I enjoy On Point because the producers bring in so much diverse content, which is split between current, mainstream events and niche topics have great appeal to the average person. The most recent shows have focused on U.S. elections and the economy, but have still managed to include these really interesting shows on Elvis Costello (interviewed live) and the younger years of Frank Sinatra. I've only linked the two because they're both about musicians, and while I liked the shows I can't offer an opinion on them because they're weren't issue-related. So I'll just recap the two and encourage others to have a listen.
Elvis Costello is married to Diana Krall, and they live in our district of West Vancouver. Krall is known for walking with their small children around the seawall on the Pacific, and probably because she's not as famous as Costello and feels more comfortable doing so. She's also a Vanouver Island native and likely just wants the kids to enjoy the things she grew up with. We think the same way, and my wife regularly takes our 4-year old down to Eagle Harbour beach to see what the ocean washed up and to look for wildlife like eagles and sea lions. You can see my pics of us going crab fishing, which brings us right into contact with the same and lets our son actually hold and touch animals like Dungenness crabs and star fish that climb into our trap.
I've never seen Costello hanging out in our village, but I've heard that when he does he's a little aloof. I guess that when you've had people grabbing at you since the late 1970s you become conditioned to appreciate your independence. An Aussie friend of mine from Hong Kong spent the evening with Costello in a Wan Chai bar and didn't even know who he was at first. He said Costello was chatting to him around midnight, ordered up Champagne until morning, during which my friend clued in that he was with a huge star. He was a great, regular guy and that's how I like to imagine him in real life.
Costello's new album (a "double LP" as he said) is targeted at Wall Street, its bankers and its misdeeds. The show featured some clips, as well as Costello live with his guitar in the studio for an entire song. They spoke of the current events which Costello is interested in, but it was mostly an hour with an unassuming rock/folk star who was happy to talk about a range of personal topics. I'll buy the "double LP" now and fully expect that Costello's angst is holding up well. I remember his famous SNL appearance from 1977 very well, for which he was banned by Lorne Michaels, who ultimately relented. I Googled this and found an interesting article on all celebrities banned from SNL.
The show on Sinatra was different in that it focused on his earliest years and not the later period of which we are all too familiar. Author James Kaplan was interviewed to discuss his latest work entitled "Frank: The Voice" which details his boyhood in New Jersey up to his Oscar win in "From Here To Eternity." I'm a Sinatra fan, but not an enthusiast, because I grew up in Wisconsin and as a teen of the 1970s we were mainly fed a classic rock diet. I became aware of Sinatra as a university student in Madison and through the years have come into contact with his music. He was already an icon when I was a kid and my knowledge is limited to the Vegas era and the stereotyped version of Sinatra most famously played on SNL by (Canadian from my and Gretzky's hometown of Brantford, Ontario) Phil Hartman.
Many of us forget how insanely famous Sinatra was back in the late 1930s and 1940s prior to his crash and rebirth in the 1950s. In his early days he was as ubiquitous as Mick Jagger, Elvis and Bono, and was about as controversial as a star could be back then. I hadn't know any of this prior to the show, and it was a great 40 minutes as I pedalled in the dark along the Pacific on Marine Drive. I'll check the local library for the book because it sounds to be a page turner.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
NPR: Censoring to support its partisan agenda?
(Note: The heading above hyperlinks to the show's website.)
I've never actually listened to Juan Williams on NPR, but I'm deeply interested in the story of his dismissal as a news analyst after making inflammatory comments on the Bill O'Reilly show. A whole host of questions come up:
- Freedom of speech: Can't he say what he wants without retribution?
- Professional vs. personal viewpoints: Is he required to abide by NPR's policies only at work, and not off the clock?
- Is NPR biased by not allowing its analysts to comment subjectively and with an opinion?
- NPR receives U.S. Government funding: Because NPR is acting in a partisan way, should funding be cut?
- Was his dismissal rash? A knee jerk reaction to a single incident?
I graduated in 1986 from the University of Wisconsin with a B.A. in Journalism. In addition to technical training on things like grammar we spent a large amount of time studying the role of the media in a range of societies and historical timelines. I'm not a professional journalist, but would consider myself well informed on the role of the media and am very passionate about the need for an unemcumbered and vocal press. Forming an opinion on the NPR/Juan Williams story is a challenge, and today's On Point show helped to inform me.
First, after considering the facts I do believe it is correct that Williams doesn't belong on NPR. The controversy relates to the suddenness and form of his dismissal, which was crude and insensitive. So they are both to blame, but regardless of how he was terminated the conclusion remains that Williams did not have a place within NPR. A media organization (and any organization really) states its goals and mission then develops policies that are derived from them. NPR clearly states that it reports the news in an unbiased, centrist fashion and it requests that its analysts refrain from offering a strong opinion, personal or otherwise, on events. Williams repeatedly went against NPR's policy and NPR discussed his commentary with him over many years. He consciously made the decision to behave that way and a separation was going to come eventually. When the time arrived it surely wasn't a surprise to Williams, but it was to most of America who didn't even know his name. The event got a huge amount of spin from all sides, and became even more intense because of the looming elections.
I believe NPR is labelled unfairly as a "liberal" media organization and I think this comes from the polarized state of politics in the U.S. and the emergence of self-selected media. The polarization creates an "us vs. them", "win or lose", "good vs. evil" lens for interpreting events and situations. This perception is further concentrated and strengthened by a range of media that supports the view held by each audience member, therefore a "dissenting opinion" and even the existence of another opinion, doesn't exist for a great number of Americans. The terms "centrist, impassionate and impartial" don't exist for people who are at polar opposites of each other.
If NPR doesn't reflect one's ideals, then it's subjectively labelled as the polar opposite of those ideals and not as "in between" or "objective." Liberals tend to process information more impassionately and would probably not call a centrist new organization "right wing" whereas conservatives tend to process information more emotionally and NPR would more likely be labelled as "liberal" because its viewpoint is "different." Because the conservative's "liberal" label is the only one being communicated, that's the one which sticks. The opposite is true for conservative news organizations like FOX. Conservatives don't label FOX as "right wing", and it's the liberal news organizations that do that. They're the ones communicating that label, and it's the one that sticks.
In the world of polarized media there is a role for Williams, and he signed up as a FOX analyst shortly after his dismissal. To be accepted by FOX, Williams was certainly identified by its management as representative of their audience's viewpoints, and this fact alone demonstrates that Williams should not have been on NPR. NPR critics should be focusing on the positive aspects of this new alignment, and the shortcomings of the previous misalignment. NPR is simply enacting its policies albeit in a crude way, FOX is taking advantage of a market opportunity, and Williams is profiting by a significant salary increase that he likely engineered in a systematic fashion.
It would appear to me that different factions are using Williams' dismissal to their own end, and spinning the story in their direction. As I see it, the fact is that Williams was in the wrong place, and he's now in a better place so we should all be satisfied with the new alignment between the three affected parties. Williams is free to opine as he likes and in no way has NPR censored itself or sent a message to its analysts.
I've never actually listened to Juan Williams on NPR, but I'm deeply interested in the story of his dismissal as a news analyst after making inflammatory comments on the Bill O'Reilly show. A whole host of questions come up:
- Freedom of speech: Can't he say what he wants without retribution?
- Professional vs. personal viewpoints: Is he required to abide by NPR's policies only at work, and not off the clock?
- Is NPR biased by not allowing its analysts to comment subjectively and with an opinion?
- NPR receives U.S. Government funding: Because NPR is acting in a partisan way, should funding be cut?
- Was his dismissal rash? A knee jerk reaction to a single incident?
I graduated in 1986 from the University of Wisconsin with a B.A. in Journalism. In addition to technical training on things like grammar we spent a large amount of time studying the role of the media in a range of societies and historical timelines. I'm not a professional journalist, but would consider myself well informed on the role of the media and am very passionate about the need for an unemcumbered and vocal press. Forming an opinion on the NPR/Juan Williams story is a challenge, and today's On Point show helped to inform me.
First, after considering the facts I do believe it is correct that Williams doesn't belong on NPR. The controversy relates to the suddenness and form of his dismissal, which was crude and insensitive. So they are both to blame, but regardless of how he was terminated the conclusion remains that Williams did not have a place within NPR. A media organization (and any organization really) states its goals and mission then develops policies that are derived from them. NPR clearly states that it reports the news in an unbiased, centrist fashion and it requests that its analysts refrain from offering a strong opinion, personal or otherwise, on events. Williams repeatedly went against NPR's policy and NPR discussed his commentary with him over many years. He consciously made the decision to behave that way and a separation was going to come eventually. When the time arrived it surely wasn't a surprise to Williams, but it was to most of America who didn't even know his name. The event got a huge amount of spin from all sides, and became even more intense because of the looming elections.
I believe NPR is labelled unfairly as a "liberal" media organization and I think this comes from the polarized state of politics in the U.S. and the emergence of self-selected media. The polarization creates an "us vs. them", "win or lose", "good vs. evil" lens for interpreting events and situations. This perception is further concentrated and strengthened by a range of media that supports the view held by each audience member, therefore a "dissenting opinion" and even the existence of another opinion, doesn't exist for a great number of Americans. The terms "centrist, impassionate and impartial" don't exist for people who are at polar opposites of each other.
If NPR doesn't reflect one's ideals, then it's subjectively labelled as the polar opposite of those ideals and not as "in between" or "objective." Liberals tend to process information more impassionately and would probably not call a centrist new organization "right wing" whereas conservatives tend to process information more emotionally and NPR would more likely be labelled as "liberal" because its viewpoint is "different." Because the conservative's "liberal" label is the only one being communicated, that's the one which sticks. The opposite is true for conservative news organizations like FOX. Conservatives don't label FOX as "right wing", and it's the liberal news organizations that do that. They're the ones communicating that label, and it's the one that sticks.
In the world of polarized media there is a role for Williams, and he signed up as a FOX analyst shortly after his dismissal. To be accepted by FOX, Williams was certainly identified by its management as representative of their audience's viewpoints, and this fact alone demonstrates that Williams should not have been on NPR. NPR critics should be focusing on the positive aspects of this new alignment, and the shortcomings of the previous misalignment. NPR is simply enacting its policies albeit in a crude way, FOX is taking advantage of a market opportunity, and Williams is profiting by a significant salary increase that he likely engineered in a systematic fashion.
It would appear to me that different factions are using Williams' dismissal to their own end, and spinning the story in their direction. As I see it, the fact is that Williams was in the wrong place, and he's now in a better place so we should all be satisfied with the new alignment between the three affected parties. Williams is free to opine as he likes and in no way has NPR censored itself or sent a message to its analysts.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
New Yorker music critic Alex Ross
Alex Ross is arguably the most celebrated active, American music critic and until this show, completely unknown to me. I feel like I "should" read The New Yorker and am sure I can pick it up at the local library, but just never fell into it. In fact, like many people I consume the vast majority of media content online because our house is not really set up for quiet reading and is instead organized around four teenage boys. The most action is in the computer room where they do homework, surf the net and catch up with friends online.
Ross only listened to classical music until he was 20, but now his interests now go in all directions. He's written a few best selling books on music, the latest of which is "Listen To This" a wide ranging work on music across the centuries, and that does a few deep dives into interesting topics. It's an edited compilation of his essays over the past 12 years, and looks for a common thread between musical genres, styles and time. For example, he and Tom Ashbrook discussed the "descending bass line" found consistently in music through the centuries. His examples focus on the chromatic scale, which is simply all the individual half note intervals without the normal whole step found in other scales. In simple terms, a chromatic scale can be played on a piano by pressing every black or white key in order, so A, A#, B, C, C# etc. A famous rock era descending bass line is on Led Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused" in which Jimmie Page plays it over and over again. Similar lines were heard in a delta blues song and operatic aria. Ross's hypothesis is that this line is intimately connected to "sad" human exhalation such as exclaiming "Awww" to convey a sense of dismay. Authors take advantage of this human experience and intrinsically convey a well known emotion.
He thinks Bjork is the most gifted musician of our time, but the show didn't dig into this, and I'm fascinated enough to do some further digging. I have a few Bjork CDs, but didn't find them gripping at first listen, so will try again. He is most definitely not a music snob and had kind things to say about a wide variety of genres like death metal, and focused on a couple of bands who play not only good music, but are clearly gifted musicians who know exactly what they're doing with music theory. Radiohead, for example, employs guitar chord changes and formations that are often highly unusual, and must certainly not self-taught. In fact, he said that Radiohead was spurred on by a high school teacher who pushed the then boys in new directions.
I'm absolutely going to check out the book from the library, and get my 13-year old son to try and listen to the podcast. He's the closest thing to a music enthusiast among the siblings and is intellectual in a way that would find resonance with Ross's points. If he enjoys the podcast then maybe we can read the book together and give hims some exposure to a world of music. I thoroughly enjoy music and have a huge range of content, but excluding classical. Ross made a great point on this, and claims he "hates classical music." Not the music itself, but the term, which labels the music as "old" and makes it unapproachable by the vast majority of people, particularly younger ones. I think it's time that I add a few CDs to my collection and enjoy my forties in a quieter manner.
Ross only listened to classical music until he was 20, but now his interests now go in all directions. He's written a few best selling books on music, the latest of which is "Listen To This" a wide ranging work on music across the centuries, and that does a few deep dives into interesting topics. It's an edited compilation of his essays over the past 12 years, and looks for a common thread between musical genres, styles and time. For example, he and Tom Ashbrook discussed the "descending bass line" found consistently in music through the centuries. His examples focus on the chromatic scale, which is simply all the individual half note intervals without the normal whole step found in other scales. In simple terms, a chromatic scale can be played on a piano by pressing every black or white key in order, so A, A#, B, C, C# etc. A famous rock era descending bass line is on Led Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused" in which Jimmie Page plays it over and over again. Similar lines were heard in a delta blues song and operatic aria. Ross's hypothesis is that this line is intimately connected to "sad" human exhalation such as exclaiming "Awww" to convey a sense of dismay. Authors take advantage of this human experience and intrinsically convey a well known emotion.
He thinks Bjork is the most gifted musician of our time, but the show didn't dig into this, and I'm fascinated enough to do some further digging. I have a few Bjork CDs, but didn't find them gripping at first listen, so will try again. He is most definitely not a music snob and had kind things to say about a wide variety of genres like death metal, and focused on a couple of bands who play not only good music, but are clearly gifted musicians who know exactly what they're doing with music theory. Radiohead, for example, employs guitar chord changes and formations that are often highly unusual, and must certainly not self-taught. In fact, he said that Radiohead was spurred on by a high school teacher who pushed the then boys in new directions.
I'm absolutely going to check out the book from the library, and get my 13-year old son to try and listen to the podcast. He's the closest thing to a music enthusiast among the siblings and is intellectual in a way that would find resonance with Ross's points. If he enjoys the podcast then maybe we can read the book together and give hims some exposure to a world of music. I thoroughly enjoy music and have a huge range of content, but excluding classical. Ross made a great point on this, and claims he "hates classical music." Not the music itself, but the term, which labels the music as "old" and makes it unapproachable by the vast majority of people, particularly younger ones. I think it's time that I add a few CDs to my collection and enjoy my forties in a quieter manner.
Friday, October 15, 2010
NY tries to ban Coca-Cola bought with food stamps
My last ride in was just before my very good friend Eric arrived from Portland on Sept. 24. My chain popped off the big cogset on the rear wheel and I ripped apart a couple of spokes, and it took me until this Tuesday, Oct. 12 to fix them. I made it to HK and had a visit from another old friend for a week in the meantime. Hence the absence of any biking/iTunes blogs because I was out of my normal groove.
This show was fascinating, to say the least. Mayor Bloomberg is on a crusade to improve the state of New Yorkers' health, and I must say: "Hats off to you, sir." He's banned smoking in bars and eliminated trans-fat oils from the city's packaged foods and restaurants. Smokers and snackoholics don't like it, and they can just go to New Jersey if they desire. In fact, Manhattan may actually become a more attractive city if this stinky, oily demographic were to relocate.
Bloomberg's latest crusade is to lobby the federal government to add sweetened soft drinks to the list of goods prohibited for purchase with food stamps (aka "EBT" or Electronic Benefit Transfer".) There are two camps: 1) Food stamp recipients who claim they have the right to buy whatever they like with their government-issued food money; and 2) High-minded individuals who believe the growth of obesity and diabetes in America should not be facilitated by the federal government.
What struck me was that the EBT program is used by one in eight Americans, and one in FOUR American children. Perhaps Arianna Huffington is correct with her latest book which claims that American standards are heading toward third world levels. I don't agree with her sensationalised conclusion, but the point hits home when the EBT statistics are heard. Twenty five percent of American kids get fed in part from EBT? Now I understand why Bloomberg is lobbying so hard, because New York City undoubtedly has an above average rate of program participation so possibly one in three New York children are assisted by EBT. If so, these kids and their families probably (and the key word is "probably") forgo an amount of nutritious food for unnutritious food substitutes. Sweetened soft drinks are high profile because their volume is so high, and have extremely high consumer penetration, so Bloomberg's plan is probably to start with these and then keep moving the needle.
There are many points to consider: 1) An individual's right to use food stamps for various goods; 2) Cheap prices of highly processed foods versus higher cost of healthier raw materials; 3) Local government rights to manage federal programs; 4) Long term government health care costs related to obesity and diabetes; 5) Education versus prohibition; 6) Retailer adminstration costs and feasibility of excluding soft drinks at the checkout; 7) Abuse of the EBT program in which purchased food is resold for cash; 8) Expanded government control of its constituents; and others.
I can't go through all these points, but I can sum up my personal position. Currently, the EBT program excludes fuel, tobacco, alcohol, hot food, and non-food like detergent and shampoo. Adding soft drinks to the list is straightforward both technically and in terms of staff and consumer education. The EBT program is government-funded and by willingly accepting assistance, participants abdicate their rights to choose exactly what is available. Participants are not prevented from buying sweetened soft drinks in the same way they can already purchase cigarettes and beer, albeit with their own money and not the government's. Sweetened soft drinks provide absolutely no nutrition and by substituting them for healthy alternatives, consumers degrade their health and of particular concern the health of children who don't buy for themselves. Government subsidies for corn results in cheap corn syrup, and therefore relatively cheaper soft drink prices versus healthier alternatives, so removing subsidies will move soft drink prices in line with better alternatives and change purchase mix.
These days consumers, and perhaps the average American, opts for convenience and forgoes spending time cooking. Unfortunately, convenience foods are relatively quite unhealthy and cheap. To encourage a trend back towards consumption of raw materials, i.e. fresh meat and produce, it seems sensible to discourage the alternatives in terms of price and education. Ideally, it would be wonderful if parents and schools educated the upcoming generation of children, but clearly the situation in places is out of control and the "penalty" approach is required. I absolutely side with Bloomberg on this, and would support reduced subsidies for all products that overwhelmingly result in negative health consequences. Corn farming is a large target, and those who cry foul about the farmers' plight should consider that a great number of American children are deeply affected by how corn is being abused. These kids have few alternatives because they are fed by parents who buy as cheaply as possible, while the farmers do have legitimate choices about what they plant.
Rather than talking about improving health, at least Bloomberg is doing something and even if he doesn't win this one, at least he is creating some healthy, productive discussion. So good for him.
This show was fascinating, to say the least. Mayor Bloomberg is on a crusade to improve the state of New Yorkers' health, and I must say: "Hats off to you, sir." He's banned smoking in bars and eliminated trans-fat oils from the city's packaged foods and restaurants. Smokers and snackoholics don't like it, and they can just go to New Jersey if they desire. In fact, Manhattan may actually become a more attractive city if this stinky, oily demographic were to relocate.
Bloomberg's latest crusade is to lobby the federal government to add sweetened soft drinks to the list of goods prohibited for purchase with food stamps (aka "EBT" or Electronic Benefit Transfer".) There are two camps: 1) Food stamp recipients who claim they have the right to buy whatever they like with their government-issued food money; and 2) High-minded individuals who believe the growth of obesity and diabetes in America should not be facilitated by the federal government.
What struck me was that the EBT program is used by one in eight Americans, and one in FOUR American children. Perhaps Arianna Huffington is correct with her latest book which claims that American standards are heading toward third world levels. I don't agree with her sensationalised conclusion, but the point hits home when the EBT statistics are heard. Twenty five percent of American kids get fed in part from EBT? Now I understand why Bloomberg is lobbying so hard, because New York City undoubtedly has an above average rate of program participation so possibly one in three New York children are assisted by EBT. If so, these kids and their families probably (and the key word is "probably") forgo an amount of nutritious food for unnutritious food substitutes. Sweetened soft drinks are high profile because their volume is so high, and have extremely high consumer penetration, so Bloomberg's plan is probably to start with these and then keep moving the needle.
There are many points to consider: 1) An individual's right to use food stamps for various goods; 2) Cheap prices of highly processed foods versus higher cost of healthier raw materials; 3) Local government rights to manage federal programs; 4) Long term government health care costs related to obesity and diabetes; 5) Education versus prohibition; 6) Retailer adminstration costs and feasibility of excluding soft drinks at the checkout; 7) Abuse of the EBT program in which purchased food is resold for cash; 8) Expanded government control of its constituents; and others.
I can't go through all these points, but I can sum up my personal position. Currently, the EBT program excludes fuel, tobacco, alcohol, hot food, and non-food like detergent and shampoo. Adding soft drinks to the list is straightforward both technically and in terms of staff and consumer education. The EBT program is government-funded and by willingly accepting assistance, participants abdicate their rights to choose exactly what is available. Participants are not prevented from buying sweetened soft drinks in the same way they can already purchase cigarettes and beer, albeit with their own money and not the government's. Sweetened soft drinks provide absolutely no nutrition and by substituting them for healthy alternatives, consumers degrade their health and of particular concern the health of children who don't buy for themselves. Government subsidies for corn results in cheap corn syrup, and therefore relatively cheaper soft drink prices versus healthier alternatives, so removing subsidies will move soft drink prices in line with better alternatives and change purchase mix.
These days consumers, and perhaps the average American, opts for convenience and forgoes spending time cooking. Unfortunately, convenience foods are relatively quite unhealthy and cheap. To encourage a trend back towards consumption of raw materials, i.e. fresh meat and produce, it seems sensible to discourage the alternatives in terms of price and education. Ideally, it would be wonderful if parents and schools educated the upcoming generation of children, but clearly the situation in places is out of control and the "penalty" approach is required. I absolutely side with Bloomberg on this, and would support reduced subsidies for all products that overwhelmingly result in negative health consequences. Corn farming is a large target, and those who cry foul about the farmers' plight should consider that a great number of American children are deeply affected by how corn is being abused. These kids have few alternatives because they are fed by parents who buy as cheaply as possible, while the farmers do have legitimate choices about what they plant.
Rather than talking about improving health, at least Bloomberg is doing something and even if he doesn't win this one, at least he is creating some healthy, productive discussion. So good for him.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Zuckerberg - Facebook
When I heard that a Facebook movie was coming out, I initially cringed. In this day and age of extreme wealth polarization, I resent that a 26-year-old gained almost $7.0 billion from a social networking application. I don't resent Bill Gates for being the wealthiest man on earth because he worked hard for his money, took risks and improved the average person's life. Mark Zuckerberg had a good idea and should be wealthy because of it, but billionaire-wealthy? However, after I listened to this podcast I was able to separate the merits of the story and the deservedness of the individual.
We're definitely past summer now, but biking weather is reasonably good. My high school friend Eric was up for the weekend and believe me that I needed to burn a couple thousand calories. We bought a replacement bike helmet cover (mine blew off on the highway last week) and biking glasses (mine were crushed into my face during the crash) just before visiting the homebrew shop. I couldn't find them yesterday morning and thought one of the kids had taken them. It took me until this morning to recall that I'd put it them in the bucket with the malted grain and hops, so they now have a distinct (and pleasing) hop aroma.
The writer Aaron Sorkin, and a few lead actors were in the studio and they were questioned in a way that changed my opinion of the movie. I had immediately assumed that it was only going to glorify Facebook and lead to even more wealth and glamour for Zuckerberg, but Sorkin explained that he wrote it from the perspectives of the three groups who claimed partial ownership of the idea, and therefore the money. The story itself is incredible, and I believed him when he said it was in no way fictionalized. "Dramatized" yes, but his sources were primarily firsthand and he simply had to fit several years of action into 2 hours so the drama is condensed and heightened. The movie is written from the perspective of each of the three, and Sorkin strove to not favor any one angle. The viewer is left to compare the actual outcome with his own opinion, and thus reach closure on the event, which is sure to generate debate and lots of media.
The movie itself sounds great, and I'll just put aside my liberal leanings on fair wealth distribution in order to enjoy the show.
We're definitely past summer now, but biking weather is reasonably good. My high school friend Eric was up for the weekend and believe me that I needed to burn a couple thousand calories. We bought a replacement bike helmet cover (mine blew off on the highway last week) and biking glasses (mine were crushed into my face during the crash) just before visiting the homebrew shop. I couldn't find them yesterday morning and thought one of the kids had taken them. It took me until this morning to recall that I'd put it them in the bucket with the malted grain and hops, so they now have a distinct (and pleasing) hop aroma.
The writer Aaron Sorkin, and a few lead actors were in the studio and they were questioned in a way that changed my opinion of the movie. I had immediately assumed that it was only going to glorify Facebook and lead to even more wealth and glamour for Zuckerberg, but Sorkin explained that he wrote it from the perspectives of the three groups who claimed partial ownership of the idea, and therefore the money. The story itself is incredible, and I believed him when he said it was in no way fictionalized. "Dramatized" yes, but his sources were primarily firsthand and he simply had to fit several years of action into 2 hours so the drama is condensed and heightened. The movie is written from the perspective of each of the three, and Sorkin strove to not favor any one angle. The viewer is left to compare the actual outcome with his own opinion, and thus reach closure on the event, which is sure to generate debate and lots of media.
The movie itself sounds great, and I'll just put aside my liberal leanings on fair wealth distribution in order to enjoy the show.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Back to biking after being unable for a few weeks due to weather, client meetings, and travel to Chicago for my sister's wedding reception. Yesterday was a gorgeous day and today it poured. That's Vancouver...
I tuned my bike a week ago and got the gears shifting well, which is a nuisance when cycling for pleasure, and a real hassle for commuters like myself. I bought a semi-pro bike repair stand and the right books, so in combination with internet sources and patience I can stay on top of repairs and tuning.
Today I listened to Arianna Huffington and her book on the declining standards of the U.S. middle class, and yesterday was a great show with Henry L. Gates, most famous for being charged for breaking and entering into his own Cambridge, MA home. As a Harvard professor of African-American research, he used his position to publicize the event which eventually turned into the memorable White House "beer summit" with the police officers. Huffington was good, but Gates was great.
The show was based on this week's Fortune article by Dinesh D'Souza that claims President Obama thinks like his father, and therefore the country is being run by an African anti-colonialist. Newt Gingrich called the article "a stunning insight" and talked it up on Meet The Press, among other platforms. D'Souza writes: “The U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.” This is strong stuff and makes an assumption that genes influence behaviour more than environment, which I can't believe is true.
Gates was excellent and took an academic approach to the situation, without being overly judgmental or harsh on the writers. The callers did that for him though and took their turns denouncing D'Souza and the Republican Party for launching a fear-based smear campaign. People fear the strange and unknown, and many still can't come to grips with a president that looks so different from all previous presidents, and who sounds and acts very different to his predecessor. Obama's opponents understand this very well and are playing on peoples' psychologies.
Gates runs an organization that traces genetic ancestry and he offered some interesting statistics on the percentage of blacks in America with white genes. He stated that he has never found a black American (excluding recent immigrants with direct bloodline) with 100% African genes. Gates joked that he himself is from the "African island of Ireland." This countered D'Souza's claim that Obama's genetic makeup influences the way he thinks, and if this was true, then all the white genes in black Americans should in some way think like whites. The conclusion from the guests was clearly that one's ancestors inform a person's beliefs, but don't dicate them. Personally speaking, I have to agree. My ancestors are British, but my beliefs are those of a Canadian raised in Wisconsin.
One caller asked Gates to substantiate his claim that "humans are all descended from people who walked out of Ethiopia 50,000 years ago." The caller wondered how this could be true when he was of Celtic origin in Scandanavia and does not resemble an African in any way. Obviously "evolution" is taught less vigorously in some parts of America, and it was remarkable to hear the caller's disbelief that his ancestors were African. Gates made the point that one must look at a long historical timeline, and that the caller is American today, he indeed is Celtic going back 10,000 years, but without doubt he is African going back 50,000 years.
It was an interesting hour and well worth listening too again.
I tuned my bike a week ago and got the gears shifting well, which is a nuisance when cycling for pleasure, and a real hassle for commuters like myself. I bought a semi-pro bike repair stand and the right books, so in combination with internet sources and patience I can stay on top of repairs and tuning.
Today I listened to Arianna Huffington and her book on the declining standards of the U.S. middle class, and yesterday was a great show with Henry L. Gates, most famous for being charged for breaking and entering into his own Cambridge, MA home. As a Harvard professor of African-American research, he used his position to publicize the event which eventually turned into the memorable White House "beer summit" with the police officers. Huffington was good, but Gates was great.
The show was based on this week's Fortune article by Dinesh D'Souza that claims President Obama thinks like his father, and therefore the country is being run by an African anti-colonialist. Newt Gingrich called the article "a stunning insight" and talked it up on Meet The Press, among other platforms. D'Souza writes: “The U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.” This is strong stuff and makes an assumption that genes influence behaviour more than environment, which I can't believe is true.
Gates was excellent and took an academic approach to the situation, without being overly judgmental or harsh on the writers. The callers did that for him though and took their turns denouncing D'Souza and the Republican Party for launching a fear-based smear campaign. People fear the strange and unknown, and many still can't come to grips with a president that looks so different from all previous presidents, and who sounds and acts very different to his predecessor. Obama's opponents understand this very well and are playing on peoples' psychologies.
Gates runs an organization that traces genetic ancestry and he offered some interesting statistics on the percentage of blacks in America with white genes. He stated that he has never found a black American (excluding recent immigrants with direct bloodline) with 100% African genes. Gates joked that he himself is from the "African island of Ireland." This countered D'Souza's claim that Obama's genetic makeup influences the way he thinks, and if this was true, then all the white genes in black Americans should in some way think like whites. The conclusion from the guests was clearly that one's ancestors inform a person's beliefs, but don't dicate them. Personally speaking, I have to agree. My ancestors are British, but my beliefs are those of a Canadian raised in Wisconsin.
One caller asked Gates to substantiate his claim that "humans are all descended from people who walked out of Ethiopia 50,000 years ago." The caller wondered how this could be true when he was of Celtic origin in Scandanavia and does not resemble an African in any way. Obviously "evolution" is taught less vigorously in some parts of America, and it was remarkable to hear the caller's disbelief that his ancestors were African. Gates made the point that one must look at a long historical timeline, and that the caller is American today, he indeed is Celtic going back 10,000 years, but without doubt he is African going back 50,000 years.
It was an interesting hour and well worth listening too again.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Higher education crisis in America
Great ride, and I'm back to my old times: 26 km/hr for 40 minutes into work. My gears are a mess and I'll get the bike up on the repair stand this weekend for a tune-up. Took two of the boys out on the boat last night to retrieve our crab trap out of the Pacific, but as expected there was only a sunfish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxIKnStnOg munching on the bait. I really need to spend more on a better trap because this one is easy for these things to crawl into, and surely they scare away crabs.
Today's On Point show http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/09/shaking-up-higher-ed is entitled "Shaking Up Higher Education" and is highly relevant to me. We have four boys, with the oldest in Grade 12 and ready to enter university in a year.
The discussion was on the competitiveness of American universities, which are facing overeas competition, increasing costs and are facing a growing push toward removing tenure. U.S. schools were (and are) the envy of the world, and I can say from personal experience that Asian parents work their children hard in order to get into prestigious schools. The goal seems to be "get in" as opposed "learn." This reminds me of my comment yesterday that the Republican goal seems to be "get elected" as opposed to "govern." Like any business, universities are affected by supply (schools) and demand (students) and need to provide a suitable value proposition to prospective students. Using the internet, students can research schools and will pay attention to what current students and recent graduates have to say. Regardless of the school's image and professional ranking, word-of-mouth via the internet will increasingly affect enrollment, and revenue from tuition. The message from one of the panelists was that U.S. schools are in a crisis situation, but academics and deans don't believe it.
A lot of the focus was on the increasing cost of obtaining a university education, and personally speaking this is a primary reason why we chose to move to Canada instead of the U.S. If we had moved to say, Washington state, then the kids would have been encouraged to attend "U Dub" in order to get in-state tuition. Currently, this is $8,710 per year, and out-of-state tuition is triple the in-state price tag at $25,329. It's possible that one or more of the kids might have been disappointed in the state university system and instead set their hearts on another school in another state. Assuming other states' fees are the same, a 4-year degree would set us back $100,000 plus the cost of travel etc. Private schools are somewhat pricier, and I imagine in the $40,000 range for a reasonably good school. There's a risk premium of between $15,000 and $30,000 per year, per kid, for each one that opts to go out-of-state or private.
In Canada, all public universties are around $5,000 per year for Canadians and $20,000 for non-Canadians. This means that all the schools across the country are the equivalent of "in-state" so our kids have a wide, affordable choice. We're encouraging them to attend the University of British Columbia (UBC) which is one of several local universities, but also happens to be ranked in the top 40 globally. They can live at home, get a great education, and not break mom and dad's piggy bank. Plus, they can get up to Whistler during the ski season and enjoy other hobbies like mountain climbing and biking. Many of their friends want to "get away" for university, but our kids "got away" their entire lives and are still learning what life is like in this foreign country of Canada, so luckily that's not an issue for us.
Today's On Point show http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/09/shaking-up-higher-ed is entitled "Shaking Up Higher Education" and is highly relevant to me. We have four boys, with the oldest in Grade 12 and ready to enter university in a year.
The discussion was on the competitiveness of American universities, which are facing overeas competition, increasing costs and are facing a growing push toward removing tenure. U.S. schools were (and are) the envy of the world, and I can say from personal experience that Asian parents work their children hard in order to get into prestigious schools. The goal seems to be "get in" as opposed "learn." This reminds me of my comment yesterday that the Republican goal seems to be "get elected" as opposed to "govern." Like any business, universities are affected by supply (schools) and demand (students) and need to provide a suitable value proposition to prospective students. Using the internet, students can research schools and will pay attention to what current students and recent graduates have to say. Regardless of the school's image and professional ranking, word-of-mouth via the internet will increasingly affect enrollment, and revenue from tuition. The message from one of the panelists was that U.S. schools are in a crisis situation, but academics and deans don't believe it.
A lot of the focus was on the increasing cost of obtaining a university education, and personally speaking this is a primary reason why we chose to move to Canada instead of the U.S. If we had moved to say, Washington state, then the kids would have been encouraged to attend "U Dub" in order to get in-state tuition. Currently, this is $8,710 per year, and out-of-state tuition is triple the in-state price tag at $25,329. It's possible that one or more of the kids might have been disappointed in the state university system and instead set their hearts on another school in another state. Assuming other states' fees are the same, a 4-year degree would set us back $100,000 plus the cost of travel etc. Private schools are somewhat pricier, and I imagine in the $40,000 range for a reasonably good school. There's a risk premium of between $15,000 and $30,000 per year, per kid, for each one that opts to go out-of-state or private.
In Canada, all public universties are around $5,000 per year for Canadians and $20,000 for non-Canadians. This means that all the schools across the country are the equivalent of "in-state" so our kids have a wide, affordable choice. We're encouraging them to attend the University of British Columbia (UBC) which is one of several local universities, but also happens to be ranked in the top 40 globally. They can live at home, get a great education, and not break mom and dad's piggy bank. Plus, they can get up to Whistler during the ski season and enjoy other hobbies like mountain climbing and biking. Many of their friends want to "get away" for university, but our kids "got away" their entire lives and are still learning what life is like in this foreign country of Canada, so luckily that's not an issue for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)