Highlighted Characteristics of Aging Baby Boomers at Work
The baby boomer generation encompasses those born between the years 1946 to 1964. They are one of those included on the sudden escalation of births after the Second World War. Today, they are in their 40s and 60s. They are already prominent people in the society who have already built a name for themselves. They become consultants, executives, managers and in fact well known leaders of today. Some have already retired from work but are already accomplished and satisfied with what they have achieved in life.Since there are some who have already reached the Baby Boomers And Aging , a lot of them would exit their work and leave it to the hands of the next generation. This situation applies to all fields and industries where the baby boomers have worked. It can create a great impact since they have certain characteristics in the workplace that are worth emulating. Commonly, they are highlighted for being distinct when it comes to doing their work. Generally, these are the common traits of the baby boomer generation.The Baby Boomers And Aging are dedicated at work and are considered and commonly called to be workaholics. They have sacrificed and exerted a lot of effort just to reach where they are now. They are greatly motivated and exert long hours at work. They are considered to be achievers. Since some of them are on the top when it comes to rank in different fields, they demand from the younger generations to work hard also so that they can be like them.The individuals who are born in the baby boomer generation are independent and confident which are plus factors in the workplace. They were born after the world war wherein reform and change was done. People strived hard to revive from the damages of war. They relied on the achievement and effort of each other to restore the destruction that happened during the war. The independence that they have learned since they were young was naturally brought as they grew and worked in different areas.Moreover, they are also goal oriented. They have a vision in life that they need to follow that is why when they have reached the Baby Boomers And Aging , they are already career satisfied and gratified with what they have in life. They have already reached their goals which are to own a property, have their own family and reach the dream that they have been aspiring for years.Lastly, they are competitive and can be at par with the younger generations. With all the trials that they have passed in life, they are more challenged to face anything in the workplace. They can have a healthy competition with other workers especially when it comes to ranking in the office.These are a few of the common characteristics of the aging baby boomers when at the workplace. That is why as they retire it would be a great loss in the field where they are working since they have already made a mark in the company. However, companies today have already trained the younger generations to become the next in rank when baby boomers retire.The baby boomer generation comprises of people who were born after the second world war. They have distinct characteristics from other generations which have brought them to where they are now. Read http://babyboomersandaging.com/blog/ to learn more about this generation of achievers.
The Power of Running
I smoked my first cigarette when I was eleven years old. By the time I was thirteen I was smoking a pack a day. When I began to seriously attempt to quit in my early twenties I was often puffing down two packs, or nearly 40 cigarettes a day!
There were many unsuccessful attempts to stop smoking. I just didn’t seem to have the will power, the confidence, the strength to kick the habit. Living in New York City at the time, I watched joggers in Central Park with a lump in my throat. Running seemed like something I would never be able to do. These runners seemed to possess such freedom, something missing from my life as I lay prisoner to the cigarettes and habits I could not seem to overcome.
In my early twenties, not only was I struggling with the addiction to cigarettes, but I was also struggling with what to do with my life. I had a couple of bartending and secretarial jobs but with nothing more than an Associate’s degree, it didn’t seem likely a big career lay before me. Feeling lost, and often confused, an Aunt of mine suggested exploring the field of Physical Therapy. Her friend had just completed his degree. He liked the work and jobs seemed plentiful. I knew nothing about physical therapy. As I began to investigate the possibility, I was, little by little, taking the steps that would change the course of my life forever.
I went back to school to meet the academic requirements. I started volunteering at different hospitals and facilities to get a feel for the work. Once I decided on the path, my commitment had been made. Yet I felt hypocritical. How could I step into this field of health and wellness and be a smoker? How could I inspire others to take care of their bodies when I was sucking down cigarettes like candy?
Running was my way out. So I started, slowly and painfully. I didn’t quit right away. When I first started running I was still smoking. The first thing I did when I finished a run was light up. This went on for weeks, a little running, a lot of smoking. Finally the moment of truth arrived. This conflict of running and smoking was living in my body and mind. I could not do both. A choice had to be made.
I chose running.
Quitting was still hard. And my first real success at quitting didn’t put the habit behind me completely just yet. I applied to Physical Therapy schools and didn’t get in the first year. After the initial rejections there was a ray of hope. I made the waiting list at Stony Brook University on Long Island. Even though I did not get in that first year I was more determined than ever to reapply. I had invested everything in this decision to be a physical therapist, including my health. So I retook classes and upped my efforts.
I was accepted to Stony Brook University the second time around. The summer before university started, I lived on Fire Island cleaning houses. I was running every day on the beach and was up to 6 miles. I felt so strong. I even placed second overall for women in a 10K race at the end of the summer.
My dirty secret was I had started smoking again. I was so embarrassed. Here I was running, this supposed health nut now. Everyone I knew thought I kicked the habit but I would sneak back to the house from the beach to smoke a cigarette. I was so afraid of all the changes and uncertainty before me; moving to Stony Brook, starting school, being a bit older than most students, feeling insecure about my capabilities, that the cigarettes provided a comfort, a solace that only a smoker, or addict could understand. What would people think of me if they really knew how scared and insecure I was? I was so afraid of appearing weak.
There were a number of stops and starts before completely leaving cigarettes behind me and running the New York City Marathon helped me to never look back.
I decided to run the marathon in February of 1990.
The start of my training in February, until the actual race in November, took nine months. This period of gestation saw myself emerge from one who felt powerless in their addiction to cigarettes to one who had the power to do anything.
One of the biggest obstacles to training for the marathon was overcoming the resistance of my own mind. Of course the body needs conditioning to ready it for 26 miles but it was my mind that wanted to stop well before my body. I can’t do this anymore…enough….it hurts….I’m tired. Overcoming the resistance of my mind through training for the marathon has served me in so many aspects of my life.
Because no matter what we set out to do in life our mind will always get in the way of our growth and development. Our mind wants us to stay the way we are. Our mind wants us to feel safe and secure. There is nothing wrong with feeling safe and secure and certainly we need to feel safe and secure within our self to be able to venture into new territories.
But when we are attached to safety and security we become paralyzed to rise beyond the limitations that safety and security imposes on our life.
We need to develop our will in order to rise above the habits that limit us. For me running has been one of the most beneficial practices I have embarked on in my life and the New York City Marathon is one of its high points.
There were moments that felt like I couldn’t go on. Heading over the 59th Street Bridge on to 1st Avenue in Manhattan felt like climbing Mount Everest. You don’t realize how much of a climb a bridge is until you have run 15 miles to get there.
There were moments of inspiration. The streets of Brooklyn were full of crowds and music. Approaching 8 miles I heard the theme from Rocky playing. My heart pumped harder, my stride was stronger, I felt the power of running.
There were emotional moments. The race starts in Staten Island, 25,000 people running over the Verranzano Bridge. You can actually feel the bridge vibrating under your feet from the power generated by so many runners. At this point it is just you and the rest of the runners, each in their own race, with you yet against you in some way.
Heading into Bay Ridge Brooklyn the streets were so thick with people cheering, yelling and high fiving, it was incredible. I felt this overwhelming outpouring of love and support, especially in contrast to the relative silence of the bridge. I couldn’t hold back the tears. I was running in a sea of love and it felt beautiful.
There were moments of enlightenment. At twenty three miles, heading into Central Park for the last time, I knew I would finish the race but I had to stop for water before I could go any further. I suppose it is what people have called the wall. This was my first stop in the race. I had been taking water, pouring it into my body while still in motion. This time I had to stop before I could go any further. I drank water and started running again.
Shortly after that I saw my mother, brothers, sisters and their respective spouses. They were holding a banner high that read… KAREN, YOU DID IT! I still had three miles to go which at that point felt like it could have been another twenty-three. I didn’t want to disappoint them.
At twenty-four miles I went to a place I had never been to before. It was if everything within me; body, mind, heart and soul, shifted to some other inner gear. I was running….and it was effortless! EFFORTLESS! I had been running for three and a half hours now and I felt like I could have gone on forever. I was light, floating, higher than any substance has ever taken me. I rode that high for weeks.
And throughout the whole race I felt the love and support of my friends and family, cheering me on, in every borough, screaming for me as if I were some running star.
Those memories live within me forever. The accomplishment of running 26 miles is a reservoir of inspiration for me even 17 years later.
And I am still running, for over twenty years now. Although I never ran another marathon that moment still lives in me with inspiration and awe.
At 46 years old, there is no desire to run 26 miles again; at least not in one shot. I am grateful my body is still able to run, on the beach, in the woods, on the streets, in my travels. To be able to spend time outdoors, to breathe in fresh air and clear my mind serves me in all aspects of my life and is the blessing that running brings to my life.
I am grateful for the vehicle of my body that keeps on running.
What Prevents Most People From Achieving Success In Life?
If setting clear goals is so crucial for us to achieve a successful and fulfilling future, then why do so many people fail to do it? Why are so many people allowing the river of life to pull them in all directions?
1) Limiting Beliefs
The first thing that holds most people back from setting goals are their limiting beliefs. Many people only dream about what they would love to have. When it comes to committing to a specific target and plan, they don't even bother. Something inside them says 'there is no way'. Either it's too difficult or they simply don't have what it takes.
You now know that these are nothing but limiting beliefs. Unless we break past these generalizations about ourselves, we will never dare to design goals that drive us to the next level.
2) They Don't Know What They Want
'But... I don't know what I want!' This is probably one of the most common responses I get from people. I bet if I gave these people a magic lamp and told them that they would be granted anything they wish for, they will start making up a whole list of things real quick!
It is not that people don't know what they want. What has truly happened is that most people have stopped daring to dream. I believe that as kids, all of us had fantasies and dreams of what we wanted to have and be when we grow up. However, as we went through life, we meet with so many failures and disappointments that our rational, critical mind has forbidden us to continue day dreaming anymore.
Whenever we get excited about something, our internal voice will rush in to tell us, 'it can't be done' 'you cannot do that' ' that's impossible.' 'grow up, get real'. (It could even be an echo of our parents' voice, if we had stern, no-nonsense parents). As a result, this would block our creative juices and deflate our passion - the very elements we need to create and design the life we truly want.
We need to learn how to unlock our imagination and set our creative minds FREE....free of fear and inhibitions so we can dream clearly and with growing excitement of what we truly want out of life.
3) Fear of Failure
This fear of failure, of rejection and embarrassment is what probably paralyses most people from even starting out. I had a participant in one of my seminars who never dared set goals because of her intense fear of failing if she did not achieve what she had set her heart and mind to.
In her mind, she reckoned that if she did not set expectations, then she could not fail!
My mum did something similar when she was sitting for her final O level examinations over 40 years ago. She was sure she would fail maths (which she hated), and so she decided she would rather not take the exam than have a fail mark!
Sound crazy, but many people do the same thing. They believe that it is better not to have expectations so they cannot let themselves down.
Does this mean that people who keep setting goals do not fear failure? I don't believe so. I think everyone hates and fears the feeling of failure, including myself.
What then gives them the courage to set high goals and go for it? It is how we define failure to ourselves. The only one who can tell us that we failed and make us feel bad is... ourselves.
Yet, this is how we often shoot ourselves in the foot. The moment we do not achieve what we want, even on our first attempt, we tell ourselves we have failed, and feel really bad.
This pain is what prevents us - and this goes for the majority of people - from daring to try for high stakes, to taking risks.
4) Addiction to the Soft Life
Most people are risk averse because they are addicted to a way of life: a soft life, a cushy life with habits and material comforts they are loathed to change or risk losing. Unless that comfy life-style is imminently under threat, they won't do anything that calls for iron will and discipline.
Setting goals and really going for our goals often means changing habits, sacrificing time spent hanging out with friends. This is why people make half-hearted attempts. As soon as their new path impinges on their old habits, they withdraw...it's too hard.
A friend who teaches a Detox & Energise self-help program says most people don't stick to it because even if they believe in its long-term health benefits, they are not willing to work at it....and it is life-long work. They'd rather pop a pill (a drug) and dam the long-term consequences.
There are no short-cuts to success in any area - business/career, health or personal relationships. So, be prepared to make what appears to be 'sacrifices' and, if you do, the rewards are there.
Fixing the Flaws in the 10 Principles of Clear Writing
by Philip Yaffe
I recently did an Internet search for “clear writing” and frequently came up with the same list of “10 principles of clear writing”. Each one is a piece of very good advice; however the list has two faults.
First, I am viscerally suspicious of all 10-item lists. They seem contrived. It’s as if the writer decided that any self-respecting list should have 10 items, then set about inventing them to meet the challenge.
More importantly, these 10 principles of clear writing are not really principles at all, but rather tips and technique.
What’s the difference? Tips and techniques tell you what to do; principles tell you why you are doing it.
Understanding why you are doing something, i.e. the benefit you will gain, helps ensure that you will actually do it and do it consistently. Too often when we are told only what to do, we follow the instruction half-heartedly, inconsistently, or not at all.
For example, my last year at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), I tutored writing to make a bit of much-needed cash. One day a first year student came to me with a note from a professor, saying: “Young lady, I advise you either to leave my class immediately or prepare to fail it.” I concluded that she was misapplying a fundamental writing principle, so I explained it to her and had her do a few simple exercises to be certain she understood it. By the end of term, her almost certain “F” had shot up to a gratifying “B”.
This was not an isolated case. When students were having writing difficulties, it was generally because they were: 1) unfamiliar with a fundamental principle, 2) inconsistently applying it, 3) improperly applying it, or 4) not applying it at all.
I am a marketing communication consultant, after having been a newspaper editor, a writer with The Wall Street Journal, and European marketing communication director for two major international companies. Over my 40 year career, I have been continually appalled by how poorly top business executives, academics, researchers, and other clearly intelligent people express themselves, both in writing and speaking.
Some years ago I tried to analyze this depressing phenomenon. As a result, I defined three key principles that underlie virtually every kind of expository (non-fiction) writing and speaking. To give them strength and substance, I cast them in the form of quasi-mathematical formula. As formula, these principles not only tell you what to do, they also tell you why you are doing it and how to go about it.
I would first like to briefly explain these three principles, then see how they coincide with lists of tips and techniques that masquerade as principles.
Most people accept that a good text should be “clear” and “concise”. There is a third principle that is seldom mentioned. A good text should also be “dense”.
Clarity Principle
Being clear is not a matter of personal appreciation. Do you find your text clear? You should; after all, you wrote it. But how can you be certain that it will be clear to others?
According to the clarity principle, to be clear you must do three things:
1. Emphasize what is of key importance.
2. De-emphasize what is of secondary importance.
3. Eliminate what is of no importance.
In short: Cl = EDE
If you follow the formula, before you start writing you must first determine what is of key importance, i.e. what are the key ideas you want your readers to take away from your text?
This is not always easy to do. It is far simpler to say that everything is of key importance, so you put in everything you have. However, unless you do the work of defining what you really want your readers to know, they won't do it for you. They will simply get lost in your text and either give up or come out the other end not knowing what they have read.
Next, as you write your text, you must be certain to de-emphasize what is of secondary importance. Why? Because if you really want your readers to recognize and retain the key ideas, then you don’t want them getting lost in the details. Details (information of secondary importance) explain and support the key ideas. They must never overwhelm them.
Finally, you must ruthless eliminate what is of no importance. Why? Because any information that adds nothing to explaining and supporting the key ideas will tend to obscure them, which is exactly the opposite of what you want.
Conciseness Principle
According to the conciseness principle, your text should be as:
1. Long as necessary
2. Short as possible
In symbols: Co = LS
"As long as necessary" means covering all the key ideas you identified under “clarity”, and all the information of secondary importance needed to explain and support them. Note that nothing is said here about the number of words, because it is irrelevant. If it takes 500 words to be "as long as necessary", then 500 words must be used. If it takes 1500 words, then this is all right, too.
"As short as possible" means staying as close as you can to the minimum. Not because people prefer short texts; in the abstract the terms “long" and "short" have no meaning (so-called “weasel words”). The important point is: All words beyond the minimum tend to damage clarity. Subconsciously, readers will continually be trying to understand why those words are there, and will be continually failing because they serve no purpose.
Density Principle
Density is a less familiar concept than clarity and conciseness, but is equally important. According to the density principle, you text should contain:
1. Precise information
2. Logically linked
In other words: D = PL
Using precise information rather than wishy-washy weasel words in a text aids clarity. For example, if you say it is a “hot” day, what do you mean? One reader might interpret hot as 24° C while another might interpret is as 36° C. However, if you say the temperature outside is 28° C, there is no room for interpretation—or misinterpretation.
Using precise information also generates confidence, because it tells the reader that you really know what you are talking about. This helps to hold the reader’s attention and makes it easier to get your points across.
However, precise data (facts) by themselves are insufficient. To be meaningful, data must be organized to create “information”. There are two important tests to apply when converting data into information.
A. Relevance
Is a particular piece of data really needed? As we have seen, unnecessary data damages clarity and ultimately confidence. Therefore, any data that do not either aid understanding or promote confidence should be rigorously eliminated.
B. Misconceptions
The logical link between data must be made explicit to prevent the reader from coming to false conclusions. Example: A singular occurrence may be misinterpreted as part of a broad pattern; a general policy may be misinterpreted as applying only in specific circumstances, etc.
To ensure that a logical link is clear, place the two pieces of data as close to each other as possible, preferably right next to each other. When data are widely separated, their logical link is masked. If you don’t make the logical connection, it is unrealistic to expect readers will do so for themselves.
Keeping these true principles - clarity, conciseness, density - firmly in mind allows us to re-evaluate the oft-quoted ten “principles” of clear writing” (i.e. tips and techniques), thereby making them significantly more meaningful, and significantly more useful.
1. Keep sentences short
This is usually interpreted to mean an average sentence length of 15 - 18 words. Not because readers can’t handle longer sentences. However, when length rises above this average, sentences are likely to be poorly constructed, thereby damaging clarity.
But remember, 15 - 18 words is an average. Don’t shun longer sentences. A well constructed long sentence is often clearer than two or more shorter ones. Why? Because the longer sentence betters shows the logical linkage among the various elements, which would be lost by splitting it apart.
2. Prefer the simple to the complex
If the precise word is long, don’t hesitant to use it, because not using it would damage clarity. On the other hand, if a shorter word would do just as well, prefer it. Examples: “dog” rather than “canine”, "change" rather than "modification", "entrance” rather than “ingress”, etc.
3. Prefer the familiar word
This is just a variation of point 2. If you have a choice between two words, use the one that most people are likely to recognize and use themselves. Examples: “insult” rather than “imprecate”, “daily” rather than “quotidian”
4. Avoid unnecessary words
In other words, be concise.
5. Use active verbs
In an individual sentence, whether you use an active or a passive verb is of little consequence. However, over an entire text it becomes very important. Active verbs tend to enhance clarity; conversely, too many passive verbs tend to damage it.
6. Write the way you speak
This is a very useful technique, but don’t take it literally. When we speak, we generally use simpler vocabulary and sentence structures than when we write. Writing the way you speak is a good way to produce a first draft. However, when we speak, our sentence structures are often confused and our vocabulary imprecise. These faults must be rigorously corrected in the second, third or later drafts.
7. Use terms your reader can picture
In other words, be dense. Use specifics; avoid weasel words. When making a general statement, be certain to support it with concrete data.
8. Tie in with your reader's experience
We are again talking about density, i.e. using precise information. Be certain that the terminology you chose is compatible with your readers’ experience. If you need to use a word not likely to be familiar to your readers, define it the first time it appears. If it is really key, define it again later on in the text. Also be wary of words that look familiar but have a very different meaning in the context of your subject.
Example: “Insult” is medical jargon for an injury or trauma. However, talking about an “insult” to the heart without first explaining this unconventional meaning of the word is likely to leave your readers scratching their heads.
9. Make full use of variety
This suggestion is almost superfluous. If you conscientiously apply the three writing principles of clarity, conciseness, and density, you will almost automatically introduce variety of sentence length and structure into your text.
Avoid introducing too much variety of vocabulary. Constantly changing terminology for the sake of variety damages clarity. If several words mean essential the same thing, pick one or two of them and shun the others. Introduce equivalent terms in such a way that the reader clearly understands they mean the same thing.
Example
1. (Confusing) Manned space travel to Mars is once again being considered. The Red Planet has fascinated mankind for centuries. The “God of War” is the fourth planet from the sun - our own Earth is the third - and it is our closest celestial neighbor except for the moon.
2. (Clear) Manned space travel to Mars is once again being considered. Popularly known as the “Red Planet”, Mars has fascinated mankind for centuries. Being the forth planet from the sun (Earth is the third), it is our closest celestial neighbor except for the moon.
10. Write to express, not to impress
The purpose of expository (non-fiction) writing is to inform or instruct, not to show off your literary prowess. The fact is, the better you write, the less people are likely to notice. And this is how it should be. The reader’s full attention should be on what you are saying, not how you are saying it.
Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. His recently published book In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).
For further information, contact:
Philip Yaffe
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 660 0405
Email: phil.yaffe@yahoo.com
Airline Regulation
The airline industry operates like the veins of the United States by pumping precious cargo throughout the country. Most young people don’t realize how different the airlines were a few decades ago. The entire industry was regulated by the government. Regulation is usually considered a more socialistic liberal idea that is opposed by conservative capitalists. Although I personally believe in a government with a small limited roll in our daily lives, I have come to the conclusion that the airline industry is a rare exception that needs to return to regulation which would benefit the airlines and the consumers in numerous ways.
In the days of regulation the government had total control of routes, fares, gates and almost anything necessary to operate an airline. It also created many barriers to entry which would prevent any new start up airline. All the government would have to do is not allow them at any airports or not approve of any route application. Economists complained that regulation was inefficient so in 1978 the Airline Deregulation Act was passed allowing the free market to dictate airline prices and schedules.
The following thirty years have proved this to be a terrible mistake. There are a wide range of facts when looking for the change in price of a ticket today compared to the airlines under regulation. Some say the tickets are 20 % cheaper. Others claim there is hardly a difference because one must account for the 10% travel agent fee that is avoided with today’s online booking. So there is clearly no great ticket price benefit due to deregulation. However in the past tickets were fully refundable and you could change your destination without numerous penalties. Today people scour the internet for a discounted ticket which will usually mean a few stops along the way that may not be in the general direction of their destination. Some passengers may have to fly into alternative airports to receive a discount. Southwest airlines now flies into most major airports just as the legacy airlines do, however, in Southwest’s early days they broke into the freshly deregulated industry by basing their operation out of LUV field Dallas (not Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport) and flying to locations such as Burbank, CA. The reason for this was because it is much cheaper to operate out of these airports to avoid paying high prices for gates and other airport fees. Southwest also undercut the pay scales across the board. They were the first low cost carrier. By saving all this money they would be able to provide cheaper tickets to customers and the free market was beginning its control on the industry. This started the domino effect of airlines entering the market.
With a few major airlines doing most of the long haul flights many commuter airlines have started business with 100 seat type jets. Most people will see US Airways Express and think it is a division of US Airways; however that airplane might be one of 4 or 5 airlines that fly under the US Airways paint scheme. The air is absolutely saturated with all of these small jets. The air traffic control system needs to be upgraded because of this. Instead of having 737’s make two or three flights a day on a short haul trip say from Philly to Buffalo, they will have these 100 seat regional jets make 5 or 6 flights a day. With fuel prices soaring this does not seem efficient. Safety of the consumer is also being endangered. For the last year or so many small regional airlines were hiring a large amount of pilots due to a shortage. The minimum flight time qualifications were dropped lower than they have ever been before. Some new hires are getting in the cockpit with as little as 300 hours. The average airline pilot has several thousand hours. With flight training declining every year due to the high cost, commercial pilots are becoming scarcer. When you add more airplanes while fewer pilots are being trained it creates a huge shortage. The Federal Aviation Administration pushed the mandatory retirement age to 65 adding 5 more years to a pilots career if he chooses to stay which many aren’t and won’t, due to the terrible state of the industry and conditions they have been working in. This is just a temporary fix that might stave off the shortage for a few years but hiring will start again and there won’t be enough pilots let alone enough experience pilots to fly all of these airplanes.
Under regulation when oil quadrupled in the 70’s, the price was passed onto the consumer by raising ticket prices. This is unfortunate but it is a part of the way our economy works. Today with prices rising, the airlines will not raise prices and instead try to run other companies into the ground by lowering prices. This is not healthy competition. The airline industry lost 25 billion dollars from 2001-2005. During that period airfares dropped 15 percent while 20 airlines went bankrupt. US Airways and Northwest Airlines have removed their obligation to their pension funds by pleading in bankruptcy court that they couldn’t operate with out doing so. This wiped out over 8,000 pilots retirement funds between the two of them. Over 7000 Delta pilots have also since lost their retirements. Pilots have conceded roughly 30-40% pay cuts along with losing their retirements in order to keep these airlines afloat and ensure the passenger gets a good deal on their ticket.
Within the past few weeks Aloha Airlines joined the ranks and went out of business continuing the downward spiral of the airline industry specifically over the last 10 years. Delta and Northwest announced on April 14th a plan to merge which would create the largest airline in the world. There is also speculation of many more mergers and or bankruptcies to come. Mergers are a sign of these companies being better off working together than separate. That is certainly not the healthy competition the lawmakers of the 60’s and 70’s envisioned while forming this plan. There has been recent talk of law makers on Capitol Hill revisiting the regulation idea due to the horrible state of the industry. Hopefully they will work quickly and save the sinking ship before it’s too late.
Bibliography
1. L. Smith Jr., Fred. "Airline Deregulation." Library of Economics and Liberty 25 Nov 2008 .
2. Barnum, John. "What Prompted Airline Deregulation 20 Years Ago? What Were the Objectives of That Deregulation and How Were They Achieved?." Find Law Library 08/15/1998 25 Nov 2008 .
3. Bailey, Elizabeth E. “Airline Deregulation Confronting the Paradoxes.” Regulation: The Cato Review of Business and Government 15, no. 3. Available online at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-bailey.html.
ARLEN SPECTER MAKES THE BIG SWITCHEROO
AFTER MORE THAN FOUR DECADES AS A REPUBLICAN SENATOR SPECTER IS ANNOUNCING HIS DEPARTURE TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY - WHAT HAPPENED?
"On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania".
Sen. Arlen Specter statement on party change
By B D Fenton
The venerable Senator Arlen Specter has just announced after almost a half century as a republican, he is leaving the GOP to become a member of the Democratic Party. He has long frustrated the core of the Republican Party by taking a more moderate stance on certain issues. But only a few weeks ago he was talking about himself as a loyal Republican. Why did he suddenly jump all the way across the political spectrum? Why not run as an Independent? Because this is not about a sudden epiphany of political principle - it is about self-preservation – pure and simple.
Follow the money!
Money is power when it comes to winning elections. And what do you think the Democrats are willing to give up to get that final cloture, to get the filibuster-busting, Senate controlling, final-nail-in-the-republican-coffin, 60th vote? What do you think it is worth to them to finally have the Whitehouse, the Judiciary and both Houses of congress locked up? You can bet Specter has been promised support – financial and political – possibly more than he has ever had before. So much that he has even offered to return (upon request) Republican campaign contributions. How often do you hear of politicians offering to return campaign funds? Usually they have all kinds of excuses to keep donations from international criminals, Chi-Com Generals, or terrorists, but good old Arlen is offering to give it back. Let’s get real. Any time a politician says you can have your money back before anybody even asks for it, you know something is up. All this guy cares about is getting re-elected and that takes money. He is a forty year political veteran who knows it takes money and publicity to win. It is obvious the Democrats have promised plenty of both.
The Big Switcheroo
A month ago he was talking as a solid Republican. Now he claims he has suddenly seen the light and jumped parties. In the interim two important things happened. He fell way behind his republican competitor, Pat Toomey in the polls – 51-30. Since he barely beat Toomey by less than 3% in the last election, all indicators were pointing to Specter losing badly in the Republican Primary. Next, a PA approval poll came out showing Specter with Republican approval ratings in the high 40s, but his approval ratings among Democrats was close to 70 per cent! Coincidence? Hardly. The writing was on the wall. Being a true “Professional Politician”, he had no choice if he wished to stay in office. And that is what being a “Professional Politician” is all about – staying in office. To do that he had to switch parties. He knew his constituents and the party that supported him for the past four decades would be disappointed, but what was that compared to the tremendous support the Democrats would shower on him and getting re-elected to another glorious term?
He addressed both points in his statement this morning. It wasn’t hard to read between the lines. He knew he could not win the Republican Primary. He said very plainly that he was, “disappointed that so many in the Party (Republican) I have worked for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate”. Although he didn’t mention the recent poll he did say, “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans”. That sounds like another way of saying that his only chance is to line up with Democratic votes and wallets. At least he is willing to acknowledge that he had to switch parties to preserve his chance to get re-elected.
I guess what he meant when he said toward the end of his statement he did “not represent the Republican Party. He represented the people of Pennsylvania” was that he would be willing to switch sides like an Afghan Warlord to stay in office. When the Founding Fathers set up our Democratic Republic they never intended to create a class of “Professional Politicians” who, once elected, would become permanent fixtures in our government. That is why they stipulated limited terms – they understood how difficult it is to withstand long exposure to great power without becoming corrupted. This possibility was one of the dangers they feared. And Arlen Specter is a perfect example of the metamorphosis they feared that occurs after too many years in public office. He is whatever he needs to be to get re-elected and re-elected and re-elected……
He is like so many of the hoary heads ensconced on Capitol Hill. Career politicians like Senator Specter are more interested in maintaining their personal power and status than anything else. Once elected they never want to leave their lives of luxury (paid for by working Americans). They have created, exclusively for themselves, cushy-fat-cat pension plans, superior health care and automatic pay raises regardless of what the rest of America is going through. All of their transportation, mailing, office overhead, meals and entertainment is covered by taxpayer dollars. They are feted like celebrities wherever they go. After a while it seems they start to believe that they are entitled to live above their constituents. Too many of our politicians from both parties have become intoxicated by the combination of money, power and influence that come with political office. It is a powerful corrupting drug that seems to affect even the best intentioned after they have spent too much time in Washington D. C.
Senator Specter is a perfect example. He is one whose true allegiance is to him self. He was swept into office in 1980 as part of the Reagan revolution and gradually learned that his personal re-election was what really counted. Therefore switching parties after forty plus years is only a necessary minor nuisance. The Holy Grail is getting re-elected. He will do whatever is necessary to stay in office and preserve his personal fiefdom – even abandon his principles and betray his friends. The ultimate goal of the Professional Politician is to get elected, enrich them selves on the public dole and never – ever leave. Senator Arlen Specter just gave all of us a textbook example of political expediency and then tried to convince us that he did it out of principle. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Nice try Senator Dinosaur, now go home and retire on the gold-plated lifetime pension you helped create for you and your Beltway Homies. You have served for too long. Your fortune is made and you are almost eighty years old. It's time to retire gracefully and make way for someone else to serve - preferably someone who knows our officials are elected to 'serve' the people - not the other way around.
Concierge Medicine — Converting in Today’s Economic Environment
Many physicians with whom we speak are expressing angst regarding converting to a concierge medicine model in today’s economic climate. Is it economic suicide to make this change today? We think not, if the change is made intelligently. Across the board consumers are reducing spending on goods and services. This is not only affecting discretionary purchases like Botox injections and laser eye surgery, but is also affecting primary care services. Some consumers would rather suffer through a cold for an extra few days than pay a $40 co-pay to see their doctors.“How,” you may ask “could converting to a concierge medical practice model help me in these economic times?” If done correctly, converting to a concierge or retainer-based practice model could help you offset your losses in fee-for-service revenue by “segmenting your market”. It may also enhance the level of care that you are able to deliver to patients, your own career satisfaction, and your lifestyle.“Market Segmentation” is the process of developing two or more distinct marketing propositions to address the differing perceived needs of customers, or potential customers, in a market, with each marketing proposition addressing the members of a group, or segment, who have similar views regarding needs or interests.In our world, market segmentation is accomplished by: 1) providing to patients who value highly personalized preventative care, immediate physician availability, and an ongoing relationship with a trusted doctor the ability to access unprecedented levels of care and service; and 2) continuing to provide standard levels of care and service to patients who place more importance on price than on service. Market segmentation enables your practice to give patients what they desire. While we believe that one physician cannot successfully offer two distinct levels of care to different patient groups, there are a number of means by which you can segment your patient population and deliver the levels of service that your patients desire; you can hire a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner to serve as the principal interface with non-concierge patient, or you can hire an associate MD to treat those patients in the broader context of your practice. We describe this program in greater detail on our website:
www.signaturemd.com
So, back to the original question. We believe that segmenting your market to deliver the care that your patients desire not only does not constitute economic suicide, but rather represents an excellent risk mitigation strategy. Unless you have the “perfect practice”, undertaking an all or nothing conversion (terminating your relationship with any patient who chooses not to join your retainer practice) to concierge medicine could entail additional risks in today’s economic climate.
From literature to Science of men
I am going to start, by giving you a quick historical perspective, in so far as, in our world culture and writing link has begun to unravel, we cannot stop letters to continue. But they do like a progressive displacement.
If you look French through ages, you will quick understand that that knowledge is obviously connected to the conditions that are culturally ours. Well, we should be aware that it is what we recently said: “In the Middle Ages, there were French texts which were worth. There was, for example, the Roland’s song, etc.” Medieval university has completely ignored these French texts, even those produced by Rutebeuf or Villon. And, why did the Middle Age deliberately put aside these texts? Because this was not made to know, but, as Nietzsche very nicely said: it was the “gay science,” or the anti-science, the science used to protest, not recognized by the university: the science of that time, and until the XVI century, was Latin, French and these sciences were not more than a gay science.
When was the first displacement, which led the birth of “French literature,” effectuated? In the Renaissance, when the “Modern Times” were appearing with Rabelais. If Rabelais is ludicrous, “Gallic,” a pig and everything you want, it is because he was just rehabilitating the medieval gay science, but in French. It was a very great revolution: before, French texts had any status, from now on, they have one. Of course, there were a few years that it was being prepared. There was a pre literature, a “protohistory” literature, if I can say, represented by those that has been called the major Rhetoric men, which rhyme in French and who began to try to place their productions into the refined society. But Renaissance is a breath of oxygen; it is the French all fronts, the gay science carefully promoted.
But what has done this gay science promotion? At the beginning, it was liberation, with all the excesses that all liberation has: a real passion! However, little by little, the passion had decreased, and this was the birth of what we have called “literature,” which consisted to express even the most serious things in French, things of that time, the science of that time. But this was not the science of the university, which continued to be expressed in Latin, but, in some way, a science for university, which was passed in French. In these circumstances, you understand that texts such as those of Madam de La Fayette, the tragedies of Racine, or the comedies of Moliere were literature, as well as the speech of the Descartes’ method, the thoughts of Pascal or the spirit of the laws of Montesquieu. When we see Descartes’ writings included in the XVII° manuals of literature, we can see this: “What can the speech of the method do for literature?” Well, the answer is that because Descartes expressed his method in French. It was the same, with Pascal. There are certainly many illegible things on his writings, but it was the theology in French. Do you understand now that what makes good a tragedy of Racine, Descartes, Pascal or Montesquieu, was that these authors expressed in French a science that, since the middle age to the XVIII° siècle, would not interest anybody, because the science was written in Latin. We must see the “French literature,” as a phenomenon in the margin of university, and almost in conflict with it. If you want to see like this, university was the science of the “right,” and literature, the science of the “left””: this literature consisted to speak like a “decent man,” and not like an old grimoire reader, and this was not a science the same as the one of the university. You understand, in these circumstances, why the ancestors of our current “human sciences” are the psychological novelists, the classical theater, the moralists’ writers, etc. We see these texts as works of art. They had certainly this character-here too, but they had mainly this particular nature of represent a science in separation with the University of that time, and not only one that was worth as a university science but one that had hoped too well exceeds it.
When was the second displacement, which superintended the birth of our “human sciences,” effectuated? In the XIX°, that was the époque of Balzac and the realism. From the realistic movement, things are starting to evolve. Literature becomes a “literature of message.” From that time, who has worked with sociology for example? Zola. It is the thesis message, if I dare to say: novel to thesis, theater to thesis, written by philosophers (at university, at this time there was a long time that we haven’t think!)
And we are in the third displacement, this means: the culmination of thoughts (this means the end of literature), like Sartre: read what he tells in Situations of the “committed literature.” From the moment where literature has been committed, this is no more than a war weapon, this is no more than a gay science (it is even terribly sadder!) and this is no more literature, it became another thing (it belongs to you to name this as you want). “And after Sartre, you will ask me, what remains of the French literature?” The answer is: nothing. It is Byzantine; I mean the “new novel”, the “absurd theater,” the “new criticism.” Nothing! One day, someone asked me what is left of the French literature since the end of the second war (1945) to now. My first reaction was, precisely, to answer “nothing!” And then, after a carefully thought, I replied: “perhaps the words of Sartre, and the memories of Hadrian of Marguerite Yourcenar.” You must admit that this is not very much! You must conceive that French literature is dead, when the Science of men born.
This does not mean that it does not present any interest. Because, who spoke of the man, until the middle of the last century? Well, literature did. For the reason that since Bacon, it was born what he called the naturalist philosophy by the time of the Renaissance, and from this philosophy it comes the issues of our “nature sciences.” And to make a science of Man (with a capital letter!) this creature quasi divine, was excluded. Consequently, literature (history and philosophy included), has filled the historic role of conservatory of the man (“pre human sciences,” or, the gay science of Modern Times). People sometimes ask me this question: “How is it that, after having done your humanities studies, then you devoted to linguistics, and then to anthropology?” You understand that the only thing that I was interested in life was the answer to this question: What is a man (with a tiny letter)? Literature gave me the first answers, then I started to be engaged to what are the highest antiquities and the first real science of Man (thinking that language was natural in men), to be exact it is grammar, called “linguistic” when I was teaching, linguistics took me, logically, to anthropology. You see that there is, in my route, an intellectual and a perfect consistency. I close parenthesis here and I return to my business.
You understand that when somebody says to you, “I teach French literature” (from Rabelais to Sartre!) It became completely clichéd (it is good to be on museum) and, above all, how would you like to put all of these works in the same cart? This is ridiculous!
In the other hand, we must see that the texts we continue to call “literary” are a mass of determinisms. That is what I blame to my childhood teachers because instead of deconstruct the text, they took it globally (it was the famous “text explanation”), but it should have different specialists who would have treated those texts with different methods: there is, indeed, in the literary text the sociologist works, the psychoanalyst, the historian, the psychologist, the linguist, etc. In a single literary text there is a lot for what to devote a full year, the year which would be more informative as the exam, more or less intuitive of a series of “chosen pieces.” But it is true that such as education would require, of the professor in French Literature, a series of knowledge and a synthesis gift which is quite unusual! You can believe me, this is what I have tried to practice while I was a student (a superior student, it is true). But, believe me, I do not regret this: I am proud to believe, I am proud of passionate my students of License while explaining them… “The rabbit and the turtle”! I have never stopped to teach them to read, but wearing another glasses (already!) This is why I have always thought, and continue to believe that the question of programs and schedules have no interest (this is the kitchen ones.) The content, in a general way, have too little to do with the spirit formation. What really counts are the glasses, this means what some people call the method. That is why I think that literary texts cannot be successfully used in higher education.
Is it necessarily to remove the teaching of French Literature in our secondary education like some people, not without reason, want? I will answer: “no”, for the simple reason that, nobody (only a barbarian) is going to burn files. But if we do, we should also burn all our museums! But a museum, we can range that, we can range a few stops before to select certain oeuvres. I could take another example: the metropolitan. You go in the train and you browse the line, with the intention to stop in a few stations. Take again, these small tourist trains you make the “historic” tour of a city marking the time of stops before that or that monument. You all are going to laugh, but when I arrive in a city that I do not know; I borrow these small tourist trains and then I return to visit that or that monument which interested me the most. In other words, what French Literature teachers should propose in the end of secondary school, it is a perspective tour. But this perspective tour could be proposed by both the gym coach, why not, if he has good taste and if he knows how to read the Michelin Guide of literature and can catch the interest of his students!
That says, I have quite quickly understood, that at the same time that “human sciences” were taught in our “Faculties of Letters and human sciences” (it is the “and”, here, that is significant here), were always and only just literature, although they were parts, shortly after my studies of Philosophy License. It seems that these “human sciences,” taught in our Faculties of letters have an objective: the man with a small first letter, and no longer a capital letter, as it was the case in humanism which never ends to die. Then, some of these literary specialists of “human sciences” derive in decorating a man to try to make an object that looks scientific. They have taken from science, not its formalization requirement, but its language and its appearance, no more or less. Thus, some psychologists, baptized “Neuropsychologists,” put up with white blouses, have their laboratories, measure, online, etc. However, in those “labs,” it is certain that they are attempting to check “data”, but of the data which is never defined! Sociologists they make statistics! And they do not have a model underlying the phenomena that they describe, they cannot do anything but describe them (and not to explain). But how can they describe them? With numbers (all the same it makes them more intelligent). But statistics are like computers. If the data that we trust to computers is silly, it is certain that the computer will deal with this silliness (computers are ready to work with anything). It is the same in statistics: you will have silly answer in respond of a silly question.
Finally, haven’t taken anything from science but the appearance, I mean computing, statistics or laboratory, the object “man” (with a small m) is there and it is as virgin as it entered. It is true that these “human sciences” have nothing to do with science but outside the flattering of a simply testify to the claim of literary that have not been able to build scientifically their object.
It remained the sniper, Edgar Morin, who made good used of his concept of complexity. I do not say that he is silly, far from that, but I say that he thinks that we must forget everything from the past and start all over again: “The lost paradigm is definitively lost, but I will invent it all!” The result: it says nothing! For that reason, he refuges, like all the literary men, behind the complexity of men. “Study the phosphorus, ok! Analyze calves, it is already easier, but, compared to a man, a calf is all the same simple. A man, he is much more complicated, subtler, he has more ends!”
I was there, on my career when I had, like twenty years ago, the chance to meet Jean Gagnepain, and to be part of his disciples. When I met him I have quickly understood, that to preach a truly scientific knowledge of the man, meant that we have to shoot down the main obstacles to the advent of this new knowledge, beginning with these famous “Faculties of Letters and human sciences.” Indeed, if, for example, you refer to the Renaissance, you can see that humanism has not been able to prevail only when, under the blows of Rabelais and company, Sorbonne’s lock has jumped. But at the time, the old “Sorbonicoles”, exactly as those of today, wanted to reform themselves to adapt. But there were others, more realistic who understood that any reform was already condemned: there had to do something else. That is exactly what Jean Gagnepain understood.
In the age, which is no more the age of humanism, but the age of the anti-humanism, I mean, the treatment of the man by man who presides over the emergence of a true man’ Science, it is time to become to be aware of what is the main obstacle to the beginning of this new era. The problem of training, not only for tomorrow, but also for today, was through the kill of literature. Certainly, if the current literature had become the enemies, it is after having been the most beautiful fleuron of the humanism of the university. But, as Marx said while speaking of bourgeois, they have been a necessary evil; they have played their historic role, the one of being the pre human sciences. From this point of view, the sciences called “soft” (psychology, sociology, political science) extend the historic role of literature (philosophy, beautiful letters, and history included). This historic role has consisted to put men inside the fridge for better study them, while waiting for science called “nature.”
I want to say that these “soft” sciences are being yield before the “hard” Sciences of the man, since the work of this genius still too poorly known, Jean Gagnepain, which is the real founder of the experimental Science of the man. Let me explain that.
It is Freud which gave to Jean Gagnepain the idea of an explanatory clinic, in other words, a type of clinic that allowed him to perpetually submit in question the theoretical model of the man that he has developed during almost half century. That is absolutely fundamental. The one, who really won, in the psychoanalytic treatment, was Freud, which recognized that he had never healed anyone! Freud, basically, became more and more intelligent and, in theory, more and more evil as he submitted his patients to his cure. That is what has given to Jean Gagnepain the idea of a clinic that he wanted to be squarely experimental. He said that it was not because we change of “object,” I mean, to “pass” from nature to man (constructing this “object” man, it is obvious) that we change scientifically: science must have, first of all a coherent model, and also, a place of verification. It must be experimented somewhere, where the idea that the clinic had, in the man, was the only place of verification. To talk about this clinic, Jean Gagnepain referred often the work of a mechanic. In a car, it is rare that everything is wrong at the same time: once, it is the ignition, then the carburetion, etc. It is why he always compared himself to a mechanic who had learned the mechanical in repairing the failure of a car. Because, as in a car, it is rare among the man that everything is wrong at the same time. Nothing breaks down at one stroke: we never lose lucidity, but the reason could become an object of experimental science.
Talking about that, the theory of mediation is what we can indeed call a clinical anthropology. And the mediators (grouped together under the name of School of Rennes), of the same time, are the first in the world to bet in the need to establish a scientific approach to the man who gives himself, of course, a theoretical model, and, at the same time, a place of experimentation. In other words, the link between theory and clinic is so fundamental, that cannot be separated one from the other…except, as I will do, most often, by convenience of exposure (and then we cannot do everything!)
I have spoken about Freud, but this does not mean that Jean Gagnepain unconditionally adheres himself to the psychoanalysis. It corrects the excesses. Excesses of verbosity, firstly because Freud had discovered the unconscious of the conscience representative, while there is also a technical “unconscious,” a social “unconscious” and a ethic “unconscious,” and this is why Jean Gagnepain replaces the concept of unconscious that is implied.
The second corrective is the service that he brings to the historicism in which Freud locked himself, the “stages,” the “regression”, historicism, etc. If you want to know, Jean Gagnepain is not for the Urszene (“primitive scene”,) but for the Grundszene (“fundamental scene”.)
The second precursor that Jean Gagnepain recognizes is Ferdinand de Saussure and his structural design of the verbal sign (in fact it is an anachronism: Ferdinand de Saussure has never used the word “structure,” he speaks of “system”.) The discovery of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) has been for Jean Gagnepain as for a lot of French intellectuals, a real revelation, and a revelation that came late (toward the end of the 40s), while the famous general linguistics course date…from 1916! (It is to tell you how it works in French University!) Well, the famous linguist Genovese is the first to have shown that, in the language anything was obvious, but that, under the phenomenon, there was another thing, that Jean Gagnepain baptized as “grammar,” for the object to the “rhetoric” which only, as we will see, is manifested in the phrase.
But it must be clear that the idea of “system” implementation of Saussure, and which was then called “structure” has been completely perverted by the successors of Saussure, those that are called “structuralists,” then “semiologists” and others “semiotics.” All of these people have given to sign an abusive importance: for them everything is a sign! This is the full recovery! Jean Gagnepain gives to the sign a considerable importance too, but not at all in the same way that the structuralists do. He uses it as analogue, this means that the principle of explanatory sign, is worth, analogue, for the tool, the person and the standard. That is, very quickly what Jean Gagnepain owe to Saussure.
Finally, it is the Marxist praxis which led Jean Gagnepain to the theory of an incorporated rationality. In other words, this idea of praxis, borrowed from Marx, has led him to ask the reality of the explanatory principle that is the reason, not from outside of the man, but in the man. And it is even the difference between the sciences called “of man” and the sciences called “of nature.” All of two belong to the same rationality, but it is found that, in nature, there is no reason anywhere: it is the man who explains it; in the other hand, the man has reason, it is even one of the characteristics of the “object” (the man) to be study scientifically. So if the sciences called “the man” cannot be that science in double (talking about mathematics), since the rationality is, at once, at the thinker and in the object that he studied. At the same time, it is important to make this incorporation of the rationality in the object even (the man) if that is the one who we want to study scientifically.
Among those who have preceded Jean Gagnepain, which has pushed this reality all alone, it is Marx which, as you know, history was not the fact of the “professional” historian (if he is historian of France, art, literature, etc. ) but of the historian that we all are. What had Marx envisaged, consciously? A theory of a man and as the man was defined by history, it was necessary to deal as scientifically as possible, by developing a historical materialism. Only again, as well as the semiology and the semiotics have played a tour to enjoy Saussure and have made ridicules the structuralism (including the one of Levi-Strauss) which became a new idealism, of the same Engels and Feuerbach have played the same turn to enjoy the historical materialism of Marx by pulling, as long as they were able, to what has been called. Then materialism generalized, this means that the “materialism dialectic” (which Marx, aged and tired, has finished by subscribing), and which was for the whole evolution of the cosmos! In other words, the “materialism dialectic,” in making dialectic a process for culture (this means for the man), and for the nature, it comes to a full materialism. In short words, “materialism dialectic” drowned Marx, exactly as structuralism drowned Saussure.
That said, and to conclude, I would like you to say a word to describe my relationship with Jean Gagnepain. In a general way, I would say that the Master is neither one we respect, nor the one with which we break: we live from him. In other words, the Master, we do respect ever, because the respect is a sign of death. When I speak to you about Jean Gagnepain, I do exist. But where am I myself? But, it is not important. This does not say that the memory of Jean Gagnepain is not, in itself, worthy of respect that we owe to human genius, but it cannot serve us, to me personally, and to you, through an intermediary, in the extent that we digested, where we are doing our case. Not a question we cannot stop a Master in history: this would be, beautiful and well the “destroy” to go after Sartre.
I would like to add that the Master, if he is a Master in thinking (which no longer exists in France for a long time) is not a teacher, on the contrary! Take Maître Albert, in the Middle Age: when Master Albert was confusing with the Sorbonne, he took his cliques and his claques and he did secession, I mean, that he took his neighborhoods on the place to which, in Paris, he gave his name: the Maubert plaza. He was installed there and he gave his cathedra outside, and everyone followed him. He had the charisma, he drew crowds, he thought, and he was free.
Well, Jean Gagnepain, if you want, is the Master Albert of the man’ Science. You understand, in these conditions, that his thoughts can disturb, or even indignant, especially for the academia.
So much better, if this thinking, that I will try to transmit to you (if you “us” made the honor to “us” follow) I invite you to reflection.
www.theory-mediation.com
Every Other Day Diet Review
The Every Other Day Diet is an eBook offered by Jon Benson and Janis Hauser. Both Jon and Janis are formerly obese individuals who were able to lose weight without turning to surgery. They then parlayed their success into careers as fitness coaches and fitness writers. Their weight loss eBook, commonly referred to as EODD is a diet that distances itself from traditional diet plans. Marketing itself as a nutritional plan that will work for the rest of your life, EODD is gaining support from some satisfied dieters.
Pros
At a price tag of only $40, the EODD is easily affordable.
Dieters also get more than what they pay for. A long list of bonuses are included with purchase including an online virtual exercise demonstrator and The Radical Fat Loss Blueprint which claims to help dieters lose up to 21 pounds in 21 days.
The diet is simple to follow and offers dieters the ability to customize their plan with 3 possible levels they can follow based on how much weight they want to lose.
Instead of only focusing on what you eat, the EODD looks at the emotional aspects of losing weight. Dieters are taught that they have to dedicate themselves to making a change, be willing to exercise to get the weight off and be patient. Understanding that massive weight loss cannot happen overnight.
PDF is available for download immediately after purchase.
Cons
The Every Other Day Diet web site, only offers a video to introduce the product. Contact information, customer testimonials and a frequently asked questions section would reassure customers leery of ordering an eBook.
How Does the Every Other Day Diet Program Work?
The EODD uses caloric cycling in order to stimulate weight loss. Dieters eat high protein meals one day to burn fat then consume their favorite foods including pasta and pizza within moderation on the following day. The constant change in eating calories keeps the metabolism from becoming sluggish and ensures dieters will consume fewer calories than they need, burn fat and lose weight. Some people choose to fast to obtain similar results but fasting is not a part of this program nor is it recommended.
Editors Note: Random comments and the occasional forum or blog post mentioning EODD is a scam does not appear to be accurate. We have purchased and reviewed this diet in detail and the information provided was accurate and actionable.
Every Other Day Diet Conclusion
The EODD comes with a full 60 day money back guarantee and offers a number of bonuses that are well worth the price. The diet is easy to follow, innovative and customer feedback on the program is high. The inclusion of a weight maintenance plan and a plan specifically for body builders and athletes makes the Every Other Day Diet a program dieters will love.
Dancing With The Stars 2010 Lineup Revealed
Dancing With The Stars 2010 Lineup Revealed
For "Dancing With the Stars" fans, only Christmas comes close to the excitement surrounding this very day, the one in which new names are officially unveiled for the new season. Now, the all-new cast of celebrities has been announced — and when its 10th season kicks off March 22, everyone from the infamous to the athletic to the iconic will be hitting the dance floor. On Monday night (March 1), ABC announced the new contestants during "The Bachelor." Read on for a breakdown of which big names will be making their ballroom-dancing debut and fox-trotting into your living room.
Dancing With The Stars 2010 Lineup RevealedPamela AndersonThe veteran actress/ model/ Borat abduction target, 42, will soon be adding competitive dancing to her résumé. Rumors of America's favorite Canadian lifeguard joining the cast have been swirling around the Internet for quite sometime, but now that it has been confirmed, we can all breathe easy and start explore a different topic: how Pam will keep her balance on the dance floor considering her famously oversized, ahem, assets. Nicole ScherzingerBest known as the lead singer of the Pussycat Dolls, the 31-year-old Scherzinger would seem to have a natural advantage on "DWTS" due to her extensive singing/dancing work. Now that her bandmates are moving on and she's strapping on her dancing shoes, could this indicate that the Pussycat Dolls have made their last meow? Kate GosselinThe newly divorced reality star and mother of eight, Kate, 34, has fueled so many tabloid reports that she's as recognizable to supermarket shoppers as Aunt Jemima. Now, she'll be talked about for her dancing skills or — according to her — lack thereof. Will Jon be doing some heavy-duty babysitting on his own this season? Chad OchocincoEvery class needs a football player, and Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Ochocinco will soon be using his soft hands to cradle a dancing partner rather than a pigskin. Ochocinco joins the fast-growing ranks of NFL players who have competed in the dancing competition, including Warren Sapp and Jerry Rice. Born Chad Johnson, the colorful player legally changed his name to the Spanish words for "eight" and "five," and recently announced he'd be changing it again to the Japanese words — so, get ready for Chad Hachi Go. Let's just hope there's a lot of room for name inscribing on that mirror-ball trophy. Shannen DohertyLike former co-stars Jennie Garth and Ian Ziering before her, "Beverly Hills, 90210" alum Shannen Doherty, 38, will be leaving West Bev in the dust for "Dancing With the Stars." The former Brenda Walsh spoke out publicly in 2007 against going on such shows, setting her up perfectly to continue a career-long tradition of rocking the boat. In semi-related news, Brian Austin Green continues to wait by the phone wearing a leotard and tap shoes. Evan LysacekAt the just-concluded Winter Olympics, this 24-year-old figure skater took home the gold; now, he'll be trying to duplicate that success on the dance floor. Trading in his skates for dance shoes, Lysacek won't be able to move quite as fast without the ice beneath him — but hey, at least he'll be warmer. Erin AndrewsLong beloved by sports fans for her brains, beauty and sideline-reporting skills, Andrews has spent her recent days making TV commercials and dealing with a bizarre peeping-Tom video. Forget about dancing — it will be weird just to see her without a microphone in her hand. Buzz AldrinThe original moonwalker, Aldrin was on the historic Apollo 11 mission and accompanied Neil Armstrong as they set foot on the moon. Now, he's 80 years old and still active enough to think he can teach those other "DWTS" whippersnappers a thing or two. Something tells us it's gonna take a lot more than Tang and powdered ice cream to get him through this one. Aiden TurnerThe British stud, best known for his role as Aidan Devane on "All My Children," follows in the footsteps of other ABC soap stars like Kelly Monaco and Cameron Mathison on "DWTS." A cameo in Spice Girl Geri Halliwell's "Bag It Up" music video might give the 32-year-old a leg up on the competition. Niecy NashThe "Reno 911" funnywoman has often branched out from acting, with her hosting duties on "Clean House" and her panelist gig on "The Insider." Now, the 40-year-old comic actress will stretch her skills even further to see how she fares on the dance floor. Jake PavelkaIt might have seemed like an odd choice to reveal the "DWTS" lineup during "The Bachelor," but then the last contestant was announced: Jake. Between his search for love and now the dancing show, ABC is really taking care of the pilot.
Dancing With The Stars 2010 Lineup Revealed