Of course this was inevitable:

Being irritable, grumpy and seeking social isolation are hallmarks of depression and may explain why the Grinch hated Christmas, a U.S. psychologist suggests.

Cynthia Bulik of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says the fictional children’s book character is likely depressed – explaining his disdain for the Who, his mistreatment of his dog Max and why he tried to stop Christmas from coming.

Okay, the Grinch was misunderstood. And one should be more understanding – clinical depression is a serious illness and those suffering from it are in real pain, and won’t snap of it if you tell them to think positively. For them thinking positively has become impossible, and they know it, which is one more thing to be depressed about – you know what you should do, know you can’t manager it, so you must be a loser. Yes, you can talk about chemical imbalances, and yes, there are ways to adjust those neurological imbalances that sometimes work. Being doped up is better than being in pain, but not much. Or you can use the developmental model – resolve long-standing conflicts from youth and all that. Yep, that hardly ever works, but it is a cool idea. Everyone has issues with their mother. And there’s the cognitive-behavioral model – work with the internal dialog everyone uses to explain the world to themselves, doing what amounts to intense semantic analysis of the premises being used and working out alternatives that can be substituted, after much practice – which works wonders but is a long, hard slog, unless Charles Dickens has supplied you with those three handy Christmas ghosts with all the cool visual aids. The Grinch had none of this. No wonder he had issues.

But the good doctor from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has it backwards. There’s clinical depression – and more power to her for cleverly raising awareness and all that – but there’s also situational depression. One is organic, when you’re messed up on your own, as it is s self-generated, by brain chemistry or personal history or whatever. The other comes from the outside – a death in the family, divorce, loss of your job or whatever you’ve been using to define yourself to yourself, or illness, old age, or Christmas.

Yep, many find Christmas depressing, and the suicide rate does go up a bit at Christmas. The wide-spread despair has been well-documented – at the most wonderful time of the year. And these aren’t the clinically depressed, they’re those pummeled by the good cheer too much hype – this is going to be great, astonishing, the best Christmas ever, and you’ll get every gift you want and those you give will be just the right thing that light up the eyes of the wife and kids, or whomever. The expectations are impossible. The kid got just what he asked for, but what’s in his hand seems cheesy and smaller than he thought – it wasn’t like that on television. It somehow doesn’t seem fair. And the spouse gushes that this is just what she wanted, but you hear in her voice some hint that you blew it, and you make a mental note to carefully control your tone, and you own facial muscles when you open your gifts. Then the kids are fighting or pouting, and you sense their bad moods, and realize nothing would have satisfied them – nothing ever matches the hype. You might do your little talk about the spirit of the season, and yes, nothing is ever quite what you thought it would ne, no matter what you heard and then expected, and it’s the thought that counts, and so on and so forth. And well-adjusted kids will get it – pretty close and pretty neat is fine, and advertizing is just advertising. Other kids realize that in their forties or fifties or whatever. And in the background you catch the sound of the old depressing Christmas songs – Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas (one day soon our troubles will be far away, even if we’re really bummed now and don’t see how that could be), and I’ll Be Home for Christmas (if only in my dreams), the infinitely sad song from World War II, when no one was getting home soon, and some not ever. And then you realize you’ll soon get the bills for all this.

All in all this one holiday seems to be constructed as a nationwide mania of high expectations that cannot ever really be met – so you either buy more stuff, and better stuff, the best stuff you can buy, to come as close a some can to some idealized Christmas that never could be, which helps the economy immensely, or you get really depressed, as nothing is what everyone says it should be, and agrees it should be, and pretends it is, while you just don’t see that at all and the others, most everyone, all seem delusional sentimental oddballs – or you ride it out. It’s not perfect. It never will be perfect. But nothing is – and good things are happening. Certain good is better than the impossible perfect, and that’s fine. You can have fine time.

The liberal left should learn that lesson, as this year is the first Christmas with Obama in the White House, and they’re like that kid who got just what he wanted for Christmas, tore off the wrapping paper, opened the box, looked inside, then asked the same question as the disappointed kid. Is this it? Yes, it is – you got just what you said you wanted. Yeah, yeah – I said I wanted this, and this seems to be it. But is this it?

Yes it is, and in a series of Christmas week items, various folks are saying that you’ve been blinded by your impossible expectations. This is what you said you wanted. But this is also the real world. Your new GI Joe doesn’t have a real flamethrower. Did you really expect that?

The first item is from the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney here – the Obama White House and the progressive base are at odds, as the president seems to be pursuing his agenda, which is theirs too, by playing by the establishment’s rules, working through the existing power structure to get to the right place, while a whole lot of liberals want him to dismantle the existing power structure:

As much as Mr. Obama presented himself as an outsider during his campaign, a lesson of this [health care reform] battle is that this is a president who would rather work within the system than seek to upend it. He is not the ideologue ready to stage a symbolic fight that could end in defeat; he is a former senator comfortable in dealing with the arcane rules of the Senate and prepared to accept compromise in search of a larger goal. For the most part, Democrats on Capitol Hill have stuck with him.

By contrast, [Howard] Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman who has long had strained relations with this administration, said the White House was slow to fight and quick to make concessions – particularly on creating a public insurance plan – and demanded that Democrats kill the Senate version of the health care bill.

That sentiment was echoed by liberal efforts that grew up around the Dean campaign, notably Daily Kos and MoveOn.org, which argued that Mr. Obama was not tough enough in staring down foes, be they insurance companies or Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut.

“He ran as someone who would fight against entrenched special interests on behalf of the little guy,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has emerged as one of Mr. Obama’s leading critics in recent days. “And what we learned in this debate is that he’s not willing to fight and exert pressure on entrenched special interests when it comes to big ideas.”

No flamethrower, you see – but Steve Benen argues that the White House might disagree:

The president butted heads with an entrenched special interest on health care (insurance companies), a different entrenched special interest on military procurement reform (powerful contractors), a different entrenched special interest on FDA regulation of tobacco products (Big Tobacco), and a different entrenched special interest on reforming student loan policies (private lenders).

But Benen agrees with the larger point:

Obama has not changed the political structure, he’s working within it. Accusations about “politics as usual” are not unfounded – the agenda and direction of the country changed considerably on Inauguration Day, but the rules of the game haven’t. President Obama’s MO, for the most part, seems to be built around choosing the issue, getting the best deal he thinks he can get, and then moving onto the next issue. The focus places an emphasis on problem solving, while leaving traditional power structures in place.

And like the disappointed kid at Christmas, maybe it is time to adjust expectations:

President Obama has unique gifts, but overturning the DC political establishment in 11 months probably isn’t a reasonable expectation. If/when health care reform becomes law it will change, at a rather fundamental level, the relationship between the government and the populace, which may in turn create opportunities for re-writing the rules of the game. It’s the kind of thing that will take time … and a genuine, determined commitment. Time will tell.

But Benen has a related question:

When FDR got Social Security through Congress, the benefits were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers, the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. Women and minorities were, for lack of a better word, screwed.

All of these dramatic flaws were the result of compromises Roosevelt felt like he had to make – some with uncooperative members of Congress, some with the institutional powers of the day – in order to achieve his goal.

I’m wondering, however, whether FDR was decried at the time by liberals as a sell-out unwilling to fight for a stronger Social Security bill against entrenched special interests. Were there progressive activists at the time who denounced Social Security as inadequate? Were there liberal lawmakers who voted with Republicans to kill it because it didn’t go far enough? Was there widespread talk that Democrats would suffer in the 1936 midterms because liberals were unsatisfied the compromises FDR accepted?

That may not matter now, but it’s something to investigate – maybe. But Benen points out that the institutional power structures that now exist in DC are not new, and in fact “they’ve evolved slowly over decades, and put up overwhelming resistance when challenged.” It would be useful to know what FDR did about that.

But even the New York Times’ second string conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, has no idea what to make of Obama:

Obama baffles observers, I suspect, because he’s an ideologue and a pragmatist all at once. He’s a doctrinaire liberal who’s always willing to cut a deal and grab for half the loaf. He has the policy preferences of a progressive blogger, but the governing style of a seasoned Beltway wheeler-dealer. …

In hindsight, the most prescient sentence penned during the presidential campaign belongs to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker. “Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama,” he wrote in July 2008, “is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them.”

Kevin Drum says that’s what those of the left need to understand:

I think the thing that surprises me is that anyone ever thought otherwise. Among low-information voters I understand the disconnect: they heard hopey-changiness, haven’t really gotten it, and are disappointed. But even some very high-information voters seem to be disappointed the same way, and it’s baffling. Obama’s entire career has been one of low-key, pragmatic leadership. He’s clearly a mainstream liberal, but during the Democratic primaries he was famously the least progressive (by a small margin) of the three major candidates on domestic issues. He did everything he could to avoid taking dangerously inflammatory stands on button social issues. His advisors during the campaign were nearly all members in good standing of the center left. His nickname was “No Drama Obama,” and his temperament was plainly cautious, sober, and businesslike.

So there’s no reason for screaming that he isn’t want you want him to be. You just had to pay attention:

This was all pretty obvious during the campaign, and everybody understood it perfectly well when Republicans went crazy and started tarring him a radical socialist and a bomb-throwing revolutionary. Remember how we mocked all that stuff? But I guess that, deep down, an awful lot of people were hoping that he was just play acting during the campaign, pretending to be a solid citizen while the real Obama was plotting to turn us into Sweden.

Personally, I wish Obama would articulate the liberal agenda more full-throatedly, and I wish he’d take a few more risks and push his own caucus a little harder. I’ve thought that ever since the 2008 campaign. But the fact that he hasn’t hardly comes as a surprise. He’s as liberal a president as we’ve had in 40 years, but he’s no starry-eyed idealist. Why would anyone ever have thought differently?

But as usual, Andrew Sullivan puts it best:

One impression from Obama’s interactions with the Republicans and Democrats in Congress: Obama clearly sees the presidency as a different institution than his immediate predecessor. This is a good thing, it seems to me. Bush had imbibed a monarchical sense of the office from his father and his godfather (Cheney). The monarch decided. If you were lucky, you’d get an explanation later, usually dolled up in propaganda. But the president had one accountability moment – the election of 2004 – and the rest of the time he saw the presidency as a form of power that should be used with total boldness and declarative clarity.

At times Bush’s indifference to the system around him bordered on a kind of political autism. And so one of the oddest aspects of Bush’s presidency was his tendency to declare things, as if merely saying them as president could make them so. The model was clear and dramatically intensified by wartime: the president pronounced; Congress anemically responded; the base rallied.

At the start, it felt like magic, but as reality slipped through the fast-eroding firewall of reckless spending and military misadventure, Bush’s authority disappeared all the more quickly – because his so-certain predictions were so obviously wrong. The Decider had no response to this. He just had to keep deciding and asserting, to less and less effect, that he was right all along. Hence the excruciating final months. Within a democratic system, we had replicated all the comedy and tragedy of cocooned authoritarianism.

We didn’t want that for Christmas again, and we got what we wanted, even if we fell for the hype. We got Obama, the opposite:

What the critics misread in his Inaugural was its classical structure. He was not running any more. He was presiding.

His job was not to rally vast crowds, but to set the scene for the broader constitutional tableau to come to life. Hence the obvious shock of some Republican Congressman at debating with a president who seemed interested in actual conversation, as opposed to pure politics. Last Tuesday, there were none of the bold declarative predictions of the Second Bush Inaugural – and none of the slightly creepy Decider idolatry. Yes, Obama set some very clear directional goals, but the key difference is what came next: a window of invitation. The invitation is to the other co-equal branches of government to play their part; and for the citizenry to play its. This is an understanding of the president as one node in a constitutional order – not a near-dictator outside and superior to other branches of government. It is a return to traditional constitutional order. And it is rooted in a traditional, small-c conservative understanding of the presidency.

Isn’t that what we wanted?

If Bush was about the presidency as power, Obama is about the presidency as authority. It’s fascinating to watch this deep difference in understanding slowly but unmistakably realize itself in public actions. Somewhere the Founders are smiling. The system is correcting itself after one of the most unbalanced periods in American history. But it took the self-restraint of one man to do it.

And even that conservative columnist Ross Douthat acknowledged that Obama will have had a pretty good first year:

Between the stimulus package, the pending health care bill and a new raft of financial regulations, Obama will soon be able to claim more major legislative accomplishments than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.

Hey, it’s the thought that counts. And certain good is better than the impossible perfect, and that’s fine. You can have fine time. Kids eventually learn that at Christmas. Maybe some on the left need to learn that too.

Health Care Breakthrough: Ben Nelson Will Vote for Health Reform — Politics Daily.

“If you believe in yourself, you have what it takes to win.  You can get whatever you want . . . Show up and get it.”

“To do anything is hard . . . Even if you find the place to assign blame, it doesn’t make problems go away”

“If a woman allows me to lead, she’s trusting me.  More than that, she’s trusting herself.  If your 16-year-old daughter is strong and secure and trust herself, how likely would she let some idiot knock her up?  And if your son learns to touch a girl with respect, how will he treat women throughout his life? . . .”

“So, ladies and gentlemen, this is what I do here.  I teach dance.  WITH DANCE AND ITS SET OF RULES, WE TEACH YOUR KIDS LOVE, RESPECT, TEAMWORK, and DIGNITY; that which would help give them the vision of the future they could have.  THE VISION OF THE FUTURE THEY COULD HAVE.”  (6:30-7:46)

“I’m not interested so much in teaching ballroom dancing techniques. What’s important is the civility that ballroom dancing can bring . . . courtesy, respect, and dignity.”  (Pierre Dulaine, educator, founder, Dulaine Method)

Having high expectations for students, I know from experience, always results in higher achievement. However, the expectations and goals need to be different for each student. There are usually groups of students who can achieve the same high goals, but having one high expectation for all students can sometimes leave other students feeling like failures. The key is to have different goals in various subject areas for each student. Knowing all students can learn is a MUST in order for teachers to move forward in helping each student to improve.  This knowledge needs to be brought to forefront of your consciousness by staying aware of your words and thoughts, even out of the classroom. I’ve heard educators who claimed to know all students can learn, but then would utter the word “He can’t learn anything” while eating lunch in the teacher’s lounge. Some teachers indicate that a whole class was impossible to teach. We have all had students who seem like they don’t understand a concept, no matter how many different ways we introduce it to them, and then suddenly they walk in one day and POOF – they get it!  If the teacher had considered it too difficult, or had given up before trying a different strategy, the light may not ever have switched on for that student.  How do we communicate our high expectations to students? Here are strategies used successfully:

1. Tell the students your expectations for the whole group and then individually pull them aside to explain individual goals.

2. Find out as much as you can about their interests by taking surveys and asking questions.  Teaching students using their interests is one of the best ways to break through any intellectual block they have had in academics or behavior. For example, if a student loves boats, use boats in math examples, boat books or magazines for reading, and let them write about boats.

3.  Communicate your expectations to the parents in newsletters or parent conferences.  They can give you great insight to what the student’s interest levels are as well.

4.  Provide opportunities for students to work in groups to make discoveries.  Don’t answer questions, but instead lead them to make their own discoveries by asking questions and communicating to them that you know someone in their group will find the answer.  This may seem difficult the first few attempts, but once they get the hang of working together to get answers without the teacher, they will be hooked and not depend so much on adults for the answer. This is our main goal as educators. To create a learning environment where students are independent learners and teachers only play the role of facilitating, leading and inspiring.

5.  Provide specific verbal encouragement all day. For example, “Johnny, I knew you could solve that math problem. Can you share what you found with the rest of the class?”  Students love to know they did something well and share with others.  Once you share an accomplishment with the class, you’ll notice the rest of the class will follow suit and even try to do better than the example you shared.

6.  If your goal for a student is a behavior issue, use signed contracts with the student stating your mutual expectations.  If necessary, attach it to their desk for daily review.  The contract should state what the expectation is, how the student can achieve it, and what they will receive when accomplished.  You don’t need to give candy etc… but it is helpful to let the student choose their reward.  The reward system should be gradually removed once the student consistently demonstrates a pattern of the expected behavior.

Sponsor: Cash for Creations, Inc. – Educational Visual Aids

www.cashforcreations.com

One thing that TFA really drills into you is the importance of maintaining high expectations and never compromising them. This is an idea that I took and ran with because I’m very good at setting expectations and holding them.

But it’s starting to get me in trouble. I have set high expectations for my students so that almost no major misbehaviors happen in my classroom. So I raised the bar and now I’ve become so anal about small misbehaviors that my kids are starting to revolt against me and our relationship is starting to deteriorate.  I’m a firm believer in setting the bar high, but I also recognize the fact that it’s much easier for students to do something for you when they like you instead of hating your guts. I’m at the age where emotions are a rollercoaster for these kids and one day they love you and the next they won’t even pick up a pencil because they think you looked at them funny. It’s so hard.

Having high expectations is starting to spill into my personal life. I’ve placed expectations on relationships that should not have expectations. It’s never possible to truly remove all expectations, but what’s an acceptable limit? I mean if a friend is going to cancel on me, I fully expect them to let me know. I feel that is a legitimate expectation. But when are expectations too much? When they start to damage of course, but can a relationship without any expectations actually flourish in the real world? i don’t know.

I came across an article today on the Ofsted website that I enjoyed reading:

"Why some schools excel against the odds where others struggle".

Here are the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert’s top 10 reasons that 12 outstanding schools excel against the odds:

• They excel at what they do, not just occasionally but for a high proportion of the time.
• They prove constantly that disadvantage need not be a barrier to achievement, that speaking English as an additional language can support academic success and that schools really can be learning communities.
• They put students first, invest in their staff and nurture their communities.
• They have strong values and high expectations that are applied consistently and never relaxed.
• They fulfil individual potential through providing outstanding teaching, rich opportunities for learning, and encouragement and support for each student.
• They are highly inclusive, having complete regard for the educational progress, personal development and well-being of every student.
• Their achievements do not happen by chance, but by highly reflective, carefully planned and implemented strategies which serve these schools well in meeting the many challenges which obstruct the path to success.
• They operate with a very high degree of internal consistency.
• They are constantly looking for ways to improve further.
• They have outstanding and well-distributed leadership.

BlueKiteCoach supports schools to develop a distributed leadership culture which upholds internal consistency, strong values and high expectations. Visit our website for further details at  www.bluekitecoach.com

it’s official (as if it wasn’t already…): henri truly is my mini-me.

we went shoe shopping, which was (more) stressful (then it had to be) because i suggested henri “try out” each pair of shoes he tried on–ended up being like 12 or so–and he took that to mean he could run away from us in each pair of shoes he tried on.  whoop-ee!

he ended up getting, yes–you guessed it–Pink Tennis Shoes.  now, either this is God’s way of reaffirming my decision to have a kid in the first place, OR, more likely, henri doesn’t yet realize that pink is for “little ladies,” as this website so kindly points out, and just really really really really REALLY loves his mom-mom who really really really REALLY loves pink, therefore…well, you get the argument i’m making. right?

Kicks

now, i know what you’re thinking: that i Encouraged him to get pink tennis shoes.  and i swear on the tattoo on my left wrist that i did no such thing.  however, i certainly showed them to him, kind of as a joke.*  the first pair of pink tennis shoes i showed him were not anywhere near as gender-neutral and he liked them but absolutely did not say he wanted to buy them like he did the converse ones.  (yes, he speaks in sentences and yes, gender-neutral is a term that applies to pink things, in my world).  i also know the other thing you’re thinking, mainly because i thought it, too, by which i mean, i said it out loud:  poor da-da.  as with all other things me & the h-man throw at mcknight, though, he took it just fine.  sure, he rolled his eyes.  but if any father can handle his 2-year-old running around in pink kicks, it’s this one.

to answer your other questions: yes, henri has been called a girl several times since this shoe-buying incident.  i have no words.  (he doesn’t even LOOK feminine!!!).  and yes, henri and mom-mom have had several well-meaning “older” women–at least 4-year-olds, if not older–explain to us that “pink” is for “girls.”  REALLY? i had no idea.  it’s not like i’ve never passed Victoria’s Secret or The Limited Too.  it’s not like i’ve tried to buy clothes for my son that aren’t blue.  it’s not like i started wearing pink the day my niece was born 9 years ago and haven’t stopped since.  i *know* pink is for girls, you little bitches/future sarah palin supporters!!!  but, guess what?  pink is also the color of Power.  in this case, the willpower not to introduce you to the powerful feeling of putting someone much smaller and much less experienced than you are in their rightful place: namely, on the ground.

but i digress.  the moral of the story is that  the first pair of tennis shoes henri picked out himself is pink.  we tried on adidas.  we ran around the store in new balance. we knocked over shoe salesman in elmo-light-up-blinky-blinky high traction/low impact etc.-etc. shoes.  i even forced his foot into a black & flame version of the very same shoe he ended up buying.  but, none of them got the elicited reaction, which went something like this.

mom-mom: (after picking up pink converse shoes that she in no way thought would ever be liked, let alone bought, by her son, who is a boy and not a “little lady”)  these are AWESOME.  don’t you LOVE them?????

da-da: rolls eyes.

henri: uh-huh.

mom-mom: (puts them on henri’s foot, despite his squirming and losing interest upon realizing they’re *very* hard shoes to put on) WOW. i LOVE them. don’t you LOVE them, buddy???

da-da: rolls eyes, begins to walk away.

henri: uh-huh.

mom-mom: are THESE the ones you want to BUY?????

henri: (after a very long hour to hour-and-a-half of trying on shoes, running around the store, and begging to ride in a tractor) Uh-Huh!

mom-mom: (says privately to da-da) wow–i can’t believe he wants pink shoes. that’s so cute. don’t you think that’s so cute? i didn’t force him into them. you saw it. he wanted them. he said he liked them.  right?

da-da: um…

*

*the reader will note that henri has been trying on my pink high-heeled shoes and prancing around the house in them, quite capably, for a few months now

“Other people may not have high expectations of me, but I have high expectations for myself.”

~ Shannon Miller

——

Jamie

mochawriter.com

Is Hercules your hero?

Who are your heroes?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had an answer for this question that resonated with me. The very concept of “heroes,” like the concept of religion, seems something novel and fantastic — something that would be nice if it truly worked out in our world — something ultimately ill-equipped for dealing with real-world issues.

So, I find myself coming to the conclusion, whenever I start thinking about it, that I just don’t believe in heroes…in the same way I don’t believe in religions (or more specifically, I don’t believe in the specific tenets and hopes of certain religions…whether it is the Mormon approach to Christianity or non-LDS Christianity (sorry, I’m really too ill-read to make unqualifed blanket statements about the many others.)

I think the reason why is because the very concept of heroes is unfit for people. It places undue and unreasonably high expectations. And high expectations are meant to be unfulfilled — a painful realization for those who must undergo it.

I think that when we say someone is our hero, we naturally create lofty expectations of them. We naturally focus on their bold, brave acts. We focus on the good. This is natural because if we do not, then we cheapen the concept of the hero.

OK, I admit: both entities here trigger uncanny valley for me.

Unfortunately, this emphasis on the good is disastrous because realistic people do have flaws. A person without at least some flaws hits that huge dip in the uncanny valley…we just know the person is close to being legitimate, but the one thing that he doesn’t get right sticks out. Big ones, usually. We might be able to avoid learning about these flaws (or put these flaws on a shelf if we know about them) for a while, but still…one thing has to give eventually: either our concept of “heroes” or our view of a specific person as a hero.

We might be OK if we could avoid learning about the tragic flaws of our heroes…but somehow…heroes are just magnets for people who want to dethrone them. Heroes are magnets for scrutiny and character defamation.

I mean, let’s take some popular heroes…How about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? Or how about Mother Teresa? Gandhi’s a usual favorite too.

It’s easy to think of all of these people as pretty heroic. Wow, did Dr. King do anything wrong? What an amazing person! Same with Mother Teresa and Gandhi.

But of course, the character defamers have done their homework too. Dr. King had some unsavory misconduct in his life (what does compulsive sexual athleticism even mean?). Mother Teresa apparently had some attitude issues and was a jerk. And how about those racist sentiments Gandhi made? Can we just attribute them to the era?

I guess it’s sound to question at this point. Are any of these claims substantiated? Do they hold up or are they “frankly pathetic”?

Let’s say we do find that some of these claims appear to be true. Do they even matter?

Some would say these negative aspects should not stop us from viewing heroic acts as heroic and heroic people as heroic. In fact, they might argue that flawed, human heroes are even more valuable because they are realistic. (Oh! and how people do this to the prophets! both ways…some insist that no negative claim is or can be substantiated…while others quickly reduce the expectations they associate with the concept of a “prophet” down to a shade…)

But this has never compelled me. I simply have too much respect for an idea of a hero. Heroes are unrealistic. Heroes are grand and spectacular. If that means that no human I know qualifies, then so be it. It would be better to avoid cheapening the concept of a hero than to falsely call someone a hero just to have a hero.

But beyond that, the general associations and implications of heroes don’t even make sense to me. When people inquire about heroes, they often want to know want to know what about them we want to emulate. What virtues of theirs would we make universal?

But I don’t believe humans should emulate…or at least, not in a capacity that would justify calling the emulated a hero. To emulate would imply that we are on the same track as our hero…or that we are trying to adopt their track in life.

But this we cannot do. We have our own lives. So, even if I may admire someone for how they are doing in their track, I do have to realize that I have my life…my track…I have my strengths and weaknesses…I cannot “borrow” someone else’s circumstances, strengths, and weaknesses, no matter how appealing they seem to me. Because they will always be better at being them than I can be.

Instead, I have to work on mine. My ideal self, then, can’t be another person. It must be Me Prime. Even if I feel my set of strengths and weaknesses are pretty terrible, at the end of the day, I do come to conclude that I would rather have my weaknesses than any other person’s…because I am familiar with them…so all I need to do is learn how to overcome them. Many people call their parents their heroes, and while I of course love my parents and think they are great people, I know that they have weaknesses that I simply would not want to have. I would easily take my platter of problems over theirs and work on getting through my plate before asking for seconds.

I don’t think all is lost. In fact, I believe my vote of no confidence in heroes is actually a vote of great confidence in people. For if I view people as heroes, I feel I am putting them on pedestals, setting them up for a harsh fall when the pedestal collapses.

So I don’t view people as heroes. I view them, like I view myself, as people. No one more intrinsically magical than the next. And I think this actually values people and their actions better than if I were to call them heroic heroes…because instead of expecting so much and becoming disappointed when expectations aren’t met…I  start without expectations — because what can I expect from other ordinary humans like myself? — and when people surpass that, I am able to fully appreciate that even mere humans can be pretty awesome.

Barack Obama Wins Nobel Prize

The Perfect Man

A man walks into the street and manages to get a taxi just going by. He gets into the taxi, and the driver says,

“Perfect timing. You’re just like Frank.”

Passenger: “Who?”

Taxi Driver: “Frank Feldman. He’s a guy who did everything right – all the time. Like my coming along when you needed a cab, things happened like that to Frank Feldman every single time.”

Passenger: “There are always a few clouds over everybody.”

Taxi Driver: “Not Frank Feldman. He was a terrific athlete. He could have won the Grand Slam at tennis. He could golf with the pros. He sang like an opera baritone and danced like a Broadway star and you should have heard him play the piano. He was an amazing guy”

Passenger: “Sounds like he was something really special”

Taxi Driver: “There’s more…he had a memory like a computer. Could remember everybody’s birthday. He knew all about wine, which foods to order and which fork to eat them with. He could fix anything. Not like me. I change a fuse, and the whole street blacks out. But Frank Feldman, he could do everything right.”

Passenger. “Wow, great guy.”

Taxi Driver: “He always knew the quickest way to go in traffic and avoid traffic jams, not like me, I always seem to get stuck in them. But Frank, he never made a mistake”

Passenger. “Mmm, there’s not many like him around.”

Taxi Driver: “And he really knew how to treat a woman and never answer back even if she was wrong; and his clothing was always immaculate, shoes highly polished too – he was the perfect man! He never made a mistake. No one could ever measure up to Frank Feldman.”

Passenger: “An amazing man. How did you meet him?”

Cabbie: “Well, I never actually met Frank.”

Passenger: “Then how do you know so much about him?”

Taxi Driver: “I married his widow!”
 

The lesson here would surely have to be that one should not compare between two individuals, even past and present. How frustrating for the poor taxi driver who has virtually byhearted all Franks virtues !! We must learn to be content with what we have been blessed with.  Now, having said that, I know it is easier said than done, Think about it, it is one of the many reasons why couples dont stay together too long these days, high expectations !!

Nothing like a perfect man, or a perfect match. We make each day work and we make each day matter. Thought for the day     

i have been thinking a lot lately about if i’m A) not as good of a mom as henri needs, B) a good mom but not as good of a mom as i wish i could be, or C) just a really lame mom.  the scary thing is that i’m not sure much, if any, of this (really) has to do with my “depression.”  i think that maybe there are just things about being a mom that i’m not good at: like playing trucks & cars for 8 hours straight, or playing anything for 8 hours straight.  i’m not a big “play” person.  but i want to be, if that’s what henri needs me to be.  where’s the balance supposed to be in that conundrum?

admittedly, there are things i’m super-good at when it comes to momming the h-man that previous skeptics (and by skeptics, i mean me) are probably really surprised about.  like how i’m pretty damn compassionate.  even though it’s funny as hell when henri falls down–hard to explain, he just gets hurt in funny/odd ways–i’m still really good at “kissing his boo-boo” and making sure he’s alright, prior to my laughing at with him.   well, that’s all i can think of right now. but i know there are other ways in which i’m better than i thought i would be that i *can’t* think of right now, mainly because i’m Hiding. In a Fort. in more ways than one.

what i’m trying to say is: i have fun with henri.  i’ve had loads of fun with henri. there are lots of zaftig memories in my mind.  we have fun together.  but…  i still have mommy-guilt.  i confess–to no one’s surprise, i’m sure: i don’t know where the grey is. i’m willing to bet that i couldn’t find the grey if it came up and tapped me on the shoulder and said, “hey there, i’m the grey part of being a mom.”

i’ve been told i have high expectations.  so, is that what this is? i’ve also been told that i deliberately put high expectations on people so that they will fail me and i can wallow in the disappointment that brings.  i guess, if that’s the case–which i’m not totally convinced of–then i could put the same amount of unrealistically high expectations on myself, fail, and be happy that the world is still round and i’m still a failure.  but that seems highly unlikely.  what kind of fucked up person would do that?

LeBron James is unique, to say the least. Not only to the Cleveland Cavaliers or the current NBA, but unique in terms of the entirety of basketball since Naismith invented the glorious game. Hardly has there been a more speculated about player in the Association, perhaps ever, and justly so. LeBron’s impact on the game of basketball goes beyond numbers and jersey and shoe sales, which is why he is so speculated about. He has been compared and contrasted with current NBA stars (see Kobe v. LeBron) and NBA legends (notably: Magic, MJ, Dominique, etc.), yet he is completely original in style and substance.

LeBron is some freak basketball creation that couldn’t have even been imagined by Mary Shelley. It is as if the basketball gods used the blueprints leftover from past great players and coalesced them into one human being that is potentially insuperable. Imagine, for the briefest of moments, that a player would arise that had the penetrating and high rising capabilities of Jordan, the flair and passing potential of Magic, the power and strength of Dominique Wilkins, and the end-to-end speed of Leandro Barbosa (or Iverson, or Derrick Rose). The combination is insane, not fair for opponents to try to cover or nearly anyone else to be compared to (sans Kobe and Wade).

But let’s start from the beginning, or more accurately, let’s start with what he does that is so special. The short answer is everything, the extended response contains a bit of hyperbole, some comparisons to an almighty being, and perhaps the greatest combination of assets that could be bestowed upon a mortal basketball player. He is special, an amalgamation of everything a basketball player could hope to be, all before he could be eligible to run for Congress.

Before he stepped on the court as a professional ball player, he was already a multimillionaire, if that gives you some perspective on the expectations of this man-child from Akron, Ohio. He was crowned “The Chosen One” by various sources, most notably on the cover of Sports Illustrated while still a junior in high school. Not that there aren’t expectations for high school phenoms, but this was an entire new level. Most players who jump directly from high school to the pros before LeBron weren’t so highly thought of that they warrant the first overall pick (except Kwame Brown, which we all know how that worked out). Even those drafted lower in the first round rarely make a significant impact right out of the gate, another notable exception being the incandescent Amar’e Stoudemire.

Even they weren’t so thought of as LeBron was. Before he graduated high school, experts debated where he could rank on an all-time basketball list. That is some lofty expectations for a kid who is barely out of his pubescent stages. The amazing thing about LeBron was that he exceeded expectations right out of the gate. I’m sure you have heard that before and you hardly give it any thought beyond some artificial recognition of it as truth. But to really examine it, the weight of a franchise was placed on an 18-year-old man’s shoulders and he didn’t crumble beneath the weight of expectations associated with his status. Instead, he did what all truly great players do and rose to the occasion. Cleveland needed a superstar to lead them back to prominence, and LeBron accepted his role as savior of a broken franchise, all the while still learning different aspects of his game and the league.

Beyond the back-story, the play of LeBron is what ranks him among the current greats of the game. His style is hard to quantify because it is unlike any previous players in whole. Certain parts of his game can be identified with one player or another, a Magic like pass, a Dominique reminiscent dunk, a Jordan inspired determination. But on the whole, the inimitability is what makes him so great and unstoppable on the court.

One of the easiest ways that I can sum up LeBron as a player is that he is potentially omnipotent. What I mean is that he has the capabilities, gifts, and work ethic to be capable of doing anything he wants in basketball. He has the size, speed, strength, and agility to truly be anywhere and do anything on the court at anytime, and with that versatility, LeBron can rank among the greats of all time. Sure, other players had any number of these attributes and used them effectively, but none had all of these in one combination of a player.

LeBron can play any position except for center, and that is only because he is not tall or bulky enough to continually bang in the painted area for 35 minutes, it would just be too wearing on him as a player to be effective. He has the size and strength to guard most power forwards, unless they are named Amar’e Stoudemire or Kevin Garnett (or other notables). He is quick and agile enough to stay in front of guards and wing players, using his size as an advantage in keeping them out of passing lanes and preventing unprotected drives to the lane.

That is just on defense, which says nothing of his potential on offense. He is a mismatch against any defender, which is to say that he cannot be rendered meaningless while on offense. The closest thing that a defender can do is follow the same principle as those who guard Kobe Bryant, and that is physically pester him and hope the shot doesn’t maneuver its way into the basket. That is a trademark of all great scorers, they will still get most of their points, sometimes it will take longer or be much more difficult to come by. One of the more notable defenders of LeBron was Mickael Pietrus, who used physical defense and relentless pursuit to keep LeBron in check for long stretches of the Eastern Conference Finals. Even though that is true, LeBron averaged a staggering number of points in that series while single-handedly keeping Cleveland afloat.

His potential on offense is directly proportional to his ability to solidify his shooting every outside of a dunk or layup. That is what makes many of today’s players so deadly on offense, their ability to drive to the basket or pull up and hit that shocking 18’ jumper. Michael Jordan was so effective on offense using that approach. He was the best in the league at driving to the basket in his time, finishing above the rim more often than not. But, he developed a near perfect jump shot that kept defenders weary of playing too close or too far away from him. Hence, multiple scoring titles, MVPs, championships, etc. Kobe, in his own way, has developed this extra dimension of his offense, making clutch shot after clutch shot on his way to greatness.

To clarify, LeBron has shown enough promise shooting from outside the arc that he has a better percentage than Jordan and isn’t too distant from Kobe on some occasions. Even without a reliable pull-up jumper to count on, LeBron is a top-flight scorer. That is largely a result of him being the best drive-to-the-basket player to ever lace up a pair of sneakers. His combination of skills (see above) makes him unstoppable on the way to the basket. And with his reputation as a superstar, he receives as many foul calls as he earns while driving. He is too quick for bigger forwards who would guard a Dirk Nowitzki or Rashard Lewis to stay in front of him. Yet, he is too powerful to just have the average guard try and prevent access to the bucket (which is why a powerful guard like Pietrus can be so effective, also Artest is a fleet footed forward with an attitude that could care less about LeBron’s status). He should be unstoppable, and for most of the league, he is.

The same should then hold true if he tried his hand at posting up as a power forward. His strength would lead one to assume that he can handle himself on the block, able to throw his 260-280 pound frame (changes depending on the source) around and earn some easy baskets. If the defense throws a behemoth his way, then a quick spin move should facilitate easy shots while leaving defenders left to explain themselves to the coach on the sideline. If you listen to any Northeast Ohio sports show, then you have heard the griping of many fans about Mike Brown’s unwavering stance towards LeBron routinely playing the 3, which leaves me with no complaints until further notice. Sure, an occasional appearance down on the block would change the complexion on the floor for a couple of plays, but to do that would take away from the challenges he poses beyond the paint.

What truly separates LeBron from his competitors is not just his ability to pass, but also his flair for passing. A lot of forwards can glide between being a wing player or a post player (Nowitzki immediately pops into my head, Rasheed upon further review, Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu upon even further review). But very few are able to pass with any sort of efficiency. And of those whom can (Turkoglu as stated above), few do it with the majesty and the panache that LeBron continuously demonstrates.

I realize that there has been the comparison with Magic Johnson even before LeBron was drafted, which would necessitate that Carmelo is Bird, but the standard is there for a reason. Typically, as has been noted throughout history, big men simply do not or cannot pass. Magic Johnson begins and ends the list of notable big men who can pass like a point guard. This is not the same passing that a Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan do to pass out of a double team. This is a fast break leading, no look razzle-dazzle that electrifies the crowd and makes the SportsCenter top 10 plays the next night. This is the passing brilliance that has made Chris Paul and Steve Nash potential and former MVP recipients. It is the court vision and basketball IQ that enables him to hit his teammate who is cutting through the back of the defense on his way to an uncontested layup, or put the ball between the numbers from more than half court away, or fight out of a double team to spot a wide open teammate for a potential game winning three point shot.

He is capable of going out on the court on any given night, against any given opponent, and notching a triple-double. He is better at that than everybody else in the league, regardless of position. To be fair, I think Chris Paul earning a triple double is more impressive than LeBron who already has a distinct rebounding advantage and has more access to the lane given his size, while Paul relies on blinding speed and quickness. That is beside the point, which is that LeBron is the first and potentially last player for the foreseeable future to have the potential of averaging near a triple double over the length of the entire season.

Let’s move back to the defensive side of the ball, the one where LeBron usually gets a pass. Sure, he greatly improved his defense last season, or at least his highlight defense improved significantly. He gained some notice on defense by using his almost unmatched speed to chase down the fast break, then his insane leaping ability to jump up and his strength to reject the dunk/layup that the offensive player thought was a given. And his one-on-one defense also improved, somewhat a function of his participation on the USA Olympic team.

Still, it could be better, and I feel guilty for nitpicking, but it remains true. With his athleticism and combination of skills, LeBron could be an All-Time great defender (like a Michael Jordan). I understand that in this era of the NBA, for him to expend his energy on defense to the extent that is required for him to be a consistently great defender would take away from his offensive impact to some degree. He is capable of shutting down any wing player if he sets his mind to it, or he should at least have the potential to do so. Obviously, he won’t stop a Kobe or Carmelo, but that complies with the same principle that makes LeBron near invincible.

Beyond what he has already accomplished, LeBron is in more headlines and rumor stories because of his impending free agency in the summer of 2010. He currently plays for his “home team” Cleveland Cavaliers, who have done everything short of getting on their knees and begging him to stay, and they might have even crossed that barrier. Despite Cleveland’s loyalty and fandom towards LeBron, he has remained largely uncommitted towards the idea of a contract extension thus far. This has only fueled rumors that he will be fleeing the city by the lake towards the supposed greener pastures of the New York area.

The New York area obviously referring to the New York Knicks and the New Jersey Nets (partially owned by the great Jay-Z, a good friend of LeBron), have been the main area of speculation about LeBron’s landing spot. This all took off because of a variety of factors that were not exactly quelled by LeBron. He has long stated his desire to become a billionaire, and various reports have speculated that his Nike contract includes some incentives if he moved to the marketing capitol of the world. He is also a well-known Yankees fan, that has nothing to do with basketball, but he could watch a lot more games in New York than he could at Progressive Field. Plus, many assume that it is an obvious pairing of the supposed Mecca of basketball and one of the greatest players in the world.

I am well aware that the Cavaliers can offer him millions more than any other franchise, but the major money lies in the marketing, which New York could offer him some façade of a major market (could he be on any more national television games?) that Cleveland can’t. Plus, if the Knicks keep the highly compensated Mike D’Antoni, LeBron could flourish in the stealth bomber pace that has become associated with the Italian stallion. His athleticism and fast break expertise would be the perfect fit for that system (maybe Amar’e is, that is a whole different debate).

I personally think that LeBron isn’t going anywhere for a multitude of reasons. The first of which is that I think he is just posturing for as much leverage as possible, which I thought he already had. The next ties in with the first, in that he wants to keep Cleveland’s management on their toes, trying to constantly improve the team. The bottom line is, LeBron wants to win championships, and he will leave if he thinks he can win somewhere else.

But why is this even a topic of discussion? Rarely has a free agency of a player been so thoroughly investigated, prodded, and analyzed, as has this particular one. The reason is because of everything discussed above. He may be the most singularly impacting player in the league, capable of determining games all by himself. He can/will change the future of at least two different teams in 2010, perhaps more if he throws a screwball into the equation.

If he leaves Cleveland, the Cavaliers immediately go into a freefall that will send them from championship contenders to a potential playoff team. He and possibly Wade and a younger Kobe, have more impact in the wins and losses column than any other player in the last five years (Iverson circa 2001 would qualify as well). If he decides to flee the Cavaliers, whatever team is lucky enough to pull off this coup will see their fortunes immediately switched. Yes, he has that much impact on a team that they will become mentioned as a possible championship dark horse after being a struggling franchise.

If I were being an optimist, I would hope to see LeBron joined by another one of the now infamous future free agent class of 2010. The usual suspects are D-Wade, Chris Bosh, and Amar’e Stoudemire, each uniquely qualified for a max-contract or something in that neighborhood. The chances of pairing these players are slim to none, but anything can happen. The Wade-LeBron pairing will not happen, it can’t, so it is not even worth debating. Although, if it did it would be so awesome I would imagine the effect would be something close to opening the Ark of the Covenant, wherein all spectators have their faces melted at the mere sight of it. On a real analytical level, it would combine two of the greatest slashing wing players ever and leave two established leaders in an awkward position of not knowing whose team it truly is.

The other two players joining forces with LeBron have a greater chance of occurring than Wade. The Bosh joint venture would make the most sense since, at least if LeBron stayed with the Cavs. However, the resigning of Varejao makes this possibility slightly more obscured. Bosh could finally fill the roll as the post player who plays the weak side that the Cavaliers have been desperately seeking since LeBron arrived. He seems to even be able to not let his ego control his every action and be able to let LeBron take most of the credit. Again however, the roller coaster of an economy would dictate that Bosh would stay with Toronto or leave for New York. Despite all of that, it makes the most basketball sense if these two were paired because they can both fit into a sound system of basketball besides a fast break.

More than anything else, I desperately want to see LeBron paired with Amar’e, whether it is in Cleveland or New York. The New York scenario would obviously be a lot more aesthetically pleasing, two power players who know how to get a response from a crowd with a thunderous dunk running down the court with one another. The Cleveland scenario is admittedly not as sexy, but still at least cute. That would be the one you could take home to meet the parents, while the New York one would be the ridiculous weekend trip to Vegas played out over multiple years. Amar’e and LeBron on the same team would be like a thunderstorm combined with a tornado of raw power and leaping ability (or a tornado circling a hurricane, whichever satisfies your deadly storm preference).

However, the plausibility of this combination is a bit farfetched. Amar’e has, however, expressed an interest in rejoining former coach Mike D’Antoni in New York. The freewheeling style that D’Antoni implements is a perfect fit for Stoudemire’s unique abilities as a power forward. He likes to get out and run the court, hopefully throwing in a monstrous jam at the very end (which, coincidentally, is very similar to LeBron’s style). D’Antoni’s system relies on everyone moving at a rapid pace, scoring with a feverish fashion, and eschewing almost all notions of a standard defense. So, sure, if they both decide that the Knicks are the team that they want to join, and some funny numbers work themselves out, then the world is in for one of the greatest spectacles on the basketball court ever.

So, what have we learned? I think that we have learned that LeBron is a truly special player on par or greater than the rest of the league, and possibly of all time. His skills have positioned him to become not only insanely rich, but one of the top players ever. The crowned King of the NBA, LeBron has accomplished so much so young in his life, yet he still has a long way to go. The looming free agency on the horizon aside, the future seems very bright for LeBron and whichever team he decides to play for.

Food for thought for everyone who is in a position to create real change in their learning environment. How do you do the right thing?

• Dangerously Irrelevant: Why is it so hard for us to do the right thing?

  tags: no_tag

  • As leaders, we often know what is the right thing to do. Just to pick a few examples…

    • We know that ongoing, formative progress monitoring is more appropriate than ‘data days’ or ‘data retreats’ for yearly summative data, and yet many schools still only do the latter.
    • When it comes to positive organizational and/or academic impact, we know that the ‘sit-and-get’ professional development model typically is a complete waste of participants’ time and organizational resources.
    • Under any reasonable scenario planning forecast, it’s quite clear that the world is going to be quite technological and globally-interconnected, yet we continue to ignore that fact in most schools.
    • Under any reasonable scenario planning forecast, it’s quite clear that schooling and/or learning and/or assessment are going to be much more personalized and invidividualized than they are now, and yet few school organizations are preparing themselves for these new ways of doing things.

    We’re supposed to be leaders. We’re supposed to be out in front, leading the way. And yet the organizations that we supposedly ‘lead’ are so very far behind in so many areas. We like to point fingers; it’s easy for us to do so and ignore our own culpability.

    As leaders, when are we going to own the fact that much (most?) of it is us? Why is it so hard for us to do the right thing?

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Agak di luar dugaan, ternyata sejauh ini belum terdeteksi dampak negatif signifikan sebagai respons bom di Hotel JW Marriott dan Ritz Carlton, Mega Kuningan, Jakarta, terhadap perekonomian Indonesia.

Berdasar pengalaman, dampak terhadap perekonomian Indonesia bisa dipilah dua bagian. Pertama, jangka pendek menyangkut respons sektor finansial (pasar uang dan modal). Kedua, jangka panjang terkait respons di sektor riil (pariwisata dan investasi).

Dalam jangka pendek, yang paling ditakuti adalah dampak seketika, yaitu respons yang muncul serta-merta, yang biasanya terjadi di pasar uang dan pasar modal. Kedua pasar ini paling sensitif terhadap aneka kejadian sporadis dan mendadak. Reaksi amat standar bila terjadi teror bom adalah kurs Rupiah dan harga saham merosot. Namun, ternyata Rupiah dan harga saham baik-baik saja. Memang sempat gamang, tetapi segera kembali terbentuk kepercayaan pasar (market confidence).

Selasa (21/7) lalu, Rupiah bahkan menunjukan gejala anomali, menguat hingga pernah menyentuh Rp 10.025. Sementara indeks harga saham gabungan (ISHG) terus bertengger tinggi, ditutup di level 2.146, berarti masih jauh di atas batas psikologis. Pertanyaannya, mengapa timbul respons semacam ini ? Apakah pasar uang dan modal “tidak takut” teror bom ?

“High expectations”

Sebelum bom meledak (17/7), sebenarnya pasar sedang bersiap-siap “merayakan” kemenangan demokrasi pemilu presiden (pilpres). Perkiraan saya sejak awal – menyusul sukses pilpres – Rupiah berpotensi mengalami rally hingga di bawah Rp 10.000, bahkan masih ada ruang hingga Rp. 9.500 per dollar AS.

Ternyata, hal ini tidak mudah diwujudkan karena usai pilpres timbul perdebatan terkait dugaan kecurangan, DPT, dan lainnya. Pasar terpaksa mengalami jeda dan harus menunggu bagaimana akhir pertikaian. Jika proses bertele-tele dan kontra produktif, bisa jadi mood pasar hilang, Rupiah tidak jadi menguat.

Meski di sana-sini masih diliputi ganjalan, sebagian pasar tampaknya berkesimpulan, secara umum pilpres sukses dan Indonesia boleh mencatatkan diri sebagai salah satu negara demokrasi terbesar dunia. Respons seperti ini tergambar jelas di pasar dan terekspresikan dengan cover story majalah Newsweek (Edisi 20.07.2009), yang menampilkan foto Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, dengan judul Can He Change Indonesia ?

Berbagai artikel di majalah itu mendeskripsikan kisa sukses perekonomian Indonesia justru pada saat krisis ekonomi global menerpa. Menurut mereka, hal itu terutama disokong reformasi ekonomi yang levelnya mereka sebut moderat, memperkuat perdagangan internasional, menyambut baik kehadiran investor asing, dan di atas semua itu, adalah fokus untuk menciptakan stabilitas sektor finansial.

Selanjutnya, meski memuji Indonesia memiliki potensi besar karena dukungan jumlah tenaga kerja yang banyak dan murah, serta melimpahnya sumber daya alam, mereka juga mencatat, Indonesia belum menunjukan kinerja sehebat potensinya. Mengapa ? Jawabannya sederhana : jika pemerintah menangkap dan memenjarakan satu juta koruptor, di luar penjara masih ada dua juta lainnya yang terlibat korupsi.

Dengan kata lain, Newsweek berpendapat, agenda lima tahun ke depan bagi Presiden Yudhoyono masih amat berat. Meski demikian, sukses Pemilu 2009 akan menjadi fondasi bagi Indonesia meningkatkan kinerja ekonominya. Pasar tampaknya menangkap isu ini dengan baik. Eskpektasi mereka tinggi (high expectations) terhadap perekonomian Indonesia.

Barangkali faktor inilah yang paling bisa menjelaskan, mengapa dampak bom Mega Kuningan dapat dinetralisir. Adanya juga libur panjang yang terjadi sesudah bom meledak juga amat membantu pasar untuk tidak terlalu panik. Para pelaku pasar memiliki cukup waktu untuk mendinginkan suasana, merenung, berpikir jernih dan rasional sebelum merespons kejadian itu. Itu sebabnya otoritas bursa New York sempat meliburkan pasar sepekan agar cooling down pada Peristiwa 9/11.

Faktor lain adalah fakta tidak ada negara emerging markets lain yang bebas dari persoalan pelik. Perekonomian Indonesia yang mampu tumbuh 4,4 persen (Triwulan I – 2009), dan sekitar 4,0 persen (Triwulan II), faktanya bukan satu-satunya negara yang mempunyai problem dan beban politik. Dua negara yang pertumbuhannya lebih tinggi adalah Cina dan India. Namun, keduanya memiliki problem konflik etnis dan ancaman pemisahan wilayah, yang sering berujung kekerasan.

Di kawasan Asia Tenggara, para kompetitor kita, seperti Malaysia, Thailand dan Filipina, juga bernasib sama. Thailand belum aman dari konflik politik, Malaysia meski tampak stabil memendam masalah, apalagi Filipina. Jadi, jika dihitung-hitung akhirnya investor asing tetap saja mau kembali masuk ke Indonesia.

Meski demikian, kita tidak boleh lengah. Investasi asing memang masuk Indonesia, tetapi harus “disubsidi” pengorbanan suku bunga tinggi. Mereka mau membeli surat berharga Indonesia karena menanjikan imbal hasil (yield) lebih tinggi. Padahal, dengan bunga obligasi tinggi menyebabkan industri perbankan kita kesulitan menurunkan suku bunga kendati BI rate sudah gencar diturunkan.

Suku bunga “terperangkap”

Masalah suku bunga yang “terperangkap” bakal kian runyam saat Pemerintah AS mengumumkan defisit anggarannya yang fantastis, 1 triliun dollar AS. Selanjutnya, Pemerintah AS memiliki dua opsi, yang bisa jadi keduanya dilakukan. Pertama, menerbitkan obligasi pemerintah, baik jangka pendek (T-bills) maupun jangka panjang (T-bonds). Implikasinya, karena jumlahnya besar, hal ini akan menyebabkan yield yang ditawarkan naik. Hal ini akan memberi konsekuensi kenaikan suku bunga di seluruh dunia. Bagi Indonesia, jelas akan membawa kesulitan menurunkan suku bunga sebagaimana sudah lama dikeluhkan dunia usaha.

Tanda-tanda suku bunga global akan naik lagi mulai tampak saat Bank Sentral AS (The Fed) dalam Laporan Tengah Tahun 2009 mengisyaratkan untuk mengakhiri periode likuiditas longgar, dengan kemungkinan segera menaikan suku bunga Fed Rate yang kini hanya 0,25 persen.

Kedua, ada kemungkinan Pemerintah AS terpaksa mencetak uang untuk memenuhi kebutuhan belanja dan stimulus fiskal. Meski saya skeptis opsi ini bakal dipilih, dalam situasi terpaksa, apa yang tak mungkin terjadi ? Namun, dampaknya bisa buruk, inflasi membubung, kurs dollar AD jatuh. Ini bisa memicu resesi global berikut. Diyakini Pemerintah AS akan berhati-hati soal opsi ini.

Sikap optimis harus dipegang kendati bom telah merampas ketenangan kita. Jika orang asing masih percaya dan mengalirkan dana ke Indonesia, apalagi kita, orang Indonesia.
Sumber  :  Perekonomian Pascabom – A. Tony Prasetiantono, Kompas, 22.07.2009

Ever feel like you are doing too many things?! Yes.  A big resounding yes.  Join me as we read this selection by Ellen Sue Stern in Meditations For Brides.

“Marriage needn’t pile more pressure on top of the urgency we already feel to be everything to everyone.  Instead we can – and must – turn to our partner for support.  Support for a job well done, an acknowledgment of how much we do and how much we care, for giving ourselves a break instead of berating ourselves for falling short of our own impossibly high expectations.  But don’t make him your number – one support system for slowing down – that has to be you!  The next time you feel pressured to be more and do more, look yourself squarely in the mirror and repeat:  I’m doing enough.”

I’m proud of you!

Lucy Seboek

About Lucy Seboek

I am an expert in integrating core values into day to day living where true joy, peace and harmony can be experienced. I work with women who want to apply natural health principles in living balanced lives. I only specialize in practical health solutions for daily living. I support my clients by teaching and empowering them so they experience Aha moments!, create exciting vibrant living, and move forward in their lives.

Sign up for InSpirit Health eZines at: www.myinspirithealth.com, where you can stay connected with Lucy Seboek through bi-monthly newsletters.

Contact Lucy, (714) 658-7647, lucy@myinspirithealth.com

Hello out there! I know I’ve been M.I.A. since I’ve been out of school, but I took a much needed break and have been getting used to being in this new area that I’m in. My internship (just finished my second week) has been great already! I’ve been having a good time for the most part up here, but my relationship with my s/o has been deteriorating right underneath the both of us, these past two weeks since I’ve been up here and early this morning (it’s our six month anniversary BTW) we have been on the verge of parting ways… I don’t know why/how things changed all of a sudden, but tonight I’m going to find out… He claims that my expectations are too high, but in reality they are realistic. From being in school, he and I had talked on the phone for months each day, for hours at a time… Now, since I’ve been up here, we barely talk on the phone for 5 minutes… We’re about 40 minutes away from each other still, so ever since I started my internship I haven’t been able to see him every single day, which is fine because we were long distance anyway, but now he’s that “he no longer wants to talk on the phone as much” all of a sudden…. I really need a guys opinion on what is going on… Am I being played? How could we go from talking on the phone all the time, to everything change all of a sudden? I tend to not write about my personal relationship in such detail, but I needed to vent and this is the perfect outlet… Please comment to let me know what is going on and what can be done… It could go either way right now… I want to make it work and he claims he does, but his actions are totally different than his words… 

It’s no secret that I have been a slave to stress my whole life. I suffer from trichotilomania, which means I compulsively pull my hair out when I’m stressed, bored, or really any occasion. It started with stress, though. I’ve been sent to therapy, I’ve been on meds…it’s been a source of dispair for my mother, who cannot figure out why I put so much pressure on myself. My parents never set unreasonable expectations for me, and have always accepted me for who I am. So why have I been a nutcase for over half a decade now?

I was thinking about it today, and I realized why.

For my entire life, I’ve been told my parents, their friends, my teachers, and my mentors that I will be famous/change the world/make a difference/’put Somerset on the map’. I can think of maybe only a few times in my life that I have received negative criticism…everything seems to come pretty easy. Well, not math or science, but those aren’t really all that important in the grand scheme of things, I suppose. So, since I’m supposedly going to be famous, I wanted to live my early life the way my idols did. White House Chiefs of Staff, political strategists, feminist leaders, Senators and Congressmen…I want(ed) so badly to follow their path. And of course, they are all noted for their superior genius. They all have a double ivy pedigree, were Fulbright and Rhodes scholars, had perfect grades, grace, insight, and razor-sharp wit.

I’ve never been a 4.0 student…I’ve gotten good grades, always in the B+ A range, but never perfect. And this frustrates me to no end.  I realize that if I’m an A- student, I should be ok with that and understand that B+/A- is my best. But my best is never good enough for my standards. My mother has told me time and time again that if a C- is my best, than that’s fine with her because I have done the best that I could in a subject that just isn’t for me. But people who obtain great success in the field I want to enter dont accept C’s. So, I’ve bogged myself down with clubs, fellowships, and interesting jobs, as well as a well-developed vocabulary, a sense of humor and wit well beyond my years, a natural ease in front of groups of people and a talent at impressing those who can grant me opportunities. As my friends say, I’ve “got my shit together”. But yet, I still find that it’s not enough. Just now I was researching the Young People for the American Way fellowship to pursue my senior year of college. 2 executed fellowships would certainly give me the competitve edge against Harvard valedictorians who are applying for the same Rhodes fellowship, right? I also feel like I will consider myself a HUGE failure if I don’t go Ivy for grad school. Perhaps its just the label loving, wanna be something more important than I am type of gal in me, but you don’t see many top-ranking political figures that are Susquehanna/Penn State bred. Don’t get me wrong, SU is giving me a great education and some wonderful opportunities, but I want something bigger and better. I want the satisfaction of knowing that I’m valued.

It seems as though my self-esteem and self-worth rests solely on the shoulders of the American higher education system, and men.

Should I even start with this mess of a “love life”? More approriately, a lack thereof. I’m so damn sick of hearing myself whine, which is why I’ve resolved to dedicate the next two years of my life of excelling in studies and focusing on building my career. I’m obviously not going to meet any interesting men of merit at Susquehanna, and the men I want will most likely be at Georgetown Law, so I might as well work hard and try not to think about how devastating lonely I am to obtain acceptance to a place where my heart will be cultivated, as well as my mind.

I want a man who is as driven as I am, who doesn’t settle and who doesn’t live in a trailer in Davidsville. I want a man who looks good in a suit, who enjoys Coltrane on vinyl and is Earth-shatteringly brilliant. I want to have 3-hour long debates over education reform, and a sailboat wouldn’t hurt. Someone who is as unabashedly dorky as I am, but still possesses a boyish charm with a self-assurance level that manifests itself in appropriate showings of intellectual cockyness.

I want an equal. Not someone I have to make excuses for or “fix”.

I don’t really know if men like this exist. It seems as though even the smartest men still go for the dumb whores. Bill Clinton, John Edwards…why do the bimbos always get the guy? I mean sure, it fulfills the masculine need to feel superior to their mate, and even in 2009 its difficult to find a man who is completely ok with being a more famous/powerful woman. Hell, most men find it emasculating if their wife/girlfriend makes more money than they do. So yeah, the traditional dumb girl who relies solely on the gifts of men is easy to control and keep in check.

But how must it feel to go out to dinner with friends and know that their girlfriend/wife has slept with every single one of them?

I’m all for sexual liberation, but I find that most promisicuous girls don’t sleep around as a statement of their empowerment, but simply as a way to become popular, pump up a fractured self-esteem, and never have to face their own sad lives. Is it just that men would rather have a trophy than a soulmate? Or am I simply just too cynical for my young age? After being hurt the way I was, it’s hard for me to trust again. However, I know the type of man that I want, and I think he might just be a fantasy. I don’t want the underwear model or the NFL player. I just want a smart, loyal man who isn’t threatened by a woman who is a workaholic and would rather spend her early 30’s serving as the Deputy White House Chief of Staff than dropping kids off at soccer practice.

Here’s to kicking my ass in gear. Hopefully a fulfilling career, a nice paycheck, and an amazing mate will be at the end of the road.

I’ve always done things to impress and please people- if they’re happy, I’m happy. Of course, mainly, this is about my parents. I get good grades, have good friends, fine looks, I’m athletic, not a druggie, and I act fine. They don’t allow any mistakes. They’ve raised me this way, to be a perfectionist. But I can’t be perfect. Cause no one is. Following this lifestyle has only given me stress and sadness.

Also, I’ve realized, I have high expectations of other people- my friends, or just random strangers. This leads me to being let down often.  Lately, I find myself being easily frustrated by people I see during the day. I dont like stupid people.