“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
Let’s think about the quote above. What is separating all of us from achievement? Is it us? Could it be that we are actually afraid of accomplishing what we set out to do?
Bingo!
I have a lot of experience in training and motivating others, not just in fitness but in life. I have always had a sense that deep down people are not afraid of failure but rather afraid of achieving. When you achieve something people will expect you to do the same every time. This adds responsibility and adds the component of hard work. Now, don’t get me wrong I am not calling out people, talking about how lazy they are. Quite the contrary, I am saying that in our subconscious we have a deep fear that we CAN accomplish any and every thing that we set out to do.
So how do I perform reverse psychology on myself?
Here is the deal the first step to accomplishing anything is you have to believe it is possible. Here is an example; people once thought that running a mile in under 4 minutes was impossible. It wasn’t until 1954 that Roger Bannister broke the 4 minutes barrier, running a mile in 3 minutes and 59 seconds. 42 days later another man ran a mile in 3 minutes and 58 seconds. Fast forward to present day and the world record for the mile has lowered 17 seconds and now running a mile in under 4 minutes is the STANDARD by which all middle distance runners are judged.
Do you see what happened there? Once one person did it, everyone else knew it was possible. You think that you are the only person in the world sitting there at your computer, reading this article with 50, 60, 70, 100 pounds to lose. The reality of it is people are doing it every day and so can you! All you have to do is believe.
Many voters are frustrated and outraged by the $6 billion being spent in deceptive political advertising, attack ads, and robo calls. Unfortunately, there is only a meager counter balance to this massive expenditure.
Only three organizations — Project Vote Smart, League of Women Voters, and Vote USA — currently are available to provide voters with non-partisan information. A fourth, eVoter.com, recently terminated due to lack of money. The three still standing attempt to provide voters what they need to vote their interests, not those of special interests groups spending the $6 Billion. Unfortunately, all three are grossly underfunded and out gunned. Yes, voters may only have a sling shot against this Moneyed Goliath but, if they use it well, it may make a substantial difference.
The first, League of Women Voters (LWV.org) is a league of 51 different LWV organizations, one for each state and DC. It was founded in 1920 to ratify the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution providing women the right to vote at the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. League members were encouraged to be political themselves, by educating citizens about, and lobbying for, government and social reform legislation. Another objective is to provide non-partisan voter information and, for decades, LWV has been mailing sample ballots to voters. With the advent of the Internet, LWV developed a single Vote411 website where it attempts to provide voters with targeted information about the candidates in each voter’s various Federal and State contests. When this information is not available on its website (probably due to redistricting), it provides links to State and county voter guides.
Read the rest of… Ron Kahlow: The Meager Counter Balance to Money in Politics
By Lauren Mayer, on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
For those readers who are either over 30 or don’t have teenagers who can explain it to us, internet memes are concepts or images that spread quickly online. While memes can include random humor (LOL Cats) or celebrity references (the Ryan Gosling “Hey Girl” series), they’ve also started to pop up in politics. (Google ‘Big Bird’ or ‘You Didn’t Build That’ and you’ll get the general idea.)
The most recent meme to catch on like wildfire was “Binders Full Of Women”, from a comment made by Governor Romney in the 2nd Presidential Debate – even if you didn’t watch the debate, even if you had no interest in it, you’ve probably heard about this one, which inspired dozens of Facebook groups (with thousands of fans) before the debate was even over. Part of what gave this unfortunate turn of phrase such legs was that it had all the aspects of a great meme – vast public exposure, a simple, clear visual image, and a huge variety of humorous interpretations.
Next came the backlash, commentators complaining that people were making a mountain out of a molehill, or accusing Obama voters of focusing on picky word choices rather than the real issues. But I believe part of why the image caught on so quickly was that it wasn’t just a verbal gaffe, it was emblematic of why Romney has such trouble connecting with women:
– His positions are vague (the anecdote about ‘they brought us binders of women’ was what he told instead of answering a direct question about whether he’d support the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act)
– He’s patronizing (trying to impress us with how hard he worked to actually find some qualified women, as if he’d never met one in all his years in business?)
– He likes to bend the truth (turns out he didn’t actually go out and ask women’s groups, the groups came to him with resumes)
At any rate, it’s hard to resist an on-fire meme, so here’s this week’s song!
By Nancy Slotnick, on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
One of my husband’s favorite movies is True Lies. (You must say it with the Ahrnold accent.) Of course the irony of the casting of that film didn’t become so readily apparent until recently. I saw Arnold interviewed about how he lied about his audio malfunctioning when Matt Lauer once asked him a question that he didn’t want to answer. Even though he admitted to this lie in his recent memoir, he still didn’t want to own up to the lie when asked about it on Meet the Press. And they had video footage! A lie wrapped in an enigma wrapped in fudge factor. It’s called acting I guess.
Of course, everyone lies in some form or another. I had this conversation with my 7 year old the other day. (yes, Mom, I flossed my teeth.) But when someone flat out lies about everything, blanketly denying things that they have already admitted to be true, then that is someone you don’t want to date. Or vote for, in my opinion.
How can you tell? If someone like Maria Shriver, an extremely smart and astute woman, can be fooled, then how on earth can the rest of us figure it out?
Well, you can start by avoiding the worst kind of lie- lying to yourself. A first date can tell you about 80% of what you need to know about a person if you pay attention. And a month of dating someone bumps it up to 90%. But how well can you listen when they tell?
You get this feeling, in the pit of your stomach and you can’t make sense of it. So you ignore it and do what feels good. We all do this and I’m not trying to say that you can’t be human and act on impulse. But before you do, try to make sense of that sinking feeling- it has 2 distinct heads to it that you can try to decipher. And then when you act, act deliberately with the cognizance of whether you are making a decision for 4 hours or 4 years.
By Jason Atkinson, on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET
We only have 24 Hours to go. If you want to donate, now is the time. Click here
I want to thank everyone, all 82 of your so far, who’ve believed in me, this idea, and this film.
I told Jeff Martin, the Producer, imagine 82 people from across the globe, standing together in one room, cheering us on.
For me, this is unfulfilled. Making this film, changing hearts and minds through the human side of this river’s recovery, is something I just have to do.
In June 2010 via Proposition 14, California radically changed the way candidates are elected to public office. Previously, candidates running for office appeared only on their party’s ballot in the primary election. Then, the winner from each political party and any independents who qualified for ballot access would move on to the general election. Then, for the general election in November, voters could choose between one Republican, one Democrat, and any number of third party and independent candidates for almost every office contest.
Proposition 14 changed all that. Now, under the “Top-Two Open Primary Act,” all candidates desiring to run for public office, regardless of party affiliation or preference, will appear on a single combined ballot in the primary election. Likewise, all voters, regardless of party affiliation or preference, are permitted to vote for any candidate on this combined ballot. Then, only the two candidates who receive the highest and second-highest number of votes move on to the general election. So, for the general election in November, voters can only choose between two candidates. Both candidates could be in the same party, different parties, or with any combination with independent candidates. Also, the candidates can choose whether or not to list their party affiliation on the primary and general election ballots. In other words, the top two overall vote-getters, not the top vote-getter from each political party, get on the general election ballot.
Interestingly, the change does not apply to all offices. It only includes State-oriented offices, like U.S. Senate, U.S. House, State-wide offices, State Senate, and State House. It does not include U.S. President, county, and local offices. Nonetheless, the new election process could be a seismic change in California’s democratic process. But was it?
It takes 250,000 crunches to burn 1 pound of body fat.
If I did 200 crunches a day, everyday for the next 4 years I could hope to burn 1 pound of fat. Not exactly the best return on investment. In fact thats not worth my time or anyone else’s, So why are so many people under the impression that crunches, sit-ups give you a lean sexy core? Not sure the answer but it is the wrong impression we are getting.
As I mentioned in the last post the tissue is not best loaded the way we do crunches. It is actually best loaded the other direction. So this is all a matter of purpose. We have to ask ourselves; “What is the purpose of doing this exercise?”
If the purpose is to do crunches to burn your body fat off, you better get use to doing a lot of them. If the purpose is to work the abdominal muscles then you can expect that crunches will strengthen that motion greatly the more you do them. But are they the best option?
Maybe? Maybe not. Again this is all a matter of purpose. Which leads me to programming and more specifically core programming.
From an anatomical view the “core” is a group of muscles, at the center of the body that move in conjunction with other muscle group (particularly the extremities). I believe we short change ourselves by only looking at the center of bodies to strengthen our core. You must realize that our entire body is our core. All muscles move in harmony with eachother to create movement, they do not and have never acted in isolation.
So to give you a visual of what I am talking about picture this. Your abs are really sore after a good workout and you go to the grocery store and reach on the top shelf for something. What do you notice? Your abs contracting or bracing as you lift your arm overhead to pull something off the shelf. Ok another example; you take your groceries to the car, you open the car door and you notice that you can feel your abs contracting as you open the door. “But I only thought the abs or “core” were worked when we bend over?” Your core’s purpose is to decelerate movement, so as you reach for something your core is decelarating the movement for acceleration to occur. One more visual.
Let’s say we are working out, doing squats. Your abs are still sore and while you are squatting I add resistance to your left shoulder (as if to push you over) what do you notice. Your abs or “core” engaged. It is decelerating the movement so you don’t fall over. Moral to the story is situps and crunches are not the only way to develop your core muscles. In fact doing core movements on the ground (as in a plank) is not the only way to work your core. I would be willing to bet that you would get more from core programming on your feet than you would on your back. To back my claim, how many times a day are you laying on your back? One and that is to go to sleep. Point made.
Let’s talk about purpose:
In order to get to where we are trying to go, we have to have a purpose behind it. So if we are talking about core program design and specific workouts we can do targeting that part of the body, we have to have rhyme and reason. So what is the point of you doing crunches? If its to build abdominal strength/endurance in that particular motion, I would say that is a great purpose. If it is to burn body fat and give you an 8 pack, I would find a better purpose. So let’s evaluate a variety of goals and where core programming would fit in.
Purpose #1: Reduce Body Fat to Uncover 8 Pack
Well if all you are doing is crunches than your rate of return is minimal. The key to body fat reduction lies in nutrition not exercise. We cannot out exercise a bad diet. Genetics will always play a role but most of us are not genetic marvels that can eat what we want and still stay lean. However, to increase the likelyhood of the reduction of body fat, using more muscles will burn more calories. So, doing core exercises such as wood chops would be great for the metabolic increase, at the same time strengthen the areas we are looking to target.
Read the rest of… Josh Bowen: The Core — The Center of Our Universe, Volume 2
Good morning from Las Vegas, and welcome to another edition of Prix Fixe Politics! I’m on my way out of town, but spent last night with 23 undecided voters, 18 of whom voted for Obama in 2008. After the debate, only five of the 23 committed to voting for the President again on November 6th. Still, I’m skeptical to believe there will be any significant movement in the polls after the town hall. For a quick look at why, here is today’s menu:
Appetizer: First, neither Obama nor Romney have that “Bubba Touch.” I’m not talking about some dish at the shrimp restaurant — I’m talking about Bill Clinton. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that the man could connect emotionally no matter the situation, and no matter the American. Obama’s a gifted rhetorician, but he isn’t the people person like the Democratic president that came before him. And Romney…well, there’s a litany of socioeconomic and demographic jokes that have been made about Romney’s potential interactions with the undecided “typical American” voters at the town hall. Regardless, neither candidate was going to score the bonus points that come not in the words of the answer, but in the empathy of the answering. And, sure enough, neither did. They spent more time trying to talk over each other than to listen to the concerns of the audience. Yes, Obama showed more life than he did in the Denver debate, but Romney matched him closely. I wish one of them had actually taken the time to ask one of the questioners a follow-up. After all, we’re the ones pulling the levers the first week of November.
Main Course: It’s a tried and true analogy now — sports and politics. Think about a sporting event you may have attended or watched between two teams to which you had no particular allegiance. Sure, we all love a good underdog; but, most of us in that situation (and in all other win/lose horse race scenarios) like to be connected to the winner. I think most of us, Democrat or Republican, can agree Romney won the first debate. The polls confirm as much, with the undecideds breaking toward the Governor in the last 10 days. But because this second debate was, and will be covered as, a draw (or a margin of error victory for Obama at the most), I expect the remaining undecideds to stay on the sideline and wait for the third and final debate next week. This one will be squeezed largely into irrelevance. As U2 and Linda Ronstadt sing, “everybody loves a winner”…and tonight’s debate left us lacking.
Read the rest of… Zac Byer: Prix Fixe Politics — The Second Presidential Debate
By Lauren Mayer, on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
Throughout this campaign, Mitt Romney has received a lot of criticism for his position switches, from both the right and the left. However, last week he outdid himself, changing position on abortion multiple times (beginning with his interview in Des Moines).
Say what you want about pandering, politicization, etc., and agree or disagree with him, but you’ve got to admit, there hasn’t been a public figure this good at rebranding since Madonna. She’s gone from punk-ish urban girl to Marilyn-esque blonde to Anglophile director (complete with faux British accent), and people applaud her ability to keep up with the times, anticipate public taste, and remain relevant for 3 decades and counting.
So give Romney some credit – at least he’s showing his awareness of pop culture, on some level, and maybe his flexibility can be inspiring to the rest of us! If Romney can use flip-flopping to pass himself off as “Moderate Mitt”, then this suburban Jewish mother can rebrand herself as a teen popstar to sing about said flipflops (and to thoroughly embarrass my teenage kids in the process) – “Oops, You Did It Again!”
Let’s think about the quote above. What is separating all of us from achievement? Is it us? Could it be that we are actually afraid of accomplishing what we set out to do?
