I just finished watching a devastating interview with Melissa Hollingsworth... tripping into tears, trying to atone with words for what she felt was a letdown for her family, her country...
I think we're confused as to who we are as a country. We want to be both things.
We've heard it repeatedly over the past few days. Canadians are polite. We're friendly. We're upset when people don't hold the door because we know we'd hold it for them. We hate crossing the border because we'd sooner assume that somebody is good than that they're bad.
My speculation, though, is that in sports, the guys who win, more often than not, are the guys who you hated playing against in rec league because they took everything way too seriously. They're the guys who got all sweaty and aggressive when everybody was just trying to have fun. The guys who threw their weight around even though nobody was wearing pads.
I was watching the Snowboard Cross event with some buddies at work. We were yelling at the TV mid-race as the two American guys were throwing elbows and shoving our guy out towards the edge of the course... it's so inherently unlike us to approve of that type of activity, right? Fight fair. Fight clean. "C'mon man...!" is what we say.
So do we want to be known as, "Canada... reserved, humble, polite"? Seemingly.. because, let's be honest.. we do not want to be known the way much of the world knows the Americans. And we swell with pride during the Opening Ceremony poem, "We Are More". "Damn right!" we all say..
Or do we want to be known as, "Canada... owns the podium"? Win at all costs, utter brash confidence, mercilessly competitive, ultimately victorious. Well...
My take is this:
I love good stories. I'm not particularly competitive. In fact... really not much at all anymore. In the end, I don't really believe that sports, as a singular event, mean anything. They're the least of all things... with the power to excite, and inspire, and, as such, to become so much greater than their original, base-level value. I've found that I don't have a ton of interest in expectations. Melissa Hollingsworth was expected to win gold. She didn't. Somebody else did, and I suspect that the other girl has an amazing story.
This whole "Own The Podium" excercise has done its job. The proverbial "bums" are "in the seats". People are watching. The show is rolling, and the advertisers are buying.
Every win means something great for somebody. When a Korean wins a gold, they're guarenteed a government issued salary, for life. For life!! I love those great moments where everything falls into place. I enjoy the ones that go our way. As one of my bosses said when he walked into the room immediately following the Canadian "Crosby Show" shootout win, "now THAT's GOOD TV!!" Sure was... a huge moment. Fun to be a part of.
If, at the end, Canada was to be known for something, I'd prefer it wasn't that we were great at winter sports.
These games have been a blast to watch. Great moments left, right, and centre. Athletes reaching the absolute pinnacle.. sometimes ours, sometimes not. It's how it should be.
Here's to a great second week!
... but we better friggen win Hockey!
JB
Friday, February 19, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Enough
I'm intrigued by the concept of 'enough'. It's something I've been hearing a lot about lately.. I suppose in the things I've been reading, the messages I've been hearing, etc.
Human nature will inherently handle the task of self-preservation. Looking out for number one isn't so much a decision as it is an instinct. When you're in danger, you defend yourself. When you're hungry, you find food. But that pendulum has swung far past centre in our society. It's a basic business concept that we maximize our profits. In any given scenario, the engrained ideology is to figure out what would be considered 'over the line', and then land just below it.
The challenge, then, is to decipher what will scare a potential client away, in terms of a dollar amount, and then to charge just below it. To forever exist in that zone in which your clients are willing to pony up not because they're necessarily comfortable with your terms, but because you're good at what you do, and therefore worth the financial pain. As your skillset, your reputation, your general scale of business increases, the line moves accordingly.
The question that plagues me is a moral one. To what end do we push this ideology? The simple, christianese understanding is that "if I have all the money, then I can decide what's done with it..." the assumption being that my making more money, and thus distributing said money in an appropriate, other-centered fashion, is the best of all options.
Is it possible to exist in this society, and in a business environment, specifically, with an overarching idea of how much is enough? Can a guy realign his focus so as to decide how much he wants to live on, and how much he needs, and then allow those decisions to dictate the way in which he conducts his business?
The devil's advocate asks, "What about responsibility? You have an opportunity to increase your value, and thus, your influence. Aren't you putting a ceiling on your potential, and, thus, your usefulness?"
Maybe, yes.
But drawing an immediate line between wealth and influence is also a misnomer. Money allows us to do things. Money accomplishes aid, and relief, and charity. But the need for charity, for aid, often exists as a result of unequal distribution of wealth. To continually pursue increased financial gains in an effort to allow oneself to aid those who may have otherwise benefited from a less self-centered approach in the first place... that's a vicious circle.
As an ideal, what does a world look like where we know our needs, and we're cognizant of how much is "enough"?
The devil's advocate also asks, "What about wisdom? When you fall on hard times, twenty years of living with 'enough' isn't going to help you. What about security?" But then, that just comes back to the idea of "enough". Security and startling wealth often toy dangerously with synonymity on this side of the world. Our "security" has no relevance in light of a larger world view.
Understanding "enough" could be a game-changer.
JB
Human nature will inherently handle the task of self-preservation. Looking out for number one isn't so much a decision as it is an instinct. When you're in danger, you defend yourself. When you're hungry, you find food. But that pendulum has swung far past centre in our society. It's a basic business concept that we maximize our profits. In any given scenario, the engrained ideology is to figure out what would be considered 'over the line', and then land just below it.
The challenge, then, is to decipher what will scare a potential client away, in terms of a dollar amount, and then to charge just below it. To forever exist in that zone in which your clients are willing to pony up not because they're necessarily comfortable with your terms, but because you're good at what you do, and therefore worth the financial pain. As your skillset, your reputation, your general scale of business increases, the line moves accordingly.
The question that plagues me is a moral one. To what end do we push this ideology? The simple, christianese understanding is that "if I have all the money, then I can decide what's done with it..." the assumption being that my making more money, and thus distributing said money in an appropriate, other-centered fashion, is the best of all options.
Is it possible to exist in this society, and in a business environment, specifically, with an overarching idea of how much is enough? Can a guy realign his focus so as to decide how much he wants to live on, and how much he needs, and then allow those decisions to dictate the way in which he conducts his business?
The devil's advocate asks, "What about responsibility? You have an opportunity to increase your value, and thus, your influence. Aren't you putting a ceiling on your potential, and, thus, your usefulness?"
Maybe, yes.
But drawing an immediate line between wealth and influence is also a misnomer. Money allows us to do things. Money accomplishes aid, and relief, and charity. But the need for charity, for aid, often exists as a result of unequal distribution of wealth. To continually pursue increased financial gains in an effort to allow oneself to aid those who may have otherwise benefited from a less self-centered approach in the first place... that's a vicious circle.
As an ideal, what does a world look like where we know our needs, and we're cognizant of how much is "enough"?
The devil's advocate also asks, "What about wisdom? When you fall on hard times, twenty years of living with 'enough' isn't going to help you. What about security?" But then, that just comes back to the idea of "enough". Security and startling wealth often toy dangerously with synonymity on this side of the world. Our "security" has no relevance in light of a larger world view.
Understanding "enough" could be a game-changer.
JB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)