A delayed response to Marc's post about the Superbowl. The short answer is NO, I 'm not looking forward to the Superbowl. The reasons are similar to yours Marc:
1. The story lines aren't compelling for me. The brothers coaching against each other ... ok. Ray Lewis ascending into eternal stardom in closing out his fairytale career ... yeah. Colin Kaepernick (sp?) turning down a huge baseball opportunity for his shot at the NFL ... who cares. None of these stories have captured my attention compared to the Lance Armstrong debacle or even Tiger winning again at Torrey Pines.
2. I'm not too interested in the teams. The Baltimore Ravens are slightly more interesting than the 49ers, but only slightly. Their roads to the Superbowl were ... typical. 49ers are 5-0 in previous Superbowls. The Ravens are a wild card team and the wild card team has won the last two Superbowls! These are not compelling headlines unless the sun rises and sets for you in your Ravens or 49ers sweatshirt.
3. I don't care who wins. When I want one team to win and win big over the other that makes the game more exciting for me. Example: "I hope the Patriots get tarred and feathered today against the Saints! Can't stand that pr*ck Belicheck, I want to see his post-game pout last for an hour!" Just writing the quote got me fired up.
4. The hype of the Superbowl is out of this world. And with that comes expectation, big expectation. That's a high bar to get over. The game has to come down to the last drive, the commercials are supposed to be outrageous and funny, the food and friends you enjoy the game with are supposed to make the event one of the biggest of the year. Like I said, big expectations often precede big disappointments.
So will I watch the Superbowl? Do I hope to see a good game on a big TV while enjoying a cold beer and some tasty appetizers with my family and some great friends? Sure.
But I'm keeping my expectations low so that the probability that the event will meet or exceed my expectations is much higher.
Say it with me ...
BUD...WEIS...ERRRR
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Personal Motivation
I'll begin by telling you that I had the same New Year's resolution that 75% of the US population had - lose some weight. Nothing unique or inherently interesting about that.
But what might be slightly more interesting is examining my source for personal motivation to actually achieve some weight loss. And for my inspiration I turned to another family member (Mom) who wanted the same and conjured up a challenge - some healthy competition.
Why, you ask? Because I realize and know that COMPETITION is an excellent source of personal motivation for me. I thrive on competition. Less so today than in the past, but it still makes up a big part of my recipe for personal motivation and engagement.
Another source for personal motivation is ACCOMPLISHMENT. I like to see things crossed off on my 'to do' list. I enjoy logging a workout on MapMyRide way more than I actually like to work out.
Another source of motivation for me is MY FAMILY. I would do anything for my family - Anything. Now that's not saying that I will stay home and clean the house rather than go fishing just because Holly wants me to. But if it is really important to my family then it becomes really important for me. And if it's really important then I am motivated. Simple as that.
Another more controversial motivation for me is STATUS. I want to be perceived as doing good things in the eyes of others. I have a strong desire for being respected, highly regarded. Not necessarily liked, there is a difference. I suppose I'm like most in believing I'm not average - I'm better than average but that is back to the competitive gene that was mentioned above.
Now I'm certain that as I write this post that I'm missing some characteristics of my personal motivation formula. But I'm even more interested in Marc and Brad's formulas and how they might compare to mine.
So what's your formula for personal motivation?
But what might be slightly more interesting is examining my source for personal motivation to actually achieve some weight loss. And for my inspiration I turned to another family member (Mom) who wanted the same and conjured up a challenge - some healthy competition.
Why, you ask? Because I realize and know that COMPETITION is an excellent source of personal motivation for me. I thrive on competition. Less so today than in the past, but it still makes up a big part of my recipe for personal motivation and engagement.
Another source for personal motivation is ACCOMPLISHMENT. I like to see things crossed off on my 'to do' list. I enjoy logging a workout on MapMyRide way more than I actually like to work out.
Another source of motivation for me is MY FAMILY. I would do anything for my family - Anything. Now that's not saying that I will stay home and clean the house rather than go fishing just because Holly wants me to. But if it is really important to my family then it becomes really important for me. And if it's really important then I am motivated. Simple as that.
Another more controversial motivation for me is STATUS. I want to be perceived as doing good things in the eyes of others. I have a strong desire for being respected, highly regarded. Not necessarily liked, there is a difference. I suppose I'm like most in believing I'm not average - I'm better than average but that is back to the competitive gene that was mentioned above.
Now I'm certain that as I write this post that I'm missing some characteristics of my personal motivation formula. But I'm even more interested in Marc and Brad's formulas and how they might compare to mine.
So what's your formula for personal motivation?
Ed on College
The article that Marc referenced spurred a lot of different thoughts in me.
First, all educational institutions have a Return On Investment (ROI) and that in my opinion needs to be a key data point for deciding where one should go to school. Marc did a good job of sharing key points about "degree mill" universities. But what about Harvard, the University of Chicago, or the University of Iowa? Each has a reputation and a cost. Each offers their students a distinctly different experience. I've told Haley that I want her "to go to the best school she can get into". Is that good advice? I guess it comes down to what factors you consider to come up with your definition of "best school". That's my point on ROI.
So my next point is what SHOULD be the factors in where someone decides to attend school. Here's a list of potential factors:
First, all educational institutions have a Return On Investment (ROI) and that in my opinion needs to be a key data point for deciding where one should go to school. Marc did a good job of sharing key points about "degree mill" universities. But what about Harvard, the University of Chicago, or the University of Iowa? Each has a reputation and a cost. Each offers their students a distinctly different experience. I've told Haley that I want her "to go to the best school she can get into". Is that good advice? I guess it comes down to what factors you consider to come up with your definition of "best school". That's my point on ROI.
So my next point is what SHOULD be the factors in where someone decides to attend school. Here's a list of potential factors:
- Location - lots of students want to get away for college, explore their independence, others just want to go someplace warm.
- Reputation - the best example here seems to be Harvard. There is no question when you get a degree from Harvard that most don't even care what you majored in. Harvard = Smart. Another example is your local community college. The fact that they tend to be the "default option" for most students does play into their reputation. This isn't a knock on CCs because I know many that go this route for financial reasons and not knowing what they want to do, but they do tend to be a stepping stone to something else rather than a destination choice.
- Major - most schools have reputations for being a great business school, engineering school, journalism school, law school. You get the point but students need to consider what they think they want to major in and then narrow their list based on those who have the strongest reputation in that field of study.
- Cost - this isn't ROI, but it is part of the formula. This has become a little like buying a car - don't just focus on the sticker price, but negotiate for financial support (scholarships, grants, loans) and attempt to calculate what the REAL net cost is of attending.
- Size - some students want a smaller and more intimate college experience, others want lots of kids their age.
- Campus visit - which school did you connect with and which school connected with you? I would say this is often the difference maker among top choices. My only experience here is private high school consideration and the difference maker for both Haley and Alex was the shadow experience. When they went to the school and shadowed another student for the day.
Just for fun, here's a few that in my opinion SHOULD NOT be factors in where someone decides to go to school:
- How the school colors look on my skin tone - this is a contribution from my daughter Haley. Love it!
- It's where (fill in the blank) went - this pains me a little, but just because it was a good choice for your parent, friend, etc. doesn't make it a good fit for you. Gotta make your own choices.
- Climate - while location may be a consideration I don't think "it's warmer than where I live now" isn't a reasonable factor for consideration.
- Athletic supremacy - this is a knock on those who grew up liking Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide or Michigan's Fab Five. Endearing yes, a good reason to want to go to a school, no.
One of the primary things I learned in college was how to manage my independence. I didn't always make the right choices but each choice I made I learned from.
Like most young adults, my undergraduate experience was an incredible time of growth and personal development in my life. But admittedly when I think about how I chose to go the University of Iowa I would say I was just like most 17 year old kids ... I didn't give my college choice the thought and attention it deserved given it is such a big life decision.
Better to be lucky than good.
Monday, January 28, 2013
College thoughts
Ed sent an email with an article by Mark Cuban about college. It was a good read. Here are some somewhat random thoughts based loosely on the article:
1) There is no doubt that college is a business. It's very apparent in the military environment where all four military services provide 100% tuition to their members (I should add that the Navy has put its tuition assistance on hold due to the impending government budget cuts). Colleges look at the military as a pool of free money. I'm convinced that some universities, such as American Military University (AMU), make all of their money from government tuition assistance provided to military members. That leads to my next point.
2) The problem with the current state of college education is that the desire to get a degree fast and cheap has led some institutions to prostitute themselves. You guys all know that they are referred to as "degree mills" and you may have more experience with that than I do because of your work in the HR industry. I read an article recently about HR execs in some of the major corporations in America and how they view degrees from certain schools. And the answer is that in their minds, some degrees are garbage. The one that comes immediately to mind is Phoenix University, which advertises heavily about the speed with which you can finish a degree. They are a for-profit university, and that in and of itself says a lot. I know a LOT of military people that attend AMU, and I feel sorry for them. I've done my research and AMU does NOT have a good reputation among employers.
3) Having said all of that, you have to consider for what your degree will be used. My bachelors is from Excelsior College which doesn't have the best reputation in the world. But it's accredited, and I basically wanted it to qualify for a Masters program and for Navy Officer programs. "Accredited" was the only requirement for both of those desires. Sometimes a degree is just the ticket that gets you into the dance. For example, there are very talented musicians that are more than qualified to teach music. However, you're never going to be considered for a music teaching position unless you have a degree in music. It's like a prerequisite.
4) Online learning is definitely HUGE right now, but I don't think brick and mortar schools will ever go away. Having done my Masters degree online, I can say that there is an element of classroom learning that cannot be adequately simulated online, discussion boards be damned. Interacting with 20-50 words on a discussion board is not the same as interacting in person.
5) If nothing else, a college degree shows a persistence and dedication to something for a significant amount of time. That's gotta be worth something.
1) There is no doubt that college is a business. It's very apparent in the military environment where all four military services provide 100% tuition to their members (I should add that the Navy has put its tuition assistance on hold due to the impending government budget cuts). Colleges look at the military as a pool of free money. I'm convinced that some universities, such as American Military University (AMU), make all of their money from government tuition assistance provided to military members. That leads to my next point.
2) The problem with the current state of college education is that the desire to get a degree fast and cheap has led some institutions to prostitute themselves. You guys all know that they are referred to as "degree mills" and you may have more experience with that than I do because of your work in the HR industry. I read an article recently about HR execs in some of the major corporations in America and how they view degrees from certain schools. And the answer is that in their minds, some degrees are garbage. The one that comes immediately to mind is Phoenix University, which advertises heavily about the speed with which you can finish a degree. They are a for-profit university, and that in and of itself says a lot. I know a LOT of military people that attend AMU, and I feel sorry for them. I've done my research and AMU does NOT have a good reputation among employers.
3) Having said all of that, you have to consider for what your degree will be used. My bachelors is from Excelsior College which doesn't have the best reputation in the world. But it's accredited, and I basically wanted it to qualify for a Masters program and for Navy Officer programs. "Accredited" was the only requirement for both of those desires. Sometimes a degree is just the ticket that gets you into the dance. For example, there are very talented musicians that are more than qualified to teach music. However, you're never going to be considered for a music teaching position unless you have a degree in music. It's like a prerequisite.
4) Online learning is definitely HUGE right now, but I don't think brick and mortar schools will ever go away. Having done my Masters degree online, I can say that there is an element of classroom learning that cannot be adequately simulated online, discussion boards be damned. Interacting with 20-50 words on a discussion board is not the same as interacting in person.
5) If nothing else, a college degree shows a persistence and dedication to something for a significant amount of time. That's gotta be worth something.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Are you looking forward to the Superbowl?
I gotta be honest, the real reason I'm writing this blog is just to get something posted while Brad is gone gallivanting across the world's mountain tops. If Brad can climb 20,000 feet, the least I can do is crank out a blog!The Superbowl will be a real test of my "conference fan" theory that you guys have heard me talk about before. Yes, I'm a Steelers fan, but I'm also an AFC North fan, which unfortunately includes the Baltimore Ravens and Ray Lewis.
I kind of like the 49ers for some reason, and I wouldn't mind seeing them win, but I always pull for the AFC, so I should be pulling for the Ravens. The reality is that I wouldn't dislike the Ravens half as much as I do if Ray Lewis weren't on the team. You guys have heard me rant about him enough that I don't need to explain why I don't like him.
But it's not just that I don't like him. Since he has announced his retirement, I have no doubt that the Superbowl cameras will be zoomed in on him about 75% of the time during the game. It's gonna get old really quickly. And to make it worse, the 25% of the time that the cameras won't be on him, they will be on one of the coaches, or better yet, both of them at the same time (split screen). We might not get to see any of the actual football.
So I guess I'm just not that excited about the Superbowl this year. Even the commercials have been mediocre the last few years.
I guess I'll just look forward to the food.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Another one bites the dust
I agree with both of you and your thoughts on Armstrong. The whole thing is a disaster, and it sucks all around. I don't mean to make this all about me, but it has ruined my favorite moment in sports: "The Look".
Every time something like this happens we all lose a little bit of faith in humanity. Yes, it's partially our own fault. We build people up as infallible, perfect people, and then it's that much harder when we watch them fall. It's not just professional athletes, but movie stars, business leaders, even relatives. I know it's cliche, but it's a reminder to me that people are people. Regardless of what social or economic strata people are in, they are tempted by the same evils and grapple with the same difficulties that we all do. And they can fail, just like we do.
As you pointed out Brad, the unforgivable part in this Armstrong deal is the path of destruction that he left in his doping denials. I don't know, maybe he just got so deep in the lie that he felt like he couldn't get out. Maybe he looked around and saw the good that was coming out of his success on the bike and convinced himself that he could do whatever it took to cover the lies. But lies to cover up lies never make it better. Leaders who succumb to the Bathsheba Syndrome have an inflated belief in personal ability to control outcomes. It sounds like that was Lance Armstrong, and he DID try to control the outcomes for a long time, successfully might I add. Look at some of the "lessons learned" from the Bathsheba Syndrome article in the context of Lance Armstrong:
- Perpetrating an unethical act is a personal, conscious choice on the part of the leader that frequently places a greater emphasis on personal gratification rather than on the organization's needs.
- It is difficult if not impossible to partake in unethical behavior without implicating and/or involving others in the organization.
- Attempts to cover-up unethical practices can have dire organizational consequences including innocent people getting hurt, power being abused, trust being violated, other individuals being corrupted, and the diversion of needed resources.
- No getting caught initially can produce self-delusion and increase the likelihood of future unethical behavior.
- Getting caught can destroy the leader, the organization, innocent people, and everything the leader has spent his/her life working for.
Sound about right?
And now the scrutiny and the lawsuits will begin. Livestrong is going to be picked over with a fine-tooth comb. And it won't survive. Lance will spend more time in court in the next 10 years than he's spent on the bike in the last 20. Within three years he'll be broke.
And one more thing… you think it can't get any worse for cycling, but it will. Armstrong's only hope for income now is his OWN tell-all book. He's gonna dime out every doctor, urine collector, dope runner, coach, teammate, sponsor… that ever was aware of his doping. If they haven't come clean already, everyone who is dirty better do it quickly, because the whole shebang is about ready to be unveiled.
The end does NOT justify the means. I'll have to write later about the concept of sacrificing for the greater good. That's a doozy.
January is off to a good start. Our numbers dropped in 2012. Don't let it happen again punks.
2012 YiR, 2013 goals
Well 2012 was a big darn whiff on goals. I was 4 for 11 on goals with some advantageous scoring. To the good I feel like I stayed the course in my 2012 general priorities (moderation in diet, moderation in spending money, no clock punching at work, maximum time with family). 2012 was way different than I expected, but it was a great year for me and my family. Grand Canyon with brothers and Dad, Colorado with Sheila and the girls, and some professional successes were highlights.
On to 2013 and I’ve got some work to do. Probably sticking with the same general priorities, those are fairly strong guiding lights for me. I’ve decided to set my goals while I have plenty of time to think, aka a 12 day trip to Tanzania to climb Kilimanjaro. I’ll report back on goal specifics around February 1, but this trip has 2013 off to a great start. I’m getting to check one off the bucket list this year. More to come on Kili and 2013 in February.
Happy 3rd birthday
To our blog on January 7th. Man there's a lot of BS in here. My brothers sure are full of it.
Ed on 2013
Loved Marc's post and perspective on 2013. On my list for this year I have three things I want to do and three things I don't want to do. I'm not going to intro my 2013 list any further than that. Just going to put 'em out here.
1. Let go, let God.
2. Support others.
3. Keep learning.
4. Find my fit.
5. Bike more.
6. Less fizz.
I sure hope that 2013 will be a better year than 2012!
1. Let go, let God.
2. Support others.
3. Keep learning.
4. Find my fit.
5. Bike more.
6. Less fizz.
I sure hope that 2013 will be a better year than 2012!
Ed on Lance
I have to admit that when the story first broke of Lance and his admission that I was still in his corner. But now I'm not. Candidly, when the story first broke about Joe Paterno and Penn State I was in his corner as well. Now, I'm not.
It sucks to see famous people (politicians, athletes, etc) build up a persona of being great only to see this perception crash when the REAL story unfolds. We all like great stories and Lance's story seemed to have all the elements we crave. Unfortunate the story that was being told is pure fiction.
I don't feel sorry for Lance; I feel sorry for his fans and those who supported him and his causes. People like me who thought he was better than that. Turns out, he isn't.
I agree with you Brad that you don't get a free pass for doing good; and while what Lance did had some good in it - those ends don't justify the means. I'm not sure what the final consequence will be for Lance but surely the verdict must parallel the crime. That said I'm not sure what that looks like. Pay back some of the fortune? Ok, but locking up a killer won't bring back those who lost their life. I can't imagine anything that will even begin to repair the damage he's done.
Surely people gave to LiveStrong in part (maybe large part) because of Lance. But they also gave to help others. Hopefully we don't find out the money wasn't used to help others. And as long as it went for what it was intended then there is some saving grace in that. Will people actually want their money back because Lance lied? I hope not. And if they do, then that's unfortunate.
What about cycling? Many have said I don't care about it. I care about it. And I care about sports and the integrity of the competition they represent. And while its a side story in the Lance debacle I would like to postulate on how to repair a sport that is clearly among the dirtiest of all sports. Doping is rampant in cycling. I haven't heard a single person refute that. And as is the case with most things, it starts at the top. Lance was the most famous in his sport. And now you've got him. But who's going to clean up the anti-doping agencies, the associations and governing bodies of international cycling, their policies and the consequences of cheating with PEDs? If someone can find an amicable solution it could serve as a guiding post for other sports.
We've all seen the rise and fall of our child and adulthood heroes. Most of mine have been athletes. Sports are being challenged in ways never seen before. Whether its their violent nature and physical injury risk (MMA, football) - the cheating (cycling, boxing, baseball) - the equity (hockey, basketball) or just how extreme they've become (X-games, triathlons) the world is stark crazy for sport. It's big money and big business.
I wish we could all go back to a world where sports was limited to recreational little league. In my mind that is the closest thing to pure sports good with bad in the recipe. Where a win or a loss was short lived, where the cheers were genuine and without a price for admission, where kids wanted to come and learned essential life skills, and where the fun of playing the game was at its peak. Ah, the good ole days!
We can't go back there, but as self proclaimed sports fanatic I'm disgusted by story lines like Lance. It's time to rethink our investments in sports and vote with our pocketbook on those that we support and don't support in the future.
But I suspect most will just watch the excerpts from Oprah, revel in another fallen athlete, and then start stocking up on Michelob Ultra for the big game in a couple of weeks.
It sucks to see famous people (politicians, athletes, etc) build up a persona of being great only to see this perception crash when the REAL story unfolds. We all like great stories and Lance's story seemed to have all the elements we crave. Unfortunate the story that was being told is pure fiction.
I don't feel sorry for Lance; I feel sorry for his fans and those who supported him and his causes. People like me who thought he was better than that. Turns out, he isn't.
I agree with you Brad that you don't get a free pass for doing good; and while what Lance did had some good in it - those ends don't justify the means. I'm not sure what the final consequence will be for Lance but surely the verdict must parallel the crime. That said I'm not sure what that looks like. Pay back some of the fortune? Ok, but locking up a killer won't bring back those who lost their life. I can't imagine anything that will even begin to repair the damage he's done.
Surely people gave to LiveStrong in part (maybe large part) because of Lance. But they also gave to help others. Hopefully we don't find out the money wasn't used to help others. And as long as it went for what it was intended then there is some saving grace in that. Will people actually want their money back because Lance lied? I hope not. And if they do, then that's unfortunate.
What about cycling? Many have said I don't care about it. I care about it. And I care about sports and the integrity of the competition they represent. And while its a side story in the Lance debacle I would like to postulate on how to repair a sport that is clearly among the dirtiest of all sports. Doping is rampant in cycling. I haven't heard a single person refute that. And as is the case with most things, it starts at the top. Lance was the most famous in his sport. And now you've got him. But who's going to clean up the anti-doping agencies, the associations and governing bodies of international cycling, their policies and the consequences of cheating with PEDs? If someone can find an amicable solution it could serve as a guiding post for other sports.
We've all seen the rise and fall of our child and adulthood heroes. Most of mine have been athletes. Sports are being challenged in ways never seen before. Whether its their violent nature and physical injury risk (MMA, football) - the cheating (cycling, boxing, baseball) - the equity (hockey, basketball) or just how extreme they've become (X-games, triathlons) the world is stark crazy for sport. It's big money and big business.
I wish we could all go back to a world where sports was limited to recreational little league. In my mind that is the closest thing to pure sports good with bad in the recipe. Where a win or a loss was short lived, where the cheers were genuine and without a price for admission, where kids wanted to come and learned essential life skills, and where the fun of playing the game was at its peak. Ah, the good ole days!
We can't go back there, but as self proclaimed sports fanatic I'm disgusted by story lines like Lance. It's time to rethink our investments in sports and vote with our pocketbook on those that we support and don't support in the future.
But I suspect most will just watch the excerpts from Oprah, revel in another fallen athlete, and then start stocking up on Michelob Ultra for the big game in a couple of weeks.
Lance Armstrong - so where are we now?
Well he did it. We all already knew that, but it is still stunning to have him reverse course after all these years of denying using PEDs. But reconciling the PED use in a dirty sport (it seems they are all dirty anymore, but that’s another post) is the easy part. He doped to be equal in his field, and he still was the best. But who cares…not me.
The more difficult parts of this story to reconcile are his positive contributions to fighting cancer and his trampling of so many innocent people along the way. Let’s start with Live Strong.
Live Strong has raised somewhere around $500M for cancer research, education, and treatment. Stop right there and it’s hard to argue against that being a positive outcome. Unfortunately stopping there is ignoring a huge component of the story. That money was raised largely on lies, you should be thinking of another high profile example now. The name Greg Mortenson, the book 3 Cups of Tea, and the Central Asia Institute should be coming to mind. Greg Mortenson also did a tremendously positive thing, in his case building schools and educating girls in some of the most remote parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he did it largely with proceeds of selling a story that was not true. Does the end justify the means? I’m not sure it does. If Lance was a one time Tour winner would people have lined up to give money to his charity? No. If he admitted to doping would people who have given those dollars still given to Live Strong? In many cases no. Perhaps some of the money would have gone to the same cause through a different organization like the Jimmy V foundation, but there is some portion that at best would have gone to an unrelated cause or no cause at all. I still think Greg Mortenson did a great thing and don’t feel that way about Lance. The distinction is the negative collateral impact of their lies and denials.
The hardest part for me is the people Lance and his teams methodically worked to destroy during his years of denials. I heard a couple examples this morning on the radio, and it’s not dirtbags like Floyd Landis. It is hard working normal people like a message therapist for the USPS team who he destroyed in England where slander laws favor the famous. It is the two nurses who said they witnessed him admit to a doctor while he was receiving cancer treatment that he had doped and he sued and threatened. Does $500M to charity justify ruining the lives of everyday people? I don’t think so. To my knowledge Greg Mortenson’s lies only served to advance his mission and enrich himself. I don’t believe there was the collateral destruction of people’s lives along the way. And that is the distinction I make between these two stories.
This last piece is a popular topic on the big screen because it creates such divisive opinions and obviously from real life examples the drama factor is high. Anyone seen Indecent Proposal? It’s a bit off the current topic, but not too far. More relevant would be some of my favorite movies including A Few Good Men, Swordfish, and Shooter. Does the death of Private Santiago improving security of Americans justify his death? We want Jack Nicholson on that wall, we need him on that wall! For those that haven’t seen Swordfish there is a scene on a bus where John Travolta and Hugh Jackman are discussing whether the loss of innocent lives is justified by being able to advance a cause. Is 1 innocent life justifiable, how about 2, 5, 25, 100, 1,000 lives? You can find a similar scene in the movie Shooter between Mark Wahlberg Ned Beatty, and Danny Glover where they debate about the justification of killing innocent people in a foreign village to bring a pipeline through their area that would provide tremendous economic support. Interestingly enough, these are all examples of a government’s action. Lance’s example is of a private citizen. But wait, he did ride for USPS! Okay, that’s a stretch and I digress.
I don’t want to trivialize this to a movie plot, rather to recognize how drawn our citizens are to such a topic. I guarantee you everyone in America has an opinion about Lance Armstrong this morning. My opinion: I don’t care that he cheated, I don’t care about cycling. But I don’t think he’s a great guy because he raised some money based on his cheating and lies and I think it is unconscionable to justify the destruction of some innocent people to raise some bucks for cancer.
The more difficult parts of this story to reconcile are his positive contributions to fighting cancer and his trampling of so many innocent people along the way. Let’s start with Live Strong.
Live Strong has raised somewhere around $500M for cancer research, education, and treatment. Stop right there and it’s hard to argue against that being a positive outcome. Unfortunately stopping there is ignoring a huge component of the story. That money was raised largely on lies, you should be thinking of another high profile example now. The name Greg Mortenson, the book 3 Cups of Tea, and the Central Asia Institute should be coming to mind. Greg Mortenson also did a tremendously positive thing, in his case building schools and educating girls in some of the most remote parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he did it largely with proceeds of selling a story that was not true. Does the end justify the means? I’m not sure it does. If Lance was a one time Tour winner would people have lined up to give money to his charity? No. If he admitted to doping would people who have given those dollars still given to Live Strong? In many cases no. Perhaps some of the money would have gone to the same cause through a different organization like the Jimmy V foundation, but there is some portion that at best would have gone to an unrelated cause or no cause at all. I still think Greg Mortenson did a great thing and don’t feel that way about Lance. The distinction is the negative collateral impact of their lies and denials.
The hardest part for me is the people Lance and his teams methodically worked to destroy during his years of denials. I heard a couple examples this morning on the radio, and it’s not dirtbags like Floyd Landis. It is hard working normal people like a message therapist for the USPS team who he destroyed in England where slander laws favor the famous. It is the two nurses who said they witnessed him admit to a doctor while he was receiving cancer treatment that he had doped and he sued and threatened. Does $500M to charity justify ruining the lives of everyday people? I don’t think so. To my knowledge Greg Mortenson’s lies only served to advance his mission and enrich himself. I don’t believe there was the collateral destruction of people’s lives along the way. And that is the distinction I make between these two stories.
This last piece is a popular topic on the big screen because it creates such divisive opinions and obviously from real life examples the drama factor is high. Anyone seen Indecent Proposal? It’s a bit off the current topic, but not too far. More relevant would be some of my favorite movies including A Few Good Men, Swordfish, and Shooter. Does the death of Private Santiago improving security of Americans justify his death? We want Jack Nicholson on that wall, we need him on that wall! For those that haven’t seen Swordfish there is a scene on a bus where John Travolta and Hugh Jackman are discussing whether the loss of innocent lives is justified by being able to advance a cause. Is 1 innocent life justifiable, how about 2, 5, 25, 100, 1,000 lives? You can find a similar scene in the movie Shooter between Mark Wahlberg Ned Beatty, and Danny Glover where they debate about the justification of killing innocent people in a foreign village to bring a pipeline through their area that would provide tremendous economic support. Interestingly enough, these are all examples of a government’s action. Lance’s example is of a private citizen. But wait, he did ride for USPS! Okay, that’s a stretch and I digress.
I don’t want to trivialize this to a movie plot, rather to recognize how drawn our citizens are to such a topic. I guarantee you everyone in America has an opinion about Lance Armstrong this morning. My opinion: I don’t care that he cheated, I don’t care about cycling. But I don’t think he’s a great guy because he raised some money based on his cheating and lies and I think it is unconscionable to justify the destruction of some innocent people to raise some bucks for cancer.
Monday, January 14, 2013
2013: Doing What I Don't Want to Do
After contemplating what I was hoping to accomplish in 2013, and experiencing some difficulties in the past week or two (no need to elaborate), I've come to the conclusion that this year will be the year of doing what I don't want to do.
I'm an adult, and it's time to start acting like it and doing the hard stuff: exercising, flossing (yes, I'm confessing, I don't floss!), studying, saying no to too much junk food, fixing things that need fixed, confronting problems when they arise, saying no to some spending... that's a start.
So every day I'm hoping to wake up and ask myself what I DON'T want to do that day, and then set about with a plan to do it. When I go to bed, I want to think about what I DIDN'T do, and evaluate whether or not the reason that I didn't do it was because of something like a time constraint, or simply because I didn't want to. The former is okay. The latter is not.
Here's to a year of doing what I don't want to do!
I'm an adult, and it's time to start acting like it and doing the hard stuff: exercising, flossing (yes, I'm confessing, I don't floss!), studying, saying no to too much junk food, fixing things that need fixed, confronting problems when they arise, saying no to some spending... that's a start.
So every day I'm hoping to wake up and ask myself what I DON'T want to do that day, and then set about with a plan to do it. When I go to bed, I want to think about what I DIDN'T do, and evaluate whether or not the reason that I didn't do it was because of something like a time constraint, or simply because I didn't want to. The former is okay. The latter is not.
Here's to a year of doing what I don't want to do!
Friday, January 11, 2013
Signs
I believe in signs. Our world, our environ, our faith, the life through which we pass tries to provide messages about our lives and direction. I’ve recently experienced 2 examples:
Example #1: It’s been a bit hectic personally and professionally, time has been at a premium. I will clarify that it has been totally self induced. Relaxing holiday time off, work/fun travel, and an international dream trip to Kilimanjaro have me scrambling throughout my day. Well I received a call from a Coralville police officer yesterday. I apparently drove past a stopped school bus on a three lane (2 the direction I was driving, one the other) road. I wasn’t very happy, especially when I found out that is a mandatory citation, a mandatory court appearance, and likely a several hundred dollar fine. When I got home at 9:30pm from another long work day frustrated by this situation and the time and money it would cost me, Sheila was watching Rock Center. The story was about texting while driving laws and was sharing the story of a family’s loss due to the carelessness of texting in a vehicle.
The call, the ticket, the punishment of not only money but time(a resource which is more scarce for me many times than money), and the story of the dangers of distracted driving. I think it all means I need to slow down a bit and pay attention to what I’m doing, especially in a car. And just for clarification I DO NOT text and drive. A sign nonetheless.
Example #2: I’ve been planning/discussing/researching a mountain biking trip with a friend and neighbor. We’ve gone back and forth on when and how (self supported or supported, guided or non-guided). We want to go on the 142 mile Kokopelli trail from Fruita, CO to Moab, UT but weren’t sure if the timing, location would match with schedules and family commitments. Blah, blah, blah, a bunch of talking and not much action. Hell, I don’t even have a mountain bike!
This weekend I was reading a blog I enjoy and of course there was the obligatory new year’s resolution topics. But this article was different, instead urging making plans, not resolutions. It shared a story of a man who took action every new year: booking a flight, scheduling a class, acquiring gear needed for the next adventure. Then this was next:
“So are we dreaming, or are we making plans? There’s a big difference between broadcasting something about someday riding the Kokopelli Trail and sending one close friend a rough itinerary and asking, What are you doing the weekend of April 20th?”
Wow, that looks like a sign. So I wrote my buddy an email that said, “A sign. See link. What are you doing April 25-28?.” And you know what, we’ve got ourselves a little mountain bike trip cooked up!
Life is hectic and harried, it is easy to get on the treadmill of life and lose control and awareness of where you are going, what you are doing, those you are impacting. But our world has a beautiful way of communicating with us, and we only need to be aware and “listen”. What is our world saying to you?
Example #1: It’s been a bit hectic personally and professionally, time has been at a premium. I will clarify that it has been totally self induced. Relaxing holiday time off, work/fun travel, and an international dream trip to Kilimanjaro have me scrambling throughout my day. Well I received a call from a Coralville police officer yesterday. I apparently drove past a stopped school bus on a three lane (2 the direction I was driving, one the other) road. I wasn’t very happy, especially when I found out that is a mandatory citation, a mandatory court appearance, and likely a several hundred dollar fine. When I got home at 9:30pm from another long work day frustrated by this situation and the time and money it would cost me, Sheila was watching Rock Center. The story was about texting while driving laws and was sharing the story of a family’s loss due to the carelessness of texting in a vehicle.
The call, the ticket, the punishment of not only money but time(a resource which is more scarce for me many times than money), and the story of the dangers of distracted driving. I think it all means I need to slow down a bit and pay attention to what I’m doing, especially in a car. And just for clarification I DO NOT text and drive. A sign nonetheless.
Example #2: I’ve been planning/discussing/researching a mountain biking trip with a friend and neighbor. We’ve gone back and forth on when and how (self supported or supported, guided or non-guided). We want to go on the 142 mile Kokopelli trail from Fruita, CO to Moab, UT but weren’t sure if the timing, location would match with schedules and family commitments. Blah, blah, blah, a bunch of talking and not much action. Hell, I don’t even have a mountain bike!
This weekend I was reading a blog I enjoy and of course there was the obligatory new year’s resolution topics. But this article was different, instead urging making plans, not resolutions. It shared a story of a man who took action every new year: booking a flight, scheduling a class, acquiring gear needed for the next adventure. Then this was next:
“So are we dreaming, or are we making plans? There’s a big difference between broadcasting something about someday riding the Kokopelli Trail and sending one close friend a rough itinerary and asking, What are you doing the weekend of April 20th?”
Wow, that looks like a sign. So I wrote my buddy an email that said, “A sign. See link. What are you doing April 25-28?.” And you know what, we’ve got ourselves a little mountain bike trip cooked up!
Life is hectic and harried, it is easy to get on the treadmill of life and lose control and awareness of where you are going, what you are doing, those you are impacting. But our world has a beautiful way of communicating with us, and we only need to be aware and “listen”. What is our world saying to you?
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Coaching Changes
This post will reflect the lighter side of content on this blog since I've been putting some pretty heavy stuff out there lately.
Yesterday eight NFL head coaches lost their jobs. And six GM's of NFL franchises lost their jobs. Most were expected, a couple we not as easy to forecast. Wow, black Monday for sure. So what do I make of all this? My mind is rambling so I'll challenge my fingers to keep up:
1. How many of these coaches knew they were going to get fired. How many of them knew their product was substandard and that surely they would not be retained? Lovie Smith surely didn't think a 10-6 season would culminate in his firing did he? As opposed to Romeo Crennel who surely knew he was going to be looking for another job.
2. Where is the accountability for wins and losses in the NFL. Does it solely rest with the GM and Head Coach? Yes, there were some secondary coaching changes yesterday as well. But did Matt Cassell get released? Or Jay Cutler? How about Tony Romo? Clearly all three of these QBs had more to do with wins and losses than their respective coaches right? How come there isn't a black Monday for players?
3. Succession planning in the NFL sucks. I didn't hear much about the up-and-comers stepping in to take these NFL vacancies. Nope. Instead I heard about a shuffling of the cards and a few collegiate coaches who may want to get into the act. Sure there's an occasional Offensive Coordinator who steps up but more often than not NFL teams choose to bring in some fresh meat. Bellicheck (please tell me I spelled his name wrong) and a few other head coaches are the exception, but because I have such disdain for him (to start he's a prick) I'll refrain from wasting any further space on him.
4. And finally, what can the University of Iowa learn from this? Yes, I'm going there. The contrast of mens sport programs couldn't be more pronounced. I'm so happy for Fran McCaffrey. I was among the non-believers along with everyone else. But now I'm one of the believers. He's changed me and countless other fans into believing in Iowa Mens Basketball again. But isn't that his job? Fans, we're fickle.
I'm of the belief every coaching staff has a shelf life. Some are longer than others but they all have a shelf life and an expiration date. Every one of them. Romeo Crennel's shelf life in KC was shorter than a discounted bunch of bananas from Price Chopper. Sorry, but I'm not sure he ever should have been given the head coaching job. Hayden Fry (probably my most beloved coach of all time) also stayed past his expiration date. Bummer. Kirk Ferentz shouldn't do the same.
I'm hoping we get Lovie Smith in KC, but that has about as much of a chance of happening as Scott Pioli keeping his job through the 2013 season.
Yesterday eight NFL head coaches lost their jobs. And six GM's of NFL franchises lost their jobs. Most were expected, a couple we not as easy to forecast. Wow, black Monday for sure. So what do I make of all this? My mind is rambling so I'll challenge my fingers to keep up:
1. How many of these coaches knew they were going to get fired. How many of them knew their product was substandard and that surely they would not be retained? Lovie Smith surely didn't think a 10-6 season would culminate in his firing did he? As opposed to Romeo Crennel who surely knew he was going to be looking for another job.
2. Where is the accountability for wins and losses in the NFL. Does it solely rest with the GM and Head Coach? Yes, there were some secondary coaching changes yesterday as well. But did Matt Cassell get released? Or Jay Cutler? How about Tony Romo? Clearly all three of these QBs had more to do with wins and losses than their respective coaches right? How come there isn't a black Monday for players?
3. Succession planning in the NFL sucks. I didn't hear much about the up-and-comers stepping in to take these NFL vacancies. Nope. Instead I heard about a shuffling of the cards and a few collegiate coaches who may want to get into the act. Sure there's an occasional Offensive Coordinator who steps up but more often than not NFL teams choose to bring in some fresh meat. Bellicheck (please tell me I spelled his name wrong) and a few other head coaches are the exception, but because I have such disdain for him (to start he's a prick) I'll refrain from wasting any further space on him.
4. And finally, what can the University of Iowa learn from this? Yes, I'm going there. The contrast of mens sport programs couldn't be more pronounced. I'm so happy for Fran McCaffrey. I was among the non-believers along with everyone else. But now I'm one of the believers. He's changed me and countless other fans into believing in Iowa Mens Basketball again. But isn't that his job? Fans, we're fickle.
I'm of the belief every coaching staff has a shelf life. Some are longer than others but they all have a shelf life and an expiration date. Every one of them. Romeo Crennel's shelf life in KC was shorter than a discounted bunch of bananas from Price Chopper. Sorry, but I'm not sure he ever should have been given the head coaching job. Hayden Fry (probably my most beloved coach of all time) also stayed past his expiration date. Bummer. Kirk Ferentz shouldn't do the same.
I'm hoping we get Lovie Smith in KC, but that has about as much of a chance of happening as Scott Pioli keeping his job through the 2013 season.
2012 Revisited
While 2012 is officially behind us I have been meaning to document some really big positives from a year that on the surface offered far more challenge and adversity than anything else. But reflecting on 2012 and my tumultuous year I want to share the perspective and personal growth I gained from the past twelve months:
1. I'm closer to my wife and kids. With the unexpected time off I've had in 2012 I've gotten to know my family better. I better recognize their individual routines, preferences, and have become more engaged in their lives again. Not that I wasn't involved when I was working full-time, but work/routines have a way of just existing and perpetuating in parallel to one another. Not this year ... I know and love my family more than ever!
2. I'm stronger in my faith. 2012 was a church-going year for my family and me and I couldn't be more thrilled. Our church has provided stability, optimism and perspective for the unusual year that we've been through as a family. All of my kids were baptized and better recognize the importance that God, Jesus and the church have in our lives.
3. Once again we've been blessed with good health. Holly and I both got the "super-preferred" rate as we converted our insurance policies (1% of the population gets this healthy rate), so that was at least a small indication of our health status. And while I have to get back on the workout wagon after lagging in my exercise efforts, as a family we are strong and healthy. With some family and friends not so fortunate in 2012, this has once again been a true blessing for us.
4. Money isn't quite as important as I thought it was. I'm not going to say that it isn't important because that simply isn't true. But lets just say I was robustly in the camp of "money makes the world go round". I've altered my thinking just a little bit to "people make the world go round". Relationships and people are the source of happiness in life. Money is a great catalyst but by itself cannot generate happiness. So chart a path for happiness in all of your relationships and utilize money as a means of supporting your journey. That's my new view.
5. It seems crazy that 2012 would show as one of the best years for me in professional growth when I was unemployed for about two-thirds of the year. But my current employment status has provided me more time than I had hoped to reflect on the following questions:
- What do I really want to do professionally?
- Was I really happy doing what I was doing?
- What can or should I change professionally to be happier and more satisfied with my work?
6. Based on #3 above I ventured into my own business and have learned a great deal about myself and the business of making money. Sure, I have an MBA. But in spite of the efforts to make the classroom study real (case studies, etc.) there is nothing more real than actually doing it. The clients I've worked with have also taught me a lot also. Great experience and one that I'll continue with robustly in 2013 in some way, shape or form.
7. In my search for why 2012 happened in the way it did I've stumbled upon one other answer. You would think that the growth and development I've shared in the six bullet points above would surely be enough of an answer for why God would abruptly turn my professional and personal world upside down. But I believe there is one further point He was trying to make. And that is HUMILITY. This is personal to me because I've always thought I was in control of my own destiny. Maybe not totally, but close. Master of my own domain ... yeah right. It was the smack in the face required. And whether I want to admit it or not, the only way to shake me of this belief was a figurative 2x4 upside the head - something big that bloodied my old belief and screamed "hey dummy!" Well, that's what I got. The 2x4. It sure would have been nice if God had employed a figurative tap on the shoulder instead. But I know now that just wouldn't have worked with me.
So a long post worthy of closing out 2012 and ushering in 2013.
Fresh perspective, renewed optimism and adjusted purpose. I'm jumping into 2013 with both feet.
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)