Tag Archives: Canada

Canadians Really ARE Humble

Yesterday evening, Part 1 of Peter Mansbridge’s interview with Cardinal Marc Ouellet aired on CBC. I didn’t see it until this morning when the interview was posted online. While I think the interview is important (for those non-Cardinal watchers) to be introduced to who could be the next Pope, there’s another part of this interview that I think is important.

Partway through the interview, Mansbridge asks Ouellet the question that any good interviewer would ask: “Do you want to be Pope?” If I recall correctly, Mansbridge wasn’t that direct, but it was clear that was what he was asking. Immediately, Ouellet seems flabbergasted, his face flushes, and he dodges the question. A minute or two later, Mansbridge asks another question that gets to the same point. This time, he asks Ouellet what the important qualities that a  “Canadian” could bring to the job of being Pope. Again, Ouellet answers (in his manner, not his words) almost the same way he did the direct question.

Why am I saying all of this?

Canadians and Canadian culture, by their/its very nature, is humble. Ouellet’s got about a 50/50 chance of becoming one of the most “powerful” people in the world and he’s still over-the-top humble.

I’ve included Part 1 of the interview below. Part 2 airs tonight.

The Deepest Principle in Human Nature is the Craving to be Appreciated

At the tail end of my trip last week, I stopped in Charleston, SC. While there, I was happy to enjoy some of the local cuisine, along with the sights and sounds, but I was also pretty excited to watch the Golden Globes. I always like to watch the award shows when I’ve seen most of the movies. Having seen a number of the movies that were nominated this year (Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi, Django Unchained, Argo, etc.), I was really excited. It feels like I’m more connected to the awards, somehow.

After watching the show, I couldn’t help but reflect on society at large. In particular, I thought about the lack of appreciation we show each other. That is, how many more award shows are there? A few big ones come to mind: the Oscars, the Grammys, the AMAs, the CMAs, the VMAs, the Golden Globes, the Emmys, the Tonys… and from there I struggle to think of many award shows that are on as large a scale. Of course, we could include the sports awards ceremonies, too — so the ESPYs and the NHL awards. And some folks might argue for the All-Star games.

This might be strange coming from a Canadian. In Canada, after you win an award, the culture dictates that you go and put it in your bag, so you don’t make anyone feel bad for not winning. In the US, however, that’s not the case. Nonetheless, it still feels like the US (and the world?) could do with some more appreciating of each other.

~

Did you ever conduct a science experiment when you were in grade school about some sort of vegetable growing better to classical music? That stuff really works. Did you know that most vegetables/fruits are made up of water? And did you know… that most of the human body is made up of water? Can you see where I’m going with this. The words we use to communicate with each other matter. If something as simple as classical music can help vegetables grow, don’t you think that words of appreciation will be greatly beneficial to the people around you?

~

So, while I won’t be organizing an awards show anytime soon, there are still ways that I can be appreciative of the people around me and in my environment. For instance, whenever I ride the bus, I almost always thank the driver upon de-bussing. Do you? How about if someone holds the door open for you — do you say thank you? Do you hold the door open for other people? If you take the time to look, I’m sure you’ll find that there are infinite opportunities for you to show your appreciation.

Note: The title of this post comes courtesy a quote from William James.

What the Heck is Boxing Day, Anyway?

Seeing as though today’s Boxing Day, I thought I’d offer up an explanation as to the meaning of Boxing Day. Growing up in Canada, I grew to know Boxing Day as the day when all the good sales would happen at stores. For many Americans, this may sound strange. Although, think of it like Black Friday — Boxing Day is much the same — in that stores increasingly compete with each other to open sooner and sooner to have better sales.

So, when I was younger, my thought that Boxing Day got its name because of all the boxes. To a young person, that makes sense. With all the day after Christmas shopping, there’s bound to be lots of boxes! Somewhere along the way, I remember someone telling me, ‘oh no, that’s not it. It’s because there was a big boxing match back in the day.’ Well that sounds plausible, too. Although, after having searched the internet, I don’t seem to find any solid references to a boxing match on “Boxing Day,” leading to the day getting its name.

Regardless of the etymology, Boxing Day is most certainly a holiday in Canada (and some other Commonwealth countries) and that’s because it derives from European tradition. It does seem, though, that there isn’t any one definitive answer. According to Wikipedia (and many other places I found in researching for this post):

The exact etymology of the term “boxing” is unclear. There are several competing theories, none of which is definitive.

One of those competing theories has it that the lord of the manor would “pay” its servants with boxes of practical goods (food, clothes, etc.). This starts to make more sense when we realize that a “Christmas Box” is like saying “Christmas Present.” So, it’s almost as if “Boxing Day” was the day that the bourgeoisie would “exchange” gifts with the proletariat. That may be taking a bit too far, but it certainly seems like it.

So… while I can’t give you a definitive answer, some of the things out there on the internet certainly seem plausible as to why it’s called “Boxing Day.” One thing it seems we can say for sure — it wasn’t because of a big “boxing match.”

What’s More Valuable — Money or Life?

It only happened about 3 hours ago, but with how quickly news travels today, you’ve no doubt heard about the school shooting in Connecticut. As I heard some of the coverage (and watched some of the reaction on Twitter — most notably from a fictional Twitter handle: President Bartlet), I couldn’t help but think of something that I shared on Facebook recently.

It was a post about Bob Costas and his mention of gun control on national television — the same weekend where a professional football player took his own life (along with his girlfriend). There were some reactions to my sharing this on Facebook, which precipitated my going and finding an article about what it was like to own a gun in Canada (vs. owning a gun in the US). I’m very aware that there’s a second amendment to the United States Constitution and that it’s probably there for a very good reason, but it’s painful — painful — when there’s a tragedy that may have been prevented if there were better rules/regulations in place.

People who want stronger regulations to own guns are not infringing on citizens’ second amendment rights. Let me say that again: people who want stronger gun control regulations are not trying to take people’s guns away.

There are a few important points from the article detailing the differences between getting a gun in Canada and getting one in the US:

The first step in legally obtaining a gun in Canada is taking the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and Test.  The course is required to obtain a possession and acquisition licence.

Obtaining an PAL does not allow its owner unfettered access to firearms, but instead allows its bearer to obtain a “non-restricted” firearm.  Non-restricted firearms are generally considered to be sporting rifles, shotguns or airguns.

…

The PAL allows Canadians to own and operate “non-restricted” firearms. A “restricted” firearm generally refers to handguns, and requires a separate certification training course, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police website.

The people in this class will have to wait several weeks to find out if they pass, but even if they do, there are several more steps before they can actually get a gun.

They still have to apply for a firearms license, which like a driver’s license requires a photo.

There’s a 28-day waiting period for that and the government runs background checks and calls personal references to talk to them to see if they think the applicant can handle a gun.

But that still doesn’t allow the person to buy a handgun and bring it home. There’s a separate license required to take the handgun out of the store.  The Authorization to Transport (ATT) is even required for person to a gun from one location to another in Canada – even to move a gun from a home to a firing range.

The whole process takes months, but for the most part the students in this class don’t mind the restrictions. In fact, they appreciate them. [Emphasis added]

And one last quote that I wanted to share from the article:

“I don’t really consider it going through hoops.  It’s a weekend, a couple hundred dollars,” said one student Paula.  “For the responsibility of carrying around a firearm?  I think that’s more than worth it.  I would like to know that anyone around me who has the ability to use a firearm knows what the hell they’re doing and knows how to do it safely, and knows how to think of me and my family and not just themselves and I want to do this so I’m gonna do it,” she said. [Emphasis added]

These are not unreasonable expectations. A common argument you hear from supporters of gun control: you need a license to drive a car, why wouldn’t you need a license to own a gun? I hear that argument, but I think it incorrectly equates cars with guns (somewhat ironically — both lead to a number of deaths in the Western world).

A far more important argument — in my eyes — is the question of what we value as a society. What does our society value more — money or life? Because that’s what it costs. “Unfettered” freedom with regard to gun control — costs lives. Today’s event wasn’t the first school shooting and if there continues to be such lax gun regulations in the US, it probably won’t be the last.

Yes — regulations cost money. But what’s more important, money or life?

What Do You Stand For?

In skimming through this week’s The Economist, I noticed a rather intriguing letter. I’ve included it below:

Go west!

SIR – I am a water-treatment operator in Fort McMurray, in the heart of Alberta’s oil-sands country, and I read your piece about our boom town (“The sands of grime”, November 17th). There are labour shortages here and we really do need 100,000 skilled tradesmen, as you said. But I’m worried that articles like yours might frighten off workers by writing about, for instance, our “ultra-low temperatures”.

Of course it’s cold here. It’s Canada. Last night was -27 Celsius (-17 Fahrenheit) and I went out without my jacket zipped up; you get used to the cold. And it is expensive to buy or rent property, which is why many people share apartments. In order to attract more workers the site camps are improving their facilities and financial packages.

My grandfather owned an iron foundry in Britain’s West Midlands. I was always taught that dirty hands make clean money. If you tell someone here that you are out of work you will get no sympathy as so much employment is available. Over the past 20 months I have earned $300,000 and spent a few weeks on vacation in Miami, a few more in Virginia and a few more in Toronto. It certainly beats overturning cars and waiting for some Russian or Arab billionaire to buy my local football club while collecting benefits.

The oil-sands boom is happening, like it or not, so why not make some money during this gold rush. Come on out and get your hands dirty.

Simon Moss
Fort McMurray, Canada

The letter-writer makes some good points, but as I considered the closing thoughts, I struggled with imagining myself as someone working in the oil-sands of Canada. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that oil is an important part of life (and the economy) as it stands today, but I just don’t know if I could bring myself to work for a cause that I didn’t whole-heartedly support. When I started my MBA back in the fall of 2011, one of my first thoughts was that I would graduate and work for a firm for which the mission was wholly congruent with mine. This was a strong contributing factor that led to me interning with Ashoka this past summer.

While providing energy/goods is a noble mission, I don’t know if I want to be directly part of it in this way. That is, I don’t know if I would want to use my skills in this way. However, I wouldn’t absolutely rule out working for a firm/organization that is in this industry. My way of reconciling something like this would be working for the firm’s department/area responsible for corporate social responsibility.

Appreciative Inquiry and George Mason University’s Strategic Vision

This morning I was fortunate to be part of an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) event at George Mason University. If you’re not familiar with AI, from Wiki: “Appreciative Inquiry is primarily an organizational development method which focuses on increasing what an organization does well rather than on eliminating what it does badly.” The whole purpose of today’s AI was, “to help shape aspects of the new Vision related to Mason’s mission, values and the Mason Graduate (the attributes we wish all of our students have in common by the time they graduate).” Currently, George Mason University is creating a new strategic vision.

During my time as the student body president of Saginaw Valley State University, I contributed to the university’s strategic planning process. I was fortunate that during my time as the president coincided with when the university was in the process of redoing its 5-year plan. I say this because at the AI event today was George Mason University’s student government president. It made me a bit nostalgic about my time in that role.

Getting back to AI: I really like this method. By focusing on the positives of an organization, it certainly feels like there’s a better energy about the process. I could be demonstrating one of my biases, but even the faculty facilitator (who was there at the birth of this method in 1987!) spoke about the importance of steering clear of falling into a trap of opining the things that an organization lacks. Why? Simply stated: that list is never-ending.

The group of folks that I spent morning with really came up with some great ideas. This process gave me a new appreciation for some of the positives of George Mason University. In fact, I even joked with the group that it made me want to forget about moving back to Canada and get a job here at Mason.

Lastly, I wanted to say that today’s event reinforced my enjoyment of being part of strategic planning. While there wasn’t any actual “strategic planning” that happened today, I knew that the things that the larger group (of about 100 people) talked about today would be a data point that could be used by those folks who are doing the strategic planning. So, in a larger sense, today’s event was about strategic planning. And strategic planning is something that I can get really excited about.

Oh, one last thing. There was a really great line that was said during the meeting that the room seemed to love. I captured it in a tweet:

Is There No Easier Way To Choose a President?

I think this cartoon — while meant to be funny — also has a good point. The USA just went through one of the longest and most expensive campaigns — isn’t there an easier way to do this?

I understand that some folks think that there might not be and I really don’t have a definitive answer to the question. I would look to some of the European countries like France where the campaign/election takes a fraction of the time as it does in the US. Or, there are the US’s neighbors to the North — Canada. An election is called and 6 weeks later, there is voting! I realize that the US has quite a larger population than Canada, but I wonder how much more productive the policymakers of the US would be if campaigning/elections were only 6 weeks long.

Think about all the time that lawmakers spend at fundraisers or campaigning. Just about all of that time could then be reallocated to creating public policy! One would think that things might move along quicker, but who knows, maybe they wouldn’t.

If you have an idea for how you think elections should run in the US, I’d love to hear. Let me/us know in the comments! On the face of it, there certainly seems to be a need to reduce the time it takes to choose a President in the US. If we start counting the time all the way back to the primaries, it takes over a year to pick a President in the US. That certainly seems like a long time, especially given that some of these same people are also tasked with running the country.

Is it Time for More International Sports Events?

I’m that I haven’t written more about , but I’ve got a couple of posts (including this one) coming on the subject.

Having been born and raised in North America, the sports that are ‘native’ to me are very different from the sports that would be native to me had I been born and raised in a different part of the world. I grew up watching the (hockey) and (baseball). I played baseball all the way up to (and for part of) university. The weird thing to me is that when I visit places abroad, it’s not that these sports are foreign (or looked down upon), but that these sports aren’t played and revered in the same way that they are in North America.

For example, when I was for a few months, it was all about the (rugby). In fact, the country kind of “shuts down” when the All Blacks are playing. This doesn’t usually happen in North America. Well, maybe more accurately, it doesn’t usually happen in the US. I know that it definitely happens in Canada. Remember the in Vancouver? More specifically, remember the game? (22 million people of the 33 million living in Canada) watched Sidney Crosby score the overtime winner.

This whole post was sparked by a couple of ‘global’ sports events. The first, the . I happened to be in Munich on the day of the game (I’ve never seen so many uniformed and undercover police in one place!) From what I understand, the UEFA Champions League Final is like the Superbowl in the US, but only 5 times . More noteworthy for me is that the Champions League Final usually draws more viewers internationally. This is due, in part, to the teams that play in this league not all being from the same country. Nonetheless, when I’m watching a game like this, I feel like there’s more of a shared community. I can imagine people in Spain watching the game at the same time that people in Russia and Australia are watching the game. Of course, that may be the case with the Superbowl, but I don’t feel it as much.

The second sports event that helped spark this post was . Having an Italian lineage (my last name is STANGHINI), I feel a sense of connection to the country and by extension, the . I was really excited when they tied Spain during the group play and then a little worried when they tied Croatia. They went on to beat Ireland to advance to the knockout stage where they then beat England on PKs and handily defeated Germany setting up a rematch of their first game in the group play with Spain in the final. The game seemed close in the 1st half (even though Spain was up 2-0), but once , Spain dominated control of the ball.

Both of these events made me think more about sports on a global level. They made me think (and wish?) for more coverage and (excitement!) from North American countries of international sports events. Yes, baseball is fun and it’s great to see the Blue Jays play the Red Sox or the Yankees, but I really liked the when Cuba played the Dominican Republic or the USA played Japan. I really like it when there’s more of an international engagement. Yes, I enjoy a good Leafs game, especially if it’s against the Canadiens, but I get even more excited to watch a Canada-USA game or a Canada-Russia game. The one problem I can see with all of this is that North American countries are simply responding to their customers. That is, the customer wants to watch the NFL or the NHL, so that’s what gets put on the .

Although, there has been a decided shift to show more international sports events on TV. For instance, I notice that there is a lot more coverage of cricket on Rogers Sportsnet. Maybe North American countries are moving in this direction. Only time will tell.