TEDx San Juan: Daniel Colón-Ramos

Daniel is a scientist, which means he is a lover of knowledge which means he is a devotée of learning. Currently a researcher at Yale, studying neurological development in nematodes, his research may have enormous implications for genetic-based treatment of Alzheimer's or cancer. Or it may not; it might actually lead to improved nanocomputers or to properly identifying life on Mars.

We don't know. And that's where the joy, glory, challenge and fun of Science begins.

Daniel's point that the enormous increase in Our life spans--and the unprecedented explosion in scientific advancement of the 20th century--are due to the public support of science. This has to be underlined as of extreme importance, because when major corporations, organizations and governments started financing scientific research, the benefits of that research became the public's patrimony, a widespread wave of progress that We could see come to an end in the next few decades.

The problem has two evil roots. One is an increased level of attacks against science, resulting in a less-favorable funding environment, not to mention an outright rejection of scientific inquiry (stem cells, NASA, etc.) But more insidious, more dangerous to the future of science is the appalling (My word) deficiencies in the educational system.

As Daniel outlined, part of the problem is the image science has, a combination of the educational system and the media making it seem that scientific discovery occurs in isolated fashion. The focus is on the end result (polio vaccine, the Sun as the center of the Universe) rather than on the process. Science, Daniel reminds Us, is an accumulation of knowledge, an accretion, not an explosion. To oversimplify discoveries to merely a result is to lose the power and value of the process.

It also creates two more negatives: the sense that sciences are isolated from each and the notion that "everything is known". Focusing solely on a discovery, without context, makes all science (for people see so little they think they see it all) seem disconnected, when in fact, as Daniel emphasizes, everything is connected. Furthermore, the "big news of discovery" coverage, when merged with how little science We actually know about, gives the impression that "everything is known," that "there is nothing left to discover or learn."


As a scientist, Daniel knows that there are far more questions now than ever before.

That's where Our educational system is a failing badly, for the process and environment is directly opposed to asking questions and using curiosity to explore learning. It focuses on memory over questioning, on isolated facts rather than context and on subdividing topics rather than integrating them. In addition, the educational system doesn't teach critical thinking skills, creating an environment of "rushing ahead to meet standards" that don't allow Our students time to think more deeply about what they are learning.

The educational system, then, focuses on storing "knowledge" in arbitrary chunks, never teaching how to learn and generate new knowledge. Science is about asking questions, taking time to observe methodically, follow data, sift the significant from the insignificant and come to conclusions that must bear up to further experimentation. It calls for imagination and reasoning, not memorization.

A problem Science raises, part and parcel of its very existence, is that scientific advances force Us to redefine Ourselves. We once thought We were the center of the Universe; then it was the Sun, now it's any point in the Universe. We once thought We were above animals; now We know We are an animal less than 1% different from a chimp at the genetic level. The challenges that Science tosses at Us come from every direction and in huge numbers, forcing Us to re-evaluate and face often-uncomfortable truths.

A corollary issue from this complexity is that most teachers are ill-prepared for sciences, so curricula have become "dumbed down." "Dumbed down science," is an oxymoron, but then again, so is Our educational system. (My comment, not Daniel's.)

Another aspect that hurts appreciating science, at least in Puerto Rico, is that like with any body of learning, a sociocultural context is very important. As Daniel recounted, when he was a kid his textbook featured an interesting bit about maple trees. There are no maple trees in Puerto Rico, but there are plenty of other trees here that are equally or more interesting.

For those who pooh-pooh this as "rationalization" or "excuses," note this: curiosity and discovery are natural parts of a child's life. They have to be for the child to learn about the world. But even the most recalcitrant amongst you would acknowledge that not receiving the right incentives is the most common way to discourage a child from pursuing an interest or path of action, intentionally or unintentionally. You know that's true, so being unable to "connect" to sciences because the material used means little or nothing to the person is evidently far more discouraging than encouraging.

To address this issue, Daniel and many other local scientists have developed a textbook titled Ciencia Boricua. Every chapter and essay was written by a Puerto Rican scientist and the examples used, from biology to geology, are based directly on and in Puerto Rico. Already in use local schools, Ciencia Boricua is going into a second printing and it is being evaluated for island-wide use.

[Unpaid advocate here: Buy this book. Not just for your kids, but for yourself, My Brethren. You have no idea how much you'll learn and how much will astonish you. Two words, people: Sierra Bermeja. Buy the book to find out how astonishing those two words are.]

Daniel's effort for Ciencia Boricua is part of his seminal work in CienciaPR, the largest organization of Puerto Rican and Puerto Rico-based scientists in the world. With over 5,400 members, CienciaPR is seeking to develop, support and expand interest in sciences as career choices and as part of the public patrimony Daniel addresses so well. (Full disclosure: I will be joining CienciaPR in a support capacity in the coming weeks. This interview was in no way part of that process.)

Daniel points the finger in his own profession's direction when he indicates that scientists need to be more communicative about their work to and for the general public. Unfortunately, the characteristics that make a good scientist are pretty much what makes a poor communicator, so only a handful (Sagan, De Grasse, Feynmann) become iconic science proselytizers. But Daniel says that all scientists can become better communicators, not to "pander to the less capable," but to create a community that values and supports science in a more consistent way.

Daniel told Me he'd just gotten back from an event organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS), that focused on this issue of "getting the public involved" in sciences. The goal is to bridge the gap between scientific research and "pop science," the "dumbing down for headlines" trend. In that process, the Internet is a key channel, allowing for the development of "translators," people who understand the science and use their communication skills to make the science known. An example of this "translator" role can be seen here, at Download the Universe, a science writing review site.

The AAAS focus is recognition of what Daniel said, that "We are all part of the scientific dialogue." It is up to Us to define how We are going to participate. And for those of Us with school-age or pre-school age children (Daniel is the proud father of triplets, all girls), the dialogue is not theoretical: it is as practical as deciding what groceries We'll buy for them to eat.

Sadly, what We have with sciences is more theory and talk than practice. We don't do science anymore, the classroom-level exploration that led Us to look at the microscopic, mix the chemicals, watch the physics or dissect the once-living. And yet, We "do" Science every day, to deal with and understand the world. As Daniel said in closing: "We are all born scientists. We observe, experiment, ask, learn--We never lose that and it crosses all barriers, for it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from, you will do these things."

Daniel is right, for not only are We scientists-at-large, public support--Our support--of sciences, from research to education to reporting to commercialization, are at the very foundation of Our modern level of progress. We shouldn't forget that, despite the rising tide of what can only be called ignorance. If We really want the world to solve its pressing problems--some of which were created through sciences--then Our only hope, Our only proven tool for large-scale solutions, remains scientific research.

And the better the tool, the better the craftsman needs to be. Daniel is seeking ways to improve both.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

TEDx San Juan: Giovanni Rodríguez - Part One

Sometimes an interview unleashes so many angles and threads that bringing it together in one article is either an exercise in futility, unintended censorship, cherry-picking (a form of intended censorship almost indistinguishable from editing) or an article so long it becomes practically unreadable.

In the case of My conversation with Giovanni Rodríguez, social media expert, I chose to follow part of the tapestry of topics We created in one post and come back to other parts of the tapestry later.

So here We go, with Part One of Our conversation with the Parranda Man.

Giovanni is the Chief Strategy and Marketing Officer for Deloitte Postdigital Enterprise (enabling government and business to better engage with employees, consumers, and citizens), a founding board member of LATISM and serves as advisor to the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. He's also a blogger for Forbes Magazine and ClickZ. His presentation at TEDx San Juan was about the power of social media and its connection with the growing power of Hispanics.

A key point to grasp about Giovanni is that he is very much Puerto Rican, although Bronx-born and despite having not visited the Island for a couple of decades. The connection? Family. The daily give-and-take of culture and mores that make up a national feeling. That's why Giovanni's return to Puerto Rico was--in his words--such a seminal moment, for he understood the deeply-felt connection that people can have with their homelands, that yearning to go back someday.

This insight helped Giovanni recast his work in a different light, more about the connecting and less about the technology aspect. In his work, scanning and analyzing approaches to Hispanics, Giovanni has seen a change based on non-Hispanic realization that Mexicans are not Puerto Ricans are not Cubans. "Hispanics" are not all one people, and yet within that variety, there exists commonalities, primarily centered on education and immigration. (Not applicable to Puerto Ricans, but We get lumped into the debate in other ways.)

The commonalities are such that often an attack on one Hispanic group causes a ripple effect of support from other nationalities, a form of "We demand respect" unity that has profound and far-reaching repercussions. Giovanni pinpointed that reality by coining the term "metatribe" to describe what happens with Hispanic variety/commonality.

The fact is that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the U.S. of part of A. and by 2050 could exceed being 33% of the nation's population. With that increase in numbers comes a consequent rise in buying power, as businesses have noted...and a rise in voting power, as Democrats and Republicans have noted.

It is fair and accurate to say that Barack Obama's rise to the presidency was fueled by cutting-edge integration of the Internet and social media...and Hispanic voters. The support generated by savvy new media strategies and get-out-the-vote grassroots campaigning was enormous, but the power of Hispanic votes was vital in major key states.

As Giovanni points out, it still is: the first ads of the 2012 campaign--of both parties--were targeted at Hispanic/Latino (choose your term) voters...and one was in Spanish. Imagine: a U.S. of part of A. presidential campaign ad not in English. Eso es poder, compadre.

However, Giovanni noted that the parties differ greatly in their approaches. By philosophy, the Democratic Party is more compatible with most Hispanics (Cubans being a notable exception), with the party's emphasis on broadening immigration quotas, social services, education and minority rights. The Republican Party, currently spearheading a wide series of anti-immigration laws, is seen as anti-Hispanic. Toss in their focus on reducing social services and education for minorities and you have the makings of a very interesting media experiment in "whitewashing" a party's image for a primary voter group in 2012.

For both parties, Giovanni says, the key is to merge offline and online activities. The Obama 2008 campaign success was built on that merging, but time and technology have created a greater potential platform with the concomitant greater reward/risk factor. Hispanics are very keen users of social media (ranking first in Facebook, a close second on Twitter and again first in average cell phone usage), so the improved platform allows for faster, more focused and responsive organization.

Two recent examples of this new paradigm are the reaction to a perceived slur on ABC's now-defunct "Work It"--galvanizing Puerto Ricans and Hispanics to protest vehemently and effectively--and the Susan G. Komen Foundation fallout after the breast cancer awareness group chose to stop supporting Planned Parenthood. Both ABC and the Komen Foundation were forced to back down from the fallout--and unlike previous "retractions"--these were clearly not based on profit losses, but solely on the public image of their new (recast) positions.

Giovanni said that the Hispanic's growing population, power and presence needs to be understood in order for the conversation it engenders to be guided and molded. He wasn't speaking about "manipulating" Hispanics, but about the communities themselves grasping what their power is, how they can use it and on what issues they can best take advantage of that power. In classical terms of realpolitik, Giovanni is describing the "It isn't power if you don't use it" and the "Fringe groups must move to the center to consolidate power" tenets.

If that sounds menacing, then you haven't understood what it is all based on. As Giovanni discussed, the technology that enables and enhances social media is available to "everyone" (keep this in mind; another angle below), and what it has done is to take what was once "limited" and given access to all. In the past, publishers, newspapers, radio and TV had unique channels they controlled: now We have blogs, self-publishing, aggregators, YouTube, podcasts, Twitter, Facebook and 24/7 access to the world in Our hands. The growing power of Hispanics in this new world is built on the growing power We all have. That means We all have a responsibility to use that power wisely, and Giovanni is at the forefront of that movement.

And yet, not "everyone" is equal: there does exist a digital divide, a chasm between the haves and have-nots in terms of technology and Internet access. At first, that digital divide was structured around economic classes, poor versus rich. Technology and Internet access is now so cheap and ubiquitous that the digital divide is reframed as "levels of use," non-user versus power user. And as Giovanni wrote about a year ago, guess who leads the nation in "power use"?

Again, the implications are enormous. If the education divide between minorities/poor and  the non-minority/wealthy (very real, very pernicious) continues, but the digital divide "flips" the equation, what does that mean for the nation's future? An obvious point: most of the content is non-Hispanic in origin, so crossing this "digital divide" into content production is a key step. What would a more "Hispanic" Web or social media environment be like? What would it mean for marketers, businesses, industries and consumers? What would it mean in terms of public debate and policy?

Neither those questions nor a responsible conversation on the use of this growing power will happen unless commitments are made and kept. Giovanni is working with LATISM and the White House to partner with communities and organizations nationwide to develop that broad-based, effective network for the future. In essence, the focus is on learning to navigate what is an often confusing mélange of data, trends, technologies and opinions. It is the landscape of the early 21st century, it is disruptive and chaotic...and yet it is created by Us. Non-participation won't change it. Only by actively and intelligently slicing and dicing can anyone have a true impact. In Giovanni's words, "Even a tiny slice can yield great results...the challenge is to figure out how and how to do it consistently."

There's more to this topic and a whole new set of topics touched on and discussed by Giovanni that will become posts here in the near future. For now, keep this in mind: the event that galvanized and launched an entirely new social media reality with truly global implications is happening again this year: the Presidential elections. Only this time, the toolkit is larger, the strategies are sharper, the stakes are higher and Hispanics are bigger players on this stage.

And Giovanni is spotlighted on that stage. Cool, huh?



The Jenius Has Spoken.

[Update: 7 March 2012: From Foreign Policy, an eye-opening examination of how the Republican Party is driving Hispanic votes towards Presdient Obama.]

TEDx San Juan: Ramphis Castro

Ramphis Castro, a computer engineer in his non-secret identity, is a key member of the TEDx San Juan  event group. Through him, I learned about the effort to do a TEDx conference on the Island and We talked about that, as well as the entrepreneurial environment of Our Island.

For the TEDx San Juan team, the goals for the event were to reveal the people who were doing noteworthy projects, get them and the invited audience to meet and hopefully establish new collaborations. In those respects, Ramphis feels that the event was truly a major success. However, getting there was not so easy.

The search for sponsorships to secure funding for the event started with, reasonably, major companies. What the TEDx San Juan group discovered was that these big corporations didn't really understand the TED concept and were more concerned with the group's "track record" than anything else. Their general take was "Have the event and if it succeeds, then We'll be interested." In addition, there was a sense that these "established entities"--maybe We can call them the "Establishment"--were less-than-keen to support an event that didn't fit their limited "box" of ideas or didn't seem to directly support their "agenda."

The cold-calling slog at that level was quickly replaced with a new strategy: approaching small businesses and non-profits. The amount of money needed to hold the event was not that much; as Ramphis pointed out, many of the large companies spent many times the TEDx San Juan budget on crap (My word). It wasn't like TEDx was a "break the bank" (pun intended) risk.

[Aside: I've decided not to mention the companies Ramphis and I talked about, not because they deserve anonymity--they don't--but because TEDx San Juan is about synergy and collaboration: dissing anybody at this early stage amounts to closing doors needlessly. But you can call Me to ask who We talked about.]

What was slow bureaucratic protocol based on "Who are you?" and "Why do you want to do this event?" in the Establishment was replaced by quick acceptance and support from small companies and non-profits, who didn't care that Ramphis, Marcos Polanco and the rest of the TEDx team had never done this event before, or that the event had a global focus rather than a local one: what mattered to them was that it was a potential lever for change.

Ramphis discussed how what the Establishment has is power, and though they could make great changes with that power, their focus above all is self-preservation; the status quo must be defended. For the rest of us, isolated from the progress We should be able to achieve because those with the responsibility of helping changes emerge refuse to "open certain doors," shredding the status quo is a good thing.  As Ramphis pointed out, We search for options for progress, and in the TEDx case, the smaller companies are not only more nimble to react, they are more willing to embrace change. And they did, usually with one just call.

TEDx San Juan hit the local scene like a flash-bomb of creativity and passion. Ramphis noted that the most important results would be seen post-event, as the ideas and collaborations start spreading their influences. He replied to My observation about the "high energy" at the event with, "It was one thing to anticipate it, because We did, but it was another to actually see it."

Switching gears, I asked Ramphis for his overview of the entrepreneurial environment here. His first observation was that although We do have an entrepreneurial streak in Our culture, most of Our entrepreneurs are "accidental," i.e., folks who've lost their jobs and are forced to start a business to secure income. In Ramphis' view, We aren't taught how to be entrepreneurs and the resources at hand are not truly geared to helping a business get off the ground. For one, there's protectionism by larger established companies, limited financial supports and though there has been some reduction in government red tape, there's still an often-bewildering array of steps to complete to just start a business. Faced with that panorama, Ramphis says, many of Us just "give up and sit in a corner to cry."

But Ramphis goes on to say that "Everywhere is hostile to entrepreneurs." Starting a business is not easy and that's simply a fact. Those who succeed don't care that it's difficult because their focus is on change. In Our case, Our reliance on "the government" is a barrier because, Ramphis notes, they don't know how to change the system to create an environment of true economic progress. For example, the government looks to big companies to increase jobs, but 2/3 of new jobs are created by start-ups and new companies. If a big company does add 400-500 jobs, it's because they cut 2,000 jobs someplace else, and the same can and does happen to Us when We're (increasingly) on the losing end.

Once again, the Establishment serves more as obstacle than as facilitator, self-preservation trumping "a rising tide to lift all boats," for fear of sinking the ship. But Ramphis notes that entrepreneurialism is not a "magic bullet": it will not "cure" an economy nor is it to be some isolated tool for economic progress. It has to be coordinated with other changes to create a support system that helps create more opportunities across the board, rather than just for new companies.

To Ramphis, the biggest change for economic progress is the Internet because it drastically lowers entry barriers for nearly all businesses. However, by itself, it doesn't change the need for financial support or the reliance on knowledge, specifically education on being an entrepreneur, a subject Our school system doesn't even glance at. And yet, for knowledge, the Internet is its own solution, and thus there's no excuse for anyone to say they can't learn about a product, service, market or industry: it's within keyboard reach.

However, to sell to foreign markets, Ramphis acknowledges We have an "island mentality" that doesn't look outward very often, but he points out that face-to-face, feet-on-the-ground contact is still a key component to secure sales. He notes that local entrepreneurs are missing the point with a strictly-local focus, or a vaguely "global" one, when he points out that We have 4.7 million of Our Brethren populating the States, more than doubling Our Island population. Selling and marketing to them is as easy as being Ourselves with people like Us who want to support Puerto Rico. Ignoring that market is short-sighted and the sooner companies realize that, the better.

As Ramphis discussed, being an entrepreneur is not about just creating companies, it's about creating wealth. Not in the sense of "I'm going to be rich!", but in the sense of creating an ecosystem of value that benefits more than a handful of people. The lack of vision about this key point is seen in that the only major local "offering" for venture capital funding is basically a business plan competition, where a "home run with one swing" mentality is backed by a limp-wristed $5,000 "pledge" based on a document and process that are largely irrelevant to cutting-edge start-ups. Yes, planning is important, but planning for a year is much less a wealth creator than actually doing the business for most of that year. That myopia is not enough for a powerful vision of progress and never will be.

To My remark about the underground economy flourishing as evidenced by the huge expansion of (permanent) flea markets, Ramphis feels that more than anything else, this is a symptom reflecting the failure of public economic policy, which is lost and confused. What this underground economy does is serve as a "safety net" for those who are left out of the economic loop, but it also traps them there, unable to grow. Few start-ups in Puerto Rico grow to be big, but the flea market environment won't change that reality. What Ramphis does see is that start-up processes at this level are lightning-quick, with clear and simple procedures. Although a government has to be aware of more details, it also has more resources to do so, so streamlining red tape and simplifying procedures should be a true economic boost, as has been shown several hundred times around the world.

A deeper look at economic progress and synergy can also be seen in Ramphis' work with Startups of Puerto Rico, a tech-centric push for entrepreneurial development on Our Island. The goal is to create the environment that start-ups can thrive in. In a nod at the Establishment, Startups of Puerto Rico has a focus where older companies help the newer ones make progress. Although the focus is tech-centric, agility is also a vital trait, so non-tech companies with emerging or created markets can also benefit from the group's expertise.

As for TEDx San Juan, the tentative date for 2012 is December 14. Ramphis indicated that the entire group was not only revved up for this year, but also to support any and all TED-type events that might be held locally. The support gos beyond logistical to include sponsorships, so that the synergy and collaboration can spread even wider.

On a closing note, Ramphis and I agreed to collaborate on highlighting noteworthy projects that barely missed the cut for TEDx San Juan and within Startups of Puerto Rico. Synergy and collaboration.

It's so good to be back in that flow.



The Jenius Has Spoken.

TEDx San Juan: Andrea Pérez

What do you say when you meet someone you think is extraordinary?

You should say "Hi!" and then start a conversation.

Discuss the weather, or a movie recently premiered, or what your favorite pastime is. Maybe bring up what the person does and how it's going, but talking about recent events or shopping or sports or even TV shows is not a bad idea. For in that conversation, you will see the person, and you will discover that what makes them extraordinary is not their mere presence on the planet: it is their decisions. And if you're honest, you will realize that you too can make similarly extraordinary decisions…

Like Andrea Pérez made. A single young woman, with a college degree, living comfortably in Miami and doing part-time community work who decided to sell her possessions and do real community work in the Sudan. At the height of the Darfur genocide.

With that experience behind her, the Haiti earthquake launched Andrea to another goal, sustainable development, where she focused the efforts of her Silent Grace Foundation.


When Andrea went to the Sudan in 2007, the Darfur genocide was headline news. The general image of the country was one of extreme violence and starvation. But Andrea's arrival in Sudan was anything but. She described her surprise at finding that the country was comparatively peaceful (outside of the Darfur region), more so than Miami or Puerto Rico. She spoke about "fresh the air was," and upon looking at the panorama around her, how she felt she had arrived at a very special place.

A huge difference she discovered was in the people, how amazingly resilient they are. In her words, none of Us could expect to go through what they go through and be as energetic and determined to meet the challenges day after day. Andrea met some of the happiest people in Sudan, folks who had gone through horrible tragedy, murders, starvation, chaos, and yet somehow still managed their often life/death struggles with smiles and kindness.

Andrea had to come to grips with contrasts, not only cultural, but personal. She acknowledges her background is privileged, certainly when compared to what she was experiencing in the Sudan. In response to whether she wondered "Why me?," she said she was aware of the possible unfairness between her life and that of others, but that she didn't dwell on that, for it would render her "useless" to help. She simply accepted the difference and sought ways to "level the playing field," for although no one take credit for their background, they can certainly take credit for what the actions and decisions they make.

Andrea doesn't see herself as idealistic, at least not in the total sense of the term: she sees herself as "feet on the ground" realistic with the desire to make things better as much as possible.  Her actions bear her out.

In Haiti--and as Andrea mentioned in her TEDx San Juan talk--most of the help is in the form of "charity," the giving of goods, needed or not, that solve (maybe) an immediate problem, but do nothing to deal with the underlying problems of the community. To Andrea, this kind of giving has limited results, that it in fact creates dependency where dependency is neither needed nor wanted. For that reason, Silent Grace was geared to work with the community, beginning with a Needs Study in Dessources to determine what the community needed and wanted to tackle.

The upshot is that the Haitian community Andrea and her organization work with feels empowered, and though that may be a word that has been smothered in maudlin frippery, its value is still undeniable. One of the empowering aspects Andrea feels most proud about is that the community now negotiates its assistance, taking responsibility for its present and future and not merely accepting what "the outsiders" bring in, no matter how generous they may be. Charity eventually undermines dignity: Silent Grace is building dignity and a prosperous community.

Other organizations are taking notice, as Silent Grace's results are casting longer shadows. It isn't idealism that is making the changes, it is motivation, the desire to take action and put time and energy into making changes happen. None of that is extraordinary; everyone can do it...if they choose to.

As in her personal life, Andrea begins with the end in mind, the goal, then breaks it down into shorter-term objectives. Silent Grace (descriptive name, isn't it?) does the same, beginning with the Needs Study and developing a plan. The organization works with Haitians, many of them smart, hard-working professionals with enormous potential, to amplify the "can-do spirit" and create positive results. Andrea notes that in a badly-ravaged country like Haiti, often what is needed is for someone to believe that changes can and will happen. Silent Grace and similar organizations are providing that belief and support system; it isn't a case of "Yes, we can do it for you," but "Yes, you can do it and we will help."

Are there dreams in Haiti? Do people dream about their future, like We have "the American dream"? Yes, says Andrea. There are two types of dreams: the freedom from want, to have enough food and resources, including education, to live without fear or desperate need, and the bigger dreams, like that of "becoming President of Haiti." Andrea has learned that cultures differ, but people are more similar than different, and that dreams in Haiti are just as important as anywhere else.

Although material support (clothing, food items, etc.) are important, Andrea is focusing on economic support: dollars. Money is vital as energy, and where a shirt or a pair of shoes can make a difference, the money to build a pump or patch a clinic's roof has long-term benefits that material goods can't match.

And the planning goes on. Whenever she returns to Haiti, Andrea gets updates and progress news, including how plans may have changed foe the community's benefit. Among current objectives, Andrea would like to start providing check-ups and creating health records for the community, but that is beyond the current expertise of Silent Grace. The assistance for that effort will have to come from the rest of Us. That aspect illustrates the true need and value of what any person can bring to this effort: themselves. Their knowledge, skills, talent or simple desire to make a difference. As Andrea acknowledges, "I am different because of what I do, but any of us can do what I do."

Andrea is right. For Silent Grace to expand and help more communities, in Haiti and around the world, the number of people who make a decision to help--in any way possible--must increase. Not extraordinary people, but ordinary people with motivation, who decide to do something that is outside the norm, which is all extraordinary means. People who see themselves leaving a legacy beyond family and neighborhood, leveraging themselves to achieve more than they ever thought possible (and discovering it is easier than they thought.)

Andrea's norm is Our extraordinary, an "other-normal" well within Our reach every day. Andrea doesn't do what she does for fame or glory, for then she'd be ineffective, an obstacle rather than a boon. She got her Masters in Public Health Administration, and is aiming at a Doctorate in the same, in order to enhance what she can offer in support. That's something many of Us already do: improve Ourselves to help others. Andrea's scope is simply a little larger than yours or Mine...until We choose to match or exceed it.

Down the road a bit, Andrea sees herself teaching a subject We would all accept as being useful and currently-untouched: humanitarianism. Sad to admit, Our educational system does nothing to teach Us how to be humanitarians, to see and recognize "Us" in "Them." It ignores social awareness completely, or points to it only as something "one should have," with no attempt to guide how one goes about that. Social awareness makes winners of Us all, and like every great teacher or coach, Andrea knows winners exist in all of Us. It is safe to say she wants to make more winners along her way.

Andrea is the daughter, sister, friend and success story We can all feel proud about. But note the order: before her work in Silent Grace, beyond and above that work, Andrea is one of Us. Just one of Us. Her success story could have been written by you, or you, or you, or even Me.

Andrea is writing hers. All of Us can write Ours, too.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

TEDx San Juan: Marcos Polanco

[Apropos of this interview, Global Voices Online did a review of five Caribbean-area TEDx events, which quote Me. What can I say, except "Thanks"?]


Marcos Polanco was the Speaker Coordinator of the TEDx San Juan event in November, 2011. Our paths have crossed several times in the past decade, not always in positive or even neutral terms. But that day in November, I gave him his due, for the TEDx San Juan speakers were phenomenal. (I will interview the rest of the TEDx Event Coordination superstars in the coming weeks; I know Marcos better than I know the others, so I started with him.)

Marcos is a serial entrepreneur, with Silicon Valley experience, who came back to Puerto Rico after, in his own words, "crashing and burning" in California. Working in start-ups, he made approaches to government agencies and was invited to become a consultant. One of the first lessons he grokked there was that government work was no meritocracy: talent and brains mattered little, if at all. As Marcos pointed out, he'd just come from Silicon Valley, where brilliant ideas rule; in Our government, brilliant ideas were ignored. As Marcos noticed, an idea would make some small measure of progress if the person submitting it had power or leverage to make the listener do something.

After being a consultant, Marcos was asked to help coordinate with McKinsey Consulting on a major report about Our economic present (in 2003) and future. Marcos realized that since China had outsourced manufacturing and India had outsourced services, Puerto Rico had to find a different business model to offer the world. He found one: federal contracts, primarily based on engineering. Puerto Rico's largely-unknown deep pool of top-notch engineers was a resource that We could leverage for federal projects with little or no global competition.

His insight came in September, 2003, barely less than a month after InfoTech had secured a contract with Pratt & Whitney to take on federal defense contracts and set up shop in Mayagüez, a success story that led to several other "reverse brain drain" projects bringing Our engineers back to Our shores. Marcos played pivotal roles in that development, as he entered the Puerto Rico Industrial Company, PRIDCO, to help develop the Information Technology Business Unit.

PRIDCO--My eternal nominee for "Gilded Busted Sump Pump of the Century"--turned out to be a revelation for Marcos.  In his words, it took him "several months" to figure out its complexity and "about a year" to see how "utterly brilliant" PRIDCO was. As an economic attractor, sales arm and industrial developer for Puerto Rico, PRIDCO was "utterly brilliant...for 1955."

(Made Me spit out coffee, he did. Cracked me up.)

PRIDCO was the main agency of the economic miracle that defined Puerto Rico's success from 1947 to 1972.  But Marcos found its indifference to change "heartbreaking," for not only is the model broken, but there's no will to change it at a wide enough level. Therefore politics rule what should be a practical reality. As Marcos said, when an entrepreneur brings a project to PRIDCO, they ask 3 questions: how much are you investing, how many jobs are you creating and how many square feet of space do you need. These 1955 questions were pertinent then, but the current economy, where 2/3 of all new jobs are coming from new companies (mainly Internet-based), these 3 questions are far removed from reality. In addition, for PRIDCO, a job is a job, so 300 minimum-wage jobs with drone workers means more to the agency than 50 high-wage knowledge worker jobs. When salary is not important it means Our public economic policy is short-sighted and self-limiting, tossing away true growth in pursuit of "political numbers."

To describe where We are as an economic entity on the global stage, Marcos used the analogy of being once a major stop on Route 66 and when the interstate was built, you are literally "off the beaten path." To Marcos, Puerto Rico has long been off the beaten path, and yet he firmly believes that We can move Ourselves to get back where We belong, because the "shift" isn't physical, but conceptual.

But to do so, We can't rely on PRIDCO or other government agencies. As Marcos pointed out, some agencies have to look outside to deal properly with their functions (like the Government Development Bank and bond traders in New York, PRIDCO with multinationals or Tourism with the travel industry.) But if PRIDCO is so wrong in outlook, despite almost constant "outside feedback," what can be expected of the other "inward-looking agencies" of Our government? In other words, Marcos thinks Our political architecture--as well as Our economic architecture--need to be fundamentally changed for progress to occur.

However.

Politics rules to an overbearing extent. Marcos notes that with about half Our population is in poverty and nearly 27% of Our workers employed by the government, political leaders spend their 4 years in office trying to get more money from the "Sugar Daddy" up north to benefit the poor and government workers, the biggest voter mass We have. Entrepreneurs and knowledge workers, the key elements of 21st century economic innovation, are a diminishing middle class that means diddly-squat (My term) in terms of votes. Not enough votes means no attention which equals indifference and inertia. A sad formula for getting stuck in neutral.

Along those lines, Marcos is appalled that Our continuing and increasing brain drain is not a national emergency. Almost 100% of Our best-rated engineers leave the Island (other professions are close to that, with nurses leaving at a 55-70% clip, doctors at about 40-50% and lawyers at about a 35-40% rate...so there is a silver lining to this brain drain, I guess.) and the loss of human resources in Our "unreal economy" is a powerful blow. It is an unreal economy since Puerto Rico makes what it doesn't consume and consumes what it doesn't make, so its economy is not "directly affected" by most of Our actions. We have little or no control over speeding up cash cycles, which drives economic growth, so Our only true tool is human talent and drive.

And yet, even today, PRIDCO accounts for about 11% of all jobs in Puerto Rico, so it still has a degree of relevance, aside from it being the precursor agency to other government departments (the Ports Authority, for example). As such, it holds sway over economic development and innovation, currently being ridden by the biotech industry sectors (mainly related to the big pharmaceutical companies here), for although innovation is more than biotech, no one in government seemed to have a clue and the biotech sectors gladly accepted the gift of being able to guide economic policy their way.

Marcos is not a pessimist, though. He believes Puerto Rico can become a global player because the technology for globalization is now in the hands of the individual. Marcos himself works with colleagues in Africa, Europe, Asia and the U.S. of part of A. in his latest start-up. Location doesn't matter, but knowledge, energy and will do.

On the other hand, Marcos thinks that trying to turn Our Island into a Silicon Reef (backhand jab of Mine at the Center for the New Economy and their decade of uselessness) won't work because We aren't early tech adopters (willing to take a risk on the cutting edge), Our venture capital is barely-there and wrongly-focused on spending only for "the big score" (ignoring the more secure and proven course of portfolio growth rather than "lucky hit") and We still see Puerto Rico as "the market." In Marcos' example, if your only focus is on 4 million people, it's like you're trying to sell your company's offer to downtown Los Angeles only.

To counteract that, Marcos believes We need to focus on the monetization capacity of the Web. He pointed out that Groupon set a record by becoming a billion-dollar company in just 2 years; the previous record was four years. It's only a matter of time--pun intended--before a company reaches the billion-dollar mark in one year.

And maybe, just maybe, We could play a major part in it.

As Marcos emphasized, We don't have to wait for permission, We don't have to wait for anyone, no one can stop Us...if We believe We can do it, We focus on the global markets and We decide to do it.

Funny how it comes back to choice...

The Jenius Has Spoken.

TEDx San Juan: Mayra Santos-Febres

Mayra Santos-Febres was the brilliant closing speaker of TEDx San Juan, with her topic about Our fear of literature and reading. As she said then, We refuse to read because it makes Us more insecure, and We refuse to write because it reveals too much about Us.

I interviewed her to explore these thoughts. Like many of Us here in Puerto Rico who love to read, as a child she noticed that reading was cast in a negative light. Comments like "You'll go crazy" or "It will hurt your eyesight" were common, along with "It will make you think" and "Men don't like women who are smarter than they are."

For Mayra, this anti-reading bias was not really gender-based, or race-based, but based on class. Her middle-class upbringing placed a premium on "being private," of keeping matters under wraps, which extended to "keeping one's place" as well. Class mobility was not a virtue or a realistic possibility, so reading--which could encourage dissatisfaction, give one new ideas or reveal intimacies--was seen as dangerous. In Mayra's keen-eyed phrase, there was an imposition of "necessary silence."

This "necessary silence" could only be maintained through auto-censorship, so communication was per force oblique, hinted, veiled and incomplete. Mayra said she felt as if her family was constantly hiding a secret, and yet never knowing what that secret could be. Reading and writing were thus cast as tools of investigation--and discovery--the two enemies of secrets.

This secretiveness and view of reading/writing as dangerous stems, Mayra feels, from how closely interconnected Our families are, thus creating a tightly-woven society. Our social links within Our classes are strong, cementing identity with it, even if We also engage in linking "above" or "below". With numerous and close links, anonymity is harder to achieve. So is solitude, that fundamental nest of creativity.

In other societies, where anonymity is easier or stronger, literature flourishes. I mentioned to Mayra that while living in Oxford, Mississippi, I regularly spoke to a woman who knew William Faulkner and said she despised him. Her only other comment about him was: "All he did was write down what he heard around here." For insular societies--whether they are islands or backwaters--exposure of the dark sides is betrayal most heinous. But the South affords anonymity that Puerto Rico simply doesn't, where writers have to literally isolate themselves within the isolation or leave the Island to pursue their desire. The few voices that rise above Our "necessary silence" tend to pay a heavy price for their perceived defiance in threatening that silence.

The fear and rejection of reading and writing in Puerto Rico has another class component, according to Mayra. In her view, Our upper class, the wealthy movers and shakers, have less power than in other societies, so they are more fearful. I confess that hadn't occurred to Me and at first glance, I'm inclined to disagree, but Mayra's observation has an undeniable fact: We don't control Our economy, so how  "powerful" can mere managers be, even if they are "executive managers"? Those with some greater degree of local power are thus aware that it can be as easily taken from them from "above" as from "below," simply because they cannot isolate themselves enough from either.

This sense of isolation, energized by secretiveness and insecurity, permeates Our culture to the point of leaving Us ignorant (My word) of the outside world. As Mayra says, "the world" to Us is the "the United States and maybe Cuba and the Dominican Republic." The rest? Doesn't exist. And about the Dominican Republic, We have a prejudice, as many of Our families have relatives there and tend to deny that fact.

Another fact Mayra is aware of, as a university professor, is the growing number of women who are outpacing Our men in achieving higher education goals. She sees that trend as emerging from a societal viewpoint that believes that "For men to be men, they must be brutes" (strong, forceful, not bookish), with their primary school being "the street." For women, their primary school IS school and the home, thus pre-disposing them to achieve more. As to what that will mean 20-25 years from now, she doesn't know (no one really does), but she did note that, for now, men still have the dominant share of power in business and politics, and that maybe a more equitable power structure will emerge in those 20-25 years, possibly leading to great changes.

One change We agreed upon is that of overcoming "Our national dream." As I described My post about this topic to her, she almost said the same thing I did: whereas I said "Rescue Us," she said "Solve this for Us." Mayra and I agree that a society that waits for others to do what's needed isn't a society that will produce a large number of writers, that We are in fact Cinderellas without a prince to escort Us to the palace. If We could only understand that no one has to give Us permission to be what We choose… As Mayra pointed out in her TEDx San Juan presentation maybe We don't read so We don't feel worse about Ourselves. 

To overcome this aversion, Mayra targets education and "the Island," i.e., Our pursuit of fragmented efforts. Schools need to upgrade and expand their curriculums and include more modern works, as well as a greater variety. As for society, too many well-intentioned projects, from book fairs to literary contests to curation, are running helter-skelter, each too small to have a great impact, fighting against each other for money and resources, eschewing collaboration and cooperation because of ego and/or the fear of being considered a "politicized" organization. As Mayra emphasizes, more could be done if a centralized policy were pursued, one aimed at creating a central repository of information about Our literature, past and present, and Our myriad literary-related events.

That's Mayra's dream: a digital collection of Puerto Rican literature. Not a single-spot archive, but a directory, a digital doorway into Our novels, poems, essays, plays, music and more. Maybe the burgeoning world of digital publishing could also serve as a platform for a "Neo-Boricua" literary movement, much in the way that blogging has become a platform for Our random and not-so-random thoughts.

Some interviews are drags, others are dances and a very few are days unto themselves. To speak with Mayra is like sitting on a beach veranda, a sunny sky and warm breeze as the setting of an easy flow of words. Not one is wasted. Her thoughts move along with the grace of a generous spirit, one that accepts what it sees because it is; no sense in rejecting it for what it should be. I could spend several days enjoying that scenario, engaging Mayra's mind and spirit, exploring that which is so different and yet so much like Me.

Not surprising at all, because when you think about it, that's what reading is, too.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

TEDx San Juan: We're Not Alone

Oh yeah, I was wrong.

TEDx San Juan was a rousing success. As I tweeted: I'll eat some of My words, happily.

Let Me dismiss My off-targets first: I sill don't agree with hiding the speakers line-up until just before the event. Sharing of anything is enhanced by symmetry and symmetry means We have the same or as much of the same (information) as possible. I would have gone to TEDx San Juan no matter the line-up, and...

Given that over 1,000 people applied and only 100 were allowed (My second point) by TED guidelines (for a first event), then there would have been no problem filling up the event. Only 100 was a stipulation, not a whim: I would have liked to know that beforehand. So picking Me to attend was not a mistake (I don't know what criteria applied), but a a pondered decision that actually honors Me.

Now for the positives: TEDx San Juan is the first event I have ever attended locally that exceeded My expectations. My biggest Congratulations go to the organizing team: Ramphis Castro, Iván Ríos, Marcos Polanco, José Padilla, Arelys Rosado and Héctor Ramos. They did a magnificent job.

A special Congratulations goes to Marcos Polanco for coordinating the speakers. I understand the selection was made by a group, but Marcos had the direct responsibility for the line-up and the agenda and his choices in both regards were impeccable.

Another special shout-out goes to Jenial Friend Luis Herrero as his company was in charge of the video and livestreaming, which I understand was world-class.

The speakers deserve their own recognition, to wit:

Justo Méndez, Nuestra Escuela: Born from the tragic loss by auto accident of his daughter, Nuestra Escuela takes in troubled kids and gives them back their capacity to dream and reach that dream.

Fernando Lloveras described why he created an organization to rescue Puerto Rico's rapidly-diminishing land area, preserving it for Our future.

Jorge Rigau presented his two proposals, a Metropolitan Walking Paths project that could easily and economically provide San Juan with some 3,000 miles of "urban walking paths," rescuing little-used spaces and a project, already done once, to convert a 35-kilometer irrigation canals infrastructure into a passive recreation/tourism attraction.

Dr. Daniel Colón talked about the exponential impact and importance of basic research, so strongly-maligned now, in healthcare and broad-based public benefits.

Tara Rodríguez described her Department of Food company, linking organic farm products with urban and suburban deliveries of high-quality vegetables and fruits.

Jorge Gaskins spoke about microalgae and the enormous potential they have for both food and fuel. Key number: microalgae can produce over 10,600 gallons of biofuel per acre per year; no plant can produce more than 780 gallons per acre per year.

Noel Quiñones spoke about and showed excerpts of his documentary about a school in Maricao that after 9 years of failing the standardized department-wide tests, and facing closure if it failed again, dramatically rocketed its scores to pass the tests...in 60 days.

Lawrence La-Fountain spoke of "sexiles," Puerto Ricans who leave the Island or are marginalized because of their homosexuality and how they respond through artistic expression to that exclusion.

Andrea Pérez (daughter of My Friend Lovely Laura) spoke about her personal decision to truly give, consciously developing sustainable charitable work, based on her experiences in Sudan (yes, Sudan) and Haiti.

Giovanni Rodríguez reconnected with his Puerto Rican roots and described his path to becoming a (cheer)leader for social engagement, social media use that foments change amongst Latinos, the "original retweeters." (In joke...)

Mayra Santos, accomplished writer and teacher, told Us two powerful truths: We need to lose Our fear of literature (We don't read enough) in order to tell the world Our stories, for without Our stories, the world and Us are diminished from full potential.

Four videos were shown: Emiliano Salinas on the attitude change needed to properly face up to the horrendous crime wave in his native Mexico; the Khan Academy's re-framing of education; Joan Halifax on the powerful nature of compassion and a brief video with Joachim de Posada indicating that delayed gratification--not eating the marshmallow for 15 minutes (watch the video)--is an almsot 100% predictor of success.

Three artistic presentations, a TED conference requirement, had strong impact as well: Y No Había Luz, Andanza and Time Machine Squad.

For My money, every speaker was a huge hit. I was especially moved by Andrea Pérez, Noel Quiñones and Lawrence La-Fountain, intrigued by Fernando Lloveras, Jorge Rigau and Jorge Gaskins and I fell in love with Mayra Santos (who is a sex symbol and rightly so.)

I must give a special thanks to Dana Montenegro who served as an energetic, quirky and hugely engaging emcee. I can offer no greater praise than "I couldn't have done it better."

Suggestions? Tables so attendees can sit and share, better monitoring of time so We can start/finish and explore with each other during the event and some stronger form of "connecting," like maybe setting up the tables with names so that you end up sitting with a group of (hopefully) strangers that you can then engage with.

But these are minor quibbles, at best. TEDx San Juan was interesting, dynamic, moving and impressive. Three thoughts came together during the event:

1) I'm so used to events like these being "what could have been" that I have become too cynical about "what could be." I won't do that again.


2) I, and We, are not alone. There are plenty of My Brethren who not only want to make a difference, they actually are making a difference.


3) The next TEDx has already begun. And it will be even better than this one.


The Jenius Has Spoken.


[Update: 11 December 2011: Videos of the TEDx San Juan speakers are here.]