Selling (and Settling) for Less in the Walmart Toy Aisle for Girls

I’m not sure what to get my daughter for her 2^nd birthday, but I am sure of this - I will not be getting her a toy from the little girls toy aisle at Walmart.  The girl’s toy aisle isn’t labeled “girl’s toy aisle,” but you get cued into the fact that it’s the place to find girl’s toys because the walls of the aisle are shaded pink and lined with doll after doll.  And to top it off, there isn’t even a great variety of dolls – the choices are basically babies or Barbies.

Now, let’s start with the toy babies.   Maybe it’s just me, but I think that childhood is a time to encourage  imagination and a world of infinite possibilities.   Parenthood is a wonderful gift to be sure, but there is more for the imagination to explore in childhood.   Now don't get me wrong - I love babies.  Certainly keep some of the babies in the toy aisle.  However, there are so many creative toy designers out there that I just can't believe babies and Barbies are the only options Walmart could find to put in the girls toy aisle.  At the very least, shouldn't there be a little more of a selection?  Walmart has considerable power when it comes to negotiating with their suppliers, why not use that power to encourage innovation in the toy department and create a greater selection of toys that would really encourage imaginative play?  (By the way, the Hobby Lobby has the best selection of science kits for kids that I have seen.)  

As for the Barbies on display…  I was hard pressed to find a non-Princess Barbie, but when I looked closely I found a box with career Barbies from the new “i can be…” collection.  The selection in the box at Walmart was: Pet Vet, Chef, Doctor and Ballerina.   Doctor is an admirable career to be sure. I’m impressed by that aspiration.   However, the doctor’s outfit on the Doctor Barbie was like no doctor I’d ever seen.  Barbie "i can be...Doctor" is wearing a short red skirt above mid-thigh length and a form fitting white lab coat accentuating her small waist with a colorful shirt underneath.

Wait a second, I did see a doctor like in the Victoria’s Secret catalogue.  Sure, sure!  It was part of the Sexy Little Things Halloween collection.   

As I left Walmart and looked at the motto “We sell for less” writ large upon the side of the building, I couldn’t help but think it should really say “We settle for less… especially when it comes to toys for girls.”

Barbie I can be Doctor...

Seriously?

Twitter for me, a regular Jane

I am not a politician, a revolutionary, a business, or a person selling stuff.   I am just a regular person.

I'm writing this note to explain how Twitter works for me because I’ve started to notice that when I talk about Twitter most people look at me like I have three heads.  I can just hear the storyline running through their mind -  it’s the same line that my husband says to me out loud “what’s so great about twatting or tweeting or whatever you do?”  

Ok, look – I get it.  I understand why people don’t “get it. “ I didn’t get it at first either.  The fact is, it’s kind of hard to explain.

According to Twitter, Twitter is:

“a real-time information network that connects you to the latest information about what you find interesting.”

And that means what exactly?  What is a “real-time information network?”  Is it like instant messaging? Not quite.

For me, the fourth time was the charm with Twitter and there's a good reason why.  Even though I thought I “got it” the first three times – I didn’t really “get it.”  

Ok, let me explain:

My First Time –  no one cares that I’m drinking White Castle decaf

The first time I got on Twitter, I got discouraged because I tweeted and had no response.   I thought this was supposed to be like the BestBuy commercial where the lone person stands in a stadium field, asks a question and a million people scramble to answer it as fast as they can.  That is not how it works.  So that didn’t happen and I was disappointed.   Apparently no one in the Twitterverse cared that I was drinking White Castle decaf and heading to Indiana for the weekend.  So I thought, “forget you” Twitter.

Second Time – hookers or something

The second time I got on Twitter, I simply composed more uninteresting tweets.  Then I started to get followed by what appeared to be hookers harking their personal sex site.   I’m still not sure who those people are… in any case I found it creepy and quickly lost interest.

Third Time – business tweeting thrice daily

The third time I got on Twitter, it was because I was mandated to promote the startup mobile advertising business that I worked for…  our CEO directed the sales team: “thou must tweet thrice daily!”  And so we did… more or less.  However, when the company went out of business I stopped tweeting.

Fourth Time -  topical comedy is the charm

Finally, I returned to Twitter a fourth time on a whim.  This time I did something different: I started following people for fun such as Albert Brooks and Steve Martin.  And oh by the way,  if you like topical comedy (comedy that relates to current events) @albertbrooks is really really funny.   Then I found that @albertbrooks was following @NellSco and I got hooked on her too.   This was good stuff.  This was starting to get fun.   

Then I did something different too – I thought, 'if I’m going to say something I need to make it more interesting than a Facebook status' – after all, the people reading my Tweets aren’t necessarily my friends who find everything I say hilarious (right friends?)   

I resolved to hold my Tweets to a higher standard.  I resolved to try and make them interesting to a person who may not even know me.  As it turns out, the way that I feel most comfortable doing that is to inject a bit of humor... and so was born my Twitter voice.

Famous People Versus the Ordinary Joes and Janes (like me)

Famous people who start using Twitter get followers fairly quickly and people want to respond to what they say.  They actually have conversations.   This makes adapting to Twitter very easy.  

But for most of us – those of us who don’t have a lot of friends on Twitter and who aren’t famous – it can be somewhat discouraging to Tweet and feel like no one hears you other than the @amallnearyou that wants you to come and shop with them.   For the regular Jane like myself, not many people follow us or respond to our tweets.  So there you sit just talking to yourself.   However, I’m having fun on Twitter now because I’m entertaining myself and my husband with my Tweets at the very least. 

The other value is that I get to pick up on some interesting conversations. My experience on Twitter is that it’s kind of like sitting in  a noisy café listening to different people talking - however, this is no ordinary café – its filled with millions of people.   Pick the ones you like and take a listen. 

Yours Tweetly,

@akberry

Mozart was born in Salzburg. What, you don't believe me? I was at his house two weeks ago!

Today I took my daughter, Journey, to her second music class at Mason’s Gymboree in Snider Commons.   The class, designed for 18-24 month olds, was celebrating European music month.  This is going to be great, I thought.   

I was impressed up until the point that the teacher informed us that Mozart was from Venice.   When I piped up with "actually he's from Salzburg"  she paused and looked confused for a moment.  “Really?” she asked. “Yes,” I said definitively.   Still not appearing totally convinced, she looked around the room for a second to see if anyone was agreeing with me.  The Mom from Germany was nodding her head.  “I just visited his house in Salzburg,” I added, hoping that this would put the issue to rest.  Then she turned to the class and said, "oh that's right - Mozart is from Salzburg, but a lot of people think he's from Venice because he spent so much time there." Umm, actually no… most people do not think that… I’m pretty sure that’s just you.   The Mom from Germany and I just looked at each other and smiled.   I wanted to say "are you sure you're not thinking of Vivaldi?" but I let it go. 

Then (it gets better) after the class she made a point to proudly inform me that she was a Music Studies major in college and couldn’t believe she made that mistake.  However, she wasn’t done making mistakes yet.   She then told me that Mozart had moved to Venice when he was four years old and had composed “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” when he was three.  Wrong and wrong.   I really think she is confusing Mozart with Vivaldi who actually was born in Venice, but the names sound nothing alike so I’m not really sure how....  

In any case, just for the record – the tune from “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” is from an old French melody titled "Ah! Vous Dirai-Je, Maman" that first appeared without words in Les Amusements d'une Heure et Demy by M. Bouin in Paris in 1761 (no, I did not remember that particular fact off the top of my head - I had to look it up).   The words came from an English poem called “The Star” written by sisters Ann and Jane Taylor.  Twenty years later, when Mozart was 25 or 26-ish, he composed a set of 12 improvisations on "Ah! Vous Dirai-Je, Maman" (yes, I looked that fact up too - just to be sure.  If I'm in error I hope someone will let me know). 

Now it is probably true that more people inaccurately attribute “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star to Mozart,” but to think that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart came from Italy…what can I say? Ma va la! Mamma mia! Oh puh-leeze! 

I’m not sure we are welcome back to that particular music class, but I think went easy on her considering.


So here's the deal: to all the kids just out of college teaching Mommy & Me classes this summer - don't think that just because we're stay-at-home Moms that you can feed us (and our toddlers) some line about Mozart being from Venice.   We may be fluent in baby talk and totally sleep deprived, but we have not entirely lost our minds.  We're not having it... and we will fact check you.  


Mom Power!

This is your brain on deregulation of derivatives... Any questions?

If Americans didn’t know who Marion Jones was before the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, they certainly did afterwards.   In Sydney, Jones’ winning performance made her a household name and she made history as the first female to win 5 medals in track and field (3 Gold and 2 Bronze).  

However, in September 2007, Jones’ legacy was instantly transformed from one of Olympic gold and glory to a cautionary tale punctuated by shame and embarrassment when she pled guilty to the use of performance enhancing drugs.  Jones also admitted to two counts of lying to federal investigators about her use of drugs in the BALCO steroid investigation.   As a result, Jones was publicly shamed as the face of fraud in athletics and forced to return the medals she won.  An emotionally fraught Jones issued public apologies to fans and teammates as she was sentenced to six months in prison – she began serving her time in March 2008.[1]

In a recent Daily Show interview to promote her book On the Right Track, Jones emphasized the point that she didn’t know that what she was doing was wrong at the time – she trusted her “inner circle” (the people who gave her drugs) and believed that the “performance enhancing” cocktails she was injecting were legal. [2]  According to Jones, she didn’t know there was an issue with the drugs until the BALCO investigation in 2003. 

As I watched the Jones interview today, I couldn’t help but think she sounded a lot like the cast of characters in Charles Ferguson’s documentary Inside Job.   From ivy league economists to the evasive Goldman Sach’s executives who testified before Sen. Carl Levin, the people who had a hand in promoting deregulation of derivatives and creating risky financial products seemed – like Jones – insistent that they were blithely unaware of the great risks.  The rest declined to be interviewed. 

There is no doubt that what Jones did was wrong.   However, the difference between her and the cast of characters inInside Job is twofold:  first, Jones was held accountable for her actions whereas the bankers, rating agencies, professors, and government leaders who led us into this mess were not; and second, as hard as it is to believe Jones had no idea whatsoever that the drugs she was injecting before a race might not be totally kosher, it’s even harder to believe that a highly educated leading government economists who were repeatedly presented with research indicating that deregulation was bad could not find a way to put a stop to it.

After seeing Inside Job, it seems there are only two conclusions one can make:  at worst - the banks, rating agencies and government heads who all ignored warnings about the impending financial crisis were and are totally corrupt or - at best – they made a serious oversight and exercised poor judgment.  But either way – those that were in charge, should be accountable for their decisions and no longer be in charge. 

Don't get me wrong - I'm rooting for QE2 to succeed, but it does seem like the decision to put Bernanke in charge of the Federal Reserve was like putting a doctor who for many years, ignored the research indicating that smoking is bad for his patients health in charge of national health policy.    

My hope is that as a result of Ferguson's documentary  more Americans will be energized to demand real change and reform starting with the following:

1) All the leaders who helped ban the regulation of derivatives or otherwise contributed to the crisis by ignoring the research need to be fired.   We desperately need fresh, ethical people in the government’s top economic seats. 

2) The three big rating agencies should clearly not be paid by the banks who issue the securities they rate (by the way, whoever thought that was a good idea?) 

3) There should be full disclosure of financial conflicts of interest in the academic world.  So if you’re the chair of the Harvard Economics department and also on the board of AIG, you need to disclose this when you write a paper on how wonderful AIG is. 

4) There needs to be an antitrust investigation of banking given that five US firms control 95% of global derivatives trading [3]

5) The Justice Department should go after the Wall Street executives and companies involved in the collapse.   As Ferguson lamented in a Huffington Post article, “It was possible to conceal liabilities, inflate assets, bet against the securities that you sold as totally secure, without committing a single fraud.  Isn’t that amazing?”

Finally, as I reflect on the corruption or - at best we’ll call it oversight - made by the White House, investment bankers, rating agencies and academics leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, I’m inclined to recall the 1980’s anti-drug campaign “this is your brain on drugs” because that’s exactly how I imagine our nation’s elite minds on the deregulation of derivatives – totally fried.

---

[1] http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=3282477

[2] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-15-2010/marion-jones

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-ferguson/post_930_b_738597.html

"The Parable of the Sadhu," aka "The Parable of the Man With No Ethics"

I enjoy watching Jon Stewart’s Daily Show when I have the time because he provides comic relief on the discourse surrounding issues of the day which frankly is sometimes so ridiculous that if you don’t laugh, you have to cry.   That’s kind of how I feel when I think about Bowen McCoy and his parable.  

If I was a producer at The Daily Show and having just watched the Parable of the Sadhu video (and assuming it was current), I’d be on the phone right now saying something like this -

“Get one of our reporters over to the house of Bowen McCoy right now or better yet, get him on the show.  This will be a segment on Wall Street’s lack of ethics.  What’s The Parable of the Sadhu?  Oh you have to see it.   Basically it goes something like this  – highly privileged and Harvard educated Western man (McCoy) meets a man in a life or death situation on a mountain in Nepal and chucks basic human decency out the window because he wants to get to the top of the mountain.   Instead of helping the guy to safety he just keeps trekking up the mountain.  It’s like he’s Gordon Gekko personified. 

Yeah.  Yeah.    Just get him talking about the Sadhu piece.  He’s bound to say that there is some struggle to know what the right decision is when faced with the issue of saving a man’s life or climbing to the top of the mountain…   Yes, I know that sounds absurd – it’s an obvious choice, but not to this guy.

[In my sarcastic voice] Now don’t forget the context  - he was in a tough situation.  It’s important to know he traveled all the way to Nepal from New York City– and it was a long grueling flight in First Class – they didn’t even have any of the good scotch on the plane.   And do you have any idea how hard it was to get six months time off from his “Master of the Universe” boss at Morgan Stanley.  Masters of Universe don’t just give 6-month sabbaticals out every day you know.  

Another sad part of this story that went unmentioned in the HBR article is that Mr. McCoy’s wife and kids had to go on their St. Bart’s vacation without him this year because of all his mountain climbing training.   I mean, when you put all that in perspective, it really is a tough decision. “

When I watched the Parable of the Sadhu video in class I felt I was having a moment like the child in the Hans Christian Anderson story, The Emperor’s New Clothes.   Ummmm, does anyone else notice that this guy is totally devoid of moral character?  He’s not wearing a stitch of moral fiber.

I can understand that not every ethical dilemma has a clear answer, but this one definitely does.  So I thought for sure when I came home and Googled “Parable of the Sadhu” that I would find a large number of people mocking this parable.  But again I was surprised.  Instead of mocking, I found search results hailing the Parable of the Sadhu as an “HBR Classic” and a 2008 blog by another business student raising the questions of ethics that came up, but not really taking a firm stand either way.  

Am I missing something? Is it really that difficult to make the choice of whether to go on up the mountain in pursuit of an individual goal rather than help someone – in this case the Sadhu – survive rather than die on the mountain? Or to at least realize that the way Mr. McCoy acted flies in the face of simple human decency?  I think that even in a complex corporate situation, the group has responsibility for the individual.  If someone needs help, you give it to them.  If someone can’t make it all the way up the mountain the first time, then help them prepare for the second try.  Get them the training and the gear they need to succeed. 

So here’s what I’d like to say to Bowen McCoy:

Dear Mr. McCoy (or, Hey McCoy):

OK - here’s the deal McCoy – I understand you’re a real muckety muck- a Master of the Universe straight off the pages of The Bonfire of the Vanities.  You’ve scaled the heights of the corporate real estate mountains and risen up the ranks at Morgan Stanley - and you’re an upstanding member of society on several boards.   Your background is outstanding and that’s what makes this all the more tragic.  You represent what is supposedly the best of the best of our society and you actually have to ponder whether you did the right thing on that mountain.  This shouldn’t be so hard for someone as sophisticated as you.  The group always has responsibility for the well being of an individual.  It’s the right thing to do.   It’s also an old Army adage - leave no man behind.   But don’t pass this off on the group – the leader (read: you) should have known that the right thing to do was to help the Sadhu to safety and make sure he was taken care of. 

So you had a once in a lifetime chance to climb to the top of the mountain.  Well, here’s a news flash - you also had a once in a lifetime opportunity to save the life of another human being.  To save a life!  How amazing is that!  The former choice of climbing to the top of the mountain must have been personally satisfying.   I’m sure you felt proud that day.  But guess what, the latter choice is way better.   I understand from the video that you are haunted by this choice day.  Well, you should be more than haunted – you should feel intensely guilty.   The mountain is always going to be there – a person is not.  There is no dilemma because there are no shades of grey here - the bottom line is that you were wrong and you failed as a leader.  I hope you learn from that.

Sincerely,

Andrea Berry

P.S. My Google search did not yield the full text of your parable for free (I could have paid $6 for it, but decided it wasn’t worth the cost).  If, by some chance, you reveal cognizance that you clearly failed as a leader, I apologize – this was not clear in the video clip that I saw.

Liberty v. Safety

Class 2 had no shortage of food for thought, but I really savored the quote by Ben Franklin, “those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

On a side note, it was sad to hear that roughly 60% of Americans could not name three Supreme Court Justices while they could easily remember the three stooges.  But of course I also had to wonder, what percentage of Americans can remember the Justices and not the Stooges?  Less than one percent?  Or, maybe it’s just one person – that would be me.  I couldn’t remember the third stooge.  My parents did not let me watch TV growing up.  – sigh!  oh and thanks a lot Mom and Dad.

Getting back to the Ben Franklin quote, this cautionary quote and the clip from The Siege seems remarkably relevant to present day and it instantly reminded me of the recent mosque debate in New York. 

Now I’ll be the first to admit – when I first heard the shocking headline “mosque at ground zero” – my knee jerk reaction was shock and horror.  What?! How can they put a mosque *at* Ground Zero? This makes no sense!

Fortunately, I also felt compelled to learn more – this was a good thing because as it turns out that little preposition, “at” was seriously misused in the news headlines as Clyde Haberman of the New York Times has astutely pointed out.  The fact is the proposed mosque site is about two and a half blocks away from the perimeter of Ground Zero. Hardly what anyone could legitimately call "at" Ground Zero. 

Nonetheless, correct use of prepositions was not a concern of many news organizations as they continued for weeks to suggest that building a mosque “at” Ground Zero was un-American, insensitive and dangerous (who knows where the money is coming from, who knows what they’ll plan in there).  

Even members of my extended family said things like, ‘every terrorist I can think of is a Muslim,’ and clearly echoing Newt Gingrich, ‘Saudi Arabia won’t let us build churches, why should we let “them” build a mosque.’   I could try and reason with them until I was blue in the face (stop listening to Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck, not all Muslims are terrorists, we don’t really want to emulate Saudi Arabia, don’t forget the 1^st Amendment, freedom of religion, etc), but to no avail.

For my relatives – and apparently for most Americans – building a mosque near the perimeter of Ground Zero was almost like building a terrorist command center.  Just for the record, I’m against building a terrorist command center near Groud Zero or anywhere in the country for that matter.   

Even the President seemed a little shaky in his response to the mosque debate.  I was dismayed to read that about 70% of Americans were against the building of this mosque.  I wondered when anyone with a voice would ever speak with wisdom on the topic. 

Finally, there was Mayor Bloomberg. 

At the annual Ramadan Iftar dinner at Gracie Mansion, Mayor Bloomberg spoke directly and eloquently to the issue of the mosque:

"… if we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom. We would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting…. Islam did not attack the World Trade Center – Al-Qaeda did. To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American. Today we are not at war with Islam – we are at war with Al-Qaeda and other extremists who hate freedom….. This is a test of our commitment to American values. We must have the courage of our convictions. We must do what is right, not what is easy. And we must put our faith in the freedoms that have sustained our great country for more than 200 years” (emphasis added).

Thank you Mr. Mayor!  Compromising the liberties of Muslim Americans, their right to practice religion in New York - or in any state - because of our underlying fear of the unknown is wrong.  The internment of Japanese Americans was likewise wrong spurned by a fear that spiraled out of control – in that case it was the fear that Japanese Americans might have divided loyalties to the US.  Clearly, it isn’t always easy to think through the fear, but history has taught us that’s when it’s most important to abide by our country's guiding values and principles.... and take a little less liberty with the proper use of prepositions.