Influence: Want to get More?

This is a unique sales book as it is not just for sales people.  Robert B. Cialdini describes himself as a "patsy" as he is an easy sell.  As a psychology researcher he became curious about how it was done on him.  In this regard the book is mainly about what he calls "compliance professionals" and "compliance practitioners" either of which you might fall into.  On the other hand, he occasionally offers antidotes so everyone can benefit from reading this book, which is perhaps the best sales book I have read.

He quotes Alfred North. "Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them."  That means a lot of our decisions are made with little thought.

7 Strategies that have been used on you or you have used on others are the core of his book.  They are reciprocity, social proof, liking, authority, commitment and consistency, scarcity and unity.  His research has given persuasion a scientific basis and his anecdotes make them more understandable.

There are many decisions we frequently make and for the most part we use heuristics, that are just mental short cuts.  For instance "expensive is good" or "inexpensive is cheap", both of which are reliably true, but can be misleading. 

Reciprocity is simply if you give something to another person you might expect something in return.  It can be something concrete (like a sample), a favor or a concession.  One interesting example was with the Watergate break in, that on the surface was very risky with not much payoff.  However one member of the group started with an even more outlandish plan involving much more money and risk and it was rejected by all the other members of the tight group.  A second proposal was about half the cost and, it too was rejected.  The other members were exasperated and ended up accepting a third proposal that cost about 1/4 of the original.  It was a dumb decision that was partly the result of concessions made in return for agreement.

Often the person who made the concession feels more in control by steering the decision closer to their preference.

As a side issue that demonstrates the author's contention on how to get others to like you is with the partial failures of school desegregation.  Most liberals felt it would work when blacks and whites were in contact, but it didn't work in many cases.  The author pointed out that blacks were mostly disadvantaged in situations where they competed in classroom for attention.  Cialdini felt it would (and did) work better when students were encouraged to be co-operative to achieve mutual goals.

Social proof acts as a reassurance that one is not the only one making a decision.  Netflix, just by pointing out the popularity of a film increased its popularity.  Another example would be during Covid, many would not wear a mask until they saw others wearing masks.

Using authority as a strategy means relying at least in part on a title that suggests expertise.  As consumers we are often approached this way and when it really reflects expertise and is relevant we should pay attention.  The author points out methods to buttress authority, but also tells consumers to check the expertise and just as important, determine the relevance.  An expert in physics is not necessarily knowledgeable or relevant to climate change.

When something is scarce or becoming scarce, generally it is considered more valuable.   Prospects can become afraid of losing something they want (or might want).  In the game of love, a partner taken for granted can become more desired when a romantic rival appears.  Cialdini feels to protect yourself you should realize ownership and enjoyment are two separate things and before you make a choice bear that in mind.  Also realize that scarcity can be deceiving or manipulated.

 Another perspective on scarcity and how you might deal with it:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/12/scarcity.html

If I can get you to commit to something you can often be persuaded to continue to a consistent agreement.  Nobody wants to appear inconsistent.  An example given is with the Chinese prison staff during the Korean War that seeks only a small agreement from one of their American prisoners, but are able to eventually get written and signed statements supporting a Chinese view.  One of their tools was to block outgoing mail to soldiers that wanted their families to know they were alive.

Anwar Sadat was known to flatter someone by suggesting they had an excellent reputation.  Then to be consistent they were encouraged to move closer to his position.

To avoid the consistency trap it is important to nip it in the bud.  At first chance claim you are not chained to previous commitments.

The seventh strategy is labeled"'unity" that points out we prefer to interact with those most like us.  Obviously family can be decisive.  Anyone can stretch things to find a common point of unity.  Common examples are race, ethnicity, gender, favorite sports teams and musical tastes.  One example was how a Jewish rabbi explained to Japanese administrators (allied with Nazis) that what the two of them had in common was they were both Asian and that alleviated suffering.

Unity can also be abused and the author gives at least two examples:  labor unions and Catholic clergy that he maintains protect abusers among their members.  In a personal example Cialdini had been called on as an expert witness and found himself on a legal team determined to defeat an opposition, no matter what facts opposed them.

Ethics plays a role in his philosophy.  We should not allow ourselves to be railroaded under a unity strategy that abuses others.  One piece of paper I keep with me is a quote from Benjamin Franklin:  "For having lived long I have experienced many instances by being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."

We now live in a world where most of the information is less than 15 years old and we need time to process it.  With all the future changes we will find ourselves deciding on smaller reliable strategies.

I have been a professional compliancer and would like to think I have always been honest, but that would be stretching things a little bit.  I have in fact walked away from opportunities to make money that made me feel uncomfortable and I have tried to present a true case for whatever I was trying to sell.  Robert B. Cialdini points out all the strategies he has told us about are legitimate, but are also subject to abuse.  Unlike most sales books he tells us how to minimize abuses against us.  Thank you.

There is a lot of value in "Influence" that can't be covered in a blog post.  This book was highly recommended by Daniel Pink and it has sold over 5 million copies.  There; I am using social proof and authority for you to consider.

The American Revolution as seen by Ken Burns

"The American Revolution" (2025) is a truly mammoth project and requires a more gifted blogger to do it full justice.  Anyone who tackles it is certain to remember some themes more than others, but all the details are important to understand how the colonists were victorious and how the process affects modern day America.  You will get my perspective and if really interested in addition you should seek other viewpoints with different focus points.

The series covers in reasonable detail many battles, both won and lost.  Of interest to me were the many cultural factors that helped the rebel victory and the Loyalist evacuation. 

The story starts with the establishment of the British Empire in the New World.  One historian pointed out that profitability was tied to the percentage of slaves.  Massachusetts was the least profitable in the 13 colonies, South Carolina was more profitable, but the most profitable was Jamaica along with other Caribbean islands where the British stationed the most military troops and ships.

Not covered in the series, but with some relevance was that England had unloaded convicts, political prisoners and prisoners of war as much as 120,000 to the Americas.  In Australia such citizens were critical to the development of that country.  The pamphlet "Common Sense" written by Thomas Paine was very persuasive in turning more colonists against Britain.

Before the Revolution began there were numerous small incidents.  The Boston Tea Party was over taxes without representation.  John Adams successfully defended some British soldiers who had killed some colonists.  The Quebec Act meant to mollify francophone speakers offended the English speaking colonists.   Benjamin Franklin at an early stage tried to organize the 13 colonies for unified action against the British, but after much quarrelling it disbanded.  As rebellious sentiments expanded it became difficult to decide who to trust, rebels or Loyalists.  Although historians describe the conflict as the American Revolution it was somewhat like a Civil War.  There were many colonists satisfied with the status quo and even felt a debt of gratitude to the British. 

A Continental Congress was formed from the 13 colonies to co-ordinate the Revolution and other affairs among the participants.  They initiated a Continental army and found George Washington to lead it.  They developed a currency (a coin was designed by Franklin) that was intended to make payments, but carried little credibility.  They spent much of their time protecting their individual jurisdictions. 

George Washington was noteworthy because he consulted with his generals in forming strategy.  There were many setbacks over the course of the Revolution, but he was persistent and learned from mistakes.

Thomas Jefferson was asked to write a declaration that signalled a justification for independence.   He advocated it was a duty to throw off tyranny and that all men are created equal.  Jefferson was of course a slave holder and it is thought conscious of his slaves.  The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 and might be considered the official start of the American Revolution.

George Washington had his hands full.  Most of his soldiers were poorly trained, but perhaps more importantly, poorly fed and paid.  Starvation was ongoing especially in winter.  Clothes were difficult to replace and they often took clothes off the dead.  There were contracts, but when they expired the men left.  At one point mutinies among his soldiers was so great that Washington decided on an execution of two ringleaders in front of their men.  

Most financing came from foreign sources.  Robert Morris built his fortune trading goods by ship to the West Indies, Africa (including slaves) and as far away as India.  He became the main financier for the rebels and was an signer of the Declaration of Independence. 

Colonists decided it would be beneficial to defeat the British in Quebec and perhaps make it the 14th colony.  They succeeded in conquering Montreal under General Montgomery who then traveled towards Quebec City to join up with General Benedict Arnold.  However in mid winter and with the British in a better position forced them back.  Retreating back to Montreal, they were also forced out of there.  Alliance with indigenous tribes allowed the British to push rebels back to the 13 colonies. 

The indigenous were independent with tribes that fought each other.  Colonists felt they needed to expand to the west pushing aside Indians.  The tribes had to make decisions.  Altogether there were more of them than of the colonists and many were aware that the colonists chafed at British restrictions that kept them from crossing the Adirondacks.  Towards the end of the Revolution rebels burned many towns of the Six Nations Confederacy.

Some tribes had evolved a democracy that was effective and later studied by some of the nation's founders.  One item dismissed, was that women were given a real voice with some tribes.

The Six Nations Confederacy (Mohawk, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida and Tuscarora) felt they were in the middle and needed to take a side to survive.  They had fought with the British in the past (against the French).  The key decision was made by Joseph Brant to fight with the British.  His sister Molly was the consort of Sir William Johnson, the British Superintendent for Indian Affairs.  My two children were born in Joseph Brant Hospital in Burlington, Ontario. 

Africans, either slaves or freed or escapees were important.  About 15,000 supported the British if they would gain freedom and Britain, the major slave trader offered freedom for any who would fight against the rebels.  Others, mostly freed wanted to support the colonists, but only about 5,000 joined the rebels.  George Washington who brought a loyal slave with him, rejected recruiting them.  Some said he felt they would be inferior, but others thought he feared encouraging Africans would lead to the loss of slavery.  Slave holders in his  home state of Virginia feared rebellions such as had occurred in Jamaica.  In the end Africans made significant contributions for the rebel cause and also were effective for the British.  Some professional black soldiers had come from what became Haiti 

The British were able to use 30,000 professional soldiers known as Hessians from what later became Germany.  At first they disdained rebel soldiers and especially blacks and indigenous, but gradually came to respect them.  Some of them ended up staying in America.  After a series of defeats, Washington's troops defeated the British at Trenton, New Jersey capturing 1,000 prisoners that proved to a morale booster and a turning point.

Small pox was a concern.  George Washington had suffered it in his youth and was very careful to guard his troops against it using mainly isolation as the alternative.  An available primitive inoculation would have been too disruptive and risky.

A key subordinate was Nathaniel (often spelled Nathanael) Greene who had been in charge of the Rhode Island Army.  Working with Washington he became a Quartermaster General with one success in bringing in a herd of cattle.  He went on to command rebel forces in the South and was the key leader attacking Yorktown.

Quakers had a significant presence, particularly in Pennsylvania, and felt their religion required them to be neutral.  They refused to condemn the British and avoided any aid to the rebels.  Many of the colonists stole supplies from the Quakers.  Some of my Mennonite ancestors lived nearby in Lancaster, Pennsylvania also tried to stay out of the conflict and later (just before the War of 1812) migrated to Canada near Markham, Ontario.

John Paul Jones at a young age was able to work up to a command position in a British ship, but had a legal problem after killing an insubordinate crew member and decided to run away to America.  He had served on a slaving ship, but found that distasteful.  From Virginia he joined the Continental navy such as it was.  He fought successfully against English ships in European waters.  He is considered one of the founders of the U.S. Navy. 

Benedict Arnold had fought early in the Revolution and had been regarded as intelligent and brave.  However he felt he was not given enough credit for his accomplishments while some of his subordinates thought he was corrupt.  He owed money due to a wealthy lifestyle.  In Philadelphia he courted and then married Peggy Shippen from a wealthy Loyalist family.  Soon he switched sides and became a British commander and sent to fight in Virginia.

Benjamin Franklin and John Adams had been sent to Paris to convince the French to support the rebel Americans.  For some frustrating time the news was discouraging and the French could not see any value is backing an army that seemed likely to lose.

The Marquis de Lafayette, a young aristocratic Frenchman came to America looking for adventure contacted Washington and was given command for a few battles.  He returned to France and worked with Franklin and Adams to successfully persuade King Louis XVI to back America.  In 1780 he returned to America promising 6,000 troops and 6 warships. 

Slavery in the south had a negative impact.  Slave owners exempted themselves from military duty and then their overseers in order to keep control of slaves. 

Women played a role supporting their men.  Abigail Adams felt the women deserved the vote and had been a strong support for her husband John Adams.  With no men bringing in money, many women had scrambled to make money some turning homes into boarding houses.  A few became spies.  At one point some of them organized to ask Washington about fund raising to give money for the soldiers, but it was felt they would spend the money on rum. Washington suggested they sew shirts which they did.

Spain decided to help the rebels, but had an ulterior motive.  They defeated the British in the south and re-claimed Florida.

The British had been forced out of most of the north and were determined to hold Yorktown in the south.  This is when the French joined in a big way and forced the British to surrender in 1783.  The British determined that further effort was not worth it.  Britain had a bigger investments in the Caribbean and had shifted resources to protect that part of their Empire.  In England there had been a change in Parliament that favored surrender.

The Loyalists were attacked by the successful rebels and felt unsafe.  Many had been killed and others had property confiscated.  The British negotiated a treaty to ship large numbers of Loyalists, many of whom chose to settle in Canada.  One group of Africans took part, but a section of them broke off and moved to Sierra Leone in Africa.

To the left is a statue in my adopted city of Hamilton, Ontario to commemorate the British Empire Loyalists who played an important role in the development of Canada.

Among the 13 colonies there were many quarrels, soldiers were demanding back pay and others were itching to conquer the west.  The contributions of indigenous tribes were forgotten.  Europeans were dismissive of America developing any cohesion and would likely break into smaller pieces.

However the Americans realized they needed to organize a central government balancing legislative, executive and judicial powers. 

After ratification of the treaty in 1787 to end the Revolution, George Washington relinquished his military power and left for home. A new constitution was ratified in 1788 with elections held from December 15 to January 7th that was easily won by Washington as president with John Adams as Vice President.  He was admired by all Americans and could have been a dictator.  At the end of his second term he passed on his presidency to his successor, John Adams.  The revolutionary idea was that the government gets its power by the consent of the people.

This series requires a lot of talented people to contribute. 

Ken Burns is the key person behind this series.  He is a director and a producer.   Ken  has a long history of dealing with important people and events in depth  and comprehensively such as "The Civil War (1990), "Jazz" (2001), "Baseball" (1994 and 2010), "The Central Park Five" (2012), ""The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History" (2014) "The Vietnam War" (2017). "Hemingway" (2021), "Muhammed Ali" (2021) "Benjamin Franklin" (2022), "The U.S. and the Holocaust" (2022) and "Leonardo Da Vinci" (2024).    see   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/12/leonardo-da-vinci-ken-burns-version.html  and http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/07/benjamin-franklin-ken-burns.html

Geoffrey C. Ward was the writer.  He has won 6 Prime Time Emmy Awards.  Geoffrey has 28 writing credits and 20 for additional crew including "The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History" (2014), "Hemingway" (2021) and "The U.S. and the Holocaust" (2022).  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/09/the-us-and-holocaust.html

David Cieri was the composer.  He has 63 composing credits, 11 for the music department and 2 as actor including "The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History" (2014) and "Hiding in Plain Sight" (2022).

Buddy Squires was the cinematographer.  He has 142 cinematography credits and 3 for directing including "Muhammed Ali" (2021), "Benjamin Franklin" (2022), "The U.S. and the Holocaust" (2022) and "Leonardo Da Vinci" (2024).  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/02/muhammad-ali-by-ken-burns.html

Tricia Reidy was an editor.  She has 20 editorial credits, 3 for the editorial department and 2 for additional crew including "The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History" (2014) and "The U.S. and The Holocaust" (2022).

Peter Coyote was the narrator.  His last name was inspired after ingesting peyote and fitting in with his interest with indigenous culture.  Acting led him to many narrating roles including the 2002 Winter Olympics and many of Ken Burns productions.  He has 170 acting credits, 2 for producing and 2 for writing including "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial" (1981), "Jagged Edge" (1985) and "Erin Brockovitch" (2000).

Well known actors voiced different roles including Adam Arkin, Kenneth Branagh, Josh Brolin, Hugh Dancy,  Claire Danes, Tom Hanks, Damian Lewis, Matthew Rhys, Liev Schreiber, Craig Ferguson, Paul Giamatti, Lara Linney, Edward Norton, Jeff Daniels, Ethan Hawke, Samuel L. Jackson, Domhnall Gleeson, Mandy Patinkin, Tantoo Cardinal, Michael Keaton, David Oyelowo, Bill Camp, Morgan Freeman, Wendell Pierce, Meryl Streep, Maya Jasanoff, Annette Gordon Reed and Maggie Blackhawk, 

Historians explained different aspects of the Revolution.  Paintings of Revolution events were used.

I watched the PBS broadcast and it should be available in DVD and Blu-Ray.  You will need a lot of concentrated time to really experience it as there are a lot of details, many of which are barely known by the public. 

As usual I have bolded the first mention of films I have seen.  They are not necessarily a recommendation, but generally I found them worthy of my time.  If you follow the links you should be able to determine if a particular film is worth following up. 

Benjamin Franklin by Ken Burns

Benjamin Franklin is perhaps the most fascinating character in American history.  His accomplishments are overwhelming, but my interest is his thought process.  Ken Burns captures the essence in a four hour presentation which was shown on PBS stations and is available in DVD format.

He was done with school at age ten and had run away from home as a teen.  He became a very heavy reader.  As he matured he became an organizer and became interested in science.  At one point he became a postmaster and traveled to several states including southern ones.  From this experience he developed a feeling that the colonies should work closer with one another.

As a printer he started "Poor Richard's Almanac" which became very popular.  Partly because he included some sayings that became popular.  One example, "Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and rise."  He discussed the path to success analyzing the needed virtues and how to attain them.  He also developed a method for making difficult decisions that became known as the Benjamin Franklin method.

He was always a curious man. Electricity was fascinating and after many experiments he developed the concept of a lightning rod, which as saved many lives.  He also came up with the concept for a battery.  Another project for a relative was to invent a catheter improvement.  He also developed an improved wooden stove and would not accept a patent.  Later in life  he was taken with a musical performance with wine glasses and went on to invent the glass armonica which Mozart composed for.  At one time he was asked about the point of a man bearing balloon and replied "What good is a newborn baby?"

Prejudiced?  Like all humans he soaked in the beliefs of his environment--until he observed the unexpected and questioned them.  He owned slaves at one time and although he had joined anti slave groups for a long time he took it for granted they were incapable of serious discussion.  However when negro youngsters were sent to Philadelphia to learn to read, Franklin appreciated they had thinking ability.  

He also had a low opinion of the indigenous natives, but later was inspired by the Six Nations and their system of government.  He had been involved a little with the French and Indian War that resulted in the French losing territory that included Quebec City and parts of what later became American territory.  He also was involved with the negotiations and was very impressed with how the Six Nations handled themselves feeling that the American colonies should unite and have more power.

The War made the colonies more expensive than earlier thought and the British felt the settlers needed to help pay the extra costs. 

Benjamin Franklin went to London which he found very stimulating, socializing with such luminaries as Adam Smith and David Hume.  He admired the British Empire and wanted it to continue.  He campaigned for his son William and he was named to be governor of New Jersey.  After talking to Lord Howe as a Pennsylvania delegate he was offered state taxation but by this time was too late' he notion of taxation without representation had taken hold.

Maybe not surprising Benjamin Franklin was leaning the Loyalist way, but decided to be a "patriot."  He was the oldest at the Congressional meeting. He had tried to convince Canadians to side with American colonies. 

One of Franklin's contributions was to substitute he phrase "self evident" in place of "sacred" as Jefferson had originally written in the Declaration of Independence.  Part of the effort to separate the state from church.

The War of Independence was really a civil war with many families divided (including Franklin).  His son William remained loyalist.  Franklin was chosen to be envoy to France.  Seeking an alliance in France was very sociable, but he secured some treaties.   Also he met Voltaire, one month before his death.

After the American victory negotiations with England saw Franklin involved.  He dealt with tricky point of not including France in negotiations.  The Indigenous were disappointed with many leaving for Canada leaving a mark not far from where I live.  The Six Nations were granted land along the Grand River.  My two youngsters were born in Joseph Brant Hospital in Burlington.

At the 1787 Constitution conference Franklin was in committee to decide weight of states with different population.  Recognizing the north needed the south for the union he sought compromise.  Each state have 2 senators selected by state.  The House of Representatives membership was to be calculated with members of by population, but allowing blacks to be counted as 3/5 of non slaves.   He recognized faults and proposed agreement to be ratified by states.  He considered democracy an experiment that needed to be tinkered with.

He repaired relations with British friends, but not with son William.   On his 8th ocean crossing Franklin made scientific observations on trip back noting the influence of the Gulf stream.

He died in 1790, April 17th at age 84.  He attracted the largest Philadelphia crowd for his funeral with every church represented.   

A quote I carry with me "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions, even on important subjects which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."  Good advice.

My interest was started as a youngster when I was able to watch "Ben and Me" (1951).

A few years ago I was able to have a short Philadelphia visit and checked out Benjamin Franklin.   Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/philadelphia-brief-adventure.html

What is the "Radical Left"

Donald Trump is known for his insults and to his base they reflect something bad.  Lately a favorite insult is to call the Democrats the "Radical Left."  It must be scary or why bother?  But what does it mean?

It has been coupled with film about disastrous riots in Venezuela as if that is a good example of a "socialist" or "Radical Left" country.  It is a very bad and misleading example.  Why not use Denmark?  If people looked at the details a little bit closer they might wonder what is so terrible about Denmark?  They are always one of the top five happiest countries in the world when that attribute is measured.  And why wouldn't they be happy--they are well paid, have excellent health care, relatively pollution free.

 What does socialism really mean?  It can mean a wide range of systems, but essentially it means co-ordinating the interests of everyone for maximum benefit.  A simple example might be the fire department.  At one point fires were personal disasters that could effect any individual.  People would pool their resources to share the expense of trying to stop fires.  Either volunteers or paid employees would be contacted when a fire broke out and bring equipment and their experience.  Benjamin Franklin was an early advocate.  Fire damage is still a problem, but pooling resources helps keep it under control.

As with any arrangement that distributes political power, including socialism, can be corrupted.  It is up to the people to keep it honest, but sometimes the political system itself makes it easier or harder.

Those seeking power in a modern country require money to get elected.  Money helps attract attention and helps shape opinions.  One party is financed by those who like how things are right now and appeals to those who are afraid of change.  We live in an age of inequality.  If we don't change we will die.  The Covid-19 panic is adding to it as small businesses are going under while the well positioned are getting richer.

Obamacare is socialist, but really it is only a step towards what most of the industrialized world already enjoys.  It suits insurance companies and Big Pharma to keep things the way they are. They control the risks.  In all those nations that have adopted national health care programs their life spans are greater than that of the United States plus they spend a lesser percentage of income on health care.  Another bonus is unlike the United States where medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy there are virtually no bankruptcies due to medical expenses.  An individual may feel they are taken care of, but as the Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated we are all affected by each other's health.  You could say a national health plan is an essential part of national security.

Fossil fuels still amount to trillions of dollars in the ground and there are some who want their share (and then some).  Unfortunately fossil fuels are bad for your health and bad for climate change.  There are a lot of protesters and opinion writers trying to change things but they do not have the big money clout.   Pollution is deadly, but the oil industry is reluctant to curb asthma fumes.  Part of the cost of producing any product should be cleaning up the mess.  Yes, that means the consumers would have to pay more.

Both insurance companies and military recognize climate change but governments find resistance from party donors.  We are all starting to notice increased floods, hurricanes, water rising, fires, heat literally killing people.  What more proof does one need? Delay is costly not only in lives, but also with money.

Campaign finance reform is not in the interest of the wealthy.  Money is their big weapon and they are getting more sophisticated in using it.  It is hard to believe that corporations (controlled by the wealthy) have the same rights as humans, but an "activist" court can decide.  McConnell has seen to it that there will be more decisions favorable to the wealthy.

Food inspectors are protecting your health, but all too often are victims whenever budgets need to be trimmed including after tax cuts for the wealthy

Unions have been beaten down, a source of pride for Ronald Reagan.  They not only help to lessen inequality they also provide safer and happier work environments.  Germany, as one example has prospered by including labor in management decisions.

Regulated capitalism can work, but with dashes of socialism.  The problem with unregulated capitalism is the steady concentration of wealth.  Being smart and working hard should be rewarded, but there is often an element of luck and certainly without support from consumers few would be as powerful as today's billionaires.  Capital is initially created by labor (and smart ideas).

To counter the charges of "radical socialism" I would suggest "unbridled capitalism" which is really what some wealthy people are striving for.  Regulations are mostly "protections" against health and financial risks that unfortunately cut into the profits.

Words have power and can tools or weapons.  One man who understands this is George Lakoff.  Read more so we use words as tools.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/george-lakoff-wants-to-reform.html

DON'T LABEL ME IS FOR EVERYONE

Irshad Manji appeared on my television fairly regularly a few decades ago and was admired for her cutting logic and her views.  She has evolved as have I, partly after reading this book.  "Everyone" includes those idiots who don't agree with you (or me).  We live in a polarized world that could end in disaster, but we could go in a more positive direction if we would heed Irshad's advice.

Irshad Manji has a long history of arguing.  She has opted to present her latest thinking in the form of a dialogue with a dog.  That hit a nerve as the Muslims I know, think dogs as pets are unholy.  However as a salesmen for pet products I did learn from a Muslim pet store retailer that dogs are acceptable as work animals, most commonly as guard dogs, but they are not kept in the house as other pets would be.  A Muslim niece loves cats and once interpreted for me at a Quebec cat show.

Irshad explains that dogs are not proscribed in the Qur'an, but have been part of Muslim culture and also that good Muslims can question.  I had read years ago that in some war zones Muslims had come to realize that dogs were life savers for among other things detecting bombs.

Irshad's dog, Lily is a pet that she has come to love and respect although both blind and old.  Maybe this is projection, but most pet owners do in fact talk to their dogs and cats and they in reality provide a useful sounding board.  I believe that in sorting out the difficulties in this philosophy she probably did sound off to her dog Lily.   It is also possible to use a familiar sounding board no matter what.

Labels can provide necessary information, but are not reality.  Everyone is unique and have many identities.  Labels are not only used for physical descriptions, but also for viewpoints.  Irshad's goal is to develop honest diversity where each individual can be independent, i.e. not tied to any one label.  The American motto, "e pluribus unum"--from many one.

Some of her focus is on Donald Trump, but is careful to realize that Trump supporters are not all the same.  Some may have deplorable characteristics, but there is something behind their motivations that we all should try to understand and even respect. The man who introduced her to the woman who became her spouse and encouraged her to love dogs was an adamant Trump supporter but definitely not a homophobe.

Living in Ontario I was surprised to learn she includes Rob and Doug Ford, but notes some significant differences that reinforce her message.  Rob Ford appealed to the suburbs against downtown.  More on Doug Ford http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/07/move-over-donald-trump.html

It seems to me that conservatives are dogmatic and uncaring, but I felt a comeuppance after watching Jonathan Haidt on tv and reading his book.  It prepared me to realize those jerks are not thinking that way just to annoy me.  More at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/02/the-righteous-mind.html

Instead of attacking someone with what seems like illogical beliefs, do not.  Irshad suggests you might ask "Could you help me understand what I am missing about your perspective?"  It won't work unless you are sincere and follow up.  Not every one will respond but some would welcome an opportunity to explain themselves.  This is not a time to attack their logic, but to delve further.  When people feel degraded it lights a fuse that can lead to a lot of harm.

Another personal jolt came when Irshad explained part of her Canadian history--a part that I had accepted and she twisted it (and shifted my thinking).  As a university student I had adopted Trudeaumania and went onto to help Pierre Trudeau (actually I helped elect Ed Broadbent--you can read about that  at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/04/my-short-but-educational-political.html  

I attended a high school in Oshawa with a lot of ethnic diversity and came to admire it.  I had an understanding of the French Canadian concerns similar to Irshad's and thought it a good thing to adopt bilingual policies for the whole nation and further to adopt multiculturalism as government policy.  I did from time to time question that not everything brought over from other cultures was good, but it seemed part of the package.  Later with one job I was shocked to realize western Canadians were very resentful of bilingualism when I sold a promotional product and was told not to bother with the legally required French labeling.  Multiculturalism helped encourage white supremacy.

Obama had urged African Americans to emphasize with white Americans and not label them just as misguided as that would boomerang.  I remember  reading that his white grandmother cringed when confronted with a black person in an unfamiliar setting.  White males are recognizing that their culture and their power is diminishing.  Naturally there is some resentment.

White privilege can be a blessing if it puts one in a position to do good.  Dr Martin Luther King Jr is recalled having admitted that he grew up in a loving and educated family with helpful neighbours.

Cultural appropriation is given some coverage.  Irshad suggests that many cultural items have a mixed history.  One example given was that modern jazz required European instruments and African polyrhythms.  The Statue of Liberty was originally designed with an Arab theme intended to herald the Suez Canal.

A quote from Benjamin Franklin:  "I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir I am not sure I shall ever approve it.  For having lived long I have experienced many instances of being oblig'd by better Information or fuller consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."

This relatively short review is only meant to encourage you to read the book, "Don't Label Me" and get a deeper understanding of the thinking and some practical advice on how to change your life and help change the world.  She is well worth learning more about.

WHO IS GOING TO BEAT TRUMP?

For many Americans getting rid of Trump is more important than policy details.  Some hope legal procedures can be used, but most think it more practical to vote him out of office.  Apparently that task seems easy enough that Democrats already have well over a dozen candidates.

The Republicans had a similar problem in the 2016 primaries with a dozen or so candidates.  From my perspective one problem was that they all felt they had to be tougher than their opponents to get attention. In the end Trump proved to be the most obnoxious.  The Democrats are each trying to be unique while trying to deal with certain litmus tests.

Trump has actually earned a lot of brutal respect (with the help of domestic and foreign enablers) that many Democrats fear him.  He did get in with less than a majority of voters and is concentrating on his base (the deployables).

Getting an early start can be helpful.  They can all expect to be scrutinized like they have never been before.  Their opponents of both parties are looking for dirt and the media is wanting to draw a crowd with sensational tidbits which could range from sex scandals to stumbling over words.  A lot of worthy people are scared off.  Others realize the effort requires a super human effort and after assessing the odds decide they are better off not running.  Sherrod Brown is one example.

Biden and Sanders are supposed to appeal to older voters who are more reliable at the ballot box.  Age is a factor.  Looking back we now realize that Ronald Reagan was in early stages of dementia and a case is being made that Trump is well advanced.  Also the younger generation has new ideas and enthusiasm.  A contrast with a 70+ Trump would be a plus.

Joe Biden should not be compared to Donald Trump's licentiousness, but that possibility has been opened.   Joe is being judged by much higher standards than Trump has been--not caught boasting or what would be considered sexual assault, but taking advantage of male privilege, something many male and even female voters can forgive, but one can imagine Trump will paint him as a hypocrite.
While Joe's career encouraged touching many now feel today such behaviour is overstepping personal space boundaries. 

Bernie Sanders my favorite from 2016 has drawn a lot of attention from progressives.  His age is against him and by declaring himself proudly as Democrat Socialist provides a bigger target.  Ironically a lot of his support comes from younger voters.  Although he has a history of involvement with civil rights he seemed too distant from blacks compared to Hilary Clinton.

My favorite candidate Elizabeth Warren is very conscious of Trump's racist attack which is really accusing her of dishonesty.  She has stood up for ordinary consumers better than others with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders.  She has spent a lot of effort developing policies but it seems voters' attention span doesn't permit too many details.  She is usually ranked in the top four or five and might do well in the debates, but might seem vulnerable to the Trump machine.

Kamala Harris makes a good impression.  Like many politicians she has a history of doing what she thought right and practical at a difficult time.  Some will think that can be used against her.  Her idea of boosting teachers fits in with what I consider a major priority.  Half black and half Indian could gain some support while at the same time be awkward, remembering that Obama was considered by many blacks to not be black enough.  It also reminds that Trump gained votes from racists.

Amy Klobuchar also made a good impression at the Kavanaugh judicial hearing   She has been criticized as being rough on her support staff.  Women are not supposed to be tough.

Beto O'Rourke even though he lost his Senate race in Texas created a lot of enthusiasm.  He is very open and expressive.  An example of changing dynamics was when established Republicans thought Beto's participation in a rock band would turn off voters it had a positive impact.

Cory Booker had made many media appearances and has a share of admirers.  Single men are frowned upon and suspected of being closet gays.  His new girl friend, activist and actress Rosario Dawson could be an asset.

Pete Buttigieg would not have been possible a decade or so ago.  A gay mayor of a fairly small city, but he has already aroused very positive attention.  His intelligence strikes many as outstanding and he has quick reaction to questions.

A lot of good people have been left out of my assessment which is more a reflection of the multitude than their individual value.  My focus is on the Trump question.  Name recognition is critical, after all most people base their decisions of what has filtered through to their attention.

The winner could turn out to be someone not mentioned.  The debates and fund raising will juggle perceptions of relative merit.  The Vice Presidential candidate could emerge from these candidates or not.  Balancing the duo ticket is considered important to the campaign.  The primary candidates in many cases will boost their popularity which can be transferred to the package.  Senators often have a national brand awareness, but Governors actually have more administrative experience.  Hopefully business experience won't be a priority.  Science awareness should be a factor.  Diversity of options could be a positive favor.

Mike Pence is an interesting case.  Apparently Paul Manafort realized that Donald's reputation would not encourage evangelicals to support him and manipulated events to get Mike Pence on as vice president.  It is a wonder that he would pair himself with such as obvious offensive candidate, but it is speculated he had his own ambitions.

The possibility of a female duo has been raised.  It could draw more female voters, but the Democrats are already strong in that area.  Aside from turning off misogynist males it could also have a negative impact with evangelical women who feel women's place is in the home.  Women like Jacinda Ardern draw admiration from both sexes  helping to create a better atmosphere.

In the last election Climate Change was seldom discussed.  Partly suspect that the media did not want to offend some of their big advertisers.  Unfortunately the danger has accelerated and it will be harder for denialists to be taken seriously.

Trump loves to cut down his opponents with a slick nickname and insults.  Everyone is vulnerable, but really he is also very vulnerable.  He seems very sensitive to criticism and is transparent in his hate for Obama who in reality was a far superior president.

I am inclined to believe almost any one of them could beat Trump.  More voters are conscious of third party dangers.  The demographics are moving favorably for the Democrats.  Trump has lost more voters than he has gained by his mercurial ways and policies. Turnout is critical.  Trump has a hard core of believers he can count on, but the more lethargic voters are more conscious they will definitely lose if they don't vote.

In addition to a concern about beating Trump, another danger the Democrats do face is a purity test.  No person is without fault.  I would like to think that intelligent caring people learn from their mistakes, but too many people are not willing to forgive.  Most of the candidates have already found it necessary to apologize for past behavior or choices made under unique circumstances.  A recent example inspired a blog on the topic:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/02/self-righteousness-and-forgiveness.html

PHOTO EXPLANATION:  Admittedly not my best, but Benjamin Franklin was a most admired American who never ran for President.  You can't run today without a lot of money and you really have to want it.  Perhaps suitable people would prefer a role like Benjamin Franklin's, after all he contributed to America's success and is recognized more than many of the subsequent presidents.

FARSIGHTED

We make dozens of decisions every day, but some decisions are too complex to be resolved without study.   There are many books that advise http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/decisions-are-path-to-success.html  Johnson delves into what he calls "complex decisions," the ones that can change our lives and deserve careful deliberation.

As he recommends stories as a path to understanding Johnson tells us a few examples.  The decision process to kill Osama bin Ladin was very complex and serious.  The Abbotabad  decision benefited from previous mistakes.  We are taken back to a mysterious bit of information that only indicated that an important person might live at a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan.  Although it was early speculated that this might be where bin Ladin was holed up, the danger of being wrong was critical. At each step of the process multiple opinions are sought and teased out with many choices being eliminated.

Loss aversion is a greater fear than greed for gain and needs to be guarded against.  At some point in a complex decision we try to calculate the risks of something not working out as anticipated.

Uncertainties are certain to be found in complex decisions or as Donald Rumsfeld would say, there are unknown unknowns.  One way of dealing with them is to cast a wide net involving other contributors.  As much as practical scenarios can be constructed.  Simulations might also be tried such as the Pentagon rehearsing possible attacks on Abbotabad that modified their plans.

You might recall there was no buildup to the announcement of a successful mission.  They had also taken into account some of the consequences of the assassination.  They had booked an alternative supply route to Afghanistan a year in advance.  They had taken precautions to minimize the martyrdom of bin Ladin.

Charles Darwin was contemplating marriage, but had many concerns about what he would have to give up.  We know that he adopted a version of what has come to be known as the Benjamin Franklin method.  Other than him actually marrying we don't know his conclusion to the decision.  Later he faced another decision when his daughter Annie was threatened with a little understood disease.  Unfortunately the options were not well studied and she died forcing changes in both his and wife's lives.  He became less religious and open about it while he his wife found comfort in her religion.

Returning to Darwin to illustrate other points.  What surprised me the most was that the decision to publish his theory of Evolution took very long.  He wanted the fame that he expected, but not the notoriety that would ensue and not only create intense religious hostility, but upset his wife.  His wife eventually accepted her husband's lack of religiosity, but in the end Darwin was forced to publish his theory as a rival threatened to publish his similar theory first.

Another set of decisions came from reading novels in particular "Middlemarch." George Eliot wrote "Middlemarch that contains decisions with factors that clash with one another.  Towards the end Johnson refers to the life of George Eliot who was born Mary Ann Evans.   Unlike Darwin who tried to decide between marrying or not marrying George Eliot chose a third option which was to live together with her partner outside marriage.  Her decision involved her writing career and her political ideals.  An earlier blog dealt with the importance of using stories to persuade people to make a decision:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/tell-to-win-offers-winning-formula.html

Throughout the many examples in the book, Johnson maintains that diversity of viewpoints is critical, obviously such as including both genders, age range, a variety of ethnic, experiences, etc.  A single viewpoint is often unable to see a full range of choices.  He criticizes gerrymandering as it groups people with a predominant ideological perspective. 

My take on Premier Doug Ford's decision to cut the number of Toronto city councilors.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/07/move-over-donald-trump.html 

Johnson suggests three complex issues that deserve careful analysis before making a decision: long term;  contact with extra terrestrial beings, immortality and artificial intelligence.  For some people the downsides are minor but in reality there are serious consequences to making a wrong  choice.  Scientists are now cautioning us against trying to contact beings from outside our planet as they would likely have superior technology and perhaps unkindly intentions.  Other scientists are concerned about artificial intelligence overcoming humans.  Immortality seems like a natural goal,that no longer seems impossible, but  it has difficult to assess consequences.

Of course for many of us we need a little help in making some decisions.  Sometimes we need a little help or we would like to "nudge" someone off the fence.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/01/can-nudge-help-you-make-better-decisions.html

In the acknowledgements he admits that he starting taking notes almost ten years before publication.  A lot of decisions along the way.  Everyone is compelled to make important decisions--what career path to pursue, who to marry, to find a purpose in life.   

Another blog post with advice on decisions:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/12/an-antidote-to-chaos-series-of-rules.html

"DECISIVE" CAN HELP YOU MAKE BETTER DECISIONS.

You got to where you are by millions of decisions.  Most of them were seemingly trivial.  Some of them turned out ok perhaps by correctness or maybe by luck.  Many were positive, but not quite what you had hoped for.  And then there are others you wish you could take back.  You can move towards a more satisfying life by making better decisions.  "Decisive" by Chip and Dan Heath offer a different perspective and lots of practical suggestions.  I am sure many readers, including myself will wish they had read this book sooner.  It is never too late to improve your situation. and reading this book would be a good decision.

Some decisions are more important than others.  Personally I have recommended and tried to use the Ben Franklin method (weighing the pros and cons) when confronted with a serious decision.  Chip and Dan Heath have found serious limitations with this standard method, especially for the more important decisions.  Studies show that process is more critical than analytical by a factor of 6.

That got my attention.  The following is a short form of what they suggest is a better way.

They identify four problems with decision making regarding analysis.  Lots of examples.

One problem is the decision is too narrowly defined.  It is not necessarily one action or a different action.

Analysis is subject to confirmation bias.  That is, we have a tendency to select facts that bolster our preference.

A common problem is we are trapped in our circumstances If we can take an outside perspective we can detach ourselves from short term emotions.

A fourth problem is that we are often over-confident of how we see the future.

Taking a different angle, the authors propose a different strategy, one that focuses on process.  They label it WRAP.  Widen options.  Reality-test your assumptions, Attain Distance before Deciding.  Prepare to be wrong.

Of course these strategies are easier to state than to actually do.  There are many practical details with interesting examples.

One example was a reference to President Dwight Eisenhower when he explains the cost of a heavy bomber not in dollar terms, but as equivalent to 30 brick school houses.  There are always alternatives.

Another  example was David Lee Roth, famous rock star with apparently weird requests.  For a rock concert they requested containers of M and M candies with all the brown ones removed.  This request was actually buried amongst others reflecting their need for technical requirements for their performance.  Arriving at a new performance site they would check this seemingly vain preference  feeling relieved if it was adhered to, but if not they immediately set up a check of the critical technical details necessary for an optimal performance.  The authors label this a "tripwire."

Most decisions involve other people who often are not included in the process.  The success of a decision often revolves around those who are not consulted.  The authors advocate greater inclusion to get greater commitment.  This sense of fairness was reflected in another book I read, "The Art of Engagement."  Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/the-art-of-engagement.html

There are many other examples and explanations to better think of decisions as a process rather than merely an analysis.

A quote that got my attention;  "Sometimes the hardest part of making a good decision is knowing there is one to be made."  This points out the merit of having a tripwire.

To read more of what Chip and Dan have to say go to:  http://www.heathbrothers.com

Philadelphia; A brief Adventure

Some of you may know my son, Michael lives in New Zealand so when he told us he was coming to Canada to visit we were excited.  At an education and technology conference in New Zealand he learned of a bigger one to be held in Philadelphia while he was in North America.  His school agreed to pay part of the cost.  He invited us to join him and share driving and expenses.  Never been to Philadelphia, but this seemed like a good opportunity to expand my horizons.

Because of other commitments and the last minute addition of the convention there was not a lot of time for sightseeing, especially the kind where you are well rested.  It amounted to an 8 hour trip both ways with the last one overnight.  Still planning ahead you can see a lot of interesting things and learn about how another part of the world lives.

Philadelphia to some degree seems to live under the shadow of New York City, but in fact it has a lot going for it.  We found plenty of positives in comparison.

A pleasant surprise as we were too tired to walk far and too scared to drive so we took almost the first restaurant we saw, Penrose Diner across from our hotel.  We took one of the specials and got more than we expected--a glass of wine, dessert, very nice bread and the main course was delicious. Good service.

The next day we opted to go on a sight seeing bus tour to give an overview of the city.  We took advantage of the hop on-hop off feature and had three different tour guides.  Philadelphia was founded by Quakers who thought nature was a good vehicle to communicate with God and planned for lots of park space assuring that most citizens were within a mile of a park.  New York's Central Park had made a strong impression on me, but I learned that Fairmount Park is much bigger.  We saw lots of smaller parks wherever we traveled.  I had always thought that Monopoly was based on Atlantic City, but really it was only the streets, the businesses were all borrowed from Philadelphia.  Row houses, but mostly very individualized were very common and were the result of early taxing policies.

We just passed by the Rodin Museum which apparently is one of the biggest outside of Paris.  I had seen an exhibition in Victoria, B.C. and missed one in my home town, Hamilton.  Did take one photo from outside on top of the bus.

The Skyline is not quite as overwhelming as New York, but is still very impressive not only in the heights, but in the unique architecture, both new and historical.  They also put a premium on statues and fountains.  One guide told us that juvenile offenders were often given a choice of detention or working on murals and many opted for the paint work.

One tour guide confirmed a Canadian visitor by recommending Jim's Steak House as the best Philly Cheese Steak.  Reading about this tradition I was initially turned off by the inclusion of Cheese Whiz, but decided to try it anyway.  It does add flavor and texture.  Jim's Steak House is quite an operation with a long hot plate with various ingredients in various stages and with specialists, was able to respond to a wide range of individual options.  Very definitely a worthy tradition that visitors should at least try.

Our subway terminal was at the City Hall.  It is massive and I understand is one of the largest in the world of its type.  I could not fit it all in with my puny camera.

At night we had tickets for a Phillies baseball game. Philadelphia has quite the sports complex which we were able to walk to.  At the southern end of Broad street they have 3 modern sports facilities.  One just for baseball, one designed for football and an arena for basketball, hockey and lacrosse. The baseball facility was pretty cool, but not covered--the screen entertainment was engrossing (as most of it was the audience itself).  The game started off good for the home team, but didn't end that way.  Had my second Philly Cheese Steak and could see it was a very popular item among what I assumed were locals.

The next and last day for us was a lot of walking.  We used the subway system to get near the downtown and first checked out the Italian market.  Not entirely Italian (Mexican and Asian influences were noticeable).  Italians still dominate and we picked up a gift for Peter that hit a positive nerve.  I read a brochure about a gelato sandwich and decided that was not for me, but at Anthony's Italian Coffee House I decided to try one--good choice.

We walked up to the Independence Park area and quickly realized the Liberty Bell lineup was several hours long so I contented myself with a photo through a window (which I will not be displaying in this post).  Benjamin Franklin is one of my all time heroes and I visited a museum devoted to him.  I thought I knew a lot about him, but there was more to learn.  He was a problem solver which resulted in a wide variety of inventions (for which he did not seek patents) and developed fire fighting services, library and the postal service.  As a printer he wrote a lot of his own material and earned a lot of respect for his wisdom.  Later in life he performed critical tasks for the new American government.  I bought his autobiography from the gift shop. Among many other things the city designed a new street, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway modeled on the Champs d'Elysee with the flags of the world.

It seemed to me that Philadelphia received the short end of the stick and at first I blamed New York.  The Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution were both written here.  They had many important financial institutes and significant merchants, but I figured there must have been some jealousy from New York.  George Washington served his presidency from New York City in his first term, but before his second term, the capital had been moved to Philadelphia where it remained for ten years.  The problem seems to stem from southern resentment that the capital was in the rich north and they felt they would not get justice (remember slavery was one of their concerns) so they forced a compromise resulting in the founding of Washington, D.C. with Philadelphia declining in political influence.

We arrived at the Reading Terminal Market at about 2:30 on a Tuesday afternoon and we were stunned with how busy it was.  Our main comparison would be with the St Lawrence Market, the Hamilton Farmer's Market and  the Jean Talon Market in Montreal, all of which are worthy of a visit, but Philadelphia attracts a lot of tourists and also local people who like the market uniqueness.  Part of it comes from the Pennsylvania Dutch.  I learned a few years back that some of my ancestors came from Lancaster, Pennsylvania and took an interest in some of their food  I bought a jar of pumpkin butter (like apple butter, only sweeter) and Shoo fly pie.  We would have liked to buy from some of the eating places, but there were very long lineups for them, but not enough seating for the demand.  Read how I learned of my Mennonite heritage at  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/biggest-surprise-in-my-family-tree.html

A short walk away we discovered Maggiano's.  In the background was music by Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett with a very Italian ambience.  My wife was attracted by an item on the menu eggplant parmagiana and it lived up to its reputation.  The food was excellent including the house salad.  My wife commented that they had the best washrooms on our trip.

We enjoyed our visit, but as we had to be back in Canada so our son could attend a Canada Day Blue Jays' game with our daughter and that meant an overnight drive.  We wish we had more time--it is a beautiful city with lots of interesting facets.

While researching for my trip I watched some movies set in Philadelphia.   An apology to Thom Ernest.who had commented on a sad section of the movie, "Rocky" whereas I reacted by saying it was a happy movie.  Overall it is, but the one scene he referred to with Burgess Meredith hit me a little harder.   I added the Rocky theme to my iTunesMusic- to help motivate me.  Yes we did visit the Rocky Steps.  A few other movies were interesting--saw a key house from "Sixth Sense" on the bus tour.

A tiring three days, but everyone got something out of it.

Photo Explanations:

top:  Benjamin Franklin, my hero, taken at Franklin Institute after camera battery had run down a bit

Philadelphia Skyline--lots more variety, but this photo turned out reasonably well

Jim's Steak House at South and 4th

Side by Side photos of Philadelphia City Hall--too much for my camera so separate for bottom and the top with William Penn statue.

Citizen's Bank Park where we watched the Phillies lose to Milwaukee

Mural of Frank Rizzo, a famous mayor

Independence Hall, a popular tourist destination

Rocky Steps