Book Review: Start Your Own Consulting Business

How-to books  can be easy to read because of the intentional style of writing.  Start Your Own Consulting Business teaches a good deal of useful techniques and knowledge in very easy to understand way.  The information is great if you have no consulting knowledge or experience and mostly redundant if you have training in management and business start-up.  You will learn more than a few useful things regardless of your background and makes for a quick read.

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Book Review: A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives

I speed-read A Mind of Its Own and somewhere about 1/3 of the reading I stopped asking myself if the writer was a woman.  I checked the back jacket for her photo as I thought I had seen and yes.  Women can write differently than men which is no surprise since we communicate very differently but the writing and the thought process can be so personalized that speed reading fails the reader.  The thoughts and words are not arranged as a normal writer would and require close attention.  I wish I had the time but I liked what I could read.

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

How to Be a Regular

************************************************

The two waiters in the photo are actually the same person!  Interesting service.  Simple rules make outside dining very efficient and San Francisco has the highest average spending per customer of any city for restaurants so seating can be a little competitive.  I really liked this article.  The basic how-to articles can be a total waste of time because of reviewing the very obvious and useless stuff.  Leventhal has a few good points.  I think the hidden and most useful guidelines here is to be nice to the waitstaff.  That is the hardest for many to do because protocol requires one to behave as guest while others behave as others.  The best rule to become a successful regular in a restaurant can be to just be polite and even nice to the waitstaff by treating them as not waitstaff.  What the article teaches you are "outsider" tips but what I mentioned is "insider" tip and works not only great but also makes you lucky.

************************************************

from Grub Street by Ben Leventhal

Any self-respecting eater is a Regular somewhere. It might be at his or her one favorite restaurant, or it could be at a small handful of beloved go-tos. But at these places, the Regular knows the staff, the best and worst seats, the menu's standouts and chef's blind spots. The Regular never waits for a table, desserts or drinks are perhaps “compliments of the chef,” and maybe the Regular even gets a discount (one top-level Soho restaurant in New York customarily knocks 50 percent off the bill for its top-level VIPs). Dining as a Regular is, obviously, a great pleasure. So how do you do it?

As conventional wisdom goes, there are three golden rules that are fundamental to being a Regular.

1. Go to the restaurant a lot.
2. Don't be a pain in the ass: Show up on time, say please and thank-you, respect the house and its rules (such as dress code).
3. Always tip 20 percent on the total bill, and tip in cash.

Okay, so the rules are a bit obvious — nevertheless, they are indeed essential behaviors of a good Regular.

But, if you're really serious about your bid for the house's undying love and affection, there's more you can do to make it happen. Herewith, five other very important things you can do to become a very important person.

1. Name-drop
As in, both yours and theirs. Restaurants have customer-tracking software these days, and if you're trying to become a Regular but not regularly using your name, you might as well be six shoes in at the $100 minimum table having not even pulled your Players' card. Moreover, you need to know the staff — a little personal attention from you goes a long way toward getting "VIP" next to your name in the computer. Take advantage of the system and they'll know you like your Caesar without the anchovies without you having to say it twice.

2. Make a good exit
Restaurants may be the only place on earth where the last impression is the most important. Admit it: Your opinion can be swayed, or at least rescued, by excellent desserts. Similarly, it's true for the house, and if you make a strong exit, they'll remember you next time on the way in. So, in addition to the aforementioned good tip, this means a few things: When you sense the restaurant wants the table back, give it to them (once you're a Regular, you'll have the corner booth for as long as you need it). Thank your server by name if he or she is in earshot when you get up to leave. And also thank — and tip ($20 minimum) — the maître'd or manager. Let us emphasize here, you're doing this on the way out. And do tell him or her what you liked and what you didn't — feedback at this point is always appreciated. Finally, the best time to book a table for next time is on the way out, in person. If you're coming back, make it known before you walk out the door.

3. Lubricate the staff 
If you've been treated well or had an exceptional meal — or both — send a round of drinks to the kitchen. Procedurally, this is as easy as saying to your server, "Hey, I thought the food tonight was exceptional. I'd like to buy the kitchen a round." Also, if you've ordered a bottle of wine, make sure you offer your server a taste of it if she asks if you like it. Always offer a taste of any bottle over $80 to the sommelier. If you're finishing your meal after 10 p.m., offer to buy your server a round. To kick this move up a notch and consider yourself an advanced would-be Regular: At a new restaurant, bringing in a congratulatory bottle of good, hard liquor will always be appreciated. Remember that chefs tend to like the brown stuff — rye, whiskey, bourbon, Scotch, or the like.

4. Have a good memory
Or, if you don't, write things down. (A tip, for the serious: Create contacts in your BlackBerry for your favorite restaurants and use the notes field.) Remember the number of a table you like, so you can put in a gentle request for it next time. Remember the names of the staffers you met — the front men, especially. Remember a dish you liked, and, when you order it again, you might mention how much you enjoyed it last time.

5. Be a local
The smaller the restaurant, the more this holds true. Restaurants — any one worth becoming a Regular at, anyhow — reward their local customers above all others. If you live in the area, make sure the house knows (something you can casually mention to the maître'd on the way out); if you eat out in the area consistently, that's good to mention, too: "It's been a long time since the West Village had a steak tartare this good," for example. The house knows that after the place cools down and the restaurant hunters move on, you're the key to their longevity.

http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2009/07/how_to_be_a_regular.html

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Are Wine Critics Born or Made?

************************************************

I have heard of the UC Davis sensory test more than once but never read about it.  I agree with its accuracy on a general sense.  What I was taught myself is that 10% of people are "supertasters" and 10% are "non-tasters" and the rest fall in between.  I have a good example.  I had lunch with a friend from years back a few days ago and one thing I have always remembered about him is how as a serious wine drinker he has zero ability to taste.  He is 100% non-taster.  I found out by accident when I gave him a sip of a very nice wine just as token of friendship.  He tried it but instead of sharing my enthusiasm said "it's okay."  I realized something is wrong with him.  How could he not appreciate the wine.  I tested him again later with some of the worst wines you can taste and they were "okay."  My theory was confirmed that I had met someone who just cannot taste.  On the other hand, I can taste wine better than average and I have done tastings myself at which the results were recorded and mine are almost always the opposite of lay drinkers.  I don't know about wine critics but wine tasting in general has a little bit to do with nature.  Won't you agree?

************************************************

rom Good Wine Under $20 by noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Debs)

I've always blamed it on UC Davis. I took their "Introduction to the Sensory Evaluation of Wine" course and I came out of it smelling green pepper in Cabernet Sauvignon and talking endlessly about currants and gooseberries.

Now I'm starting to wonder if it's genetic. ("Beaujolais Nouveau, Baby Nouveau," by bhollar)

My dad puts me to shame when he describes a wine. He smells all kinds of things–rhubarb, for instance–that elude me.

And I think my niece is going to put me to shame, too. She's thirteen. We were visiting friends in Paris and they–in true French fashion–offered her a taste of the delicious Chenin Blanc we were having with dinner. She refused, but did allow as how she'd like to smell it. I handed her my glass, expecting her to twist up her face and say "blech." Instead, she lowered her nose into the glass and made an appreciative sound.

I asked her what it smelled like, and braced myself for the response "wine." Her grandmother frequently has this response, and the child is, after all, thirteen and eats mostly white meat chicken and rice. What does she know of gooseberries?

"Citrus and meadowlands," was her reply.

I almost fell off the sofa. She pretty much nailed the aromas in the wine–and it's not because we text message each other about wine. Her parents drink wine but I think both would admit that they enjoy sipping it more than talking about it. And I see my niece once every few years–so I haven't contaminated her with winespeak.

I've been thinking about her response ever since and wondering if wine appreciation has a genetic component. That's not to say that education means nothing–I think it means a lot. But I do wonder now if both an interest in wine and the ability to taste and smell a wide range of flavors and aromas in wine also depends on your DNA.

I'm sure there's a scientific study somewhere that talks about this, but I want to know what you think. How do your sensory abilities with respect to wine stack up to your parents and grandparents? What about your kids? And if you have kids who smell wine, I wonder if they are less inhibited and more intuitive in their descriptions. As we age, do our minds tell us "there's no raspberry in that," whereas once our noses were screaming "berries, yum, berries"?

http://goodwineunder20.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-wine-critics-born-or-made.html

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Beautiful people are more intelligent

************************************************

The first time I came across the idea was in a literature class and the essay was by Stephen J. Gould.  He is dead now but it is hard to forget his unusual point that humans in groups select the most attractive person to serve as the leader!  If a dangerous or difficult situation arises, they have a tendency to line up behind this person and push the one to the front.  That is just talk for most of us but what Gould says next is very interesting.  Gould says animals do the same thing.  In a laboratory environment, a group of animals demonstrate the exact same approach.  The idea has been around and I assume some additional intelligence is implied but this research is the first time I have come across the argument as being scientifically valid.  I hope my IQ is more 100.

************************************************

March 29, 2009, Evolutionary Psychology

Sociologists and social psychologists have long known that there is a widespread perception shared by many people that physically attractive people are moreintelligent and competent, as well as hold many other desirable characteristics. A large number of experiments over the years have shown that, when asked to rate the intelligence or competence of unknown others, people tend to rate attractive others as more intelligent and competent than unattractive others.  This sentiment is captured in an old aphorism “What is beautiful is good.”  But why is this?  Why do people believe that physically attractive people are more intelligent and competent?

While physical attractiveness is an integral part of mate selection, the evidence suggests that concerns for mate selection are not the reason people think that beautiful people are more intelligent. First, children as young as kindergarteners share the perception that beautiful people are more competent.  Asked to choose between two teachers, one more physically attractive than the other, many kindergarteners prefer the more attractive teacher because they believe she is more competent and nicer.  Second, more importantly, among adults, the common perception holds both within and between the sexes.  Not only do men believe that more attractive women are more intelligent and women believe more attractive men are more intelligent, but men also believe that more attractive men are more intelligent and women also believe that more attractive women are more intelligent. Since 5-year-olds are typically not concerned with mate selection, and since most people are heterosexual, these two pieces of evidence suggest that there is more going on than concerns of mate selection.

Sociologists and social psychologists, convinced (and politically predisposed to believe) that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “beauty is only skin-deep,” dismiss this widespread perception as “bias,”stereotype,” or “halo effect,” with the implicit assumption that the perception is not accurate and has no factual basis.  It is a stereotype that beautiful people are more intelligent.  But, as I explain in an earlier post, virtually all stereotypes are empirically true; if they were not true, they would not be stereotypes in the first place.  And it turns out that this one is no exception.  People believe beautiful people are more intelligent, because they in fact are.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), conducted by a team of researchers at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, is one of the very few social science datasets that take biological and genetic influences on human behavior seriously.  As a result, Add Health routinely measures both the intelligence and physical attractiveness of its respondents.

In the Wave III of Add Health, conducted in 2000-2001, respondents take an IQ test called the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.  And then their physical attractiveness is measured objectively by an interviewer, who is unaware of their IQ test scores, on a 5-point scale (1 = Very unattractive, 2 = Unattractive, 3 = About average, 4 = Attractive, and 5 = Very attractive).  The following graph shows the association between Add Health respondents’ physical attractiveness and their intelligence.  The data come from a large (n = 15,197) nationally representative sample of young Americans (mean age = 22).

As you can see, there is a clear monotonic positive association between physical attractiveness and intelligence.  The more physically attractive Add Health respondents are, the more intelligent they are.  The mean IQ is 94.2 for those rated “very unattractive,” 94.9 for those rated “unattractive,” 97.1 for those rated “about average,” 100.3 for those rated “attractive,” and 100.7 for those rated “very attractive.”  Due partly to the large sample size, the association is highly statistically significant.

As I explain in earlier posts, both intelligence and physical attractiveness are correlated with sex; men on average are slightly more intelligent than women, and women on average are physically more attractive than men.  So it is important to see what the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence looks like within each sex.  The following two graphs reproduce the association separately for each sex.

The graphs show that the association is no longer monotonic among either women or men, but the general positive association still holds for both sexes.  “Very attractive” women are on average more intelligent than “very unattractive” women by about 6 IQ points.  Similarly, “very attractive” men are on average more intelligent than “very unattractive” men by about 8 IQ points.

So it appears that the “stereotype” that beautiful people are more intelligent appears to be true empirically, just as virtually all “stereotypes” are.  

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

The MBA oath: a new era of responsibility?

************************************************

The MBA oath is taking over the world.  I dared write a little when it first was in the news and as usual few people agree with me.  The world must be a very rosy and wonderful place to live in.  I think reality has to be understood before it can be dealt with.  MBA oath is a great move but hardly the right move toward the problem.  One of the founders of the MBA oath complained to my initial commentary and think is still very mad after reading my response to his defense of the MBA oath.  I have attached both after this article.

************************************************

To the more cynical among us it might look very much like a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but an "oath" launched by students at Harvard Business School urging future MBA graduates to "create value responsibly and ethically" appears to have struck a chord with our future business leaders – or some of them at least.

The MBA Oath, started by 33 second-year Harvard MBA students, set out with the aim of attracting at least 100 of the current graduating cohort to sign up. But now more than half of the class of 900 have pledged to it.

Meanwhile, students from more than 25 other business schools have also shown their solidarity for the idea, with some 40 students from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management and more than 30 from Oxford University's Saïd Business School signing up along with students at New York University's Stern School of Business, among others.

So is this simply an example of over-earnest youthfulness that will be quickly forgotten out in the "real world", or a genuine desire to set a new tone for business education in the future, as well as the sort of business leaders that we have on the other side of this crisis?

Certainly, the founders of the oath have set their sights high: "We hope this will a) make a difference in the lives of the students who take the oath b) challenge other classmates to work with a higher professional standard, whether they sign the oath or not and c) create a public conversation in the press about professionalizing and improving management," they said.

"Our long-term goal is to transform the field of management into a true profession, one in which MBAs are respected for their integrity, professionalism, and leadership. We hope to see hundreds of thousands of MBAs take the MBA oath, or something like it, as a step towards realizing this vision," they added.

Steve New, vice-dean of degree programmes at Saïd Business School, argued the oath could in time turn out signal a positive change, if not of direction exactly, then certainly of emphasis.

"There is a caricature of the typical MBA student as intellectually narrow and motivated only by personal wealth; many current criticisms of business schools in the wake of the financial crisis draw on this image," he said.

"But at Saïd Business School we have consistently found our students are hungry for the big picture, and are keen to understand business in its broader social and ethical contexts."

One of the school's MBA students, Raj Tulshan, agreed: "Many of us have found this initiative to resonate with our own convictions. The point of an MBA should not just be about equipping individuals with tools for their own enrichment, but also to deepen our appreciation about the impact of our actions," he said.

It can also be seen as kin to an idea proposed last year by Harvard professors Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria for a "rigorous code of ethics" for managers.

The MBA as a qualification has, of course, come in for some stick for, as its critics see it, being partly responsible for encouraging some of the more short-sighted approaches to wealth generation and risk taking that have been at the heart of this crisis.

But it also has to be recognised that, despite many signing up, the truth is that many more have decided not to, whether because they don't know about, are too busy or simply don't care.

Yet, as BusinessWeek has recently pointed out, even if the signatures so far represent only a small percentage of business graduates globally, if it were to catch on and become in effect an MBA "kitemark" and organisations started to demand or prefer MBA graduates with ethics, those who have not take the oath could conceivably find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Oath or no oath, the future syllabus and direction of the MBA – what we want our MBAs to do, be for and how we want them to think – is likely to be one of those areas that needs to be addressed once we are through the crisis.

As BusinessWeek quoted Khurana as saying: "All things being equal, I prefer going to the surgeon who took the Hippocratic Oath versus the one who didn't."

http://www.management-issues.com/2009/7/9/research/the-mba-oath-a-new-era-of-responsibility.asp

Response to my post of http://myrecentreading.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/why-we-created-the-mba-oath/#comments

Posted by Max on June 15, 2009 at 3:10 am  edit

Thanks for writing about the oath. I’m one of the students who have been working on it. You are right to say that management is not a profession like law or medicine, but we’d like it to be. You say that law and medicine have been around for forever, but their oaths were actually not always in place. The oaths were initially voluntary, as ours is, then they became widely adopted and eventually required. I think it has to start voluntarily like this, and then grow.

People say that the culture of business will eat us alive. Maybe so. But maybe that culture can be changed. It would take a long time and be incredibly hard. But the last 12 months have been hard, and they’ve been hard because people in business weren’t following a credo like this. They were following the status quo of looking out for themselves alone. Maybe its time to change.

My response to the above comment

Posted by Cushsf on June 15, 2009 at 11:21 pm  edit

I agree with you on all the points. And the culture has to change which is my focus point (whether it is perceived so or not I cannot tell) but it is much harder than may appear. Yes little acorns do grow and make a difference but I don’t think making a decision to adopt an oath should be accepted as a solid step against the recent troubles. The oath exists in a theoretical state until it becomes established and guide enough MBA graduates to count as a step. Obviously, what I have said is my opinion so good luck pursuing your goal and I think you are doing a great job but do not misunderstand what is TODAY. (Aside: Some may say corporate America is ruled by EVIL itself)

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Francis Ford Coppola: What I Have Learned

************************************************

The title sounds like a very interesting article to read except it appeared in Esquire magazine which makes one want to move on.  Whatever good Coppola had stated probably got edited down to what Esquire fashion readers would care to read.  Or I maybe wrong since Coppola is one of most feared people in Hollywood.  I think true artists are the hardest people to handle if you are coming from the business side of the industry.  I don't think they took anything out.  I agree with what Coppola says about Jack.  I actually heard this from a Hollywood producer.  This guy went into publishing business and was selling tons of classics and the like in his large book shop.  His sales were disappointing and he finally got counsel.  He switched to selling "best sellers."  And it was only then he realized why everyone sells whatever good or garbage that has topped the book charts.  This guy said he was so rich he didn't live off the interest of his holdings but the interest on the interest.  I still cannot fully grasp it.  I think he was bragging but true.  Then, I think maybe he was talking about someone else for a moment or I got it wrong.  But I think the overall point was made well and Coppola is a great person to learn the business from if you are cautious enough.

************************************************

The 70-year-old director on meeting Gotti, wanting Scorsese to helmGodfather III, ignoringThe Sopranos, and more (wine with Bill Cosby, anyone?)

By Stephen Garrett

When I was sixteen or seventeen,I wanted to be a writer. I wanted to be a playwright. But everything I wrote, I thought, was weak. And I can remember falling asleep in tears because I had no talent the way I wanted to have.

Did you ever seeRushmore? I was just like that kid.

I've had wineat the table all my life. Even kids were allowed to have it. We used to put ginger ale or lemon soda in it.

I did somethingterrible to my father. When I was twelve or thirteen, I had a job at Western Union. And when the telegram came over on a long strip, you would cut it and glue it on the paper and deliver it on a bicycle. And I knew the name of the head of Paramount Pictures' music department — Louis Lipstone. So I wrote, "Dear Mr. Coppola: We have selected you to write a score. Please return to L. A. immediately to begin the assignment. Sincerely, Louis Lipstone." And I glued it and I delivered it. And my father was so happy. And then I had to tell him that it was fake. He was totally furious. In those days, kids got hit. With the belt. I know why I did it: I wanted him to get that telegram. We do things for good reasons that are bad.

People feelthe worst film I made wasJack.But to this day, when I get checks from old movies I've made,Jackis one of the biggest ones. No one knows that. If people hate the movie, they hate the movie. I just wanted to work with Robin Williams.

I was never sloppywith other people's money. Only my own. Because I figure, well, you can be.

Ten or fifteen yearsafterApocalypse Now,I was in England in a hotel, and I watched the beginning of it and ultimately ended up watching the whole movie. And it wasn't as weird as I thought. It had, in a way, widened what people would tolerate in a movie.

I saw this binfull of, basically, garbage film. We had shot five cameras when the jets came and dropped the napalm. You had to roll them all at the same time, so there was a lot of this leader, which was just footage. So I picked something out of this barrel and put it in the Moviola and it was very abstract, and every once in a while you saw this helicopter skid. And then over in sound there was all this Doors music, and in it was something called "The End." And I said, "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if we started the movie with 'The End'?"

I have moreof a vivid imagination than I have talent. I cook up ideas. It's just a characteristic.

I just admirepeople like Woody Allen, who every year writes an original screenplay. It's astonishing. I always wished that I could do that.

To do goodis to be abundant — that's my tendency. If I cook a meal, I cook too much and have too many things. I was just watching a Cecil B. DeMille picture last night based on Cleopatra, and I realized how many parts of the real story he left out. So much of the art of film is to do less. To aspire to do less.

When I was starting out,I got a job writing a script for Bill Cosby. He used to have the very best wine for his friends. He didn't drink wine himself, but he had this wine called Romanée-Conti, which is considered one of the greatest wines in the world. I never knew wine could taste like that. He also taught me how to play baccarat. And one night I had $400, and I won $30,000. So I bought $30,000 worth of Romanée wines.

You have to viewthings in the context of your life expectancy.

The ending was clearand Michael has corrupted himself — it was over. So I didn't understand why they wanted to make anotherGodfather.

I said,"What I will do is help you develop a story. And I'll find a director and produce it." They said, "Well, who's the director?" And I said, "Young guy, Martin Scorsese." They said, "Absolutely not!" He was just starting out.

The only thingthey really argued with me about was calling itGodfather Part II.It was alwaysSon of the WolfmanorThe Wolfman Returnsor something. They thought that audiences would find it confusing. It was ironic, because that started the whole numbers thing. I started a lot of things.

I was in my trailer,working onGodfather IIorIIIin New York, and there was a knock on the door. The guy working with me said that John Gotti would like to meet Mr. Coppola. And I said, "It's not possible, I'm in the middle of something." There's an old wives' tale about vampires — that you have to invite them in, but once they cross the threshold, then they're in. But if you say you don't want to meet them, then they can't come in. They can't know you.

I never sawThe Sopranos.I'm not interested in the mob.

What greater snubcan you get than that absolutely nobody went to seeYouth Without Youth? Anything better than that is a success.

Some audienceslove to sit there and see all the names in the credits. Are they looking for a relative?

What should I do now?I could do something a little more ambitious. Or less. Better less. For me, less ambitious is more ambitious.

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/francis-ford-coppola-interview-0809?src=rss

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Michael Jackson’s memorial service costing taxpayers millions

************************************************

Michael Jackson should have been buried in the Never Land.  The deal would have been perfect.  I read part of his will and since when famous people get what they want and not what is good for other people.  The $3.5 million is nothing compared to the annual revenues for visitors of Never Land and Michael's grave.  It would have been another Elvis grave site.  They should at least bury his brain or put it on display at Never Land.  You can always say he had verbally instructed someone of this wish.  Los Angeles, Hollywood and his estate would earn probably $500 million a year if his body or at least his brain went over there instead of over here.  I sense some prejudice toward him based on his race.  Maybe some people don't want to be bigger than Elvis after death.

************************************************ 

from The Superficial – Because You're Ugly

Michael Jackson's memorial service today will apparently cost Los Angeles taxpayers $3.5 million+ in a time when the state of California is essentially broke. Local law enforcement will be providing security for attendees which include private guest …read full story 

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Michael Jackson’s Brain and the False Narrative

************************************************

Michael Jackson's body buried without the brain? And the great findings to come in the next few weeks? How about the false narrative? Michael Jackson was the sh*(&t of celebrities until he dropped dead very conveniently.  The man had done great in life as a career.  When I took accounting in college, I was told assets are valued on the accounting statements including good will and so on.  However, humans are not stated on any statement in dollar value to an organization because ….  The point is the value of a human existence can be determined in dollars and applied in equations.  Michael Jackson did very well in bring revenues and contributed more than his share to the accounting equations.  Would it not make sense to keep this trend going? He was ready to go on tour at the age of 50.  What if the big folks determined right when he finished and a short while before he dropped dead that his tour would have been a disaster or disappointment.  What if they determined he could not even finish the tour? What about the equations?  How can we let things change the wonderful numbers now and the future? What if the earning potential of his products can be maintained for the future? When Diego Maradonna (wrong spelling?) retired from soccer he said he retired at the height of his success so he would always be popular.  That makes sense and what else was behind his retirement.  But if Michael Jackson could "retire" maintaining his earning potential, the world could be a better place.  Fortunately, Michael Jackson happened to die at exact point when his earning potential could have declined for good.  He maintained his drive till the last second of his convenient death.  Narrative of Michael Jackson? What narrative?  The truth is what fits the needs of those who benefit the most.  Michael Jackson existed as a commercial entity and his relation to the world was carefully defined by the industry.  The only thing that remains is the sales of Michael Jackson products will never ever drop.  The black Elvis is to be remembered as a great entertainer.  Never mind the rest.  Who said Michael Jackson was a human being to think in terms of his feelings, life experiences and flaws? He was a great entertainer and all the big guys are pleased with him in death as in most of his life.  

************************************************ 

from World of Psychology by John M Grohol PsyD

Since the news media seems to be unable to tear itself away from the Michael Jackson story, we learn about every fascinating detail about his life, and his death. Including the details of standard autopsy procedures, as though they were new or bizarre. The latest, of course, is that Michael Jackson’s body is being buried without his brain.

But this is not unusual in an autopsy where the cause of death isn’t certain and the brain is suspected to carry some clues. The brain needs to harden, in order to perform the later slicing needed in the autopsy procedure:

It involves removing the brain from the skull and leaving it to soak in a diluted mixture of formaldehyde and water called formalin. This soaking process usually takes four weeks and the brain genuinely does harden.

Vaughan over at Mind Hacks has the gory details of a brain autopsy.

I sincerely wish the media attention would die down on this story already. Michael Jackson was a talented performer and singer, but he wasn’t Einstein or Michelangelo. I enjoyed his music, but I was sorry to see the tragic turn his life took later in his career.

Josh Visser over at CTV.ca News has an insightful article into Michael Jackson and the “false narrative phenomenon” — how the singer’s death completely changed the story people tell about his life and what they think of him:

But here’s the rub: Three weeks ago, Jackson was seen by most people as a joke at best; or another rich celebrity who got away with horrible crimes, at worst.[…]

But in death, all that changed. The media in particular, and society at large, seemed to develop a mass amnesia — the last 18 years of lacklustre musical output, the criminal allegations and civil judgments, and the just plain weirdness was forgotten.

Why do we paint these stories that only emphasize and focus on the positive in a person’s life, and discounting the negative? Visser has a suggestion:

We do it for our gone-too-young celebrities and politicians, but we also do it for the regular people in our lives — choosing to remember only the good — rather than an accurate portrait of a person.

Indeed, news organizations know they are going to get more traction with their stories about how great a person and entertainer Michael Jackson was, glossing over the later problems in his life, than to paint a more balanced picture of a seemingly troubled individual who had apparent difficulties adjusting to his life and celebrity.

I would also point readers to Maureen Orth’s five investigative journalism articles in Vanity Fair that detailed Michael Jackson’s celebrity life and the difficulties he faced.

In death, we seem to always focus on the positive, perhaps simply out of respect for the deceased. That seems reasonable. But I think a celebrity should be different, especially because they can act as role models for others. I’m certain the same happened when Elvis died, but his death also serves as a warning about the excesses of such celebrity lives. We need to hear about the bad, along with the good, so that we understand the humanity of the person who has left this world.

Because Michael Jackson, in the end, wasn’t just a celebrity or performer — he was a complex and seemingly troubled human being. Understanding that he wasn’t simply a great singer or dancer helps us understand how we are all imperfect… How we lead lives trying to understand how we fit into this world.

And how, sometimes, we fail to do so.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/07/08/michael-jacksons-brain-and-the-false-narrative/

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Video: A Guide to Wine for the Confused

************************************************

I saw Wine for the Confused maybe last year and found it amusing.  The information is acceptable but is fit for the novice and commercial consumer.  Would I recommend it? No.  I think everyone whom Wine for the Confused is intended for will find and watch it.  If you do watch it, pay close attention how John Cleese is condescending toward women sommeliers.  I understand he is British and very sarcastic but still he has a wonderful attitude toward female that stands out against American culture practices toward women.  It makes one wonder what is done improperly in US that is invisible to a local?  
************************************************ 

from Lifehacker by Jason Fitzpatrick

Purchasing, storing, sampling, and outright enjoying wine can seem to be an enormous undertaking. Monty Python's John Cleese sets out to help the uninitiated (seriously!).

Photo by jesiehart.

Wine for the Confused originally aired on Food network as an informative mini-documentary about wine, hosted by none other than John Cleese of Monty Python fame. It covers varieties of wine, how to establish a baseline for your wine tastes, storing and serving wine, and more. Check out the link below to watch the entire film at Hulu—we'd have embedded it here for your viewing pleasure, but Hulu absolutelyinsisted the embed code it gave us for Wine for the Confused point at an episode ofAlfred Hitchcock Presents.

The video might not contain revelations for a veteran wine connoisseur, but if you're interested in learning more about wine and cutting through some of the snobbery and myths surrounding it, the video is quite informative.

If you want to expand your wine knowledge further check out previously reviewed Snooth, a social network and recommendation engine for wine enthusiasts.

Wine for the Confused

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Chinese “Web Addicts” Get Boot Camp, Therapy

************************************************

I found a book on internet addiction which caught my eye and am reading.  I use internet not closely enough to be addicted but am still curious what exactly it means.  I remember long before Internet was a "problem" computer games were already taking their tools on kids.  Locking computers by parents was a common practice to keep kids from addictive computer games.  Windows and its GUI were born not long after and the battle was lost.  

************************************************ 

from T Slashdot by timothy

itwbennett writes "A large number of Chinese parents are finding their teenagers to be exhibiting such psychological symptoms as depression, antisocial behavior, and slipping grades. The cause: Internet addiction. World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike rank beside Chinese role-playing games as those that hook the most patients, says Tao Ran, the founder of a youth rehabilitation center on a Beijing army base. Online chat programs more often hook girls, who make up a handful of Tao's current 70 patients. The teens are subjected to a 'strict regimen of military drills, martial arts training, lectures and sessions with psychiatrists.' And, most importantly: no Internet."

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Book Review: The Consultant’s Quick Start Guide: An Action Planfor Your First Year in Business (Paperback)

If you are interested in becoming a consultant, you find this a great book to start with.  It only took me about 40 minutes to read through because I already have solid training and experience in management and entrepnuership which relieve of me doing many of the exercises.  The information served as a good review and checklist for me but will do a great job developing a person with simple interest in consulting to move toward the actual profession.  I recommend it.

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Book Review: Mass Media (Opposing Viewpoints)

Mass Media was an interesting topic for me to read but I had expected more.  Some of the opposing views books pull in the direction of issues debated that do not feel as major.  I assume the date of publication has some relevance because of new issues surfacing but I still feel slight tendency toward packing minor issues in some of the texts.  Mass Media was not great and I liked reading but probably will not read again.

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Book Review: Food (Opposing Viewpoints)

Food made sense to me and I enjoyed reading the opposite viewpoints.  Most of the issues appear in the media on a regular basis but I never thought of them in terms of perpetual problems.  The concept for food in general makes different sense to me now.  My personal and professional experiences in the food business eschewed many issues central to the field up to reading "Food". My mind has a much larger window to receive small bits of information and process them.  I recommend reading but the opposing viewpoints discuss topics making different sense based on your interest or background.  Food may not speak to you as it did to me.

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous

Book Review: Endangered Oceans (Opposing Viewpoints)

I really like water in all its forms.  A body of water is a sign of life to me not for drinking but because so many life forms exist within.  Oceans are such wonderful and amazing entities and I was curious to read about issues relating.  I am very disappointed how humans have succeeded at damaging the oceans and continue at any possible speed.  Humans have been destroying everything on land forever and life has its own way of dealing with the damage.  However, oceans somehow seemed exempt until I read Endangered Oceans.  I would like to read more on the topic and believe humans should be withheld from damaging the oceans and restricted to destroying the land.  I don't think both can successfully be done but is possible to keep them back from Oceans until a solution for the land is found.

Posted via email from cushsf’s posterous