Give me more loving than I’ve ever had

Make it all better when I’m feeling sad

Tell me I’m special even when I know I’m not

~”1234” Plain White T’s

Some of us are blessed with a good mother.

Others of us are not so fortunate.

Most mothers do the best that they can.

The rest don’t for whatever reason they can justify.

I hope you have the former.

And if you have the latter, forgive her, if not necessarily for her sake, but for your own. ~Scott

Courtesy of www.seacoastonline.com

An ode to mothers

I drove my mom crazy when I was a child, in a know-it-all, “I’m telling Daddy” kind of way. Through my teen years, our relationship was punctuated by slammed doors (mine), hollered threats (also mine) and clenched-teeth ultimatums (mostly hers).

When I was 18, and decided I should just commute to college, and not go through with this silly idea of living at school and being independent, my mother (surely recognizing that it was just a last-minute case of nerves) looked me straight in the eye and said, “You’re going.”

At the time, I took this as proof that a) she couldn’t wait to get rid of me, and b) she didn’t really like me very much.

Now, as an adult, and the mother of a very-soon-to-be college grad, I realize that a) it was probably just as tough on her to make me go, but that b) she loved me too much to let my fear stop me from moving forward in life.

I suspect there were a lot of such moments in my childhood, when I figured my mom was just plain mean but maybe there was (I hate to admit) a certain method to her madness. Now, as a mom myself, I’ve discovered a few things that I just didn’t understand back then.

First, there is no love like the love a parent has for a child. It can make you willing to give up your life to protect that precious child. It can also turn you into a shrieking loon when your child decides to do something spectacularly stupid, like dodge out into traffic, have a party in your house when you’re out of town or date a loser.

That’s why as mothers, no matter how much we yell or flail, children should know we’re only doing it out of love.

Still, the mother-daughter bond can stretch in both directions — and sometimes snap back like a rubber band.

I may have all the confidence in the world, but my mother just has to utter a few words (“you’re wearing that?”) and I am an insecure 5-year-old again. Likewise, I can be having an absolutely crappy week and feel on the verge of tears and one simple “it will all be OK” assures me it really will be.

It took me a long time to figure out that the back and forth nature of my experience with my mother wasn’t just because my mother loved torturing me (that was just a side benefit, she’ll tell you), it’s just that mother-daughter relationships are complicated.

Our mothers are our first teachers, and we don’t always like being told what to do (“don’t walk across the freshly washed floor, don’t make faces at your brother, CLEAN YOUR ROOM”). They also know us better than anyone else, and so they see through the innocent smiles and batted lashes to the REAL us who did, indeed, swing her zippered windbreaker at her younger brother and leave a bloody, jagged trail across his forehead (which, I assure you, he had coming).

If we’re lucky, though, our mothers are also our most loyal friends, able to point out our flaws in a second, but turning into a lioness in a heartbeat if anyone threatens our well-being.

And when the reality of your mother’s mortality hits you, it takes your breath away.

During a recent health crisis of my mother’s, I like to think that I stayed calm, asked the right questions and offered support, but it’s hard to say because there was a terrified 5-year-old screaming in my head. And the 5-year-old was hollering, “Not my mommy!”

Little in life has terrified me the way that did, and I realized then that as much as I might bridle at being told, as an adult, what to do sometimes, or as much as I might like to think I’ve learned all that I need to know as a mother, there is still so much more to figure out.

And for that, I need my mother.

*

Happy Mother’s Day to all the mothers out there — young, old, in name or in deed, passed or still with us — and especially to my mother, Barbara Dolce. I love you, Mom.

I primarily hang out (professionally and personally) with people who are younger than I am.

When I am with them I take our age difference (which can often be quite large) for granted.

I honestly believe that we are all the same age.

Perhaps we are of a similar mental age.

When I visit Wal-Mart or other places else where older folks tend to gather, I look on with horror.

Whether it is the turtle-like (velocity) shuffling, the scoliosis-like hunching, the pot bellies, the slow speech, the blotchy skin, the lack of hair, etc., (and that’s only the women)

I see my future and I don’t like it one bit.

But perhaps it doesn’t have to be that way.

Back in the caveman days we human begins didn’t live very long.

Medical science and a multitude of other factors have expanded our lifespans tremendously over the centuries.

So, even though we are both living (and often working longer) than ever before, we need to make sure that as we meet, greet, and pass through our “golden years,” we do so in as good a physical and mental shape as possible.

I’ve never strived to be the “typical” anything in my life.

I don’t plan on making this any exception. ~Scott

Courtesy of www.getrichslowly.com

While culling the bookshelves, I came across Younger Next Year: A Guide to Living Like 50 Until You’re 80 and Beyond, which came out in early 2005. While I was still in my 30s when it came out, it was one of the first books that got me thinking about how I need to start taking better care of myself. After all, if I’m going to spend decades saving for retirement, I want to be healthy enough to enjoy retirement once I get there.

Unfortunately, as we age, we accumulate some aches and pains, don’t have the energy we used to, and eventually rely on Lipitor, Celebrex, or some other drug that sounds like the villain in a science-fiction movie. Well, that’s just part of getting older.

Or is it? Not according to Henry Lodge and Chris Crowley, the authors of Younger Next Year. According to them, 50% of illnesses associated with aging (e.g., heart attacks, diabetes) can be eliminated, and 70% of “normal” aging (weakness, sore joints, apathy — the stuff that makes you feel old) is not aging at all, but really decay. And it’s optional.

When the book was written, Lodge was a 46-year-old doctor and faculty member at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. Crowley was his 70-year-old patient, a former Wall Street lawyer who retired in 1990. Although Crowley exercised occasionally, he was 40 pounds overweight and feeling adrift when he became Lodge’s patient. Lodge explained to Crowley how Americans get good medical care (they receive treatment after something’s gone wrong) but not good health care (help with leading a lifestyle that will ward off disease and degeneration).

Younger Next Year describes that lifestyle, summarized by “Harry’s Rules.” Follow them, the authors say, and you’ll turn back your biological clock — “become functionally younger every year for the next decade.” From the book:

Harry’s Rules

Exercise six days a week for the rest of your life. Don’t think of it as exercise. Think of it as sending a constant ‘grow’ message…as telling your body to get stronger, more limber, functionally younger, in the only language your body understands. Do it because it’s the only thing that works.

Do serious aerobic exercise four days a week for the rest of your life. Hard aerobics, working up a good sweat, is our favorite exercise rhythm because [it] brings out our youngest and best biology: strong, fast, energetic, and optimistic all day long. Tell your body it’s springtime.

Do serious strength training, with weights, two days a week for the rest of your life. Generally, we aren’t aware of nerve decay as we get older, but it’s the main reason our joints wear out, our muscles get sloppy, and our ability to be physically alert and powerful begins to fade. And it is reversible with strength training.

Spend less than you make. Time to quit playing and come inside. Come inside your income. Try to do it early. As with smoking, you can recover. It takes time and earlier is better, but do it.

Quit eating crap! Never go on a diet again. The only way to lose weight is to embark on a program of steady, vigorous exercise, avoiding the worst foods (french fries, almost all fast food, processed snacks with names that end with the letter “O”), and eating less of everything.

Care. There have to be people and causes you care about. Doesn’t seem to matter much what the causes are. They don’t have to be important to society or make money, as long as they’re important to you.

Connect and commit. There is a terrible temptation, in our 60s and 70s, to close up shop and narrow our lives. In most cases, retirement already does that, and it’s tempting to just go along with the program, get narrower and narrower. Well, don’t. It’s killing us. We have to exercise our social, pack-animal gifts as vigorously as we exercise our bodies. That means adding friends, doing more stuff, getting out there, and being involved.

But this isn’t just a fitness book; it’s about getting ready for, and getting the most from, retirement. It’s written mostly for over-50 men, but anyone can benefit from the advice. (Lodge and Crowley have written a follow-up book, Younger Next Year for Women.) The authors generally alternate chapters, with the doctor providing the science behinds his seven rules, and the patient giving the real-life, rollicking, often hilarious account of what it’s like to implement them.

Here’s the theory, in a nutshell: Due to evolutionary forces, humans are programmed to be active, eat certain foods, and remain socially connected. To do otherwise is to send a signal to your body that you’re ready to give up the ghost. “Your body and brains are perfect for their natural purposes, but none of them was designed for modern life: fast food, TV, or retirement,” writes Lodge. “In a paradox that you absolutely have to understand, endless calories and lack of exercise signal your body that you’re heading into a famine that you may well not survive, and in response, your body and brain head into a low-grade form of depression.”

Follow Harry’s Rules, and you can keep growing, remain energized, and stay physically and mentally mid-life long into your twilight. “Biologically, there is no such thing as retirement, or even aging. There is only growth or decay, and your body looks to you to choose between them.”

This is one book that will not make it into the Brokamp family yard sale. However, if you’re looking for a used bunk bed, impulsively bought juicer, or men’s Superman underwear (only worn twice – my wife hates them), then stop by our yard sale in a couple

“Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.” ~ Dean Vernon Wormer (Animal House, 1978)

I graduated from Clarion University of Pennsylvania in 1986 (or roughly a million years ago.)

I graduated with a $10,000 student loan debt.

I graduated with a B.S. in Communications.

So in conclusion: I’m old; college cost a lot less back in the day; and I graduated with a degree that left me with very few actual “real world skills.”

The most recent political football that the ‘Dems and ‘Pubs are punting back and forth is college educations, student loans, who can or should pay for them, who exactly “should” be able to attend college, and what exactly is the benefit of a college education.

This is (as are most subjects that are worth spending any time and effort communicating about) complicated.

Also, (as I have a recent habit of writing and saying) many, many, many people are smarter and more learned on this subject than me.

IMHO, college is a worthwhile endeavor for those who want (and/or can afford) to take advantage of it.  Both the actual educational knowledge that is obtained and (perhaps even more importantly) the sociological knowledge that is obtained encourage and cause personal growth.

Should everyone go to college ?  Heavens no.

Some people are not “higher education” material.

And when I write that I don’t mean that they are only unintelligent.

There are untold numbers of entrepreneurs who don’t want or need college to make their mark on the world.

Life is not learned solely in a text book.  It is more learned by life experiences.

Politicians, keep squabbling and achieving little if anything.

Everyone else, keep civilly debating worthy topics like this.  We may never find a definitive answer to our question(s,) but is that really the objective ? ~Scott

Courtesy of  www.chronicle.com 

Are Too Many Students Going to College?

With student debt rising and more of those enrolled failing to graduate in four years, there is a growing sentiment that college may not be the best option for all students. At the same time, President Obama has called on every American to receive at least one year of higher education or vocational training. Behind the rhetoric lies disagreement over a series of issues: which students are most likely to succeed in college; what kind of college they should attend; whether the individual or society benefits more from postsecondary education; and whether college is worth the high cost and likely long-term debt. The Chronicle Review asked higher-education experts to weigh in.

Who should and shouldn’t go to college?

Alison Wolf: Anyone who meets the entry criteria and is willing to pay the fees should be able to go. In one sense, that just passes the buck—politicians then have to decide how much subsidy they are willing to provide. But it shouldn’t be up to them to decide how many people go, what they study, and why.

Charles Murray: It has been empirically demonstrated that doing well (B average or better) in a traditional college major in the arts and sciences requires levels of linguistic and logical/mathematical ability that only 10 to 15 percent of the nation’s youth possess. That doesn’t mean that only 10 to 15 percent should get more than a high-school education. It does mean that the four-year residential program leading to a B.A. is the wrong model for a large majority of young people.

Marty Nemko: All high-school students should receive a cost-benefit analysis of the various options suitable to their situations: four-year college, two-year degree program, short-term career-prep program, apprenticeship program, on-the-job training, self-employment, the military. Students with weak academic records should be informed that, of freshmen at “four year” colleges who graduated in the bottom 40 percent of their high-school class, two-thirds won’t graduate even if given eight and a half years. And that even if such students defy the odds, they will likely graduate with a low GPA and a major in low demand by employers. A college should not admit a student it believes would more wisely attend another institution or pursue a noncollege postsecondary option. Students’ lives are at stake, not just enrollment targets.

Sandy Baum: Everyone should have the opportunity to continue his or her education after high school without finances’ creating an insurmountable barrier. For individuals whose goal is a four-year degree, beginning at a four-year college is generally the most promising option. For others, different types of institutions may be more appropriate.

Daniel Yankelovich: In today’s society and economy, virtually everyone who has the motivation and stamina should acquire some form of postsecondary education. That is a practical reality of today’s economy.

Marcus A. Winters: In general, people benefit from education and should acquire as much as they can. Though there are many good reasons to do so, the best economic research suggests that the wage return for a year of college course work is more than enough to justify pursuing at least some higher education. That not all students have the skills necessary to keep up with college course work says more about the effectiveness of our K-12 education than about the cognitive ability of American students.

Richard K. Vedder: A large subset of our population should not go to college, or at least not at public expense. The number of new jobs requiring a college degree is now less than the number of young adults graduating from universities, so more and more graduates are filling jobs for which they are academically overqualified.

W. Norton Grubb: Students should go to college if they understand (and want) the economic or occupational benefits of college, as long as they understand the length of time and difficulty of attaining a degree. They should also be college-ready, and they should be enthusiastic about the intellectual roles of college—the chance to take general-education courses, the intellectual and cultural life of most colleges, the opportunities to develop broad and curious intellects. Otherwise college is likely to be narrow and utilitarian.

Bryan Caplan: There are two ways to read this question. One is: “Who gets a good financial and/or personal return from college?” My answer: people in the top 25 percent of academic ability who also have the work ethic to actually finish college. The other way to read this is: “For whom is college attendance socially beneficial?” My answer: no more than 5 percent of high-school graduates, because college is mostly what economists call a “signaling game.” Most college courses teach few useful job skills; their main function is to signal to employers that students are smart, hard-working, and conformist. The upshot: Going to college is a lot like standing up at a concert to see better. Selfishly speaking, it works, but from a social point of view, we shouldn’t encourage it.

How much does increasing college-going rates matter to our economy and society?

Caplan: College attendance, in my view, is usually a drain on our economy and society. Encouraging talented people to spend many years in wasteful status contests deprives the economy of millions of man-years of output. If this were really an “investment,” of course, it might be worth it. But I see little connection between the skills that students acquire in college and the skills they’ll need later in life.

Nemko: Increasing college-going rates may actually hurt our economy. We now send 70 percent of high-school graduates to college, up from 40 percent in 1970. At the same time, employers are accelerating their offshoring, part-timing, and temping of as many white-collar jobs as possible. That results in ever more unemployed and underemployed B.A.’s. Meanwhile, there’s a shortage of tradespeople to take the Obama infrastructure-rebuilding jobs. And you and I have a hard time getting a reliable plumber even if we’re willing to pay $80 an hour—more than many professors make.

Vedder: While it is true that areas with high proportions of college graduates tend to have higher incomes and even higher rates of economic growth than other areas, it does not necessarily follow that mindlessly increasing college enrollments enhances our economic well-being. My own research shows that there generally is a negative relationship between state support for higher education and economic growth. Sending marginal students to four-year degree programs, only to drop out, is a waste of human and financial resources, and lowers the quality of life for those involved.

Yankelovich: It is of critical importance to both. In the emerging global economy, our greatest competitive vulnerability is our nation’s failure to close the higher-education credentials gap between middle-income and lower-income families.

Winters: Increasing college-attendance rates in the United States is essential to reducing income inequality and maintaining our stature as a world economic leader. Our economic dominance in the second half of the 20th century was directly related to our educational dominance. The United States was the first nation to provide basic education to all people regardless of their income. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the educated American worker was far more productive than his illiterate overseas cousin. That advantage made our nation rich. However, while other nations eventually caught on and caught up, American educational outcomes have stagnated since the late 1970s. We have lost our educational advantage.

Economists have cited the economic benefits that individual students derive from college. Does that still apply?

Yankelovich: It applies more than ever. With the disappearance of virtually all highly paid, low-skill jobs, the only way that most Americans can fulfill their aspirations for middle-class status is through acquiring a higher-education credential and the skills that go with it. From a practical standpoint, the credential is more important than specific skill sets. Employers know that they are able to train qualified employees in specialized skills. For most employers, “qualified” means having core skills like the ability to read, write, think clearly, and bring a strong work ethic to the task. It is those core skills (and virtues) that higher education warrants.

Baum: The evidence for the individual economic benefits of college is overwhelming. While the wage premium for a college education is not at its highest level ever, it is larger than it was five years ago, and typical four-year-college graduates earn more than 50 percent above typical high-school graduates. Numerous careful statistical studies reveal that a relatively small proportion of the gap is explained by differences in the characteristics of students who go to college and those who do not.

Obviously there is considerable variation in earnings among those with similar levels of education, and it is not difficult to find individuals who never went to college but earn more than some of those who graduated. Those exceptions neither prove anything about the payoff of education nor provide sound examples for young people. Going to college is not a guaranteed investment, and we should do more to protect individuals against the risks of the investment. But it is a wise investment for most people. Some people worry that those who miss out on college now because of cost barriers or absence of good local options would have disappointing results if they went. But the evidence is the opposite: People who get a little extra help that enables them to enroll get higher returns, on average, than the typical student.

Murray: A large wage premium for having a bachelor’s degree still exists. For everything except degrees in engineering and the hard sciences, I submit that most of that premium is associated with the role of the B.A. as a job requirement instead of anything that students with B.A.’s actually learn. The solution to that injustice—and it is one of the most problematic social injustices in contemporary America—is to give students a way to show employers what they know, not where they learned it and how long it took them. In other words, substitute certifications for the bachelor’s degree.

Winters: Those who argue that the bachelor’s degree has lost its luster in the labor market are ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary. As of 2005, after accounting for the differences between those who go to college and those who do not, the premium for a year of college education was about 13 to 14 percent of an individual’s weekly wage. Employers clearly still value the general knowledge and work ethic that a student acquires in college. It is important to note that the benefits of attending college are found both across and within professions. Blue-collar workers benefit nearly as much as white-collar workers from a year of college education. That is, going to college makes you a better plumber than you would have been otherwise. Why? One reason might be that college imparts nonacademic, social skills that can benefit blue-collar workers, who often must interact with customers and clients who are themselves college-educated.

Who should pay for students to attend college?

Wolf: A combination of students and government—though government’s primary role should be in underwriting loans and making sure that people don’t stay away from college because they are worried that they might not be able to repay a loan if they get ill, are unemployed, etc.

Nemko: In the same way that shifting medical costs to insurers makes patients cavalier about whether to demand fancy tests and procedures, even when not cost-effective, the more the government and private donors (alumni, private scholarships) pay of the college tab, the less responsibly the student and family need to determine college’s cost-effectiveness. Also, every time the government increases financial aid or a private scholarship is set up, it merely allows colleges to raise their sticker prices more.

Yankelovich: I think we should put ideology aside and use good old American pragmatism. The combination of inexorably rising higher-education costs and lower state subsidies is a disaster for low-income families. The federal government and private foundations can play an important strategic role in filling the holes and cracks in the system: giving help both to institutions that lack rich endowments, through grants, contracts, and subsidies for community service, and to students, through low-cost loans, scholarships, special work-study programs, subsidies for commitment to future public service, veterans’ benefits, and other support.

Murray: Ideally, students themselves. If that means delaying college for a few years to save money, so much the better—every college professor has seen the difference in maturity and focus between kids straight out of high school and those who have worked or gone into the military for a few years. The ideal is unattainable. But somehow we’ve got to undermine the current system whereby upper-middle-class children go to college without having to invest in it.

Grubb: There’s a conventional demonstration in economics that students (or parents) should pay to the extent that private benefits (like increased earnings) are the result, and that government should support higher education when public benefits are involved. Given the dominance of private benefits, that suggests higher tuition; higher levels of student aid to make college-going more equitable; and public assistance to support obvious social benefits like civic education, crucial underfinanced sectors like education and social welfare, research, and service in the public interest. The high-tuition/high-aid policy preferred by most economists has never been popular, in part because aid levels never keep up with tuition. But it’s a simple matter to devise an aid policy that does keep up with tuition, and higher education should concentrate on developing one.

Vedder: I question the conventional wisdom that enormous positive spillover effects of college attendance justify large public subsidies for universities. If subsidies are to be given, they should go directly to students.

Does the United States view and handle this issue differently than other countries? Should it?

Yankelovich: Yes, on both counts. Most advanced industrial democracies distinguish more sharply than we do between higher education in the sense of a four-year college education and apprenticeship training. Theirs is a test-based meritocratic system. Our system of four-year and two-year colleges is more flexible, allowing greater opportunity for highly motivated students. Our democracy tips the balance, in keeping with our social norm of equality of opportunity. I am not arguing that our system is superior to that of other countries, but simply that it is a core American tradition that fits our culture and history—a bastion of stability in an unstable world. We should do everything we can to safeguard it.

Wolf: The United States is different. But it is right, and other countries are mostly moving in the American direction anyway, as more and more people go to college. Many European countries have a deep-seated resistance to the idea that people should pay for any form of education, even though that actually means in practice that (poorer) taxpayers pay for middle-class college kids. I think that Britain’s student-loan system, however, is much better than the one in the United States: We have a single regulated/quasi-governmental loan company.

Baum: While some countries place more of the financial responsibility on the government and less on the students, the increasing prevalence of mass higher education is changing the equation in many places. Governments that can afford to support a small fraction of the population in their studies cannot afford to provide that same opportunity to the growing numbers for whom postsecondary education is becoming a necessity.

At what point does the cost of going to college outweigh the benefits?

Baum: That is a question that will have a different answer for different individuals. First, the benefits of going to college are much broader and deeper than the financial return. If the question is how much is worth spending, the answer depends on career goals and alternative options. But it is clear that at current college prices, and considering existing financial aid, continuing their education after high school makes sense for most people who are motivated to do so, even if that requires postponing a portion of the payment in the form of loans.

Wolf: Not a question one can answer! Benefits are not just in earning terms. And it depends on the quality of the education and what people get from it, how the economy develops, etc., etc. That is why it has to be an individual decision.

Murray: It depends on how much money you have.

Winters: If we are speaking only in terms of a monetary benefit, then the cost of going to college outweighs the benefit when the expected increase in lifetime income is surpassed by the cost of tuition, interest on student loans, and forgone wages while in school. Given what we know about the large economic return for a year of college, and even with tuition continuing to increase, we have not yet reached such a point. Maybe we never will.

Nemko: No. We have a moral obligation to help all students to make a fully informed choice of the wisest postsecondary option for them.

Yankelovich: Yes. We have both a moral and a political obligation to ensure all students and their families access to affordable higher education. The heart and soul of America’s unwritten social contract is based on equality of opportunity, and the vast majority of Americans know that in today’s economy, higher education is the main path to improving one’s lot in life. Denial of access to this form of self-betterment violates the unwritten social contract, leading to public anger, resentment, and political unrest. Poll data show that such anger and resentment are on the rise.

Murray: We have a moral obligation to destroy the current role of the B.A. in American life. It has become an emblem of first-class citizenship for no good reason.

Baum: We have a moral obligation as a society to create the opportunity for as many students as possible to go to college if they are so motivated. We have a moral obligation to make the financial aspects of college attendance manageable and to ensure that students get the financial, academic, and social supports necessary for success. Doing the morally right thing also means doing the smart thing for our general economic and social well-being.

Caplan: From a moral point of view, far too many students are going to college—just as far too many people stand up at concerts.

Vedder: Sending too many students to college instead of, for example, postsecondary schools teaching useful trades (to become a beautician, truck driver, plumber) is a morally questionable exercise. However, the American egalitarian ideal runs strong in our society, so a good position honoring that tradition in a cost-effective way is to allow all minimally qualified students some opportunity to attend at least a low-cost community college, and if success is demonstrated, then be supported at a four-year institution. But many people have the financial means to pay for that themselves, and the notion that college is a universal public entitlement is economically imprudent and morally dubious.

Grubb: We do have a moral obligation, emerging from several centuries of concern with equity in a highly inequitable country, to make access to and completion of college more equitable. But rather than proclaiming College for All, we should be stressing High School Completion for All, emphasizing that such completion requires either college readiness or readiness for sustained employment—or for the combination of the two that has become so common.

Winters: Our first moral obligation is to ensure that students leave high school ready to attend college.

FORUM PARTICIPANTS

Sandy Baum, professor emerita of economics at Skidmore College and senior policy analyst for the College Board

Bryan Caplan, associate professor of economics at George Mason University

W. Norton Grubb, professor of policy, organization, measurement, and evaluation at the University of California at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education

Charles Murray, political scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Marty Nemko, career counselor based in Oakland, Calif.

Richard K. Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and professor of economics at Ohio University

Marcus A. Winters, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute

Alison Wolf, professor of public-sector management at King’s College London

Daniel Yankelovich, founder and chairman of Viewpoint Learning Inc., which develops dialogues to resolve public-policy issues; Public Agenda, a nonprofit policy-research organization; and DYG Inc., a market- and social-research firm

When I was much younger and I would complain about a perceived physical inadequacy, my father would “threaten” to take me down to the hospital and show me children with real problems.

Logically/rationally I understand the like most of the human population I fall somewhere between the most physically attractive and the least physically attractive.

Illogically/irrationally is a whole ‘nother story… ~Scott

Courtesy of www.psychologytoday.com

Changing Your Body Image Once and for All by Lisa Firestone, Ph.D.

I recently took my 10-year-old niece and her cousin shopping for new dresses. As they tried on clothes, my niece commented, “Nothing looks good on me; Sabrina looks good in everything.” It surprised me to observe such a young girl expressing such a poor body image and comparing herself unfavorably to her cousin. And yet, the very next morning I myself was a witness to a similar discussion between two friends of mine. One, a woman who is enviably slim and fit, casually complained about feeling fat and the other, a man with a near-perfect physique, joined in, saying that since he hit 30, his body was getting “soft and round.”

All of this left me marveling at the prevalence of negative body image. Regardless of actual body type (whether thin or heavy) or attire (whether bikini or winter coat) many of us are suffering from a barrage of self-critical thoughts.

People’s views of their bodies are not only cruel but inaccurate. A friend of mine recently told me how down on herself she feels about getting older and confessed how she continually compares herself negatively to “younger, prettier girls.” She showed me an old picture of herself, of the “skinny and youthful” woman she once was. When I asked her how she felt about herself at that time, she remembered that the very day the picture was taken, she’d felt fat, ugly, and full of the same self-hate she felt today. It was obvious that her perception of herself as a young woman was as flawed as her current self-image. What she really needed to address wasn’t the wrinkles under her eyes or the grays in her hair but the deep-seated feeling of shame that’s long kept her from accepting herself as the attractive woman she truly is.

So what is the underlying cause for the damaging thoughts that we harbor about our bodies? What is the reason for the discrepancy between the critical way we see ourselves and the realistic view that others have of us? Our basic self-perception is shaped by both positive and negative programming from our past. For example, when a parent or other significant adult persists in looking at a child’s face critically, that child will begin to incorporate the thought or believe that that there is something inherently wrong with him or her, particularly his or her physical self.

Early experiences that we never imagined would have impacted our way of seeing ourselves remain the sources for inaccurate self-criticism throughout our lives. People who face issues of low self-esteem can trace them to feelings of humiliation, rejection, or disappointment they suffered in childhood. When young children search for the reasons and explanations for these feelings, they often look within themselves rather than finding fault with an adult they are dependent on. One of the easiest places for them to lay the blame is on their physical appearance.

Throughout our lives, many experiences can feed into the deep, old sense of shame that stems from as early as our first few years of life. We continue to assign this ongoing feeling of shame to parts of our bodies that we see in a negative light. Everything from humiliations in front of a classroom, to hurtful break ups, to career failures or even minor mistakes can be attributed to not looking right and add to our inner well of self-hatred.

Too often, we go from feeling negatively about our appearance to actually avoiding certain activities and events, because we’re ashamed to be seen. Thoughts that we are too short, tall, or out of shape can keep us from going out with friends or taking our shirt off at the beach. Our negative body image can also keep us from more meaningful courses of action. For example, we may assume someone we’re interested in is not attracted to us, or we may avoid intimacy altogether, because we are insecure about how we look. When we lose confidence in ourselves, we may resign ourselves to familiar activities and situations instead of pursuing what we really want to do; for instance, staying at home and avoiding a party, because we feel like we are not as attractive as other people who are going.

Each of us harbors our own unique prescription for self-loathing. Therefore, we’re often sheltered in our own bubble of shame, coached by an inner critic that tells us we are different, flawed and lesser than those around us. We even project these self-attacks onto others and think they are critical toward us or not attracted to us. We may notice that our self-attacks get a lot louder in situations where we become self-conscious of our bodies like getting out of the shower or going out at night.

This “critical inner voice” gives us instructions to hide our bodies. It’s that internal coach telling us to leave on our tank tops at the beach. It’s the one whispering to us that, since we are flawed, we should drive ourselves beyond reason to achieve perfection or just give up on ourselves. Even though it may instruct us to exercise or diet, the same voice lures us to take it easy or have that second cupcake. It then punishes us by calling us “weak” or “failures” in a vicious cycle that perpetuates the voice process.

Our bodies are often the biggest target of our critical inner voice. No matter where we stand in life, it informs us of our many imperfections and keeps us from fully enjoying ourselves or relaxing in our own skin. We can choose to starve or feed, hide or reveal ourselves all based on the faulty advice of this inner critic. Challenging this “voice” is key to accepting our bodies.

When we do decide to challenge our inner critic, we can expect to face some serious anxiety. Acting against these thoughts is not just about confronting a few surface criticisms. Rather, it involves awakening a great beast long-fed on the belief that we are inadequate in some way. This beast may be cruel, but it has also grown familiar to us. Acting against its will by taking our goals seriously and feeling confident in our bodies will rouse this inner critic, which, for a time, will get louder.

However, like the Wicked Witch melting in the Wizard of Oz, the voice will eventually fade into the background. So when it tells us to keep our sweater on or to hide in the back of the room, it is important to throw caution (and clothing) to the wind and to remember that this act isn’t just about shedding layers of fabric. It’s about stripping yourself of years of self-hatred, shame and misplaced criticism that just doesn’t belong in the here and now.

Destiny is a predetermined course of events.  It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the cosmos. ~Wikipedia

I celebrated another birthday last week (April 10.)  I turned 48 years young.

As I inch closer to the half-century mark in my chronology, I have begun to contemplate my destiny.

I most likely will not change the world.  I most likely will not be remembered upon my passing beyond my remaining loved ones and a few chosen friends and associates.

As of this communication, I am unmarried, unattached, and without children.

Why was I brought into this world and am I doing what I was/am supposed to do to make a difference in other lives or my own life ?  Am I using my God-given skills to their fullest capacity ?

I possess a talent to make people laugh and have a well-developed sense of humor.

So why was I given this talent and how exactly do I leave my mark on this world by using it ?

Although it took me longer than I was comfortable with I finally found what I think is my niche in the world, improvisational theatre.  A way that I could use this/these gifts that I was given and have worked to cultivate over the decades.

How does one every really know if they are fulfilling their destiny ?

I can only speak for myself when I write that I don’t currently know, and may never know empirically for sure.

But I promise to keep searching for the answer.

Courtesy of http://carolross.typepad.com

Are You Fulfilling Your Destiny?

While journaling recently, I wrote the following question:

“Have I fulfilled my destiny?”

Have I met the promise of what others saw in me at an early age? For many, family and teachers are the first ones to see our talent, encourage us and see who we could become in the future–for example, a fine musician, a brilliant scientist or a gifted communicator. I see that with my own son, at college for the first time this fall. My husband and I have hopes and dreams for him. We know what he is capable of and where his gifts lie.  We have told him as much.

But how many of us take the time, decades later, to assess whether we lived up to our potential?

When I was in high school, I worked hard enough as a flutist to be in top youth orchestras and bands.  Sometimes, people would ask me if I wanted to be a professional musician. I knew back then that music was not my destiny.  I remember two girl flutists who were destined to be professional musicians. Amy and I took lessons from the same teacher and I would hear her playing as I arrived for a lesson.  She had a sureness in her playing that seemed to spring from somewhere deep inside of her. Her fingers flew over the keys, never missing a note. The other flutist, Jane, was someone I met at a music camp.  Jane had an ease and grace with the flute that I had never seen in someone our age.  She was meant to play the flute.  Music was her first language.

I went to college thinking my destiny was to be an engineer and solve hard problems.  I didn’t really know what it was like to be an engineer other than it required training in math and sciences.  I did become an engineer, first a chemical engineer and then a software engineer.  But I know now, that was not my destiny.

How did I know that? Not because I changed careers, but because it wasn’t something I would have done for free.  I didn’t have the curiosity or the love.  It was not my purpose in life to solve hard engineering problems. I know people who are like that, but that wasn’t me.

It was my destiny to fulfill my immigrant parents’ dream of having all their offspring graduate from college.

It was my destiny to get married to a wonderful man and raise children who are caring and capable and creative.

It was my destiny to go through experiences that taught me compassion, from developing a painful condition in my jaw over several years called TMJ, to taking care of two toddlers on my days off while my husband worked on weekends and holidays, to being laid off twice.

Although I wasn’t conscious of it for many years, it was my destiny to speak about what I see and to be the scribe for the human experience.  I write what is true for me, whether it’s good times or bad.  In doing so, I make the human condition more accessible, and honor it. The biggest bonus life has given me is the ability to help others through my writing.

It has been my destiny to uncover wisdom in unexpected places. In 2006, I started a project with a friend who was dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease. We called the project, which turned into a podcast, Conscious Living, Conscious Leaving. I interviewed her during the last six months of her life, through 10 hours of phone calls and many emails. That work was the purest I’ve done, in that it was labor of love.  I couldn’t not do it.

It has been my destiny to continually find ways to learn what I wanted to know and in the process, create a structure for others to learn. In high school, I rallied fellow student council members around a mission–convincing administrators to set aside three days before spring break for an alternative schedule of classes for every single student and then making it happen.  All 1600 students had four periods of new classes, taught by volunteer instructors.  It was a student run, student organized effort called Unique Week. Students took classes in topics as diverse as CPR, cake decorating, fencing, and unicycling and took field trips to local businesses.

When I was going through coaching training, I created The Coaching Studio, a forum to hone my coaching skills and educate the public on coaching. The format consisted of three coaches, doing 12-minute coaching demonstrations with volunteers, followed by feedback from an audience.  Over time, The Coaching Studio spread to coaches across the U.S.

I’m not sure I was destined to teach others how to network but it has been my destiny to show others how giving first comes back to you many times over.

It has been my destiny to become more of who I am throughout my lifetime. Not just an analytical engineer, but also an intuitive coach, a compassionate interviewer, a creative entrepreneur, a playful collaborator.

If I were to ask my teachers, childhood friends and family if I’ve lived up to the promise that they saw in me decades ago, my hope is that they would be surprised.  I have not climbed to great heights in society. What I did do was this: I took my gifts and did something more meaningful and unique than they had ever imagined.  One’s destiny is much deeper and more magical than what can be grasped at the beginning of the journey.  That is what awaits each of us.

Julia Cameron is a favorite writer of mine.  I ran across this passage in her book, The Sound of Paper and it immediately made me smile:

“It is very easy to forget our divine origins. It is very easy to see ourselves as the products of our birth families, shaped and colored only by those transactions. We are much larger than that. We are each a soul, unique and distinctive, bringing to bear on life a rich legacy of spiritual gifts if we but open ourselves to the possibility that we are not merely the products of our conditioning.  We are spiritual beings with spiritual business to transact here on this earth. We have a destiny to fulfill.”

Maybe the question to reflect on is not whether I’ve fulfilled my destiny, but how I am fulfilling my destiny.  Instead of a yes or no declared through the logical mind, the heart is better equipped to answer this new question. It’s a feeling thing, not a thinking thing.

How are you fulfilling your destiny?

I keep multiple to do lists (on tablets of paper, on slips of paper, on fast food napkins, on my laptop computer, and anywhere else handy at any given time.)

When I am super duper motivated, the lists actually get shorter.

But that situation is extremely rare.

Life, a nap, a special episode of my favorite television show or  hundreds other things always seem to get in the way of completing my to do list tasks.

But in those hours when I am really, truly honest with myself, I know that my true nemesis is PROCRASTINATION.

Will I ever wrestle procrastination to the ground and give it the sleeper hold it deserves ?

Probably not.

But as my enemy mocks me on a daily basis, I grow stronger, smarter, and more resourceful.

Procrastination, our ultimate showdown is coming soon.

And I plan on winning. ~Scott

Courtesy of www.psychologytoday.com

Procrastination: Ten Things To Know

Is your procrastination hindering you? Ten things you should know.

By Hara Estroff Marano, published on August 23, 2003

There are many ways to avoid success in life, but the most sure-fire just might be procrastination. Procrastinators sabotage themselves. They put obstacles in their own path. They actually choose paths that hurt their performance.

Why would people do that? I talked to two of the world’s leading experts on procrastination: Joseph Ferrari, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at De Paul University in Chicago, and Timothy Pychyl, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Neither one is a procrastinator, and both answered my many questions immediately.

*Twenty percent of people identify themselves as chronic procrastinators. For them procrastination is a lifestyle, albeit a maladaptive one. And it cuts across all domains of their life. They don’t pay bills on time. They miss opportunities for buying tickets to concerts. They don’t cash gift certificates or checks. They file income tax returns late. They leave their Christmas shopping until Christmas eve.

*It’s not trivial, although as a culture we don’t take it seriously as a problem. It represents a profound problem of self-regulation. And there may be more of it in the U.S. than in other countries because we are so nice; we don’t call people on their excuses (“my grandmother died last week”) even when we don’t believe them.

*Procrastination is not a problem of time management or of planning. Procrastinators are not different in their ability to estimate time, although they are more optimistic than others. “Telling someone who procrastinates to buy a weekly planner is like telling someone with chronic depression to just cheer up,” insists Dr. Ferrari.

*Procrastinators are made not born. Procrastination is learned in the family milieu, but not directly. It is one response to an authoritarian parenting style. Having a harsh, controlling father keeps children from developing the ability to regulate themselves, from internalizing their own intentions and then learning to act on them. Procrastination can even be a form of rebellion, one of the few forms available under such circumstances. What’s more, under those household conditions, procrastinators turn more to friends than to parents for support, and their friends may reinforce procrastination because they tend to be tolerant of their excuses.

*Procrastination predicts higher levels of consumption of alcohol among those people who drink. Procrastinators drink more than they intend to—a manifestation of generalized problems in self-regulation. That is over and above the effect of avoidant coping styles that underlie procrastination and lead to disengagement via substance abuse.

*Procrastinators tell lies to themselves. Such as, “I’ll feel more like doing this tomorrow.” Or “I work best under pressure.” But in fact they do not get the urge the next day or work best under pressure. In addition, they protect their sense of self by saying “this isn’t important.” Another big lie procrastinators indulge is that time pressure makes them more creative. Unfortunately they do not turn out to be more creative; they only feel that way. They squander their resources

*Procrastinators actively look for distractions, particularly ones tha don’t take a lot of commitment on their part. Checking e-mail is almost perfect for this purpose. They distract themselves as a way of regulating their emotions such as fear of failure.

*There’s more than one flavor of procrastination. People procrastinate for different reasons. Dr. Ferrari identifies three basic types of procrastinators:

arousal types, or thrill-seekers, who wait to the last minute for the euphoric rush.

avoiders, who may be avoiding fear of failure or even fear of success, but in either case are very concerned with what others think of them; they would rather have others think they lack effort than ability.

decisional procrastinators, who cannot make a decision. Not making decision absolves procrastinators of responsibility for the outcome of events.

*There are big costs to procrastination. Health is one. Just over the course of a single academic term, procrastinating college students had such evidence of compromised immune systems as more colds and flu, more gastrointestinal problems. And they had insomnia. In addition, procrastination has a high cost to others as well as oneself; it shifts the burden of responsibilities onto others, who become resentful. Procrastination destroys teamwork in the workplace and private relationships.

*Procrastinators can change their behavior—but doing so consumes a lot of psychic energy. And it doesn’t necessarily mean one feels transformed internally. It can be done with highly structured cognitive behavioral therapy.

I love little baby ducks

Old pick-up trucks

Slow-moving trains and rain

I love, little country streams

Sleep without dreams

Sunday school in may and hay

And I love you too

I love, leaves in the wind

Pictures of my friends

Birds of the world and squirrels

I love coffee in a cup

Little fuzzy pups

Old TV shows and snow

And I love you too

I love honest open smiles

Kisses from a child

Tomatoes on a vine and onions

I

love winners when they cry

I love losers when they try

Music when it’s good and life

And I, love you too

~”I Love” – Tom T. Hall

Everyone needs something that occasionally anesthetizes their overactive brain.

Mine is television.

Really overactive brain.  Lots of television.

Here are my current top ten favorite television shows on my DVR (digital video recorder for those of you who haven’t discovered the most wonderful invention EVER.)

I have a feeling that this is a subject that I will be revisiting again. ~Scott

Scott’s Top Ten Current DVR Favorite Shows (in no particular order)  I have lots of other favorite shows, but I don’t want us to be here all day ;p

Pardon the Interruption (ESPN)

The Good Wife (CBS)

House (Fox)

Community (NBC)

Once Upon a Time (ABC)

Attack of the Show (G4)

New Girl (Fox)

Parks and Recreation (NBC)

30 Rock (NBC)

Awake (NBC)

Courtesy of www.theawl.com

What Kind Of ‘I Don’t Own A TV’ People Do You Have In Your Life?

By Joe Berkowitz | July 11, 2011

You know the tone people employ when announcing that they don’t own a TV. Casually tossed off, yet firmly resolute; it’s the same tone that might be used to dispel any other unflattering misrepresentation (e.g., “Oh, I don’t have syphilis.”). The funny thing is that nobody ever actually asks the question, “Do you own a TV?”

Unfortunately, there are scads of people who seem convinced they’re blowing everyone’s minds with the announcement. Others, meanwhile, manage to keep TV-free homes without ever drawing attention to it. The mere fact of not owning a television does not make a person insufferable (although it certainly does help.) As with so much else in life, it’s the way that the information is conveyed that makes the difference. Sometimes it’s a pre-emptive conversational tourniquet, stanching the flow of any entertainment-related questions to come. Other times it’s a lifestyle signpost, the implications of which are murky at best. And then, of course, once in a while it’s a sort of long-form birth certificate that proves one’s subscription to The Economist.

In any case, once TV ownership is disavowed, what follows is a weird limbo moment where any number of responses seems appropriate. Do you:
• Empathize? (“I can plainly see why you choose not to own The Devil’s Box.”)
• Confront? (“DO YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE BETTER THAN ME!”)
• Condescend? (“Aw, you’re adorable.”)
• One-up? (“I don’t even know what televisions ARE.”)

It all depends on what kind of ‘I Don’t Have a TV’ person you’ve got.

The Pauper First up, there’s the person who could probably afford a TV, but definitely can’t afford cable and so isn’t even bothering. To say that his apartment is spartanly furnished would be an exercise in understatement. It sort of looks like the white room in The Matrix (an allusion that many people on this list would claim not to understand). Managing to get along without television is the least of The Pauper’s problems, though, and doing so is by no means a political or philosophical statement. The Pauper enjoys watching shows, but frankly, there are more pressing matters on his mind, like getting food and keeping enough clean clothes around to avoid looking like a hobo-clown.

Best response: Extend an open invite to watch TV at your place sometime.

The Shrugger Not everybody is interested in the same things as everybody else. That’s a given. Some people legitimately have no interest in movies or TV shows and therefore have no need for a television. That’s the Shrugger. It’s not a matter of self-identification, just a personal preference. Perhaps her parents didn’t let her watch TV as a kid and then she never cottoned to it later on. She occasionally enjoys watching shows in a group situation, but just doesn’t really care for the experience overall, and it’s not that big a deal. She recognizes and allows that TV can be an entertaining diversion for some, and she doesn’t begrudge others their viewing habits. Neither does she have any delusions that by forgoing a TV she is making a bid for intellectual sainthood.

Best response: Smile and let her know she’s not missing that much (whether or not you believe this to be true).

The Efficiency Expert Much like the Shrugger, The Efficiency Expert simply doesn’t have much of an interest in movies and shows, except in her case the indifference stems from an attitude that time spent on such frivolity is an irresponsible waste of a finite resource. By abstaining from that most highly engrossing of all pieces of furniture, she is making a statement that time is money and she’s not leaving any money on the table. The Efficiency Expert may have the live-and-let-live attitude of the Shrugger, but may also take a passive-aggressive poke at those who squander their time by tuning in.

Best response: Change subjects, perhaps to the tax code.

The Professor “You just don’t know, man. You don’t even know. Allow me to detonate some truth-bombs in your mind-shaft. Are you ready for this? Commercials aren’t the crap in between shows—shows are the crap in between commercials. Boom. Take a moment to collect the shattered fragments of your psyche. By turning on your TV, you are bending over in a manner known throughout the animal kingdom as ‘presenting.’ Every moment spent sunk into your couch cushions, glassy eyes fixed on ‘Total Request Live’ or ‘Beavis and Butthead,’ you’re allowing the indoctrination to continue. You receive messages all day long and make the purchases that perpetuate this consumerist dystopia. The propaganda merchants have locked you into a zombie lifestyle that you aren’t even aware of. Baa, sheep, baa. I want to hear you say it.”

Best response: Pretend that you work for the CIA, and then “recruit” this person on a “mission” to destroy “Time Warner Cable headquarters.”

The Poseur Of all known varietals of “I Don’t Own a TV” people, The Poseur is definitely the most likely to annoy. Even the most tangential subject matter will prompt this person to mention that thing he doesn’t own, and he seems to equate this lack of ownership with an enlightened, progressive ethos. He may or may not have a job or a band or whatever, but he definitely has a laptop and a thirst for entertainment. For the Poseur, the unspoken second half of the sentence “Oh, I don’t own a TV” is “but I frequently watch stuff online.” Not owning a TV is fine, volunteering that information unprompted is questionable, but doing so when you’re intimately familiar with the third season of “Mad Men” is unacceptable.

Best response: Agree that there’s definitely no way to be aware of the negative aspects of television and also own one. Bring up other messages best enjoyed without considering their mediums, like the football-playing of Michael Vick or the filmography of Roman Polanski. Make sure and let the person know that you only got your TV to better understand what was going on in your Twitter feed.

Joe Berkowitz edits books and writes stuff. He also has a tumblr.

The Trayvon Martin case (if you’re not familiar with it, do yourself a favor and look it up online and/or read the article below) has forced many of us to examine our fears of those “who don’t look or act like we do.”

There are many, many, many smarter and more learned professional, amateur writers and communicators who are weighing in on this important topic.

I don’t know if anything I can add to this discussion would be new, innovative, or educational.

This is what I know…

I can do my small part to lessen this “fear” by taking the “they and them” out of my thoughts and words.

It is extremely easy for me (and everyone) to hate they and them when they are human beings that we never attempt to communicate with/get to know and easily stereotype.

It is much more difficult to do so when we make the effort to learn more about others who are different from us.

I didn’t/don’t say it is/was an easy thing to do.

But since when is anything that can make a substantial difference/change in our life/lives ever easy ?   And quite frankly, it shouldn’t be. ~Scott

Trayvon Martin, my son, and the Black Male Code

By Jesse Washington

AP National Writer / March 24, 2012

PHILADELPHIA—I thought my son would be much older before I had to tell him about the Black Male Code. He’s only 12, still sleeping with stuffed animals, still afraid of the dark. But after the Trayvon Martin tragedy, I needed to explain to my child that soon people might be afraid of him.

We were in the car on the way to school when a story about Martin came on the radio. “The guy who killed him should get arrested. The dead guy was unarmed!” my son said after hearing that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman had claimed self-defense in the shooting in Sanford, Fla.

We listened to the rest of the story, describing how Zimmerman had spotted Martin, who was 17, walking home from the store on a rainy night, the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his head. When it was over, I turned off the radio and told my son about the rules he needs to follow to avoid becoming another Trayvon Martin — a black male who Zimmerman assumed was “suspicious” and “up to no good.”

As I explained it, the Code goes like this:

Always pay close attention to your surroundings, son, especially if you are in an affluent neighborhood where black folks are few. Understand that even though you are not a criminal, some people might assume you are, especially if you are wearing certain clothes.

Never argue with police, but protect your dignity and take pride in humility. When confronted by someone with a badge or a gun, do not flee, fight, or put your hands anywhere other than up.

Please don’t assume, son, that all white people view you as a threat. America is better than that. Suspicion and bitterness can imprison you. But as a black male, you must go above and beyond to show strangers what type of person you really are.

I was far from alone in laying out these instructions. Across the country this week, parents were talking to their children, especially their black sons, about the Code. It’s a talk the black community has passed down for generations, an evolving oral tradition from the days when an errant remark could easily cost black people their job, their freedom, or sometimes their life.

After Trayvon Martin was killed, Al Dotson Jr., a lawyer in Miami and chairman of the 100 Black Men of America organization, told his 14-year-old son that he should always be aware of his surroundings, and of the fact that people might view him differently “because he’s blessed to be an African-American.”

“It requires a sixth sense that not everyone needs to have,” Dotson said.

Dotson, 51, remembers receiving his own instructions as a youth, and hearing those instructions evolve over time.

His grandparents told Dotson that when dealing with authority figures, make it clear you are no threat at all — an attitude verging on submissive. Later, Dotson’s parents told him to respond with respect and not be combative.

Today, Dotson tells his children that they should always be respectful, but should not tolerate being disrespected — which would have been recklessly bold in his grandparents’ era.

Yet Dotson still has fears about the safety of his children, “about them understanding who they are and where they are, and how to respond to the environment they are in.”

Bill Stephney, a media executive who lives in a New Jersey suburb that is mostly white and Asian, has two sons, ages 18 and 13. The Martin killing was an opportunity for him to repeat a longtime lesson: Black men can get singled out, “so please conduct yourself accordingly.”

Like Dotson, Stephney mentioned an ultra-awareness — “a racial Spidey sense, a tingling” — that his sons should heed when stereotyping might place them in danger.

One night in the early 1980s, while a student at Adelphi University on Long Island, Stephney and about a dozen other hip-hop aficionados went to White Castle after their late-night DJ gig. They were gathered in the parking lot, eating and talking, when a squadron of police cars swooped in and a helicopter rumbled overhead.

“We got a report that a riot was going on,” police told them.

Stephney and his crew used to talk late into the night about how black men in New York were besieged by violence — graffiti artist Michael Stewart’s death after a rough arrest in 1983; Bernhard Goetz shooting four young black men who allegedly tried to mug him on the subway in 1984; Michael Griffith killed by a car while being chased by a white mob in 1986; the crack epidemic that rained black-on-black violence on the city. They felt under attack, as if society considered them the enemy.

This is how the legendary rap group Public Enemy was born. Their logo: A young black man in the crosshairs of a gun sight.

“Fast forward 25 years later,” Stephney said. “We’ve come a long way to get nowhere.”

But what about that long road traveled, which took a black man all the way to the White House? I can hear some of my white friends now: What evidence is there that Trayvon Martin caught George Zimmerman’s attention — and his bullet — because of his race? Lynching is a relic of the past, so why are you teaching your son to be so paranoid?

There is a difference between paranoia and protection. Much evidence shows that black males face unique risks: Psychological studies indicate they are often perceived as threatening; here in Philadelphia, police stop-and-frisk tactics overwhelmingly target African-Americans, according to a lawsuit settled by the city; research suggests that people are more likely to believe a poorly seen object is a gun if it’s held by a black person.

Yes, it was way back in 1955 when 14-year-old Emmitt Till was murdered in Mississippi for flirting with a white woman. But it was last Wednesday when a white Mississippi teenager pleaded guilty to murder for seeking out a black victim, coming across a man named James Craig Anderson, and running him over with his pickup truck.

Faced with this information, I’m doing what any responsible parent would do: Teaching my son how to protect himself.

Still, it requires a delicate balance. Steve Bumbaugh, a foundation director in Los Angeles, encourages his 8- and 5-year-old sons to talk to police officers, “and to otherwise develop a good relationship with the people and institutions that have the potential to give them trouble. I think this is the best defense.”

“I don’t want them to actually think that they are viewed suspiciously or treated differently,” Bumbaugh said. “I think that realization breeds resentment and anger. And that can contribute to dangerous situations.”

His sons are large for their age, however.

“I’m probably naive to think that they won’t realize they’re viewed differently when they’re 6-4 and 200 pounds,” Bumbaugh said, “but I’m going to try anyway.”

I am 6-4 and more than 200 pounds, son. You probably will be too. Depending on how we dress, act and speak, people might make negative assumptions about us. That doesn’t mean they must be racist; it means they must be human.

Let me tell you a story, son, about a time when I forgot about the Black Male Code.

One morning I left our car at the shop for repairs. I was walking home through our quiet suburban neighborhood, in a cold drizzle, wearing an all-black sweatsuit with the hood pulled over my head.

From two blocks away, I saw your mother pull out of our driveway and roll towards me. When she stopped next to me and rolled down the window, her brown face was full of laughter.

“When I saw you from up the street,” your mother told me, “I said to myself, what is that guy doing in our neighborhood?”

——

Jesse Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. He is reachable at http://twitter.com/jessewashington or jwashington(at)ap.org

In the sport of football there is something called the prevent defense…

(For those of you who know nothing about football, take my word for it.   For those of you intrigued enough to want to learn more.  Do some research on football in general and the prevent defense specifically.)

The joke about the prevent defense is that it usually prevents the team (who is winning at the time) and ultimately, causes them to lose.

(Next up is a segue that might not make sense in the short term, but I promise to tie it not the overall theme of my blog sooner rather than later.)

Last Tuesday I took my car to be inspected.  The state I live in requires a car to pass certain safety and emission standards to be able to renew a registration and license plate.

I figured I would get my inspection, pay my minimally state mandated fee, and be on my way.

I was wrong.  Really, really, really monumentally WRONG.

The inspectors indicated that there were several things that needed to be repaired on my 1999 Honda Civic with a little over 186,000 miles on it to pass the inspection.

Well, I looked at what it could cost me, I gulped, and agreed to the repairs (did I mention that I am a starving artist with a depression mentality toward spending money ?)

“Oh and one last thing…,” said the person who was breaking the bad news to me about all the repairs that need to be done and all the money I would be needing to spend.

“…you have a small hole in your radiator and we can replace that too for this $ (think of a large number.)”

After a millisecond of deliberation, I politely declined.

Why did I decline ?  Let me give you a list.

*I had just had a 30k engine service and thought (mistakenly) that the folks who administered it couldn’t have possibly missed something like that.

*The same folks that were doing the inspection had (I think) mentioned that radiator hole before, and nothing calamitous had been the result of it to date (foreshadowing warning.

*I was already spending more money that I was comfortable with.I thought the inspection folks might be trying to rip me off.

*I decided to visit the repair-people who I trusted the next day.  Should there actually be a repairable problem, I would let them do it.  Even if it meant spending more money.

This is the point where the hand (or voice of God) should have reached out/spoke to me and said, “BIG MISTAKE !.”

Well, to make a long story short (too late, I know) the next day before I could make it to my mechanic all heck broke loose due to the malfunction of my radiator and affiliated automobile functions.

Bottom line, I will now be spending at least 2 to 3 times more $ to get my car repaired than if I would have let the inspection folks replace my radiator initially.

Once again my “penny wise, pound foolish mentality” had figuratively and literally cost me.

As I ruminated and ruminated and ruminated some more about my misfortune, I came to a conclusion.

Although I am doing my best to make strides to the contrary…

I am living my life “not to lose” as opposed to “to win.”There, I brought it back to the prevent defense (you’re welcome.)

So where do I go from here ?

I need to roll up my proverbial sleeves and start living my life (both professional and personally) to win as opposed to not to lose.

Should anyone reading this care about my ongoing attempts to make this concept a reality, stay tuned (or whatever the equivalent phrase should be for inviting someone back to read a blog.)

As I live it, I will happily (or whatever emotion (adverb ?) one calls the need that causes someone to share their live via words to strangers) I will share it with you/them. ~Scott

Courtesy of www.coachingbiztips.com

Playing to Win–or Playing Not to Lose?

As the saying goes, it’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game that matters. How are you playing the game of Life?

Are you playing to win, or are you playing not to lose?

By playing “not to lose”, I mean living life defensively–trying to survive and keep from losing what you’ve got. Playing to win means letting go and taking in everything that life is giving you–going for it. Playing to win is about thriving (or thrival, as I like to think of it).

Take money, for instance. Are you afraid you don’t have enough money? Do you worry that what you do have won’t be enough? Are you holding onto it tightly, afraid to let it go—for example, do you hate to pay bills or put off buying things that you know you need or want (health insurance, home repairs, a vacation)? Or maybe you’re letting money slip through your fingers, spending it faster than it comes in while you sink deeper and deeper into debt. Either way, prosperity is not flowing freely around you. These are all symptoms of playing not to lose with money.

What would you do or how would you be if you were playing to win, instead?

Playing to win takes courage and surrender.  If you want to be more courageous about money, your first step might be to let go of something—an idea, belief or judgment, perhaps—that blocks you from being fully engaged.

One of my clients realized she hadn’t been playing to win when she uncovered a half-hidden belief that she wasn’t smart enough about money. She hadn’t paid much attention to the effect of that thought until we started talking about what was stopping her from growing her business.

She had this little voice inside that constantly told her she had NO BUSINESS handling money; she wasn’t good at math; she was clueless about accounting, investments and bookkeeping. This belief was so strong that she was afraid to even ask for help, because she worried that she wouldn’t know if someone was giving her bad advice.

She had been holding onto the appearance of being a confident, competent business woman, even though in her heart she didn’t believe it. She was trying to bluff her way through so she wouldn’t lose respect and credibility. Meanwhile, she had no freedom to grow her business and couldn’t even enjoy the success she already had.

The paradox of playing to win or playing not to lose is this:

When you’re playing not to lose, the best you can hope for is “not losing.” There is no way to win when you’re playing not to lose.

When you’re playing to win, there is no such thing as “losing”; the worst that can happen is that you keep playing.

Since playing not to lose was costing her the very things she wanted most in life (freedom and joy), she decided to try playing to win.

First, she admitted that she wanted more freedom and joy in her life. Second, she reminded herself that she was bright, capable and resourceful.  After all, she had managed to teach herself everything she knew about business up to this point; she could easily learn whatever she needed to know to about money.

She also decided to relax a little and give herself permission to enjoy the freedom that she sought—and risk making some mistakes along the way.

She took an honest look at what she did (and did not) know about money, and then she got into action. She set some goals, did her homework and asked for help. Did she make some mistakes? Of course! But she stuck with it and looked for the learning in each stumble.

Over the course of a year, she more than doubled her income and paid off two of her credit cards. Interestingly, there were also a number of spontaneous, synchronistic “gifts” that showed up just when she needed them.

Perhaps most importantly, she now has something that money can’t buy: the ability to choose how she’s going to play the game today.

How are you choosing to play the game?

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Last week I did something that scared me.

It was probably something that I will not remember that I did years from now.

It was something that I wasn’t forced to do, but its potential results would be advantageous to me and my business pursuits.

It was something that should I have not done it and I never told anyone that I didn’t do it no one would have been the wiser.

But I would have known.

It was something that after an initial “failure” would have been very easy to give up upon.

Back in the day I would have given up and not have thought about it twice, expect for the brow beating that I would have given myself.

It would have been an epic brain-lashing.

But I didn’t give up.  I didn’t take the easy way out.

I faced my fear and I beat it.

There will be no gold metal, no accolades, no atta-boys, no huge financial winfalls for my accomplishment.

In life there are things called “moral victories.”

None of us know when another of us is experiencing a moral victory.

But that does not make the victory any less sweet or meaningful.

My moral victory this week meant the world to me.

Fears are ghosts that attempt to scare and paralyze us, but when we confront and show them bravery and who is actually in control they disappear from where they were conjured.

I strongly suggest that you do something that scares you this week or very soon.

Take it from one who knows you will be glad you did. ~Scott

Overcoming Fears by Oli Hille

FEBRUARY 20, 2012

I would like to share a blog with you of a trusted contact about overcoming fears that may have been holding you back from reaching your goals.
Oli Hille is a best-selling author on Amazon. Especially Oli’s most recent blog spoke to me, because I see many of my clients struggle with one or the other fear mentioned below. Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are great tools for self-improvement and for helping one to overcome either one of those fears. Oli Hille shares a few great tips about how to move past those obstacles and he shares even more in his book “Creating the Perfect Lifestyle”. Enjoy!

Lifestyle Tip #9: Overcoming Fear

Living without fear means acceleration, speed and endurance in achieving your Lifestyle goals.

Everyone has aspirations and dreams they want to achieve but many people don’t follow through because of fear. There are three main fears that stop people from achieving the lifestyles they want:

1. Fear of Rejection

Take the classic example of the guy who meets a beautiful girl. He really wants to ask her out but the fear of rejection is too strong and he misses out. Another example is writers who write stories or books but they never submit them for publication for fear of rejection.

2. Fear of Failure

Some people have such a fear of failure they won’t even start something or initiate a venture in case it fails. There are thousands of people with fantastic ideas for starting a business, but who never take the first step because of the fear of failure. Similarly, there are thousands of people who know they need a radical lifestyle change but they fear the change will lead to failure.

3. Fear of the Unknown

There are numerous people who are working in jobs or careers they don’t like but they won’t make a change because of a fear of the unknown.

In order to create your Perfect Lifestyle you need to overcome these types of fears. Here is how you overcome your fears and make your world the way you want it:

1. Identify Your Goal

Ask yourself where you want to be in five years e.g. with my dream partner, in a job/business I love, in my own debt free house, with a published novel.

2. Admit Your Fears

Until you admit your fears specifically you cannot address them. Write down your fears. For example: “I fear the unknown and failure if I completely change my career path.”

Tip #1 Consequences

Concentrate on what your life will be like if you don’t change, and emphasise how bad it will be! For example: “If I don’t change I will be stuck in this dead end job until they make me redundant and then I’ll be unemployable and I’ll be broke and I’ll also die lonely because I haven’t got the guts to date the person I like!”

The more you focus on the negatives of not changing, the more you will be motivated to change. One of the tools I use is I imagine myself as an 85 year old sitting in a rocking chair looking back over my life. What do I want to be looking back on?

Tip #2 Identify Areas for Change

Specifically identify areas of your life you are not happy with and need change. Write them down.

Tip #3 Be Decisive

Don’t prolong the pain! Make a decision right now i.e. today! Planning your next five years starts right now. Write that resignation letter now, phone the person you want to date right now! Whatever it is, start the process now. If you are still having trouble making a decision go back to Tip #1 and tell yourself over and over how much worse your life is going to be if you stay in your rut.
You can watch a short video on Overcoming Fear at:

http://www.LifestyleBook.com/overcoming-fear

I look forward to helping you improve your Lifestyle.

Oli Hille
 Author 
”Creating the Perfect Lifestyle”

www.LifestyleBook.com
PS

Remember to check out my Lifestyle Blog, where the are frequent posts with Lifestyle Tips, Advice and Information:

www.LifestyleBook.com/blog