Enlightened Conflict

the web as the problem? (and children’s education)

April 17th, 2013

Well.

My project global generation may never go anywhere … but it certainly puts me within some of the most interesting conversations with regard to educating the youth.

Let me share the part of the conversations that is a head scratcher <at least to me>.

But it is a consistent head scratcher part.

Like in the over 90% of the time consistent.

My conversations begin with ‘it is a web based global children’s education’ and always <and I mean always> veers very quickly to someone stating unequivocally … “how the world wide web has made things more difficult-worse-insert some negative comment here.”

The web is destroying reading skills.

The web is destroying cognitive skills.

The web is spreading criminal (lower value-ethic) attitudes to a broad audience.

The web facilitates laziness.

The web is diminishing attention spans.

The web is giving voice to thoughts that are encouraging the destruction of character.

All, some, most and more.

The majority of older people want to go back to the “way it was before” because it was better (definition of better would be “we weren’t lazy, had broader attention spans, stronger character, less people thought criminal like thoughts, we read more … ).

The majority of older people seem to think of the past as ‘simpler.’

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” – R.A. Salvatore

Well. after scratching my head … In the beginning I used to just chuckle and try the “it is what it is today … we cannot ‘undo’ the web so why waste energy looking backwards?”

Well.

Experience has taught me that (a) that is not the A response (b) that response got me nowhere very fast (c) there are a shitload of people – people with leadership roles, smarts and influence – who are dedicating a shitload of energy into trying to reintroduce past plans of action <albeit at least focusing on those which can often be associated with some success thank god>.

So.

I have regrouped. While my path of least resistance would seem to be to find those who don’t want to go backwards but instead embrace what is and move forward , alas, I can’t.

Maybe I am too stubborn <yes>.

Or maybe in some semi smart way I have realized there is a significant group damming up the flow of progress. And this ‘stubborn against change’ group are creating a double fold issue:

(1) – They are increasing creating an ever increasing gap between age generations.

While there is always friction between age generations as innovations occur something like the web (just as the printing press and maybe the automobile did) is a lightning rod of paradigm shifting attitudes and behaviors. Generations have never been further apart.

(2) – They are increasing the problem gap.

Issues are being exacerbated as they balk at moving forward. No solution behavior translates into issues being permitted to gain momentum (which I feel obligated to point out from a physics perspective that a faster moving object is more difficult to slow down, stop or change direction than one moving at a slower pace).

Anyway.

Let’s try some of this thinking out.

- 1. Kids read more today than ever before.

Oh. And reading is reading.

Yeah.

Reading is reading (with regard to cognitive skills). I was part of an online TED forum on this subject and I was getting the shit kicked out of me (by people who were arguing the web/texting/twitter was destroying cognitive skills in children) until this gentleman stepped in (or ‘up to the plate’ or ‘to stand by my side’ or whatever phrase indicative of a sigh of relief on my part) and said this:

“but … I don’t even know where to begin with this one. I have a PhD in reading. Not that this necessarily means I’m smart, it’s just that I’ve studied and continue to study reading. So here goes…it doesn’t matter what a person reads, in what form, by which author, on which device. Reading is reading.
My first “Crayola secret” for you is that we all read on 4 different levels: instructional, informational, recreational , and frustrational. Not any one is better than the other. Just read. The definition of comprehension? It’s still being worked on. No one, not even the experts and researchers, can seem to agree.” - Marti Dryk, PhD

Amen.

Reading is reading. And between tweets, social media, web searches, e-books … and good ole fashioned paper literature … kids are absorbing more words and thoughts than ever before.

- 2. Young people have always had short attention spans.

<note: and I could argue changes in parenting style have affected children’s attitudes and behaviors – including attention span – more than the web>.

Regardless.

A teen brain has always been a teen brain. As I have written before in that stage of development it simply gets overloaded (with stimulus) and it is wired for short bursts of stimulus. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be teaching the value of “make haste slowly” but on the other hand we do not have any research proof suggesting teaching USING how their brain works (of which the web provides that opportunity where an adult teacher is not readily capable (their brains are built differently) is not effective. If you search for data you will find it is mostly negatively anecdotal (obviously from adults). All I am suggesting is that sometimes a classroom is less effective because we are teaching one way and the recipients natural way of absorbing is another way. That misalignment creates inefficiencies. Why not use a tool and educate in a way that is aligned.

- 3. The web is not encouraging laziness <or lazy thinking>

First.

When we were young we were exactly the same type of ‘lazy thinker’ we older folk claim the web is creating. In our youth we wanted to get to the solution <or whatever would get us the good grade> as quickly as we possibly could. The web is a double edged sword. Quick solutions or answers are easily at your fingertips. Now. They may not be the right solutions or answers but they are right there. On the other hand … multiple solutions or answers are at your fingertips. Some right and some wrong. I have to be honest … I see as many adults today seeking the ‘shortcut’ to answer as I do the youth.

Second.

I actually believe the web is creating a more vigorous thinker … albeit a different type of thinking than we old folk were. The web makes such a myriad of factoids <and semi-factoids> available so quickly that the young are becoming more discernible analyzers, evaluators and thinkers earlier than any generation before.

Who gets the credit? The web <note … with some good guidance from teachers>.

Ok.

Moving on.

I always hesitate to say this <as a nonparent> but I am not sure it is any more difficult to bring up children today than it was in the past.

Different? Absolutely … more difficult? I think not.

Kids are kids.

And they have always been kids.

They are adults in training.

As adults we want what we want. Kids are the same. The web has simply given them a new tool to do what kids do and have always done. The web has probably made it more difficult for a parent to be lazy thinkers (as parents) and at the same time make it more difficult to be “opinion selective” when sharing thoughts.

I think of it as a balance sheet. The web has increased both assets and expenses. But it is still a balance sheet.

I just tend to believe that the value of the overall balance sheet has increased with the advent of the web.

Anyway.

I cannot remember who wrote this <it was an author> … “the web … it is just a matter of time before some kid from North Dakota decides to blow past the popular kids … just blow them out of the water … with something spectacular.”

Maybe the greatest aspect of the web is the fact it is an equalizer. It can level the playing field so that all kids … whether they are popular or not … whether they live in upper income New York or rural North Dakota … whether … well … whatever … can do something spectacular.

And, geez, who the heck wouldn’t want that for our kids?

the ‘Secret’ ain’t really a secret

March 9th, 2013

Forewarning. If you like The Secret … and live by The Secret … it will be no secret at the end of this rant that I do not believe the secret is a secret at all. So read on at your own peril.

“To create the life of your dreams, the time has come for you to love You. Focus on Your joy. Do all the things that make You feel good. Love You, inside and out. Everything will change in your life, when you change the inside of you. Allow the Universe to give you every good thing you deserve, by being a magnet to them all. To be a magnet for every single thing you deserve, you must be a magnet of love.” ― Rhonda Byrne

“Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality. Act, look, feel successful, conduct yourself accordingly, and you will be amazed at the positive results.” – William James

Oh boy.

I am going to discuss <rant about> The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

It really isn’t anything more than a reformulation of William James or even Norman Vincent Peale’s ‘The Power of Positive Thinking.’

Bottom line. The book to me? Tripe. Useless drivel.

Look.

If you want to do something good … well … go ahead and do it.

If you need a self-motivation “I am happy and love life” speech to yourself in the morning … then do it.

But.

Suggesting simply choosing happiness leads to success, well, that is flawed logic. And the whole “magnet for good”? … oh my. We could only all wish it were so easy.

Now.

While I can’t buy this tripe I do love the idea.

But.

C’mon. If it was really this easy wouldn’t we all have everything we truly wanted? <because that’s all we would think about … and I actually guess all of us have actually wanted to do only the things we want to do … and the things that would make us happy>.

Anyway.

The challenge with challenging a book like this is that it actually leverages from a simple Life premise … … that our thoughts <and ultimately – actions> are usually a reflection of our beliefs and attitudes. And if we want to change our reality then we have to change these beliefs and attitudes that shape our thoughts.

But it becomes easier to challenge when it actually suggests that there is a scientific premise <which is actually a made up premise> … that the ‘Universal Law of Attraction’ is a Law in which if you focus on something enough <I assume this is unhappiness as well as happiness> it is not only drawn to you but actually expands.

This made up law says ‘The Law of Attraction states that you will attract to yourself those experiences that match your beliefs: These beliefs then create your EXPERIENCE of reality. So focus on what you DO want, rather than on what you don’t want.’

Therefore <scientifically> you will not only get what you want … but you also get to live a Life only doing what makes you happy.

First. There is no Law of Attraction. Not even a postulate or a theorem. Just a made up law <maybe that is it’s secret?>.

Second. You do not always get what you want. Anything. Experiences included. But I can reverse the logic and guarantee all the things you actually do, and like to do, you actually wanted to do. Reality looked at backwards will always appear closer in the “I wanted to do” mirror. And as for ‘attraction’? What a bunch of bullhockey.

The Secret is a power of intention/power of positive thinking a get what you want formula <also like Tony Robbin>.

Here is the deal.

It will “work” for some based on mathematical probability alone <if enough people think “hard” enough to ‘attract’ whatever they are seeking to attract … a few will>.

And, of course, these few are the ones quoted in the book.

I wish it was actually that simple.

The Secret neglects to inform you, but suffice it to say, it is not “attraction” but rather this is more about discipline and focus and effort.

But.

If the happiness ‘secret’ keeps your eye on your own proverbial ball … then do it.

But to suggest it is a science let alone a law with proof <because you can de-isolate specific incidents and make the argument that they are exceptions to the rule> really does make the Secret untenable if not simply a criticism of our intelligence.

It is certainly sneaky. It uses smart quotes <albeit out of context> and the book takes advantage of the fact we all ask ourselves these questions <all of us do, or have done, at some point>. Things like:

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

How do some people find the courage to follow their dreams?

What makes happy successful people different <or what is their commonality>?

Well. Sorry. The truth is there is nothing special about the majority of them.

The difference between a person who has an idea and a person who acts on that idea is one step … albeit a big step.

That step often comes down to knowing you are not alone and finding the courage within yourself. Dreaming big certainly encourages you to take that first step.

And to succeed, or find happiness, you do have to be willing to take at least some step. After that? Well. You gotta work hard. I <or anyone> can envision anything … but it ain’t just gonna be given to me.

Whenever I see a quote like “Every day when I wake up I realize I have a choice. I can be happy or unhappy. So what do I do? I’m not dumb. I choose to be happy” I kind of want to puke. Having a positive attitude, or making the best of the situation, is always good … but Life is meant to be a roller coaster ride <even if you hate roller coasters> and there will be highs & lows. You slug it out with the lows and enjoy the highs. No secret.

Now. I certainly do believe in committing to ‘show up’ in Life every day … but this quote? What a bunch of crap <or tripe>.

So.

I had drafted a brilliant <in my eyes> diatribe on how books like The Secret are worse for humanity than even the most misguided government but I found someone who did it for me <and even more smartly than I was going to do it>.

I apologize that I cannot provide the author because when I cut & pasted I neglected to capture that information but suffice it to say I need to credit someone other than me for these well crafted words:

I think a book like this, which makes some really big claims, should, roughly, do the following:

1) Present it’s premise clearly

2) Since it’s a self-help book explain clearly what you need to do

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

The book does a decent job of explaining its premise, which is that everything in your life is the result of the law of attraction.

I quote, “the law of attraction says like attracts like, so when you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.” In other words, think good thoughts and good things will come to you and if you think bad thoughts then bad things come to you.

I’ve simplified this a bit but not a whole lot as the concept isn’t rocket science.

Now, does this book explain clearly what you need to do? Actually, for a self-help book it does a very poor job of this. How do you control your thoughts? What kinds of practices and thinking produce the best results? The author and contributors basically tell you a bunch of stories about how “so and so did something and you can too by changing your thinking”.

And that’s it for the “how to” part of the book. There isn’t any.

Now, if I wanted to prove something worked from a scientific perspective it would seem to be easy to test this stuff out. You take two groups of people, teach one the secret, let the other go on with their lives and see what happens. In theory those that know the Secret would be happier and more successful than the control group. It might not be perfect but it’d be a whole lot better than what we get in this book. But, of course, you’d have to have an actual methodology to test.

Instead the authors cite numerous anecdotes of how the Secret worked. One person’s cancer went away. Another individual walks after a brutal accident. Still another finds romance. That’s all fine and perhaps it’s evidence but it’s not proof. How many people who were injured like the “Miracle Man” never walked again despite the best attitude and trying the approach perfectly?

The problem with anecdotes is that it’s easy to start with a result, work backward and assume the conclusion.

It’s also very easy with anecdotes to only present the ones that make your case and ignore those that don’t (when someone dies of cancer while practicing the secret for instance). It’s just not good enough to use anecdotes for large claims like those made in this book.

The following quote struck a nerve.

“People hold that for awhile, and they’re really a champion at it. They say, `I’m fired up, I saw this program and I’m going to change my life.’ And yet the results aren’t showing. Beneath the surface it’s just about ready to break through but the person will look just at the surface results and say, `This stuff doesn’t work.’ And you know what? The universe says, “your wish is my command.”

I thought it was interesting that the universe instantly manifest failure but isn’t quite so fast with success. In fact, a cynical individual might conclude that what they are really saying is, “when this program works it’s because the secret always works, but, on the off chance it doesn’t work, well, that’s your fault.” An even more cynical person might think, “gosh, I wonder what would help a person who failed? Maybe, a seminar with Bob Proctor would be just the thing to get them over the top?”

Lastly, is the Secret credible? On the one hand, I think a lot can be said for the idea that if you change your thinking you’d change your life.

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, if the secret actually was true, especially at the scope claimed by the book it would mean that everything that’s happened is the result of your thinking. So, when a child dies of pneumonia, well, it’s because they brought pneumonia into their lives. Michael J. Fox, not only did you bring Parkinson’s into your life but change your thinking and it will go away. Obviously these things aren’t true and they obliterate, in my opinion, any credibility in the book.

Not only does the book go too far but most (I’d argue nearly all) of the contributors aren’t credible. On a topic of this scope: the ability to 100% change your life and the world in an incredible fashion, does anyone really think you couldn’t find psychologists, top flight scientists, therapists and thousands of mainstream individuals to support it, if it worked? Wouldn’t there be tons of research instead of anecdotes? Instead we get a Feng Shui Master, a chiropractor, motivational speakers (err trainers), a metaphysicist, etc. combined with a half dozen anecdotal stories. So the most powerful like changing idea ever and you get it from the crew in this book presented in this fashion? I don’t think so!

If this idea really worked, at anything other than giving material to self-help speakers and generating repeat students, it just wouldn’t be found here. The book wouldn’t even have to be written because we’d all already know it and be practicing it. Remember, this is not a new idea, it’s been around for a very long time, and it’s been the topic of literally thousands of seminars and hundreds of books.

Catchy review title? Thought so. Robert Cialdini, renowned psychology researcher and author of Influence: The Power of Persuasion (perhaps the best book ever written on the subject) identifies six basic rules employed by politicians, advertisers and scam artists alike to persuade others. Each of them are employed quite adeptly by Rhonda Byrne in this book.

Cialdini’s first principle is SCARCITY; people want what’s expensive, exclusive, or otherwise attainable. Byrne’s mastery of this principle is clearly shown by the very name of the book: The Secret. We all learned this the first week of kindergarten as we felt the jealousy of watching two classmates, hands cupped over ears, sharing a secret out of earshot.

This message is reinforced throughout the book and its advertising campaign which pitches “The Secret” (whatever it actually is) as jealousy-guarded information hoarded by the happy, wealthy and successful. Whenever someone tries convincing you of something, whether it’s a way to make enormous sums of money, to lose weight, etc – be wary of when it’s pitched as “the knowledge THEY don’t want you to have.” Think about it – everything from the “secrets that Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” to “uncovered – celebrities’ secrets to staying young” are phrased not simply to pique your interest but to make you jealous. Appeals to our emotion are far more powerful than appeals to reason, and Byrne demonstrates mastery of this principle throughout “The Secret.”

Cialdini’s second principle is LIKING. We like those who like us, and in turn, we do business with them. Positive thinking and emotional intelligence has been linked to strong interpersonal relationships, academic and professional success, and good health, but there is a fine line when positive thinking crosses over to unjustified exuberance. Instead of simply noting the substantial benefits of positive thinking (a well-accepted principle which wouldn’t sell books), Byrne crosses the line so blatantly that anyone with a modicum of modesty would find it blasphemous.

AUTHORITY is another Cialdini principle, also in play in “The Secret” in quite subtle ways. Another technique which differentiates this book from just another book of positive thinking is the heavy use of quasiscientific language, which gives the impression that the “law of attraction” is (or will become) an accepted scientific principle, just like the law of gravity or the law of attraction of oppositely-charged particles in chemistry. Many people are both intimidated and confused by the authority of science, a fact exploited by manipulators ranging from Byrne to peddlers of magic weight-loss pills.

Since no respected physicist would ever publish a paper on the universality of the “law of attraction,” Byrne indirectly seeks experts in other ways. She attributes the success of people ranging from Einstein to Beethoven to adherence of “The Secret,” thereby manufacturing experts. After all, if Einstein and Shakespeare mastered “The Secret,” who are YOU to question it?

The last two Cialdini principles are CONSISTENCY and SOCIAL PROOF. The success of this book should leave little doubt it will be followed by more (and more expensive) forms of media peddling “The Secret.” The audio recordings, weekend seminars, advertising tie-ins, and other follow-up products certain to follow will exploit these two principles. Once people commit themselves to believing happiness will come from “The Secret,” they will attribute future successes, whether a promotion or a great new relationship, to adherence to it. Conversely, setbacks will be even more powerfully in committing people to “The Secret,” as people will attribute their failures to not living up to “The Secret” (and buying more of Byrne’s books). Consistency dictates it will be less painful to buy more books and immerse one’s self further into “The Secret” than to accept the whole premise is a quite ridiculous; while not as pernicious as a domineering cult, “The Secret” promises to charge you handsomely for a positive outlook on life.

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

On its face, it’s a manipulative marketing tool meant to flatter, confuse and deceive. It’s also pseudoscience at its best, the last thing we need to encourage in an increasingly technological world which requires healthy skepticism and critical thought. Most damaging, though, is how the book perverts reality by encouraging people to equate a positive outlook on life with a childish, idiotic narcissism. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave hearing about the modern manifestation of her objectivist movement reduced to the intellectual equivalent of canned pork.

In conclusion, I’m not opposed to the idea on a small scale but this book just goes way too far and I’m left with the feeling that all that’s really going on is a bunch of people trying to get their name out and get you to pay for their seminars.

——–

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

Do what you need to do to keep moving forward in life.

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

They are all good aspects of “Life survival.” And are all good objectives.

And if this book helps you to focus on these things, well, then use it.

But.

The book is not a formula nor is it the bible/Koran guide to Life success or Life happiness.

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

Nor does simply envisioning success, or happiness, guarantee success or happiness. Someone in discussing this book suggested I was debating chicken or egg first. Nope. I break the egg by noting everyone who gains happiness <or 99.9%> will absolutely say they envisioned the happiness … but I can almost guarantee everyone who has not achieved happiness <or 99.9% of them> will absolutely say they have envisioned happiness. Someone doesn’t envision any better than someone else. Sometimes you may have more drive or you may work harder or you may even simply have more talent … or maybe the happiness is tied to something to unrealistic. I do not care which you choose. This logic kills the chicken and the egg.

Books like this drive me a little crazy in that they suggest they are ‘the key’ … because if Life were that simple well … Life would be simple.

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

Anyway. Because the book uses a lot of quotes I will end on a quote of my own from Arthur Rubenstein:

” Most people , in my opinion, have an unrealistic approach toward happiness because they invariably use the fatal conjunction “if” as a condition. You hear them say: ‘I would be happy if I were rich’, or … ‘if this girl loved me’ … or ‘if I had talent’ … or their most popular … ‘if I had good health.’ They often attain their goal, but they discover new ‘ifs.’As for myself, I love Life for better or for worse, unconditionally.”

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

marginalia and raucous conversations

March 6th, 2013

“Reading a book should not be a passive exercise, but rather a raucous conversation.” - Studs Terkel, Pulitzer Prize author, historian, actor, and broadcaster, was known to admonish friends who would read his books but leave them free of markings.

Marginalia is the study of things scribbled in margins of books.

Well.

I am a book margin scribbler myself <although I doubt my scribbled-in books will make anyone any money someday>.

I call them marks of affection. Indicators of my relationship with the words I found within. Sometimes they are notes of inspiration … for new thoughts, ideas, things I will write in the future, things I may speak in the future … or simply admiration for wording.

My margins are a reflection of the immediate me. am I scarring a book or simply etching my appreciation for a stunning glimpse of clarity?

My To Kill a Mockingbird <albeit not my 1^st edition copy> tends to highlight Scout’s wisdom.

The Eight by Katherine Neville <a 1^st edition I have read and reread> is strewn with notes regarding history and thoughts.

And many many other nondescript books which may have had only one truly memorable literary moment <most published books have at least one incredibly well crafted thought>.

Oh.

I also admit I love collecting older books with notes in the margins thumbing through dusty yellow paged books in random corners of used bookstores seeking scribbled margins.

I think the notes represent a book within a book.

A glimpse into what some stranger sees or feels.

I believe how I feel about marginalia puts me in a minority. Scribbling in margins just seems like something polite readers do not do.

A guy named Paul F. Gehl blames generations of librarians and teachers for “inflicting us with the idea” that writing in books makes them “spoiled or damaged.”

I agree.

And I would add in my parents and all the other adults around me.

Marginalia was more common in the 1800s.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a prolific margin writer, as were William Blake and Charles Darwin.

“In getting my books I have always been solicitous of an ample margin; this is not so much through any love of the thing in itself, however agreeable, as for the facility it affords me of penciling in suggested thoughts, agreements, and differences of opinion, or brief critical comments in general.” – Edgar Allan Poe

I imagine it is a certain type of reader who might be inclined to underlining, noting things or even scribbling notes & comments in the margin.

Speaking as one myself I know I am giving a book my complete attention as i hover over the pages with a pencil nearby when words inspire me to do so. I also believe it is a commitment to return. To regather those comments and thoughts another day.

“… quite simply, a human being who has a pencil in his or her hand when reading a book.” – George Steiner <defining an intellectual>

So.

I am not an intellectual … but I do tend to read with a pencil nearby, scribble notes or circle phrases or turn down the corner of pages if I find something I want to reread.

All of those things I just stated about the margins of books?

Uh oh.

I hear a chorus of librarians <and my mother and sister> groaning about the sanctity of the book.

But I have Mark Twain, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Coleridge and Studs Terkel on my side.

All were proponents of this nefarious deed.

Mark Twain left a comment about “Huckleberry Finn,” in his copy of “The Pen and the Book” by Walter Besant.

The book, about making a profit in publishing, scarcely qualifies as a literary masterpiece. It is highly valuable, instead, because Mark Twain penciled, among other observations, a one-way argument with the author, Walter Besant, that “nothing could be stupider” than using advertising to sell books as if they were “essential goods” like “salt” or “tobacco.” On another page, Twain made some snide remarks about the big sums being paid to another author of his era, Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science.

Twain was engaging in marginalia.

And despite the fact the only thing I share with Twain is having a mustache … I also engage in marginalia.

Look.

Despite the fact everyone will be skewering me for marking up books … marginalia has a rich literary history <sometimes regarded as literary archaeology as I try and explain my modern graffiti in the classics>.

Part of the history?

Some examples, like Fermat’s Last Theorem, are of the most desperate importance.

Others, like an early medieval monk writing ‘My hand is so cold I can hardly hold the quill’, are utterly unimportant but immediate.

In some cases, there is art work – Nabokov sketching a beetle in his copy of Metamorphis.

In other cases, there is an absence of anything intelligible: Churchill’s poignant red crayon marks on German decrypts detailing their murdering ways on the Eastern Front.

There is stupid marginalia: a student copy of Wilfred Owen’s collected poems where the word ‘futile’ had been written in big block capitals next to that poet’s Futility.

There is irrelevant marginalia by important people: Lincoln’s attempts to learn legal Latin in his law books.

Then there is important marginalia by irrelevant people. The first evidence of Hamlet being performed in a Chaucer belonging to one Gabriel Harvey: ‘The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis, but his Lucrece, and his Hamlet Prince of Denmark have it in them to please the wiser sort’.

There is stolen marginalia – the ‘precious’ early Welsh stanzas from the Juvencus manuscript were cut from their place and hoarded away by a scholar.

There is posthumous marginalia – medieval glosses copied out as a text in manuscripts where we’ve lost the original margins: for example, the Greek words taught to Anglo-Saxon students in the seventh-century by Theodore of Canterbury.

There is even – in homage to Invisible Libraries – Invisible Marginalia: in Wuthering Heights, for example, there is a reference to Catherine’s pen portrayal of Joseph in a margin of a book.

There is even’ notes to friends’ marginalia: Coleridge in a borrowed book of Charles Lamb: ‘I will not be long here, Charles!—& gone, you will not mind my having spoiled a book in order to leave a Relic.’

But.

As I noted earlier … sometimes when you read you are inspired by how something is articulated.

Therefore Marginalia can reflect history … as in the fact one book can create a source of inspiration <for another book>.

Like this.

A copy of Thoreau’s “A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers” <which had been borrowed by Jack Kerouac from a local library in 1949 and never to be returned> has on page 227 a short sentence Kerouac had underlined in pencil with a “small, neat check mark beside it.”

The sentence: “The traveler must be born again on the road.”

Anyway.

I found a relatively bad overall poem about marginalia which has a couple of very good stanzas:

From Billy Collins’ poem ‘Marginalia’:

Sometimes the notes are ferocious,
skirmishes against the author
raging along the borders of every page
in tiny black script.

We have all seized the white perimeter as our own
and reached for a pen if only to show
we did not just laze in an armchair turning pages;
we pressed a thought into the wayside,
planted an impression along the verge.

Well … I have always been a book giver … but maybe I should become a book lender … and encourage people to write in the margins when inspired. Mostly because I am relatively sure I have never had a bad discussion when discussing a book … even a raucous discussion.

Am I speaking heresy <to the sanctity of published literature>?

Aw. Who knows.

To me?

We should all at some point “seize the white perimeter as our own.”

Read.

Make notes.

Think.

Make more notes.

Books are made to create a raucous conversation … whether it be with others … or in your own head.

being open minded

October 26th, 2012

“By all means let’s be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.” – Richard Dawkins, in “Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder”

Richard Dawkins may be the most articulate nutjob of our generation <by the way … simply being a nutjob doesn’t mean you cannot be brilliantly smart>.

Anyway.

This is an awesome thoughtful non-nutjob quote.

I believe the entire discussion of close minded versus open minded is a great one.

Look.

I believe we all know that being close minded is not a good thing but the whole idea of being open minded as being a bad thing is a really enlightening thought.

Open or closed … once again, as with most things in life, it is about balance. To me it is about leaving enough open in your mind to absorb additional information and leaving enough opening to let out <throw out the useless garbage> the ‘unnecessary’ or maybe better said ‘the information that has now become obsolete’ as you gain new knowledge.

All at the same time keeping your mind closed enough that all that knowledge <your brains as Richard so aptly calls it> don’t fall out.

In other words … don’t lose your perspective just because you received some new, hopefully good, information and knowledge.

This whole topic brought to mind another relevant quote:

“We are not retreating – we are advancing in another Direction.” - General Douglas MacArthur

We all gather information.

Okay. Only <regretfully> some people do.

And we also tend to redirect, or advance in another direction, given what we have learned. Or maybe you don’t even have to redirect because you can stay on the same path but maybe slow down a little or speed up a little.

But not everyone does, or can, do this.

I tend to believe no one actually wants to be close minded … they possibly just find it more comfortable. I also tend to believe not everyone knows HOW to be open minded.

Well. Maybe not effectively open minded.

You can try and listen. And try and be open minded. But it all really comes down to WHAT you do with having been open minded.

I say that because maybe, me being an asshole <on occasion>, tend to want to say “so frickin’ what?” when someone says “I will be open minded.”

Who cares? Because people who actually have to say those words tend to be the least open minded people. Sorry folks … while that is a generalization I will take that bet every time <and become a rich man>. Yup. Trust me on this … the kiss of death in a business discussion is .. “okay, I will be open minded.” <translation: ‘you talk, I will pretend to listen, nod on occasion, and then we will do what I said we would do.”>

What really matters is the eventual action not the self proclamation.

In other words … what do you actually DO with the information you gained by being ‘open minded.’

- Did your brains spill out and you vapidly followed the new information ? <which shows a lack of fortitude with regard to the initial preferred point of view/opinion/direction>

- Did you simply nod and move on as if you didn’t hear a frickin’ think? <which shows lack of integrity/sincerity by claiming to be open minded and yet you didn’t>

Being open minded is a skill. A skill to absorb … and the skill to not always open so far your brains spill out.

the silence lie

January 18th, 2012

“just because you didn’t speak the facts out loud didn’t erase their existence. silence was just a quieter way to lie.” – unknown

I am fairly sure I found these words in some tween blog. I don’t remember the frame of reference but I wrote down the words because … well … I don’t really give a shit about the frame of reference because it defines the ‘silent lie’ better than anything else I have ever seen.

“silence was just a quieter way to lie.”

Boy oh boy.

That is a powerful thought.

I guess the funny thing is truth is truth … whether it is spoken or silent. So why wouldn’t a lie be exactly the same?

A lie’s existence is not defined by words or lack of words … it is defined by whether it exists or not.

Maybe I say this because anything that exists can take on a life of its own.

It breathes and lives and, well, it actually eats. It eats away at your thoughts and, if you are unfortunate, it eats away at your soul.

And if a lie exists then it does all that.

Frankly, I am not sure you can ever kill a lie. Even by eventually speaking the truth. I believe even in that case it doesn’t cease to exist but maybe by speaking it … it attains a more tangible form. And maybe that makes it easier to accept … ok, well … maybe not accept. Maybe it’s just live with it.

So if I believe that, when does a lie stop existing? When does it take its last breath?

Well.

I actually believe they take their last breath the same time you do. Yup. I believe lies are things you carry with you until the end of your days. You cannot erase their existence by ‘speaking the facts out loud.’ They are one of Life’s burdens.

I imagine we all lie at some point or another.

A white lie. A lie of omission. A lie of silence. A lie of words. I personally don’t believe Life weighs lies … like there are ‘big lies’ and ‘little lies’ … I just believe Life counts them all simply as lies.

So.

Maybe the measure of our life is … how many lies take their last breath when we do at the end.

five finger death punch (a song write up)

February 13th, 2011

I am not sure if I am truly writing a song review because I like the song or if it is because I always have wanted to begin a post with ‘five finger death punch.’

I guess I should begin with something my mother often says about today’s music world … where the hell do some of these bands come up with their names?

(note: this is an update 2/18 because one of the cool guys in my office – interactive of course – explained the five finger death punch. it is the mysterious move in Kill Bill that only she knows as the death punch. so. now at least we all know the reference point for the group. just wanted to fill in a gap as i found more information.)

So.

Where the hell did these guys come up with this name? (no clue but i bet it has some karate/ju-jitsu type reference). The band music typically lives up to its name. It feels like a death punch to your head.

Okay.

Next.

The song. Its not a “make your head explode hard rock song” (although they are quite capable of that type of song). This is a ‘make your head explode’ band playing a ballad. And a pretty good one.

Walk Away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS803Oc2DCY&feature=related

And … for all you old folk … they also did a remake of Bad Company’s “Bad Company” that was the first song of theirs that caught my ear.

Enjoy.

travels of reading part 1

September 7th, 2010

So.

This is partially a rant about people who don’t take advantage of the opportunities reading provides … and partially simply a plea for people to read as often as they can.

Let me begin with the traveling ‘thing’ I mention upfront.

I have been extremely fortunate in my life to have had the opportunity to travel different parts of the globe. And experience lots of things. And see many different things.

But even with that.

I tend to believe books and reading have offered the best travels I have ever experienced. Yeah. I do love reading and I believe reading books really is like traveling.

Traveling to places … new and known. To thoughts … new and known. To others minds and how they think … and what they think about. To other types of thinking. To fresh ideas.

It is an absolute fact that everyone has the opportunity to see so many things through reading.

And imagine things limited only by the boundaries of your own imagination and vision.

And experience thinking and ideas and combinations of words that energize the mind and the heart and the soul.

Reading just gets you … well … thinking. Just thinking about things.

As we read I believe all of us have found those ‘moments’ in books.

There are those moments when you actually traveled through a slice of someone ‘else’s life … living it word by word.

As I typed that … I remember I was fortunate to be given a proofers copy of The Horse Whisperer and asked my opinion of the book before it was ever published. I know I gave it a great review.

And I believe it made me cry in the first 50 pages (which may be one of the most heart wrenching tangled emotional ‘stepping into a moment’ sections of a book I have ever encountered).

That is an example of traveling through someone else’s life experience.

You travel through their experience and feel it … right in your gut. You live it. You get so close to the moment through the words you feel like you have traveled right into the moment that you are experiencing it.

I find the same (but different) feeling when I read The Economist <so it does not have to be novels>.

Anyway.

Anyone who reads knows about the moments when you come across a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things that maybe you’d thought before … and it was lurking in your own mind … and it appears on a page articulated by by someone else, someone you’ve never met, maybe even someone long passed.

It’s as if someone has heard your thought and knew you couldn’t figure out a way to put it in words and has traveled to you through this book to say “here it is, worry no more, for now you know what it is.”

And, of course, <because I am consistent on this issue and I am who I am> reading an easy path to knowledge … any kind of knowledge <factual, historical, metaphorical>.

Of course you can gain knowledge through experience, or discussion, or other paths … but reading is so freely available and simple to do that it can only be deemed a great failure to anyone who doesn’t encourage it as a core activity. It is a failure <to me> because reading is a privilege.

I do know I would like to see America become a place that’s proud of intellectual curiosity. But I fear too often intellectual curiosity is belittled by people whose idea of culture is determined by television or People-type magazines or internet blogs.

You would like to think that knowledge should be a lifelong goal and not something satisfied by high school mandatory reading lists or four years of college … but rather a lifetime of reading.

Here is the issue (ok. some issues).

Okay. Some statistics which are disturbing <at least to me they are>.

From bookstatistics.com:

- 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.

- 42% of college graduates never read another book.

- 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.

- 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.

Ok.

Did you know that there are approximately 30 million adults in the U.S. who can’t read?

Yikes.

THAT last one sends a shiver down my spine. Well … honestly I am not sure which factoids bothered me the most … the ones where people know how to read and choose to not read or the people who do not even have the ability to read. Pick your poison.

While I would like to think most people would like to read (like I do) but I guess I also assume they can actually read.

But.

Look at number 2 on the list. 80% of families did not buy or read a book. 80 frickin’ percent.

Whew.

What happens to us (from childhood where we seem to have endless supplies of books to read)?

I do know that one of my favorite childhood memories is “reading” The Hobbit.

Ok. I didn’t read it. It was read to me. Our teacher read it to us in installments in elementary school in ‘reading time.’

Afterwards? I couldn’t wait to get my own hands on it.

Since then I have read it and the entire Lord of the Rings maybe 10 times. I have no idea at what age was my first time reading it … but it has to be very young. I remember being fascinated, excited and impatient waiting for the next chapter to unfold. I created pictures in my mind at each reading and the next day another picture would be drawn.

So.

I am not suggesting everyone love reading as much as I do.

But understanding what reading has to offer is important <so at least you recognize the choice>.

Not everyone can physically travel … and books not only give someone an opportunity to travel anywhere in the ‘now’ but they give you an opportunity to travel through time … and see ideas past, present and future.

Look. I know reading books certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on becoming “smart.”

I’ve read some amazing stuff online, and I’ve read amazingly written thought provoking newspaper articles (not in local papers but maybe the NY Times or The Guardian). And I do think staying open to new media is a key sign of intellectual curiosity.

In any case, I don’t know if people who don’t read lack intellectual curiosity. I think there can be other ways to satisfy intellectual curiosity (particularly in today’s web crazy world).

But I do think if you don’t read you can find yourself with a lack of ability to think in the abstract and the potential. And that is a nice ability for lifelong learning and self improvement <adapting to Life>.

You may have heard the term “lifelong learning.”

Though learning begins when we are children … education is truly a never ending process (and reading can play an important part of learning for everyone). Reading can not only keep us informed about the world around us but it also provides intellectual stimulation and helps keep us mentally sharp.

Research has shown that reading offers benefits not found in more “passive” media.

It gives the brain a much better workout than does watching television. When we watch TV, we take in the information in a passive way. But reading allows the mind to:

pause, reflect, think
operate more actively
use intellect and emotion together
develop a longer attention span.

Oh.

And on that last bullet point. To those of you who may say “I don’t have the attention span to read.” Well. There ain’t anyone out there who has a shorter attention span than I do. I have the attention span of a gnat. And still a book can suck me in to a place where it doesn’t become about ‘attention’ any more but rather ‘involvement.’

Ok.

Regardless of all my own personal ramblings on the greatness of reading there are some actual studies (if you doubt that this whole reading is traveling thing is really for you).

- Carnegie Mellon scientists discovered that the volume of brain white matter in the language area of the brain increased after study participants followed a six-month daily reading program. The Carnegie Mellon study proved that the brain structure can be improved by training poor readers to become better readers.

- In 2009, Mayo Clinic conducted a Study of Aging that offered some good news for middle-aged and senior adults. Reading a book and other cognitive activities could decrease the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

This says we should assume the brain is like a muscle. Studies prove that exercising it and stimulating it makes it stronger. Reading stimulates brain activity. Reading a variety of “things” (blogs, books, newspapers, etc.) challenges the brain to think in new directions and absorb new concepts and information.

And children?

Children benefit from reading on many levels. Parents actively stimulate their child’s brain by sharing a reading time with them. Interactive reading time creates a shared bond between parent and child along with provoking a child’s natural curiosity about the world and environment.

Giving a child a chance to ask questions, express an interest in a particular topic, and hear new vocabulary and ideas forms a positive impression on a child that lasts a lifetime. Children with poor reading skills have a tendency to feel more anxious and sad (that comes from a study but I lost the source).

Reading also means we are in more control of how we learn and absorb different ideas. We can skim over portions that interest us less, move backwards and forwards, reread and, as in my case, make notes or write spectacularly articulated things down.

Reading helps keep us oriented and engaged.

Science, history, biographies, self help, religion, philosophy … the list is really endless … all make our ‘world’ a little more ‘full’ (but it is a glass that can never actually be completely filled) with each book we read.

I left this to the end because people who haven’t really figured out how to enjoy reading don’t “get” this. But there is an amazing pleasure to sitting down with a good book. It’s kind of like traveling to anywhere in the world (imagined or real) without leaving the comfort of our own chair. We can visit a fantasy realm with JRR Tolkien, or the American West with Louis L’Amour, or solve a mystery with Sherlock Holmes or see the intricacies of war with Tom Clancy (that list could truly go on and on).

So.

In the end.

Some people will never ever be interested in learning unless dragged, kicking and screaming.

My biggest hope is that we adults (the ones who don’t like reading) don’t hinder our kids natural curiosity about the world and still encourage them to read (it is unfortunate that kids typically do as they see … so … if you don’t read they don’t feel compelled to read).

I do know that I will never quit trying to give everyone the opportunity to love reading and knowledge and encouraging curiosity.

Why?

Because not all of us have the privilege to travel.

And books give everyone the privilege to travel.

Doesn’t get much simpler than that.

travels of reading part 2

September 7th, 2010

“You get a little moody sometimes but I think that’s because you like to read. People that like to read are always a little fucked up.” Pat Conroy

This is a follow up to my reading part 1 (which was serious about the importance of reading).

This is more a rant (and a warning) on how people who love to read abuse their joy of reading.

This possibly provides a counterbalance to my disdain for people who waste the opportunity to permit their minds to travel through reading … which is a luxury everyone can afford and has access to regardless of budget.

So.

Readers can take things to absurd levels (simply because they read).

Pretentious.

Pompous.

Treating people who don’t read (or are not “well read”) as lesser beings (and they can do it overtly or in sneaky but still pompous ways).

Oh.

And the perpetual idiotic rephrasing or quoting of literature (rather than seek their own words).

Using quotes can be lazy.

Just as using any words of others can be lazy.

For reading is only good if you are using it to increase your own intellectual thinking.

And to come up with your own ideas.

And to express your own thoughts and ideas better,

Reading is traveling.

Traveling through other people’s thoughts and ideas.

And, sure, it is okay to show pictures of your trips and travels but you don’t want to read from the guidebooks as you tell everyone about the trip … they want to hear your thoughts and experience it through your eyes and words.

Yeah.

I am certainly a lover of a well crafted written thought. That poetic turn of phrase. Even that full chapter of prose that when it ends you finally exhale. And then only to turn back upon on some pages and reread something because the way the words have been put together it stirs something inside you … it could be your soul … it could be your mind … it could just be ‘something’ but those words have created an imprint upon you.

But.

The imprint is often best used in your own words when shared.

Do I use quotes or literary references? Sure. You bet I do.

Do I use them to replace my own words? Rarely.

I use someone else’s words to either emphasize my own thoughts or introduce my thoughts or (in a business environment) to honestly “steal a moment.”

(note: ‘stealing a moment definition: that would be when the meeting is spinning in a direction and you cannot seem to stem the stream of unfocused idiocy spewing forth and you grab an appropriate quote out of your memory banks – because frankly your own words haven’t done shit to steer everyone away from whatever the hell it is they are saying – and you grandly toss someone else’s words out into the air. That, my friends, is the art of stealing a moment with a quote.).

Anyway.

Reading is useful only when … well .. you make it useful.

Reading and learning and saying nothing is a waste.

Reading so you don’t have to do your own thinking is a waste.

Reading to solely use other people words is a waste.

Reading to simply say things to show you are better and smarter (well, maybe more ‘well read’) is a waste.

Oh.

And not reading is the worst waste.

Beyond my quote/using others words rant.

If you are a reader and love books?

Don’t abuse your love for reading. Don’t just talk but listen. And share after listening.

Your attitude with what you have gained from reading can either encourage someone to pick up a book or discourage some from reading.

If you love to read, you are an ambassador for reading and need to think of yourself as such.

Think of yourself as a curiosity fulfillment teacher. Think of it as your own personal “no person left behind” program.

Advocate reading don’t belittle someone who doesn’t.

And if you struggle to figure out how to encourage someone to read?

Maybe steal someone else’s words … Charles Schultz (Peanuts author):

“This is my report on the importance of knowing how to read. If you can’t read and you get a love letter, you won’t know what it says. That would be very sad. Although in the long run, it also could save you a lot of trouble.”

- Charles Schultz

the vodka workout

September 6th, 2010

So.

The august 22^nd NY Times. Under a fascinating article called “the sofa wars” (not kidding … and, yes, NY Times is still a great newspaper) there was a small news piece on a gym that offers cocktail hours after their boot camp fitness training classes. Oh. And the cocktail hours (not the boot camps) are sponsored by a vodka called Svedka.

Ok. Couple things here. Let me begin with the vodka sponsorship.

Sweet move on their part.

I have never heard of the brand (although they claim to be #5 globally) and their claim is “Voted #1 Vodka of 2033.” and “You can have it all with SVEDKA – the fastest growing vodka in the world!”

Awesome marketing bullshit stuff.

They get to say #1 (because it is 2033 for god’s sake). Oh. And I am sure some ‘branding consultant’ suggested “hey, if you say #1 in 2033 everyone will think … ‘aspirational! I should buy now when it is cool and I can say I drank it before they became #1 and everyone drinks it!’ …” “SVEDKA is the vodka of the future.”

Fire their ass.

Next.

“Fastest growing.” Well. Let’s see. If you have sold exactly one case. And now because of his new deal you sell 200 cases. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … that may truly become the fastest growing by god. Brilliant.

Regardless of all the marketing mumbo jumbo.

Sveda is actually doing a smart thing in a tough category where differentiation is very very difficult. And the fitness sponsorship loosely ties in with the vodka’s “RU Bot Or Not?” ad campaign (which features a female robot with some “healthy” proportions).

The Sveda “dancing machine” tv: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVRbJYkO_6U

Ok.

Onto the second point.

The whole ‘alcohol and health & fitness’ tie in.

Look.

I love a good cocktail as much as anyone. Maybe even more than a lot of people. And I do love a good workout and love sports and shit like that.

But please … please … please don’t try and tell me that mixing the two of them is a good thing (if you truly want to claim to be a fitness club).

The owner of the fitness center said he doesn’t mind that it seems hypocritical to tempt his members with a drink that’s not as healthy as water. He says, “It’s better to work out and drink than to not work out and drink. Our members have intense lives, and some people party and that’s all the more need to work out.”
Well.

If you want some logic there you go.
Anything else?

“Sweat and alcohol are both great social lubricants,” says the owner of Barton Gym. “I want people to find the gym not just a place to work out, but a good hang as well.” What this all means is that after the boot camp exercise classes (and a shower one would hope) they get their cocktails made with clementine-flavored vodka, orange juice, sour mix and fresh mint.

Oh.

And here is some logic on why vodka (just to show they truly thought this through)
“It’s a little weird to serve bourbon or Scotch. Tequila might seem out of control. Vodka seems like the right complement to the gym.”

There you go.

Awesome stuff.

Well.

Unfortunately while I love this concept I have written a lot about Healthy Intake and body image and self esteem and anti-obesity and stuff like that so I feel compelled to finish this one off with some nice little factoids.

There has been a boatload of studies on alcohol and abdominal obesity. Yeah. If you look hard enough and at enough studies you can find something somewhere that you could point to and say “see! I can drink and lose weight (or get a better figure).” But. Stop. Just stop. You are being foolish.

Analysis of the study results pretty much conclusively shows alcohol as a factor that hurts your efforts to lose body fat.

Sure.

Whether alcohol is “fattening” has been a very controversial subject because technically speaking, alcohol is NOT stored as fat – it is oxidized ahead of other fuels (whatever that really means).

Yes.

Whether moderate drinking is healthy has also been a subject of controversy. Many studies show that cardiovascular health benefits are associated with moderate beer or wine drinking.

Whatever.

Here is the truth about the ‘beer belly’ phenomenon (abdominal fat or that stuff that we lovingly call love handles and belly fat).

There is a study, by Ulf Riserus and Erik Inglesson, was based on the Swedish Uppsala Longitudinal cohort. The researchers found that alcohol intake had a very “robust” association between alcohol intake, waist circumference and waist to hip ratio. They pointed out that a high alcohol intake, especially hard liquor, was closely associated with abdominal body fat, not just overall body mass.

Abdominal fat accumulation is not just a cosmetic problem; it can be a serious health risk. Abdominal fat, also known as “android” or “central” obesity, increases the risk for cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high blood lipids, glucose intolerance and elevated insulin levels.

Oh.

And it doesn’t look good if you want to look good (just a self appearance issue beyond all the health gobbledygook).

So.

Tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself but it sure looks like there’s some scientific support to tie alcohol to “abdominal fat” after all (or at least a “beer belly” according to the study).

Anyway.

I won’t preach or lecture.

It just seemed silly to me for a fitness club to start tying in with alcohol an keep a straight face.

Let me finish with some truth and suggestions if you still want to drink and get in shape.

The best advice I found came from a place called disabledworld.com and they had a nice matter-of-fact way of looking at maintaining a normal life (for those of us who love a good cold beer or cocktail on occasion and don’t want to go completely crazy and stop completely) and drinking alcohol:

(disabledworld) To summarize this into some practical, take-home advice, here are 7 of my personal tips for alcohol consumption in the fitness lifestyle:

1. Don’t drink on a fat loss program. Although you could certainly drink and “get away with it” if you diligently maintained your calorie deficit as noted above, it certainly does not help your fat loss cause or your nutritional status.

2. Drink in moderation during maintenance. For lifelong weight maintenance and a healthy lifestyle, if you drink, do so in moderation and only occasionally, such as on weekends or when you go out to dine in restaurants. Binge drinking and getting drunk has no place in a fitness lifestyle (not to mention hangovers aren’t very conducive to good workouts).

3. Don’t drink daily. Moderate drinking, including daily drinking, has been associated with cardiovascular health benefits. However, I don’t recommend daily drinking because behaviors repeated daily become habits. Behaviors repeated multiple times daily become strong habits. Habitual drinking may lead to heavier drinking or full-blown addictions and can be hard to stop if you ever need to cut back.

4. Count the calories. If you decide to have a bottle of beer or a glass of wine or two (or whatever moderation is for you), be sure to account for the alcohol in your daily calorie budget.

5. Watch your appetite. Don’t let the “munchies” get control of you during or after you drink (Note to chicken wing and nacho-eating men: The correlation to alcohol and body fat is higher in men in almost all the studies. One possible explanation is that men tend to drink and eat, while women may tend to drink instead of eating).

6. Watch the fatty foods. When drinking, watch the fatty foods in particular. A study by Angelo Tremblay back in 1995 suggested that alcohol and a high fat diet are a combination that favors overfeeding.

7. Enjoy without guilt. If you choose to drink (moderately and sensibly), then don’t feel guilty about it or beat yourself up afterwards, just enjoy the darn stuff, will you!

In the end?

I love a good cocktail (or five).

I love a good beer (or dozen).

I love a good bottle of wine (or two).

I love the social aspect.

But. If I want to be in shape. And I want to be fit. Alcohol doesn’t enhance the program. I know that. Doesn’t mean I stop drinking. I am just aware.

So.

Silly gimmick by a gym. Very silly.

the art of observation and listening

August 12th, 2010

“Don’t underestimate the value of Doing Nothing, of just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering.”

- Winnie the Pooh

Winnie the Pooh was a pretty smart bear for a bear with only fluff in his head.

Listening is an underrated skill.

Mostly because nowadays it seems we teach our younger generation to speak up when they have an opinion and that “everyone has good ideas so don’t hesitate to speak up.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … what happened to speak when spoken to?

Or “if you don’t have something good to say don’t say anything at all”?

Or “think before you speak”?

Of course (because I love contradictions) I am a huge proponent of patient quickness.

I have used this term a number of times when debating with people about “retail speed” or the “speed of retail.” Retail business isn’t about just doing things fast. It’s about moving quickly smartly. It doesn’t mean moving quickly all the time. Being great in retail business is like being a great running back.

Patient. Patient. See opening. Quick to the opening.

That is patient quickness.

You can be quick and still not be moving.

And observation and listening is exactly the same thing.

Patient quickness.

Understanding the value of doing nothing with the intent to do something when it matters (versus doing lots of somethings of which a small percentage really matter).

Of course this gives me an excuse to mention border collies. Probably the epitome of patient quickness. Masters of stillness. Masters of quickness. Masters of unwasted movement.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. good business lessons one might suggest.

And people would be well served to remind themselves of this.

Particularly in the business environment these days.

Along those lines (of saying things that matter).

When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
– Winnie the Pooh

Whew. Smart bear.

Sometimes that ‘thing’ in your head is less of a thing when spoken.

And that is why pooh was a bear of little words.

And while I would love to write something here about young people learning to be more careful when they open their mouths in business I find to my dismay … I cannot.

Why?

Well. These days it seems senior people are as much at fault as younger less experienced. And probably even more so because there should be higher expectations tied to their words.

The whole idea of “thinking out loud” or “just throwing an idea out there” seems to have given senior people permission to not think. Or let others do the thinking for them.

This is lazy thinking.

Using “collaboration” as an excuse for speaking poorly thought out thoughts is unforgiveable to a senior manager.

They, in particular, should be attempting that their ‘things’ are more ‘thingish’ when it gets out in the open. In business we should never confuse quantity with quality. Even when it comes to sharing ideas and meetings and “ideation sessions” (which are rarely idea generators but more a mosh pit of egos).

Now. Most senior people wouldn’t look to Pooh for advice.

They may suggest “that’s not my thing.”

Well.

Those who speak should beware.

Thingish things are more valuable to everyone then non-thingish things.

Pooh was an expert on “patient quickness.”

He made moving slowly and thoughtfully but completing shit an art.

And all because he didn’t waste words.

That is the lesson here.

Not bad for someone with just fluff for brains (Pooh, not me).