Friday, June 19, 2015

My definition of "Morally Reprehensible"

I try to reserve the use of the term "morally reprehensible" for only special occasions where someone's behavior is so vile and shameful that it justifies such an expression. If I use to too often, it loses its impact. 

So today, I am taking it out of the closet, dusting it off and preparing it for proper allocation. Social media has exploded over the past couple days in response to the horrific tragedy in Charleston earlier this week. And once again, one side of the political spectrum wastes no time in attempting to extract the blame from the actual perpetrator and reassign it to an entire population of people they have grown to despise. Bush, the NRA, Christians, Conservatives and even the inanimate guns themselves. NOT the angry, crazy, stupid, racist (or any combination thereof) beast that actually pulled the trigger, ending nine perfectly innocent and beautiful lives. 

I blame the shooter. Anyone care to join me in that camp?

I have yet to understand the motivation behind something like this. In recent news, one side of the aisle actually attempted to blame the other for the tragic train crash in Philadelphia. Do some people have no shame? 

They did it with Oklahoma City. They did it with 9/11. They did it with Columbine and Sandy Hook. They did it with Philadelphia as I just mentioned, they did it with the bridge collapse in Minneapolis and they even did it with a hurricane. They've now done it with this. Some people have literally no shame. 

I can only assume that there are a small but radical subset of our society that sits with baited breath watching for a tragedy to unfold on the news and then pounce on the opportunity to blame all Conservatives, the people they've grown to despise and hold accountable for every woe in his/her imperfect little life or that big world that's apparently out to get them.

I think they often forget that when they post their anger-driven monologues on social media, blaming their usual whipping boys, they fail to remember how many friends and family in their OWN lives that they are insulting.  And yes, they may try and pull the classic rebuttal;  "Well, I wasn't talking about YOU specifically, just the other ones". That is a pathetic as a white person that saying he doesn't like Black people except for all of the ones he actually knows and is friends with - they're OK. 

Are you really that stupid? Don't answer that.

It is beyond stupid, beyond shameful, it is in fact morally reprehensible to use the deaths of the innocent to pimp your own bigoted agenda and then walk around smugly with a degree of pride in that you did your obligatory duty to try and demonize an entire group or people based on the actions of one person that in most cases, has no affiliation with them whatsoever  I wasn't always an ace in English but I'm pretty sure the applicable term to describe this behavior is called "bigotry". 

Yes, "bigotry"

Just like Dylan Roof is a bigot. Only you haven't opened fire on anyone for it. I'll give you at least a shred of credit for exercising restraint.

In recent years, due to the undeserved leadership statuses of our uneducated and clueless pop culture icons, it has been deemed "socially acceptable" to be a bigot against Conservatives and/or Christians and to use isolated acts of violence committed by one person as an excuse to persecute an entire group, none of which have a thing to do with it. 

They call us racists, they call us homophobes, they call us sexists, etc. They can never seem to produce a tangible and legitimate example. Rather they just "say" we are that way and that is apparently validation enough for them.

And my obvious question for them that I find myself asking often is "I'm a Conservative Christian, at least lightly so. Is that what you really think of me?" 

If so, I'm not really sure why you are reading my post. You should have unfriended me a while ago if in your eyes I am that despicable of a person. That is if you really DO believe what you say. Perhaps the reason we ARE still friends is that you really don't believe that. The ones you have grown to hate are nothing more than the Boogie-Man. So like William F Buckley said, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said."


And sadly, the moment Dylan Roof was taken into custody, the social media reaction to the shooting hit its climax, triggering the latest wave of stupidity flooding the news feeds with pathetic attempts to use the tragic deaths of the victims in order to pimp his/her own biased agenda. 

I'm going to put this one way, one time; When you resist arrest, whether for an unpaid parking ticket or for shooting someone, the police will take you down and with deadly force if needed. If you give yourself up peacefully, whether for an unpaid parking ticket or for shooting someone, they will detain you without incident. For those of you with the despicable gaul to try and compare the Charleston shooter's arrest with unrelated incidents in recent weeks where someone either ran or resisted arrest, as an excuse to take another uncalled-for jab at all cops in trying to tag them as "racists", especially when the REAL racist we are dealing with right now just shot 9 innocent people dead in church a couple days ago, what you are doing is morally reprehensible and pretty much just stupid. REALLY stupid.

In closing, I have a theory where I believe that white people who sprint to the front of the line to call other white people racists the moment something terrible like this happens, they are actually hiding something. After all, the best defense is a good offense, right?

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

1 point for Alabama - now it's your move, "other 49 states"

Alabama Senate votes to approve the Abolition of Marriage License Requirements.

Any one of the current GOP candidates would be wise to adopt this concept. Say it at the first round of GOP presidential debates and you can follow it with a mic-drop. I love this. It aligns with the point I've made in that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. It's completely futile to try to to convince the government to either allow or disallow certain unions when the correct answer is "it's none of their damn business who gets married". This is an important point I often make; When you take a hard stance on an issue like this, regardless of which side you are on, you begin to rely on the government to play "referee" in hopes that they will rule in your favor. By doing so, you inadvertently forfeit that little chunk of "freedom to choose" over to them. They will happily add that to their arsenal of devices used to try and control our lives. It's ironic that the same people continuously lobbying the government in efforts to stop gay marriage are often the same people that spend enormous amounts of energy complaining that the government is too big already. Stop feeding the pig!

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Don't cry for me, Indiana

For all of my friends and family out there frustrated regarding this new law in Indiana, I have good news. I'm here to tell you to stop worrying about this and that you will be fine - I promise.

Now stop saying "You're wrong, Jeff. You don't understand what this all means."

On the contrary, yes I do.

Please just hear me out...

First of all, this law will affect none of you. Within a matter of a few weeks, we'll forget all about this because the other shoe will never drop. Indiana did NOT pass a bill that makes it legal to hate and discriminate against gay people. There is nothing in that legislation that makes that claim.  Hate and discrimination, unfortunately are alive and well and are perfectly legal because it is physically impossible to police it or enforce otherwise. Companies make discriminatory hiring decisions all the time. Most are just smart enough not to reveal it openly. I may lose out on a job for being too old, too male or too white. The offending company just won't admit to it. And that's just fine because I'll happily go work for an organization that does NOT discriminate. Chances are I will be happier there anyway.

Second, these laws are impossible to enforce because all the offenders have to do is NEVER disclose the reasons they deny someone service. Or worse yet, with this law, they'll now be encouraged to lie about it. Think about that. It is NOT legal to terminate an employee for being of a certain ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But it IS in fact legal to do so if they underperform. An employer will happily write down "Poor Job Performance" as the reason for termination if that is what keeps the lawsuits out of the mix - regardless of their true motivation. Great. There goes your reputation.

Let me also put it this way. For the sake of transparency and public knowledge, I'd actually rather be made aware of what businesses DO choose to discriminate so that I know which ones I DO NOT want to work for nor do business with.  Wouldn't that be nice? A "Who's Who" list of every jerk in town.  If you want to see a real boycott have an actual affect, try that approach.

Third, stop acting like this is the beginning of a slippery slope down a dark path toward intolerance and hatred. Stop acting like the glass is half empty. Do you not realize how far we have come as a society just in the past decade in how homosexuality has been accepted in society?  People have finally realized, "Wow, these are just people like me and actually, I kinda like them". We are heading in the right direction. This is a very minor speed bump at best. This too shall pass. Moving forward.

Fourth,  I've made this point before and I will make it again;  It is extremely rare for a business of any kind to refuse to serve someone.  Yes, I know it technically does happens but not with any relevant frequency.  And I'd venture to say it happens far less than it used to. Look how Black people in the U.S. were treated in public just in the past generation. These days, restaurants, flower shops, barbers, car mechanics, etc will happily take anyone's money in exchange for their product / service. And rightly so since since so many small businesses aren't exactly running in a major cash surplus. As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service to anyone you want for any reason you want just the same way I can turn down a job because I don't like the commute or the people at the office seem too uptight and boring. Should that be illegal? I'd also venture to say there is an epidemic of hidden age discrimination across the entire country. Has anyone even made a peep regarding that?

Try this scenario on for size; You are Jewish and own a bakery and a NeoNazi wants to order a cake with a Swastika on it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with you declining the gig. Nor would they be if a Black bakery owner were asked to make one for a known member of the KKK. Now ask yourself "What do the KKK, NeoNazis and the LGBT community have in common?"  Nothing except for the fact that in this country, it is 100% legal to be a member of either of those communities.

These laws are not new and hurt nobody. They have been around for a couple of decades, first implemented during the Clinton administration. (i.e. this crosses party lines so stop solely blaming the G.O.P.) Do any of you even realize how many states already have these laws in place? I'm not a proponent. I just personally think it is a waste of legislative effort either way. I would never refuse serve to anyone based on their race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.  I would however, if they were acting like a jerk for any reason and I just decided not to do business with them.  Or perhaps they were known for not paying his/her bill on time.  Or maybe they put a scathing comment about my business on Tripadvisor.com.  But of course if they happen to fall into a particular social group (which technically, everyone pretty much does in some way or another), then they immediately claim "discrimination", do I know have to take the job by law?  What if I just don't have the time?  Enter the "thought police". God help us.

By the way, if you are gay, why in the hell would you even want to purchase floral arrangements for your wedding from someone that doesn't respect your right to marry? Go somewhere else and let that person struggle in trying to keep his/her business thriving in 2015. With minimal effort, you will find plenty others that WANT to do business with you. Give THEM your business, not the bigot. Why do I even need to say this?? Stop trying to support bigots! Here is someone pointing a gun at you and you want to finance their bullet inventory. Why??

Freedom across the board is a bitter pill you have to swallow. It doesn't just apply to you. It applies to everyone. That includes those not exactly like you. You have to allow this type of freedom. Otherwise you are enabling the "thought police" to begin trolling our minds, prosecuting us for what they think we are thinking.  And again, if someone comes out and says "I'm not serving people of that particular group",  simply ignore that extreme minority of people and we can all watch them wither and fade away.  The best solution is an informed public, NOT government intervention. Laws can't fix this. This is beyond the Government's pay grade.

And I could be wrong on this but I am also calling "bullshit" on Angie's List and their supposed halted Indiana expansion efforts as a result of this legislation.  A company that size will not cancel a major expansion effort which they've probably already invested significant capital into over something like that. They either already planned to cancel it, it wasn't going to happen anyway and/or it is nothing more than a major P.R. stunt.  Hey, I was going to open a billion dollar grocery store chain in Indiana but I guess I'll pull the plug on that too. 

My last point is for God's sake, stop saying "Boycott Indiana". Who's the hateful person here? Do you realize how many thousands of businesses there must be in Indiana that probably want no part of this law that you are looking to see boycotted for no other reason that they reside in that state?  This reminds me of that Barilla Pasta incident from not long ago. People called for the boycott of their products, which, if successful, would have threatened the jobs of 14,000 gainfully employed people that probably don't even necessarily share the same view as the one person in their front office That is a horrible thing to wish on people simply because you are offended by one of them.

Now you have the Governor of New York canceling a trip to Indiana but still keeping his scheduled trip to Cuba, one of the least gay-friendly nations on the block. The band WILCO cancelled their show, disappointing their fans that probably want nothing to do with that law. Meanwhile they are keeping their scheduled shows in states with the same basic legislation. These types of things bring out the "stupid" in people in a hurry.

It try never to do this but I need pull a movie quote on "free speech" from 1995's "The American President"
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
Think about it. Part of being an American is a 50/50 split between people having to accept you the way you are and you having to reciprocate that sentiment like it or not. If not allowed to go both ways, it breaks down entirely.

What makes this country great is that we have multiple opinions; some good, some not so much. The idea of America many years ago was that each of us can have those opinions, like it or not. Bringing them all to the table and discussing them openly while accepting the remaining differences has always been what makes us strong. But in trying to force legislation to shut the other side down doesn’t just make us weak, it makes us fail as a society. It fails at what this country has spent the last 2 and a half centuries building up.

Now go have a stress free day and stop trying to replace things in your life that you DO have control over with things that you do not.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

The Bridge over the River Reality

     I often find myself losing the argument that "pessimism and realism" are not the same thing. Not so much because I am proven wrong, I am just not able to ever convince the opposing party that they are! And just as pessimism can be a realistic scenario sometimes, optimism itself can be the sincerest form of naiveté when you fail to manage your expectations.  

     There was never fine line between optimism and pessimism despite what some may believe. In fact, there is a gaping chasm between the two and there is a long bridge connecting either side.  Either side is the end result, a terminal point where all positive or negative premonitions of the event come into fruition.  Until they happen, you remain on the bridge over the river called "Reality".  Now is the best time possible to plan your strategy to make it to the best side.

     Now I agree it is a healthy practice to do your best to remain as far on the positive side of this bridge as possible but until you make safe landfall on one side, you are still hovering over an irresistible force called "reality". Being positive but not accepting the reality that things might not work out regardless of your greatest efforts is the same as standing around on the bridge and failing to make the last few steps to safety.  Identifying the potential for failure it is NOT at all being negative. In fact, sometimes failure is the greatest way to expose opportunities for success but that is for another blog. 

     Case in my original point; identifying a common and perhaps serious workflow problem at your employer can earn you the scarlet letter N for being negative. Here is another futile attempt to explain my acceptance of reality. "Positive" to me isn't saying "I am going to pass this test". That's called being naive in my opinion and can put you at a point of weakness to where you start to let your guard down and perhaps not properly prepare for the test. I like to say "I could technically fail the test because it is hard but I am going to try my damnedest not to let that happen and focus on my weakest points so that I can best prepare. But if I fail, I'll have a fall back option ready to go". 

     Did you notice my last sentence? Being overly positive to the point of disregarding the possibility you could still fail, not only weakens your resolve, but also leaves you caught without your water wings on in the event the bridge does in fact fall out from under you. What was your contingency plan?  Did you even have one?   Don't feel bad because most people don't.  Society tends to scold those that identify risks as "focusing on the negative".  I focus on negative all the time but that is because I have made my share of mistakes.  I'd rather accept them as a part of my past and store them my mental "lessons learned" archive for future reference.  And while I agree it is a virtue to focus on your list of successes as a means to gain self confidence, one should not simply ignore the problems. If there is an angry animal charging up behind you, run faster!

     So let me ask this; if you swear you'll beat a disease but you don't, does that make you a liar? Of course not.  I don't think that is a fair thing to say to someone faced with such a horrible crisis.  But there is a stigma attached to the notion to where not losing sight of reality is somehow a bad thing. You might not beat it despite yours and the doctors' best efforts.  Talk to your family, prepare them, tie up any financial loose ends so they aren't dealing with that as well as losing you, God forbid, at the same time. That is called realistic optimism.  "I will do my best to beat this, pass that, get there, etc, but I will be prepared in the event that I don't."

     The same problem occurs when someone points out a legitimate failure in a system, but all others tag that person as pessimistic and/or negative. Then they simply proceed to mentally high five one another thinking that their positivity makes them the heroes of the day.  They are masking the problem and not attempting to resolve it.  They are still on the bridge and they have begun rolling backward to the failure side while you are trying to warn them of their impending doom.  You simply want everyone to be aware so they can start either pedaling faster across the bridge or consider other forms of transportation. It is frightening that people so often address their problems by assuming happy words will have a 100% success rate. Concerted efforts with a realistic outlook are far greater allies. Being positive regarding the effort you will excerpt despite external factors which you cannot control will sure up your best chances for success. Disregarding those external factors will amplify your chances for failure.

     When you bring awareness to a problem your company has turned a blind eye to while it festers away and they slap you down as having a bad attitude, that is the equivalent of having the technician at Jiffy Lube mention to you that you have a small oil leak in your engine block that you should look into but you write him off as being "too negative". I will say this however; don't just present a problem. Counter it with a potential solution. Even the slightest suggestion ends the comment on a positive note that might just do the trick. 

     You have a degree of control over any scenario, but not total control. The more you identify the risks and accept everything as possible and properly prepare, the greater a chance you have to safely make it to land on the bright side of the bridge.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Workplace collaboration at its worst

I occasionally hear the studies that say as a result of modern technologies, (smart phones, email, the web, etc) that we are less productive than ever. I couldn't disagree more. We use those SAME "distractions" to get more work down than ever before. As the leisure time has increased, so has the work output. Stop seeing the glass is half empty for crying out loud. 

Now let's consider this new and exponentially increasing work output for a moment. If you are serving the consumer marketing (B2C), you need to compete more than ever before. You need to try every marketing approach, consider the gargantuan databases of relevant marketing information available, open new stores, create new products all the while trying to grab more market share against formidable opponents. 

Think of the amount of work in the form of projects that your workplace team needs to juggle on a routine basis. 

The amount of work has grossly exceeded that which a hallway courier can help facilitate any longer. 

Enter the Project Managers. They go by various titles; coordinators, traffickers etc. However the ultimate end result is he/she becomes a project manager. 

Now managing a project is not about what to do with all of the information once it is collected, but the collection process itself. Then it involves organizing it, deciphering it, assigning the individual work activities out to the correct people, building the team, support their needs, pulling in other resources when needed, watching the costs, watching the schedule and taking the heat for anything that might implode along the way. Yes, this sounds like a project manager to me. 

Effective project management in marketing must have a proactive presence. Stop the problems from occurring at the start as opposed to trying to clean them up during mid sprint. It is like changing the brakes on the moving car. 

Here are some simple rules to follow when taking on a new assignment and it is a sure way to support your friends in campaign planning so they can focus on his/her best talents, that being selling the products and driving the business. 


1) BE THE LIGHTENING ROD
Consider yourself the unilateral isolationist that will get involved and be the buffer with any conflicts you need to resolve between different departments. You’ve got better things to do.

2) USE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR
For those filling out the work requests / creative briefs, keep is simple smarty-pants. Do not feel you have to speak in a uber-executive corporate language to convey a simple point. What do you need and by when. That is all we need. Don’t dump your brain onto a Word Doc and ask me to find my information among the piles of verbal gray matter. Tell me what I need to know.

3) DON’T SELL YOURSELF SHORT
What everyone does in his/her unique role really does require a great deal of knowledge and experience and what they do really is difficult. Don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about because since you do it, it must be elementary dribble. Give yourself some credit. Explain things clearly as if you were the teacher. And understand that despite how much information resides in your skull, unless you put it on paper and/or communicate it to me, I’m not going to know.

4) THE HUMAN MINIMUM IS ENCOURAGED
Give everyone permission to screw things up occasionally. If you aren’t making mistakes, you aren’t trying hard enough and you are being too risk averse. Projects will get missed. Messages will fail to connect. Nobody should ever point fingers or criticize unless he or she is content with looking hypocritically foolish. We don’t fly aircraft nor perform open heart surgery here. No mistake will kill anyone. Accept the fact that you will never be perfect but never stop aiming for perfection. And when you remove the anxiety from the fear of making mistakes, you will make fewer.

5) USE SPORTS ANALOGIES (Baseball in my case)
We play on the same team and must back each other up. Yes it is the Shortstop’s responsibility to stop a routine grounder left of second base but regardless; the centerfielder should back him up just in case it gets between his legs. And the left fielder backs up the center fielder in case the unthinkable happens. And if it still hits the wall, well, we all did our jobs together and we shared the mistake and guess what, nobody died.

6) INFORMATION MUST BE PUSHED, NOT PULLED
There is no such thing as psychics or clairvoyants. I can watch your documents for obvious mistakes like “what is the due date”. But realistically, if the info isn’t there, it doesn’t exist (yet). You can’t expect anyone to be able to cover your back to that degree. It is not anyone’s responsibility to extract information from other people. It is ultimately your responsibility to share information you have with those that need it. Or at LEAST the traffic person (hence my existence).  Things NOT to do. Never say “refer to email in September”. That is TOO vague. Same deal with “point to a regular triple mag page.” That is a MARKETING decision. Pick a page and tell us specifically. Also never say “refer to my email, refer to meeting discussion”. NO. If it isn’t there in the document, it may have well never have existed. And my all time favorite, the "placeblo", also known as "Please see below". If you have something to email me, say it. I do not accept forwarded emails that start with "Please See Below" with exception of extremely rate occasions. An example of an exception would be....

Message: Please See Below

Fowarded Message: The manager has given her approval.

Done. 

Do me a favor and highlights and delete all of that html crap that emails like to include in forded messages so I don't have to scroll through 17 previous conversations that may or may not have a shrewd of relevance to anything I am working on. 

7) TRAFFIC MANAGER VERSUS PROJECT MANAGER.
You have the option to use me as a traffic person or a project manager. Project managers will take the time to understand all of the details of a project falling just short of doing it him/herself. With 120-150 projects at any given time, please try to understand the gravity of that implication where you have a single person that has to carry that much constantly changing, incoming and outgoing information. It is essentially impossible without 3 or more people. If I am to be a TRAFFIC person then my job is to make sure the info is there and going to/from the right people/places. That is it.

8) COMPLEXITY
The level of detail and complexity of a project should be inversely proportional to the sum of all of the people, channels and pieces of information required to build it. Same goes for communication. The more people and info involved, the simpler is has to be in order for it to work. The formula that calculates the number of possible communication channels is [n(n-1)]÷2 where n = the number of people involved. 10 people yield 45 different pathways. Yikes!

9) TIME SHOULD BE INVESTED, NOT SPENT
If I find an opportunity to work an extra 5 minutes in order to save a colleague 30 minutes, that is a positive return on time investment and I will choose that option 10 times out of 10. In turn, “Teamwork” means happily agreeing to do that in order to help your colleague. Those 25 saved minutes, although hard to quantify downstream, will pay everyone back in the end. Also, this may mean spending an extra 5% of time on a project request in order to make sure the information is well sorted. Being organized in life does require a little extra front-loaded effort. There is a false conception that these types of processes should be as brief as humanly possible. Maximum speed is the antithesis of organization. It is also the epitome of “garbage in, garbage out”.

10) HUDDLES OVER MEETINGS
Meetings are best at the beginning of a project. After that, huddles should suffice. The team meets before kickoff but everything after that is a huddle.  Quick, small, to the point. You can get all of the players in a room, decide on what we can do, what we can’t and who will do which part and what he/she needs in order to succeed. Meetings, although effective, are rigid and must have a strict agenda and required participants.

11) FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, PROOF YOUR TYPING
This is not an unreasonable request but you’d think it was. Someone is going to read what you say. Therefore, you’d best read it yourself in order to confirm they are going to know what you are talking about. Don’t forget about autocorrect! It’s very easy for “faces” to become, well, you know.  Communication is a 3-step process; the sender, the medium and the receiver. All 3 must work properly or it breaks down.

12) WRITTEN WORD TRUMPS THE SPOKEN ONE
Although face-to-face communication is excellent, for something as important as an intended customer experience, must be documented in writing. Having meetings and discussions should be used to supplement the documented info and answer questions, NOT to replace it. If that mistake is made, each person will document what he/she THINKS the intended customer experience is. In which case, you’ll have as many versions of the campaign as you had people discussing it. The intended customer experience is the foundation for the campaign and the baseline for every aspect of performance. If it isn’t formally documented early, it’s like we’re just winging it.

13) CHANGE IS EASIEST WHEN MADE EARLY
Traffic should start as early as possible in campaign development. The drawback with being a part of creative is that by the time most of the info I need to “traffic” gets to me, it has already gone to the wrong person, gone nowhere or was entered incorrectly. I should be coordinating traffic, not constantly fixing it.




Books:
Complexity Crisis,
4 hour work week,
Factory Physics,

The Goal

College is not about the education. What?

Guess what George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and Harry Truman have in common? They and six other presidents not mentioned here all share a fraternal commonality of never having graduated from college. Some of them even attended college, but simple never finished leaving them without a degree. Some would jump to conclusion that this leaves someone without an "education" per se.  I'd disagree. An education comes from any collection of learning experiences, formal or not. At most, education itself is a secondary purpose of attending college. The degree is a confirmation that you completed the requirements of a given discipline. The primary reason for going to college, at least in 2015 A.D., is to get a career. Period. Show me a retired 70 year old that decided to get an "education" late in life because she felt that she had missed out on the opportunity in life and I'll show you 50 people that are going and have career aspirations. "I need to get this degree so I can do that".

The 70's old's story is cute and it makes me smile to know it does happen sometimes and an education is a wonderful thing. But this is where I cringe when people like to scold athletes for leaving college in order to enter a professional sports draft. For the elite few kids talented enough to reach that level, this IS their career aspiration. And when the chance to make it is offered, why chastise them for pouncing through the window of opportunity? Aren't we all encouraged to do the same with our own careers?

Do you not realize that these kids have to choose between go now and at the very least make the league minimum which is a sizable sum of money as compared with staying in school in order to complete your "education" while risking career-ended knee injuries and not earning a cent? Maybe you never thought of it that way.

I think there are those of us that feel education should be a 1 to 1 accomplishment where the more education you accumulate, the more success you should have. There is no law in life that will ever make nor back that naive claim. College will improve your chances for success, yes, but they will not guarantee it nor insure you from possible failure. There are some with multiple degrees who are currently waiting the table of a college drop out making 7 figures. It happens.

Quit expecting reality to conform to a simple mathematical formula. Me + education = high salary.

I suspect that people like Howard Dean, an impressively educated man that among other accomplishments, has a medical degree from Yeshiva could quite possibly be frustrated that he himself did not get the Democratic nod back in  2004, let alone a shot at the presidency, all the while Scott Walker, one who did NOT finish college is currently very high in the polls for likely GOP candidates.

People seem to have this unspoken list of resumé requirements that any presidential candidate must have in order to qualify. Education, marriage, children, military background, what have you.

My question to them is "How has that been working out for you so far?"