “Feel free to apply as a new tenant but your rent must be no more than 30 percent of your monthly income or three times the new rental price.”

That’s requires a salary of $12,000 per month or more at their rental prices.

I used to love Mountain View. Not anymore.

What kind of a City sanctions new owners to displace over 100 residents and literally destroy a diverse neighborhood where everyone pulls their weight and contributes to their City in so many ways? You may consider the 3-6 months notice we were given to be a generous offer (they are not starting to renovate until mid summer) but how truly generous is this when it’s a known fact that there is limited decent housing and whatever housing exists has monthly income requirements that non-tech folks cannot meet? (According to the article, even many Googlers don’t earn that. –Miki)

Since the initial shock of forced displacement many of us have spent days looking at comparable sized apartments in Mountain View (and immediate surrounding areas) only to discover that Prometheus is not alone with their outrageous monthly income requirements at 3x the rent. We have found that most property management companies and individual landlords have the same requirements.

Being the great company they are, however, the Prometheus takeover team urged some of us to apply for apartments that are Below Market Rate (BMR). Funny thing is, “there is no BMR housing in Mountain View and the list has been closed since December” according to the office that manages it.

This is the new Mountain View at its best demonstrating how to ineffectively follow its own guidelines. Preserving and enhancing quality of life for Mountain View residents is only for those with very low income or the top 10%.

A BALANCED City would require a new owner to increase rents and renovate for NEW tenants when current tenants move out. People are moving in and out all the time. There is no rent control. No one is going to stick around forever. Some just want their children to finish their HS senior year with the kids they grew up with.

A FAIR City would have policies in place that keep companies like Prometheus from disenfranchising long time residents who at the very least work in this city. Most of us would happily exist with a rent increase even with our old grouty tiles, stained Formica and fake marble counters and sinks just to be able to continue to more easily drive to work, keep our doctors and run our businesses.

Tell me — how can this once great City of Mountain View look the other way and through sanctioning Prometheus’s business practices- force people with disabilities, in their 60’s or with kids in school to abandon their homes and neighborhood suffering, in some cases, irreparable financial loss and emotional distress. This can’t be legal.

[signed] Emily White Mountain View, CA

New York City and surrounding boroughs instituted rent control decades ago and the city is anything but destroyed; municipals governments work closely with housing organizations to make it work.

Of course, in a country where greed is enshrined in our culture, corruption is legalized in the form of lobbyists and the Supreme Court voted to put for sale signs on our elections, Prometheus’ actions are completely legal — and even applauded in certain circles.

Like most of you, I get a lot of email.

Maybe because I write not only this blog, but also creatively for clients, I tend to care about my responses.

The result is that every now and then I write something worth sharing beyond that email.

That’s what happened today.

A friend sent me an article.

My response was especially apropos considering the upcoming presidential election, which means months of being bombarded by candidates, talking heads, pundits, gurus, etc., on all forms of media.

That said, here is my self-described brilliant take on it.

Years ago there was one talking horse named Mr. Ed on TV. These days there are dozens of talking asses on all kinds of media.

Feel free to use it, although attribution is appreciated.

Image credit: Wikipedia

I rarely write about politics, but it’s that time of year; I live on the border between two states and have to listen to political ads from both. So please, if this post offends you accept my apologies and wield your delete key.

My feelings are driven by the smugness I see across the political spectrum irregardless of parties and beliefs.

Smugness regarding the rarity of corruption in the US vs. its prevalence in other countries.

The way I see it, corruption in the US is rare primarily because it’s been legalized in the form of lobbying and PACs.

Lobbying has long influenced legislation, but as of 2010, when the Supreme Court effectively eliminated restrictions on outside groups, elections themselves went up for sale.

If you doubt me look no farther than the Americans for Prosperity, owned and run by the Koch brothers, which will spend at least $125 million this year, and the growth of super PACs overall.

In 2000, outside groups spent $52 million on campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By 2012, that number had increased to $1 billion. (…) In 2014, as of early October, when the campaigns

had yet to do their big final pushes, overall spending was already more than $444 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Roughly $231 million was from the parties and their congressional committees, the rest from outside spending. The biggest chunk of that by far came from super PACs — more than $196 million.

What each of these wealthy individuals have in common is passion, but unbridled passion is the hallmark of the fanatic—and fanaticism paves the road to a closed mind—one that is evidenced by fear, hate and bigotry.

Legal corruption or not, voting is important—if for no other reason than not voting precludes your right to complain.

Or, as my mom used to say when faced with two bad choices, just “hold your nose” and vote against X as opposed to for Y.

And you can avoid the corruption by ignoring ads, whether pro or con, and evaluating candidates and issues in a holistic and pragmatic way that looks at what makes the most long-term sense.

Flickr image credit: DonkeyHotey

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Decades ago computer manufactures, such as IBM and DEC, created closed systems that wouldn’t/couldn’t talk to each other.

Apple chose to keep a closed system for years.

While closed systems seemed to enhance profitability, in the long-run the strategy failed to protect the companies from competition.

What closed systems did do was cost customers millions when, for business reasons, they had to be made to communicate.

Closed systems are back again only this time forcing compatibility is costing billions.

And it is you and I who will end up footing the cost.

Why?

Because this time the incompatibility is in the proprietary electronic medical records (EMR) systems that are mandated under the Affordable Care Act and, far more importantly, are an imperative for the health of the entire population.

The money in play is substantial; privately held Epic is one of the largest suppliers and its founder, Judith R. Faulkner, is supposed to be worth around $2.3 billion.

When you’re making that kind of money who worries about lives ruined or lost because of EMR incompatibility?

While the companies building incompatible systems are doing just fine, those who have to buy the systems aren’t—although size does make a difference.

The University of California Davis Health System has 22 specialists installing the technology so that doctors can share patient data between its Epic system and other internal systems, like the hemodynamic monitors in its critical care unit, or with some non-Epic systems outside the hospital. “We’re a huge organization, so we can absorb those costs,” said Michael Minear, the chief information officer at the U.C. Davis Health System. “Small clinics and physician offices are going to have a harder time.” (…) “The systems can’t communicate, and that becomes my problem because I cannot send what is required and I’m going to have a 1 percent penalty from Medicare,” Dr. Raghuvir B. Gelot said. “They’re asking me to do something I can’t control.”

What about regulators?

Regulators responded that interoperability was a “top priority” and that they recently set out a 10-year vision and agenda to achieve it, in an emailed statement from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The office’s spokesman added that achieving interoperability “requires stakeholders to come together and agree on policy-related issues like who can access information and for what purpose.”

So much for regulators.

Perhaps Congress… No; that’s a really stupid thought.

I guess the only sure things in all this is that the entrepreneurs who created the incompatible systems will increase their net worth, US medical costs will continue to skyrocket and you and I will pay the bills.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Have you ever take a step backwards from the point you are adamantly arguing and looked objectively at the end results of the two positions?

Ask the true believers of any question and they will assure you that the end result of their approach is vastly different from that of their verbal/ideological/actual opponent.

But is it really different?

Consider, for example, Malcolm Berko’s acerbic explanation of capitalism and socialism.

In a capitalist society, man exploits man, whereas in a socialist society, it’s the other way around.

Basically, the difference between the two is just a matter of degree. Russian politicians, with the approval of the government, rip off state-owned businesses and become millionaires or billionaires. In the process, the Russian citizen gets screwed.

In the U.S., JPMorgan Chase, Enron, Countrywide Financial, the United Auto Workers, the Teamsters, MCI WorldCom, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America rip off the consumer, and in the process, the politicians become wealthy and the American public gets screwed.

In actuality, the same actions yield the same results; only the terms used have changed.

But try telling that to someone who is passionately for or against.

Words equal spin and spin can suck you in; a good thing to remember considering everything going on, not to mention the upcoming elections.

Flickr image credit: moonrat42

Human Rights – something that is often talked about but little is done to define or uphold.

What is human rights?  It seems so right yet appears such a fable.   Most of the time we hear about human rights from some government official speaking about how some other government is negligent.  Yet it is never defined.

Is it privacy rights?  The right to use the internet without being monitored?  Is it the right to healthcare and education?  Is it having food, shelter, safety from violence?  Or is it to uphold human dignity?

We never quite know since it is never defined properly, or has so many definitions as to become worthless.  Is it the right for poor African Americans to be treated fairly under the law?  Male African Americans?  Why does the US with ¼ of the population of China have more than three times the amount of persons incarcerated?  Mostly black and Latino males?  Is this human rights?

Confusion is maybe the name of the game – as long as we don’t know what it is, it is a useful tool for controlling our thoughts and actions.  Who is it that want to make us act without thinking?  Who is it that defines another human being as an enemy and want us to take hostile action towards him/her?

Are there universal human desires?  For such things as food, safety, love, nurture, communion?  If there are, why are they not fulfilled?  Why do we allow ourselves to be derailed from attaining these and passing them on to others?  Is there any doubt that today we can easily feed the world and no one needs to go hungry?  Or that we can eradicate most of the common diseases that kill children?

We choose not to.

Isn’t there a gift in giving?  Why does it suit us to hoard “things” – money, land, items and safety?  If we recognize the universal desires and needs of our fellow humans, why don’t we work to get and give?  What is it that prevents us?

Ultimately, we want to receive from others, but need to be aware that giving is also receiving.  Can we reasonably expect to receive without being generous?  What is the origin of our selfishness?  Don’t we know better?

Neglecting to provide food to the hungry, clothing to the naked and safety to the threatened is antisocial behavior and lack of empathy.  Which of us have any remorse about this behavior?

Our conduct is very similar to the definition of psychopathy – “a personality trait or disorder characterized partly by enduring antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls” (Wikipedia).  All wealthy people and governments have the possibility to address the needs of human rights.  I define almost all of us living in North America and Europe as relatively wealthy, as well as large, affluent, segments of the developing world.

For whatever reason, we choose to exhibit this behavior.

Is there such a thing as human rights?

To psychopaths?

KG Charles-Harris is CEO of Emanio and a special contributor to MAPping Company Success.

If you follow any form of news you know that sexual foible has once again reared its immortal head and laid several leaders low.

This time, one of the high-flyers who fell was a woman.

David Petraeus, retired four-star general and director of the CIA, resigned, while Christopher Kubasik, destined to become Lockheed Martin CEO on January 1, was fired.

Their downfall was to be expected; every guy who has been caught playing around has watched his career sink in the harsh glare of the media spotlight.

The difference is that this time one of the women involved is being treated to that same spotlight.

Up to now Paula Broadwell has had the kind of career that positioned her for a stellar path over the next 25 years.

Her biography on the Penguin Speakers Bureau Web site says that she is a research associate at Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. She received a master’s in public administration from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. A self-described “soccer mom” and an ironman triathelete…

40 is young to have your career cut short, but the American public is unforgiving when it comes to anything that involves sex—especially true in our wired world.

I’ve always found it amusing to hear it claimed that “a woman wouldn’t [X], they are different.”

I think women are capable of being just as arrogant, just as stupid and just as conniving as any male out there.

The difference lies more in their survival instinct, which has been honed by several thousand years of pure necessity.

So even as the coercion eases the instinct has stayed strong.

Additionally, it’s a numbers game.

There are far more high-profile males than high-profile females, so the number of men who act out and get stupid is significantly greater than the women who do the same thing.

Flickr image credit: Tom Raftery

In January, 2008, when I was writing Leadership Turn, I wrote that politicians aren’t leaders.

We have no leaders, let alone statesmen, just ideologues, elected by like-minded ideologues, who care only about getting reelected, bringing government money back to their constituency and making lucrative connections in the event they aren’t reelected or are caught by term limits.

The following month I considered the difference between politicians and statesmen.

Politicians talk it — Statesmen walk it
Politicians run to win — Statesmen run to serve
Politicians are ideologues — Statesmen are open-minded
Politicians, “it’s all about me” — Statesmen, “it’s all about them”
Politicians focus on the next election — Statesmen focus on the future

In 2010 I reprised parts from them in another post about the idiocy of ideology.

Einstein also said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Americans must be insane; we will go to the polls flip the party in charge and expect different results.
Based on the past, what we will get is a different ideology that screws up differently, not better results.

Sadly, nothing much has changed in the intervening years; a notion that will be proved tomorrow.

Please note that much of the interest and value in these posts is found in the comments and discussion they generated.

Flickr image credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com