Bird's Eye View

The Big Brit Debate About UK's Future

Tonight's debate in the UK--it will begin in a short while from now, as I write this, is a biggie.  Nick Clegg has turned everything upside down and whittle what looked like a sure lead for Cameron and the Conservatives into a tossup election.

Whatever happens, one thing is sure: the youth of the UK have become empowered and energized and are going to be the deciding factor in this election, just as the youth of the U.S. put Obama in the White House.

Wow!  This is big and has major ramifications for much more than politics.  It's about a way of life that is espoused by the young of Britain and they are not going to let go of their hold on things now.  Or are they?  One of the biggest surprises to me since Obama's election is how unenergized America's youth seem to be since that historic inauguration in January 2009.  They haven't rallied, really, for anything since then.  And Obama doesn't seem to have taken much of an interest in making that happen.

That's a mistake because young people are the future of our country and have already demonstrated in undeniable fashion that they are the ultimate decision makers if they care enough about an issue.

Will the same thing happen in the UK? 

What I'd love to see is a "hands across the Atlantic" kind of thing where the youth of Western Europe and those in the North American hemisphere decide to combine efforts to do something awesome and significant.  Like, say, cut global warming.  Fix the economy.  Throw out whatever rascals got us into this financial quagmire. 

They talk a lot on the Internet.  So here's hoping they turn that talk into a force for something important.

I'm waiting.

Holy $#!T! It's Goldman Sachs Talking

What's going on?!  In a senate hearing exploring the role Goldman Sachs played in the financial meltdown-- specifically in playing both sides of toxic mortgage deals--senators in yesterday's session hurled expletives and foul words at the firm's executives on the hot seat.

Senator Carl Levin was the most offensive, repeating the words "sh***ty deal" numerous times, echoing words used in emails by at least one Goldman Sachs executive.

On today's New York Times' front page, that report of barnyard talk in the US Senate was not the only tale of unprofessional conduct in a reputed-to-be-august government body.  In the Ukraine, yesterday's session of Parliament turning into a fist fight brawl, with people throwing smoke bombs and eggs at one another in an argument about whether or not to extend the Russian's use of a naval base on Ukraine soil.

Ukraine aside, it surprises lots of folks when our most allowed halls of government are reduced to locker room talk.  A friend on his way to Hong Kong today told me of sitting next to a German on his flight into New York from Miami this morning.  The German was appalled as he read reports in the paper of the US Senate hearing, saying "I thought we'd never hear this kind of talk coming from America's government."

I remember long ago my father telling me "You can tell when you're winning an argument when your opponent resorts to foul language.  It means he's run out of logical things to say."

Hmmm.  I'm no fan of Goldman Sachs these days and can understand why their shady activities in the sub-prime mortgage debacle infuriate people.  But I like to think the people we elect to our Senate have speaking skills sufficiently good to be able to hold their own in a Senate hearing, especially when the facts seem to be on their side, without having to resort to words that used to be punished by having one's mouth washed out with soap. 

Let's put basic debate skills back into our high school curricula. 

Gentlemen and Ladies...puh-leeze watch your language!  Otherwise you could be mistaken for the losers in the argument.

Does Goldman Sachs Speak For You?

Look who's talking today on Capital Hill: Appearing before a Senate committee today are seven of Goldman's best and brightest (and that means really smart) re what in heck happened at Goldman when it set up and sold Abacus securities, which turned out to be another toxic investment vehicle. 

 
Sounds like our recent Inner Circle conversation on the topic of trust in the business world was well timed.  We're doing another Inner Circle discussion on May 14 in London on the same topic.  Should be especially interesting, given that the unprecedented election for the next Prime Minister of the UK will have taken place barely a week before our conversation at BT's offices.  Sally Davis, President of BT's powerful Wholesale Division, is my co-host.  We'll have our hands full with what I expect to be a highly interactive, potentially emotional exchange on just which leaders and which institutions can be trusted today. 

I may have mentioned to you that in our recent Inner Circle here in New York, a high percentage of attendees placed Goldman on the side of the "I don't trust these people" column.  And that was before the SEC got into the act. 

 
I suspect there may be even more folks who feel Goldman is not on the side of the angels...

Messiah en masse: Why Do We Go To Concerts?

Whether it's The Rolling Stones, Lady Gaga, the Jonas Brothers, or a 140 person choir singing Handel's Messiah, we humans like to listen to music together.  In the same space physically, we gather together for a shared experience of other people making music.  Why is that?  How does a crowd listening experience differ from listening to the same music on our own?  It can't be the quality of the auditory experience because except for state-of-the-art concert halls listening on our home equipment generally provides a better quality auditory experience than we get in an auditorium or coliseum or even--extreme example--sitting on the lawn in Central Park.  

 
In fact, last summer I was one of many thousands sitting on blankets on a warm summer evening in New York's incomparable Central Park, wine and picnic basket at the ready, listening to the hum of conversation going on during the New York Philharmonic's concert.  In truth, you could barely hear the music.  Not because the loudspeakers were deficient.  It was because everyone there chose to talk to their picnicking friends rather than listen to the music.  So why were they there?  I tried to envision these many thousands of people showing up on the same evening if they had seen signs that said "Massive Picnic in Central Park.  Bring your own food, blankets and wine...and come prepared for a good time talking with your friends."  I'm certain no one would show up.  The concert was the catalyst for people showing up, but once there all but a few ignored the music and reveled in the shared picnic atmosphere.  As I looked around me, few people even glanced at the printed program. 

Now that's not the case for most arena concerts.  People are there to hear the music...but it's all about hearing the music along with thousands of other fans. 

 
Last night we went to hear the Messiah sung by a combined chorus of three different choirs, accompanied by an orchestra.  It was held at the Holy Trinity Church on Manhattan's west side, not the best acoustics in the world, but it was sublime.  Susan Orkin, a friend of mine, was one of the singers and it was because of her I was there.  I sat there thinking, would I have pulled out the Messiah recording I have and listened to it at home on a Sunday evening for two hours?  Unlikely.  But I was transfixed by the music last night, all of which I've heard many times before.  There is something so special about being there when other human beings are performing, knowing that specific experience--though it is recordable both audibly and visually--is a never-to-happen-again experience in our personal life span.  Perhaps it is about being physically present for an experience that our brain determines is special beyond any mechanized memorialization of the experience.  It's why so many of us found our way to Washington, D.C. to experience President Obama's inauguration midst millions of people, though it was difficult to see and to hear.  We were there.  Together.  And that was more important personally than seeing and hearing it on television.

It's the same way with conversation.  It's why I believe that face to face conversation is the new luxury.  Being there, feeling each others' presence, is what makes the experience important.  

 
It's why it was important for President Obama to be there this past week among the survivor families of the West Virginia coal miners who lost their lives on the job, inside that mine.  It was face to face conversation at its most poignant, its most important.

When you next get an invitation to join someone for a milestone in their lives, to celebrate a birthday or a graduation, or to eulogize a family member of friend, make every effort to be there.  Physically.  In the same place. 

And as for your work, you'll no doubt find that working from home may have its advantages, but there is nothing quite like the shared camaraderie, the brainstorming, the innovation that comes from being in the midst of other people who care about getting the job done and find that joining forces can make things happen better and faster than doing them alone.

Maybe you should turn on some music while you're at it.  Even if it's playing in the background. 

Wisconsin Leads Nation In Returning Census

Yesterday's post was about the tendency for Midwesterners to be assumed trustworthy. 

Here's an interesting stat:  As of this moment, the top five states leading participation in this year's census are all Midwestern: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska and Iowa.   And Wisconsin leads the pack at 80% participation!

Fern Letnes, the fellow Midwestern friend I mentioned in yesterday's post, alerted me to this news.  The website you can follow for news on census returns and all related information is fascinating.  Check it out here. 

Fern tells me she's heard that some folks think it has to do with the heavy concentration of Scandinavians in Wisconsin and its neighboring states.  In Sweden, the census is taken annually and people there consider it one of the requirements of being a good citizen.  My research turns up the fact that when the census was first begun in Sweden (earlier than the rest of Europe), the effort was spearheaded by members of the Lutheran clergy who promoted from the pulpit to their congregations.  Interesting.  

Not sure Sweden's annual census ritual has any bearing on the tendency of Wisconsinites to get that census returned, but the Cheesehead record thus far in leading the nation fits right in line with the theory of many of us that if you want something done, give it to a Midwesterner and it will get done.  On time.  With little fuss.

 
How about among your colleagues?  Does this hold true?  Are the Mid-westerners in the group people you trust?  Can count on to get the job done?  Show up when they say they will?

Food for discussion, this census info.  And how about this stat: Alaska is the state with the lowest participation.   Hmmm.  Sarah Palin country.   Is this the basis of a whole new conversation about which state's population can be counted on to do what they say they'll do?

Why Are People From The Midwest Trusted?

Readers of the Bird's Eye View know by now that I'm a native of Wisconsin, the heart of America's Dairyland.  Doesn't matter that I never stepped foot on a farm until I was well into high school.  And that was because my friend Peg Jones (nee Quinn) and I decided we would earn some money by picking strawberries during the summer.  (Trust me, picking strawberries is backbreaking, sweaty work.  But we were self-impressed by our personal industry and the ability to make some change.)  We also "car-hopped" which means we worked at a town root beer stand taking orders from people who drove up in cars and ordered hamburgers, french fries, root beer.  The exotic job, though, was picking strawberries.  Probably because no one else we knew had even the slightest interest in doing it so we were somehow into new territory with our farm adventure.

So I guess the Cheesehead moniker is appropriate in my case.  I'm still a Wisconsinite in spirit, no matter how much Manhattan patina I've acquired.  So what does this "in spirit" mean?  It means, well, Midwestern.  And I translate that as "honest, hard-working, likes to party, gets to work on time, speaks frankly."  That about sums it up.

 
Among my good friends in New York is Fern Letnes, whom I've known since just after college.  Fern is from Minnesota and she, too, treasures her Midwestern upbringing.  In fact, Fern spends her summers in Minnesota, in a small tacky ranch house she totally transformed into a charming country cottage.  She just has to have that yearly Midwestern sojourn to feel she's still connected to the important (read valuable) things in life.  People talk of finding their "true North" and living by that.  Fern's a good example of someone who knows what's important to her and keeps pretty good tabs on ensuring that her values stay in line with the Midwestern bedrock rules on which she was raised.

 
One of the things we have in common besides geography is that both of us have Scandinavian ancestors.  My mother was half-Swedish and loved to entertain us with her pretend Swedish accent.  After I married, my husband and I became friends with a number of Swedes who had settled in San Francisco and were pursuing careers there.  I felt right at home.  For all I knew, they could have come from Wisconsin, too.  After all, they all talked like my Mother.

So in this time when trust seems to be eroding in serious fashion, whether you look at the leaders of our financial institutions, academic institutions, government, big business, entertainers, sports figures...I find myself thinking "If these people were from the Midwest, they wouldn't behave this way."  I know that's silly, but somehow, on some level, I believe it.  Something about that small town homespun place of ideals has become indelibly marked in my brain.  And I use it as an excuse for being plain-spoken, telling it like it is. 

Maybe I'm, just lazy.  As my Dad used to say, "Tell the truth.  Then you don't have to remember what you said."

Is Nick Clegg The Brit Obama?

Media is going crazy about popular response to Nick Clegg since the first-ever campaign debate staged in the UK during the pre-voting selection process for Prime Minister.  The debate, intended to pit the two front runner candidates against one another instead got kidnapped by Nick Clegg and his winsome politics and charm.

The Internet is active with comparisons between Clegg and Winston Churchill, Clegg and Obama, Clegg as UK hero.  Whazzup?

 
For on thing, he's a fresh face and the Brits appear bored with their choice between the Conservative Party candidate David Cameron and incumbent (and Labour's man) Gordon Brown.  Perhaps it's a bit of "Yes We can!" on the part of young people who feel it's their turn to set a new agenda at #10 Downing Street, although just what that agenda is appears not at all clear.  Although there is no organized Rock the Vote effort, as best I can see, to propel Clegg into office on the shoulders of a highly energized youth vote, there's an Internet frenzy of talk about Clegg. 

We're told that because of the way voting works in the UK, there is no chance that Clegg could actually win the election.  But his candidacy has sparked conversation globally and David Cameron's slim lead in polls leading up to the debate, appears to be threatened by the word of mouth chatter.  So whoever wins will have to face an empowered Liberal Democrat (or "Lib Dem" as Clegg's heretofore faltering party is now tagged) group in both houses of Parliament.

Any application here to how you can consider activating a cause you hold dearly that may not ultimately win, but could garner you support you didn't know you had?  That kind of support can end up effecting major change even if you're not running the show.

Ambien For Sleep; Conversation To Stay Awake

 

Have you flown more than 6 or 7 hours at a stretch?  Flights from New York to Hong Kong can be 16 hours long, non-stop.  About the same for Mumbai.   As for Nairobi, there are no none-stops, far as I know, so you're up for another nearly day-long trip.

I'm a pretty good sleeper on planes, so long as Ambien is at the ready.  Despite Tiger Woods' reported use of Ambien for other purposes, my experience say it's a pretty sure-fire way to get into the snore zone fast.  (But don't take your Ambien until you get on the plane.  On a flight to Hong Kong, my husband took his pill while we were still in the airport lounge...and then the flight was delayed.  When they finally announced departure, it took me and a burly volunteer to get him up on his feet and walking to the plane.  He was, well, zonked.  Needless to say, he now follows the "wait-'til-you're-on-the-plane-rule.)

That may get you to sleep, but jet lag once you arrive is an altogether other question.  There are many theories out there, but the one I swear by when taking a flight of more than 3 hours difference in time zones, is to get myself into the time zone of my destination as soon as I can, preferably the day before I've even gotten on the plane.

This is not easy to do in the practical workday world.  It works best when you are taking a daytime flight (night time in your destination city) and able to take Ambien as soon as you get on the plane, treating it as your night time.  If you're going to Hong Kong, for example, and can get a flight that departs at 11 AM from JFK, you're in good shape.  You sleep 7 hours on the plane (no eating, no watching TV...this is bedtime), then force yourself to wake up and treat the rest of the flight as your daytime.  It works even better if you've been following this clock for the day before you leave.  This means--yes, grit your teeth--that you've stayed up the night before, all-nighter style.  This is a great time to catch up on movies you've wanted to watch, books you've wanted to read, sometimes even work you've wanted to do.   And if you prevail (the last few hours are the toughest), you're ready to sleep when you get on the plane and you're in great shape by the time you reach Asia

 

This works best if you have someone willing to talk with you during your all nighter.  This is where you find out who your true friends are, right?  Although I have some friends who normally don't go to bed until 1 AM or so, that group thins to zero when it gets past, say, 2 in the morning.  And that's the tough part of the ritual.  So my plan is to alert friends of mine who live half way round the world and enlist them to help me.  It goes something like this: "I'm flying to Hong Kong tomorrow and doing that all nighter thing again.  Would you call me at 2 PM your time?  That's just when I'll be getting tempted to give up on the plan and crawl under the covers."  I ask someone else to call at 3 AM New York time, and someone else for 4 AM and so on. 

As I say, this is a test of friendship.  If you've got stalwart types who agree to phone you (and further agree they won't tell you all the reasons it's a stupid idea) you can make it work.  I'd be too embarrassed, after enlisting my friends' help, to have them call and find me asleep.  So this gives that added shame aspect to the whole undertaking.  And it's a great way for me to catch up on what they're up to.

So why not just set the alarm clock for every hour?   Or employ some other trick to distract yourself?  Easy.  In the end, it's always conversation that keeps me going, makes me curious, makes me think and thus keeps me awake.  So the next time you're planning a long flight, put on your checklist the important item of enrolling your friends in assisting your all nighter.  You may even remember what you said while you're jabbering away with half closed eyes.

And if you don't have friends who live half way round the world, make it part of your plan to make some friends when you're there.  And warn them they'll here from you when you're planning your return trip.

Food Talk At The Good Fork

I've got a number of favorite restaurants in Manhattan.  A few are upscale special occasion places, like my all-time favorite Jean Georges, where every moment of the dining experience is orchestrated.  It's the kind of coddling that makes an evening that much more memorable when you connect it with a dining experience that got all the senses involved in pleasure.  The food--its taste, its presentation, its complexity--is a key ingredient of the occasion and at least some of the dinner conversation is about the food itself. 

Another group of my favorites are of a totally different variety.  They have more to do with being comfortable,  talking easily, perhaps a bit loudly, with good friends who love great conversation and can build a discussion into a special event by their sheer passion for the subject and for the camaraderie of the evening.  The food has to be good--in fact it has to be very good--but it isn't central to the evening.  The evening is memorable for the conversation above all else.  And the restaurant is run by people who are truly "at your service" and appear to be loving the role of providing the backdrop for interactive enjoyment across a dinner table.

Such a place is The Good Fork.  It's in Red Hook, a section of Brooklyn with a colorful history, where the union dockworkers used to sweat up a storm as they heaved and hauled cargo from ships to docks and vice versa.  It's the location of the famous film "On the Waterfront," with Marlon Brando ("I cudda been a contendah") and Eva Marie Saint.  Before that it was home to poor Dutch immigrants, an unseemly, dangerous place according to historians. 

Red Hook is still nearly impossible to reach via public transportation from Manhattan.  We always get into the yellow Mini Cooper and drive there along the Brooklyn Queens Expressway with its amazing view of the Manhattan skyline as a gift along the way.  Maybe the difficulty of getting there from Manhattan is why it still retains it's "We just discovered this" charm, a bit down at the heels with pockets of chic.

The Good Fork would be a good restaurant anywhere.  But it's a great place, as far as I'm concerned, partly because it's in Red Hook.  The owners are Ben Schneider and his wife, Sohui Kim, who has cooked at Annisa, Blue Hill and other respected restaurants.  I'm told Ben, who built the Good Fork interior, has boat-building experience, which accounts for the slightly nautical feel of the curved-wood ceiling that somehow creates a feeling of warmth, even coziness without being cute or self-conscious.  The place employs a terrific bartender who makes as good a martini as the most fancy pants restaurants in Manhattan.  And good, inventive, surprisingly innovative food emerges from a kitchen so tiny you are awestruck when you look inside and see the team of five people reaching over one another to get the right pots on the stove, the right pans out of the oven, the right meals plated. Sohui is Korean, which accounts for the Korean touches woven throughout the short but thoughtful menu. 

 

And the wait staff is there to, literally, serve you.  You feel they know you've come there to have a great conversation and they're there to make sure the food is right, the place is comfortable and the wine glasses are filled.  It's not about them...it's about you.  They're all great.  My favorite is Erin, who always makes us feel as if we are special.  And it's genuine.  One of these days, we'll probably ask him to pull up a chair and join the conversation.  I'm sure he'd do it, if he weren't so conscientious about making sure everyone else is having a great time, too.

The Good Fork helps sustain great talk.  Best kind of evening out, don't you think?

The Brits Debate And Nick Clegg Shines

Are you following that elections in the UK, where the next prime minister will be selected in the election on May 6?

At the TED conference in March, I heard David Cameron, the Conservative candidate, speak.  He's challenging Gordon Brown, the sitting prime minister and Labour Party leader, and at the moment has a slim lead in the polls.  He's glib, knows his facts, and is dancing an interesting tight wire of behavioral politics, trying to be "one of us guys" despite his clearly posh background and experience. 

This political debate was a first for the Brits.  How ironic, since it is in the UK where the art of debate was honed and is still practiced, with sometimes great dramatic effect, in both houses of Parliament.   But debates have not been part of the Brits' political campaign landscape and they've apparently copied the US practice.  Let's hope they get better at it than we are.  What we call debates are lack-luster, highly staged, and rarely on point.  They don't change anyone's mind and it always feels to me as if the purpose for contenders is simply not to make a mistake. 

The Thursday night debate in London was pretty dull, too.  Except for one thing.  There was a third participant, named Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats party candidate.  No one takes seriously his chances of winning the election, but the debate proved how seriously both Brown and Cameron take the importance of staying on Clegg's good side because if niether the Conservatives nor Labor party wins a majority, the eventual winner will likely come out on top because he was able to convince Clegg's followers that he is the best alternative to Clegg himself.

 

I love debates, especially when they are undertaken with the clear intent of changing minds.  This one probably didn't do that, except that it woke people up to the potentially important role Clegg and his party could play in the May election.  And it got people talking about debates in general and how useful they can be to get issues on the table.