Risley Ranch

Ironic and sad

Quick:  When I say "Kansas," what do you think of?  Top-notch education?  A growing biotechnology corridor?  Agricultural innovation?  Good middle-America people with a strong work ethic?  I hope you do, because these are true of our state.

However, what probably came to mind is Dorothy & Toto, Fred Phelps and the science standards/evolution debate.  Unfortunately, these are the perceptions many in the world have of us.  And thanks to people like Steve Abrams, the Kansas State Board of Education chairman, those perceptions will be around for awhile.

In a recent story, he reacted to our Governor's statement that the KSBE has generated negative publicity and deterred economic development because of the whole evolution debate:

"I expect a big-government liberal like our governor to oppose conservative politics.  But to infer that the State Board of Education is responsible for the lack of economic development in Kansas is laughable," Abrams said. (emphasis added)

Infer!?  The correct word is "imply," Mr. Abrams.  Jeez.

And I like what Governor Sebelius' spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said in response:

"Unfortunately, the chairman of the State Board of Education doesn't seem to realize the connection between good schools and a strong economy, which kind of proves the governor's point."

She's right.  I've researched the connection between economic development and the strength of public schools for one of our clients.  There's a great deal of research supporting this point.  One of the best is here.

So please don't look poorly on our humble little state because of a ridiculous few.

Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me

Yesterday the Kansas legislature overrode our Governor's veto of conceal carry bill.  Starting January 1, 2007, if you're a Kansas resident and meet certain qualifications, you can carry a gun in your pocket/purse/whatever.

Bang.

I haven't followed this issue very closely because from the start, I figured it was a done deal.  I mean, Kansas was one of the last four states without a conceal-carry law.  Kansas -- you know, Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, "Bleeding Kansas."  So this veto isn't shocking to me.

My official position on this issue is "so what."  I'm a believer in Second Amendment rights, but I'm not a member of the NRA.  I grew up hunting, know how to handle a gun, own guns and respect them.  But I don't feel the need to carry a 9 mm on my hip.

My "so what" attitude about this issue is because of how polarized it is and how that polarization is exemplified in the Kansas law.  If you read it and the list of where you CAN'T carry a concealed weapon (sections 10 & 11), there seems to be no real benefit to the law.  It simply gives legislators a chance to tell their constituents they did something for them on a high-profile issue.  I mean, where CAN I carry it?  Walking down the street?  Mowing my yard?  During the course of a typical day, I'd be taking out/off my gun so many times, I would look like a criminal.

But I do see one big opportunity -- our design group at Barkley could sure pick up some work designing "No Guns Allowed" signs for businesses.

Finally someone says it well

Mason Cole writes the best post yet on the whole Chaney issue.  I love mid-western common sense (that's where Mason's from, not where he lives).

Congratulations

Kansas Senate majority leader, and friend, Derek Schmidt received the Simons Public Humanities Fellowship at Kansas University.  The fellowship is a "midcareer" education opportunity for "persons of undoubted accomplishment" to study a subject of their choice.  At the end of the semester, they must provide a public presentation.  I'm looking forward to hearing Derek's thoughts on his chosen subject:  The growing influence of China, India and Russia.

Derek's a moderate in an increasingly conservative Kansas legislature.  He's wise, thoughtful, principled and honest.  His wife, Jennifer, and my wife, Amy, where in the same law school class at KU (Class of 1994).  We all ended up in Washington DC at the same time and were part of a pack of Kansans that ran around together.  I have no doubt that if Derek chose to, he could one day be the Governor of Kansas.

Congrats Derek!

Where does CSR start and stop?

This post started as a discussion with a Barkley colleague and some internal emails in our PR group.  After a couple of emails back and forth, it became obvious the discussion should be expanded.  So I'm posting about it, and my colleagues will input their original responses in the comments.  My hope is other people in the blogoshpere who care about corporate social responsibility will add in.

The gist is this:  Bob Zender and I were talking over lunch about China's suppression of Internet-information and its monitoring of the citizens using technologies sold by American corporations.  Most notable of these is Nortel who supplies spy-ware to the Chinese government so it can track dissidents online under its "Golden Shield" project.  The goal of this project, according to Amnesty International, Business for Social Responsibility and other human rights organizations, is "to develop a nationwide surveillance network, integrating a national database with financial, biometric, communications, and public video tracking systems. All activities of the population will be tracked."  The question from Bob was, "What do you think about that?"

My initial reaction was, "So what.  Let Nortel make a buck."

But then I reflected on it a bit further, and I read this and this from Bob.  Now keep in mind, Bob Zender, who I greatly respect, is no tree-hugger.  He's a Republican and a fiscal and social conservative who managed national and local campaigns of conservative politicians.  I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate.  I'm a registered Republican who is seriously considering becoming an independent. 

So I sent Bob this email back, cc'ing several other people in PR, and inciting a reaction from another colleague, which I hope he has posted in the comments:

"You've opened my eyes a bit.  Why wouldn't it be part of an American company's corporate social responsibility to NOT engage in such violation of human rights.  I was looking at it completely from a narrow, western, capitalist viewpoint.  And I'm not necessarily going soft…the utilitarian argument for global human rights is a good one…countries that respect human rights have a better chance of having strong economies, fairer trading practices, etc., etc.

You may have hit on something here that ties directly to our cause branding philosophy, which is why I'm cc'ing the sr. team on this.  Our philosophy is that a company that wants to ultimately reach the level of "citizen brand," and thus reach true relevance nirvana, must first operate ethically and with significant transparency -- in short, have a stellar reputation.  So if Nortel is building the spy-ware that allows the Chinese government to track its citizens, one could argue there is no way Nortel will ever be a true citizen brand -- in the US or anywhere -- because such behavior is morally questionable to most people, and if most people knew about this behavior, it would impact Nortel's reputation negatively.

Let's continue the debate."

A new conversation

This surprised me. I didn’t expect our agency to jump into the political realm. But I like it. I like that we initiated it and took a chance on a big idea.

Our CEO accouned it internally via this email:

“As I'm sure you've noticed, our country is deeply divided right now on a number of political and social issues. As the national dialogue becomes more and more polarized, the stereotypes of red state and blue state voters become more deeply entrenched, which in turn lowers the quality of the debate and so goes the vicious cycle. There's a whole lot of shouting and very little listening. You hear it on the talk shows and in the bars and around water coolers; it's hard to escape really.

Both sides have adopted an "If you disagree with me you're wrong" kind of attitude. It's much easier to simply bash the other side than it is to really consider their point of view and try to find a new way to look at an issue. And that's as annoying as it is harmful.

Phil Gable was particularly annoyed by the situation over the summer and came to me with an idea for a public service campaign that points out that both sides are guilty of stereotyping the other. He shot five spots in and around New York City with director Jeremy Medoff. The logo was created by Chris Schults and animated by Ray Schlitter.

Since then, Phil and I have been working with Erica Wren, Mike Swenson, Jim Elms, Vicki Stuckwisch, Joe Sciara and some of Phil's old friends in New York to build a grassroots campaign which we call The Red Blue Project. The project is politically neutral. The goal is not to move anyone to one side or the other, but just to encourage more thoughtful, open-minded discussion rather than just throwing rocks at the other side.”

The project is still in its beta phase. Spots are produced, the basic idea is outlined, but the conversation hasn’t really started. I’ll be interested to see what’s next. I was not involved with this project, so I feel I can give it a fair review. I’ll continue to blog about it, but I’d like your feedback, too.

Ann Coulter speaks

Far-right winger Ann Coulter spoke in Lawrence last night.  I would have liked to have heard her, even though I'm a moderate, and I think people like Coulter just further polarize the debate in America.  But it's good to know what the far right AND the far left are saying so you can get a better sense of where the middle is these days.

I guess Coulter balanced out the Howard Dean appearance in Lawrence a couple of months ago.

This quote in the story, for one of the 1800 attendees at the event, made me laugh out loud:

"Ann Coulter is logical, rational and an independent thinker," said John Altevogt, a conservative GOP activist.  "In essence, everything the left hates in their womenfolk."

"Womenfolk"!?  How often has that word been used since 1870?  And the ultra-conservatives wonder why no one gives them any credit.

Know where your money goes

This article so enraged me, I sent the following email to the headquarters of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization:

To whom it may concern:

A news article I read today regarding the Knights of Columbus' decision to donate $100,000 to support the gay marriage ban amendment to the Kansas constitution greatly disturbed me.

Although I haven't paid dues in 10-15 years, I would like you to check your records and ensure I am no longer a member of the organization.  I want no association whatsoever with an organization that advances bigotry.

I am also going to cash in my Knights life insurance policy.  It's a policy my parents purchased for me 14 years ago.  It makes me ill to think the premiums I have been paying all these years have contributed to your anti-tolerance cause.  I accept responsibility for not investigating your political activity more closely -- there's nothing I can do to change the past, but I can most certainly make a change now.

Please confirm my disassociation from the organization with a return email.

It is my responsibility to investigate the organizations I associate with, and I would challenge everyone to do the same.  Sometimes it's apathy, sometimes it's hard to find information, sometimes we don't really want to know.  Whatever the reason, it doesn't excuse us from the responsibility. 

If you are a member of the Knights of Columbus, I encourage you to re-examine your reasons why.  If you don't support their political motives and actions, don't support the organization.

We're not so big

Last week, Kansas unveiled it's "As Big As You Think" tourism tag line.  Yesterday, the Kansas Senate approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the State.

I guess we're not big enough to be accepting of all people.  Sad.