Reflections | December 17, 2013

In reaction to Pope Francis’ birthday, I was once again reminded of how my views of powerful public figures have changed as I have aged, and I tweeted the following:

Donald Newman

‏@donaldnewm

When I was young the Pope was very old distant figure. Now only 6 yrs Pope #Francis' junior, I see him as wise but far more human. @Pontifex

5:41 PM - 17 Dec 13

I remember how I felt upon Bill Clinton’s election as President, realizing that for the first time I was older than the President.  A different perspective, at least for me.

I also found this ‘cartoon’ on point, meaning that it reflects my own thinking:

The Selfless by Gary Barker @barkercartoons 

Chocolate Chip Cookies Yes. Computer Cookies NO!!

Yes I like cookies, but increasingly not the computer kind. All you have to do is glance at a product on a webpage. Not buy. Not wish list it. Just glance. And for the next few hours, days, perhaps years, everytime you go to a different webpage there’s a promotion or ad for the product you glanced at glaring at you from the new webpage. Sheesh.

Start TV Programs On The Hour

There was a time when television programs commenced exactly on the hour or half-hour.  You could count on it.  You could take care of necessaries before your favorite program began.  No longer.

Nowadays it appears that many TV programs start two minutes or one minute before the hour.  That’s crazy.  It’s ridiculous.  And why are the networks doing this to us?

Perhaps there are articles reviewing this practice.  I haven’t found them.  Then again, I haven’t looked for them.  I assume the reason for this change is “competition.”  The networks have decided that providing a brief preview to the next program as a teaser won’t suffice.  Instead, they have to launch the next program a minute before the hour, presumably a minute before their competition, until their competitors decide to match that strategy.

Stop this madness, Networks!  Yes, you.  You seem to be the main offenders although I’ve found this practice rampant on cable channels, such as MsNBC, of late.

Go back to the certainty of starting programs on the hour or half hour.  Stop starting programs a minute or even two minutes before the hour.  Give us a chance to refresh between programs without having to worry that we’ve missed the first minute or two, often the most important in melodramas.

Gridlock, Shutdown, Paralysis

As the shutdown enters another week I have no difficulty placing blame entirely on the Republicans.  I am not saying that Democrats are angels or that one can't reach back in history and find some Democratic legislative action that didn't adhere to the "principles" Democrats enunciate today.  But this obsessive preoccupation with the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) is destructive, perhaps not to the Republican Party but to the nation.  It is true that only Democrats voted for the legislation when it passed, but even then that was in large measure because Republicans really didn't want to negotiate over a bill that they would then seemingly support.  Even at that point Republicans were rejecting Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich principles about individual responsibility and an individual mandate and have continued to do so.  Obama made deals with the medical profession, the insurance industry and even with the pharmaceutical industry in trying to craft a law that would pass.  He accommodated conservative elements in the Democratic Party as well to achieve the necessary majority vote.  ACA is not some socialist dream.  It is not a take over of medical care by the government.  In fact, Obama chose not to embrace a single payer system along the lines of Medicare, which would have involved a greater governmental involvement.  If anything,  ACA is a boon to private enterprise as millions of Americans will now purchase insurance in the marketplace.

Instead of working with Obama to craft legislation in part reflecting their views, instead of trying to effectuate meaningful and helpful changes to ACA as questions and concerns over parts of the law have emerged, Republicans have been dead set on repealing it.  They challenged the constitutionality of the individual mandate, taking their claim to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But, the High Court upheld the law.  In the last several years, the House, led by Tea Party Republicans, has voted at least 42 times to repeal the law, an effort dead in its tracks given Democratic control of the Senate and the White House.  Now the Republican Party has shut down major parts of the Federal Government in an effort to force the Democrats in Congress to rescind ACA, something Obama will not accept.

Holding the country hostage by first threatening to shut and now shutting down the Federal Government in an attempt to compel the other Party to vote to rescind existing legislation is simply not appropriate.  Let the Republicans capture control of the Senate and, if also needed, the White House, something they claim they can do given the public’s alleged distaste for the ACA.  Or negotiate over other legislation desired by Democrats.  But shutting down the Government to overturn legislation lawfully enacted and upheld by the Supreme Court is, indeed, nothing but hostage taking.  The President’s refusal to negotiate in this situation is reasonable.

In a little over a week it will be necessary for the Congress to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a Government default on obligations Congress has already incurred.  Again Republicans wish to hold this requirement hostage in exchange for Democratic concessions over the ACA and/or the extent of America’s debt and deficit spending.  The Republicans took this same approach previously and gained concessions from Obama as well as caused a downgrading of America’s credit rating, meaning that the cost of federal borrowing increased.

President Obama has refused to negotiate over an increase in the debt ceiling this time, claiming that Congress has already incurred the obligations necessitating an increase in the ceiling, and that America should not have to experience this constant brinkmanship in its financial affairs.  Speaker John Boehner has said he won't undermine America's credit but he and his Republicans seem eager to push Obama toward further concessions in order to approve an increase in the debt ceiling.  Obama claims that he is willing to negotiate on any topic, but not in exchange for keeping the Government open or funding America’s current obligations.  There has been talk again about a “grand bargain” under which Obama might agree to some changes in entitlements in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling and other Republican concessions.  But Obama has made clear that his “grand bargain” includes further tax increases and reforms, something Tea Party Republicans adamantly oppose.

Is there any end in sight to this continuing stalemate?  A grand bargain?  Chances of that seem slight.  Republicans are likely to retain a majority in the House even if more voters support Democratic candidates than Republicans.  This reflects the structure of American government, gerrymandered districts, and population concentrations.  Any chance of a Republican takeover of the Senate in the 2014 elections?  That is a possibility although the current shutdown may hurt GOP chances.  How about a Republican sweep of Congress and the Presidency by 2016?  There is certainly a chance that by then the public will want a change in parties in the White House.  That happened in 1992, again in 2000, and in 2008.  But the nation’s demographics are in flux, Republicans have yet to develop an appeal toward Hispanics, and the cultural divide particularly between the Tea Party Republicans and much of the rest of the country remains vast.

This stalemate over Government funding and the debt ceiling is not healthy for this country.  I share the President’s perspective that these two issues should not be held hostage by Republicans as a way to extract concessions on other policy issues.

Policy decisions need to be made to address America’s demographic changes, immigration issues, deterioration in infrastructure, exploding cost of entitlements, tepid economic growth.  But at the moment gridlock in Washington seems to preclude any movement on these issues.  Negotiation and compromise on these specific policy issues and others are needed.  But currently compromise appears to be a dirty word, particularly to Tea Party true believers.  Fissures in the Republican Party further reflect the extremism of the GOP right wing.  Answers to resolving this situation seem few and far between.  There is paralysis in Washington.  Exceptional leadership is necessary but is not being shown by either Party or by President Obama.  One can hope.

Reflections on Obama and Negotiating with Iran

Not surprisingly, there has been a spate of criticism of late of President Barack Obama over the quality of his leadership in foreign affairs.  The claim is that "Obama is weak, he's unwilling to take strong action, and our adversaries know that about him and will humiliate him and run circles around him."  My view?  Poppycock.

I don't know whether a meaningful deal is possible with the Iranians.  No doubt President Hassan Rouhani is on a charm offensive.  A number of critics point out that he did this once before, with the Europeans, and succeeded in charming his adversaries into stepping back while Iran kept developing its centrifuges.  I don't pretend to know the full story but perhaps that is true.

I remain skeptical about a deal because I strongly believe that the Iranians in almost all quarters want nuclear weapons.  Not only do the hardliners want nuclear weapons, but I suspect even the youth of the country who may feel oppressed by the mullahs either want, or at least don't like the idea of being pressured by outsiders from building, nuclear weapons.  Having nuclear weapons is a sign of prestige and national pride, when Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and a measure of 'equality' and deterrent vis-a-vis Israel, which is presumed by most to have them.

Does that mean that negotiations will fail or that any agreement will mean the United States and the West will be fooled because Iran will nonetheless continue to develop nuclear weapons?  We're told that is what North Korea appears to have done; that North Korea made deals but did not abide by them and now has nuclear weapons.  Will Iran follow North Korea's lead and, even if a deal is reached with the West, continue to develop nuclear weapons in violation of its terms?  Perhaps.  Obviously the only conceivable way that outcome may be avoided is if Iran’s nuclear activities are fully transparent and if verification of Iran's status is constant and intrusive, and those requirements are not easily met.

Hence the skepticism.  But does that mean Obama is a weak President and a poor negotiator?  No.  But critics point to the Syria situation, claiming Obama drew a bright red line a year ago over Syria’s use of chemical weapons and then proceeded to turn a blind eye for a year to Assad's use of chemical weapons, and then, following the extensive and deadly use of chemical weapons on August 21, 2013, Obama made threats of military action but continued to equivocate, seeking Congressional support.cc

Perhaps George W. Bush, had he still been President, would have attacked Syria regardless of the vote in the British Parliament, strong American public opinion against any military involvement, and a Congress very hesitant to support military action particularly in light of popular opinion.  But after his own disastrous Iraq War and the mess in Afghanistan he helped bring about, it isn't at all clear that George W would have disregarded these obstacles and launched an attack, despite the likelihood that Cheney would have been urging him to do so.  What does seem to be relatively clear is that Obama's threat to use military force against Syria finally spurred Russia into proposing to intervene and seek to persuade Assad to agree to relinquish his chemical weapons.  Perhaps that is nothing but a stalling tactic but it remains to be seen.  Syria has been providing some information required under the agreement and the United Nations Security Council has apparently approved a resolution that, while not promulgated under Article 7, nonetheless holds out the likelihood of sanctions under Article 7 if Syria fails to comply.

There is no question that Obama is slow moving and cautious when it comes to American military action abroad.  He spent an inordinate amount of time to decide whether or not to send more American troops to Afghanistan soon after he became President in response to a call by others for an Afghanistan surge.  He hesitated over involving the United States in Libya when the so-called Arab Spring reached its shores and then, when he finally decided to act, chose to provide limited military support and, in the words of his critics, "lead from behind."  He has held back during his Presidency from direct involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, only acting recently to encourage renewed negotiations as a result of Secretary Kerry's initiative.  This hesitancy seems not only to reflect his overall personality as one who acts cautiously only after careful consideration of a situation but also his awareness of America's intense fatigue with foreign military involvement following Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the limits of American military power in effectuating positive outcomes around the world.

But being slow moving and cautious, perhaps ultra-cautious at times, does not mean weakness.  Obama has taken risks and has made moves when he has decided such actions serve America's national interest.  He approved the daring mission to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.  While garnering criticism from some quarters, Obama has utilized drone attacks in foreign countries in pursuit of terrorist leaders.  And, while he sought Congressional approval for military action against Syria, it is far from clear that he would have taken no military action had Congress failed to support his request.

Obama knows that America does not want to go to war against Iran.  He knows that Iran is aware of American public opinion.  At the same time, the United States has tightened economic sanctions against Iran during Obama’s tenure in office and those sanctions seem to have succeeded at least in some measure in making life extremely difficult in Iran.  Israel has threatened to take military action against Iran at some point if its nuclear weapons program is not stopped.  And, despite reticence on the part of the American public and Obama himself, America has indicated the possibility that it will initiate military action against Iran to avoid Iran developing nuclear weapons.  These are not insignificant threats to Iran and there is reason to believe that Iran's leadership takes them as meaningful threats.

It is in this context, a strong desire among Americans and in the West against another Middle East war but strong concerns among Western powers about the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons, including concerns for the West’s Middle East Sunni Arab allies who will likely not stand idly by if Iran develops nuclear weapons but will seek to develop their own, as well as for Israel, that a possible deal between the United States and its allies and Iran may emerge.  Will Iran truly be willing to stop its nuclear weapons program and give sufficient access to international organizations and personnel to verify such an action in exchange for the ending of economic and other sanctions against Iran and the end to military threats against Iran?  Perhaps so.  But we won't know unless a full attempt to reach an accord is made, against a clock that continues to tick.  Is Obama strong enough to engage in intense negotiations to reach this outcome, which will require an ability to show a willingness to reach a compromise balanced by an ability to project a willingness to use military force if needed?  I believe the answer is Yes.

Enough of the Kardashians

Remember the movie A Day Without A Mexican? A powerful, satirical look at just how much Southern California depends on Mexicans and other Hispanics, and how difficult it would be were they suddenly gone. 

Well, I propose, in sharp contrast, a Year Without The Kardashians. Enough already. No one other than TMZ would miss them were they all to suddenly disappear from public view. They contribute nothing of substance; they only provide income to themselves and hangers on.

Poor Voter Turnout in Los Angeles Mayoralty Election

The City of Los Angeles voted for a new Mayor yesterday, May 21, 2013.  Well, that isn’t quite accurate.  Merely 19% of registered voters actually voted.  In other words, 4 of 5 registered voters chose not to vote for Mayor.  How dreadful.

I imagine some might argue that the low turnout reflected the so-called tweedledee and tweedledum nature of American politics, even more the case in this contest. The argument is that the differences between candidates is so minimal that many voters don’t particularly care who wins and therefore do not vote.  In this case, Garcetti and Greuel are both liberal Democrats whose policy differences are not all that profound, although there are differences between them.  But it is highly questionable that voter apathy is attributable to the tweedledee/tweedledum theory of voting.

An alternative theory with a related theme is that voters don’t vote because they don’t believe their vote, and the election’s outcome, will make any difference in their lives, even where the candidates espouse quite different perspectives on governing.  This is obviously a far more cynical view than the tweedledee/tweedledum perspective.  This view reflects a feeling of impotence among voters.  They feel that they are unable to affect governmental and political activities let alone to effect change and they tend to view politicians as corrupt and focused on their own self-aggrandizement rather than on the public good.

While many Americans seem to believe that local and State governments are closer to them than the federal government, voter turnout tends to decline as one moves from federal to State and local elections.  It isn’t clear that Americans follow the actions of their local and State representatives to any meaningful degree, which may translate into low turnouts at local and State elections.

Whatever the causes, low voter turnout tends to mean diminished accountability by political leaders to the electorate.  This is not a good thing for American democracy.☐ 

U.S. Senate Rejects Manchin-Toomey Amendment to Expand Background Checks for Gun Purchases

I’m sad that the U.S. Senate rejected the very limited expansion to background checks for gun purchases in the Manchin-Toomey Amendment. Mark Barden, father to one of the Newtown victims, spoke eloquently, as always. President Obama spoke with passion and resolve and offered one of the most insightful analyses by a president of why our political process often fails to reflect the will of the majority, capturing many of the insights of Robert Dahl, Yale University’s outstanding scholar on the American political process. This country needs more “profiles in courage” among its so-called leaders, who don’t lead at all, and fewer politicians scared of losing elections. The American style of muddling through isn’t working any longer and we risk becoming a 2nd rate power as well as a society with ever expanding inequalities in income and wealth. Listen and watch the attached video.

Rutgers Athletics: A Wake Up Call for Smartly Using the Straight Face Test

There are different names for it, depending upon the situation and one's profession.  The straight face test.  The embarrassment test.  The giggle test.  It's a standard often used in making decisions, whether to advance a particular legal argument, make a personnel decision, or the like.

Does the decision under consideration pass the straight face test?  In other words, is the decision reasonable enough that it will not engender laughter or disbelief or be considered beyond the pale.  But who is the audience?  Yourself?  Colleagues in the same line of work?  Your friends?  Higher management?  The press?  The public?  The audience you choose may make a significant difference in the outcome.  You may or may not actually be consulting that audience.  But you're anticipating how that audience will react if and when it learns of the decision.

With the electronic age, many more decisions reach a far wider audience than in the past.   And that means that you had better consider using a broad audience to evaluate the wisdom of your decision, particularly if that decision has a public impact.

Most recently, Rutgers University experienced the dangers of not using a wide audience to evaluate the wisdom of a personnel decision.  The men's basketball coach, Mike Rice, behaved in a completely unprofessional way in handling the team's student athletes.  And his behavior was videotaped.  He was seen pushing athletes, taunting them using gay slurs, and otherwise abusing them and his authority.  When his behavior, and the videotape, came to the attention of the school's athletic director last November, AD Tim Pernetti took disciplinary action.  The coach was apparently suspended and fined, directed to attend anger management class, and warned that any future repetition of the behavior would lead to termination.

But was that enough?  Did Pernetti apply the straight face test to his decision, in terms of whether his actions toward the coach would be deemed sufficient in the eyes of those who learned of it?  And, even if he applied the test, did Pernetti use the correct audience?  As events turned out, it appears that he did not.

Pernetti states that he thought of terminating the coach when he first saw the videotape but that others with whom he consulted felt "rehabilitation" through discipline and anger management training would suffice.  But the videotape reached the public when ESPN aired it.  And that changed everything.  The coach and the Athletic Director have both left their positions.  Rutger's general counsel has also resigned.  Public outrage was fierce and, not surprisingly, politicians followed suit.

Some might argue that any reasonable university official, be it the athletic director, personnel manager, or general counsel, would have fired the coach upon viewing the videotape; that the coach's behavior, particularly in today's climate including Rutgers' own recent history involving the suicide of a male student arising from an illicitly taped incident with another male, warranted immediate dismissal regardless of the public's reaction.  But not all necessarily agree.  Apparently, according to Pernetti, when the coach's misconduct came to the school's attention, "the consensus among school officials at the time was that it didn't warrant dismissal."  He wrote in his letter of resignation: “As you know, my first instincts when I saw the videotape of Coach Rice's behavior was to fire him immediately. However, Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals, and outside counsel.  [¶] Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal.”  Workplaces often use progressive discipline, which usually calls for less severe sanctions for initial misconduct together with warnings that stiffer penalties up to termination will be given for repeat offenses.  To be sure, a policy of progressive discipline does not preclude instant termination for first offenses constituting extreme misconduct.  Then, too, Rutgers' decision-makers may have believed that terminating the coach would have negatively affected its men's basketball program.  They may have feared that firing the coach would bring his misbehavior into public view at a time when Rutgers was moving to another athletic conference, and that rehabilitation would change the coach's behavior.

Are there lessons to be learned?  In today's environment, where videos are easily recorded and posted to YouTube and elsewhere and sensibilities against bullying and mistreatment toward the LGBT community and others have been heightened, those making decisions with a public impact need to take into consideration the likely reaction of the public to those decisions.  They should assume that their decisions will at some point become known to a wider audience, including the general public.  They not only need to use the straight face test but to apply it to a larger audience than their own colleagues.  They need to ask themselves how the public will likely react were it to learn of the decisions and then to make the decisions factoring in this information.  

Making decisions with the public's reaction in mind may lead to unfairness in some instances given the excitability of the public and its tendency toward a herd mentality.  As such, mature decision-makers need to consider the public's likely reaction but not allow themselves to be stampeded by it. In some instances the decision-makers need to resist bowing to public sentiment, but they had better carefully have thought out their rationale before reaching the final decision and how they will explain it once public reaction ensues.  Following progressive discipline, being mindful of treating similarly situated individuals similarly, taking into consideration liability exposure, and applying standards of fairness and common decency are all factors to be considered when making these kinds of decisions.∎

Rest in Peace, Roger Ebert

Siskel and Ebert. The best. Siskel’s easy going demeanor and personal reactions to films. Ebert’s incisive reviews. I enjoyed them both. They complemented one another. And when Gene Siskel passed away something was lost even though Ebert soldiered on with others. Now Roger Ebert has passed after a long battle with cancer. Rest in Peace, Roger. We will miss you. We miss both you and Gene.

This Technology Thing Is Getting To Be A Headache!

You know, this technology thing is getting to be a headache.  Two days ago I sought to check my iPhone calendar for a past event I had listed on my iCal (calendar) on my Mac.  iCal syncs between the two devices.  The event was nowhere to be found on my iPhone but it was still on my Mac.  I double checked, did this and that, even pulled on my hair, to no avail.  Finally, after searching Google for answers I discovered that my iPhone, all on its own, had changed a preference that deleted calendar events after a month.  Huh?  I swear, I never did it.  Honest.  Technology seems to have a mind of its own.  I didn't quite believe it after viewing 2001 a space odyssey, but it's true!

Then it was my Charter cable service back at it again.  At least twice each month it just stops working.  The remote won't function.  I start to think its batteries have expired but that isn't it.  I have to unplug the cable box, replug it, and reboot.  Not as easy as you may think.  Well, okay, it's not difficult, just a pain as it takes about 15 minutes and always happens when I'm trying to watch a TV program of great interest. 

What's with all this stuff?  I mean Windows 3.1 used to malfunction often enough but that was almost two decades ago.  What gives?  This new technology has had enough time to get its house in order!

Getting from Here to There on Los Angeles' God-forsaken Freeways

I thought I was being so smart.  It was 2:20 p.m., and I needed to drive from my house in eastern Long Beach to my friend's house on the westside of Los Angeles.  Normally I would take Ocean Avenue west along the ocean's edge to downtown Long Beach, get on the Long Beach Freeway (Route 710) going north for a few miles, and then transfer to the San Diego Freeway (Route 405) which would take me up to Los Angeles' westside, for roughly a 45 minute trip.

But I knew better!  By 2:20 p.m., the enormous trucks laden with cargo vessel containers were departing the Long Beach Port by the hundreds right onto the Long Beach Freeway heading to the train depot in downtown Los Angeles, leaving almost no room for automobiles.  Too often I had forgotten that and paid the price by crawling along the Long Beach Freeway to the 405.  No, this time I would take surface streets in eastern Long Beach north directly to the 405.

I was so proud of myself, that is until I almost reached the on-ramp to the 405 on Lakewood Boulevard.  Just as the light was changing to green as I headed north on Lakewood Boulevard, literally a block from the Freeway entrance, three enormous sanitation department vehicles heading east on Willow Avenue entered the intersection and turned left onto Lakewood Boulevard.  They headed toward the Freeway on-ramp.  As I and about 10 other vehicles headed to the on-ramp on Lakewood as the light turned green, we found ourselves behind these 3 sanitation vehicles.  One was a dumpster but the two trailing were large vehicles with electric signs on them.  All three quickly turned onto the on-ramp but immediately stopped.  The two trailing vehicles' electric signs said "Ramp Closed.  Detour" with flashing arrows.  I and the other drivers weren't expecting a sudden stop and we stopped behind these two large vehicles with signs.  What the heck, we each thought.  But then a sanitation worker got out of the dumpster and started hooking up a line to a plug in the ground at the entrance to the on-ramp.  The two trailing vehicles were immediately behind the dumpster blocking entry to the on-ramp.

It became clear that no one was going to be able to enter the 405 at that on-ramp.  One by one the cars began to pull out and head north.  My brilliant plan to avoid congestion on the 710 had backfired.  Now I had to head north a few blocks, then east for a block, make a u-turn, head back west and take Lakewood south so I could enter the 405 using the on-ramp on the other side of Lakewood.  As I did so, wasting precious time, I noticed a huge row of cars waiting patiently to make their own u-turns.  What a mess.

Welcome to travel on Los Angeles' God-forsaken freeway system.

10 Bullets. By Tom Sachs

Tom Sachs: 10 Bullets

[A collaboration with filmmaker and former assistant Van Neistat, "10 Bullets" is a brilliantly twisted homage to corporate training films as well as an amusing look at Sachs's exacting studio process. - Soapbox, Wall Street Journal]

10 Bullets (video). By Tom Sachs 

1. Sacred Space: Keep tool kit at the ready, so when inspiration strikes there is no delay, excuses, or hindrance between you, your thought, and it’s realization.

2. Always Be Knolling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knolling

3. Keep A List Your list is your past and your future. Carry at all times. Prioritize: Today, this week and eventually. You will someday die with items still on your list, but for now, while you live your list helps prioritize what can be done in your limited time.

4. Work to Code Do not innovate! Slowly develop new ideas built on a pre existing language. Creativity is the enemy, and the road to caprice, invent because you must. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

5. Send does not mean received Just because you sent it does not mean it was received. Always get a receipt and when practical confirm receipt of item with intended recipient. Without a receipt your actions can not be proved, without a receipt you don’t exist. The more concrete method of communication, the more authority it holds. The reverse is also true-which is useful when weaseling. What you say sometimes is not what is heard. What you hear sometimes is not what is being said. If you have doubts, confirm that the other understand your intentions by insisting politely that the instructions are repeated back to you and  redacted. When receiving instructions, refer to bullet 6 “I understand.” If this seems patronizing weigh it against the consequences of an error. It’s not the action that counts but the result of that action.

6. Feedback A good computer will give you a click, vibrate or display that it has received your command. “I Understand” means: I have heard AND understand all of your statement . It’s a confirmation that the instructions are clear. Conversely, “I Don’t Understand” means clarification is requested. No response means something is wrong with the system: SILENCE = DEATH.  Acknowledgment is empathy, the slightest nod, grunt or polite interruption indicates that you have received and understood the information.

7. Finding lost things Rule #1. Believe you will find it Rule #2. Knoll your space, clean everything. 10% of all lost things are found when cleaning. Rule #3. Relax: trust your ears + mind.

8. Reset At the end of the day: knoll your workspace, sweep + empty trash. Pre set your work station with something pleasurable to complete. begin your day with a sense of accomplishment, resist ending the day unresolved. Solve the problems first.  See #9.

9. Procrastinate If at first you don’t succeed five up immediately. move on to some other task until that becomes unbearable, then move on again circling back around to the first problem. Sort of like sleep, only cheaper.

10. Tenacity “Nothing in the work can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”- Ray Kroc

Lance Armstrong's Lies Were Far More Significant Than The Lies Most Of Us Tell

I read the below article in today's, January 19, 2013, Los Angeles Times, and found it wanting.  The headline captures its argument: "The lies the disgraced champion cyclist [Lance Armstrong] told may be no bigger or more persistent than those we all tell, psychologists say.  His were just more public, and the stakes much higher."

My response to the Times columnist follows:

Dear Melissa,

I read with interest and disappointment your article in today's (January 19, 2013) Los Angeles Times, "Science File: Like Him, We Are All Liars."  No offense, but your article and the research you described in it reminded me of the late Senator William Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards which he presented to those conducting wasteful research using public funds.  I don't know the fund sources for the various researchers quoted in your article but it wouldn't surprise me that many were public funds.  Regardless, the reason I thought of Proxmire's awards is that I felt that most of the "insights" presented are obvious to all of us.

As well, I think you omitted one of Armstrong's strongest "justifications."  He clearly believed, or wanted to believe or wanted us to believe, that his cheating was to enable him to compete on a "level playing field."  That seemed a far more powerful justification than some of those you described.

The main reason I was disappointed by your article was that, by suggesting that Armstrong was simply doing what all of us do, just more publicly and with greater risks, you seemed to trivialize the magnitude of his transgression.  We all talk about little white lies.  There clearly are gradations of false statements, not something highlighted either in your narrative or the quotations from your "experts."  As well, most of us don't turn around and threaten, bully, demean and sue those who may challenge our honesty.  Frankly, I think you do and did a disservice by framing your article in the way you did.  What Lance Armstrong did was far more significant than, and very much above and beyond, what most of us do when we fail to tell the truth.

Sincerely,

Donald

-------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE FILE

Like Lance Armstrong, we are all liars, experts say

The lies the disgraced champion cyclist told may be no bigger or more persistent than those we all tell, psychologists say. His were just more public, and the stakes much higher.

Lance Armstrong celebrates after winning a stage of the Tour de France in 2003. Robert Feldman, a leading researcher on the psychology of lying, says that in the case of Armstrong's deception, "he was pretty confident he could get away with it." (Paola Cocco / AFP/Getty Images)

By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times

January 19, 2013

Though we profess to hate it, lying is common, useful and pretty much universal. It is one of the most durable threads in our social fabric and an important bulwark of our self-esteem. We start lying by the age of 4 and we do it at least several times a day, researchers have found. And we get better with practice.
In short, whatever you think about Lance Armstrong's admission this week that he took performance-enhancing drugs to fuel his illustrious cycling career, the lies he told may be no more persistent or outsized than yours, according to psychologists and others who study deception. They were just more public. And the stakes were bigger.
"People do it because it works," said Robert Feldman, dean of social and behavioral sciences at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and a leading researcher on the psychology of lying. "We get away with lies all the time. Usually they're minor: 'I love your tie.' 'You did a great job.' But in some cases they're bigger, and in Armstrong's case, he was pretty confident he could get away with it."
It's not easy to lie. Psychologists and neuroscientists have found that — initially, at least — deceit requires mental exertion for most of us. The effort to reconcile a lie with the truth — or with our notions of ourselves as good people — takes up so much brainpower that as we do it, we may actually forget to perform such effortless acts as blinking.
To sustain a lie over years, and against mounting evidence of its untruth, liars large and small must "develop an infrastructure around it," Feldman said — a litany of justifications that makes it possible to cling to deception and convince ourselves that we are good people in spite of it.
"But as time goes on, it gets easier," Feldman said.
For Armstrong, who has been stripped of seven Tour de France titles and an Olympic bronze medal, the justifications for his long-standing deceit were on full display during two nights of televised interviews with Oprah Winfrey. Acknowledging that he took a forbidden drug that increases oxygen retention in the blood, he noted that his dose was "not a lot." He said he rationalized his illicit use of testosterone by convincing himself that it probably made up for the loss of the male hormone that resulted from his treatment for testicular cancer.
"It's probably a tribute to the human ability to rationalize," said Daniel Ariely, a Duke University behavioral economist and author of the book "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty." "We really have this amazing capacity to tell ourselves the story about why what we're doing doesn't represent dishonesty in any way."
Though we may lavish our indignation on the practice, lying certainly isn't rare. During a 10-minute conversation between two strangers, 60% lied at least once, Feldman reported in a 2002 study in the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology. Those liars told an average of two to three fibs.
Though men were more likely to lie to make themselves feel good, women more often lied to make their conversation partner feel good. Either way, Feldman said, the urge to make oneself likable and competent was a powerful motivator.
To lie in the first place, as well as to keep the lie going over time, requires two things: motivation and justification. Whether the motivation is money, fame, status or the high esteem of others, it must be counterbalanced with enough justification that we can sustain our image of ourselves as good people, said Shaul Shalvi, a psychologist at Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
In his lab in the Negev desert, Shalvi found evidence that when faced with an opportunity to lie, subjects made a quick but precise calculation of that balance. Study participants were shown to a quiet place and given a die to roll. What they came up with on their first roll would determine their reward, they were told: the higher the roll, the more money they would be given.
When given three chances to roll, subjects frequently lied, reporting not the value of their first roll but of their highest roll, Shalvi and colleagues found. But when they had only one chance to roll the die, far fewer of them lied: Given a single, clear outcome, subjects could not "fudge" the truth with the justification that they had, after all, gotten a higher number at some point in the game. The results were published last year in the journal Psychological Science.
For Lance Armstrong, Shalvi said, the decision to lie could have been easy. With much to gain — and hence, high motivation — Armstrong could tell himself he was inspiring people with his story of triumph over cancer; that he was using his fame and money to help cancer patients and find a cure; that he was universally admired for his grit and his skill as an athlete and a team leader.
Armstrong probably drew on these lofty accomplishments not only to justify his denials of using banned substances, Shalvi said: They would probably have been a crucial piece of personal armor as Armstrong lashed out at those who crossed him, telling lies and filing lawsuits that hurt teammates and backers.
Not all of us tell lies so big, or for so long, Shalvi said. Some of us are also cognitively better equipped to lie — and therefore, more likely to do so.
In a series of experiments, Ariely and Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School assessed a wide range of cognitive skills in a group of volunteers and then put them through a battery of challenges that gave them ample opportunity to lie and cheat. Those subjects who had scored highest on attributes such as creativity and flexible thinking — but not intelligence — were most likely to engage in deceitful behavior. And when subjects were encouraged to think creatively as they completed the tasks, they were more likely to take shortcuts and stray from the truth.
"Not only do naturally creative people cheat more than uncreative people," Ariely and Gino wrote in a 2011 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Subjects cajoled into thinking outside the box became cheaters too. This suggests that the creative process isn't just tied to dishonest behavior: It actually enables it."
People who are highly creative appear to have the vision and the flexibility of mind to find justifications for their deceptions, and quickly, Ariely said. For Armstrong, whose racing style suggests he was creative and flexible in taking advantage of openings to victory, those same qualities might have allowed him freer rein not only in concocting deceptions, but in justifying them to himself.
"This is how lies become self-perpetuating," Ariely said.
melissa.healy@latimes.com

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times