By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Do we parents really raise our children?
Or do they secretly really raise us?
Some days I feel like Rod Serling will step out from the next room and start explaining this entire hoax — that all along our children have patiently and lovingly been guiding us into adulthood. And as the youngest approaches age 18, facing the horrifying feeling that you are not ready for her to leave because you are not yet fully an adult.
===
Parenting and job classifications
 If I had to pick the two professions that best align with the traditional mother and father roles….
I would say for mothers it would be Life Coach.
For fathers I would say Talent Agent.
Ironically, fathers often secretly believe they are a Life Coach to their wives. While wives are convinced they are really like a Talent Agent to the husband.
And kids assume their job has always been Life Coach for both parents.
By Josh Bowen, on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET When starting a nutritional program, counting calories could be the most tedious part.
It also can be 25% off because of the altering of food and package labels.
Try this approach for better results and easier process:
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET I remember in my high school psychology class learning that ages 40-55 were the most “productive years.” (I hope that has since been adjusted to 45-60. But I digress.)
The theory goes that we spend our first 20-25 years getting educated and the next 15-20 mastering a trade or profession and then achieve at our work at the highest levels during that next phase (40-55) because we are finally “ready” and adequately “prepared.”
I am now age 50 and can report (at least in my case) that theory is at least half true. Maybe even 60% true.
But what about the other 40% that makes these years the “productive years?”
I think the other 40% of the cause of our spike in productivity is the looming sense of our own mortality.
At around age 40 we realize we don’t have the luxury to wait until we can produce the perfect concerto, write the best selling novel, deliver the life-changing lecture, launch the brilliant new business idea, or are finally ready to manage like a CEO case study before “going for it.” At age 40 perfection stops being our teacher and starts being our nemesis. And so we just start producing whatever we can and realize, to our surprise, it is better than we expected and others don’t notice the deficiencies (or at least don’t notice them as prominently as we feared.)
It is not that we have reached a point in our careers where we have finally matured or ripened to an ideal level where we can now produce at prodigious levels. Rather, we have reached the point in the game of our life where we either put some points on the board or risk being shut out.
It reminds me in football games of the final minutes when teams coming from behind go into their “Hurry Up Offense.”
These teams may not have scored a single point in the first half, but in the “Hurry Up Offense” they may post 14 points in 5 minutes. They must be in what psychologists call “Their most productive time of the game,” right? Or maybe they are simply playing against the clock. Or both. About 60% and 40%.
I think it is both.
So now…I am ready to start my day. “Huddle up. Wide receiver go for first down. On one. Break!”
By Artur Davis, on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET After a week of national debate, I think I follow the arguments for the pending Syrian force resolution before Congress: air strikes won’t threaten Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power; and they may or may not deter Assad from continuing the devastation of his own citizenry (which, by the way, has been well underway for the better part of two years without any attempt at American intervention.) Bombing would enforce the conscience of an international community that also happens to be conspicuously unwilling to act, even under the auspices of the usual fig leaves, NATO and the UN Security Council. True, Assad is not even remotely on the verge of exporting his destruction to his neighbors, and there is not a shred of evidence linking him to any credible threat to our homeland. But we should push ahead in the interests of future presidents having the flexibility to rattle sabers with credibility: and by the way, you are likely guilty of being an unsophisticated strategic thinker or an isolationist if you disagree.
 That’s a lot of caveats, and concessions, in the service of a hypothetical. No surprise, then, that the prospects for Syrian resolution are crumbling in the House of Representatives, and the backlash has even generated the inconceivable—a bipartisan coalition for restraining Barack Obama’s consistently limitless vision of his authority. But despite the weakness of the substantive case for air strikes, it’s still worth addressing the institutional one that is becoming the rationale of last resort.
The defenders of the Syrian resolution assert a variety of fearful consequences if Congress actually asserts its prerogative of limiting a president’s war-making authority (never mind the irony of suggesting that the system is broken when it works exactly as it is constitutionally supposed to). But the specter of future chief executives suffering a dangerously weakened hand when they rhetorically draw “red lines”, or assert that renegade dictators “must go”, assumes the hand is a particularly strong one now: in fact, that strength is always tied to the precise nature of the national interest at stake, and a yes or no vote won’t change the calculus.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: The Real Consequences of a “No” on Syria
By Jason Atkinson, on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET I shot this Saturday and Sunday at Camp 584 and for those who’ve never seen a silver lab, meet Gunnel. This is only 4 minutes long and rest assured, for my big film, Why the Klamath Matters, we have a team of professionals.
By Lauren Mayer, on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM ET Combing this past week’s news stories for a song idea was fairly discouraging – I can’t find anything funny about the possibility of air strikes against Syria, not to mention the human rights atrocities there. I’ve already done a song about Congressional gridlock, the sequester just keeps getting more depressing, and while Anthony Weiner has made a few headlines, it’s been for rage-aholic rants, not for titillating texts. Moreover, I realized many of my weekly songs are my way of responding to unpleasant news, hoping to find some humor in what otherwise would have me yelling, Weiner-style, at the computer, t.v. screen or newspaper.
But one happy story popped up, and not only is it good news, it’s also completely bipartisan, non-political yet totally newsworthy, and makes me smile whenever I think about it – Diana Nyad’s record-shattering swim from Cuba to Florida. After finally achieving a feat she’d been attempting unsuccessfully since 1978, as she emerged from the water she made three quoteable points, including a graceful acknowledgment of the team supporting her, but the one that struck me was “You’re never too old to chase your dreams.”
We have longer life expectancy today than ever before, and yet our culture still puts such a premium on youthful achievement that we feel like failures if we haven’t won a Tony Award or been a celebrity guest playing ‘Not My Job’ on “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” by the age of 30. (Or made our first million, or won an Olympic medal, or dated a member of One Direction, or whatever your particular dream happens to be.) So to celebrate the achievements of a woman who’s been eligible for AARP for 14 years gives me renewed faith in possibilities for those of us over 50. (Which is when you start getting those AARP mailers, as if it wasn’t hard enough to hit that milestone!)
So I am celebrating Ms. Nyad’s accomplishment in song, as well as acknowledging other feats achieved by AARP-eligible folks. And sure, I haven’t really had any videos go viral (despite the line I love to use from my 17-year-old, who saw that a few had topped 1,000 views and informed me that it was ‘viral for old people’), but who knows? It took Diana Nyad 35 years from her first attempt to achieve her dream – and posting youTube videos is much less strenuous!
“Diana’s Song (You’re Never Too Old To Chase Your Dreams)”
By Greg Harris, on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM ET Judging from media coverage, one would think the emerging solution to the Syria predicament arrived somewhat randomly. But when considering the supposedly “random” sequence of developments on Syria, what emerges is something far more strategic:
A) President Obama, on the eve of the G20 summit, reminds international leaders that chemical weapons containment is a shared obligation:
“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line.”
–“World’s credibility at stake over ‘red line’ on chemical weapons use in Syria, Obama says,” Associated Press and The Telegraph, 09/04/13
B) During the G-20, Obama and President Putin (Syria’s enabler to date) find time during the G-20 Summit to meet on Syria:
President Obama met privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday in the midst of their public dispute over how to respond to a chemical weapons attack in Syria. Mr. Obama told reporters at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, that his conversation with Mr. Putin was “candid.” And he said a looming United Nations report about chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime would make it tougher for Mr. Putin to oppose punishing Syria militarily.
— “Obama, Putin discuss Syria on G-20 sidelines,” Washington Times, 9/6/13
C) Secretary Kerry supposedly off cuff response to a reporter’s question if there was anything Syrian President Assad could do to avert an attack: “Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry said. “But he isn’t about to.” Russia seizes the opening created by Kerry’s comment:
 Speaking in London earlier today, John Kerry appeared to issue a long-shot ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, suggesting that if he turned over his complete stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week he could avoid an attack from the United States. The State Department, however, would later walk back those comments, saying they were a “rhetorical argument” and not an actual proposal, adding that Assad “cannot be trusted” to take such action …. [T]his afternoon once Assad and his strongest ally, Russia, caught everyone off guard by suggesting that Kerry’s ad-libbed solution was actually workable.
–“Did John Kerry Just Accidentally Find a Workable Solution for Syria?,” The Slatest, 9/9/13
D) Within a couple hours, Russia presents Kerry’s “rhetorical” comment as a solution. Syria responds immediately: “Syria today ‘welcomed’ an offer by Russia to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control so that they could eventually be destroyed’”:
Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, who met with Lavrov in Moscow earlier in the day, responded almost immediately. “The Syrian Arab Republic welcomed the Russian initiative, based on the concerns of the Russian leadership for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country,” Muallem told reporters, according to Russia’s Interfax news agency. The proposal also received quick support from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and British Prime Minister David Cameron.
— “Syria ‘Welcomed’ Russian Proposal to Destroy Its Chemical Weapons,” ABC News, Sept. 9, 2013
Now let us consider the possibility that these development were not so random …
Read the rest of…
Greg Harris: On how we got to the emerging solution to the Syria crisis
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Parking lot logic.
It is great to wake up on the right side of the bed. To feel like this is your day. To have your mind clicking; memory fired. To have one of those days when you feel it is all coming together.
Yet no day, no feeling, no waking up on the right side of the bed can compete with the sense of supreme invincibility ine gets when driving into a crowded parking lot and instantly finding a good parking place.
Sure there are moments that I feel I am up to the task….but let me quickly find a good parking spot in a crowded parking lot and I am ready to take on all comers.
What the heck is up with that?
Especially since I woke up feeling good about myself today but can’t catch a break parking today.
By Artur Davis, on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET While the political world is consumed with Syria—and the close question of whether Barack Obama’s muddled case for intervention is bolstered by worries about the institutional damage to the presidency that would come from a “no” vote on his Syrian resolution—a perceptive piece by two Democrats, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, on the travails of the Republican Party, deserves a serious read. In their essay “How to Save the Republican Party, Courtesy of Two Democrats”, Galston and Kamarck outline Republican misconceptions about the electoral environment that as they point out, almost identically mirror what pre-Clintonian Democrats surmised about their party on the heels of successive presidential losses: (1) faith that there is a non-voting segment of the electorate that would be energized by a move toward an undiluted, ideologically pure version of the party’s ideological message and (2) that a solid majority in the House of Representatives and a majority of governorships are proof of an underlying electoral strength that will eventually reassert itself at the presidential level.
Anyone who has perused this site can guess that I am aligned with much of the Galston/Kamarck critique, and that I view what they call the “hyper-individualistic libertarianism” that is dominant in conservative grassroots circles as a liability for Republican aspirations to raise their vote shares with minorities, under 35 professional women, and white working class voters: in fact it is a liability about equal to the constraints interest group liberalism posed to eighties era Democrats trying to resurrect their appeal to southern moderates, white ethnics, and suburban professionals in the aftermath of Reagan.
But while Galston and Kamarck are singing off the right hymnal, I’ll advance one huge cautionary note that partly explains why conservative reform still struggles to resonate with GOP activists and primary voters. Any advocate of the kind of conservative evolution I would favor has to come to grips with an intrinsic contrast between the respective policy successes of Reagan Republicans (more muted than memory usually serves) and Obama Democrats (more sweeping than either camp prefers to acknowledge).
A generation ago, the Reagan era managed to rewrite one dramatic element of the domestic policy framework—namely, a sizable reduction in marginal tax rates—but to an extent that was downplayed then and obscured now, that framework was undisturbed in most other aspects. Discretionary spending was not sharply diminished; the entitlement structure was solidified; legal policy was turned rightward at the edges, but not in a manner that criminalized abortions or undermined affirmative action; and the regulatory footprint was mostly indistinguishable in 1989 from what it was in 1981.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: One More Threat to Conservative Reform
By Nancy Slotnick, on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET
There’s a story in my parents’ marriage. Long ago, before I was born, my mom once asked my Dad “Do I look fat in this?” He answered honestly. Once. So it begs the question- is talking about a woman’s weight (or a man’s for that matter) fair game in a relationship? We all know guys are very visual. And probably the #1 fear that most guys have (even though conventional wisdom says it’s “snakes”) is that their girlfriend, or wife, will get fat. Is this fair? Is this superficial? Is this misogynist? Maybe all three, but it is what it is. If he is stifled from talking about it, it only makes things worse.
I have been a dating coach for over 10 years, talking about women’s sex lives and dating lives and everything in between. You would think that I have dealt with the most personal topics you can imagine. But it wasn’t until this year, when I started dabbling in coaching on weight loss, that I really started to piss women off. Some actually quit just because I raised the topic. Is that fair? I don’t know. But I like to ask: “Do you want it to be fair or do you want to be happy?”
Let’s just say that you’re single and you’ve gained 10 lbs (which means 15 lbs in girl lbs.) Or that you are 10-15 lbs heavier than you’d like to be. What if I were to say that losing 15 lbs would dramatically increase the chance that you could get any guy that you want. Well, at least you could get to the 2nd date a lot better. Would you do it?
 On the flip side, maybe staying overweight is a way of ensuring that you won’t get what you want. Maybe the extra fat literally and figuratively keeps people further away. Maybe eating is a replacement for sex. Or for the vulnerability that you feel because you can’t control sex in the same way that you can control food.
Wait, this blog is getting too heavy- put it this way- doesn’t sex feel better when you’re skinny? Can you even have sex after a meal at Carmine’s? When you tell yourself “I want him to love me for me!,” is that just an excuse for being lazy?
Women’s commitment issues come out in the funniest ways. A guy who isn’t ready to settle down will generally just say “I’m not ready for a relationship.” Women will bury themselves in Ben & Jerry’s and wonder “Why doesn’t he call?” That’s still a commitment issue!
Read the rest of…
Nancy Slotnick: Do I Look Fat in this Blog?
|
The Recovering Politician Bookstore
|
