Chris Abraham » healthiness

Successful SNS’s Will Be Modeled on the College Campus

Chris Abraham — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:34:36 +0000

The future of Social Network Services (SNS) can be discovered on High School and College campuses. I believe that topic-specific “vertical” SNS’s are very important, but I also think that the model needs to be University-like – a modularized SNS. There needs to be a campus “brand” (or University) within which the topic-specific “clubs,” “houses,” “fraternities,” “dorms,” and “interest groups” can interact – somewhere where crossovers, cross-fertilization, and aggregation are encouraged – no, needs – to happen. I hate SNS sites like boompa.com – a site devoted to your favorite cars – because I am not JUST a car guy.

I am a car guy for sure but I am also interested in rowing, in biking, in Thomas Pynchon, and in talk radio – Boompa might be successful in the short term, but in the long-term, the real power would come from creating a open, creative, resource-rich platform/campus/university/high school and maybe create a school of engineering, a liberal arts school, a law school, a dining hall, and so forth, but then allow the SNS to find itself.

To allow the SNS and its members to find their own voice, their own interests, and their own passions – which may well be very different from what is first assumed by the creator. Google gets this, though not yet within the construct of the SNS’s. What Google did do successfully was to buy USENET – the original newsgroups – and then build an superstructure on top of that – make it modern, sustainable, durable, and more readable.

Google returned USENET to relevance in a world that considered newsgroups and IRC to be dead or dying. Each and every one of communities on USENET is amazingly vertical, but they could all back up and back out to the larger USENET community – to the equivalent of the “welcome new students??? meetings and gatherings colleges offer to entering Freshmen.

Communities that are too vertical tend to shoe horn the “general topics??? conversations into hidden “off topic??? eddies. That is just the opposite of what should be done. The conversation should be general, cross-pollinating, and then move, after a conversation starts, into another room.

Start with an amazing platform, collect users, listen and watch them to see how they’re playing with the software application objects, widgets, and tools (are they playing with the toy or the box?), and then build for the users base, withholding judgment. Digg is a case study for this: start small, grow organically, and allow your members to find themselves.

The developers of Digg realized that after initial vertical growth based on the general members of Slashdot (techie, geeky, teens, boys), digg would suffer from the same sort of vulnerabilities that Slashdot suffered when Slashdot didn’t evolve and grow and broaden itself.

People love talking about Linux, but when happens when the Dow drops or the elections come? Where will the conversation happen? Where is the “kitchen??? at the party where every eventually goes to just talk about general interest stuff? Unless there are opportunities to express and share so-called “off-topic??? conversation right there, within the community in which members are already committed, with members to whom they’re already committed, then they are bound to go elsewhere.

Starting small and allowing the community to design itself is much different than starting big and losing one’s focus. Other mistakes happen when community builders make assumptions as to what participants, members, and lurkers want. Another mistake is putting a wall up around the community so that non-members cannot get a full feeling for the community from without.

The best SNS’s, virtual worlds, and online communities are honeypots. By honeypot, I am not suggesting, “a server that is configured to detect an intruder by mirroring a real production system. It appears as an ordinary server doing work, but all the data and transactions are phony. Located either in or outside the firewall, the honeypot is used to learn about an intruder’s techniques as well as determine vulnerabilities in the real system.” Although I am, sort of. The best SNS needs to be appealing, attractive, sweet, and compelling. Community-builders and SNS ASP developers need to be willing learn about member techniques, interests, processes, and needs, as well as determine “vulnerabilities” in the SNS platform that may repel, turn off, or limit the evolution and growth of the community.

To channel Chauncey Gardener for a second, one must do whatever one must to make sure that the earth in the garden is moist and well fed, one must seed well and completely, one must keep the garden in sun and water, one must encourage the garden to grow as it will for only in its growth will the garden be successful, and then, after rigorous growth, pruning and weeding must be done, only in order to allow the garden to be healthy, not to turn the garden into topiary. Okay, I am done.

Digg allows all of these things. Digg is perfectly useful and compelling even as an alien, but it is way more fun and interesting when you’re a citizen, that’s for sure. An SNS community needs to be as attractive as possible because exclusivity is no longer essential or even valuable. What is valuable is “useful,??? “interesting,??? and “authentic.??? They also have to have community buy-in and the best enjoy a certain fanatical devotion. Just like the best Universities and Colleges.

And Digg allowed its member to tell it when it was time to evolve past tech and geek news. Digg did not limit its scope or define itself too tightly with being “gear for geeks??? or “news for nerds.??? That would have ultimately been the death of Digg.

What the best Universities (such as Yale) understand is that it is not the student who is blessed and honored by being accepted by a top college (Yale College) but rather it is the college that should be blessed and honored (and should be grateful) that such a quality student is accepting its offers and actually attending – choosing – their particular school: Yale instead of Princeton, Brown, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Dartmouth, Stanford, Columbia, Berkeley, etc…

Harvard, too, is aware that although in the short-term Harvard makes the Harvard Man, over the long term, it is Harvard Men who made Harvard and continue to make Harvard. “Who have you graduated recently???? Unless the quality and character of its students and alumni remain top-drawer, Harvard is not guaranteed its position as “top three??? in USA Today alongside Princeton and Yale. No matter how grand its endowment.

So, Harvard and Yale spoil their students rotten! My friends who attended Harvard or Yale college swoon over those 4 years like I swoon over my first love.

Likewise, SNS’s, virtual worlds, and virtual communities need to realize that at any one point, their brand is only as good as the collective that is manifest in the users, the members, the lurkers, the stewards, and the alumni of the property.

This isn’t only true in SNS’s. The same thing can be said of the most successful message boards and online communities. The most important distinction, I think, is that all of these “rooms” and all of these “clubs” and all of these spaces where (and are) defined and created by the communities themselves. Sui generis. And this sort of ownership – “for us by us,??? as the slogan goes over as Howard Rheingold’s Brainstorms community – should never be underestimated.

The Well has Howard Rheingold as a member and alumnus, for example, and the credibility of all that he has made and done; over time, more and more virtual communities, virtual worlds, and SNS will be known for their members as well: who studies, who studied, and who wants to join.

“What’s in it for me??? (WIIFM) and the concept of pride of ownership are important – essential – ingredients of a sustainable, deep, thriving, and healthy community. The success of MySpace and of Facebook is that the verticals are not (were not) defined for them by their grand architects – they are self-creating, self-forming, and also self-destructing. They form, reform, mutate and disperse after they hit a limit of general conversation and then either break off and reform into an “interest group” or “club” or they self-check and work to “get back on topic.”

SNS’s and communities in general tend to be formed in one of two ways: like Paris or like London. Intelligence Design (architecture) or Emergent Design. The later never looks very beautiful or the way people – or the creators, investors, and architects – expect (or want) it to look, because investors and designers tend to not be able to control it – and when they do try to impost order, often in a heavy-handed way, they also tend to scare off all of their members, too.

This organic revolution has proven its success online time and time again. The Internet does not respond (well or at all) to command and control. The smartest Web 2.0 platforms allow the “masses of asses” (yes, the customer; yes, us) to define the platform and the experience – their own and collective environment and experience.

MySpace does this amazingly well and so does Facebook. Until recently, Friendster suffered from a vision and used command and control tactics to try to coerce its users that “it didn’t really want to do things that way??? and Friendster members abandoned in droves to platforms and experiences not so monitored by “mom and dad.???

A command and control grand vision doesn’t work when you develop an environment that needs to be truly both attractive and compelling much more than it needs to be informational or instructional. An SNS needs to be attractive, diversional, compelling, amusing, and entertaining – never limiting.

My analogy of college and high school never mentioned classrooms or classes for training or learning. People do enough of that at school and at work. An SNS needs to give its users a university campus without any expectations or concepts of dropping out, getting judged, doing homework, or being held accountable for anything.

A good SNS should be all late-night wine-influenced discussions of Descartes and Plato and the summer afternoons on the quad and the time playing Xbox with your roommates.

When I go onto my long-term online communities, the Well, The Meta Network, USENET, and Brainstorms, there are many very deep and very vertical communities, discussing things as frivolous as fashion and video games and as deep as how to survive cancer, how to get a post doc grant, and very deep discussions on “spirit,” “chaos theory,” and “world politics.”

What makes this amazing and sustainable is that there are an infinite number of ways to get along, to move into a space of intense conversation, and then to pull back into common areas, just to see who’s around. In a university setting, this could be the dining hall, the quad, the commons, etc. These spaces are very important.

If you think about all of this in terms of evolution, then we can think about the way things evolve in the most perverse ways when isolated from others of its kinds. So, if there are impervious walls – gaps or voids, mountains or ridges – between these vertical markets, SNS’s, and communities, then there may be an initial success, but there can also be a terrible volatility. One plague or drought can decimate a population completely.

Having a commons allows members and visitors to have a place to meet new people, have new experiences, and learn of new clubs, new opportunities, and new places – inbreeding versus crossbreeding. Ultimately, a diversity of visitors helps build a more resilient, invested, and self-identifing community. They will become “students for life??? at best and proud alums at worst. They will carry the brand awareness, even if their lives become too busy to participate any more.

They will become life long brand ambassadors for your community. Proud alumni.

And, in terms of “viral marketing,” it is also important when it comes to a member of an SNS “inviting his friends” – not all of my friends have the same vertical interests that I do… They could have very different interests – but as I explore the “commons” of an SNS, I can note that there are things happening online that “friend x” and “friend y” would love, and that would be my incentive to invite them on board.

Boompa? I am the only person I know in my entire community – that is not true, my buddy has an Audi S4 – who is into cars. My buddy is an Audi driver and I am a BMW driver. Does that mean we’re both drivers? Does that mean we love cars or our particular car? Do we cross over on performance sedans? On German cars? On luxury cars?

You have to offer the tools to allow the market to choose for itself, otherwise, you might never find out that the SNS needs all three, or none at all.

A “Modularized SNS” should be neutral like a university (unlike MySpace, which is pretty pre-defined as to what the demographic is), and there are lots of “vertical niche SNS’s” (e.g. car enthusiasts, gourmet cooking, travel, Rolex fans, Republican politicos, etc.) That way, everyone can form a SNS experience that actually fits them by modularly assembling the groups of people who have similar interests, (not just friends-in-common!)

Always Remember the 95 Theses of the Cluetrain Manifesto

Chris Abraham — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:55:16 +0000

Markets are conversations.

Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.

Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.

Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.

People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.

The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media.

Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.

In both internetworked markets and among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way.

These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge.

As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally.

People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about adding value to commoditized products.

There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

What’s happening to markets is also happening among employees. A metaphysical construct called “The Company” is the only thing standing between the two.

Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.

In just a few more years, the current homogenized “voice” of business—the sound of mission statements and brochures—will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court.

Already, companies that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone.

Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.

Companies that don’t realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.

Companies can now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance.

Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.

Companies need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. They need to get a sense of humor.

Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the corporate web site. Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view.

Companies attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their market actually cares about.

Bombastic boasts—”We are positioned to become the preeminent provider of XYZ”—do not constitute a position.

Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.

Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.

By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep markets at bay.

Most marketing programs are based on the fear that the market might see what’s really going on inside the company.

Elvis said it best: “We can’t go on together with suspicious minds.”

Brand loyalty is the corporate version of going steady, but the breakup is inevitable—and coming fast. Because they are networked, smart markets are able to renegotiate relationships with blinding speed.

Networked markets can change suppliers overnight. Networked knowledge workers can change employers over lunch. Your own “downsizing initiatives” taught us to ask the question: “Loyalty? What’s that?”

Smart markets will find suppliers who speak their own language.

Learning to speak with a human voice is not a parlor trick. It can’t be “picked up” at some tony conference.

To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.

But first, they must belong to a community.

Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end.

If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market.

Human communities are based on discourse—on human speech about human concerns.

The community of discourse is the market.

Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die.

Companies make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are protecting less against competitors than against their own market and workforce.

As with networked markets, people are also talking to each other directly inside the company—and not just about rules and regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines.

Such conversations are taking place today on corporate intranets. But only when the conditions are right.

Companies typically install intranets top-down to distribute HR policies and other corporate information that workers are doing their best to ignore.

Intranets naturally tend to route around boredom. The best are built bottom-up by engaged individuals cooperating to construct something far more valuable: an intranetworked corporate conversation.

A healthy intranet organizes workers in many meanings of the word. Its effect is more radical than the agenda of any union.

While this scares companies witless, they also depend heavily on open intranets to generate and share critical knowledge. They need to resist the urge to “improve” or control these networked conversations.

When corporate intranets are not constrained by fear and legalistic rules, the type of conversation they encourage sounds remarkably like the conversation of the networked marketplace.

Org charts worked in an older economy where plans could be fully understood from atop steep management pyramids and detailed work orders could be handed down from on high.

Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority.

Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia.

Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies.

There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.

In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.

As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked markets.

These two conversations want to talk to each other. They are speaking the same language. They recognize each other’s voices.

Smart companies will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner.

If willingness to get out of the way is taken as a measure of IQ, then very few companies have yet wised up.

However subliminally at the moment, millions of people now online perceive companies as little more than quaint legal fictions that are actively preventing these conversations from intersecting.

This is suicidal. Markets want to talk to companies.

Sadly, the part of the company a networked market wants to talk to is usually hidden behind a smokescreen of hucksterism, of language that rings false—and often is.

Markets do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in the conversations going on behind the corporate firewall.

De-cloaking, getting personal: We are those markets. We want to talk to you.

We want access to your corporate information, to your plans and strategies, your best thinking, your genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance.

We’re also the workers who make your companies go. We want to talk to customers directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script.

As markets, as workers, both of us are sick to death of getting our information by remote control. Why do we need faceless annual reports and third-hand market research studies to introduce us to each other?

As markets, as workers, we wonder why you’re not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language.

The inflated self-important jargon you sling around—in the press, at your conferences—what’s that got to do with us?

Maybe you’re impressing your investors. Maybe you’re impressing Wall Street. You’re not impressing us.

If you don’t impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Don’t they understand this? If they did, they wouldn’t let you talk that way.

Your tired notions of “the market” make our eyes glaze over. We don’t recognize ourselves in your projections—perhaps because we know we’re already elsewhere.

We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.

You’re invited, but it’s our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel!

We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

If you want us to talk to you, tell us something. Make it something interesting for a change.

We’ve got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff we’d be willing to pay for. Got a minute?

You’re too busy “doing business” to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we’ll come back later. Maybe.

You want us to pay? We want you to pay attention.

We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party.

Don’t worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it’s not the only thing on your mind.

Have you noticed that, in itself, money is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else can we talk about?

Your product broke. Why? We’d like to ask the guy who made it. Your corporate strategy makes no sense. We’d like to have a chat with your CEO. What do you mean she’s not in?

We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from The Wall Street Journal.

We know some people from your company. They’re pretty cool online. Do you have any more like that you’re hiding? Can they come out and play?

When we have questions we turn to each other for answers. If you didn’t have such a tight rein on “your people” maybe they’d be among the people we’d turn to.

When we’re not busy being your “target market,” many of us are your people. We’d rather be talking to friends online than watching the clock. That would get your name around better than your entire million dollar web site. But you tell us speaking to the market is Marketing’s job.

We’d like it if you got what’s going on here. That’d be real nice. But it would be a big mistake to think we’re holding our breath.

We have better things to do than worry about whether you’ll change in time to get our business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom?

We have real power and we know it. If you don’t quite see the light, some other outfit will come along that’s more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with.

Even at its worst, our newfound conversation is more interesting than most trade shows, more entertaining than any TV sitcom, and certainly more true-to-life than the corporate web sites we’ve been seeing.

Our allegiance is to ourselves—our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Companies that have no part in this world, also have no future.

Companies are spending billions of dollars on Y2K. Why can’t they hear this market timebomb ticking? The stakes are even higher.

We’re both inside companies and outside them. The boundaries that separate our conversations look like the Berlin Wall today, but they’re really just an annoyance. We know they’re coming down. We’re going to work from both sides to take them down.

To traditional corporations, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down.

We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.

Always remember! Never forget! If you’re in marketing or public relations and you have not read The Cluetrain Manifesto, it is about time — read it!

An Exemplar Social Media News Release

Chris Abraham — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:04:24 +0000

I am really proud of the work we at Abraham Harrison are doing on behalf of Jerry White’s new book, I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis, and new organization, SurvivorCorps. So excited am I that we really created a gorgeous Social Media News Release (SMNR) for the project, for both I Will Not Be Broken and SurvivorCorps — and I wrote about it over on Marketing Conversation — and here it is below:

When we work with clients, we tend to create what are called Social Media News Releases. During out promotion of the new book by Jerry White called I Will Not Be Broken, we created the following SMNR. You can see a CMS version here and the official static version here. The inline version is pasted below — as you can see, it pastes pretty well, which is important when you’re expecting bloggers to “steal” code, content, HTML, links, photos, and graphics directly from the SMNR and into their blog via coppy-and-paste into their rich-text editor. One can surely use too much style and CSS fu that could result in a difficult-to-integrate into a blog. Also, when I get the press kit from the client, it is essential to boil down — reduce — the content into web-friendly content: PDF and Word needs to be converted to PNG, GIF, JPG, and HTML — that’s all that matters online. Finally, try to pre-size the images into post-friendly sizes because most bloggers don’t have the sort of set-up that would allow them to convert “press-ready” portraits and “full-size” images into smaller, thumbnails, for a website: do as much of the premastication and blog-ready HTML as possible and make it a simple matter for your blogger. The easier, the better. Be a valet to your blogger — a facilitator!

I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis
by Jerry White

Copies of I Will Not Be Broken Now Available Online and at Stores Nationwide

Leveraging personal experience and a lifetime of wisdom, landmine survivor Jerry White outlines a very specific five-step program to coping with disaster; to achieving strength and hope; and to turning tragedy into triumph

News Facts

I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White went on sale April 29th, 2008.
The official I Will Not Be Broken web site http://www.iwillnotbebroken.org launched May 1, 2008.
I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White will be available as an Audiobook
Jerry White, author of I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis, is available for blog, podcast, and vlog interviews.

About I Will Not Be Broken, a Book by Jerry White

From a leader of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning movement to ban landmines and founder of Survivor Corps comes an astoundingly effective guide to recreating a happy and fulfilling life after catastrophe strikes—a book that Bob and Lee Woodruff call “a road map for the individual and their family to re-enter the land of the living.” In I WILL NOT BE BROKEN, Jerry White reframes the question “why do bad things happen to good people?” and asks, given that bad things do happen, how do people absorb the blows and move through them?

Tragedy happens to everyone. Whether it’s the loss of a loved one, a painful divorce, or a serious injury, we all face unavoidable moments that divide our lives into “before” and “after.” These events take a heavy toll on everyone, but there are those who have muscled their way through tough times and emerged stronger, wiser—even grateful for their struggle. Jerry White is one such example. In 1984, he lost his leg—and almost his life—in a landmine accident, and has personally endured the pain of loss and the challenge of rebuilding.

As co-founder of Survivor Corps, White has connected with thousands of victims of tragedy, and in I WILL NOT BE BROKEN, he shares their collective wisdom, which he distills into an effective five-step program for turning tragedy into triumph:

Face facts
Choose life
Reach out
Get moving
Give back

In their own words, his fellow survivors share their stories—a group that includes the well known like Lance Armstrong, Elie Wiesel, and the late Princess Diana, but also everyday people including soldiers and veterans of the military. With compassion, White takes readers through the process of not only enduring tragedy and victimhood, but going on to thrive.

Book Digital Downloads

Download the Introduction to I Will Not Be Broken
Download Chapter 1 of I Will Not Be Broken
Download Intro & Chap 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Combined

Reviews and Testimonials

“In I Will Not Be Broken, Jerry White brings his insight and experience to bear expertly for those facing life’s unexpected challenges. He embodies the spirit of survivorship.”
Lance Armstrong, co-author of Every Second Counts

“Jerry White has written an amazingly poignant book. But it does more than capture the collective experience of enduring a tragedy. It provides a road map for the individual and their family to put one foot in front of the other and re-enter the land of the living. This book will be a remarkable tool especially for the many military families impacted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Bob and Lee Woodruff, authors of In an Instant

“We can choose happiness, even after the worst of times. Jerry White offers an excellent guide to navigating and overcoming the traumas we face in our lives.”
Deepak Chopra M.D., author of Buddha: A Story of Enlightenment

“This is an important book. Jerry White shares lessons learned from his experience recovering from a landmine accident to help trauma victims recover, survive, and thrive.”
Jane Goodall, author of Harvest for Hope

“Offers wise, practical, and inspiring steps to come back from life’s worst setbacks. Jerry White speaks with compassion and authority—and an abundance of emotional intelligence.”
Daniel Goleman, author of Social Intelligence“I have visited landmine survivors around the world with Jerry White. I have seen him reach out to others and walk with them on the path from victim to survivor. His courageous personal experience is a beacon for all who are searching to recover and reclaim life.”
Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, author of Leap of Faith: Memoirs of an Unexpected Life

“The tank and guns on Tiananmen Square crushed the hopes of a generation. But many refused to stay victims. We find new ways to find new hope. When I met Jerry White, I instantly recognized a fellow survivor who understands what it takes to overcome obstacles to hope. This book will inspire.”
Li Lu, Deputy Commander Tiananmen Square

About Jerry White

Jerry White is a global survivor activist who has dedicated his life to helping victims of violent conflict. While camping in Northern Israel in 1984, he stepped on a landmine, and he spent nearly six months in Israeli hospitals learning to walk on an artificial leg. Since then, he has become a recognized leader of the historic International Campaign to Ban Landmines (winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize), and a co-founder of Survivor Corps. He has testified before the US Congress and the United Nations and appeared in hundreds of media interviews and profiles.

The Five Steps of I Will Not Be Broken

1. Face Facts. One must first accept the harsh reality about suffering and loss, however brutal. “This terrible thing has happened. It can’t be changed. I can’t rewind the clock. My family still needs me. So now what?”

2. Choose Life. That is, “I want to say yes to the future. I want my life to go on in a positive way.” Seizing life, not surrendering to death or stagnation, requires letting go of resentments and looking forward, not back. It can be a daily decision.

3. Reach Out. One must find peers, friends, and family to break the isolation and loneliness that come in the aftermath of crisis. Seek empathy, not pity, from people who have been through something similar. Let the people in your life into your life. “It’s up to me to reach for someone’s hand.”

4. Get Moving. Sitting back gets you nowhere. One must get out of bed and out of the house to generate momentum. We have to take responsibility for our actions. “How do I want to live the rest of my life? What steps can I take today?”

5. Give Back. Thriving, not just surviving, requires the capacity to give again, through service and acts of kindness. “How can I be an asset to those around me, and not a drain? Will I ever feel grateful again?” Yes, and by sharing your experience and talents, you will inspire others to do the same.

Various Excerpts From I Will Not Be Broken

On Strength: “They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. It’s not quite that simple. I believe you have to decide it will make you stronger. Experience has taught me that happy endings can never be taken for granted. They must be chosen.”

On Surviving and Recovery: “We are surrounded by survivors who have gone before us, and their examples will help mark the way forward. Their experiences show us that, with the right support, everyone can recover and thrive. As we overcome hardship, there is laughter and hope and love waiting for each of us. But it is crucial for us to want those things.”

Growing Stronger from Crisis: “Is there really a way to grow stronger in crisis? You bet there is. I am convinced we not only can toughen under pressure, but also soar. Why? Because I did. And I have watched thousands of others transform tragedy into growth.”

The Bell Tolls for Everyone: “Because life will happen to all of us. Violence and terror can be visited upon just about anybody these days. Life explodes, and nothing is ever quite the same. I’m not just referring to a personal injury or illness, but also to the world where headlines of terrorism, violence, and natural disaster assault us with increasing frequency. Some of us seek consolation in the belief that tragedy is happening somewhere else, far away. But, eventually, the bell tolls for you.”

How to Move Forward After Tragedy: “I hope my story, and those of friends I’ve met around the world, will flicker light in the dark tunnel where too many people feel trapped in pain. Even better, the survivor stories in these pages can teach all of us about moving forward. All of us need to learn to manage life’s explosive moments. Life may change in an instant, like mine did in Israel, but instead of dreading them, I want to encourage all of us to honor our toughest dates—the tragedies that bind us—in an effort to transform victimhood into survivorship.”

Moving from Victimhood to Survivorship to Thriving: “Over the past twenty years, I have met and talked ‘survival’ with everyone from the famous—Diana, Princess of Wales, Elie Wiesel, King Hussein and Queen Noor of Jordan, John McCain, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Lance Armstrong—and the not so famous but equally strong—Katie, Ken, Elizabeth, Colleen and others. Each has something to teach us. They don’t just get by. They thrive. That’s what I aspire to do.”

The Path to Survival: “This book illuminates the path to survival—five steps that can guide a person from tragedy toward a new life of renewed purpose and hope. The steps are not always sequential; they can be taken simultaneously. They can also spiral, skip and repeat. Survivorship is different for each individual. But anyone who has overcome adversity and learned to thrive has come to understand the power of each step.”

Princess Diana on Survivorship: “Princess Diana understood that to survive means to endure something that could have killed you or ‘taken you down.’ Like the loss of a son or daughter. Like stepping on a landmine. These are experiences terrible and terrifying. Such trauma presents a threshold. The outcome, positive or negative, is not pre-ordained. We can do things to foster resilience and strength going forward. Can you recall your date? Your own before-and-after moment, when life is cut in two by horrible pain or shocking news?”

Facing the Facts to Move Forward: “This terrible thing has happened. It can’t be changed. So, now what? There’s little point wishing you hadn’t gotten into that car, or gotten the tumor, or been fired from that job. We must face some brutal facts of the here and now. It’s normal to question, but you will never get a satisfactory answer, and you’ll only waste time. The past is the past, and facts are facts.”

Your Emotions are Facts: “Emotions are facts too. But it is quite common to deny the initial experience. This is not happening to me. I will wake up from this nightmare soon. It is also quite common to feel the most intense range of emotions after a loss or crisis.”

How to Survive a Catastrophe: “How can we use the facts that confront us with unpleasant truth to help us survive catastrophe? Facing facts is so hard because it demands that we come to grips with our worst fears. It means admitting what we really think about disability, deformity and death—all scary stuff. Most of us would prefer to look away and carry on our merry way without thinking about these things. But without a closer look in the mirror, examining the wrinkles of our traumatized life, we can’t make sound decisions, and then proceed to change and grow.”

On Crisis and Pain: “Crisis and pain can hold us hostage for a time, but we still have a choice in how we will respond to our circumstances, no matter how dire. When something disrupts our life, how do we move forward? I’ve seen it time and time again in my work with victims of war atrocities—there are those who fight for their lives after devastating loss and those who succumb to their suffering. Why the difference? To truly thrive, we must consciously choose for our lives to go on in a positive way. I have had to do it more than once. Most of us have, or will.”

Choose Life: “By choosing life we step across the second threshold of survivorship. It may be one of the hardest steps. It requires imagination and perspective in the midst of pain. It comes on the heels of brutal facts and a long look in the mirror to see who we are and where we stand. How do you choose your way forward with scars and bitter memories? You don’t let your situation define you. You reframe how to think about it. You choose humor and connections and love—you choose to live. One of the essential ways we start to embrace life is by reaching out to others.”

It Takes a Village to Survive: “No one survives on their own, and no one thrives alone either. Yes, you might feel an excruciating loneliness after one of life’s hurtful blows. But we are simply not built to survive solo. Isolation will kill us, not protect us. We humans are social animals made for community. Even when family and friends annoy the hell out of us, they remain an essential part of our survivorship.”

Calling to God and to Faith: “Sometimes it feels as if we have no instruments, we have no leader, we have nothing. That’s when many of us call out to God. For many it takes a crisis, but in our darkest moments, most of us will reach out spiritually. It’s a cry for divine help. We need someone—anyone—out there to understand. Our prayers reflect an existential plea for empathy in the universe. I believe this is a great and useful thing. I can’t encourage people enough to pray, and then pray some more. Call out. Reach out. Your questions and search for meaning are enormously important. They reflect a desire to Choose Life and Reach Out simultaneously. Whatever you believe, religion can offer a positive source of social and spiritual oxygen.”

On John McCain: “I am always impressed by the strong bond among veterans, including well-known American prisoners of war in Vietnam such as John McCain. Their military code of conduct inculcates an attitude of mutual survival, with duty to country and to family. When I first met Senator McCain over lunch in the Senate dining room, I was immediately struck by his stubborn survivor spirit. McCain credits his five-plus years of perseverance in the face of torture to his sense of duty to and camaraderie with his fellow navy men and prisoners, and a sense of honor instilled in him by the military careers and character of his father and grandfather.”

Surviving and Thriving: “There is a difference between surviving and thriving. Thriving requires tapping into our gratitude and drawing on this well to give to others. Studies on gratitude and giving are starting to proliferate. Why? Because people are catching on to the secret of happiness—giving, not getting. It turns out that by giving we end up getting as well. It’s a loop. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ‘It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.’”

We Benefit from Community: “We benefit from belonging, from contributing to a bigger thing called community. We all have a role, with talents and gifts to deploy. Each act of generosity seeds good will. Even by listening to another person tell their tale of woe—thereby affirming their path—you can help build community. Each of us is born with talents and gifts. And they are meant to be deployed, not for simple survival, but for the good of the community. A body is also a metaphor for community, and if any one part is hurting, the whole body is weak. We need to shore each other up and make sure we acknowledge with appreciation people who pray, forgive, connect the unconnected, and serve the more vulnerable among us.”

On Victimhood and Surviving: “Why do some people stay victims? Well, it’s strangely comfortable—a kind of defense mechanism after disaster strikes. We welcome sympathy in our hour of need. And then we invite it. Eventually, we must break the victim habit and resume taking full responsibility for our future.”

Survivors are Everyday People: “I’m here to tell you that survivors are everyday people in the car next to you, behind you in the grocery store, next door mowing the lawn. I meet these people everywhere, from every walk of life, on every continent. I only wish I could share more of their stories. I hope their examples will teach and inspire you to want to thrive. Just think: if someone can overcome that level of crisis or abuse, then maybe I can hang in there too, just long enough to get through my crisis.”

Life Experiences Nourish Us: “Life experience will nourish and make us stronger. For example, studies of emergency personnel indicate that having survived one traumatic experience increases resilience and, in a sense, inoculates workers who will face subsequent traumas at work. Most of us can point to early life experiences that afford us at least some practice in building resilience.”

Survivors can Survive Anything: “Josephine Hart observed, “Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.” Every time we come through tough times, we should feel some sense of pride and achievement. After all, getting through the experience may have been the hardest thing we’ve ever done. And we might be surprised to discover an inner voice and competitive spirit coaching us: I refuse to be taken out by what happened to me. I will not be defeated by this. I still believe in the possibility of the future. Even when our loss is the death of a beloved, and we may not feel like going on without them, we still honor their memory by healing and living strong.”

Empathy Etiquette: “What do survivors say has been helpful during their tough times? I call it “empathy etiquette”—the way to support survivors in crisis by putting yourselves in their shoes. The good news is we can learn empathy etiquette, much like we can learn resilience. When we are going through something for the first time, neither we nor our friends know exactly how to behave. Nothing seems normal or real in a life-threatening storm.”

On Reading People in Need: “Just be ready to pick up on the hints people in crisis my give as to what is needed at any particular time. Try to make it about that person and not your own hang-ups or past traumas. Maybe your friend wants you to come by every day. Maybe it’s just once a week. You must assess and reassess the situation. Be open. Be kind. Bring food. Then run the vacuum and wipe down the kitchen counters after putting the leftovers away in the fridge.”

Grace is a Key to Surviving: “I think grace, in part, is what allows survivors to bring meaning to our stories. It’s available to all of us—moments of awakening. Without meaning, you may survive, but you will never inspire. And without meaning, you cannot ultimately thrive. Finding meaning in our lives is a way to dispel darkness and break through the barriers that imprison us.”

On Heroism and Being a Hero: “We don’t always have to look for larger-than-life heroes. We can be heroes for each other. We are just ordinary folk wanting to endure and live life well, even during the rough patches. But we can all benefit from role models who not only overcome adversity, but find the wherewithal to give back and serve the broader community. This is how we complete the cycle of survivorship, transforming our tragedy and blessing others in the process.”

Heroes Don’t Call Themselves Heroes: “None of the survivors interviewed in this book would call themselves heroes, or particularly courageous, for that matter. They simply did what they had to do.”

Thrivers Are All Around Us: “Thrivers are all around us, not distant in history or geography. They are most often applied optimists. Pessimists can also thrive, but they have to work a bit harder to push through their tendency toward negativity. Similarly, introverts sometimes find it harder to thrive than extroverts, given the need to reach out for support during and after a crisis. The key is to know yourself so you can work with or compensate for your natural tendencies.”

Final Words On The Five Steps: “The Five Steps on our survivor journey offer a way not just to recover, not just to survive, but to thrive. Step by step, we find power to convert our dates—the days that change us—to become more than we were before the illness or the accident. We understand survivorship is anything but linear: it’s a process that involves three steps forward, a flashback or two, and then a leap ahead. Each of us is a mixed breed of survivor and victim. Some days we can exhibit healthy survivor behavior and then reveal less attractive victim behavior the next. No one is perfectly resilient or consistent. But we progress, day by day, step by step, if we want.”

About Survivor Corps

Around the globe, people are inflicting harm on one another on an alarming scale with alarming ease. There were approximately 250 wars throughout the 20th century. Today, there are more than 39 conflicts raging in the world –from armed conflicts in Latin America to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to genocide in Darfur.

More than 35 million people have been displaced from these conflicts—innocent people who have been robbed of their dignity, their homes and their livelihoods. With no hope or tools to rise above their circumstances, far too many victims lash out, seeking revenge for their plight and perpetuating the cycle of violence and suffering. Something has to be done to break this downward spiral.

Survivor Corps operates under the credo that no one is better equipped to change the world than those who have been most scarred by what’s wrong with it. There is a way to break the cycle of violence, and it begins with showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward.

What is the Survivor Corps philosophy? No one is better equipped to change the world than those most scarred by what’s wrong with it.

Whom does Survivor Corps you serve? We serve people who have been injured by global conflict, primarily through training and support of the organizations that serve conflict survivors at the local level.

Where does Survivor Corps work? Wherever communities are experiencing or recovering from conflict – currently in over 50 countries.

Why should I support Survivor Corps? We have a ten-year track record of results, improving health, creating economic opportunity, and changing laws & policies for survivors of conflict.

How does Survivor Corp work? We work across the spectrum of issues and organizations that affect the lives of survivors.

Can Survivor Corps really solve this problem? Yes. We believe that by showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward, we can help break the cycle of violence.

Survivor Corps provides the tools and support survivors need to rise above their injuries and give back to their communities. Learn more at http://www.survivorcorps.org

For more information about Survivor Corps, visit: http://survivorcorps.smnr.us

Contacts

For Press Inquiries:
Contact Daniel Krueger at dkrueger@survivorcorps.org

For More Information:
Contact Elizabeth Miner
eminer@landminesurvivors.org
202-250-3929
2100 M St. NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037

Multimedia Elements

	Download Jerry White’s Headshot
	*Download the I Will Not Be Broken* Book Cover**
	Download the Introduction to I Will Not Be Broken Download Chapter 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Download Intro & Chap 1 of I Will Not Be Broken
	Download the Survivor Corps Logo (525 x 652 px) Download the Survivor Corps Logo (222 x 275 px)

Additional Resources

Buy I Will Not Be Broken on Amazon.com

Buy I Will Not Be Broken from Barnes & Noble

Watch the Survivor Corps YouTube channel

Watch Jerry White on “Five Steps”

Watch Jerry White on Landmine Accident

Join the I Will Not Be Broken Official Facebook Group

Join Our Mailing List

Social Media

Tags

Successful SNS’s Will Be Modeled on the College Campus

Chris Abraham — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:31:08 +0000

So, Harvard and Yale spoil their students rotten! My friends who attended Harvard or Yale college swoon over those 4 years like I swoon over my first love.

A good SNS should be all late-night wine-influenced discussions of Descartes and Plato and the summer afternoons on the quad and the time playing Xbox with your roommates.

They will become life long brand ambassadors for your community. Proud alumni.

You have to offer the tools to allow the market to choose for itself, otherwise, you might never find out that the SNS needs all three, or none at all.

If You Don’t Save the Whales then You Suck

Chris Abraham — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:41:28 +0000

I got a scolding from Chalsea, “you might think that whales dont matter but your wrong. ya you need to take care of your family but we also need to save are world. all of you that sont think that the whales arent important than you SUCK,” because I wrote an article called Don’t Save the Whales.

For your amusement, here are all of the comments from Don’t Save the Whales:

Understandable sentiment, and an easy crutch for our own apathy, but life is not so black and white.
To continue with a racial theme and abuse an overused metaphor, would you have had Dr. King abandon his quest for civil rights in favor of couples therapy?
Granted, whales and trees are not sentient beings like the African Americans who were fire-hosed in Selma, but it’s naieve to write off noble ambitions because one’s self is not already enlightened.
In many of the great religious traditions service is actually means to personal salvation. Through serving others, we can learn to help ourselves and our families.It is a shame that such impulses are not instinctual (hence the reason why airlines have to remind to you put on your oxygen mask before assisting your neighbor), but we are contradictory beings.
Accept the ambiguity and respect both service to others and our quests for personal virtue. They go hand in hand.
Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 10:32 AM
There is no apathy in my life. And there are also many distractions. I have spent years dancing with dolphins and whales as a SCUBA diver and know them more than many and for this I am grateful.
What is more noble than the ambition of saving oneself?
Doctor King was a whale, if you will. He was saving himself, his family, and his community. I am surprised that you overlooked that.
So, maybe I am not so naive.
And the most valuable lessons are in fact gleaned from serving others, but try to keep it local. As in your spouse, your children, your parents, your family, your friends, your community. If you have energy left over, then spend it along the same vein.
The nature of the world is not really as it seems. Try to only serve others you can touch, see, feel, help, interact with, and live with.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 10:47 AM
Dr. King was a philanderer saint.
Beethoven was an abusive genius.Ghandi…well, he was all good.
The point is that we can’t put our life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers.
I know you’re neither naieve nor apathetic, so don’t come off like it by saying, “saving pagan babies, the rain forest, the whales, or the trees is pure distraction from the things that matter most in this life which is saving yourself, protecting and loving your children, your spouse, your parents, your family, and your community.”
If people don’t save the trees there will be no more familes to save.
Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 10:57 AM
As for one’s life’s work, it makes more than more sense to me now that Roman Catholic priests are celibate. There are fewer distractions.
I am not saying that one should not perform one’s life’s work. But not to the harm of what really matters.
And I am not talking about one’s life’s work, nor am I talking about destiny. What I am saying is that no matter how noble one’s life’s work may seem and no matter how important one’s destiny is, it is not remotely as important as serving your spouse, your children, your family, and your community.
There is nothing as modest, as honest, as life-affirming, and life-changing as that.
There is more harm done by a man who has a destiny, a noble aim, a a life’s work than anything else.
You mentioned Dr. King, Beethoven, and Ghandi.
I will mention some other men who have had life’s work and noble aims who lost site of themselves, their children, their family, and their community:
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Kim Il-Sung, Chiang Kai-Shek, Moammar Al Qadhafi, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, and Mao Zedong.
All men who didn’t put their “life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers.”
To take it one step further, these men, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Kim Il-Sung, Chiang Kai-Shek, Moammar Al Qadhafi, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, and Mao Zedong, might have turned out differently if their mom, dad, family, and friends where better parents to them.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 11:34 AM
cop out.
Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 11:56 AM
There are many highly-gifted people in the world who have been treated like the young Gautama.
They are coddled, protected, and spoiled so that they may be allowed to focus on their destiny.
They distiny is as likely to be that of a surgeon, a scientist, a lawyer, a competitive skater, an athelete, a beauty queen, a pianist, a painter, a poet, or a priest as it is the King of the Whales.
There needs to be balance in all things. And what is the saddest part of this entire conversations is that the same man who said, “The point is that we can’t put our life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers” is also the man who spent months living in India.
I have never focused this on not saving the whales or not saving the forests but rather how much easier it is to forgive the distraction from the truth if that distraction is in fact popular or noble.
It’s neither nuclear family and Wall $treet, nor domestic abuse and whales.
There are countless great parents who are plenty involved with money, and plenty of awful parents who do invaluable work for their communities but are awful husbands and wives, who are awful parents to their children, and who are able to rationalize their entire failure because they have done some things that really don’t matter too much at the end of life really anyway.
There is another black and white annoyance: that money equals bad and activism equals good.
Sometimes entropy isn’t death. very often, it isn’t. Sometimes to struggle so hard for something that is so far removed and so not part of one’s life is like struggling in quicksand.
Not only is it a waste of energy, but the unintended consequence — sinking faster and being alienated from a helping hand — is worse than anything you could ever imagine.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 1:16 PM
there will always be that group of people bordering on lunacy who are dependent on a false sense of altruism to prop up their self-esteem, which suffers from things like failing to take care of their families or failing to succeed in relationships. it’s a shame, really.
Posted by: sam | April 12, 2005 8:30 AM
Sam, that’s the perfect way of saying it. And I can even make it more generic to better support my point, if you don’t mind, “there will always be that group of people bordering on lunacy who are dependent on a false sense of destiny to prop up their self-esteem.” The same stuff that makes the chairman of GE great and successful is the stuff that makes up the chairman of WWF as well.
My concern — and the reason I wrote the piece — is that the chairman of GE doesn’t suffer from the “noble aim” aspect, which might make the avarice and work ethic and profit motive more authentic and honest.
And is that better than a false sense of altruism?
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 9:32 AM
Yes, the avarice and work ethic may be honest and authentic, but avarice is a product of disappointment toward selfless service. Avarice and profit are easy. They come naturally, but so does the violence instinct. It is the mark of a civilized human to control such instincts.
Take each point in this discussion to the extreme. If tomorrow you woke up and walked outside to a world composed of either selfless service or “avarice and work ethic and profit motive”, which would you prefer?
Posted by: Bryan | April 12, 2005 9:49 AM
Chris, Dickens had the same reservations as you about what he termed Telescopic Philanthropy. You’re not alone!
Posted by: Mike | April 12, 2005 10:38 AM
In their purest form, I would choose service. I have a dear friend who is Mormon and she told me that service is the most important thing to the LDS. But when it comes to service, nobody is a professional and the service is inclusive of the family.
I like that. That makes sense to me.
I am also not saying that there is anything wrong with an obsessive workaholic president of Save the Whales.
I mean, there needs to be sacrifice in life and pain in order to grow and evolve.
But when a child is involved — when a family is being made — then things indeed should change.
Take each point in this discussion to the extreme. If tomorrow you woke up and walked outside to a world in which you would have to choose between saving all the whales and saving one child, which would you choose?
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 11:05 AM
With regards to Telescopic Philanthropy, I see the same thing with Mr. Margaret Thatcher. The thing is, with spouses, there is a certain level of conscious or unconscious choice in the matter.
With children, there is no choice in the matter. Although the subsumed spouse might become toxic and bitter — or not — at the loss of self to the shining qualities of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, there is still no less of a choice, really, in the matter.
It boils down to, if you’re unhappy, leave.
But choosing to have children is an entirely different matter.
Having children can either be the most generous or the most selfish act in the entire world.
An additional note is that psychologically-speaking, the same people who end up in a role such as Mrs Jellyby’s or Mrs Thatcher’s tend also to have narcissistic qualities.
And narcissists are the most compelling mates and the most incapable of being partners and parents. Funny how that works.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 11:16 AM
Without reading each entry and assimilating them all to produce a cogent statement (because I’m busy at work), let me make the following observations and then close with the greatest quote ever spoken.
1) There are causes noble enough that you should sacrifice your children. Chief among them is service to your nation in a time where its existence is threatened. As Abraham Lincoln once said to women grieving the loss of their children during the civil war,
“I cannot refrain from tendering to you the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavements and leave you only the cherished memories of the loved and the lost and the solemn pride that must be yours to have made so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom.”
2) Nobody (worth hearing) is suggesting that saving the whales is more important, or equally important, to tending to our social fabric. What they are saying, if you listen with a carefully bent ear, is that through fostering care for things other than ourselves we create a society that by virtue of its interest in things besides itself, takes good care of itself. Without a strong social network, these other less paramount causes could garner no attention.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt (26th U.S. president (1901-09), 1858-1919)
Posted by: Justin | April 12, 2005 12:44 PM
could we change “whales” to “the unborn”?
Posted by: max solon | April 12, 2005 12:48 PM
I fully agree with you, but isn’t that called duty? And isn’t that the choice of the child? The child is not being sacrificed for the parent but rather the child is sacrificing his own life. That soldier is a whale. That soldier is sacrificing his life for his spouse, his children, his family, his friends, his community, and his country.
Entirely different, in my opinion, but important none-the-less.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 3:56 PM
Yea. I see the problem.
We should take control of our families and sort out all our family problems.
What about taking them to the ocean? We could all look for the whales together!
No, waste of time. What if we don’t sort out our problems when we’re there? We might all get lost in some sadly transient awe at the beauty of the whales – or probably just the idea of whales. For precious moments we’d forget the problems we went there to sort.
My family is not weak!
And who’s driving?
And if all the whales are gone anyway because of whalers, or depleted fish stocks from crazy fishing, or deafening submarine engines interfering in their songs, we’re only going to get frustrated at humanity’s impotence in the face of these vital industries.
I can do without that.
And they have no rhythm as far as I can tell.
Let’s relax with the tv newstoons and a healthy tuna salad, and save up the money from work for a good holiday one day. Disney? Hope we don’t use it all up on therapy first.
Or they grow up.
Forget the whales. You only live once.
Posted by: Hugh Whiting | April 12, 2005 9:48 PM
I think you’ve got your focus slightly wrong here, because you’re centering on “activists” when you should be thinking of all parents.
I know several handfuls of people who were scared and abandoned children, and the few who were raised by nannies were the lucky ones. Some of those abandoned children had parents at home, but they were so involved in business that they never saw their kids. It’s not about “activism,” it’s about abandoning your family for anything, and we shouldn’t confuse the two.
All the actual activists I’ve known share their activism with their families (I used to work for the Sierra Club, so I’ve known a few).
P.S., and this is a note for everybody, because this is the third time I’ve seen the error today: IT’S SPELLED “GANDHI.” G. A. N. D. H. I.
Posted by: Rika Youngblood | April 12, 2005 10:28 PM
i disagree with your assessment that the whales can fend for themselves .. they have no chance at all when their home is polluted, their food depleted, and their migration paths are congested with oil tankers .. what’s worst, we have the power to wipe out the planet (not just a single species) with just a push of the button (in 2002, we were just seven minutes away from midnight on the doomsday clock).
i have yet to run into children of the green movement who “are a mess”. on the contrary, having attended an ultra-liberal college of a progressive town [santa cruz], i have met and befriended many of these second-generation hippies who continue to uphold the various -ISMs (re: liberalism, idealism, etc) and values of their parents. what a wonderful gifts these hippies of yesteryears have given to their children.
this legacy echoes the teachings of the wisdom keepers of the mohawk nation, who teach their people to respect the land, and that “… everything they do affects the Seventh Generation and we must think of the unborn faces looking up from beneath Mother Earth”.
though my parents were not part of the green movement, i do believe in it .. and i will save the whales for the both of us.
Posted by: nam lamore | April 13, 2005 4:20 PM
Hugh, the entire time I read your comment I thought of the dolphins from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy! — thanks for that. But I have to tell you that I don’t really give a rat’s twat what you get up to.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 13, 2005 8:23 PM
What absolute twaddle.
Where is your evidence to back up the existence of these orphans of ecology? Don’t you think that there are people that put work before their family in all walks of life?
You’re being deliberately provocative. Get a life. Spend some time with your own family and friends instead of wasting your time attempting to bait people on the internet for your own pathetic amusement.
Posted by: Vilnius Terence | April 14, 2005 10:59 AM
I think you are bang out of order the people that save the whales are good people and are doing good. I am sure 9 out of ten would not neglected there families because of it and the ones that do are yes in the wrong when I was a little girl saving the whales was my dream
whales are mammals just like we are they are getting killed by there own species which is not right you are saying we should be stopping the robberies and the murders but by killing the whales you are doing the same to them you are murdering them and robbing them of a family something’s need looking after and at least there are SOME descent people out there that will do it not everyone sees life in the same way you do. if you had a pet dog for example and someone was trying to kill it you would do everything you could to save it because it is part of the family some people see whales in that way. How would you feel if you were just sitting at home with your family and someone shot a harpoon at you? Well that’s what it is like for them.
just imagine(I don’t no if you have kids) that you were sitting at home with your kids and someone captured you or killed you just think about what it would do to your kids but at least they would have other family or they would have the opinion of foster care or adoption. but those poor whales probably don’t have help like that they would be all alone and maybe too young to know how to survive on their own so I think in the future instead of being lost in your own little world and think its the saving the whales that is doing it think again because they need as much help as we do. And if you are so bovered about the community I hope you are out there doing something for it. Infact why don’t you go out there and do something now instead of wasting your time writing this web site moaning about there whale savers and do something for the community yours sincerely jess
Posted by: jess | May 13, 2005 9:31 AM
this is sick we can save ourslevs we have a voice of our own but the whales dont so if they cant speak to stick up for themslves who will? because it is clear u wont. i would and that is a fact u mybe should listen because it is your people that is causing the problem with the whales.
Posted by: stephanie | May 23, 2005 4:41 AM
If the vast majority of people who aren’t inclined towards saving the whales and such, were instead spending their free time trying to truly take care of their families, spouses & communities I might see validity to your argument…as it is this post just looks like liberal-baiting to me.
Whatever. You guys are right. We suck. Money is king. Whatever.
Posted by: Cary | June 21, 2005 2:53 PM
You can always catch a liberal if you use a whale as bait!
Posted by: Chris Abraham | June 21, 2005 4:44 PM
what a stupid article.
Posted by: Urb | June 21, 2005 9:05 PM
Your argument is astonishing to me. If you can honestly re-read it two times and not see the mile-wide holes in your reasoning you might need to take some time to think things over. Really.
Suffice to say that if this is the way you feel then I’m thinking that you have some learning to do about what a relationship is, what a marriage is and what raising a child is. Let’s set your gloss on activism == children raised by nannies aside. That is a deep issue with a whole spectra of situations that you are lumping into the most negative terminus.
You don’t raise a child by commiting yourself to voluntary servitude to him or her — nor do you ‘make a family’ by staying home and staring at them 24/7. Strong people with strong convictions raise children that share these traits. Strong marriages are not made by two people who spend all their time on each other. The best thing you can do for a child is to inspire her by setting an example of what a person can do in this world.
To hold the opinions that you express within the context of your personal mores is one thing, but to insult *activism* at large and to call people who give a damn and are doing somehting about it bad parents bullshit on stilts.
Posted by: anon | June 22, 2005 12:09 PM
You have the honor of missing my point entirely. I think you might be suffering from some sort of deep-seated guilt.
Posted by: Chris Abraham | June 22, 2005 1:29 PM
we as humans have a responsibilty to care for all living creatures of this earth as they all have a right to live and we are the ones who have destroyed their homes and species. So it is a responsibility of ours to try protect those species in danger because of the selfish act of others.
Posted by: Amy | July 9, 2005 1:47 AM
you obviously is idiot, u must be someone who cares only about urself. please open u eyes and see what people like u are doing to animals. IDIOT
Posted by: lin jia yi | July 11, 2005 8:13 AM
first of all Mr.Abraham does make a point, if your life isn’t well put together you shouldn’t particate in any other extra curricular activities. However,he fails to mention other activities people particate in that aren’t for the environment,anmails/endangered species,or other worthwhile cause that never the less can disrrupt homes,childhoods,& break families such as:homeless, needy, abuse, disabiled, & feed the children. but these aren’t mentioned, why . . .?
Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:14 PM
Mr.Abraham I must say you speak of neglected children,& husbands. can you prove anything you say? And if you can tell us how many people are neglected because of their parents jobs, hobbies, and everyday life who aren’t rooted in some cause and are just living in a regular town, would you? There are problems in life & marriage due to nothing but their own faults, to not think so & live in a perfect world is denial.I suggest you open your eyes.
Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:35 PM
Mr.Abraham,I respect other people’s opinions.You do not.That I refuse to respect,the lives of others & how the are lived are not yours to dictate to.You probley have a nice apt. in a upscale N.Y. neighborhood. Must be nice. You’ve had everything handed to you in a silver spoon. I don’t discriminate agianst the rich even though i am not. But for the poor who live in the wild or country nature is greatly loved,respected,&cared for.
Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:49 PM
Mr.Abraham, you must watch your views & how you express them because you can offend many people,I was very offended by your statements and took it personally.It hurt,and I thought of all the others you’ve hurt by this. I suggest you apologize to the envirnmental community.I don’t apphreciate your calling Dr.King a “philanderer saint” and suggest you appologize to the black community as well.One day you may wake up and see how precious our world is.
Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 5:01 PM
Mr.Abraham, this is my last post.I know your thinking “thank god”. But in short i will speak a quote of love ,honesty,& truth. ” The wonderous world under sea & land, in the big scheme of things one life may seem insugnifficant but it’s the greatest gift we know and we cannot let this world of light, love ,and beauty perish.”
Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 5:09 PM
Mr Abraham, YOU ARE A CRAZY, CRAZY TOOL.
Posted by: Mad Anne Bonney | July 11, 2005 10:20 PM
Mr Abraham, YOU ARE A FREAKY FREAKY FREAK.
Posted by: Mad Anne Bonney | July 11, 2005 10:21 PM
My ex long ago abandoned our son for native american/worker/prison issues. The worst part is my 18-yr-old son who was dragged to the W.T.O. when he was 13(although it makes for a good story to say he’s been teargassed)-my son only sees the hypocrisy in the hardcore activists–thinking of them as angry and sad without any stability or truth.
Posted by: christina | July 12, 2005 7:19 PM
Your thoughts are disturbing because if you cannot enjoy the utter beauty we have in our world you are really disturbed. This page is sick and unfortunatly I visited this sight BLAH….SAVE THE WHALES
Posted by: Crystal | July 12, 2005 8:22 PM
Save the Earth, KILL YER SELF!!!!
Posted by: Martin Jones | July 26, 2005 4:17 PM
love animals keep them safe. would if u were a whale oh yeah lets just 4get u. u r nothing.GOD put thing here 4 a reson life is a leason. u will get whats coming.SAVE WHALES,CARE 4 THEM.
Posted by: ryah | July 26, 2005 8:59 PM
i have only 1 thing 2 say about ur article
“THE HELL”
Posted by: emman | July 27, 2005 5:32 AM
i have only 1 thing 2 say about ur artical
“THE HELL”
Posted by: emman | July 27, 2005 9:50 AM
Sorry I don’t think like you At ALL!!!
Posted by: Bobbie | August 1, 2005 3:48 AM
You are really twisted aren’t you. so you think we should focus on other things no we shouldn’t im 13 and i am trying to save the animals from people like you. Sick people who are self centered and don’t care for others. You need to get your head out of your *** and open your eyes. You wouldn’t like for someone to kill you without question and make lipstick or shampoo out of you would you??? Animals that live in the water are being killed for your convience so you can have shampoo. i don’t think so buddy. I bet you go out there and kill them so you can be satified. Well you know what we’ll stop people like you from hurting the animals we love. Without or with out your help. So when all the animals are gone we’ll start making shampoo and lipstick out of people like you so you know what it fells like to be them. So you know how much pain people put tem through. Woould you like a harpoon explosive shot into your brain and blow up and kill you then hit you repeatedly with an axe. So you need to get your head out of your***
Posted by: Cayla Rene | January 31, 2007 12:50 PM
You are really crule huh? dude you have to save the whales. they are killing the whales just so they can make soap to rub all over your body .well i am 13 and i am trying to save the whales . so people like yuo dont get to kill them. you are really wrong and dont care one bit about the animals under the sea. well you should.whales , orcas , sharks and other mammals die just to make new and stupid improved products. you are a *** and you need to care about the animals they have dont nothing to you and you want to kill them well dont. cause me and my friends cayla will beat your ***
you need to care. well would you want to die just to make lipstick and shampoo.
write back and i will tell you more abourt the animals you need to car eabout what they do for you there are only a hundred remaining in the world .soon there will be no more and then it will make you happy huh well you need to get your head out of the gutter . when all the animals are gone what are u gonna do we are gonna blame you!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ALexa RAe | January 31, 2007 12:50 PM
you might think that whales dont matter but your wrong. ya you need to take care of your family but we also need to save are world. all of you that sont think that the whales arent important than you SUCK.
Posted by: chalsea | February 15, 2007 6:44 PM

I Love What Wal-Mart Means to the US

Chris Abraham — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:15:42 +0000

I don’t hate Wal-Mart and neither does Jack Lewis. Jack Lewis thinks that the New York Times hates Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart, in my humble opinion, protects the majority of Americans from having to live in the real world.

The cost of living in America without Wal-Mart would be much higher. Wal-Mart subsidizes the lower middle class so as to make them believe they’re a healthy middle class.

We Americans could not live as comfortably and “successfully” without the subsidies provided by the McDonalds Dollar Menu, Taco Bell, the fast food joints, and chains like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target (and their third-world resourcing).

Without them, all dress shoes would start at $200, all sports shoes would start at a Benjamin, and all polo shirts would start at $75.

- A full 76 percent of Wal-Mart store management started as hourly associates.

- The average pay for hourly associates is $10.11 an hour

- All Wal-Mart hourly associates are eligible for benefits

- Wal-Mart provides affordable health insurance to more than one million people, offering a choice of 18 different plans for as little as $23 a month

- In 2006, Wal-Mart will spend roughly $4.7 billion on benefits for their associates.

- Last year, Wal-Mart created more than 125,000 job opportunities for workers across America.

- In some parts of America, more than 30 percent of Wal-Mart associates had been unemployed the previous year.

- Thousands of applicants apply for the 300-400 new jobs created by each new store.

- Recently, a record 25,000 Chicagoans applied for just 325 jobs at the Wal-Mart store in Evergreen Park, Ill

- More than 11,000 job-seekers applied for 400 openings at a new Wal-Mart store in Oakland, Calif.

- Wal-Mart will build, over the next few years, more than 50 stores in neighborhoods with high crime or unemployment rates, bringing between 15,000 and 25,000 jobs and generating more than $100 million in tax revenue for these areas.

- Wal-Mart creates hundreds of thousands of jobs for American suppliers. Small businesses across the country compete to sell their products at Wal-Mart.

- Families that shop at Wal-Mart can save more than $2,329 a year, including upwards of 20 percent on groceries, because of the existence of a Wal-Mart in their community, according to recent independent studies.

- Wal-Mart is the largest corporate cash contributor to charities in the United States, contributing over $200 million just last year to more than 100,000 charities, most of which occur at the local level.

America Does Not Go Abroad in Search of Monsters to Destroy

Chris Abraham — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:17:06 +0000

Has anyone checked the label on the prescription that we in the United States have been given to treat permanent tyranny around the world? The side effects are much worse than the cure.

The most important side effect is that until the population of a sovereign nation-state is ready to join the emergent worldwide free market economy, any attempt at imposing either democracy or capitalism will fail once external influence is removed. The blowback from this imposition and resulting failure is that the resulting system will be similar or worse than the preceding system, and when it comes to the global balance of power, the devil you know is always better than the devil you don’t.

On the 13th of February Meet the Press, Natan Sharansky debated Pat Buchanan over the book A Case for Democracy, about which President Bush admits he is passionate and which the White House intends to use as a foreign policy roadmap for the next four years. I have yet to read either Mr. Sharansky’s book or Mr. Buchanan’s controversial response, Where the Right Went Wrong, but I do have an opinion based wholly on the debate and the transcript of the debate.

I found myself in strong agreement with a lot of what Pat Buchanan recommended on foreign policy. For example, “In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism. Interventionism is the cause of terror. It is not a cure for terror.”

The President’s premise that domestic terrorism is the direct result of envy, jealousy, or insecurity is flawed. As Pat Buchanan states in the interview, “the United States was not attacked because we are free. Bin Laden was not attacking the Bill of Rights. We were attacked because the United–over here because the United States’ military and political presence is massive over there. Bin Laden in his fatwah, his statement of declaration of war on the United States, said the infidels were standing on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. They want us out of the Middle East. They don’t care whether we have a separation of church and state.”

All systems reject invasion, even our bodies. Even in the case of a transplanted organ which is welcome, one must continue taking medicine for life in order to keep the body from rejecting the invader, even though the invader is pink, healthy, not poisoned and dying like the original. Internationally, it doesn’t matter if our prescription, our pink and healthy liver, our strong heart, is going to cure what ails the world, because that just isn’t the point. Curing the world’s ills requires that we will need to make sure the patient is constantly taking its “for the rest of your life” anti-rejection medications. Even if this is delivered forcibly under restraint, “for your own good” and “it hurts me more than it hurts you.”

One of the obvious outcomes of this stated overt (and not covert) intention “to help democratic institutions in every region in every nation on earth is a formula for permanent war,” says Mr. Buchanan,

Buchanan went on to state very clearly that it is not in America’s best interest to intervene in affairs of sovereign nation-states, governments that are in fact recognized by the world. To again quote Pat Buchanan, paraphrasing John Quincy Adams, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but the vindicator only of her own.”

John Quincy Adams said it better himself, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

When it comes down to it, there is no legal mandate that we as a nation or as a member of the world government may aggressively pursue this sort of agenda. Again, Pat Buchanan, “where in the Constitution do we get the right to intervene in the internal affairs of countries that do not threaten us and do not attack us? If they don’t, their internal politics are their own business,” adding that “the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to do this.”

And even after all that, one might realize that the only form of government that can in fact be transplanted like an organ is an authoritarian dictatorship. In this case I will intentionally misappropriate Senator Charles Grassey’s quote when he said, in the same episode of Meet the Press, “I think that there’s a movement towards freedom that people are naturally born free, they want to be free, and you don’t impose democracy. Democracy is natural. You can only impose dictatorship.”

Even though we want to believe that all functioning systems need to have an emergent pattern that is democratic, this is not exclusively the case. Governments are really visible manifestations of their culture. There has never really been a long-lasting government that has been out of step with its mother culture. We know that a family’s culture is deep and very difficult to influence. A company’s takes either a lot of time or a total radical amputation to truly change the culture. Since nation-states are in fact artificial constructs anyway, it is almost impossible to make drastic changes without Draconian measures, the majority of which are morally and ethically offensive and more costly than their intended good.

My interpretation on this quote is that a Vanguard of Democracy is as futile as a Vanguard of the Proletariat. That imposing democracy is as futile and as temporary as imposing Marxist-Leninism, communism, capitalism, or even the free market. And when this Vanguard of Democracy and the free market system was imposed on Russia, the blowback was arguably the complete dissolution of realpolitik, resulting in an entire country run by the Russian Mafia in a very effective and complete power grab. Is this democracy? Where is the Nation-State in a country that can’t even contain its nuclear assets? The biggest weak link in the entire underground weapons-grade plutonium economy? A country that has a larger rift between haves and have nots than ever before, A true playground for the neo robber baron. Where the super rich can ignore traffic laws if they posses the official flashing blue lights on their Mercedes-Benz S600 sedans. In the case of Russia, we have a culture that has never known either democracy or freedom, from the Czars to the Communists. On a systemic level, the Russian system broke under this imposition.

And there are a surplus of sovereign governments worldwide unready or unwilling to accept an imposed “freedom,” “democracy” and “the free market” systemically from the top-down. These desires happen in emergence, through bubbling up from the bottom. From discontent, from desire, from education, and through participation in a global market and global economy. By willing hearts and minds legitimately as opposed to through heavy-handed coercion.

So, in that regard, Natan Sharansky’s naive comment, although correct on the surface, is not a very complex argument, “I believe that all the people, when given opportunity to choose between living in fear or living in freedom, choose to live in freedom,” What he forgot to mention is that his argument doesn’t include a very important missing piece, which is, “all things being equal.”

I agree with the following premise, “All things being equal, I believe that all the people, when given opportunity to choose between living in fear or living in freedom, choose to live in freedom.” But in developing nations, in nations that are still tribal or predominately rural, in nations that don’t have a history of education or are based on tribalism, monarchy, or religion, and in nations that have high scarcities or are under crushing debt, the resulting unintended consequences of imposing democracy, capitalism, or the free market economy usually results in a situation much worse, or at least much less predictable, than the original. I hate to use “better the devil we know than the devil we don’t” but the jury is out as to whether an Iraq with no boarders and a forced, unnatural, system of government will chomp at the bit until it is given an opportunity to revert to something similar but different.

Again, to quote Pat Buchanan in support of the above — the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t theory of foreign policy, “We cannot make the enemy the best of the good . . . we have had occasions, the last great crusade for democracy was Woodrow Wilson going across the sea with an army to make the world safer. We brought down all the monarchs and we got instead Lenin and Stalin and Mussolini and Hitler.”


Email:

Chris Abraham » healthiness

Successful SNS’s Will Be Modeled on the College Campus

Always Remember the 95 Theses of the Cluetrain Manifesto

An Exemplar Social Media News Release

I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White

Successful SNS’s Will Be Modeled on the College Campus

If You Don’t Save the Whales then You Suck

I Love What Wal-Mart Means to the US

America Does Not Go Abroad in Search of Monsters to Destroy

I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis
by Jerry White