Marketing Options® » A Post by Steve Carlson

Doomsday Clock Fizzles Along

Steve Carlson — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:39:57 +0000

Last week the Doomsday Clock moved one minute closer to midnight. Time now, 11:55 PM. Five minutes to doomsday. This symbolic timepiece was conceived to reflect nuclear danger in 1947. Originally set at 11:53 PM, since then it has limped along through 20 changes. In the last few years, the original concept has fizzled into uselessness.

The most blatant limping began on the evening of October 22, 1962 when President Kennedy came on TV and announced that the Soviet Union had installed missile sites capable of delivering nuclear warheads on the United States. Construction of sites was also underway for delivery as far north as Hudson Bay and as far south as Peru. The U.S. proposed that 1) ‘All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back’ and 2) ‘It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the western hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.’

The height of the Cuban Crisis lasted until October 26 when Khrushchev agreed to withdraw the nuclear missiles from Cuba. During that time, flights of U.S. bombers armed with nuclear weapons circled the island of Cuba 24 hours a day with more than enough firepower to obliterate the island. The Doomsday Clock prior to the crisis was set at 11:53 PM. On January 7th, 1963, the United States and the Soviet Union officially announced to the United Nations that the crisis was over. During those two and a half months, what movements did the hands of the Doomsday Clock make? Absolutely none at all. The hands remained locked on 11:53 PM.

Yet here we are today with the hands at 11:55 PM. On October 22 fifty years ago, the world was potentially minutes away in real time, not in measurement by a figurative clock, from nuclear destruction. Now, based on the Doomsday Clock, humanity is expected to believe that the danger is even greater? Adherents of the clock point out that it now includes other issues, too, i.e. global warming. Based on even dire predictions of global warming, Armageddon is decades away. Consequently, the clock has become not only useless, but misleading. Compared to what the world faced during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the addition of global warming to the mix should be adding hours of reprieve to the Doomsday Clock.

Dave’s Question

Steve Carlson — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:00:28 +0000

Some years ago, I lost my closest friend to lung cancer. I think of Dave often because of a legacy, almost a special gift, he left me. It’s not a material one, rather it’s an attitude and approach that he honed and fine tuned until it became integral to how he thought and conducted himself in business and personal relationships.

Dave spent the first half of his working life as a sales trainer and executive in a tough business, the life insurance industry. In those last years in head office, Dave took up a hobby. Every weekend he loaded up his van and headed out to one of the biggest flea markets in southern Ontario. Over the years, his spot became permanent and indoors. He called it simply Dave’s Place. Evenings during the week he was out scouring Toronto for stock. I once asked him why he did it when he had such a good regular job. He answered, “Because I love the action.” Eventually, Dave’s income from this hobby was paying more than his job at head office so Dave took the big step. He resigned as a training exec and opened up his own business and an antique shop.

I knew Dave for 40 years. In those early years we kept in touch erratically, mostly because of our travel itineraries. For the last 25 years we set aside one day a week to have lunch together. I eventually left the big corporate world to start Marketing Options Inc. and once a week we became each other’s board of directors. Our serious discussions were always about sales, marketing and people. Dave fascinated me with his growing knowledge of the antique business. Eventually he was selling less to the public and more to other dealers and companies retailing specialty items. He was playing with the big boys and winning.

On a number of occasions, I would bring up a topic for discussion such as an unusual advertising request I had received or an idiosyncrasy I observed in a proposition from a new business acquaintance. Dave’s first words on these occasions was frequently, “Steve, this is one of those times we have to ask ourselves, ‘What’s really going on here?’”

This was Dave’s way of looking for hidden motives and agendas, for seeking truths beyond the obvious. I’m sure many readers have heard this same question before, but I doubt that you’ve addressed it with his seriousness and intensity. Dave was a master of practical psychology and his question became an item in our conversations. Regardless of which one of us brought up such a topic, it was surprising how far our speculations could take us in answering that question. And it was even more surprising on how frequently such conjecture over lunch would subsequently prove to be accurate and helpful in our own business dealings.

I miss our lunches together but Dave has left me a shrewd legacy. Whenever I feel uncomfortable or troubled in a situation, I ask myself Dave’s question, “What’s really going on here?” These last years I’ve gotten better at answering myself, however I miss Dave’s astuteness. Considering the interesting times we’re going through, it might be a helpful question you can take seriously in the New Year.

Merry Christmas and a Happy 2012

Steve Carlson — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:43:06 +0000

Enterprises big and small participated in the 2011 Campbellford Santa Claus Parade. Campbellford is a bustling town in eastern Ontario, Canada. This modest “float” consisted of the bunk of a hard-working pickup truck framed with rusty stakes and weathered, gray boards. The little girl tucked in the centre brought a special glow to this display.

Thank You, Mrs. Clinton

Steve Carlson — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:00:24 +0000

Hillary Clinton’s position on the Falklands this week provides Canada with an opportunity to right an old wrong imposed by the United States just over a century ago. The American Secretary of State encouraged Argentina and Britain to sit down and talk about their claims and the future of these tiny islands, much to the chagrin of the Brits whose position has been no-way unless the islands’ inhabitants agree to such negotiations. Since Clinton is so gung-ho on talking, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should insist that the Americans look to their own backyard and re-open the issue over the Alaskan panhandle. Canadians who know their history appreciate that blatant travesty of justice this old border dispute represents.

Let me refresh your memory. Around the time of the Yukon Gold Rush, the exact location of the Alaskan border with Canada was fuzzy. As men and equipment poured across the panhandle on their way to the Klondike, it became an issue. Finally in 1903 Britain and the U.S. came to an agreement on how to settle the precise location of the boundary — three judges representing Canada and three representing the U.S. would be appointed by their corresponding countries to settle the dispute once and for all.

Theodore Roosevelt, the cowboy president, was busy overseeing the expansion of U.S. imperialism (Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Philippines) with the support of his big stick. Not surprisingly, he took the sensitive stance that Canada’s position, “is an outrage, pure and simple. They have no more right to the land in question than they have to Maine.” In that spirit of impartiality, the U.S. appointed three politicians who had no doubts as to whose cause was just. In fact one of them, Elihu Root, was the Secretary of War. Root’s appointment was entirely appropriate considering that Roosevelt had secretly informed Britain that if the resolution didn’t go his way, he would “ask Congress for permission to run the line (border) as we claim it,…without regard for the attitude of England and Canada.”

The Canadian contingent included a Toronto lawyer and Sir Louis Jetté, the Lieutenant-Govenor of Quebec, both of whom fought hard for Canada’s position. The fly in the ointment was the third member, Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, who was there because Canada, as a colony, still did not have control over its own foreign policy. Alverstone voted with the Americans and Roosevelt got the border demarcation that he wanted. Canadians were outraged, one prominent citizen, Sir Charles Tupper, summing it up succinctly with, “The whole course of British negotiations with the United States is marked with a line of gravestones under which Canadian rights are buried.”

Considering all this, Canadians should be most appreciative of Mrs. Clinton’s generous new position espousing the merits of “friendly mediation”. I feel certain that a fair and final negotiation would split the Alaskan panhandle in two equal portions, giving the southern half to Canada. And as restitution for this past wrong and to put Sir Charles Tupper finally at rest, the U.S. might just as well throw in Maine, too.

Blood from Stone

Steve Carlson — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:14:56 +0000

David Murdoch will be out for blood as the Scots meet Canada’s champion Kevin Martin this Saturday. If you think Murdoch represents Great Britain, you’re sadly mistaken. Every Canadian curler knows Murdoch and his team of Byers, Smith and MacDonald as simply The Scottish Team. Those same Canadian curlers also know that the game of curling is an ancient plot against the New World, hatched by the devious Scots centuries ago.

The terrible feud that has grown between our countries dates back to the very beginning of curling near Paisley Abbey in Scotland. Curling would not have been born then except that times were difficult. Local stonemasons were particularly suffering. In fact, building new stone cottages was at such an all-time low that the stonemasons decided to heave their building rocks into the White Cart Water, a tributary of the River Clyde, as a gesture of protest. Not an easy task. Just carrying these granite stones to the water’s edge was a challenge because the banks of shore were so steep. Several enterprising masons solved the problem by attaching temporary wooden handles to each rock the night before the protest.

Dawn broke the next day to reveal local residents, including the Abbot and most of the monks, gathered along the water’s edge to view the coming spectacle. Shortly thereafter, the husky Scottish stonemasons arrived, all carrying a rock in each hand by the wooden handles. But the wintery night had been bitterly cold and ice had formed for almost 150 feet out into the water. Transporting the rocks out over the ice to open water was impossible. Each rock weighed over 40 pounds. The stonemasons would break through and drown. Ever enterprising, the masons decided that with a stout push they could slide the rocks from the shoreline across the ice and into the water.

The first mason propelled a rock across the ice but it failed to reach the open water. What to do now? The masons decided that on the next throw the burliest of them would give a mighty heave and throw a second rock with such force that it would strike the first and both rocks would slide into the water. But, as the burliest threw his rock, his foot slipped and his rock spun out of control across the ice. The crowd groaned, clearly the direction of the second rock was such that it would never come close to hitting the first.

But then a strange thing happened. As the second rock spun across the ice, its path began to turn in the direction of the first rock until it made hard contact and both rocks were driven into the water. The crowd cheered heartily, feeling no doubt that the Abbot’s silent blessing had turned the second rock to its target. A local farmer stepped forward with a shovel and “hacked” depressions in the frozen shoreline so the next masons could brace their toes for the next throws. The crowd even clapped in appreciation as a brave maiden ventured a dozen feet out on the treacherous ice, sweeping the frost from the path of the next rocks with her broom.

As the protest continued that morning, one spectator is recorded as saying that as he watched the clergy “a smile of divine inspiration slowly crept across the face of the Abbot”. (Of course, he said it in Gaelic.) When the last rock was thrown, the Abbot gathered the stonemasons together and told them of his plot to put every Scottish mason back to work, a fearsome conspiracy that was to addict many Canadians.

“No longer,” the Abott said (in more Gaelic), “shall ye and ye sons shape the granite for only home and hearth and endure poverty. As we have watched yon rocks curl across the ice this morn, we have been witness to a new feat of strength and skill for all men. But for now those truly marked to practice this new challenge live across the sea in a new country where the ice never disappears. A prosperous countryside, riche in furs. A country where, with mine blessings, the growing population might just be of such mental aptitude that we can convince them to purchase the one thing faire Scotland has in endless supply… granite rocks.”

And so the Abbot first implemented his devious plan across what is now called the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario. The long days and nights of winter rang with the shouts and laughter of our forefathers. Soon women felt the addiction and eventually even our vulnerable children. But no part of Canada suffered more from the Abbot’s wily machinations than the West. Farmers who slaved hard in the prairie heat during the summer months had endless time during the other three seasons to participate in what by then was called curling. Families living on those lonely western farms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were torn asunder unless all participated but in that crucible were born some of Canada’s greatest curlers. Wheat joined fur in the holds of ships returning to Scotland. What did Canadians have to show for it? A bigger pile of rocks with handles.

How shrewd were those pecuniary Scots but the Abbot’s ancient plot was to backfire. Canadians like Russ Howard, the father of the Free Guard Zone, have snatched the modern game away from its country of birth. Scotland may squeal but accept this new reality of ownership they must — just like Canadians have had to accept the loss of the modern game of basketball to our southern neighbour. (Give it a few years and some more Yankee revisionist history and the U.S. will have always owned it.)

Scotland vs. Canada will be the most exciting match of the 2010 Olympiad. Kevin Martin, The Old Bear from Alberta, is not named after the rather benign eastern Canadian black bear but the western grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis). On their best days, Hebert, Kennedy and Morris are more than capable of neutralizing their counterparts. But it will be a clash of curling champions at all positions. Amateur genealogists have traced the lineage of Byers, Smith and MacDonald back to William Wallace, Rob Roy and Robert the Bruce.

As for David Murdoch? One aspiring historian has suggested that he is a direct descendent of a great Scottish king made famous by William Shakespeare… Macbeth himself. Readers can be forgiven for thinking that Macbeth is a fictional character. In fact, he ruled Scotland from 1040 to 1057. Macbeth did kill Duncan whose son, Malcolm, eventually defeated Macbeth in battle at Dunsinane and replaced him as king — much as the Bard’s witches predicted. The same historian has also suggested that one of the convolutions of the name Malcolm over the last millennium is Martin.

If too much of this writing seems speculative, one truth remains certain. Come Saturday night at the Vancouver Olympic Centre, blood will flow.

Harper Kicks Some Obama…, But

Steve Carlson — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:04:32 +0000

This post is not by a Canadian who dislikes Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I like Americans. Most of the ones I’ve met are smart and friendly. I just dislike most American politicians. That’s only a misdemeanor compared to how I feel about Canadian politicians. Visiting Ottawa is a pleasure for me. I love the galleries, the museums and the strolls along the locks. But I have never ever entered my country’s parliament buildings. Suffice to say that I suffer from high blood pressure and I just know if I pass through those portals, my heart will explode in my chest. I know this attitude towards my government is immature, but when you’ve been diddled by them for 66 years of your life, it’s tough to be magnanimous. For the other three years, I lived in the U.S. and didn’t pay taxes — and pre-schoolers don’t get too caught up in politics.

Canada doesn’t have a popular right wing party. Our New Democratic and Liberal parties are left wing. Our Conservative party straddles a middle-of-the-road position. That’s why I was somewhat astonished to learn that The Heritage Foundation seems to be saying that the U.S. is sliding further down the slope to a government-controlled welfare state.

The Heritage Foundation describes itself as America’s “most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 580,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors.” It has just published the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom which measured just how free the economies of nations are around the world. Canada scored an overall 80.4, placing 7th highest (freest) in the world. Scores are out of 100 and represent an average calculated from ten components which are also scored out of 100. What’s amazing is that the United States stood in 8th place with an overall score of 78. (An overall score of 80 is required to be designated a free economy — at 78, the U.S. is categorized as partially free.)

Here are the ten components and the scores for Canada and the United States. Best scores (if you believe in a free economy) are in italics:

Business Freedom — Canada 96.5, United States 91.3
Trade Freedom — Canada 88.1, United States 86.9
Fiscal Freedom — Canada 76.7, United States 67.5
Government Spending — Canada 54.1, United States 58.0
Monetary Freedom — Canada 75.4, United States 78.1
Investment Freedom — Canada 75.0, United States 75.0
Financial Freedom — Canada 80.0, United States 70.0
Property Rights — Canada 90.0, United States 85.0
Freedom from Corruption — Canada 87.0, United States 73.0
Labour Freedom — Canada 81.5, United States 94.8

One might conclude that Harper is doing a better job than Obama. Maybe but, and it’s a big but, before we get too carried away let’s give the U.S president a chance. Tonight is his State of the Union address. For a 100 years, the United States has stood out as the torch bearer of free enterprise. Tonight the world will be waiting to hear his words and the direction he plans to take America over the rest of his term. If he falters, Canadians had better be ready to catch that torch. It may not be an Olympic gold, silver or bronze but when you’re 7th place in the greater game of opportunity and freedom for you and your children, it’s the biggest tournament of all.

Could Snus Have Saved Avatar?

Steve Carlson — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:16:40 +0000

I wouldn’t write this post if they still had a pillory in the town square. I could stand the public humiliation, but being exposed to the Canadian weather in January or whipped on my bare backside with a birch switch is just too much. You see, I have an issue with Sigourney Weaver’s characterization in Avatar. I think James Cameron has made a serious mistake in trying to personify her as “off-putting and even unpleasant”, as well as “obnoxious”, by having her smoke cigarettes. The press jacked up this trait to “evil”. My generation grew up on movies where smoking was ubiquitous. So for many of us, using this habit for characterization only moves Cameron’s efforts from the sublime to the ridiculous. And that is objectionable because of my admiration for Sigourney. Whenever I see her on screen, whatever her role, deep in my heart she will always have a touch of the quick-witted heroism of Ripley — just like Gable will always have elements of Rhett Butler and Cooper of Marshal Will Kane.

Could Cameron have used moderation and avoided the salivous misrepresentations of the press and busybodies? I think so. The trick would have been to have Sigourney’s character, Dr. Grace Augustine, use snus instead of cigarettes. I’m not talking about that vile chewing tobacco of my youth that demonstrated the prowess of real men who could fill a spittoon from 20 feet (6.096 meters). I’m talking about a more modern development that packages tobacco in little tea-like bags that are inserted between tooth and gum. No chewing, no sucking and no spitting. Snus has about 1/50th the health risk of cigarettes says one American study.

With snus, Sigourney’s character would have only been “obnoxious” as the director intended and Avatar would have offered new hope for Canadian smokers. No longer would they have to stand shivering outside their place of employment in the dead of winter to satisfy their cravings. They would have been inspired to luxuriate in their sinful way, warmly cocooned in the comforts of their own offices. But they would know their fault and Cameron could have been assured that, deep in their hearts, all Canadian smokers would have branded Dr. Grace as “obnoxious”.

Avatar is set on a world were the natives live in harmony with nature. Snus communes with the forests. It lovingly reaches out to each tender twig, offering succour and assurance that no burning cigarette will transform their gentle world into a raging inferno. By preventing forest fires, snus is environmentally-friendly. Snus may have its faults but they are limited. Could Cameron have ramped up his character development of Sigourney to unadulterated evil? Yes, but a new tack would have been required. Instead of having Sigourney toying with nicotine, he could have had her chew gum. Not just chomping gum, but cracking her gum, too. And if he had wanted to go all the way, she could have blown a few bubbles.

Keep Your Enemies Closer

Steve Carlson — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:53:00 +0000

Last week I visited the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. I took a few pictures in the World War 1 section and then put the camera away in frustration. On the way over, I had made the mistake of driving by that mausoleum on Parliament Hill. My ability to focus on gas attacks and trench warfare was gone: by the time I reached the museum, all I could think about was the war in Afghanistan.

The treatment of detainees captured by Canadian forces and transferred to the Afghan government has our opposition politicians all aflutter. So the charges go, the Afghan government subsequently tortured some of those detainees. The oppositions’ finger pointing is a bit confounding considering that many of these politicians are members of the party responsible for drafting the agreement that established these transfers in the first place.

Now I hear our troops’ morale is suffering because they feel they are being vilified back home for passing on the detainees. I’ve listened to the Canadian generals and the investigating committee on TV and here’s my understanding of the situation. First, Canadian troops themselves didn’t participate in any alleged torturing. Second, it’s not the job of a Canadian soldier to investigate and pass judgement as to whether or not the Geneva Convention is being violated. Third, monitoring of detainee treatment by the Afghan government is supposed to be the responsibility of civilian organizations. Our troops have nothing to be sorry for except perhaps for the lack of support they received over this issue from the conservative government.

Combat troops have to be able to quickly pass on detainees in a war zone. Their job is on the battlefield. Guarding prisoners for any longer than is absolutely necessary is a significant burden and a dangerous distraction. Our politicians are now going to endlessly drag the issue of torture through the House of Commons in one form or another. Committees will write reports, make recommendations, castigate a few, exonerate others. One way or another, in the end the Afghan government is going to continue to receive detainees captured by our troops. And one way or another, this issue of mistreatment and torture will linger on.

Aside from packing up our troops and bringing them home, there is a solution to the problem — ship the detainees captured by Canadian troops back to Canada for processing and internment here. This action may take some political backbone with our NATO allies and the Afghan government, but surely we have a few politicians around with the spinal fortitude to handle the job. I think this solution would be a big boost to the morale of our troops in Afghanistan. It would also let the troops know that the folks back home were willing to do their part to help out.

Once on Canadian soil, politicians have direct access to the treatment of the detainees. Members of the press, monitoring organizations, and citizens concerned about the proper treatment of the detainees can be more assured that the information they receive is unstaged and honest. Since these detainees are not in uniform, there would be ample opportunity to sort out any lingering issues as to individual innocence or guilt. And our government can move on to address other issues of greater concern to most Canadians.

Canada is experienced running camps for prisoners of war. Thousands of German POWs were interned in Canada in World War II. Is there a difference between a prisoner of war and detainee? Should detainee be given preferential treatment? My understanding is that Canadian troops only detain those who have harmed or intended to harm them so I can’t see one.

There are issues that need to be considered. Saving the most challenging for last, one concern might be where are we going to locate these Detainee Camps? Obviously, not in downtown Toronto. Canada has endless, under-populated areas, which are relatively accessible to civilization, that could be used.

Who would guard the Detainee Camps? Civilian correctional services could handle the detainees inside the camps while the army could provide the outside security from parties trying to forcibly enter the camps. (No direct contact to the detainees should keep the government off the military’s back.) Bear in mind, the number of detainees will never begin to approach the thousands of German POWs who poured into Canada.

What about fanaticism among the detainees? What about it? The German POW camps had fanatical, hard-core, Nazi followers who endeavoured to impose their control within the Canadian camps. They set up secret kangaroo courts that were known to have POWs beaten or even sentenced to death by their own hand. Our system handled it.

Which leads us to the testy issue of the detainees being repatriated after the hostilities are over. (This has to be done under the Geneva Convention.) Since hostilities are over, the current government which is now being accused of torture (or its successor) would have less reason to mistreat the returning detainees. If the Taliban form part of the government at the time of repatriation, they will provide for the detainees’ safety.

The most challenging issue of all that must be addressed before setting up Detainee Camps is why do this if Canada is pulling out its troops in 2011. That’s easy — because, regardless of what our politicians say now, we will have troops in this theatre of conflict after that date.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Steve Carlson — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:53:56 +0000

Riders on this float illustrate that Christmas is for all ages as they pass by the delighted crowds at the 2009 Campbellford Santa Claus Parade in Ontario, Canada.

Women and Children First

Steve Carlson — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:57:24 +0000

The second wave of the H1N1 flu was washing across the country before the vaccine arrived this fall. Government told us that only designated high-risk groups would receive the first shots, the rest of the population would have to wait their turn. I didn’t dwell much on this preferential treatment until a friend, who is a medical doctor, surprised me one day with his comment about this government directive. He told me that the process was “unfair” and that everybody should have had equal access to the vaccine when it was first released.

Yesterday I did what I often do during a long drive — let my mind wander over subjects that seriously bother me. Driving is boring and somewhat depressing, so I wasn’t long in reaching one of my more galling issues: how our provincial leaders have pushed the Ontario economy from have to have-not status. Thinking for me can be quite visual so the images invoked were of a sinking ship. A full Titanic scenario. The massive ice berg of a changing world economy, the breached hull of tight money and more taxes, the great ship floundering under the weight of businesses too big to fail. All right, so my visions can be a shade melodramatic, but the sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage exemplified the nautical arrogance of the builders who, just like our politicians, were certain their design could handle any emergency.

On that icy night in 1912, the bravery of many of the passengers and crew to save the women and children first was an amazing act of personal courage. The ship’s owners had placed those courageous souls in an impossibly “unfair” position by not providing enough lifeboats. And that was when my thoughts segued to the “unfair” reference made earlier by my medical friend. What he was referring to by “unfair” was not just the preference given to one group over another, but the ineptitude of the politicians who had made queuing necessary. If government’s emergency planning had been successful, there would have been enough lifeboats and everyone would have had equal access to inoculation.

Our governments have a monopoly on our healthcare system so they are accountable. Only lately have some family doctors even been provided with the vaccine for their patients in Toronto. Now inoculation clinics are reducing their hours and starting to close. Many people have still not been vaccinated against this pandemic which for some is proving to be a life or death issue. And here’s the frightening truth — I have been told that a third wave of the H1N1 flu is coming in the New Year. If for just one minute queuing is re-instated, the government be damned.