Thank You, Esther Cepeda

If you're familiar with this blog, or if you and I have ever had a meaningful conversation that lasted for more than 10 minutes, you already know that there's nothing I love more than to try and flip conventional wisdom on its head.

I'm not saying I take the credit for it -- there are great authors like Nicholas Nassim Talib and Malcolm Gladwell that make a living writing about such things.  There are books like Freakonomics that were written several years ago, but continue to spark lively debates about what we accept to be true, and why.  Just reading their stuff, and then talking to other people who also enjoy it, is often enough.

Anyway, I noticed in today's Sun that Esther Cepeda took on the whole "urban food desert" canard, while citing studies from the RAND Corp. and the Public Policy Institute of California.

What they found: "...low-income neighborhoods, in addition to having more fast-food restaurants and convenience stores, also have more grocery stores, supermarkets, and full-service restaurants than do more-affluent neighborhoods....A New York Times article summarizing the findings declared: 'There is no relationship between the type of food being sold in a neighborhood and obesity among its children and adolescents.'"

Cepeda goes on to describe the supposed "food desert" (as per the usda.gov locator) near her home, which is chock full of smaller stores, predominantly Hispanic-owned, that sell fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats at lower prices than the chain grocery store three miles away.

So she's combined anecdote with statistical data.  To pile more anecdote on top of that, think about ANY place in Lowell.  The only way someone could say that ANY part of the city is a food desert would be to do so without any hands-on familiarity with the area they're talking about.  You couldn't live here for more than a couple weeks without realizing how plentiful the food options are throughout the city.

Trust me, I acknowledge the Left and the Right are equal parts guilty about some of the "truths they hold dear" that fall apart upon further examination.  In this particular case, the Left is deserving of a skewering -- the entire "urban food desert" idea falls in line with the thought that some undefined "they" is denying a certain group of people access to what would otherwise make them healthier, prevent obesity, save them money, etc.

The reality is much more complicated.  As Cepeda writes in the column "A lifestyle, not a food choice," the solution to fighting the obesity epidemic is going to have to involve people taking control of their own lives and their own destiny.  Portraying people as helpless, hapless "victims" of some unnamed food oppressor may play well with certain people's narratives, but it ultimately does a disservice to those who are supposedly being spoken for.  

Empowering the 1% of the 1%

The Globe is really going full bore on the Joel Ward story.  Top headlines yesterday, spin-off stories, and then it's in the leadoff slot today.

Let me get this straight.  There are roughly 500,000 serious Bruins fans who were watching Game 7 (that's just based off some back-of-the-envelope math starting from the number who were watching the game and then working it down somewhat).  Chirpstory shows me that there were roughly 50 people ignorant enough to make classless, senseless, racist comments following Ward's game-winning goal.

That's not 1% of Bruins fans.  That's 1% of 1% of Bruins fans.  That's .0001.  To give that perspective, it means you would have to fill BOTH Tsongas and LeLacheur to near-capacity with men, women, and children hockey fanatics (just picture that for the visual, and yes, even Ted Leonsis would be on board with the venue choice), and somewhere in that crowd would be ONE Bruins fan who felt that it was okay to Tweet racist vulgarities following Game 7.

Racism is terrible, and it's indefensible.  When encountered, it needs to be addressed, and nipped in the bud.  That has already happened in the flood tide of social media running counter to the ignorance that a small number of people demonstrated after the game.

I think the Globe and some of the people quoted are really grasping at straws, though, when they make sweeping statements like, "This shows we haven't advanced..." or "This shows racism is alive and well..."  and the like.  No serious researcher in another field would take a one-in-ten-thousand as evidence of a trend....just imagine a medical study saying, "We found that one-in-ten-thousand people who drinks Poland Spring water daily will develop tooth decay," and then concluding that Poland Spring is part of a "disturbing" trend in tooth decay promotion?  Yet Charles Ogletree is opining in the Globe about the broad significance of a handful of ignorant Tweeters.

By framing the story that way, you're empowering those idiots.  They BECOME the story.  A city's reputation is stained (most of those Tweets, btw, did NOT originate in Boston) because of some stupid, impulsive fans (many of whom were teenagers), and trying to draw broad conclusions.

This is a victory ONLY for the people on the far right and the far left who promote racism for their personal advancement...and that's a group that's WAY smaller than 1% of 1% of the population.

As for everyone else?  We all lose something.  

Pivot Points

I caught a great Wall Street Journal on the way in to work today (yes, as in Reading While Walking) about how successful tech entrepreneurs 'pivot' when they identify better ways to do business, or even entirely new ways to use their sites.  The article, by the way, is here. 

Twitter, Instagram, and Groupon are all great examples of sites that became successful with a model that they didn't begin with.  As I wrote about a few days ago here, change.org is a great example of a 'pivoting' success, too.  When Ben was on the Daily Show, he talked about the various site iterations with Jon Stewart; only when the site became petition-focused, he said, did it really take off. 

One of my favorite quotes in the article was this: "...That prompted Mr. Graham to launch a program targeting groups that don't have an idea yet.  It will begin this summer in Silicon Valley." 

I love it.  The guy who founded Y Combinator is basically saying that he doesn't care whether you even have a clue as to what you'll produce -- if the right mix of people with the right set of skills is in place, good things are just going to happen.

Beyond some of the obvious factors (tech skill, hard work, ability to 'pitch' to angels, etc.) I would add that there's an intangible that a successful entrepreneur needs, which is an ability to perceive market demand, whether in its current form or down the line.  The hardest thing for an entrepreneur to sometimes do is to step beyond 'The Big Thing' that's his or her passion, and ask the right questions about whether others would share the love, so to speak. 

To take it local, that's a big factor in what separates success stories (Brew'd Awakening) from colossal busts (Rimz-U-Like). 

Anatomy of an Error

Some of the best advice I've ever heard anyone give -- ever -- is that anytime you're entering into conflict resolution, or a dispute, or you're responding to a perceived slight, etc. Always go in assuming the best intentions on the part of the other party.

Here is how something just got screwed up:

(1) CC calls today around 4 p.m. and says, "Can you provide me with ____." Being ever the dutiful staffer, and having that very document laying on the desk nearby, I say, "Yes. I can scan it and e-mail it right to you."

(2) I scan it, e-mail it, and consider it another task checked off, move on, and don't think about it again, until

(3) CC, speaking at Council meeting to Mayor, refers to document that was "sent out by your office."

(4) Another CC wonders, "Why didn't I have that information?" I can't blame the person asking the question. The way it was initially introduced, it sounded as if the information was being put *out* (as opposed to being sent to that individual, who had asked) which naturally begs the question of why everyone didn't have it.

(5) I watch at home, squirm a bit in my seat, and then see that things move on and then the meeting adjourns a few minutes later.

Lesson Learned: If any ONE of the group requests a document, info, a 'lookup,' etc. SEND IT TO ALL NINE. Even if the other eight are just carbon copied. This exact issue has come up with the CM before, so I sorta shoulda known...However, it didn't even occur to me in the moment (only when it came back up at tonight's meeting did I remember the previous iteration of this, which took place a couple years ago).

No one lost life, limb, or eyesight. The world will move on. No one acted with malice -- not the person who made the request, not me, not that person when he brought it up, and not the person who questioned it. Still, the post-mortem autopsy shows me where the error was made, and it won't happen again.

And I will conclude by asking anyone reading this (yes, all 12 of you!) to remember that the next time you see something that's screwed up, or even has the appearance of being screwed up, just remember that sometimes there's an explanation that can be explained by simple oversight or unfamiliarity with a procedure -- it's the same thing you'd want in return.

Frailty, Thy Name is Person!

I love people.

I am one of those people so extroverted that I score like 19 "E" out of a possible 20 on those Myers-Briggs things. I love to be around people, I love to converse with them (and am a reverse ventriloquist*, which you'll never believe 'til I point it out, and then you'll know), and love to hear their stories. In fact, when I look back on different life experiences, the things that stand out the most -- and that I sometimes miss the most -- are the stories that grow from those times and place, or even the storytellers themselves.

In fact, I love people so much that I married one. And we love each other so much that we made a whole new one.

So now that my people-loving credentials are firmly put on the line, let me say this: Sometimes, on some subjects, I've gotta part ways with 'em.

One of those subjects is rain, or the response to said weather phenomenon.

Until people start melting in water, or until something much more dangerous starts to fall from the sky (frogs? locust plagues?), I will be able to walk outdoors during while it's raining and generally be okay. In fact, I might enjoy it.

Upon arriving at the destination, my clothes, hair, and person might be somewhat wet, but my steadfast belief in the water cycle tells me that the dampness is just a temporary condition. Evaporation will take its course, and everything will be okay.

I'm not sure why people overreact to rain. Even on military bases, you can see some soldiers and sailors literally sprinting to get inside during a downpour (I would understand if they were in their dress uniforms, but I'm talking about guys in boots and cammies). It seems like the sprinting on a potentially wet surface must be much more dangerous than the threat of H20 particles hitting the body.

Office places, streets, and anywhere else are no exceptions. In general, I just think that as much as I love people, I'm going to throw them under the bus just enough to say I think they need to chill out a bit on this reaction-to-rain thing. Someone saw me yesterday after the downpour and based on the concerned expression and questions that followed, you would've thought I showed up bleeding in five places with maybe a bone or two protruding from somewhere.

Short of a corporate conspiracy being foisted upon us by the umbrella industry, I just don't see it the same way. On this subject, I guess I am the equivalent of that "third dentist" crazy enough not to endorse Trident.

* Reverse Ventriloquist. Unlike someone who appears to be talking but isn't, someone engaged in a conversation who, upon closer look, is revealed not to be actually speaking. In my case, applies only to conversations with people I don't know well [if it's a close friend I'm with, I can be a regular jaw-jacker...]

Then and There

Tonight at City Hall, Paul Belley opened up the Crime Victim Remembrance Event, sponsored by the Parents of Murdered Children, with a saxophone rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

After several speeches from local officials, Paul closed things up an incredible "America the Beautiful."

When the decision was made to hold the event inside, it was a call based entirely on the threat of rain, and the potential for damage to the sound system.

Besides making for a closer, more intimate gathering inside (and increasing the comfort level of everyone in attendance), the setting made for what Paul said were "great acoustics" that he wishes he could replicate everywhere he plays.

The McNulty File

A blog I wish to recommend is The McNulty File, which is written by an NCO who I deployed with last year. He lives in Medford, attends UML, and doesn't hold back with commentary that mostly focuses on politics, humor, and the military (and the intersection thereof). It's also now added to the blogroll here -- check it out!