On Boredom

A couple of my clients rescheduled last-minute so I found myself this morning with a rare not-busy few hours. Boredom set in instantly.

So I decided to pace the room and see what thoughts emerged. Here's what emanated. Perhaps you might find something in them of use:

• It's amazing how important being needed and busy is, at least for some people. 
• Relaxing and smelling the roses for more than a little time feels like a waste, not restorative, a waste. Life feels like it should, as much as possible, be about productivity, contribution.
• Busy people contemplating retirement, beware. It may be enticing to envision mornings lingering over a cup of coffee, reading the news, and organizing your living space, but that well may get old. Retirement tends to be like the roach motel: you can check in but you can't check out. 
•  Do I want to write another how-to book? No. I think people get more benefit per hour from reading article-length advice.
•  Do I want to do more volunteer work? No. My seeing pro-bono clients, speaking for free to groups of unemployed people, and significant cash donations feel like enough. 
• I worry that my charitable donations won't do enough good. I like funding unpopular causes that hold promise of making a huge difference, like education for the gifted and understanding the biological basis of intelligence. But my money is merely a drop of water into an ocean. Is there a better use of my money? 
• Is there something new I want to do? No, I just want to do a good job at what I already do: career and personal coaching, writing my USNews.com column and this blog, my radio show, being a good husband, answering all my email, being kind where I can, direct when it's wiser. Yes, that's enough.
• The New York Times reported yesterday that hospitals kill 440,000 people a year. In a few years when all those millions of high-need, low-paying people join the health care rolls thanks to ObamaCare, including the 11 million illegals when they become legal through "comprehensive immigration reform," many more will die--not just from the hospitals being overwhelmed but lack of access to doctors, MRI machines, operating rooms, etc. Ironic that not only am I subsidizing their health care, I have a greater chance of dying because masses of people came to the U.S. illegally.
• Despite being so disciplined about everything else, why I can I not stop overeating? I really should lose those 20 pounds, dammit.

Those are my musings during today's boring few hours. Care to share yours?

(Some) Employees: Bah, Humbug!

My last week's contribution to USNews.com was (Some) Employers, Bah Humbug!  This week, it's (Some) Employees: Bah Humbug!

Dying Well

I just put my mom in hospice and felt moved to write this.

At some point, we start thinking more about dying. Perhaps it’s when you get a serious diagnosis or your last parent dies leaving you next on the conveyor belt. In my case, as a lifelong hypochondriac and catastrophizer, I’ve been thinking about it since I was a child, a half-century ago.

What might dying well look like?

I suppose it starts with living well. If we are aware of our mortality and that time is our most valuable possession, we’re more conscious how we spend each moment: Should we work more, less, or on something else? Spend more or less time with certain people?

It’s probably time to make a will or, to avoid probate, a trust. Even if you’re poor, to whom or what organization do you want to leave your assets? Yes, you might want to leave it all to your family but it may be worth asking yourself if a charity or another individual might make better use of the money? Would leaving a substantial sum to a family member encourage sloth or profligacy?

Your will/trust should include an advance medical directive. For example, when you have an irreversible disease and are in bad pain, do you want extraordinary measures to keep you alive, for example, when you no longer can swallow, intubating you so you can be fed with a feeding tube? Or would you prefer hospice, which provides comforting drugs and other palliatives to make the end of life more peaceful?

Your will should also name a person to make medical and financial decisions in case of your incapacity or death. Think hard about whom you’d most trust. It may or may not be your closest relative.

It may feel good for you to include in your will a letter to your family and friends, perhaps reminiscences, lessons learned, and suggestions for them.

Although we may know some people who are vigorous and sharp well into old age, most people do experience at least some decline. Part of dying well is to forgive yourself when, for example, you forget things you would have remembered when younger. Easier said than done. No easier but also helpful is accepting that senescence is part of the natural order of things. 

As we get older, most of us become more set in our ways, resistant to change. But is there something new you want to do? Many people want to travel, but change can occur at home: a new hobby, volunteer activity, job, business, or attitude. Changing the latter may be tougher even than accepting aging. 

Some people choose to tell others about their health problems. Others keep them as private as possible. It may be an act of generosity to not burden people with your worries unless they can help and you want their help.

Then there’s the decision of when to fight the good fight and when to accept that the chances of winning are too small. As the song, The Gambler, says, “You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.”  For example, should you keep fighting for your political beliefs? To rapproch with a relative? To stay alive?

We still don’t allow people to decide when to die. That strikes me as a terribly unfair intrusion of government into one of our most personal decisions. Fortunately, some physicians will give a terminally ill person a final cocktail of tranquilizers and sleeping pills. And if you can't access such a physician, a right-to-die group called the Final Exit Network makes available a painless way to go.

This article hasn't been fun to write but I hope it might help you or someone you love to die well.

(Some) Employers: Bah, Humbug!

Of course, some employers are great, better than most employees.

But today's today's installment in my USNews.com Bah series focuses on the baddies: Employers. Bah Humbug!

Four Approaches to the Life Well-Led

Here's an advance look at my next column for the Mensa publication, The Intelligencer.

Four Approaches to the Life Well-Led 

Countless authors have opined on how to live the life well-led but their approaches seem to distill to just four: pursue happiness, serve God, serve society/the universe, and pursue balance. Here are pros and cons of each:

Pursue happiness. Obviously, making choices based on what makes you happy leads to an enjoyable life. And you can define happiness more contributorily than just eating, having sex, and watching comedies. Your definition of happiness might include, for example, the contentment that comes from being productive, whether as accounts payable clerk, cancer researcher, a good friend, or school volunteer providing (badly needed) enrichment for Mensa-level kids.

A limitation of the pursue-happiness approach to life is that you’re less likely to do worthy but unpleasant tasks, for example, diving into icy waters to save a drowning person or be a Mother Teresa who, to save lives, worked amid Calcutta’s sewage stench, ever bitten by scorpions. Of course, there are more common examples. I know a top hand surgeon who, because he’s been doing that for decades, would find it more fun to play guitar gigs on evenings and weekends but recognizes that he’ll make a bigger difference spending that time seeing patients than playing Grateful Dead songs.

Serve God. Once you leave the Bay Area, religion is big, often the prime driver of people’s lives. And it’s easy to understand why:

• Most people need rules. Religion provides them.
• Most people need fear and reward to motivate them to follow rules. Religion provides them, for example, heaven and hell.
• Most people need support in life’s tough times: The belief in a loving God provides that.
• Following a deity’s rules magnifies one’s actions’ import. It’s one thing to be kind for its own sake; it’s a bigger thing if you believe it’s part of a benevolent God’s plan.
• People who follow religions’ rules, on average, do more good than those who don’t.

A downside of religion is that it’s too black-and-white: There’s only one way. For example, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal.’ No exceptions--a poor person who steals a drug from a corporation to save a spouse’s life is deemed destined to burn in hell for eternity. Sure, individuals can perceive what they want in religion: Some claim the Bible condemns homosexuality; others insist the Bible endorses it. Some say the Koran encourages peaceful behavior, others that it demands jihad against the infidels. But net, a God-centric approach to life suffers from a narrow definition of acceptable behavior.

Another weakness of the serve-God approach is that it urges passivity. For example, the New Testament urges surrender to God, to trust God above reason: “Be not wise in your own eyes. God shall supply all your need.” (Philippians 4:19;) “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:1: )“If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20)

Serve society/the universe. This is the utilitarian approach: Ongoing, you decide which activity will most likely make the biggest difference. In the extremis, you could rate each of your life’s hours on how contributory it was: from -100 (making progress toward developing a mutated smallpox virus so communicable, deadly, and incurable that it would cause Armageddon) to +100: (working toward being a Messiah that would inspire everyone in the world to use their greatest powers to abet humankind as much possible.)

The serve-society approach has value even if your sphere of influence is small. For example, a ditch digger can decide whether, during a break, to have a cigarette or to teach a novice how to dig a ditch more easily. In turn, that novice will not only dig more efficiently but be equipped to teach others. The ditch digger has also, without preaching, shown the novice the value of giving, which makes that novice more likely to give to others. And those others, in turn, are more likely to give to others in this generation and generations to come. So, even a ditch digger’s impact can be significant enough to be worth the effort.

An even loftier variation on the serve-society approach is to serve a universal/cosmic good. For example, some people believe efforts to equate resources among people is a cosmic justice. Others believe that furthering meritocracy is more just.

But whether serving society or the universe, you can enhance your utility by focusing on what few others can or will do. For example, I champion the intellectually gifted at a time when government and non-profits focus on redistributing to “the least among us.” That way, I feel I make a bigger difference than if I focused on popular causes I believe in such as abortion rights, where my efforts would add a mere grain of sand onto a beach.

A downside of the serve-society/the universe approach to life is that it leads to a less pleasurable existence. That approach gives no brownie points to fun. Sure, adherents to the serve-society model may sometimes deviate from it and watch that silly sitcom but when life is done, devoted serve-society people die having experiencing less pleasure than do others.

And for some people, focusing so much on doing good for others could lead to burnout and, ironically, to doing less good than if they were moderate. However, based on the people I’ve known, you’re unlikely to burn out even from a lifetime of long workweeks as long as you’re working on something of value, are good at it, and have a measure of control over your work tasks. I’ll be 64 in June, been working 60+ hours a week for my entire life, and feel as energized as ever.

Another downside of the utilitarian approach is that an individual can do only so much. With seven billion people on the planet, your likelihood of making a big difference is small. Nevertheless, it strikes me that a life aimed at even minor contribution is better than rationalizing that you should pursue a pleasure-centric life because your potential for impact, in the largest scheme of things, is modest.

Strive for balance.  Many people believe their best shot at the ideal life is to work moderately and play moderately, dividing your time among serving yourself, God, and society. Or as many of our parents say, “Moderation in all things.”

The downside of that is that it assumes all those goals are of equal value. Can one say that a week on the beach is as valuable as a week mentoring Mensa kids?

Now it’s your turn.  In light of the above (and anything else,) do you want to write a word, sentence, and/or paragraph summarizing how you plan to live the life well-led?

Proposal for a Sex Museum

I think a sex museum, if done well, would be a huge success. A few exist: in New York, Japan, Amsterdam, and Berlin but they're only fair to good. But even if they were excellent, there's certainly room for an outstanding one in a city like San Francisco.

I was part of the team that was planning such a museum in San Francisco but it died because academics dominated the programming committee and insisted on static, usually abstruse-historical exhibits. Only an academic could make sex sterile.

So I thought I'd share my vision for the museum here in hopes someone realizes its potential and makes it happen. If I weren't so busy, I'd do it. I am open to investing in it.

Today, government places so many restrictions and regulations on private projects, I believe it's best if government could be convinced to make it a public-private partnership, ideally with the government giving a $1 a year lease on perhaps 20,000 square feet of property located in the tourist area of a major tourist city such as San Francisco.

Of course, the government could refuse but I'd make the case that two of its major priorities--increasing tourism taxes and increasing acceptance of alternative sexual orientations--would be addressed by their partnering with the museum. I believe, but am not sure, there's precedence for such a partnership. There are a number of lavish yet poorly attended minority-focused museums and other attractions in the tourist area of San Francisco that would seem impossible to have been opened and run for years without significant government/taxpayer expenditure.

The San Francisco Sex Museum would consist of approximately 20 "experiences," each of which would be one to three minutes long. Many would be interactive. Examples:

• A digital poll of sexual practices in which you vote on the spot: What you do? What you've done? What you'd like to do? What you approve and disapprove of?
• How much do you know about your partner? (a Newlywed-Game-type quiz for sexual partners.)
• What makes someone sexy?  An interactive quiz and experience.
• An IMAX video experience: A crosscultural history of sexual laws and practices from antiquity to today, Asia to Africa to America.

Of course, the museum store would sell all sorts of erotica: books, videos, sex toys, etc.

The museum cafe would include supposed aphrodisiacs and all menu items would have erotic titles.

What do you think?

Knockout "Game:" A Dangerous Trend Among Minority Teens

The media's censoring of the politically incorrect is descending to ever lower lows.

Becoming epidemic is a game played by minority (mainly Black) teens called Knockout. How does it work? Simple: They stop whites and Asians at random and try to knock them out in one punch.

The national media has virtually ignored this most disturbing trend. Do you think the media would ignore it if white teens sought out random minorities to knock out? Would President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson be silent?

No surprise, getting an article published in the major media required no less than the eminent conservative (the horrors!) Stanford/Hoover syndicated Black columnist Thomas Sowell. It is his column today. HERE is the link. And HERE is a link to an article with videos in the New York Daily News. HERE is a link to a book, "White Girl Bleed a Lot," which documents 500+ such attacks, with links to YouTube videos of them.

Some media have actually denied the game exists. I happened to speak with a dean at a high school in a diverse public school in New York City and asked her if she was in a position to assess how real and how significant a problem the Knockout Game is. She said that the Knockout Game is merely one variation of Black "games" to hurt Whites and Asians. She cited, for example, "Bangkok Tuesdays, "where Blacks attempt to kick Asians in their genitals.

This is not an isolated example of such media censorship and bias. When three white Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black woman, it received massive media coverage, mostly convicting the players before they were tried--and found not guilty. Yet when the same woman was convicted of murder, the media was essentially silent. THIS article documents that.


I don't know what the solution is but censorship certainly doesn't help any more than it would have helped to censor excoriation of the Ku Klux Klan. To motivate a serious effort to solve a problem, we must first get the broad public to realize there is one.