“There is a real magic in enthusiasm. It spells the difference between mediocrity and accomplishment.”
I bet that got your attention. So does enthusiasm really separate those that are mediocre and those that are great? Is it passion? Is it hard work? What is it? Well, let me rephrase the question; what separates those that get results and those that don’t? I’ve pondered this since I started working out as skinny, 18 year old kid and now that I have been back as a trainer for a month, I want know what is the science behind results. Why did I get results and others didn’t? Why did some of my clients get results and others didn’t? Here is the deal there are many attributes that separate the haves from the have not’s:
Fun- those that get results do not look at working out like a chore. In their own way they make exercise fun. Whether they work with a trainer, take a group exercise class or just make their workouts enjoyable to them. If you enjoy something you will do it. Take it from me you can make exercise exciting and fun or dreadful and boring, you make that decision in between your ears.
Attitude- those that get results have a great attitude. They don’t let minor setbacks deter them or keep them off track. They stay positive always and they encourage others to do the same. Remember, your mind if stronger than your body, if you feel a negative towards something odds are you won’t perform well. Conversely, if you take a positive approach the outcome will be much different.
Hard work- Make no mistake about it getting results is hard work. It takes time and you must dig deep and be persistent. When you get to the gym you have to work hard. You never can skip workouts and you have to always make them count.
Many have written eloquently about Jesse Jackson Jr.’s sad fall. But now it’s time for Jackson to focus on minimizing his penalty and reputational damage in order to preserve future opportunities for himself and his family.
In his letter of resignation from Congress, Jackson eschewed the defiance of Rod Blagojevich, suggesting a guilty plea is likely. Jackson also said he is cooperating with investigators.
But cooperation has a legal meaning far stronger than its common meaning; a defendant can be “cooperative” without cooperating in the legal sense. That is, a defendant may promptly fulfill most of a prosecutor’s specific pre-indictment requests — detailing his crime(s), resigning from office, declining interviews, etc — but that won’t be enough to receive an elusive 5K-1 letter, the government’s reward for defendants who help them make cases against others. A 5K-1 letter is the best way to persuade a judge to depart downward from federal sentencing guidelines.
The public typically associates politicians with ambition. But many investigators are similarly motivated. Law enforcement officials know that people who prosecute Joe Sixpacks aren’t first in line for promotions. The chosen — and those who write books, appear on TV, or even seek office themselves — are investigators who pursue the biggest scalps. (See Congressman-elect George Holding, the prosecutor who indicted John Edwards and then resigned to seek office before the trial.)
Therein lies Jackson’s problem/opportunity. He is surrounded by possible high-value targets: his dad, the famed civil-rights leader who runs Operation PUSH; his wife, Sandi, a prominent Chicago alderwoman; his brothers Jonathan and Yusef, businessmen/activists who own a lucrative beer distributorship purchased after their father had organized a boycott of the brewery’s products; dozens of high-level public officials with whom he mingles.
Sun-Times columnist Mike Sneed reported Friday that Jackson is, in fact, “singing with the voice of an anxious canary” and that the feds are interested in all he knows about a “powerful dem femme” who is not an alderman.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Should Jesse Jr. Cooperate with the Feds?
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Dec 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
“Oh my gosh. That is such a heterosexual thing to say.”
No one has said that to me yet. But I think one day it will be commonplace phrase in our culture if we heteros don’t get it together. And quickly.
I just walked out of a coffee shop where four well groomed, physically fit , articulate and nice looking men were sitting having a serious and substantive discussion. And I was envious. I thought to myself, “Part of me is jealous and wishes I was one of them.” Not a practicing gay, of course…but just gay in the other ways that my sexual orientation seem to be falling so far behind.
Oh, you are probably thinking to yourself “John is stereotyping gays by ‘assuming’ this group of men are gay because of the way they look and talk.” No. Not really. Think about it for a minute. When was the last time you saw four well-groomed, physically fit, articulate, nice looking heterosexual men having a substantive conversation about anything?
Oh sure, we heteros were represented at the coffee shop, too, alright. Don’t worry about that. Two of us were spread out at a table bitching about politics and why they couldn’t catch a break, in work or in romance. I couldn’t hear specifics because I was only in line for a few minutes. But it appeared they had a lot of misfortunes to cover today because it looked like they had been there most of the morning. And had enjoyed breakfast and a follow up snack. Put it this way, if the average male waistline is 34- 36, my two hetero colleagues were doing their job of balancing out the 4 other men’s trim waistline in the coffee shop (with a little help from me, size 38).
I was so embarrassed I almost wanted to say, “Hey guys. At least fix your hair and speak in complete sentences. You’re giving us heterosexuals a bad name.” But, of course, I didn’t. My hair was unkempt too. And I was eating a cake pop with my coffee.
As I walked out I remembered kids when I was younger saying things like, “That’s such a ‘gay’ thing to say” and meaning it as a put down. Heck, I am sure I said it myself. But today, if someone said to me, “That is so gay of you, John.” Well, I think it would be about the nicest thing anybody said to me all day.
And I wouldn’t even correct the person offering the compliment by telling them I was really heterosexual. I would just let them think I would not be out of place in a group like the one I saw today at the coffee shop –and most everywhere else for that matter.
And that’s when I worried about the next step after that. When someone accuses me of sounding hetero for the first time, and meaning it as a put down making the point that I am overweight, lazy and unimaginative or have no taste in clothes or don’t understand movies. As in, “That is such a heterosexual thing to say.” It could happen. And these days, when we heteros can’t seem to stay fit, keep married, stop complaining or come up with anything interesting to say outside of rattling off some sports scores, asking if there will be a Porkies III, and deciding when the next game of fantasy baseball will be, well, them are darn near fighting words, if you ask me.
And the worst part is, we heteros aren’t even very tough any more. I’m afraid we’d lack the energy to even fight back or have the cleverness to come up with an adequate “retort.”
The more I thought about it the more I thought of this video clip, imagining what our retort to the hetero put down might look like.
Then again, uhhhh, well, that’s just my opinion, man.
As we near our fiscal cliff deadline, No Labels co-founders Mark Mckinnon and William Gallston are issuing a new list of principles the House speaker and the President should consider when discussing our nation’s most pressing problem. As they note, in a Daily Beast column entitled, “With the Fiscal Cliff Looming, It’s Time to Take Politics Off the Table,” Americans are ready for “a rebirth of leadership” in Washington, one that puts an end to the partisan bickering and includes a steadfast commitment to problem-solving.
Write McKinnon and Gallston: “Only once in the past four years have Democrats and Republicans made significant progress toward an agreement—when President Obama and House Speaker Boehner met behind closed doors, with everything on the table.” That’s a lot of talk for very little progress.
That’s why on January 14, 2013, at the Marriott Marquis in New York, NY, No Labels will host a meeting titled, “Meeting to Make America Work,” to discuss how we can move forward on problem solving in Washington. At the meeting, No Labels will unveil two national leaders – one Republican, one Democrat – who will help guide the movement in 2013 and the organization will introduce a group of congressional Members who have signed on as members of the “Problem Solvers Bloc” in Congress. To RSVP to the January meeting, please send an email to January14@NEWPARTNERS.COM. For more information about the meeting visithttp://meetforamerica.com/.
No Labels supports a range of common-sense proposals designed to reinvigorate problem-solving in Washington. Among them include the set of principles highlighted in today’s Daily Beast column:
“Tell the people the full truth. It’s time to stop playing around with budget baselines and phantom budget cuts. Stop pretending that small changes can meet big challenges. Tell us how big the problem is (including unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and federal employee future retirement benefits not shown “on the books”) and how much different approaches can contribute to solving it. Use charts, graphs, and language that citizens can understand. And once and for all, agree on the facts, so that we can spend our time on the real issues.
“Govern for the future. What’s at stake in the budget debate is nothing less than growth, opportunity, and fairness for all citizens. If we want to preserve our tradition of innovation and upward mobility, we must remove the uncertainty that hovers over our economy. And if we want to retain our global leadership, which has done so much to build peace and prosperity, we must convince other nations that we have regained the capacity to overcome our differences and govern ourselves once more.
“Put the country first. The election of 2012 is over. It’s time to stop wrestling for partisan advantage. Yes, there are sincere differences about what we must do to promote the national interest. But deep down, most of our leaders know that no one has a monopoly on wisdom or virtue. It’s time for them all to negotiate with a measure of humility.
“Take responsibility. We can argue forever about who is responsible for our current plight, but that won’t help us end it. Our elected officials have been charged with a grave responsibility—to make the decisions that will shape our future. No one can do it for them—not pollsters, not blue-ribbon commissions, not even elections. Our officials cannot escape their responsibility, and they should not evade it. The point is not to blame the other side for failure; the point is to succeed.
“Finally: work together. While each party can thwart the other’s plans, neither can impose its will on the other. Relearning the art of working across party lines is the only way of doing the people’s business. During the past generation, the parties cooperated and compromised to save Social Security, reform the tax code, and balance the budget. Yes, it’s harder than it once was: partisan divisions are deeper, and trust has all but disappeared. But that doesn’t change the basic fact that there are only two options: bipartisan compromise and success, or partisan gridlock and failure. There is no third choice, and it’s time for our leaders—all of them—to stop pretending that there is.
“Officials in both parties must level with their most fervent supporters: no matter how deeply we believe that we are right, we can’t get everything we want. And the longer we try to, the worse it will be for the country.
“It’s time for real leadership. And that means it’s time for truth.”
“I’m not eating this weekend because the girls at school want to be skinny.” Emily, 9.
In 2004, after years of processing my own body image issues, and with a determination to have things be different for my daughters, I didn’t expect my own child to begin that steep slide into dieting misery so soon, if at all.
I took a few hours to recover from my little girl’s statement of deprivation, and then I came to the conclusion that if I really wanted things to be different, I would need to take action myself, and fast.
The conversation and research that followed opened my eyes to several truths:
Kids talk. And they are all affected by media messages (billboards, commercials, print ads, Hollywood glamour) about protruding stomachs, fat thighs, and jiggly arms.
Women talk. We do, and it’s a lot of self-criticism about protruding stomachs, fat thighs, and jiggly arms. And, we talk about other women in relationship to all those things, and about how she looked in that outfit. Constantly, constantly, constantly. Conversations overheard about appearance become messages about what is acceptable, desirable, worthy of love, and they are more potent than any billboard costing 1,000’s of dollars to print, because they are personal—about real people we know—about ourselves. And, our girls are listening closely, all the time.
The seeds of self-esteem and self-image are planted long before girls approach puberty. Though criticism may be directed at others, and even if we only ever compliment our little girls, they grow on the reality that criticism is just around corner if they grow into women of stomachs, thighs, and arms, of any type.
So what’s a mother to do? I wasn’t certain, but I was sure that I wouldn’t allow one more generation of women in my family to struggle with the self-hatred that comes from a legacy of criticism, peer pressure, never ending dieting, and debilitating low self-esteem.
I did have a hunch that in order to help make changes for my daughter and her friends, I needed to help make cognitive and emotional changes for moms, too. Because after all, we were all once girls who grew on those very messages. No one ever told us to stop listening.
And so, with mother-bear determination, I called health and wellness professionals in my Lexington community who seemed to carry some authority: pediatrician; nutritionist; psychotherapist; police-officer. And I asked them to become a part of the community that Hillary Clinton talked about in, It Takes a Village, where everyone helps raise healthy children.
Click on image to purchase book
With professionals on board, Girls Rock!: Workshops for Girls and Moms, was born. We would all come together, pre-teen girls, mothers, and professionals, for a big empowering day of programming that would make all of us responsible for healthier language, relationship to self and friends, and habits at home.
But still, the kids in attendance would need real, up-close and personal role models to emulate—people they could think of as big sisters—the ultimate role models of omniscient authority to a girl.
So I recruited a diverse team of teenagers with leadership potential who seemed to defy what Mary Pipher identifies as one of our culture’s greatest tragedies when she says, “Adolescence is when girls experience social pressure to put aside their authentic selves and to display only a small portion of their gifts.”
Read the rest of… Lisa Miller: Empowering Your Daughters…And You
When you think of incongruities, Jews plus country music is right up there with pickles & ice cream or Paris Hilton & Wallace Shawn – a pair that just don’t seem right together. (Although there is one colorful exception, Kinky Friedman, who fronts a band known as The Texas Jewboys and who came in 4th in the 2006 Texas gubernatorial race, and who inspires me with his mix of politics and comedic music.) (Not that I’m considering running for governor in the near future!)
The lack of Jews in country music is actually surprising – Jewish songwriters are responsible for many of our classic Christmas songs, and given country music’s tradition of chronicling pain and suffering, it would seem to be a perfect fit. I like to say I’m from in the south – southern California, to be precise, but growing up in Orange County (where there were even fewer Jews than Democrats) did make me feel as much of an outsider as many country singers lament. But I hadn’t really made the connection until I heard Peter Sagal, the host of “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me” on NPR, crack a joke about an upcoming appearance in Nashville. Suddenly it seemed like a match made in heaven (and now I feel like Melanie Griffith’s character in “Working Girl,” in that climactic elevator scene where she explains to Mr. Trask how she connected his company to radio, or something along those lines).
Chanukah/Hanukkah/etc (choose your favorite spelling) is really the ultimate country holiday – muscular heros, old fashioned candles, and fried food, so this week’s video is what may be the first country Chanukah song – enjoy!
(And remember, there are only 4 shopping days left til the first night of Chanukah, but copies of my Chanukah comedy CD, “Latkes, Shmatkes,” are available on iTunes, at amazon.com, and at www.laurenmayer.com!)
The notion that a reelected Barack Obama would revert to the centrist, bipartisan sounding Obama of the 2008 campaign trail was a fantasy from its conception, and the White House officially punctured it with its release of a deficit plan that resembles a Democratic wish list: the death of the Bush era tax rates for upper income earners; a bump in the estate tax; for top brackets, a return to pre 2003 treatment of dividends as ordinary income rather than capital gains; a few carve-outs from 2011’s mini stimulus bill; and amorphous, undefined cuts to farm price supports, a rare spending reduction that enthuses the Democratic base. Entitlements are virtually left alone, save for a mystery round of “savings” in Medicare, with details to be named later.
It has the aesthetics of a maneuver rather than a genuine negotiating stance. And as maneuvers go, it is a skilled one. Offer a package thick enough with proposals to keep the high ground, but make it one-sided enough that Republicans will dismiss it, while counting on the GOP congressional base to keep unraveling to the point that sometime around Christmas Eve, Republicans yield on the two points that Democrats genuinely want from this exercise: a continuation of the Bush cuts for earners below $250,000, and another short-gap extension in jobless benefits. Of course, there aren’t a lunchtable’s worth of congressmen who seriously believe that once the White House has spared Democrats the vulnerability of defending seats in 2014 in the aftermath of a middle income tax hike, that Obama will return to the table to re-open the viability of the Bush top bracket cuts.
There are all manner of reasons to wonder why congressional Republicans saddled themselves with a dead-end that was so thoroughly predictable: from overconfidence about winning in 2012, to a momentary infatuation with the notion that the all but forgotten deficit super-committee would develop a deal-making prowess Washington has not seen in several generations, to an under appreciation of how much raising upper income taxes has become a politically cost-free goal for Democrats.
The last blunder is worth dwelling on. To a degree Republicans were much too slow to realize, the political consequences around advocating for higher taxes have steadily declined over the last decade, to the point that three successive Democratic presidential campaigns have overtly favored a hike in upper income taxes. While Republicans have gamely protested that tax increases threaten job growth, Democrats have proved far more successful in fending off those claims with their own arguments that the tax code is too tilted toward the interests of top bracket earners. While the polling on the subject is partly a creature of a sample’s wording (exit polls showed a broad public preference for raising the tax burden on the “wealthy” coinciding with even stronger support for reducing the deficit primarily through spending cuts), there is virtually no evidence that a viewpoint exceedingly popular with the Democratic base has taken any electoral toll with swing voters.
Republicans are partly to blame for their own much less confident position. The closest Republicans have come to a comprehensive deficit strategy, Paul Ryan’s budget, has been only occasionally defended and its particulars remain obscure to most Americans who don’t frequent policy salons or Heritage Foundation online seminars. In fact, in an eerie echo of the Democratic play on health care reform in 2010, Republicans have invariably touted the Ryan Plan as a bold-hearted act of political courage while spending little energy on articulating its fine points. Nor have Republicans shown the strategic wherewithal to prioritize a single policy objective as dramatically and neatly defined as the Democratic aim of “making the rich pay their fair share.” Lastly, with their own rhetorical embrace of deficit reduction without the benefit of specificity, and by showing their own penchant for symbolic, but insubstantial gestures, Republicans paved the way for Democrats to wage their own disingenuous maneuver by overstating the impact of tax hikes that would only put a minor dent in the deficit.
So, what is a party to do, when it has been so constrained by its own miscalculations that it has almost no bargaining power? Assuming the administration does not have an outbreak of authentic compromise, congressional Republicans would do well to remember that their non-existent leverage will be enhanced the day sequestration takes effect and the mandatory cuts and revenue increases become a market and economic reality. With a newly strengthened hand, the onus would shift to Republicans to craft a detailed round of spending cuts, to become serious about downsizing corporate deductions, and to proffer a serious set of entitlement reforms, from partial means testing to restraining Medicare growth through a premium support based alternative. It would become an imperative for Republicans to conquer their own squeamishness about entitlements with the same nerve that has liberated Democrats from their fears about taxes.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: The Case for Republicans Walking Away from the Budget Talks
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Dec 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Polygamy vs Monogamy.
An ordinary married couple discusses the pros and cons. And realities.
I love laughing with my wife about about bizarre speculative situations….Like just now. My wife and I are talking about Muslim culture, women’s roles, and polygamy. Rebecca asked if I would practice polygamy if I had been born into Muslim culture. And smiled anticipating my answer….Kind of put me on the spot… a little bit.
I said, “Look honey, you know me. I’m not…..I’m not really the martyr type. I wouldn’t want to marry other women, of course. But would do it to, you know, so people wouldn’t talk bad about you. Because, like, if I was the only monogamist in a polygamist culture people start talking and assuming things about me and, you know, maybe think you were the cause. I could never allow that perception of you to happen and so would marry other women just to preserve your reputation in the community. Again, not that I’d want to. You know, When in Rome….”
We were both laughing hysterically at this riff….and then it was Rebecca’s turn.
“You’d be an awful polygamist. You know how I get upset when you are late or or don’t give me your full attention when talking sometimes? Or if you text me instead of call me? Well, multiply that 5 times! Those 5 wives would be so angry and fed up with you.
“Where is he?” “Are you kidding?” “He’s a mess.” “We know he’ll never take the garbage out.”
“They would be talking about you all the time and you’d be miserable. And begging for a monogamous relationships. ”
Laughing even harder….as I have to completely agree. I’d be a dismal polygamist.
It’s good to laugh with your spouse. And I’m grateful to live in a monogamous culture. And to have a mate who keeps me always on my toes…and laughs with me (as often as at me).
By Zack Adams, RP Staff, on Tue Dec 4, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
The regular season is over and I would like to congratulate Team Unibrow, managed by the offspring of the RP himself, on finishing at the top of the league.
The playoffs have now started and all teams will play in either the championship bracket or the consolation bracket. In the Championship bracket Team Unibrow and Targaryen 2012 have byes and Fighting Mongooses and Powerful Lobbyists control the byes in the Consolation bracket. Stay tuned as the playoffs will continue for 3 weeks until a Champion is decided.
Fun- those that get results do not look at working out like a chore. In their own way they make exercise fun. Whether they work with a trainer, take a group exercise class or just make their workouts enjoyable to them. If you enjoy something you will do it. Take it from me you can make exercise exciting and fun or dreadful and boring, you make that decision in between your ears.
