TORONTO, ONTARIO - As the summer radio season comes to the end, one more CBC Radio One summer show has made my weekly radio pick. New examples of quality story-telling on the radio are always welcome, and the second season of "The Late Show" provided several. This final 27-minute episode for the summer on the life of artist Sue Klabunde may have been the most inspirational of series.
Listen to MP3 of The Late Show "Sue Klabunde"
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Culture: Islamophobia, Act 1?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - On 16 September 2001, I made my way to Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to catch one of the first trans-Atlantic flights after the "9/11 Attacks" in order to make a business meeting in Europe. The trip was memorable on a number of levels, from being driven to a nearly-deserted Terminal A (since demolished) in a Corvette and being dropped off right at the door to flying right above Ground Zero as it was still burning in order to catch a connecting flight from Newark, New Jersey.
As Islamophobia has clearly taken over the United States, another memory from that day has come back. In that nearly-deserted terminal at Logan, as I awaited my commuter flight to New Jersey, there was a young man hanging out in a corner of the waiting area, alone. Looking extremely nervous, he was bearded and appeared to be of middle eastern origin, despite wearing stylish western clothes. He was younger than me, probably college age. Even if he wasn't from the middle east, he was likely facing suspicion wherever he turned around the airport. Nobody went near him that I noticed. He really looked like he was suffering.
In retrospect, I wonder if he was one of the elites from Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern regimes with strong ties with the United States that was being evacuated to his home country. Some royal family members allegedly moved on military aircraft, but others moved on commercial aircraft as soon as they started operating, and it seems entirely possible that he was in this category.
I didn't approach him to find out, not because I feared him or didn't want to be associated with someone that "looked like a terrorist," but because I was exhausted at the time. When I went to work that day, I didn't have a plane ticket and wasn't expecting to get one, so it was a mad scramble to head home, pack, and make it to the airport in time to catch my flight. I simply didn't have any social energy at the time.
The man was on my flight to Newark, and I remember him in the boarding area for the trans-Atlantic flight to Zurich. By that time, I was so engrossed by the radio coverage of the recovery efforts on WNYC that I paid attention to little else. I don't remember seeing him when we left the plane in Zurich.
I wish I had spoken with him. Perhaps he wouldn't have wanted to talk. Perhaps my suspicions now are completely incorrect, and he was actually a young banker heading back to a home base in Zurich, or some other equally mundane story. Regardless, I bet he would have had a interesting perspective to offer on traveling when everyone was wary of you.
Now, it's not just young Islamic-looking men traveling on airplanes that are viewed with suspicion. Now, it seems to be that any Islamic person in any role in the United States is viewed with suspicion. Looking at how miserable the man at the airport seemed to be, I can hardly imagine what it must be like to deal with that all the time. If the man was heading to his home country, it was unfortunately a very wise move. Islamophobia may not have instantly gripped the United States as some had feared, but it would rise, and this year, we have learned just how widespread it has become.
As Islamophobia has clearly taken over the United States, another memory from that day has come back. In that nearly-deserted terminal at Logan, as I awaited my commuter flight to New Jersey, there was a young man hanging out in a corner of the waiting area, alone. Looking extremely nervous, he was bearded and appeared to be of middle eastern origin, despite wearing stylish western clothes. He was younger than me, probably college age. Even if he wasn't from the middle east, he was likely facing suspicion wherever he turned around the airport. Nobody went near him that I noticed. He really looked like he was suffering.
In retrospect, I wonder if he was one of the elites from Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern regimes with strong ties with the United States that was being evacuated to his home country. Some royal family members allegedly moved on military aircraft, but others moved on commercial aircraft as soon as they started operating, and it seems entirely possible that he was in this category.
I didn't approach him to find out, not because I feared him or didn't want to be associated with someone that "looked like a terrorist," but because I was exhausted at the time. When I went to work that day, I didn't have a plane ticket and wasn't expecting to get one, so it was a mad scramble to head home, pack, and make it to the airport in time to catch my flight. I simply didn't have any social energy at the time.
The man was on my flight to Newark, and I remember him in the boarding area for the trans-Atlantic flight to Zurich. By that time, I was so engrossed by the radio coverage of the recovery efforts on WNYC that I paid attention to little else. I don't remember seeing him when we left the plane in Zurich.
I wish I had spoken with him. Perhaps he wouldn't have wanted to talk. Perhaps my suspicions now are completely incorrect, and he was actually a young banker heading back to a home base in Zurich, or some other equally mundane story. Regardless, I bet he would have had a interesting perspective to offer on traveling when everyone was wary of you.
Now, it's not just young Islamic-looking men traveling on airplanes that are viewed with suspicion. Now, it seems to be that any Islamic person in any role in the United States is viewed with suspicion. Looking at how miserable the man at the airport seemed to be, I can hardly imagine what it must be like to deal with that all the time. If the man was heading to his home country, it was unfortunately a very wise move. Islamophobia may not have instantly gripped the United States as some had feared, but it would rise, and this year, we have learned just how widespread it has become.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Media: Nice Summer Season, CBC
TORONTO, ONTARIO - While the summer, as defined by the CBC as the ten weeks leading up to Labour Day, is not quite over yet, the majority of the special CBC Radio One programming for the summer has already aired. At this point, I am willing to assess the summer as a good one.
By the standard I often cite as a measure of my opinion, the number of programs that make my weekly radio pick, the summer of 2010 looks about average. The summer programs have made my list only three times (though this week may prove to be a fourth), compared with four in 2007 and 2008, and three in 2009, which I have cited as a poor year for summer programming. The difference this year is that a variety of programs of decent quality have been on the schedule, just not rising to the level of weekly pick--and that hasn't happened since 2007.
My favorite program of the bunch, making an appearance on the weekly picks, has been a new season of a show heard the past two summers--ReVision Quest, a show that manages to inject humour with insight about the native experience in Canada. I won't mind if this program comes back next summer, or even on the regular schedule.
The new show that has made the biggest impression on me has been Promised Land, which has been telling stories of immigration to Canada. As I stated when I chose an episode as a weekly pick, this series ought to be part of history education in this country, telling the stories of the very different ways that people have arrived here.
Another new show that has made it to my weekly pick has been Asunder, a show about divorce. While I have found its content to vary in educational value each week, in general it has been a worthwhile listen.
It's the shows that haven't quite made it to the pick that are remarkable this year. The Main Ingredient may not have actually affected my cooking or eating habits yet, but it has been fascinating to learn about what different cultures consider disgusting, or how cuisines come to be associated with certain countries.
When it was on during its first season in 2008, I wasn't that impressed with The Late Show. For whatever reason, this second season has seemed more compelling to me, and I found myself looking forward to the "extraordinary life stories of deceptively ordinary Canadians." Nobody can deny that Gordon Pinsent is a great radio story-teller.
Even the comedy show impressed me. It took about ten minutes of the first show to be convinced that This Is That was not serious, and in the past I have not bothered to listen to such shows in the summer. Yet, this show was a brilliant satire of radio, news, Canada, and just about anything else it could touch. There were many memorable skits on this show, from underground housing to where the alleged Lake Okanagan monster Ogopogo might be located to Kevin Nealon buying a town in Saskatchewan. The running gags from the grammatical nonsense of the name ("It's like Jeopardy--the show's name is really 'That'") to the voice mails from "Sue" were all well-done.
In fact, about the only summer shows that didn't do much for me were (surprisingly) The Bottom Line with David Suzuki, which I thought had potential but mostly bored me, and Being Jann with Jann Arden, which was intended as Saturday morning light fare and fit the bill.
So, the CBC Radio One summer 2010 schedule may not have had that many incredible must-hear moments, it had a depth of listenable shows. I would call it a successful season, and after the disastrous 2009 summer season, that was good to hear.
By the standard I often cite as a measure of my opinion, the number of programs that make my weekly radio pick, the summer of 2010 looks about average. The summer programs have made my list only three times (though this week may prove to be a fourth), compared with four in 2007 and 2008, and three in 2009, which I have cited as a poor year for summer programming. The difference this year is that a variety of programs of decent quality have been on the schedule, just not rising to the level of weekly pick--and that hasn't happened since 2007.
My favorite program of the bunch, making an appearance on the weekly picks, has been a new season of a show heard the past two summers--ReVision Quest, a show that manages to inject humour with insight about the native experience in Canada. I won't mind if this program comes back next summer, or even on the regular schedule.
The new show that has made the biggest impression on me has been Promised Land, which has been telling stories of immigration to Canada. As I stated when I chose an episode as a weekly pick, this series ought to be part of history education in this country, telling the stories of the very different ways that people have arrived here.
Another new show that has made it to my weekly pick has been Asunder, a show about divorce. While I have found its content to vary in educational value each week, in general it has been a worthwhile listen.
It's the shows that haven't quite made it to the pick that are remarkable this year. The Main Ingredient may not have actually affected my cooking or eating habits yet, but it has been fascinating to learn about what different cultures consider disgusting, or how cuisines come to be associated with certain countries.
When it was on during its first season in 2008, I wasn't that impressed with The Late Show. For whatever reason, this second season has seemed more compelling to me, and I found myself looking forward to the "extraordinary life stories of deceptively ordinary Canadians." Nobody can deny that Gordon Pinsent is a great radio story-teller.
Even the comedy show impressed me. It took about ten minutes of the first show to be convinced that This Is That was not serious, and in the past I have not bothered to listen to such shows in the summer. Yet, this show was a brilliant satire of radio, news, Canada, and just about anything else it could touch. There were many memorable skits on this show, from underground housing to where the alleged Lake Okanagan monster Ogopogo might be located to Kevin Nealon buying a town in Saskatchewan. The running gags from the grammatical nonsense of the name ("It's like Jeopardy--the show's name is really 'That'") to the voice mails from "Sue" were all well-done.
In fact, about the only summer shows that didn't do much for me were (surprisingly) The Bottom Line with David Suzuki, which I thought had potential but mostly bored me, and Being Jann with Jann Arden, which was intended as Saturday morning light fare and fit the bill.
So, the CBC Radio One summer 2010 schedule may not have had that many incredible must-hear moments, it had a depth of listenable shows. I would call it a successful season, and after the disastrous 2009 summer season, that was good to hear.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Economics: Leadership Not Rewarded
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Being on an interminable job search, I spend a fair amount of time at job web sites, and they offer an exhaustive amount of advice to job seekers. I ignore most of it, since it is either selling a service of dubious value or it's material I've seen dozens of times before. Every once in a rare while, I actually click on something that proves interesting. Such was this link from the Stanford LinkedIn group by Valerie Hausladen on the five unspoken rules all great leaders follow.
My first impression upon reading the essay was that I stacked up pretty well on the basis of these criteria. I might not be the one most likely to come up with a vision, but I think I've done a good job in the past of communicating "the right course" other people had originated and implementing the details to move it toward reality. I doubt anyone would question my propensity to dig in and lead by example, listen to feedback on things that weren't working, express understanding of people reporting to me, and take responsibility for issues rather than assigning blame. I can think of a fair number of former bosses and people I've worked with in my professional and non-professional life that exhibit the same qualities and would also quality as great leaders according to Hausladen's essay.
Yet, where are we now? Not one is actually running a significant organization, except arguably for a couple who started their own small businesses, one because he was fed up with the corporate world. A number of us are unemployed at present. The balance are actually in diminished positions compared with where they had been in the past, leading smaller operations than they used to or placed in a dead-end position by those above them.
There are a limited number of reasonable explanations for that. For example, Hausladen could be wrong about what constitutes great leadership, or my interpretation of the embodiment of those traits could be lacking. I doubt those kinds of possibilities, as what was accomplished when the people I identified were running things seems to compare favorably to what preceded or followed in terms of productivity and milestone accomplishments.
That leaves explanations along the lines of "the corporate world punishes great leadership." How is that possible, if we accept the premise that corporations act in their own best financial interest, which I do? Does great leadership not result in higher profits?
Hausladen cites charisma as one reason for a disconnect. Charismatic people, she argues, are often given leadership positions over competent people. I usually use less charitable language to describe people that over-market their own abilities, and this is clearly one reason for the phenomenon. However, if that were the only problem, the "invisible hand" of the market would eventually reveal their relatively lower leadership capabilities and successful businesses would jettison them.
There has to be another explanation, and I think it comes down to a culprit cited many times on this blog and elsewhere: the short-term thinking of the corporate world. Great leadership working toward a long-term vision doesn't necessarily produce more profits in a quarterly reporting period. In fact, in the shortest term, it might even spend more money on quality people and infrastructure to work toward the vision. That's not acceptable in the current corporate environment. The rewards come to people that squeeze the maximum possible return both in the current quarter and over the course of years.
Until that changes and great leadership is allowed the time to pay off in the form growing businesses producing more profits and better-functioning organizations creating lower employee turnover, the great leaders will continue to find themselves more often than not looking at a pink slip or a demotion, and the bean counters will get the promotions.
My first impression upon reading the essay was that I stacked up pretty well on the basis of these criteria. I might not be the one most likely to come up with a vision, but I think I've done a good job in the past of communicating "the right course" other people had originated and implementing the details to move it toward reality. I doubt anyone would question my propensity to dig in and lead by example, listen to feedback on things that weren't working, express understanding of people reporting to me, and take responsibility for issues rather than assigning blame. I can think of a fair number of former bosses and people I've worked with in my professional and non-professional life that exhibit the same qualities and would also quality as great leaders according to Hausladen's essay.
Yet, where are we now? Not one is actually running a significant organization, except arguably for a couple who started their own small businesses, one because he was fed up with the corporate world. A number of us are unemployed at present. The balance are actually in diminished positions compared with where they had been in the past, leading smaller operations than they used to or placed in a dead-end position by those above them.
There are a limited number of reasonable explanations for that. For example, Hausladen could be wrong about what constitutes great leadership, or my interpretation of the embodiment of those traits could be lacking. I doubt those kinds of possibilities, as what was accomplished when the people I identified were running things seems to compare favorably to what preceded or followed in terms of productivity and milestone accomplishments.
That leaves explanations along the lines of "the corporate world punishes great leadership." How is that possible, if we accept the premise that corporations act in their own best financial interest, which I do? Does great leadership not result in higher profits?
Hausladen cites charisma as one reason for a disconnect. Charismatic people, she argues, are often given leadership positions over competent people. I usually use less charitable language to describe people that over-market their own abilities, and this is clearly one reason for the phenomenon. However, if that were the only problem, the "invisible hand" of the market would eventually reveal their relatively lower leadership capabilities and successful businesses would jettison them.
There has to be another explanation, and I think it comes down to a culprit cited many times on this blog and elsewhere: the short-term thinking of the corporate world. Great leadership working toward a long-term vision doesn't necessarily produce more profits in a quarterly reporting period. In fact, in the shortest term, it might even spend more money on quality people and infrastructure to work toward the vision. That's not acceptable in the current corporate environment. The rewards come to people that squeeze the maximum possible return both in the current quarter and over the course of years.
Until that changes and great leadership is allowed the time to pay off in the form growing businesses producing more profits and better-functioning organizations creating lower employee turnover, the great leaders will continue to find themselves more often than not looking at a pink slip or a demotion, and the bean counters will get the promotions.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Culture: Viva Forever and the 17-Year Rule
TORONTO, ONTARIO - About a year ago, this blog mentioned The Imbayakunas, an Andean-Canadian group that was performing near the base of the CN Tower in Toronto. They've been back on a number of dates this year, and when I take the volunteer post in the Toronto Railway Heritage Centre at the foot of the 6213 steam locomotive on one of those days, they can be heard playing in the background.
While most of their repertoire is classic Andean music or at least in some way related to it (Simon and Garfinkel's "El Condor Pasa" was, in fact, derived from a Andean folk song), the group includes some popular music. I'd grown used to them playing Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" and The Eagles' "Hotel California." This past weekend, though, I heard a new melody coming from the pan flutes, rondador, drums, and other instruments--"Viva Forever" by the Spice Girls.
I have to admit that as much as I've been somewhat dismissive of the semi-manufactured Spice Girls, I've always thought "Viva Forever" was actually a pretty good pop ballad. A collaboration between the group and producers Matthew Rowe and Richard Stannard, it has a catchy melody and the lyrics mixing Spanish and English are reasonably creative. I happened to be in Europe when it was at the peak of its popularity there in late summer 1998, so there was no way I could miss it--unlike in the US, where the single was never even released (though it was part of the "Spiceworld" album). It's the only Spice Girls song that has ever made any of my personal play lists. Apparently Pavarotti thought it was worthy too, since he did a collboration with the group and included it on one of his own albums.
I've noticed in my lifetime that many songs tend to come back with a cover version that is in some way musically superior to the original. To cite two examples off my lifetime top-10 list, the 1986 Crowded House hit "Don't Dream It's Over" returned seventeen years later in 2003 with a Sixpence None The Richer cover, and the 1988 Roxette single "Listen to Your Heart" returned seventeen years later in 2005 with a dance version but also an amazing unplugged version from D.H.T.
My prediction is obvious: In the summer of 2015, seventeen years after its original release, some group is going to do a cover of "Viva Forever" that will blow the Spice Girls away. Maybe they'll even include instrumentals from the Imbayakunas.
While most of their repertoire is classic Andean music or at least in some way related to it (Simon and Garfinkel's "El Condor Pasa" was, in fact, derived from a Andean folk song), the group includes some popular music. I'd grown used to them playing Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" and The Eagles' "Hotel California." This past weekend, though, I heard a new melody coming from the pan flutes, rondador, drums, and other instruments--"Viva Forever" by the Spice Girls.
I have to admit that as much as I've been somewhat dismissive of the semi-manufactured Spice Girls, I've always thought "Viva Forever" was actually a pretty good pop ballad. A collaboration between the group and producers Matthew Rowe and Richard Stannard, it has a catchy melody and the lyrics mixing Spanish and English are reasonably creative. I happened to be in Europe when it was at the peak of its popularity there in late summer 1998, so there was no way I could miss it--unlike in the US, where the single was never even released (though it was part of the "Spiceworld" album). It's the only Spice Girls song that has ever made any of my personal play lists. Apparently Pavarotti thought it was worthy too, since he did a collboration with the group and included it on one of his own albums.
I've noticed in my lifetime that many songs tend to come back with a cover version that is in some way musically superior to the original. To cite two examples off my lifetime top-10 list, the 1986 Crowded House hit "Don't Dream It's Over" returned seventeen years later in 2003 with a Sixpence None The Richer cover, and the 1988 Roxette single "Listen to Your Heart" returned seventeen years later in 2005 with a dance version but also an amazing unplugged version from D.H.T.
My prediction is obvious: In the summer of 2015, seventeen years after its original release, some group is going to do a cover of "Viva Forever" that will blow the Spice Girls away. Maybe they'll even include instrumentals from the Imbayakunas.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Personality: Scientists and Engineers
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Back in March, this blog spent several posts looking at the opinions of Henry Petroski, the Duke University professor who has argued that the United States undervalues engineering relative to science. One of the side points that Petroski made was that scientists have larger egos than engineers. I mentioned that there might be a personality-based explanation for Petroski's observation, and it's time to provide it.
I want to repeat my disclaimer from the previous post: While Petroski may have a point on average, this observation is completely useless in generic interactions with scientists and engineers. In my lifetime, I have encountered a number of engineers with significant egos and plenty of scientists with much smaller egos than accomplishments. The variation in each pool is too large to make any assumptions about any individual scientist or engineer. I daresay that the distinction is basically a useless stereotype.
Yet, Petroski's observation may have its origins in the kinds of personalities that are most drawn to each discipline. Scientists are basically concerned with explaining the world around them and testing hypotheses about those observations. Of the four personality worlds identified by meridian theory, it is the "thinking" world that lines up most closely with that mind-set. The thinking world fundamentally deals with ideas, and it is novel ideas that usually are required to explain previously-unexplained phenomena. The analytical nature of the thinking world, jumping from one idea to another without concern for the details of the jump, serves them well in science. The "stomach" type within the "thinking" world is best-known for interdisciplinary thinking, bringing in ideas from outside disciplines to explain something perplexing in a defined field. The "brain" and "kidney" types in the "thinking" world are best-known for becoming extreme, deep experts in a field.
However, it is the "brain" type that also is well-known for arrogance, or at least appearing to be arrogant. The "brain" individual tends to exude an image of royalty, that their ideas are somehow to be deferred to, and others are less important. They don't tend to pay a lot of attention to the feelings of others, which are often imperceptible to them. It is likely the prevalence of "brain" types in science, or at least people in the "thinking" world with some "brain" traits, that lead to the observation that scientists have large egos.
Engineering primarily involves using scientific knowledge to make new things. This tends to attract people of action, which is to say the "physical" world. They tend to be good at putting things together, and then improvising to make them work. While not afraid of first principles, they will readily focus on what actually does the job in the real world, not in a book, if there is any conflict between the two. While the physical world can tend to be "macho" (both men and women), that doesn't come across as "ego" quite as strongly as the arrogance of the "brain" type.
Petroski's observation likely comes down to that--the "thinking" world (especially "brain") types in science come across as having bigger egos than the "physical" types in engineering. For those of us in the "spiritual" or "emotional" worlds that work as scientists or engineers, we just shake our heads at the stereotypes.
I want to repeat my disclaimer from the previous post: While Petroski may have a point on average, this observation is completely useless in generic interactions with scientists and engineers. In my lifetime, I have encountered a number of engineers with significant egos and plenty of scientists with much smaller egos than accomplishments. The variation in each pool is too large to make any assumptions about any individual scientist or engineer. I daresay that the distinction is basically a useless stereotype.
Yet, Petroski's observation may have its origins in the kinds of personalities that are most drawn to each discipline. Scientists are basically concerned with explaining the world around them and testing hypotheses about those observations. Of the four personality worlds identified by meridian theory, it is the "thinking" world that lines up most closely with that mind-set. The thinking world fundamentally deals with ideas, and it is novel ideas that usually are required to explain previously-unexplained phenomena. The analytical nature of the thinking world, jumping from one idea to another without concern for the details of the jump, serves them well in science. The "stomach" type within the "thinking" world is best-known for interdisciplinary thinking, bringing in ideas from outside disciplines to explain something perplexing in a defined field. The "brain" and "kidney" types in the "thinking" world are best-known for becoming extreme, deep experts in a field.
However, it is the "brain" type that also is well-known for arrogance, or at least appearing to be arrogant. The "brain" individual tends to exude an image of royalty, that their ideas are somehow to be deferred to, and others are less important. They don't tend to pay a lot of attention to the feelings of others, which are often imperceptible to them. It is likely the prevalence of "brain" types in science, or at least people in the "thinking" world with some "brain" traits, that lead to the observation that scientists have large egos.
Engineering primarily involves using scientific knowledge to make new things. This tends to attract people of action, which is to say the "physical" world. They tend to be good at putting things together, and then improvising to make them work. While not afraid of first principles, they will readily focus on what actually does the job in the real world, not in a book, if there is any conflict between the two. While the physical world can tend to be "macho" (both men and women), that doesn't come across as "ego" quite as strongly as the arrogance of the "brain" type.
Petroski's observation likely comes down to that--the "thinking" world (especially "brain") types in science come across as having bigger egos than the "physical" types in engineering. For those of us in the "spiritual" or "emotional" worlds that work as scientists or engineers, we just shake our heads at the stereotypes.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Photos: Shriners International Parade
Fast miniature cars from Kingston, Ontario performed during the Shriners International Parade in Toronto, Ontario on 6-July-2010
TORONTO, ONTARIO - This week's update to my photo site looks back to the Shriners International Parade. Not long after the Queen exited Queen's Park, the Shriners moved into position for the Shriners International Parade. A long string of Shriners from across the continent showed off their bands, miniature racing and stunt vehicles, clowns, and more, viewed from the eye level of a child on 6-July-2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)