Imagine you have a 20-year-old son. Now, you're having a party at home and need a 12-pack of beer to re-stock the refrigerator. Your son drives up, returning from school and you run out, hop in the car and ask him to take you to the liquor store so you can buy some beer for your party. You get to the store and hop out and pick up some beer while your son stays in the car bobbing his head to the rock band playing on the radio. You grab the beer, put it in the trunk and slide into the passenger's seat and ask your son to take you home.
Re-read that paragraph above and imagine yourself as the Dad in that situation.
Did you realize that you have just committed an illegal act?
Bizarre as it may seem, it appears that driving someone (who is of legal drinking age) to a liquor store if you are underage is illegal. Notre Dame quarterback, Jimmy Clausen found that out when he was arrested as he was waiting outside in his car while his 23-year-old friend bought some liquor at a store. He said he was just driving his friend to the store and the arresting officers admit that there was no evidence that the liquor was for any minor consumption. Still, they arrested him, charged him with the offense, and had him pay a fine of $170.
I don't get it. Sometimes we go so crazy over protecting our kids from drinking that we reach ridiculous extremes. You can read the full story on ESPN here.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Trust No One
Have you ever heard of a kid who averages 89% on quizzes, tests, and projects but gets a D in the class because his average on homework assignments is a pathetic 39%?
Why? Most homework assignments were not turned in and the rest were turned in late!
How can that be? I don't get it. Isn't it reasonable to expect some effort at ensuring that the homework gets done on time and is done correctly?
Why? Most homework assignments were not turned in and the rest were turned in late!
How can that be? I don't get it. Isn't it reasonable to expect some effort at ensuring that the homework gets done on time and is done correctly?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Trapping Child Sex Offenders
Okay, so let's start with the basic premise over which there is no disagreement - pedophiles are scum. How desperate can you be that you can't find a consenting adult for your sex?
But, that's not the point of the post. The other excellent article in Rolling Stone is about this group called Perverted Justice that along with Dateline NBC is trying to trap these sexual predators into situations where they can be arrested and thrown in jail. Now that sounds like a perfectly admirable and laudable effort on the surface. However, the article is unnerving in terms of the lengths these guys go to in order to trap these people. Further, it makes the interesting point of whether all this money and effort is really being targeted at the people most likely to harm children. Ninety percent of the people caught in their nice little made for TV show have no rap sheet for sex offenses or arrest record of any kind. If you watch the show, it almost seems like some of these people have been tempted into these situations by pushy pretenders. Further, interestingly, by focusing on these online stranger encounters, attention is diverted from the real danger - not strangers, but family & friends. Looking at data on reported sex offenses, over ninety percent of perpetrators of child sex abuse are known to the child.
Apparently, there is already some increasing concern about this show that cloaks itself in virtue and morality. And, if the article is to be believed (who knows how biased the reporting is in the article), the leader of the movement is a strange dude himself - not someone I want my kids hanging out with.
You can read the full article by Vanessa Grigoriadis here.
But, that's not the point of the post. The other excellent article in Rolling Stone is about this group called Perverted Justice that along with Dateline NBC is trying to trap these sexual predators into situations where they can be arrested and thrown in jail. Now that sounds like a perfectly admirable and laudable effort on the surface. However, the article is unnerving in terms of the lengths these guys go to in order to trap these people. Further, it makes the interesting point of whether all this money and effort is really being targeted at the people most likely to harm children. Ninety percent of the people caught in their nice little made for TV show have no rap sheet for sex offenses or arrest record of any kind. If you watch the show, it almost seems like some of these people have been tempted into these situations by pushy pretenders. Further, interestingly, by focusing on these online stranger encounters, attention is diverted from the real danger - not strangers, but family & friends. Looking at data on reported sex offenses, over ninety percent of perpetrators of child sex abuse are known to the child.
Apparently, there is already some increasing concern about this show that cloaks itself in virtue and morality. And, if the article is to be believed (who knows how biased the reporting is in the article), the leader of the movement is a strange dude himself - not someone I want my kids hanging out with.
You can read the full article by Vanessa Grigoriadis here.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
If You Don't Support Corn Ethanol, You Must be a Terrorist!
There were a couple of outstanding articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine that are worth reading. One is about Ethanol as a substitute fuel and the other (which I may discuss in a later post) is about Dateline's show To Catch a Predator. Both are excellent because they reasonably and rationally build arguments that buck the conventional wisdom. Think due process and legal protection are worth sacrificing to catch potential pedophiles? Think again - if you want to bother considering where those resources could be better spent to achieve the broader goal of protecting children.
But, let's focus now on corn-based Ethanol - the biofuel that's going to save the earth! According to former CIA Director John Woolsey, "American farmers, by making a commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." Here are some quick facts from the article - summarized here for your protection:
But, let's focus now on corn-based Ethanol - the biofuel that's going to save the earth! According to former CIA Director John Woolsey, "American farmers, by making a commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." Here are some quick facts from the article - summarized here for your protection:
- Last month, the Senate mandated the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.
- Corn is today the most subsidized crop in America (getting twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans). Ethanol is further subsidized (including a 51-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners)
- Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5% of our gasoline consumption, but consumer 20% of the entire U.S. corn crop.
- The resulting increase in the price of corn means ...
- ...devoting more acreage to the production of corn (less land for other staple crops)
- ...giving incentive for South American farmers to destroy more tropical forests for corn fields
- Even corn growers admit that turning more grain into fuel would disrupt global food supplies.
- Ethanol's energy density (how much power you can generate from a certain amount of the fuel) is one-third less than gasoline.
- Since it has a tendency to absorb water, it can't be transported by pipelines, but must use truck or rail, which is inefficient and results in an increase in consumption of fossil fuels for delivery.
- When you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, transport, refine and grow corn into usable ethanol, its energy balance is 1.3-to-1 (the energy balance of gasoline is 5-to-1). Huge amount of fossil fuels are burned to produce corn.
- When corn ethanol is burned in automobiles, it is as "dirty" as conventional gasoline and does not help global warming.
- Even if ethanol producers manage to hit the mandated 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, that will replace only 7% of our current oil needs.
- Even if you were willing to give up ALL corn consumption and devote 100% of the U.S. corn crop for making ethanol, it would replace only 12% of current gasoline use. Ethanol is not the magic bullet to free us from dependence on foreign oil.
- Runoff from industrial-scale cornfields silts up the Mississippi river creating the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.
- Creating the equivalent of one SUV fill-up of pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn - enough calories to feed one person for a year.
- The increased devotion of corn to ethanol production has resulted in massive increases in the price of poultry , beef, and pork as farmers can't afford the corn to feed the animals.
- The biggest corporate beneficiary of corn subsidies and related tax breaks, ADM has cozy link to ethanol supporting politicians.
- The closer we get to the Iowa primary, the greater the rush among politicians to publicly shout their support for corn ethanol.
So forget the fact that ethanol is bad for the environment, does not help with global warming, does not reduce dependence on foreign oil (and may actually increase it), and may leave more of the world's poorest hungry. Because, as our friendly, caring politicians will let you know, if you don't support corn ethanol, you obviously hate our country, you unpatriotic SOB!
I urge you to read the full article in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell, here.
Monday, August 6, 2007
How Can You Absolutely Ensure We'll All Be OK?
Speaking of the Minnesota bridge collapse, I really need to chill sometimes. I don't know why idiocy bugs me so much. I've got to learn to tune it out!
I was at the Doctor's office on Friday and the TV was turned to CNN. A pretty blonde was interviewing the Secretary of Transportation. She asked such ridiculous questions that I felt like jumping up and yelling at the TV asking the woman to just shut up. However, I was luckily able to restrain myself and didn't alarm any of the elderly patients sitting in the lounge with me. Still, I was incensed enough to quickly write down the dumb questions on a sheet of paper (is that a normal response to being incensed?). Here's some of what the pretty blonde (PB) asked "What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?" (PB actually emphasized the word "ensure" even tapping her pen on the table to make the point) and "Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?" Remember, PB was not interviewing some dimwitted joe blow on the street with these questions - they were directed at the Secretary for Transportation! I know I could never hold public office because my responses to these questions would not have been as polite as Madam Secretary. Even if I'd managed to control myself, it may have gone something like this:
PB: What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?
ME: Well, PB, if you're so confident you can absolutely ensure (in a tone that mocks hers) that a future event does not happen, we'd love to employ you in our government. Perhaps I should ask what you are doing to ensure (continued mocking tone) that your vehicle does not fail tonight. In fact, I'm curious to know what you have done to ensure (mocking tone) that your jacket doesn't crumble while you are on the air embarrassing yourself and the network. To be serious, PB, we will do all we must to reduce the likelihood that such events don't happen again. I would argue the fact that this is such a rare and tragic event underscores that we're doing a good job of minimizing that likelihood. Do you realize how many bridges there are in this country and how many cars travel over these bridges every day? How about you calculate the likelihood of a bridge collapse causing a fatality. Surely there are more likely dangers we also need to focus our attention and resources on? Speaking of more likely dangers, I'd love to know what you've done to ensure (even more mocking tone) you or your family are not killed by lightning this week. But, I go on too long. I'd like to hear your next question.
PB: Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?"
ME: Well, PB, what else do you suggest should draw attention to the condition of bridges? Didn't you answer your question in your question? The very fact that you want attention (point emphasized by tapping a pen on the camera) drawn to something means that something has to happen to draw attention to it. The point, I think you are trying to make is whether this tragedy was preventable. And that is worthy of investigation. However, all of us are constantly making trade-offs between protecting our lives and reasonably getting on with things. By sitting under those heavy, hot studio lights, PB, you have essentially made the decision that the likelihood of those lights falling and killing you right now is not large enough for you to avoid sitting where you are and getting on with your job. A more intelligent question for you to have asked is: Could we reasonably have predicted this bridge collapsing at that time? Current indications are that the answer to that question is NO.
PB: Uh, well. I guess that's all ... We now take you to an interview with a victim of the collapse who was in a car when the bridge fell out from underneath her. Maam, how did you feel when you realized the bridge under you was collapsing?
ME: (muttering in the background assuming the mic is off) Dimwit!
I was at the Doctor's office on Friday and the TV was turned to CNN. A pretty blonde was interviewing the Secretary of Transportation. She asked such ridiculous questions that I felt like jumping up and yelling at the TV asking the woman to just shut up. However, I was luckily able to restrain myself and didn't alarm any of the elderly patients sitting in the lounge with me. Still, I was incensed enough to quickly write down the dumb questions on a sheet of paper (is that a normal response to being incensed?). Here's some of what the pretty blonde (PB) asked "What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?" (PB actually emphasized the word "ensure" even tapping her pen on the table to make the point) and "Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?" Remember, PB was not interviewing some dimwitted joe blow on the street with these questions - they were directed at the Secretary for Transportation! I know I could never hold public office because my responses to these questions would not have been as polite as Madam Secretary. Even if I'd managed to control myself, it may have gone something like this:
PB: What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?
ME: Well, PB, if you're so confident you can absolutely ensure (in a tone that mocks hers) that a future event does not happen, we'd love to employ you in our government. Perhaps I should ask what you are doing to ensure (continued mocking tone) that your vehicle does not fail tonight. In fact, I'm curious to know what you have done to ensure (mocking tone) that your jacket doesn't crumble while you are on the air embarrassing yourself and the network. To be serious, PB, we will do all we must to reduce the likelihood that such events don't happen again. I would argue the fact that this is such a rare and tragic event underscores that we're doing a good job of minimizing that likelihood. Do you realize how many bridges there are in this country and how many cars travel over these bridges every day? How about you calculate the likelihood of a bridge collapse causing a fatality. Surely there are more likely dangers we also need to focus our attention and resources on? Speaking of more likely dangers, I'd love to know what you've done to ensure (even more mocking tone) you or your family are not killed by lightning this week. But, I go on too long. I'd like to hear your next question.
PB: Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?"
ME: Well, PB, what else do you suggest should draw attention to the condition of bridges? Didn't you answer your question in your question? The very fact that you want attention (point emphasized by tapping a pen on the camera) drawn to something means that something has to happen to draw attention to it. The point, I think you are trying to make is whether this tragedy was preventable. And that is worthy of investigation. However, all of us are constantly making trade-offs between protecting our lives and reasonably getting on with things. By sitting under those heavy, hot studio lights, PB, you have essentially made the decision that the likelihood of those lights falling and killing you right now is not large enough for you to avoid sitting where you are and getting on with your job. A more intelligent question for you to have asked is: Could we reasonably have predicted this bridge collapsing at that time? Current indications are that the answer to that question is NO.
PB: Uh, well. I guess that's all ... We now take you to an interview with a victim of the collapse who was in a car when the bridge fell out from underneath her. Maam, how did you feel when you realized the bridge under you was collapsing?
ME: (muttering in the background assuming the mic is off) Dimwit!
Thursday, August 2, 2007
We're In Minnesota, and The Kids Are Alright!
I know some of you will think that I'm being cruel by poking fun at the genuine concern of my friends and relatives, but then you're missing the point.
I've always found it interesting how people are completely unable to reasonably calculate the odds of an event happening. They tend to distort the probabilities and think some things are much more likely to happen than they really are and others are much less likely to happen than they really are.
So, after the world's news media splashed the tragic story of the Minnesota bridge collapse across their pages and screens, I got emails from some friends and relatives just wanting to make sure we were alright.
What are the odds of my being in one of the fifty cars that were on the bridge when it collapsed. At the most naive level, the odds would be about 1 in 5 million (approximately the MN population) assuming that each resident of the state has an equal chance of being on the bridge at any given point in time. But, the bridge collapse happened in Minneapolis and I live about 150 miles away. Assuming that people living in Minneapolis have a much higher likelihood of being on the bridge at that particular time (or alternately that I have a much lower likelihood of being on a bridge in Minneapolis), that lowersthe odds somewhat. I am sure there are numerous other sophisticated adjustments that can be made to calculate a more accurate estimate of the odds of my being injured in the bridge collapse, but that isn't my point either.
Most of those who wrote expressed genuine concern and were not joking when they inquired about our safety. Yet, it is only such media-hyped stories that seem to elevate peoples' sense of danger, fear and the care of family. The odds of being struck by lightning are approximately 1 in 2 million. Yet, I don't get calls from concerned friends telling me they heard there was a lightning strike in Minnesota and they wanted to know if I was safe. Interestingly, it doesn't even seem to work on positive events. I have never received a call (and I would never expect to receive a serious call) from a relative saying "Oh, I heard the $25 million lottery winner was from Minnesota - I just wanted to check to see if it was you." There are so many more likely things that can befall me but the media seem to be very successful at heightening everyone's sense of insecurity and fear such that they are unable to reasonably evaluate the probability of the danger.
Think of the implications of this if your success depended on keeping people in a state of fear and insecurity ...
I've always found it interesting how people are completely unable to reasonably calculate the odds of an event happening. They tend to distort the probabilities and think some things are much more likely to happen than they really are and others are much less likely to happen than they really are.
So, after the world's news media splashed the tragic story of the Minnesota bridge collapse across their pages and screens, I got emails from some friends and relatives just wanting to make sure we were alright.
What are the odds of my being in one of the fifty cars that were on the bridge when it collapsed. At the most naive level, the odds would be about 1 in 5 million (approximately the MN population) assuming that each resident of the state has an equal chance of being on the bridge at any given point in time. But, the bridge collapse happened in Minneapolis and I live about 150 miles away. Assuming that people living in Minneapolis have a much higher likelihood of being on the bridge at that particular time (or alternately that I have a much lower likelihood of being on a bridge in Minneapolis), that lowersthe odds somewhat. I am sure there are numerous other sophisticated adjustments that can be made to calculate a more accurate estimate of the odds of my being injured in the bridge collapse, but that isn't my point either.
Most of those who wrote expressed genuine concern and were not joking when they inquired about our safety. Yet, it is only such media-hyped stories that seem to elevate peoples' sense of danger, fear and the care of family. The odds of being struck by lightning are approximately 1 in 2 million. Yet, I don't get calls from concerned friends telling me they heard there was a lightning strike in Minnesota and they wanted to know if I was safe. Interestingly, it doesn't even seem to work on positive events. I have never received a call (and I would never expect to receive a serious call) from a relative saying "Oh, I heard the $25 million lottery winner was from Minnesota - I just wanted to check to see if it was you." There are so many more likely things that can befall me but the media seem to be very successful at heightening everyone's sense of insecurity and fear such that they are unable to reasonably evaluate the probability of the danger.
Think of the implications of this if your success depended on keeping people in a state of fear and insecurity ...
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
I Loved What I Got Till I Saw What You Got!
It continues to be interesting how I fall victim to the same psychological foibles I read about and teach about. I guess it shouldn't be surprising given that I am a human being (despite what some people would say).
So, I know fully well that satisfaction should be based on the absolute value of the benefit you get. If you are given $100 why should the value of the $100 diminish just because you find out that your friend was given $150? But, we know it does. It triggers the "fairness" reaction that results in people repeatedly choosing to gain nothing rather than gaining something small while your "opponent" gains a large amount. Despite puzzling classical economists, it has been considered quite normal among behavioral scientists.
So, we get our listing of department salaries this week. And though I tried to tell myself I was being irrational, I couldn't suppress a surge of frustration and anger when I see a colleague get paid significantly more than me despite a lot of other work factors being the same. Interestingly, I keep telling myself I'm being silly, but can't get rid of the feeling that maybe I should do something about it. The question is not only what? but why?
So, I know fully well that satisfaction should be based on the absolute value of the benefit you get. If you are given $100 why should the value of the $100 diminish just because you find out that your friend was given $150? But, we know it does. It triggers the "fairness" reaction that results in people repeatedly choosing to gain nothing rather than gaining something small while your "opponent" gains a large amount. Despite puzzling classical economists, it has been considered quite normal among behavioral scientists.
So, we get our listing of department salaries this week. And though I tried to tell myself I was being irrational, I couldn't suppress a surge of frustration and anger when I see a colleague get paid significantly more than me despite a lot of other work factors being the same. Interestingly, I keep telling myself I'm being silly, but can't get rid of the feeling that maybe I should do something about it. The question is not only what? but why?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Winning Is Everything, Isn't It?
It's amazing how your perspective on an issue can change depending on context.
My son had the first game of his "baseball playoffs" last evening. His team was playing a team that had beaten them twice before. They were a good team and had won by a HUGE margin the last couple of times they met. Well, my son's team just romped to a massive victory, winning by over ten runs. Not being a baseball fan at all, I enjoyed watching them win, but got into a mild argument with my friend (who was visiting) about the importance of the win and how excited my son should be about winning by such a big margin. I said something to the effect of "big deal, it's just kids, it doesn't matter who wins, I feel sorry for the team that lost, he shouldn't gloat too much ..." He said that there's something about winning that is contagious and that winning should be encouraged just as much as playing. He suggested that I should be excited about the win and convey that excitement to my son rather than just brushing off the win as "just a lucky win."
While pondering this, I realized that even though I considered winning "no big deal" when it came to sports, I did consider it abig deal when it came to academics. So many times I have told my son that it is not good enough to do well in school and get okay grades. He has to be better than everyone else in the class. Isn't that the same as emphasizing "winning" over just "playing the game"?
My son had the first game of his "baseball playoffs" last evening. His team was playing a team that had beaten them twice before. They were a good team and had won by a HUGE margin the last couple of times they met. Well, my son's team just romped to a massive victory, winning by over ten runs. Not being a baseball fan at all, I enjoyed watching them win, but got into a mild argument with my friend (who was visiting) about the importance of the win and how excited my son should be about winning by such a big margin. I said something to the effect of "big deal, it's just kids, it doesn't matter who wins, I feel sorry for the team that lost, he shouldn't gloat too much ..." He said that there's something about winning that is contagious and that winning should be encouraged just as much as playing. He suggested that I should be excited about the win and convey that excitement to my son rather than just brushing off the win as "just a lucky win."
While pondering this, I realized that even though I considered winning "no big deal" when it came to sports, I did consider it abig deal when it came to academics. So many times I have told my son that it is not good enough to do well in school and get okay grades. He has to be better than everyone else in the class. Isn't that the same as emphasizing "winning" over just "playing the game"?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Golf: The Impossible Sport
I spent almost all day at a golf course today manning a tent at a local chamber of commerce golf tournament. Our School had sponsored a hole and I was chosen to stand at our tent and make nice with the golfers who went through all day.
First, I realized that I'm a lousy salesperson. I had no problem talking with the golfers and chatting them up. However, I just cannot talk to them about the program or hand them brochures about our school. Somehow that seems too much like a used car salesman. I like to talk but I hate to sell.
Second, I realized that no matter how terrible a golfer I am, I really have no need to be self conscious. People were hitting shots all over the place. While there were some beautiful drives, there were just as many (or more) wild shots.
First, I realized that I'm a lousy salesperson. I had no problem talking with the golfers and chatting them up. However, I just cannot talk to them about the program or hand them brochures about our school. Somehow that seems too much like a used car salesman. I like to talk but I hate to sell.
Second, I realized that no matter how terrible a golfer I am, I really have no need to be self conscious. People were hitting shots all over the place. While there were some beautiful drives, there were just as many (or more) wild shots.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Rushing to Judgment
Sorry to keep harping on this theme of "being judgmental," but I just can't resist.
Remember the days and days of headline stories on the disgusting behavior of the Duke University Lacrosse team? Remember the condemnation of those players? Recall how they were portrayed as a bunch of privileged white racist kids run amuck? The program was suspended, the coach resigned, the kids were tarred and feathered and deemed dangerous sexual predators. Millions of us read these stories and passed judgment on the kids and shook our heads in dismay at how these indisciplined rich kids were a sign of the decay in our society. As usual, I was among those who agreed that these were terrible acts, but they seemed so extreme and the kids' denials were so vehement that "there's got to be more to the story."
How many of you know what happened to those accused kids? Well, after those wonderfully salacious headlines that were splashed across every newspaper, there continued to be very tiny blurbs buried inside the newspapers that suggested that the prosecution's case was falling apart and maybe the accused activities never took place. Today's paper had an even tinier article saying that the County District Attorney had just apologized to the players admitting that there was never any credible evidence of rape. When the players were accused, this man stood before the throng of media microphones and expressed self-righteous indignation at the outrage. He zealously pushed and brought these young men to trial. He proclaimed their guilt and the media lapped up the scandal with relish and enjoyed spreading the story far and wide.
How many lives have been destroyed because of people jostling before the media in order to demonstrate their righteous indignation at the behavior of these "rich white kids"? Jesse Jackson promised that his Rainbow/PUSH coalition would pay the college tuition for the black woman who accused the white lacrosse players of rape. Here's a great little blog note from John in North Caroline that expresses my thoughts better than I could.
I doubt any of you could know how it feels to be accused of rape, racism, lose your job, have a stain across your character all because of our love of sound-bite information and our rush to judge. Don't ever feel shocked at the stupidity of the people during the Salem witch trials. It's not just history.
Remember the days and days of headline stories on the disgusting behavior of the Duke University Lacrosse team? Remember the condemnation of those players? Recall how they were portrayed as a bunch of privileged white racist kids run amuck? The program was suspended, the coach resigned, the kids were tarred and feathered and deemed dangerous sexual predators. Millions of us read these stories and passed judgment on the kids and shook our heads in dismay at how these indisciplined rich kids were a sign of the decay in our society. As usual, I was among those who agreed that these were terrible acts, but they seemed so extreme and the kids' denials were so vehement that "there's got to be more to the story."
How many of you know what happened to those accused kids? Well, after those wonderfully salacious headlines that were splashed across every newspaper, there continued to be very tiny blurbs buried inside the newspapers that suggested that the prosecution's case was falling apart and maybe the accused activities never took place. Today's paper had an even tinier article saying that the County District Attorney had just apologized to the players admitting that there was never any credible evidence of rape. When the players were accused, this man stood before the throng of media microphones and expressed self-righteous indignation at the outrage. He zealously pushed and brought these young men to trial. He proclaimed their guilt and the media lapped up the scandal with relish and enjoyed spreading the story far and wide.
How many lives have been destroyed because of people jostling before the media in order to demonstrate their righteous indignation at the behavior of these "rich white kids"? Jesse Jackson promised that his Rainbow/PUSH coalition would pay the college tuition for the black woman who accused the white lacrosse players of rape. Here's a great little blog note from John in North Caroline that expresses my thoughts better than I could.
I doubt any of you could know how it feels to be accused of rape, racism, lose your job, have a stain across your character all because of our love of sound-bite information and our rush to judge. Don't ever feel shocked at the stupidity of the people during the Salem witch trials. It's not just history.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Top Spin 2
I recently had a post here about my struggles with a forehand tennis shot and how the coach asked me to try changing my starting position with the racket held low instead of up in front of my chest. I reported an immediate improvement, but tempered my optimism by saying I needed to play more to see if the problem really was fixed.
I've played a few more times since then and while I certainly felt better about my forehand stroke, it still didn't feel right and certainly did not feel fully comfortable. I would end each day of playing with an increasing sense of frustration. I could play okay and get the shots over the net, but it never felt "right." I still felt there was one little thing missing in my shots.
This morning, I went out with a friend of mine (who has been playing for many years) and he agreed to help me a bit. After hitting the ball for a while, he asked me to make one small change in my stroke. The simple instruction was "when you hit your forehand shot, hit so that the racket ends up by your left ear." You absolutely would not believe the dramatic change that took place instantly. This time I know there is a huge improvement. No more cautious optimism. That simple instruction completely changed the way I approached forehand shots. Not only did I follow through properly and get the top spin that I have been desperate to get, but the shots felt comfortable. Immediately, the strokes felt much more natural and I was able to hit the ball with more power, confidence, and accuracy than ever before.
I ended my last "top spin post" with the statement "More evidence of the importance of having a good teacher!" I'd like to modify that now. While a good teacher is essential, it is also important to have the personal attention that allows the teacher the time to work on your specific areas of weakness. While my coach was helpful, he was coaching four of us at the same time and since I was the only one with the forehand problem, it didn't get the attention it needed. With my friend just looking to solve my problem (and that too focusing on one problem) we found a solution much faster.
Maybe the implications of this go beyond a tennis stroke and into teaching, parenting and schooling ...
I've played a few more times since then and while I certainly felt better about my forehand stroke, it still didn't feel right and certainly did not feel fully comfortable. I would end each day of playing with an increasing sense of frustration. I could play okay and get the shots over the net, but it never felt "right." I still felt there was one little thing missing in my shots.
This morning, I went out with a friend of mine (who has been playing for many years) and he agreed to help me a bit. After hitting the ball for a while, he asked me to make one small change in my stroke. The simple instruction was "when you hit your forehand shot, hit so that the racket ends up by your left ear." You absolutely would not believe the dramatic change that took place instantly. This time I know there is a huge improvement. No more cautious optimism. That simple instruction completely changed the way I approached forehand shots. Not only did I follow through properly and get the top spin that I have been desperate to get, but the shots felt comfortable. Immediately, the strokes felt much more natural and I was able to hit the ball with more power, confidence, and accuracy than ever before.
I ended my last "top spin post" with the statement "More evidence of the importance of having a good teacher!" I'd like to modify that now. While a good teacher is essential, it is also important to have the personal attention that allows the teacher the time to work on your specific areas of weakness. While my coach was helpful, he was coaching four of us at the same time and since I was the only one with the forehand problem, it didn't get the attention it needed. With my friend just looking to solve my problem (and that too focusing on one problem) we found a solution much faster.
Maybe the implications of this go beyond a tennis stroke and into teaching, parenting and schooling ...
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Adventurousness at a young age
There's no denying that we are all conditioned to have preferences. Things that are familiar to us and that we grew up with will usually be looked upon more fondly than something completely unfamiliar. I'm thinking specifically about food preferences. There's actual research somewhere that demonstrated that irrespective of how good or bad a cook someone is, the kids often look fondly back on "mom's cooking" and identify at least one dish that their mom made "perfectly" (even though others may not have found that dish to be particularly well made.)
Anyway, that's not my point. I wonder whether a person's open-mindedness to trying (and liking) new foods can be encouraged or adjusted during childhood. I noticed that my kids are generally quite dismissive of completely unfamiliar foods. I take them to a great restaurant in France and they are more likely to order hamburgers than goose liver paté. Sometimes, when I really egg them on, they'll take a small bite and immediately declare (before it has even been given a chance to rest on their tongue an instant), "I don't like it." The reason I started thinking about this was that I spent a few days in Italy with my brothers' kids (about the same general age as my kids). The 12-year-old was extremely adventurous in his choice of foods. At restaurants, he would order something that seemed quite unfamiliar (e.g., lamb cutlets milanese style) and attack these foods with great enthusiasm when they arrived at the table. Without any urging, he would ask his Dad what he had ordered and ask for a taste with a statement like "I wonder what that tastes like, can I try some?" He actually avoided the widely available pizza in Italy with a comment to the effect "Oh, that's too boring, I can get that anywhere" before ordering something more esoteric.
This came across to me as very mature and sophisticated and I wondered how I can wean my kids away from the burger and pizza approach to trying foods when away from home and get them to want to try new foods and make an effort to actually like them. That is, I want them to assume it must be good food if it is popular in the country they're visiting and assume they will like it unless consistently proven otherwise. Is there anything I can do to get them to actually develop a taste for unfamiliar foods?
If I find an answer, I'll try it on my wife too! :)
Anyway, that's not my point. I wonder whether a person's open-mindedness to trying (and liking) new foods can be encouraged or adjusted during childhood. I noticed that my kids are generally quite dismissive of completely unfamiliar foods. I take them to a great restaurant in France and they are more likely to order hamburgers than goose liver paté. Sometimes, when I really egg them on, they'll take a small bite and immediately declare (before it has even been given a chance to rest on their tongue an instant), "I don't like it." The reason I started thinking about this was that I spent a few days in Italy with my brothers' kids (about the same general age as my kids). The 12-year-old was extremely adventurous in his choice of foods. At restaurants, he would order something that seemed quite unfamiliar (e.g., lamb cutlets milanese style) and attack these foods with great enthusiasm when they arrived at the table. Without any urging, he would ask his Dad what he had ordered and ask for a taste with a statement like "I wonder what that tastes like, can I try some?" He actually avoided the widely available pizza in Italy with a comment to the effect "Oh, that's too boring, I can get that anywhere" before ordering something more esoteric.
This came across to me as very mature and sophisticated and I wondered how I can wean my kids away from the burger and pizza approach to trying foods when away from home and get them to want to try new foods and make an effort to actually like them. That is, I want them to assume it must be good food if it is popular in the country they're visiting and assume they will like it unless consistently proven otherwise. Is there anything I can do to get them to actually develop a taste for unfamiliar foods?
If I find an answer, I'll try it on my wife too! :)
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Screeching Ladies Can Be Beautiful
It is probably not surprising to most of you that the more you know about something, the more you learn to appreciate it. I can point to hundreds of examples in my own life where I have disliked something and scoffed at people who like it only to learn more over time and then become one of those very people I scoffed at. When I moved to the US, I smugly smirked at people who watched football wondering how they could waste three hours watching fat men just smack into each other with no particular goal. I recall branding football as a slow-moving, pointless game. That's before a friend of mine bothered to sit with me at games and explain exactly what was going on. Today, I'm known to be one of the most vocal football fans around. There are hundreds of music artists I disliked and labeled "lousy musicians" until I learned more about the musicians and their background which made me appreciate their music much more. The list goes on and on. Even on societal and political issues, I have consistently discovered that despite easily making judgments about people and things based on what I read in the media, there is almost always more to the story. Digging deeper into almost any story will reveal that it is not as simple as the media makes it out to be. People are not as foolish (or smart) as they are made out to be. Reality is much more complex.
As a result, I have now moved to this extreme of "non-judgmentalism." I can't stand people who make broad judgmental statements about athletes, politicians, Americans, French, parenting, behavior, etc. because I always believe that these judgements are far too often based on incomplete information. The more you know, the more you can appreciate is my motto.
The latest event to reinforce this belief is my change of heart on my historically flippant comments about opera. I always thought opera to be weird. I mean, why do these women scream at such high pitches? How can you listen to hours of people screeching at high volumes where you can't understand the words?
In Milan last week, I went to see La Traviata at La Scala. My brother (who was paying for the tickets) insisted that I learn about the opera before going for the show. He gave me a short (about 60 minutes) CD that introduced and explained the opera. It didn't just outlnie the story, but provided some historical context of opera in general, the historical and societal context of this opera, some background on Guiseppe Verdi, etc. Then, it went through the opera act by act explaining not just the story, but also the singing and elements of the singing to watch for. After the show, I was a complete convert. It isn't screeching but an astonishing control of voice as a musical instrument. The elaborate sets, overacting and drama all make sense if you understand how opera developed as musical theater and who it was intended for.
I learned to appreciate and love the music. So much so that I ordered two versions of the opera on CD (should be arriving this week). I think I'll start seeking out more opera opportunities. This is why I love learning so much. The more you learn, the more you can appreciate. The unfortunate side effect of this is that you tend to see all sides to every story. If I ever ran for office, I would be the ultimate "waffler" or "flip flopper" and actually proud of it!
As a result, I have now moved to this extreme of "non-judgmentalism." I can't stand people who make broad judgmental statements about athletes, politicians, Americans, French, parenting, behavior, etc. because I always believe that these judgements are far too often based on incomplete information. The more you know, the more you can appreciate is my motto.
The latest event to reinforce this belief is my change of heart on my historically flippant comments about opera. I always thought opera to be weird. I mean, why do these women scream at such high pitches? How can you listen to hours of people screeching at high volumes where you can't understand the words?
In Milan last week, I went to see La Traviata at La Scala. My brother (who was paying for the tickets) insisted that I learn about the opera before going for the show. He gave me a short (about 60 minutes) CD that introduced and explained the opera. It didn't just outlnie the story, but provided some historical context of opera in general, the historical and societal context of this opera, some background on Guiseppe Verdi, etc. Then, it went through the opera act by act explaining not just the story, but also the singing and elements of the singing to watch for. After the show, I was a complete convert. It isn't screeching but an astonishing control of voice as a musical instrument. The elaborate sets, overacting and drama all make sense if you understand how opera developed as musical theater and who it was intended for.
I learned to appreciate and love the music. So much so that I ordered two versions of the opera on CD (should be arriving this week). I think I'll start seeking out more opera opportunities. This is why I love learning so much. The more you learn, the more you can appreciate. The unfortunate side effect of this is that you tend to see all sides to every story. If I ever ran for office, I would be the ultimate "waffler" or "flip flopper" and actually proud of it!
Monday, July 23, 2007
Bag Found In Time for Return
I left for Milan on July 10 and discovered to my relief that Northwest Airlines/KLM is better at ferrying people around the world than baggage. I guess I should consider myself fortunate that they were able to keep track of me and ensure I reached my destination safely.
My one and only checked in bag did not share my good fortune. Not only did my bag not make it on to the flight to Milan, but NW/KLM had no real idea where it was. On arrival in Italy, I was told that it was in Amsterdam and it would be there that evening or the next day. Three days later, I was told that the only thing they knew for sure was that the bag never left Detroit. Another three days later, they admitted that they had no idea where my bag was.
I don't get it. In these days of heightened security, wouldn't someone notice a bag lying anywhere in an airport untouched for several days? Surely baggage handlers must have a minimal amount of criosity regarding this lonely bag lying untouched in a corner? Wouldn't someone stepping on the large garment bag on their way in and out of work start wondering after a few days whether it is worth checking to see if the bag is supposed to be just lying around there?
Well baggage handlers are apparently not a curious lot. After almost completely giving up hope on this bag eveer being found, I got a call on July 17 saying that the bag had been found and would be delivered to me that night. I spent the evening waiting for the bag only to be crushed in diappointment again. Finally, mid-day on July 18, my bag was delivered in one piece. The only problem was that I was leaving Italy for my return to the USA on July 21.
So, I did have two days to enjoy my shaver, tooth brush, and clean underwear.
My one and only checked in bag did not share my good fortune. Not only did my bag not make it on to the flight to Milan, but NW/KLM had no real idea where it was. On arrival in Italy, I was told that it was in Amsterdam and it would be there that evening or the next day. Three days later, I was told that the only thing they knew for sure was that the bag never left Detroit. Another three days later, they admitted that they had no idea where my bag was.
I don't get it. In these days of heightened security, wouldn't someone notice a bag lying anywhere in an airport untouched for several days? Surely baggage handlers must have a minimal amount of criosity regarding this lonely bag lying untouched in a corner? Wouldn't someone stepping on the large garment bag on their way in and out of work start wondering after a few days whether it is worth checking to see if the bag is supposed to be just lying around there?
Well baggage handlers are apparently not a curious lot. After almost completely giving up hope on this bag eveer being found, I got a call on July 17 saying that the bag had been found and would be delivered to me that night. I spent the evening waiting for the bag only to be crushed in diappointment again. Finally, mid-day on July 18, my bag was delivered in one piece. The only problem was that I was leaving Italy for my return to the USA on July 21.
So, I did have two days to enjoy my shaver, tooth brush, and clean underwear.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Dormancy
Usually, when I travel, I have a ton of things to talk about (review my recent Poland trip posts). However, my whole blogging deal assumes easy and regular access to the Internet. After I returned from Poland, I was so overwhelmed at work, that I ignored this blog for a while. Then, I headed off to Milan for a conference and assumed I would restart this blog. However, despite staying at a decent hotel right in Milan which is costing me 150 euros a night, they do not have internet access in the rooms!
And I DO have a lot to write about. Most importantly my miserable adventures with Northwest Airlines. I have been in Milan 4 days now and I have NO BAGS. Northwest-KLM cannot find them anywhere and cannot tell me when they may be delivered.
I just decided to check my email and noticed Tom Dooley's comment on this blog's apparent death. Tom, the problem is Internet access. I promise to post my whole bag adventure here the moment I get reliable internet access late at night when I don't have to sit in the lobby to access email.
The notices of this blog's death were premature.
And I DO have a lot to write about. Most importantly my miserable adventures with Northwest Airlines. I have been in Milan 4 days now and I have NO BAGS. Northwest-KLM cannot find them anywhere and cannot tell me when they may be delivered.
I just decided to check my email and noticed Tom Dooley's comment on this blog's apparent death. Tom, the problem is Internet access. I promise to post my whole bag adventure here the moment I get reliable internet access late at night when I don't have to sit in the lobby to access email.
The notices of this blog's death were premature.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Clothes On The Floor
As I sit at the computer right now, I'm seething.
I truly do not understand why it is so difficult to take your dirty clothes (as you take them off) and put them down the laundry chute that is six steps away from your room. All three of my kids have inherited my wife's comfort level with living in a mess.
I just argued with my son who has his entire floor covered with clothes. I asked him what these clothes were and why they were on the floor and he rather indignantly replied that they're supposed to be on the floor because they're dirty. I do not get it. When I take any article of clothing off, I hold them in my hands or have them nearby in order to drop them down the laundry chute. It is not a difficult task. More importantly, I do not understand how his room can even get to that stage of messiness. I mean, surely when these kids walk into their rooms and see the floor covered with clothes, some rational thoughts go through their heads wondering why the entire floor is covered with clothes. I'm not talking about one or two items. But, can you explain to me how you can walk into a room where the floor is covered with dirty clothes (again and again and again) and not even notice that they need to be disposed off appropriately (with the relatively effortless act of flinging them down a laundry chute)?
There must be some research into this ...
I truly do not understand why it is so difficult to take your dirty clothes (as you take them off) and put them down the laundry chute that is six steps away from your room. All three of my kids have inherited my wife's comfort level with living in a mess.
I just argued with my son who has his entire floor covered with clothes. I asked him what these clothes were and why they were on the floor and he rather indignantly replied that they're supposed to be on the floor because they're dirty. I do not get it. When I take any article of clothing off, I hold them in my hands or have them nearby in order to drop them down the laundry chute. It is not a difficult task. More importantly, I do not understand how his room can even get to that stage of messiness. I mean, surely when these kids walk into their rooms and see the floor covered with clothes, some rational thoughts go through their heads wondering why the entire floor is covered with clothes. I'm not talking about one or two items. But, can you explain to me how you can walk into a room where the floor is covered with dirty clothes (again and again and again) and not even notice that they need to be disposed off appropriately (with the relatively effortless act of flinging them down a laundry chute)?
There must be some research into this ...
Friday, June 22, 2007
First Born Intelligence
It looks like latest research supports something I've believed for a while based on anecdotal evidence. In generally, in families with multiple children, the first born ends up being more intelligent not because of genetics but because of the way their parents treat them.
It's hard for a fish to see the water it lives in. But, I often hear comments from relatives (okay, mainly my Mom) that I seem to be harder on my eldest son than I am on the other kids. While I often brush away these comments, sometimes, when confronted with specific examples, I see how I might expect more from him than I expect from the other kids. It is so easy to compare his performance with the other kids and demand that he meet a higher standard than the others because he's "so much older."
I think it's unfair, but at least I can now rest easy knowing that it's for his good in the long run! :-)
It's hard for a fish to see the water it lives in. But, I often hear comments from relatives (okay, mainly my Mom) that I seem to be harder on my eldest son than I am on the other kids. While I often brush away these comments, sometimes, when confronted with specific examples, I see how I might expect more from him than I expect from the other kids. It is so easy to compare his performance with the other kids and demand that he meet a higher standard than the others because he's "so much older."
I think it's unfair, but at least I can now rest easy knowing that it's for his good in the long run! :-)
Thursday, June 21, 2007
What Will You Have Done At The End of Today?
I know this is a problem I have, but I can't seem to get out of the trap and it's coloring my perceptions of other people. Sometimes I think it's unfair, but at other times I wonder whether people really are relatively inefficient users of time.
Enough with being cryptic. I'm talking about the fact that I'm a list maker. I have so many things going on and so many tasks that need to be completed that I'm completely driven by my Outlook calendar. If it doesn't get on my calendar, it doesn't get done. Every little task that needs to be done must be scheduled on my calendar. I actually use my calendar as a "To Do List" of sorts. Because I'll often schedule a task during any empty spot on my schedule and not actually do it at that time. However, it then gets on my reminder list automatically and pops up whenever I open Outlook at the start of every day. So, even if I didn't complete a task, it stares me in the face every day all day.
The interesting thing is that when I don't actually fill up my calendar with tasks, I still keep busy doing lots of things (I'm never just sitting idle wondering what to do), but I don't get anything important done on those days. I stay busy, but at the end of the day, I realize I got very little done. As a result, I have started to dislike people who don't maintain a clear To Do list of what they want to achieve that day. I believe that they essentially end up being completely unproductive during the day. They stay "busy" and feel that they're oh so busy, but don't really get any projects done. I think if you don't set clear goals of what you're going to achieve each day, you'll end up finding ways to fill up your time with inefficient nonsense. If you don't have a clearly defined set of tasks for each hour of the day, it is easy to keep busy and then not make any headway on your major projects. It's not that I'm never behind. In fact, as I said, I often don't get things done during the scheduled time slots since numerous other things crop up each day. However, when that happens, because it is now an ongoing reminder, I know when I'm behind and then schedule times at night or weekends to catch up. If you don't have the task list, you could end up not getting much work done on major projects and not lose any sleep over it. You still watch TV, putter around and relax (because you've worked so hard getting nothing done during the day), get to bed early, and wake up the next day with a fresh goal of nothing.
If you don't know exactly what you're going to get done each day or week, that's exactly what you'll get done.
Enough with being cryptic. I'm talking about the fact that I'm a list maker. I have so many things going on and so many tasks that need to be completed that I'm completely driven by my Outlook calendar. If it doesn't get on my calendar, it doesn't get done. Every little task that needs to be done must be scheduled on my calendar. I actually use my calendar as a "To Do List" of sorts. Because I'll often schedule a task during any empty spot on my schedule and not actually do it at that time. However, it then gets on my reminder list automatically and pops up whenever I open Outlook at the start of every day. So, even if I didn't complete a task, it stares me in the face every day all day.
The interesting thing is that when I don't actually fill up my calendar with tasks, I still keep busy doing lots of things (I'm never just sitting idle wondering what to do), but I don't get anything important done on those days. I stay busy, but at the end of the day, I realize I got very little done. As a result, I have started to dislike people who don't maintain a clear To Do list of what they want to achieve that day. I believe that they essentially end up being completely unproductive during the day. They stay "busy" and feel that they're oh so busy, but don't really get any projects done. I think if you don't set clear goals of what you're going to achieve each day, you'll end up finding ways to fill up your time with inefficient nonsense. If you don't have a clearly defined set of tasks for each hour of the day, it is easy to keep busy and then not make any headway on your major projects. It's not that I'm never behind. In fact, as I said, I often don't get things done during the scheduled time slots since numerous other things crop up each day. However, when that happens, because it is now an ongoing reminder, I know when I'm behind and then schedule times at night or weekends to catch up. If you don't have the task list, you could end up not getting much work done on major projects and not lose any sleep over it. You still watch TV, putter around and relax (because you've worked so hard getting nothing done during the day), get to bed early, and wake up the next day with a fresh goal of nothing.
If you don't know exactly what you're going to get done each day or week, that's exactly what you'll get done.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Why Are You Doing That?
I've always been interested in attribution theory. Basically, how do individuals observing an action decide to what to attribute that action? Why is it that two people observing a single person acting a certain way can make differing attributions? When do you make personal attributions to a behavior as opposed to situational attributions (that is, when do you you attribute a behavior to a person's conscious decision to act that way as opposed to a response to an external situation)?
I have always tended to make situational attributions when others make personal attributions.
But when there is a high consistency of behavior across situations, theory suggests that people would make personal attributions.
What do you do when you think someone is trying to make your life miserable? Whenever you tell them what you would like, you find them ensuring that the opposite happens? And that happens over and over again in a variety of different situations?
For some reason, I find it hard to overcome my natural tendency to make situational attributions. Could it be that this person is actively working to undermine me?
I have always tended to make situational attributions when others make personal attributions.
But when there is a high consistency of behavior across situations, theory suggests that people would make personal attributions.
What do you do when you think someone is trying to make your life miserable? Whenever you tell them what you would like, you find them ensuring that the opposite happens? And that happens over and over again in a variety of different situations?
For some reason, I find it hard to overcome my natural tendency to make situational attributions. Could it be that this person is actively working to undermine me?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Top Spin
I started taking tennis lessons several months ago and started to really enjoy the game a lot. Then, the coach got busy with his college teams and although I continued to play occasionally, I stopped getting the coaching for several months.
For some strange reason, I really struggled with my forehand and had no trouble with my backhand. For most people, it is the opposite. I was completely unable to manage any top spin with my forehand and continually sliced the ball when returning a forehand shot.
I knew it was something very simple I was doing wrong and longed for a return to the coaching. Amazingly, when we had our first lesson in months this week, I explained my problem and frustration to the coach and he fixed it almost instantly. Essentially, he just asked me to stand with my racket held low to the ground instead of up above my waist. Almost immediately I could see a difference in my swing and the way the ball responded to being hit. I still need to practice this swing to see if the problem really is fixed, but his explanation made sense. More evidence of the importance of having a good teacher!
For some strange reason, I really struggled with my forehand and had no trouble with my backhand. For most people, it is the opposite. I was completely unable to manage any top spin with my forehand and continually sliced the ball when returning a forehand shot.
I knew it was something very simple I was doing wrong and longed for a return to the coaching. Amazingly, when we had our first lesson in months this week, I explained my problem and frustration to the coach and he fixed it almost instantly. Essentially, he just asked me to stand with my racket held low to the ground instead of up above my waist. Almost immediately I could see a difference in my swing and the way the ball responded to being hit. I still need to practice this swing to see if the problem really is fixed, but his explanation made sense. More evidence of the importance of having a good teacher!
Monday, June 18, 2007
An Exercise in Game Theory
My colleague and I who were traveling together from Poland had an experience on Sunday that should serve as an excellent discussion point on game theory. Okay, here's the setup: He and I were able to communicate on the flight in to Detroit and, since we had a VERY short time for a connecting flight, agreed that we would not wait for each other if one of us got their baggage early. We agreed that whoever got their bags would head straight to the gate of the connecting flight and see if there is any chance of getting on.
When we landed (we got our bags at the same time), we were told by the airline representative that we could not make the flight. Instead, we were booked on a later flight through a different city. So, we just decided to go to the gate for the new flight. On getting through security, I happened to look at some flight monitors and noticed that the earlier flight was delayed slightly and there was a very small chance that we could catch it if we rushed straight to the gate for that flight. I whirled around and could not see my colleague anywhere. He did not have a cell phone, so there was no way of contacting him. What would you do?
Well, I assumed that (a) either he also noticed that the flight was delayed and had headed straight to that gate, (b) he was walking towards the gate for the later flight and would notice that the earlier flight was delayed and rush there, or (c) he would never realize that the earlier flight was delayed and he would be comfortably ensconced at the gate for the later flight waiting for me. What would you do in this situation? If you go to the gate for the later flight looking for him, you will almost certainly miss the earlier flight. Perfect game theory situation where you have to respond in anticipation of how someone else will respond without being able to communicate with them!
I went running to the gate for the earlier flight, hoping he would already be there. In two of the three options he would be there. In the third option, neither one of us would make the earlier flight. It would have been foolish to head to the gate for the later flight and I assumed he would realize this and head straight to the gate for the earlier flight. No such luck. I was able to board the flight and get home earlier, never knowing what happened to my colleague (he managed to get another flight home).
I was surprised to find that he seemed upset that I had not come to the gate for the later flight to get him (given the time limitation, that would have been impossible). Amazingly, he seemed to suggest that he had noticed that the earlier flight was delayed but still chose to go to the gate for the later flight assuming I would come there. My own guess of his response was that if he had noticed the flight was delayed, obviously the previous agreement (which was premised on taking any possible chance of one of us managing to catch the earlier flight) would supercede the later decision to head to the gate for the later flight (since this later decision was based on the assumption that it was impossible to catch the earlier flight).
Obvious breakdown of game theory because of some indeterminate differences in our assumptions on how the other person would act. Strange and interesting ...
When we landed (we got our bags at the same time), we were told by the airline representative that we could not make the flight. Instead, we were booked on a later flight through a different city. So, we just decided to go to the gate for the new flight. On getting through security, I happened to look at some flight monitors and noticed that the earlier flight was delayed slightly and there was a very small chance that we could catch it if we rushed straight to the gate for that flight. I whirled around and could not see my colleague anywhere. He did not have a cell phone, so there was no way of contacting him. What would you do?
Well, I assumed that (a) either he also noticed that the flight was delayed and had headed straight to that gate, (b) he was walking towards the gate for the later flight and would notice that the earlier flight was delayed and rush there, or (c) he would never realize that the earlier flight was delayed and he would be comfortably ensconced at the gate for the later flight waiting for me. What would you do in this situation? If you go to the gate for the later flight looking for him, you will almost certainly miss the earlier flight. Perfect game theory situation where you have to respond in anticipation of how someone else will respond without being able to communicate with them!
I went running to the gate for the earlier flight, hoping he would already be there. In two of the three options he would be there. In the third option, neither one of us would make the earlier flight. It would have been foolish to head to the gate for the later flight and I assumed he would realize this and head straight to the gate for the earlier flight. No such luck. I was able to board the flight and get home earlier, never knowing what happened to my colleague (he managed to get another flight home).
I was surprised to find that he seemed upset that I had not come to the gate for the later flight to get him (given the time limitation, that would have been impossible). Amazingly, he seemed to suggest that he had noticed that the earlier flight was delayed but still chose to go to the gate for the later flight assuming I would come there. My own guess of his response was that if he had noticed the flight was delayed, obviously the previous agreement (which was premised on taking any possible chance of one of us managing to catch the earlier flight) would supercede the later decision to head to the gate for the later flight (since this later decision was based on the assumption that it was impossible to catch the earlier flight).
Obvious breakdown of game theory because of some indeterminate differences in our assumptions on how the other person would act. Strange and interesting ...
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Simple Endings Are Never Easy
I was actually hoping to end my blogging about the Poland trip with a simple sentence about an uneventful trip back home on Saturday. Were I only that lucky ...
Early morning on Saturday, one of our hosts, Radek, picked us up at the hotel for the 2.5 hour drive to Warsaw from Olsztyn. Our flight was at 12 noon and everyone suggested that we leave by 6:30 AM to be safe. So we did. The drive to Warsaw airport was quite uneventful and we arrived at the airport very early (by 9:45 AM). After a little confusion about which terminal to go to, we waited around the crowded, disorganized and confused terminal for check in. It's weird. They have a medium-sized hall with a bunch of check-in windows along three sides of the hall. In the middle of this hall, there is a large jumble of people waiting for ther flight check-in to open. Mingled with this shifting mass of people are those who are already in line for their check-in counter. At first glance, it is difficult to see who is standing where and why. Eventually, with the help of an information window, we found put which counters would be open for our flight and just waited around for it to open.
The flight to Amsterdam was smooth and uneventful. Once in Amsterdam, we went through the security check for our flight and were told that it was delayed. We waited around for a few hours (with no additional information update) and then were told that the flight (which was scheduled to leave Amsterdam at 3:30 PM) had been "delayed" until 9 AM the next morning! Even this information we gathered from the mass of people who let out a collective graon. The announcement on what to do was made while some other airport announcements were being made and was basically unintelligible. There was a mass movement of bodies towards the counters as everyone asked everyone else around them what exactly was said. I gathered from the crowd that we were to go to baggage claim #3 to get hotel vouchers for the night.
At passport control, my colleague who was traveling with me got stuck (which I didn't know as he was behind me) because he had an Indian passport and they needed to issue him a visa to enter the Netherlands for the night. Meanwhile, I was issued a hotel voucher and shipped off to a poky hotel with tiny rooms. That started a whole bunch of events including numerous cross-continental calls as I tried to track down my colleague. Realizing that there are only two flights from Detroit to Duluth (one at 12 noon and one at 9:30 PM), I also called Northwest Airlines and had them rebook us on the 8 AM flight from Amsterdam as the 9 AM departure would result in us being unable to catch the 12 noon flight (and the idea of spending many more hours in Detroit at that point was not appealing). After a whole series of communications which are too long and confusing to detail here, I managed to get in touch with my colleague and asked him to get to the airport early. When I got to the airport, I was told that there was no way we could travel on the 8 AM flight since our baggage was loaded on the "delayed to 9 AM" flight. They emphasized that for international travel, the passenger must travel with the bags. After unsuccessfully speaking with many people and getting the same answer, we resigned ourselves to working things out after getting to Detroit.
On our arrival in Detroit, the ticket agent re-routed us through Minneapolis and then to Duluth, getting us in to Duluth at 6:30 PM. I specifically asked her if there was any chance of making the 12 noon flight and she said "No, it's too late for that one" since it was about 11:45 AM at this point. I even answered saying "I know, but I was hoping it was delayed." She shook her head.
Since there was plenty of time, I took my time going through security and sitting on a chair past the security to tie my shoelaces. Then, just for the heck of it, I wandered over to the bank of monitors to find that the 12 noon flight to Duluth had been delayed to (according tot he monitors) 12:17 PM. At this point it was a few minutes to 12 noon. I whirled around to look for my colleague to tell him we should just head to that gate to see if there is even a small chance of getting on the flight, but I could not find him. Assuming that he had walked past me (not having seen me waling over to these monitors), I ran out of the security area and headed to the "C" Terminal for the Duluth flight. I practically ran all the way (of course, it was the furthest terminal from where we were) and got to the gate to find them still boarding the flight. There was no sign of my colleague at the gate. I asked them if I could get on the flight, and after a whole set of nerve-racking phone calls and adjustments (too detailed to go into here), I found myself on the flight without my colleague. He obviously never checked the monitors to find out about the delayed flight and headed straight to the gate for our 3:30 flight to Minneapolis.
I arrived home (a day late) and recently checked to ensure that the 3:30 flight to Minneapolis (on which we were scheduled to fly) was on its way with my colleague and our baggage only to find that the airplane was indefinitely delayed due to mechanical problems that eventually led to an aircraft change. Amazingly, on this entire trip, not a single Northwest plane left on time and two of the four had mechanical problems. Something surely is a problem with this airline.
Early morning on Saturday, one of our hosts, Radek, picked us up at the hotel for the 2.5 hour drive to Warsaw from Olsztyn. Our flight was at 12 noon and everyone suggested that we leave by 6:30 AM to be safe. So we did. The drive to Warsaw airport was quite uneventful and we arrived at the airport very early (by 9:45 AM). After a little confusion about which terminal to go to, we waited around the crowded, disorganized and confused terminal for check in. It's weird. They have a medium-sized hall with a bunch of check-in windows along three sides of the hall. In the middle of this hall, there is a large jumble of people waiting for ther flight check-in to open. Mingled with this shifting mass of people are those who are already in line for their check-in counter. At first glance, it is difficult to see who is standing where and why. Eventually, with the help of an information window, we found put which counters would be open for our flight and just waited around for it to open.
The flight to Amsterdam was smooth and uneventful. Once in Amsterdam, we went through the security check for our flight and were told that it was delayed. We waited around for a few hours (with no additional information update) and then were told that the flight (which was scheduled to leave Amsterdam at 3:30 PM) had been "delayed" until 9 AM the next morning! Even this information we gathered from the mass of people who let out a collective graon. The announcement on what to do was made while some other airport announcements were being made and was basically unintelligible. There was a mass movement of bodies towards the counters as everyone asked everyone else around them what exactly was said. I gathered from the crowd that we were to go to baggage claim #3 to get hotel vouchers for the night.
At passport control, my colleague who was traveling with me got stuck (which I didn't know as he was behind me) because he had an Indian passport and they needed to issue him a visa to enter the Netherlands for the night. Meanwhile, I was issued a hotel voucher and shipped off to a poky hotel with tiny rooms. That started a whole bunch of events including numerous cross-continental calls as I tried to track down my colleague. Realizing that there are only two flights from Detroit to Duluth (one at 12 noon and one at 9:30 PM), I also called Northwest Airlines and had them rebook us on the 8 AM flight from Amsterdam as the 9 AM departure would result in us being unable to catch the 12 noon flight (and the idea of spending many more hours in Detroit at that point was not appealing). After a whole series of communications which are too long and confusing to detail here, I managed to get in touch with my colleague and asked him to get to the airport early. When I got to the airport, I was told that there was no way we could travel on the 8 AM flight since our baggage was loaded on the "delayed to 9 AM" flight. They emphasized that for international travel, the passenger must travel with the bags. After unsuccessfully speaking with many people and getting the same answer, we resigned ourselves to working things out after getting to Detroit.
On our arrival in Detroit, the ticket agent re-routed us through Minneapolis and then to Duluth, getting us in to Duluth at 6:30 PM. I specifically asked her if there was any chance of making the 12 noon flight and she said "No, it's too late for that one" since it was about 11:45 AM at this point. I even answered saying "I know, but I was hoping it was delayed." She shook her head.
Since there was plenty of time, I took my time going through security and sitting on a chair past the security to tie my shoelaces. Then, just for the heck of it, I wandered over to the bank of monitors to find that the 12 noon flight to Duluth had been delayed to (according tot he monitors) 12:17 PM. At this point it was a few minutes to 12 noon. I whirled around to look for my colleague to tell him we should just head to that gate to see if there is even a small chance of getting on the flight, but I could not find him. Assuming that he had walked past me (not having seen me waling over to these monitors), I ran out of the security area and headed to the "C" Terminal for the Duluth flight. I practically ran all the way (of course, it was the furthest terminal from where we were) and got to the gate to find them still boarding the flight. There was no sign of my colleague at the gate. I asked them if I could get on the flight, and after a whole set of nerve-racking phone calls and adjustments (too detailed to go into here), I found myself on the flight without my colleague. He obviously never checked the monitors to find out about the delayed flight and headed straight to the gate for our 3:30 flight to Minneapolis.
I arrived home (a day late) and recently checked to ensure that the 3:30 flight to Minneapolis (on which we were scheduled to fly) was on its way with my colleague and our baggage only to find that the airplane was indefinitely delayed due to mechanical problems that eventually led to an aircraft change. Amazingly, on this entire trip, not a single Northwest plane left on time and two of the four had mechanical problems. Something surely is a problem with this airline.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Retail Stores and Pig's Necks
We started the day with a breakfast meeting with Szeczpan Figiel, who is the Associate Dean for research at the University. He was headed to a conference and wanted to meet with us before he left. As we finished breakfast, Wojciech came in to pick us up for a visit to various retail distribution outlets in the city. I happened to mention that I wished I could have bought more CDs and he said that we would start at Media Markt, which is an electronics “hypermart.” This place was incredible.It is about twice the size of Best Buy and had all the CDs, DVDs, and electronics one could want. I quickly found a few CDs that I was looking for (I’ll be featuring them in my other blog next week) and walked around the store. The CD selection was about as big as a typical Best Buy and I found the same CDs I had purchased the previous day for about half the price. Since our objective was to visit as many different types of retailers during the morning, we couldn’t linger there. I of course could have spent all day there, but I was forced by the others to quickly pick up something and move on. So I did, with great regret.We then visited supermarkets, discount stores, convenience stores, independent kiosks, different styles of furniture stores, and more. It was a whirlwind breathtaking view of a variety of retail outlets available in
We then headed to the University for lunch followed by more meetings with groups of students. This sequence of meetings led directly to our presentation to students and faculty at the college. We had 46 people at the presentation, of which 7 were faculty. So, it was a relatively large group. The room was just steaming hot. I was wearing a full suit (with an undershirt) and so was sweating like a pig. Halfway through my presentation, it started pouring with rain. This was an incredibly heavy downpour. So, they shut the windows, which only raised the heat in the room another notch. Seriously, my entire shirt and suit were soaked in sweat by the time I was done. I must have looked funny, standing in the room spouting sweat like a fountain. Still, I think the presentation went well and was quite well received.
After the presentation, Wojciech was supposed to run us to the hotel to get changed before heading out to a restaurant for a Polish barbecue. Well, the downpour had flooded some roads and the streets were jammed with cars that weren’t going anywhere. After a few futile attempts to find a way around the traffic jams, we gave up and headed straight to the BBQ.
In addition to my ever present beer, I also really enjoyed the delicious kielbasa (commonly known in the
We were dropped back to the hotel at about 9 PM. I just finished packing and we leave at 6:30 tomorrow morning for
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Copernicus Droppings & Virgin Apparitions
We had a slower start today, with one of our hosts picking us up from the hotel at 9:45 AM. We headed into the town of
We then walked around the city and visited the local mall, bought a couple of unique products for use in our classes (you can buy McDonalds brand ketchup here). We also stopped by a music store in the mall (which I was told was the biggest music store in town) and looked for some interesting CDs. This was actually a very small store with a relatively small collection. I found a couple of interesting CDs and found them to be quite expensive. Since I didn’t think I’d get another chance to do any shopping, I went ahead and bought them.
We then headed to a restaurant near an ancient church in the town of
We were back in the hotel only long enough to change and quickly check email before one of our hosts, Wojciech Kozlowski, came by to pick us up for dinner at his apartment. Wojciech and his lovely family (wife who is a lawyer and two kids – a 16-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy) were great. While the young boy was off playing his PS2 during the evening, his pretty daughter, who is quite fluent in English as she is taking classes after school, and the rest of the family entertained us all evening. His wife had made a really spectacular spread for us. There were numerous dishes (I can’t remember all the names, sorry), several desserts, and beer, wine, and vodka. It seemed like she must have spent all day cooking the dishes. There really were more items than we could even sample. The family had just recently moved into this spectacular, modern apartment that was quite dazzling all around. It was clear that the place had been scrubbed and tidied for our visit. It felt like such a pity to waste all the food she had made, but she could have fed 12 people or more with all the food that had been made. To make matters worse, we had lunch only at about 4 PM. Apparently, the typical time for lunch in
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Early Beer and Stomach Lining
I broke a couple of personal records today. First, I had my first glass of beer before 9 AM. Second, for the first time, I digested something that could digest me. Both of these require the explanation that follows.
Today, we had a couple of business visits lined up. We started early in the morning. After a relatively uncomfortable night in a hot, non-a/c room (have I mentioned that we had no air conditioning?), we were up by 5:30 AM and at breakfast by 6:30. I was surprised to find that the room cost us about $200 for the night! Anyway, we left by 7 AM for the first business visit that our hosts had lined up. It happened to be at the Amber Brewery (I swear, I didn’t ask for this!). We arrived at the brewery at 8 AM and had a fascinating tour of the place. This is a very modern brewery (built about 1995 with the latest equipment and computer-controlled systems) that currently brews four primary brands: Zlote Lwy, Amber Red, Kozlak Bock, and their current flagship Piwo Zywe. The last is an all-natural unpasteurized beer that they have actually have achieved some level of success selling this beer in the Polish equivalent of Whole Foods stores. This is considered to be an “organic” and healthy brand of beer. Interestingly, it was also, to my tongue, the tastiest of the three. After the brewery tour, we had not choice but to taste the beers, which led to my pre-9 AM beer consumption. They also export a beer to the US under the “Kopernik” label. Our host at the brewery, Roman, was very friendly, intelligent, and clearly in charge. In addition to being the brew master, he also serves as the general manager of the brewery, responsible for all aspects of its running. A great brewery in a beautiful, rural setting. Make sure you check out their web site.
Next, we headed to the town of Łubiana (remember that Ł is pronounced as a W in Polish) to visit the famous Łubiana porcelain factory there. This was another fascinating tour as we saw the entire process of porcelain making from both the plastecine base as well as the “granulat” base. One is a clay like substance that is pressed into shape using a mold. The “granulat” which is a powdered form of the mixture (basically a mixture of a couple of types of unknown rock and quartz) is pressed into shape using high compression. The factory is amazingly modern and it was interesting to see the rows of robots mechanically performing a series of tasks in the manufacturing process. The actual inspection, buffing, and painting is done manually by hundreds of women who sit in rows and rows on a massive factory floor. Very interesting tour. We also visited the gift shop where I was unable to resist buying some porcelain mugs. If Jerrie had been with me to choose some patterns, I have no doubt that I would have bought some full serving sets and had it shipped home.
We then headed to the spectacular Malbork castle which was home to the Teutonic knights starting the 13th century. Interestingly, the castle went through a major renovation between 1895 and 1906. Given that photography had recently been invented, they photographed most elements of the castle in great detail at that time. We could see the spectacular photos of the castle taken at that time. These photos turned out to be invaluable when the Nazis bombed the place and left it in ruins in 1945. This is truly a spectacular, huge castle that is impressive today. It is almost painful to see the few photos of the castle in 1945 after the war – the place was shattered. A few of the rooms such as the church are still not restored and I constantly was left shaking my head in despair when I compared the broken, ruined room (essentially a pile of bricks) around me with the incredible, lavish pictures of the place from 1906. This place was standing and in use all the way from the 13th or 14th centuries to the early 20th century and in a few years, this war destroyed centuries of history. It is just tragic and if more people got to see how much of this incredible history was destroyed during the war, I am certain they’d ask whether it really is worth it. It was simultaneously sad to see how much of this historic site was ruined by the war and inspiring to see how far they have come in restoring the grandeur of the place in the sixty years since then.
For lunch, we stopped at an open-air restaurant on the castle grounds. As I often like to do, I asked my hosts to order something for me and said that I would be happy to eat anything they were eating. They ordered flaki and szaszlyk for me. Flaki is a stew which they said was beef and the szaszlyk was essentially “Polish barbecue” with cubed pork on a stick that was grilled. The flaki was delicious, but was certainly not beef. The bowl was piled with whitish strips that looked like pure fat on one side and like the surface of my tongue n the other. After eating several mouthfuls, I asked them what it was. “Beef” they replied. “But this is certainly not beef as I know it,” I said. “Yes, it is,” said Woicecz, “Beef stomach.” Believe it or not, I found that exhilarating. Another exotic food that I was actually enjoying! I completely finished off every shred of “beef stomach” in the large bowl. On checking the Internet, I found that Flaki is a common Polish “tripe” soup that is made of strips of the first three chambers of a cow’s stomach. It is cleaned and boiled for several hours. What made it tasty was the fact that it was quite flavorful (with pepper, salt, and other spices) unlike most Polish food I’d tasted. In fact, after the delicious flaki, the szaszlyk was a disappointment. Although they called it “barbecue,” it was quite tasteless pork. It was more “smoked pork” rather than “barbecued pork.” My colleague couldn’t believe I actually finished the large bowl of stomach lining, especially after I found out what it was. I think that part of my enjoyment when I’m traveling is to try things I otherwise wouldn’t try. When I find something I’m eating is particularly exotic to my experience, I actually enjoy it more because now I’m getting something more out of it than just the taste and nourishment – I’m gaining another interesting experience that I can talk about. On the other hand, when I told my wife what I’d eaten, she thought it was quite disgusting. I think I’d mentioned in an earlier post the importance of being open-minded. That’s why I often like to tell people in countries I’m visiting “order anything that you would eat or you would think I’d like.” That way, I’m likely to end up with something I would not have ordered on my own. I certainly don’t think I’d have ordered “cow stomach stew” if I’d seen it on a menu. And I would have missed out on a tasty dish!
On the way back to Olsztyn, we stopped at a beautiful hotel (Hotel Anders) on a lake for a cup of coffee. Very tranquil setting in the city of Jabonski and another one of the hundreds of places that I’d like to return to at some point.
Today, we had a couple of business visits lined up. We started early in the morning. After a relatively uncomfortable night in a hot, non-a/c room (have I mentioned that we had no air conditioning?), we were up by 5:30 AM and at breakfast by 6:30. I was surprised to find that the room cost us about $200 for the night! Anyway, we left by 7 AM for the first business visit that our hosts had lined up. It happened to be at the Amber Brewery (I swear, I didn’t ask for this!). We arrived at the brewery at 8 AM and had a fascinating tour of the place. This is a very modern brewery (built about 1995 with the latest equipment and computer-controlled systems) that currently brews four primary brands: Zlote Lwy, Amber Red, Kozlak Bock, and their current flagship Piwo Zywe. The last is an all-natural unpasteurized beer that they have actually have achieved some level of success selling this beer in the Polish equivalent of Whole Foods stores. This is considered to be an “organic” and healthy brand of beer. Interestingly, it was also, to my tongue, the tastiest of the three. After the brewery tour, we had not choice but to taste the beers, which led to my pre-9 AM beer consumption. They also export a beer to the US under the “Kopernik” label. Our host at the brewery, Roman, was very friendly, intelligent, and clearly in charge. In addition to being the brew master, he also serves as the general manager of the brewery, responsible for all aspects of its running. A great brewery in a beautiful, rural setting. Make sure you check out their web site.
Next, we headed to the town of Łubiana (remember that Ł is pronounced as a W in Polish) to visit the famous Łubiana porcelain factory there. This was another fascinating tour as we saw the entire process of porcelain making from both the plastecine base as well as the “granulat” base. One is a clay like substance that is pressed into shape using a mold. The “granulat” which is a powdered form of the mixture (basically a mixture of a couple of types of unknown rock and quartz) is pressed into shape using high compression. The factory is amazingly modern and it was interesting to see the rows of robots mechanically performing a series of tasks in the manufacturing process. The actual inspection, buffing, and painting is done manually by hundreds of women who sit in rows and rows on a massive factory floor. Very interesting tour. We also visited the gift shop where I was unable to resist buying some porcelain mugs. If Jerrie had been with me to choose some patterns, I have no doubt that I would have bought some full serving sets and had it shipped home.
We then headed to the spectacular Malbork castle which was home to the Teutonic knights starting the 13th century. Interestingly, the castle went through a major renovation between 1895 and 1906. Given that photography had recently been invented, they photographed most elements of the castle in great detail at that time. We could see the spectacular photos of the castle taken at that time. These photos turned out to be invaluable when the Nazis bombed the place and left it in ruins in 1945. This is truly a spectacular, huge castle that is impressive today. It is almost painful to see the few photos of the castle in 1945 after the war – the place was shattered. A few of the rooms such as the church are still not restored and I constantly was left shaking my head in despair when I compared the broken, ruined room (essentially a pile of bricks) around me with the incredible, lavish pictures of the place from 1906. This place was standing and in use all the way from the 13th or 14th centuries to the early 20th century and in a few years, this war destroyed centuries of history. It is just tragic and if more people got to see how much of this incredible history was destroyed during the war, I am certain they’d ask whether it really is worth it. It was simultaneously sad to see how much of this historic site was ruined by the war and inspiring to see how far they have come in restoring the grandeur of the place in the sixty years since then.
For lunch, we stopped at an open-air restaurant on the castle grounds. As I often like to do, I asked my hosts to order something for me and said that I would be happy to eat anything they were eating. They ordered flaki and szaszlyk for me. Flaki is a stew which they said was beef and the szaszlyk was essentially “Polish barbecue” with cubed pork on a stick that was grilled. The flaki was delicious, but was certainly not beef. The bowl was piled with whitish strips that looked like pure fat on one side and like the surface of my tongue n the other. After eating several mouthfuls, I asked them what it was. “Beef” they replied. “But this is certainly not beef as I know it,” I said. “Yes, it is,” said Woicecz, “Beef stomach.” Believe it or not, I found that exhilarating. Another exotic food that I was actually enjoying! I completely finished off every shred of “beef stomach” in the large bowl. On checking the Internet, I found that Flaki is a common Polish “tripe” soup that is made of strips of the first three chambers of a cow’s stomach. It is cleaned and boiled for several hours. What made it tasty was the fact that it was quite flavorful (with pepper, salt, and other spices) unlike most Polish food I’d tasted. In fact, after the delicious flaki, the szaszlyk was a disappointment. Although they called it “barbecue,” it was quite tasteless pork. It was more “smoked pork” rather than “barbecued pork.” My colleague couldn’t believe I actually finished the large bowl of stomach lining, especially after I found out what it was. I think that part of my enjoyment when I’m traveling is to try things I otherwise wouldn’t try. When I find something I’m eating is particularly exotic to my experience, I actually enjoy it more because now I’m getting something more out of it than just the taste and nourishment – I’m gaining another interesting experience that I can talk about. On the other hand, when I told my wife what I’d eaten, she thought it was quite disgusting. I think I’d mentioned in an earlier post the importance of being open-minded. That’s why I often like to tell people in countries I’m visiting “order anything that you would eat or you would think I’d like.” That way, I’m likely to end up with something I would not have ordered on my own. I certainly don’t think I’d have ordered “cow stomach stew” if I’d seen it on a menu. And I would have missed out on a tasty dish!
On the way back to Olsztyn, we stopped at a beautiful hotel (Hotel Anders) on a lake for a cup of coffee. Very tranquil setting in the city of Jabonski and another one of the hundreds of places that I’d like to return to at some point.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Walking Towards Hel and Experiencing the Heat
Had a great day in
Anyway, other than this, today was a fun day. We started by heading to the
At about 2:30 PM, we headed back to
We then decided to take the local train to another beautiful town, Sopot.
Across the bay from Sopot is a spit of land that extends out to the sea and ends in the Polish city of
Also, just like I noticed on my last trip to
Well, I better get to bed. We have an early morning tomorrow – we plan to hit the road by 7 AM and are meeting in the lobby (all packed and ready) at 6:20 AM. I genuinely don’t know how I’m going to sleep in this oppressive heat tonight, but that’s all part of the fun experience.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Pork, Fish, Beer, and Vodka
Had a relatively busy day today, filled with meetings at the University of Warmia & Mazury. The campus is vast and beautiful. The University is relatively young (with a history stretching back to only a hundred years or so). We met with the Associate Dean and with a group of faculty.
Highlights were lunch, where I had Carpacio Pork (very thinly sliced raw pork) and a breaded pork fillet (another Polish specialty) and beer. For dinner we started with Zyviewc beer (pronounced Zhi-vee-yets), Chlodnik (a cold, yogurt-based "soup" with beets and other vegetables) and sauteed pike-perch with wild forest mushrooms and deep fried potato cakes (another local dish). This was chased down with Zubrowka - Polish bison grass vodka. The vodka is very flavorful and has this relatively strong flavor it gets from a particularly tough, scented grass that the bison feed on. Dinner was at this beautiful restaurant (Prgystan) on a lake.
Again the weather was beautiful with a slight breeze and neither warm nor cool temperatures. I would guess, in the low to mid 70s.
Highlights were lunch, where I had Carpacio Pork (very thinly sliced raw pork) and a breaded pork fillet (another Polish specialty) and beer. For dinner we started with Zyviewc beer (pronounced Zhi-vee-yets), Chlodnik (a cold, yogurt-based "soup" with beets and other vegetables) and sauteed pike-perch with wild forest mushrooms and deep fried potato cakes (another local dish). This was chased down with Zubrowka - Polish bison grass vodka. The vodka is very flavorful and has this relatively strong flavor it gets from a particularly tough, scented grass that the bison feed on. Dinner was at this beautiful restaurant (Prgystan) on a lake.
Again the weather was beautiful with a slight breeze and neither warm nor cool temperatures. I would guess, in the low to mid 70s.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Welcome to Poland!
So, my colleague and I got to Olsztyn, Poland this afternoon after a long flight from Minneapolis to Amsterdam (7.5 hours) and a considerably shorter flight from Amsterdam to Warsaw (less than 2 hours) followed by a 3-hour car ride from Warsaw to Olsztyn. While I made the trip fine, my colleague's bags never even made it to Warsaw. Hopefully, it's somewhere in Poland.
Olsztyn is in northern Poland and is the capital of the Warmian region. Warmia is where Copernicus lived and expounded his theory of a heliocentric astronomical universe. What I find fascinating every time I visit Europe is its living history. Most of us consider Copernicus to be old and waaay in the past. However, it gives me pause to think that Copernicus lived here in the 1500s. He published his theories on the earth revolving around the sun in 1543. Yet, in the town on Olsztyn, you can still see the castle that was built in the 1350s. Also still standing is the Cathedral of St. James which was built between 1380 and 1445. Now think of this. When Copernicus hung around here, these structures were already almost two hundred years old. I can just about imagine a young Copernicus showing visitors around the town explaining about these ancient castles (over a hundred years old!) in his neighborhood. Here we are, an additional 400 years later (more actually), still able to walk through these buildings and marvel at their construction.
That's what I love about history - it's entertaining to imagine people living and seeing these same structures five hundred or more years before me. It is even more fascinating to me to imagine people three hundred years ago pointing to these same "ancient" structures and wondering about the people who lived there two hundred years before them.
This is the sort of sense of insignificance it is hard to get in America. It is so strange to think of how incredibly young our land is. I mean, by the time we had out first settlement in the continental US, Copernicus had been dead for over a hundred years. And we're talking about the first permanent European settlement in the USA!
Had delicious pork cutlets for dinner. The weather here today is just astoundingly beautiful. The sn was shining, but it wasn't hot. We went for a walk in the afternoon and there was a strong breeze blowing that wasn't at all cold, but wasn't warm either. Both my colleague and I commented about how strangely perfect the weather is - not hot and not cold. Let's hope it stays this way.
My room at the Novotel is typical European style. While it is fairly large and not as cramped as these hotels usually are, there is no air conditioning and no fan. So, I know I'm going to find it difficult to sleep. How spoiled we are - I groaned and complained about the lack of air conditioning until I finally realized it wasn't going to do any good. I asked the front desk for a fan and they said they didn't have one. It is now 11 PM and it still isn't as cool as I'd like it to be.
Olsztyn is in northern Poland and is the capital of the Warmian region. Warmia is where Copernicus lived and expounded his theory of a heliocentric astronomical universe. What I find fascinating every time I visit Europe is its living history. Most of us consider Copernicus to be old and waaay in the past. However, it gives me pause to think that Copernicus lived here in the 1500s. He published his theories on the earth revolving around the sun in 1543. Yet, in the town on Olsztyn, you can still see the castle that was built in the 1350s. Also still standing is the Cathedral of St. James which was built between 1380 and 1445. Now think of this. When Copernicus hung around here, these structures were already almost two hundred years old. I can just about imagine a young Copernicus showing visitors around the town explaining about these ancient castles (over a hundred years old!) in his neighborhood. Here we are, an additional 400 years later (more actually), still able to walk through these buildings and marvel at their construction.
That's what I love about history - it's entertaining to imagine people living and seeing these same structures five hundred or more years before me. It is even more fascinating to me to imagine people three hundred years ago pointing to these same "ancient" structures and wondering about the people who lived there two hundred years before them.
This is the sort of sense of insignificance it is hard to get in America. It is so strange to think of how incredibly young our land is. I mean, by the time we had out first settlement in the continental US, Copernicus had been dead for over a hundred years. And we're talking about the first permanent European settlement in the USA!
Had delicious pork cutlets for dinner. The weather here today is just astoundingly beautiful. The sn was shining, but it wasn't hot. We went for a walk in the afternoon and there was a strong breeze blowing that wasn't at all cold, but wasn't warm either. Both my colleague and I commented about how strangely perfect the weather is - not hot and not cold. Let's hope it stays this way.
My room at the Novotel is typical European style. While it is fairly large and not as cramped as these hotels usually are, there is no air conditioning and no fan. So, I know I'm going to find it difficult to sleep. How spoiled we are - I groaned and complained about the lack of air conditioning until I finally realized it wasn't going to do any good. I asked the front desk for a fan and they said they didn't have one. It is now 11 PM and it still isn't as cool as I'd like it to be.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Too Much Talk On The Lot
I was actually looking forward to the TV show On The Lot. I imagined it would be another shot at a great TV show concept like Project Greenlight. That was an absolutely outstanding show that HBO really shouldn't have killed.
But then again, maybe I enjoy watching shows on film making more than the average joe.
But it is so ironic that a show about good film making has such terrible pacing and awful storytelling. The show seems focused on talk, talk, and more talk. The attempts at building "tension" are old hat and a poor copy of Survivor, Apprentice, and American Idol. It's as if the producers of this show assumed that no one would watch more than one episode.
The relatively annoying host of the show keeps recapping what the show is about over and over and over again (and then over again after that). It is like they assume that anyone watching the show at any point has just walked in and has no idea what the show is about. Or, that the target audience is a group of amnesiacs or have serious short-term memory problems like the guy in Memento. She recaps the purpose of the show, the bios of the directors, the films that they shot, the reactions of the judges, and everything else in between. The amount of new content in each episode is laughably small and you really have to be dedicated or a heck of an optimist to tune in to the show again.
Lack of originality, poor scripting, boring writing, failure to use innovative visuals. While this sounds like the judges comments, it is what I would say about the show. Perhaps it's time the judges critiqued the filming and pacing of this show for one episode.
Another great opportunity to make a great show about film making lost. The brilliant Hollywood types are going to assume that it is the genre that cannot succeed instead of blaming the production values of this show.
Sad.
And why don't we just give the award to Zach Lipovsky now and get it over with?
But then again, maybe I enjoy watching shows on film making more than the average joe.
But it is so ironic that a show about good film making has such terrible pacing and awful storytelling. The show seems focused on talk, talk, and more talk. The attempts at building "tension" are old hat and a poor copy of Survivor, Apprentice, and American Idol. It's as if the producers of this show assumed that no one would watch more than one episode.
The relatively annoying host of the show keeps recapping what the show is about over and over and over again (and then over again after that). It is like they assume that anyone watching the show at any point has just walked in and has no idea what the show is about. Or, that the target audience is a group of amnesiacs or have serious short-term memory problems like the guy in Memento. She recaps the purpose of the show, the bios of the directors, the films that they shot, the reactions of the judges, and everything else in between. The amount of new content in each episode is laughably small and you really have to be dedicated or a heck of an optimist to tune in to the show again.
Lack of originality, poor scripting, boring writing, failure to use innovative visuals. While this sounds like the judges comments, it is what I would say about the show. Perhaps it's time the judges critiqued the filming and pacing of this show for one episode.
Another great opportunity to make a great show about film making lost. The brilliant Hollywood types are going to assume that it is the genre that cannot succeed instead of blaming the production values of this show.
Sad.
And why don't we just give the award to Zach Lipovsky now and get it over with?
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Voglio Parlare Italiano
I'm fascinated by how we learn things. What is the best way to learn something? I am currently working on a project with a publisher on using video games to help students at the college-level learn.
But, beyond the game-based learning, I am intrigued by how all the different ways of presenting information can help or hinder learning. Given my upcoming trip to Italy next month, I decided to borrow some "Learn Italian" CDs from the public library. They all take completely different approaches to teaching the language.
The first one essentially presented a series of conversations in Italian. You listen to it and are completely lost. Then, they break down the conversations and explain the key words and phrases in the conversation. Finally, they play the conversation again. This time, you can pick up the gist fo what they're saying and it leads to a gratifying feeling of achievement and actually having gained something.
The second one presented the grammar and structure of the Italian language and tried to teach the language by explaining how sentences are constructed in Italian. This clarified some of the phrases that didn't make sense in the first set of CDs.
The third one essentially is a passive approach to learning. The instructor on the CD explicitly tells you to learn by listening and not to make any effort at learning the language. Very interesting approach. The CDs are essentially like a live taping of him teaching two students the language by starting with small phrases and then building it up and expecting the students to then use what they've learned to speak out loud.
All three approaches have strengths and weaknesses and I'm intrigued to see if there is some combination that is particularly magical. I think the method needed to understand the language may be different than the one needed to speak the language.
All very interesting and thought-provoking in the context of how I teach my college students.
But, beyond the game-based learning, I am intrigued by how all the different ways of presenting information can help or hinder learning. Given my upcoming trip to Italy next month, I decided to borrow some "Learn Italian" CDs from the public library. They all take completely different approaches to teaching the language.
The first one essentially presented a series of conversations in Italian. You listen to it and are completely lost. Then, they break down the conversations and explain the key words and phrases in the conversation. Finally, they play the conversation again. This time, you can pick up the gist fo what they're saying and it leads to a gratifying feeling of achievement and actually having gained something.
The second one presented the grammar and structure of the Italian language and tried to teach the language by explaining how sentences are constructed in Italian. This clarified some of the phrases that didn't make sense in the first set of CDs.
The third one essentially is a passive approach to learning. The instructor on the CD explicitly tells you to learn by listening and not to make any effort at learning the language. Very interesting approach. The CDs are essentially like a live taping of him teaching two students the language by starting with small phrases and then building it up and expecting the students to then use what they've learned to speak out loud.
All three approaches have strengths and weaknesses and I'm intrigued to see if there is some combination that is particularly magical. I think the method needed to understand the language may be different than the one needed to speak the language.
All very interesting and thought-provoking in the context of how I teach my college students.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Thai Food
Went out for Thai food (again). Is there any cuisine in the world that is so consistently outstanding as Thai food? I don't think so.
You can go to Thai restaurants anywhere and order almost anything and leave quite satisfied. As a broad judgment of styles of cuisine (beyond preferences for any single dish), I think Thai food is more consistently tasty and flavorful than any other cuisine.
Mmmm ... and you can get it as spicy as you want!
Dinner at a Japanese sushi place also reinforced the fact that you have to be able to suspend preconceptions in order to enjoy international foods. While I am not too much of a seafood eater, I decided to go with my hosts to a Japanese restaurant they were raving about. They ordered barbecued eel, "dynamite scallops" and a host of other dishes I probably would not have ordered on my own. Wow, this stuff was absolutely delicious. I think half of our food preferences are formed before we even take a bite. Make a conscious effort to avoid pre-judging and you are more likely to end up with a delicious meal. Who would ever have thought eel could taste this good?
You can go to Thai restaurants anywhere and order almost anything and leave quite satisfied. As a broad judgment of styles of cuisine (beyond preferences for any single dish), I think Thai food is more consistently tasty and flavorful than any other cuisine.
Mmmm ... and you can get it as spicy as you want!
Dinner at a Japanese sushi place also reinforced the fact that you have to be able to suspend preconceptions in order to enjoy international foods. While I am not too much of a seafood eater, I decided to go with my hosts to a Japanese restaurant they were raving about. They ordered barbecued eel, "dynamite scallops" and a host of other dishes I probably would not have ordered on my own. Wow, this stuff was absolutely delicious. I think half of our food preferences are formed before we even take a bite. Make a conscious effort to avoid pre-judging and you are more likely to end up with a delicious meal. Who would ever have thought eel could taste this good?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Academics & The Real World
I am in Boulder today and tomorrow. I had an interesting conversation with a colleague here about the state of our discipline and whether the "real world" is moving much further ahead than us academics.
It is not whether academics are smart or whether we have the ability to make significant contributions. It is whether we are focusing on the right things and not giving enough attention to the phenomena that make a difference in the real world. In an effort to keep our research interesting, are we moving towards studying increasingly "fringe" phenomena? That is, are we getting so focused on publishing "interesting" research that we're studying behavior that is so weird and active under such special conditions that they have little relation to "normal" consumer behavior?
This is well beyond the "academic" vs. "real world" research. I don't imply that all research should have immediate application to the real world. It's just that we may need to study esoteric issues that may have no immediate application, but are rooted in normal consumer behavior over strange quirks in behavior under very specific conditions.
Obviously a very complex issue that has no easy answers. But, thought-provoking nonetheless. I now have more to think about (and argue with my colleagues about).
It is not whether academics are smart or whether we have the ability to make significant contributions. It is whether we are focusing on the right things and not giving enough attention to the phenomena that make a difference in the real world. In an effort to keep our research interesting, are we moving towards studying increasingly "fringe" phenomena? That is, are we getting so focused on publishing "interesting" research that we're studying behavior that is so weird and active under such special conditions that they have little relation to "normal" consumer behavior?
This is well beyond the "academic" vs. "real world" research. I don't imply that all research should have immediate application to the real world. It's just that we may need to study esoteric issues that may have no immediate application, but are rooted in normal consumer behavior over strange quirks in behavior under very specific conditions.
Obviously a very complex issue that has no easy answers. But, thought-provoking nonetheless. I now have more to think about (and argue with my colleagues about).
Monday, June 4, 2007
Big Business BAAAAD!
Another assumption that people almost always make is that big businesses are out to screw the "common man" and will find every opportunity to take advantage of poor, defenseless consumers. It doesn't matter what they do, it can always be rationalized as an attempt to exploit innocent people who toil away under the crushing thumb of big businesses.
Do big businesses do bad things? Absobloominutely. Of course there are businesses and CEOs and executives who are unethical and exploitive. But is that sufficient evidence against big businesses? Suppose I tell you that John earns $160 in tips every night at the Mojican Grill. Will you consider John to be a superstar? Will you jump to the conclusion that John must be doing something extraordinarily well to be able to earn such excessive tips? Not if you find out that the average waiter at this fancy restaurant makes $450 in tips.
Anyone who has taken a class in logic will realize the flaw in highlighting criminal CEOs who have been caught cheating as evidence that all CEOs are crooks. WHile this may be true, you'd have to show that CEOs of large companies are more likely to do crooked things than the average person or even the average small business owner. My problem is that without looking for such evidence, the media do their part in highlighting stories of CEOs gone bad that reinforce the stereotype. This can be very powerful when you're trying to appeal to an audience that wants to believe the stereotype. It makes you feel so much better that you're so good and honorable while those slime ball CEOs rip people off and earn millions.
What brought this thought on was reading a recent USA Today story on how a Coca-Cola secretary was sentenced to 8 years in prison for trying to sell Coke trade secrets to rival Pepsi. She stole some secret new-product samples and confidential documents and tried to sell them to Pepsi. Terrible, huh?
One sentence in the article reveals an interesting sidebar to the story. How did this woman get caught? Well, when Pepsi was approached with these secret formulas and confidential documents, they contacted Coke and warned them that they had been offered trade secrets. Get that? Instead of buying the documents or even ignoring it, they called their intensely competitive rival and told them that someone was trying to steal their stuff. Why wasn't this aspect of the story highlighted? Why wasn't more made about the incredibly ethical response on the part of Pepsi? Why wasn't this given as much press as some sleazy CEO being led out of his billion dollar estate in handcuffs? Because that's not what you want to hear. It wouldn't give you the comfort of knowing how superior you are to those "big business" executives who all ought to be locked up!
Do big businesses do bad things? Absobloominutely. Of course there are businesses and CEOs and executives who are unethical and exploitive. But is that sufficient evidence against big businesses? Suppose I tell you that John earns $160 in tips every night at the Mojican Grill. Will you consider John to be a superstar? Will you jump to the conclusion that John must be doing something extraordinarily well to be able to earn such excessive tips? Not if you find out that the average waiter at this fancy restaurant makes $450 in tips.
Anyone who has taken a class in logic will realize the flaw in highlighting criminal CEOs who have been caught cheating as evidence that all CEOs are crooks. WHile this may be true, you'd have to show that CEOs of large companies are more likely to do crooked things than the average person or even the average small business owner. My problem is that without looking for such evidence, the media do their part in highlighting stories of CEOs gone bad that reinforce the stereotype. This can be very powerful when you're trying to appeal to an audience that wants to believe the stereotype. It makes you feel so much better that you're so good and honorable while those slime ball CEOs rip people off and earn millions.
What brought this thought on was reading a recent USA Today story on how a Coca-Cola secretary was sentenced to 8 years in prison for trying to sell Coke trade secrets to rival Pepsi. She stole some secret new-product samples and confidential documents and tried to sell them to Pepsi. Terrible, huh?
One sentence in the article reveals an interesting sidebar to the story. How did this woman get caught? Well, when Pepsi was approached with these secret formulas and confidential documents, they contacted Coke and warned them that they had been offered trade secrets. Get that? Instead of buying the documents or even ignoring it, they called their intensely competitive rival and told them that someone was trying to steal their stuff. Why wasn't this aspect of the story highlighted? Why wasn't more made about the incredibly ethical response on the part of Pepsi? Why wasn't this given as much press as some sleazy CEO being led out of his billion dollar estate in handcuffs? Because that's not what you want to hear. It wouldn't give you the comfort of knowing how superior you are to those "big business" executives who all ought to be locked up!
Friday, June 1, 2007
I've Changed My Mind (again)
I get a sense that "changing your mind" about something is seen today as a negative trait to have. Perhaps it started with the mocking of John Kerry as a "flip flopper" or perhaps the belief that someone who changes his or her mind frequently cannot be trusted has roots going back much further.
Frankly, I find that view quite puzzling - especially in today's information-rich world. Psychology teaches us that we're constantly forming judgments based on the information we have access to. As more information comes in, we are forced to change those judgments (of course, there is enough evidence that these judgments are resistant to change and the marginal impact of new information on judgments is smaller than if it was the first piece presented, but that is unnecessarily complicating for the point I'm trying to make). Since we are bombarded with so much information, and since that information is presented in condensed "sound-bite" form, I assume that most people form ealry judgments with the expectation that it could change as more information becomes available. But, I'm getting the feeling that "sticking to your guns" and staying with principles is instead seen as a more appropriate response.
Contrary to what you may believe, this has nothing to do with our current political situation. A friend recently warned me (again) that posting opinions on a blog is dangerous and will come back to bite me if I express a "non-politically-correct" opinion here. This warning hit me on several levels. First, it scares me that there really are people who think that freely expressing opinions in this country can get them in deep trouble. Second, he rejected my response that "these are just opinions based on the information I had at the time." He insisted that people are held to always believe things that they may have expressed at any point in their lives. While I must consider the fact that he may be right, I still struggle to understand this.
Perhaps it is my mental make up that focuses on evidence-based reasoning that I am always expecting to change my opinions when more convincing evidence presents itself. That is also probably why I get along well with people generally. I never hold anything against people in the long run. If you're nasty to me one moment and then do something nice the next time we interact, I am much more willing to shift my judgments of people to the favorable side than others. I find it difficult to hold grudges over the long run.
On the other hand, it could be that this expression of a willingness to change opinions is just a normal defense mechanism to prevent from ever being held accountable for what i say and write. But then again, maybe not!
Frankly, I find that view quite puzzling - especially in today's information-rich world. Psychology teaches us that we're constantly forming judgments based on the information we have access to. As more information comes in, we are forced to change those judgments (of course, there is enough evidence that these judgments are resistant to change and the marginal impact of new information on judgments is smaller than if it was the first piece presented, but that is unnecessarily complicating for the point I'm trying to make). Since we are bombarded with so much information, and since that information is presented in condensed "sound-bite" form, I assume that most people form ealry judgments with the expectation that it could change as more information becomes available. But, I'm getting the feeling that "sticking to your guns" and staying with principles is instead seen as a more appropriate response.
Contrary to what you may believe, this has nothing to do with our current political situation. A friend recently warned me (again) that posting opinions on a blog is dangerous and will come back to bite me if I express a "non-politically-correct" opinion here. This warning hit me on several levels. First, it scares me that there really are people who think that freely expressing opinions in this country can get them in deep trouble. Second, he rejected my response that "these are just opinions based on the information I had at the time." He insisted that people are held to always believe things that they may have expressed at any point in their lives. While I must consider the fact that he may be right, I still struggle to understand this.
Perhaps it is my mental make up that focuses on evidence-based reasoning that I am always expecting to change my opinions when more convincing evidence presents itself. That is also probably why I get along well with people generally. I never hold anything against people in the long run. If you're nasty to me one moment and then do something nice the next time we interact, I am much more willing to shift my judgments of people to the favorable side than others. I find it difficult to hold grudges over the long run.
On the other hand, it could be that this expression of a willingness to change opinions is just a normal defense mechanism to prevent from ever being held accountable for what i say and write. But then again, maybe not!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
No Matter What You Do, You Support Slavery!
I hate grand-standing, opportunistic politicans who cloak themselves in patriotism or morality and proclaim how "offended" they are by someone else's behavior purely for the sake of basking in the projected honor and glory.
What brought on this unusual reaction (for me) is an article in our local newspaper on the continuing saga of St. Louis (Minnesota) County Commissioner Keith Nelson who got caught on camera (with the active support of YouTube distribution) making an off-the-cuff response to a silly question at a County Board meeting. Basically, there was a debate on a smoking ban in our county and this guy was opposed to the smoking ban because a majority of his constituents, who he's supposed to be representing, opposed the ban (I mean, isn't that his job in a representative democracy?) In a clever use of argumentation and rhetoric, another commissioner, Bill Kron, asked him if he would have voted "for slavery" if a majority of his constituents did. Stuck in the situation with the need to respond to a rather silly and irrelevant question while reinforcing his point about being a representative for his constituents, he said "Yes." And that started a firestorm of controversy. Now, this whole exchange was repositioned as an elected official advocating in favor of slavery!!!!
Today, the paper reported that he apologized to the Human Rights Commission and agreed to try and take some diversity training. As one of my favorite journalists, John Stossel, likes to say, Give Me A Break! I wish Keith Nelson had instead responded to the question during the meeting by saying "Sir, if a majority of your constituents were against slavery, but you personally believed that slavery was good, would you have voted for it?" That would have put the other commissioner in his place and made everyone realize how stupid and irrelevant that question was. While I don't know Keith Neilson or the other Commissioner, I can identify political correctness run amuck. From what I saw, this man was not advocating or supporting slavery in any way, but was responding to an odd and ridiculous question. To any intelligent person (who is not looking to take advantage of such situations), there was no intent to glorify slavery or support it in any way.
Instead, this man found himself constantly apologizing to everyone from pious Ministers to, recently, the Human Rights Commission. According to today's paper, "I was offended by your statement," Commission Member Linda Esala told Nelson. If this is all it takes to offend Ms. Esala, she should consider herself the beneficiary of the great civil rights leaders who have come before her. I find it offensive that this commission is obviously taking advantage of this slip in the middle of a debate on a smoking ban. Why wasn't commissioner Bill Kron taken to task for asking such a ridiculously irrelevant question? Why wasn't he criticized for equating a smoking ban with slavery? He gets off scot free and Mr. Nelson, who just happened to be on the wrong end of the question gets to spend the rest of his career living this down.
You can watch the video of the response on YouTube below.
Read the latest article (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) here.
What brought on this unusual reaction (for me) is an article in our local newspaper on the continuing saga of St. Louis (Minnesota) County Commissioner Keith Nelson who got caught on camera (with the active support of YouTube distribution) making an off-the-cuff response to a silly question at a County Board meeting. Basically, there was a debate on a smoking ban in our county and this guy was opposed to the smoking ban because a majority of his constituents, who he's supposed to be representing, opposed the ban (I mean, isn't that his job in a representative democracy?) In a clever use of argumentation and rhetoric, another commissioner, Bill Kron, asked him if he would have voted "for slavery" if a majority of his constituents did. Stuck in the situation with the need to respond to a rather silly and irrelevant question while reinforcing his point about being a representative for his constituents, he said "Yes." And that started a firestorm of controversy. Now, this whole exchange was repositioned as an elected official advocating in favor of slavery!!!!
Today, the paper reported that he apologized to the Human Rights Commission and agreed to try and take some diversity training. As one of my favorite journalists, John Stossel, likes to say, Give Me A Break! I wish Keith Nelson had instead responded to the question during the meeting by saying "Sir, if a majority of your constituents were against slavery, but you personally believed that slavery was good, would you have voted for it?" That would have put the other commissioner in his place and made everyone realize how stupid and irrelevant that question was. While I don't know Keith Neilson or the other Commissioner, I can identify political correctness run amuck. From what I saw, this man was not advocating or supporting slavery in any way, but was responding to an odd and ridiculous question. To any intelligent person (who is not looking to take advantage of such situations), there was no intent to glorify slavery or support it in any way.
Instead, this man found himself constantly apologizing to everyone from pious Ministers to, recently, the Human Rights Commission. According to today's paper, "I was offended by your statement," Commission Member Linda Esala told Nelson. If this is all it takes to offend Ms. Esala, she should consider herself the beneficiary of the great civil rights leaders who have come before her. I find it offensive that this commission is obviously taking advantage of this slip in the middle of a debate on a smoking ban. Why wasn't commissioner Bill Kron taken to task for asking such a ridiculously irrelevant question? Why wasn't he criticized for equating a smoking ban with slavery? He gets off scot free and Mr. Nelson, who just happened to be on the wrong end of the question gets to spend the rest of his career living this down.
You can watch the video of the response on YouTube below.
Read the latest article (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) here.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Air Rage? Taking Out Frustrations on Airline Staff
Okay, so let me use today's post to finish my thoughts about my nightmare trip to Boston. now that I'm a little removed form it, perhaps I can be a little more brief than I otherwise would have been.
So, when Northwest handed me the hotel and dinner vouchers, I specifically asked the lady at the counter whether I had to call for a shuttle from the airport or whether they would come automatically. She assured me that the shuttles run on a regular schedule and that I did not need to call (WRONG - what did people do in the age before cell phones?). I also asked her if I needed to use the dinner voucher at the airport or whether I could use it at the hotel's restaurant. She promised me that I could use it at the hotel's restaurant (Well, I guess maybe you could, if the hotel even had a restaurant. The good news is that they're getting one next year!).
Another interesting experience was watching some really irate passengers interact with the gate agents. One old man and his wife seemed in a state of panic and the man was very curt and rude to the agent. The wife kept jumping in with her comments. At one point she said, "But we're diabetics and we're out of medicine." The gate agent started to respond, but the man turned to his wife and said, in a loudd voice, "Honey, they don't care about that. They don't really give a damn about us." I could see the gate agent flush red. He then started to ask how he could help get ... when he was cut off by the man who said "Just help us by doing your job and getting us out of here." Later, after he had gone out of his way to ask them where they could get their prescription refilled and how he could help, he said "Sir, I think you're wrong. We really do care. I was simply trying to get more information from you to help you."
I guess I've done enough traveling to know that there is just no benefit to losing your temper with the airline staff. When bad weather disrupts so many flights, they're as frazzled and frustrated as the passengers are. They are as anxious to get you out of their airport as you are to leave. They're being blamed for something that had nothing to do with their performance. I guess it does make the yellers feel a little better to get it out of their system. But, I think yelling at them doesn't give them any incentive to go out of their way to help you.
Fascinating situation for people-watching, though.
So, when Northwest handed me the hotel and dinner vouchers, I specifically asked the lady at the counter whether I had to call for a shuttle from the airport or whether they would come automatically. She assured me that the shuttles run on a regular schedule and that I did not need to call (WRONG - what did people do in the age before cell phones?). I also asked her if I needed to use the dinner voucher at the airport or whether I could use it at the hotel's restaurant. She promised me that I could use it at the hotel's restaurant (Well, I guess maybe you could, if the hotel even had a restaurant. The good news is that they're getting one next year!).
Another interesting experience was watching some really irate passengers interact with the gate agents. One old man and his wife seemed in a state of panic and the man was very curt and rude to the agent. The wife kept jumping in with her comments. At one point she said, "But we're diabetics and we're out of medicine." The gate agent started to respond, but the man turned to his wife and said, in a loudd voice, "Honey, they don't care about that. They don't really give a damn about us." I could see the gate agent flush red. He then started to ask how he could help get ... when he was cut off by the man who said "Just help us by doing your job and getting us out of here." Later, after he had gone out of his way to ask them where they could get their prescription refilled and how he could help, he said "Sir, I think you're wrong. We really do care. I was simply trying to get more information from you to help you."
I guess I've done enough traveling to know that there is just no benefit to losing your temper with the airline staff. When bad weather disrupts so many flights, they're as frazzled and frustrated as the passengers are. They are as anxious to get you out of their airport as you are to leave. They're being blamed for something that had nothing to do with their performance. I guess it does make the yellers feel a little better to get it out of their system. But, I think yelling at them doesn't give them any incentive to go out of their way to help you.
Fascinating situation for people-watching, though.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
I've Been A Bad Boy ...
I finally faltered. As a few (hopefully not many) may have noticed, I finally missed some postings in my new blog. I was out of town a lot over the last two weeks. I managed to find time to post from St. Louis. But last week I drove to and from Rochester and left the next day for Boston. Each night, I managed only four hours sleep before I had to hop on a plane (I started this story on Wednesday in my last post and will finish it tomorrow). So, I never got a chance to post. I was busy and away from my computer morning to night. When I did get back, I was desperately trying to catch up and never got around to doing all the posting I planned.
I promise I'll try to get "back in the groove" this week. It's not that I don't have anything to say ...
I promise I'll try to get "back in the groove" this week. It's not that I don't have anything to say ...
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Stuck In A Nightmare
It was supposed to be a simple one-day trip to Boston. I left Duluth last evening and was supposed to back in Duluth tonight. Instead, I've seen the best of people, the worst of people and the best and worst of Northwest Airlines.
Because of thunderstorms, I missed my connecting flight from Minneapolis to Boston. The first problem was the aircraft left the gate at Duluth and sat on the tarmac for over two hours. If they had stayed at the gate, I would have simply opted out of this trip. Once in Minneapolis, since there was no flight that night to Boston, I asked to return to Duluth by a late night flight. Then, I told NW that (a) if they could reschedule me for this morning, returning to Duluth tomorrow morning, and (b) pay for a hotel for the night, I was willing to continue on my trip and reschedule my meeting. They agreed (on the phone) and re-scheduled my flights. The first problem was the gate agent refused to honor that and nicely apologized and said I would need to pay for the hotel. I was directed to the ticketing counters. At the ticketing counters, I was asked to stand in two incorrect lines before finding myself to the correct counter. I boiled down the story to (a) pay for a hotel for the night, or (b) put me on the late night flight back to Duluth and refund the ticket. They agreed to pay for the hotel.
That's not even the most interesting part of the story ... Ooops, I better get to the airport. I'll fill in later.
Because of thunderstorms, I missed my connecting flight from Minneapolis to Boston. The first problem was the aircraft left the gate at Duluth and sat on the tarmac for over two hours. If they had stayed at the gate, I would have simply opted out of this trip. Once in Minneapolis, since there was no flight that night to Boston, I asked to return to Duluth by a late night flight. Then, I told NW that (a) if they could reschedule me for this morning, returning to Duluth tomorrow morning, and (b) pay for a hotel for the night, I was willing to continue on my trip and reschedule my meeting. They agreed (on the phone) and re-scheduled my flights. The first problem was the gate agent refused to honor that and nicely apologized and said I would need to pay for the hotel. I was directed to the ticketing counters. At the ticketing counters, I was asked to stand in two incorrect lines before finding myself to the correct counter. I boiled down the story to (a) pay for a hotel for the night, or (b) put me on the late night flight back to Duluth and refund the ticket. They agreed to pay for the hotel.
That's not even the most interesting part of the story ... Ooops, I better get to the airport. I'll fill in later.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Managing Children
Today's "One Big Happy" comic in the newspaper triggered my memory of an incident I encountered this weekend. We were at Blockbuster and there was this little kid (I would guess about 2 years old) who was absolutely flipping out. She was wailing and screaming about wanting some movie. She was running around with tears streaming down her face and screaming loudly about a movie she wanted. The parents of this little girl continued their conversation and occasionally turned to her and said something like "Yes, honey. We'll get the movie some other time." My wife and I looked at each other as this scene continued for a few minutes. It just amazes me to see how some people deal with their kids.
As usual, I am not going to claim I have some magical parenting skills or that I am better than any others, so with that disclaimer, let me finish this story with my opinion on how this should have been handled. When we were all back in the car, I turned to my seven (almost eight) year-old daughter and asked her how she would have handled the screaming child if she'd been the parent. She said, without hesitation, "I would have taken the kid outside and taken her home and said No movie for you because you were misbehaving in the store!"
I told her that I would have handled it differently. To me, the key objective of a parent in this position is to bring the situation under their control in the short run while making steps towards managing such situations in the long run. For the short run, I completely agree with my daughter. The first thing I would do is to take the child out of the public area. No movie picking is that important that it cannot be delayed or canceled for an evening. But, once the out-of-control kid is out of the store, I would sit her (or him) down and ask if she wants to go back into the store so we can continue with the movie picking. If the answer is no (or if there is no reasoned response), I would simply put the child in the car seat and go home (and wait for a later time to talk to the child about how her reaction resulted in the outcome). On the other hand, I would guess that nine times out of ten, the child will want to return to the situation maximizing the likelihood of reward (go back into the store to pick out a movie). The moment I get the kid to agree that she wants to return to the store, I have gained a huge measure of control. I would then agree that we can go back to the store on the condition that ...
The moment the child agrees that she wants to go back into the store to pick out a movie, the parent now gains the power to set the ground rules. The rules then become very clear and any violation of those rules results in the movie being returned to the shelf and immediate departure from the store. However, this rarely happens. By this time, the child knows that his or her only choice (in order to achieve her goal) is to cooperate and the behavior comes under control.
It may be purely luck, but with three kids (now ranging in age from thirteen to six), I can swear that I have never had a screaming child in a store. There has never been a situation where one of my kids was so out of control that I could not immediately defuse the situation and bring things back in control. You'll notice that my only modification to my seven-year-old daughter's naive parenting response is that I would not escalate the situation by simply taking the child home. I think that results in bitterness (the child feels she was unfairly treated and deprived of some reward because of an unfair parent) and extended bouts of pouting. That is why, I would take the child to the car and then give the child the option of cooperating or going home. That way, if the kid doesn't get a grip of herself (or himself) the attribution for the punishment (going home without a movie) clearly rests with the child. (S)he clearly sees the immediate and explicit link between the outcome and his (or her) own behavior. The situation is defused, the child understands how his or her own behavior can influence a positive (or negative) outcome and you've taught the child to take responsibility for his or her behavior.
This is very verbose and probably makes a simple point. I am sure a better writer could make this point more elegantly, but since this is my blog and I don't have a ghostwriter yeat, this will have to do.
P.S.: Sorry for missing yesterday's post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)