Skip to content Skip to footer

Thoughts On Oil Addiction

Now that gas prices are "coming down" (yes, we feel just GREAT about $3.75/gallon... what!?) I don't sense the same urgency in the American populace to fix this problem that existed when it was $5. Of course, this placation was expected by most and predicted by many, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still a problem out there that was never solved. And we shouldn't be fooled: it's not fixed now just because we are ignoring it. I fear we are addicted to foreign oil, and maybe just oil in general. But in the words of the immutable LeVar Burton, you don't have to take my word for it! Please check out some or all of the links below. // T. Boone Pickens, the founder and chairman of BP Capital Management (which manages over $4 billion in energy-oriented investment funds) has created the Pickens Plan, which aims to develop clean energy solutions. Here's a great article from one of my favorite contemporary revolutionaries, Dr. Ron Paul: Big Government Responsible For High Gas Prices Newt Gingrich has also thrown his thoughts into this discussion, and although I'm not convinced that more drilling will be a long-term solution, it does seem like a reasonable band-aid, considering our current economic challenges. If you're a regular reader, you know I'm a big fan of Chris Martenson; he's a very level-headed proponent of financial literacy. Check out his very important explanation of what "peak oil" really is -- apparently, I had no idea! In my quest for the truth, I came across a documentary called A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash. This film is so obviously targeted towards proving its premise -- namely, that there will be an oil crash -- that it's earned a bit of skepticism from me (as I'm sure you've noticed, it is increasingly hard to decipher truth from propaganda). Nonetheless, it is very interesting and quite well-made. There's also an interesting intersection of the "climate crisis" with our oil addiction. Check out WE: There's no question this is a complex issue with many moving parts, but I think we all know that it won't be solved by ignoring it. I know I'm not really offering many, if any, real solutions in this post, but awareness is a good start. //

Lite-Brites, Sisyphus, & Expecting The Best

When in a position of leadership, how much does a leader's lack of faith in a subordinate actually create their downfall? Is there some kind of derivative of a self-fulfilling prophecy that happens here? To put it another way, will I, as a leader, only ever get as much as I expect out of the folks I try to lead? Is there some kind of projected glass ceiling of progress or productivity that I fabricate over their heads? Or can a leader's unwavering belief in a person actually help propel them towards success? I believe this to be true. I have personally been in a number of situations where it appears as though a protege simply needs someone else to believe in them... and, perhaps most, to believe in them even when they can't believe in themselves. I am hopefully always learning more about myself. It is one of my constant projects: to figure out why I act the way I do. One thing I have learned is that I'm so confined within my own skin that it's often a Sisyphean battle to even understand WHAT I'm doing half the time, as most of my movements have become completely rote programming. But every once in awhile something breaks through, and a light bulb turns on. I imagine I'm like one of those Lite-Brite machines from the 80's... eventually -- just maybe, someday -- I can light up enough LED's to actually get a complete picture of me. At the nonprofit I work with, we're currently looking for a person to take over our one of our departments. I've learned that I have an overwhelming tendency to be extremely optimistic when it comes to people. I always think they can accomplish great things, often more than they may even think. But at the same time, I've learned that a myopic view of only seeing "potential" and not necessarily "reality" can also have a dangerous edge. I know how crucial it is to have the "right people on the bus" and that making a hasty decision on the front end is a very costly error, in more ways than just financially. But as we look to add people to our staff, or to grow the participants we already have for that matter, isn't it more dangerous to set expectations too low, instead of too high? In any kind of relational setting, be it an organization or a friendship or a marriage, isn't there just something about the complete audacity of hope (to quote that other guy); hope that each person involved can change and grow and become more than they currently are? Isn't there just something grand about always looking for the best in people instead of expecting the worst?
The greater danger for most of us is not that we aim too high and miss it. Rather, it is that we aim too low and reach it." — Michelangelo
//

Why 'Unrealistic' Goals Are Easier To Achieve

By Tim Ferriss (excerpt from The 4-Hour Work Week) I had to bribe them. What other choice did I have? My lecture at Princeton had just ended with smiles and enthusiastic questions. At the same time, I knew that most students would go out and promptly do the opposite of what I preached. Most of them would be putting in 80-hour weeks as high-paid coffee fetchers unless I showed that the principles from class could actually be applied. Hence the challenge. I was offering a round-trip ticket anywhere in the world to anyone who could complete an undefined "challenge" in the most impressive fashion possible. Results plus style. I told them to meet me after class if interested, and here they were, nearly 20 out of 60 students. The task was designed to test their comfort zones while forcing them to use some of the tactics I teach. It was simplicity itself: contact three seemingly impossible-to-reach people — J Lo, Warren Buffett, Bill Clinton, J.D. Salinger, I don't care — and get at least one to reply to three questions... Of 20 students, all frothing at the mouth to win a free spin across the globe, how many completed it? Exactly... none. Not a one. // Bigger Goals = Less Competition There were many excuses: "It's not that easy to get someone to...", "I have a big paper due, and...," "I would love to, but there's no way I can..." There was but one real reason, however, repeated over and over again in different words: it was a difficult challenge, perhaps impossible, and the other students would out-do them. Since all of them overestimated the competition, no one even showed up. According to the default-win rules I had set, if someone had sent me no more than an illegible one-paragraph response, I would have been obligated to give them the prize. This result both fascinated and depressed me. The following year, the outcome was quite different. I told this cautionary tale and six out of 17 finished the challenge in less than 48 hours. Was the second class better? No. In fact, there were more capable students in the first class, but they did nothing. Firepower up the wazoo and no trigger finger. The second group just embraced what I told them before they started, which was... // Doing the Unrealistic is Easier Than Doing the Realistic From contacting billionaires [here’s how one reader did it] to rubbing elbows with celebrities—the second group of students did both—it's as easy as believing it can be done. It's lonely at the top. 99% of the world is convinced they are incapable of achieving great things, so they aim for the mediocre middle-ground. The level of competition is thus fiercest for "realistic" goals, paradoxically making them the most time- and energy-consuming. It is easier to raise $10,000,000 than it is $1,000,000. It is easier to pick up the one perfect 10 in the bar than the five 8s. If you are insecure, guess what? The rest of the world is too. Do not overestimate the competition and underestimate yourself. You are better than you think. Unreasonable and unrealistic goals are easier to achieve for yet another reason. Having an unusually large goal is an adrenaline infusion that provides the endurance to overcome the inevitable trials and tribulations that go along with any goal. Realistic goals, goals restricted to the average ambition level, are uninspiring and will only fuel you through the first or second problem, at which point you throw in the towel. If the potential payoff is mediocre or average, so is your effort. I'll run through walls to get a catamaran trip through the Greek islands, but I might not change my brand of cereal for a weekend trip through Columbus, Ohio. If I choose the latter because it is "realistic," I won't have the enthusiasm to jump even the smallest hurdle to accomplish it. With beautiful, crystal-clear Greek waters and delicious wine on the brain, I'm prepared to do battle for a dream that is worth dreaming. Even though their difficulty of achievement on a scale of 1-10 appears to be a 2 and a 10 respectively, Columbus is more likely to fall through. The fishing is best where the fewest go, and the collective insecurity of the world makes it easy for people to hit homeruns while everyone else is aiming for base hits. There is just less competition for bigger goals. (Excerpted from The 4-Hour Work Week by Tim Ferriss) //

The Millennial Melee

An increasing topic of interest to me (and, apparently, the rest of the world) is the melee that seems to surround Generation Y. I'm sure you know many of these folks, as they are born between 1980-2000; they go by a number of names, including Generation Y, Echo Boom, the Net Generation, Generation Me, Sunshine Generation, and Millennials. In their recent book Connecting to the Net.Generation, Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa found a few interesting facts about Gen Y by taking a survey of 7,705 US college students (info taken from Wikipedia):
  • 97% own a computer
  • 94% own a cell phone
  • 76% use Instant Messaging (and 15% of us IM users are logged on 24 hours a day/7 days a week)
  • 34% use websites as their primary source of news
  • 28% author a blog and 44% read blogs
  • 49% download music using peer-to-peer file sharing
  • 75% of college students have a Facebook account
  • 60% own some type of portable music and/or video device such as an iPod
It's easy to find negative spew about Gen Y all over the internet. But today I came across this article from the Harvard Business School and wanted to share it -- someone is finally paying attention to the positive qualities of Gen Y:
How Will Millennials Manage? by Jim Heskett
I was struck by the eloquence of Anonymous Commenter #4, who is describing some of the core values of a Millennial:
I am ambitious but not overly committed. I prefer to work as a consultant because I am not chained to one company. I am a problem solver by nature, and I want to get immediately to the problem solving. I'm not interested in meaningless titles, mine or anyone else's, and I'm not willing to enslave myself to attain a position with a great title and no depth of purpose. I don't want the appearance of success. I want the integral satisfaction of succeeding. I want to make a lot of money, but only if I have time to spend it, and I'm more interested in health care and vacation than bonuses that I'd have to work too much to get and work too much to enjoy. My family and my pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake are more important to me than any particular job, with any particular company. I have confidence in myself, my marketability, and my ability to put my nose to the grindstone when it is necessary. I'm interested in being as efficient and productive as possible, but not every second of every day, and not under someone else's thumb.
If you're a Millennial (born between or around 1980-2000) let me hear it; does this description sound like you? //

A New Way To Get Music?

The article I'm going to talk about is over a month old, but I just read it for the first time the other day, so 'round these parts (read: my blog) we get to treat it like news. ;-) Now, there are a lot of ways to get music. Some folks buy it from iTunes or some other digital equivalent. Some enjoy the "free-dom" of Limewire or a torrent. Some import CD's they bought way "back in the day" (like, circa 1999). Some listen to radio (AM/FM/XM/WWW). Some frequent the MySpace. "Piracy" has been a music industry buzzword since the days of Napster. It's also been the Industry's blatant and somewhat pathetic scapegoat for the fact that they simply didn't see the "digital age of music" coming. Well, almost a decade has now past since the lovable Shawn Fanning helped incite the music revolution, and the music biz has finally come up with an idea that just might work. If it flies, the thought is that it will preserve the Suit's high-paying executive job, pay the artists, and -- GASP -- maybe even create a workable solution for consumers. The idea, in a nutshell, is to provide consumers with an unlimited supply of music downloads for a monthly fee that will be bundled into their internet service charges. Here's the article that explains it more fully:
Fee For All Warner's New Web Guru
As always, critics already have their guns drawn, but I, for one, am having a hard time coming up with a downside to this agreement. I would GLADLY pay $5/month to get all the music I want, especially knowing that the artists I love would get paid! (Now, if we could only pay the artists fairly, that would really be something, eh?) But, existing within the current system, it's frankly the best idea I've heard in a long time. Am I missing something? //