By Lisa Borders, on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 3:00 PM ET
Wow, that happened faster than I ever imagined.
Our problem solvers group has been growing by leaps and bounds. And now we’ve hit an unbelievable milestone – we added our 50th member of Congress!
You read that right. No Labels has brought 50 members of Congress to the table, ready to put their differences aside and build trust across the aisle.Finally, our leaders have a place to work together, face-to-face.
In this age of political dysfunction, that’s no small feat. But this is how our democracy is supposed to look.This is how we fix Washington and build a brighter future for our country.
By joining the group, these lawmakers are putting their country ahead of their party and we need to support our problem solvers and thank them for their commitment.
Personally, I am still confused by the difference between time being “digital” or “analog.”
===
I thought I could pull it off today for the very first time. In fact, I was determined to and even promised myself I would not retreat from my commitment–no matter what.
And I held off for a record period of time. But I just can’t pull it off and have to come to grips with the fact that I am going to have to, no matter how humiliating and degrading and personally disappointing to me and those who count on me, ask….
“Would somebody please tell me what time it really is now?”
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Mar 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
Confession.
Not like St Augustine’s….but a more modern version with dental implications.
I would like to make a public confession about something I have been deliberately deceptive about for over 40 years.
I continue promising things will change, but frankly, they never have. And I feel guilt and shame…and mild pain that is helped only by Anbesol gel.
For over 40 years when asked by the dental hygienist and/or dentist “Are you flossing regularly?” I also lead them to believe I have been flossing more than I really have—and to make matters worse—add that I will do better before the next appointment. But don’t.
(Once I indicated a flossed with some limited regularity when, in fact, I hadn’t flossed even once in the last 6 months. Except with the corner of sugar packages and once with a toothpick.)
Over 40 years of cumulative deceit can weigh heavy on a man’s heart. And on his dental health. And I need to come clean.
So I can again, look myself in the eye in the mirror. And at the three remaining wisdom teeth when flossing.
If not for my teeth, I need to at least do it for my soul.
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Mar 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
At the coffee shop this morning and I notice the subtle difference in how women and men communicate with the same sex when meeting for business purposes. Each table seems to have two people talking away with files and laptops and tablets and legal pads covering up the table leaving a few inches open for their coffee and pastries.
At tables where women are ta…lking to women, they each listen while the other is talking. They are “connecting” and fully engaged with each other.
At tables where men are talking to men, they each are pretending to listen but primarily preparing what they will say next. They aren’t really in connecting mode but rather “transacting mode.”
What is most interesting is that at tables where a man and a women are are having a business conversation the man listens and is trying to “connect” and the women is thinking about what she is going to say next —and trying to pretend like she is connecting.
And here’s the irony: The same man who when talking business with another man knows his colleague isn’t really listening (even though his colleague is pretending to listen), when talking to a women believes they are really connecting (even though his female colleague is only pretending to connect.)
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Mar 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
When I was 21 I saw an attractive and vivacious young lady who I had briefly dated at the end of high school. (Actually, I sat behind her taking the SAT and got her phone number. The most impressive work I displayed that entire morning–as memory serves)
Anyway, I got her number again 3 years later and asked her on a date. And we went on a date. I asked her on a second date. This time on a Friday night. She called to say she was running behind and so I watched LA Law for the first time. And liked it.
She called again saying again she was running even later and I watched another show I can’t remember but didn’t like as much as LA Law. And then I watched the early news before getting the call that tonight wasn’t going to work out but asking about Sunday evening for a rain check. I said OK.
But got stood up again Sunday.
We made another date for Wednesday for which I got stood up a third time.
Saturday was The Police concert in Lexington and I got two tickets and invited my SAT friend but ended up only needing one ticket that night. For me.
We tried for a rain check again Sunday but something came up and she had to cancel because she was simply “over-extended.” I was irritated but hadn’t heard the word “over-extended” used in that way by someone my own age and was impressed.
And started using the word often in the same context and still do 30 years later. So, I am appreciative for learning that from her.
We tried for a lunch date Wednesday but it got cut short due to something “beyond her control.” I had heard that excuse before but wasn’t as impressed as I was with the excuse of being “over-extended” and rarely use it myself unless I really am truly desperate and can’t come up with a legitimate reason. Which I remember thinking is what she must have been thinking that day.
Friday we had a date but she explained she couldn’t make it. Without any excuse or apology. Standing me up had gone from being a rude and unexpected surprise to the equivalent of a yawn.
I had heard “boundaries” recently and even heard there was a book out I should read about them. I didn’t know a lot about boundaries but knew they had something to so with being more assertive and were a theory for not letting people take advantage of you.
And so since I had been learning new vocabulary words from my friend, I decided it was my turn and I invoked my own new vocabulary word “boundary.” And the fact that I had them. At least one boundary anyway. Or so I said. Or was at least trying to start having a new boundary. With her anyway.
I calmly explained that she had essentially stood me up for dates 6 times in two weeks and that was “not acceptable” to me. strong words that only emboldened me. I continued that because “I had boundaries” that (and I was very delicate but still deliberate in explaining this part) that there would not be a 7th opportunity to stand me up.
Boundary-wise, I had to be this way because “I respected my self.”
And we hung up and never spoke again.
That’s the end of the story.
I never actually saw with my own eyes the boundaries I created and announced that night. But they must still be there. Since that time I have never let anyone stand me up in business or other (non-dating) areas of my life.
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Mar 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
I first learned about the 80-20 rule while in business school and it is an ingenious formula that apples not just in the workplace but in every area of life —including marriage
With most couples I know each spouse –almost like a rule of nature –believes he or she is to blame for about 20% of the recurring marital disagreements –while their spouse is respon…sible for the other 80%. And vice versa.
Psychologists and marriage experts tell us the key is sharing that burden equally between the spouses. But such advice flies in the face of science and the 80-20 rule .
My bold innovative idea to solve this age old imbalance is to include a third partner in every marriage. Not a third party that is actively involved at any level of the day-to-day marriage (from finance to romance) but rather an extra person to lay blame on when the primary couple needs to displace blame.
Just do the math. If each primary spouse is willing to accept 20% of the blame , then having a third person available in the marriage for the remaining 60% is the perfect solution! And during periods of above-average disagreements, the third party has another 40% to be absorbed if necessary.
This allows us to use mathematical and scientific principles to our advantage to manage around the 80-20 rule in both work and play –and even within the sanctity of marriage.
The Supreme Court may be on the verge of striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which mandates federal approval, or “pre-clearance”, of any changes to election procedures in states under the Act’s jurisdiction (mostly Southern, but some scattered northern jurisdictions, primarily in New York). It could be a mixed triumph for conservatives—a blow against a regionally discriminatory rule of law that limits Virginia and South Carolina from passing statutes that are perfectly legal in Kansas and Indiana—but a victory that will only fuel the impression that the political right is bent on suppressing minority voters.
Conservative legal activists would have been better advised to concentrate on doing away with or revamping the other elements of the Act that actually do much more damage to the proposition of a color-blind politics. Ending Section 5 would be explosive, and still won’t alter the Act’s evolution from an instrument of black voter participation in the South to a prescription for rigged districts that look exactly like spoils and quotas.
The VRA is a textbook of generally worded terms that subsequent courts and career bureaucrats have reshaped. It’s entirely appropriate command that covered states refrain from passing election laws that discriminate against their minority citizens has been swollen into a requirement that minorities be aggregated into legislative and congressional districts that are overwhelmingly dominated by their race. Even a slight rollback of the percentages, say, from 65 percent to 58 percent is prohibited on the theory that such a contraction “dilutes” the minority vote.
The effect is that in the Deep South, black voters influence politics solely inside their centers of gerrymandered influence: the numbers that remain elsewhere are not substantial enough to create authentic swing districts where Republicans might have to seek black support to win. In the same vein, the nature of nearly seventy percent black districts is that their elected officials are just as un-tethered from the need to build coalitions with conservative white voters.
Not surprisingly, black Democrats and southern Republicans have not complained. The South that results is the single most racially polarized electorate in the country and its African American politicians are hemmed into a race-conscious liberalism that marginalizes them statewide. In addition, more conservative black Democrats and Black Republicans are rendered unelectable in minority districts that leave no room for a non-liberal brand of candidate.
Conservatives ought to recoil from an anti-discrimination principle shifting into a mini political apartheid. Rather than condone a de facto spoils system, they should be trying to undo an arrangement that is more bent on electing a certain kind of black politician than on empowering blacks to engage the democratic process.
This article originally appeared on ricochet.com on February 27, 2013.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Mar 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
So, is it better to grow up or stay a boy (or girl) forever?
Watching my daughter this weekend in the play Peter Pan made me a proud dad (so score one–a very big one–for growing up).
But focusing on the merits of the characters, Wendy vs Peter Pan, had me leaning ever-so-slightly in favor of Peter at the end of the play.
I mean, let’s look at their legacies. Wendy had a nice run for several decades when the play was first published and performed. She’s viewed today as a “good girl” and “model daughter.” More Jan than Marcia in Brady Bunch terms. But has she ever had a book written about her neurosis titled “The Wendy Syndrome”?
Nope.
Do we know who played Wendy opposite who played Peter Pan?
Nah. We just know Sandy Duncan played Peter.
And what about having your own line of peanut butter?
Ever heard of Wendy’s peanut butter?
No. Never happened.
And don’t try slipping in Hamburgers. Different Wendy. Different family. I saw her father in the play this weekend and he looks nothing like Dave Thomas.
So, on balance, would the world be better off if Wendy caved and never grew up?
Who’s to say? We would at least probably have another pop-psychology book and additional brand of peanut butter. But as the Wendys of the world would quickly –and correctly–point out, we have plenty of pop-psych books and peanut butter as it is and don’t need more. And note that Wendy grew up to have a nice family in a middle upper class neighborhood.
That’s all true of course. But the Peter Pans of the world would quickly note, Peter has an entourage of lost boys –just like the awesome HBO series! And, of course, Peter is always the last one to bow and gets the most applause –after flying in for his final bow as he drops fairy dust on the audience who is cheering him on.
And you got to admit –even if you are a Wendy—that may not be very mature, but it is pretty cool.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Mar 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
The conventional wisdom is that as you age (into your middle years) you first become mellower but as you age beyond, shall we say, the middle years midpoint, you become less patient and more irritable (some might charitably call it more assertive).
So, is that all true?
I have decided only partially. I like a good deal of the impatient “assertiveness” (aka irritability) comes from realizing the backlog of years and years of not being assertive enough—-and trying to catch up and clean the slate before we run out of time.
And maybe even get in the last word. With that rude sales clerk, or call center “relationship manager” or waiter who always seems to give us short shrift.
And who, if we had an 18 year old’s body and a 70 year old’s temperament, would try to stare them down before inviting them outside.
But since we have a 49 year old’s temperament and 49 year old’s body, resort to much subtler passive-aggressive tactics, albeit still tougher than ever before. And tip them only 13%. Instead of the standard 15%.
I can’t wait to see them again when I’m 55 –and even more “assertive.” That petulant boy is only getting 11% tip when age 55 rolls around!See More
Wow, that happened faster than I ever imagined.
