Hindsight is rarely 20/20, so stop saying otherwise.

We need to stop saying that hindsight is 20/20.

If this were true:

  • My friend from high school wouldn't have married a seemingly endless string of deadbeats.
  • The United States military wouldn't continue to invade nations in the Middle East hoping to affect meaningful and productive change.
  • Poker players wouldn't continue to play ace-queen like it was ace-king.
  • Organizations wouldn't continue to hire ineffective leaders.
  • Financial institutions wouldn't continue to make risky bets.  
  • Students wouldn't continue to forget to put their homework in the backpacks.

Human beings are highly adept at repeating their mistakes. Through bad habits, unrecognized flaws, denial, and self deception, many people are incapable of looking back on their lives with anything approximating 20/20 vision.  

Even historians disagree when examining the historical record. They debate the wisdom of political decisions, campaign strategies, and military maneuvers. 

At best, hindsight is occasionally 20/20.

That's not as catchy as the conventional "Hindsight is 20/20," but at least it's true.   

Management: Please stop signing your signs. It looks ridiculous and serves no useful purpose.

This sign was posted beside a plastic lion at Safari Golf, an excellent mini golf course near my home. 

The message itself is fine. Sadly, it's probably necessary to remind brain damaged teenagers not to sit on the pretend animals.

But here's the problem: 

What causes business owners to think that they need to sign their signage with phrases like The Management? To what purpose does this serve? Was it worth the additional expense (because it absolutely made the sign more expensive)?

Was management concerned that customers wouldn't take the sign seriously without an indication of where the message originated?

Did they worry that customers might think the sign had been placed there by someone other than management? A prankster, perhaps? Or maybe some strange offshoot of PETA that protects artificial animals?

Do they believe that the mention of management confers additional authority to the sign and therefore increases the chances of adherence.?

If any of this were true, then Stop and Yield signs would be signed by the federal government. Speed limit signs would feature the signatures of the local cops. Placards on airplanes would be signed by the pilot.  

Not every message needs to be signed. I barely sign my emails anymore. I agree to terms and service all the time simply by checking a button. 

We definitely don't need our signage to be signed. It doesn't make a sign more effective. It doesn't make it look more professional. It just makes the person who purchased the sign seem a little silly.   

There are three incredibly stupid things wrong with this sign. Can you spot them all?

I saw this sign in a Dunkin Donuts drive-thru in Danbury, CT.

There are so many things wrong with this sign.

1. "Spring is here and we want our customers to be completely satisfied..." implies that spring was the impetus for management to want to satisfy its customers. 

Wouldn't it be better to say: 

"We opened a Dunkin Donuts, and we want our customers to be completely satisfied..."

or: "From the moment we were born, we have wanted our customers to be completely satisfied..."

or "The universe began with the Big Bang, and ever since that singular moment in time, we have wanted our customers to be completely satisfied..."

All of these are better than linking their desire to satisfy customers to an arbitrary day in March.

2. Spring was almost two seasons ago. Am I to presume that since spring is no longer with us, the desire to satisfy customers is also gone? Basically, don't connect your desire to do your job well with seasonal changes. That's stupid. 

3. The sign indicates a website where I can leave feedback, but it also informs me that I will need my receipt for instructions. So in order to input feedback into a digital computer network, management has created a system by which I must also retain the analog slip of paper handed to me through the window. 

Does anyone else find this process insane? Sort of like requiring someone to use an instruction manual in order to operate the Internet.

"Hate is a strong word." It's also not so strong a word. So let's stop saying otherwise.

Can we all agree that "Hate is a strong word" is a statement that never needs to be said ever, ever again?

First, it's not exactly a new concept. In fact, it's used so often that it's become a reflexive retort for some people. Yes, we all know that hate is a strong word. We get it. It's not like we're confusing the word with indifferent or disapprove.

Second, even a word as clearly defined as hate has degrees of intensity, and any rationale, reasonable person recognizes this. 

If my friend and I are tied on the last hole of a round of golf, and he hits his tee shot 300 yards straight down the fairway, I might say, "I hate you." 

My friend doesn't say, "Hate is a strong word." He laughs. He smiles. He shrugs his shoulders in false modesty. He understands that I don't really hate him, though in that singular moment, I might.

Yes, hate is a strong word. It's also a not-so-strong word depending upon the context.  

While we're on the subject, I also do not support the insanity of parents and teachers who tell children that they cannot use the word hate in their everyday speech, as if banning the word will ban the emotion behind it.

The more you restrict the use of the word, the more power and desirability that word gains. Sanitizing speech only ensures that the language being sanitized will be used often in the near future. 

The three most confident words in the English language

I am never more impressed with someone than when I hear them say this simple, three word sentence:

"I don't know."

It should be an easy thing to say. Three one syllable words that we all know by the time we are three years old. 

And based upon the vast amount of information available in this world, the enormous number of skills that human beings have mastered, the vast amount of mysteries still in need of explanation, and our own personal and biological limitations, it's a sentence that should be said often.

There is a lot that we don't know, both individually and collectively. 

We don't know a lot of the time. 

And yet "I don't know" is like poison to so many people. Again and again, I listen to people leap into verbal gymnastics in an attempt to avoid the sentence, "I don't know."

They guess. They hypothesis. They conjecture. They make stuff up. They feign expertise. They change the subject. They ask rhetorical questions. They delay. They postpone.

It makes no sense. 

"I don't know" is confidence.

"I don't know" says: "I know a lot. I kick ass in many facets of my life, but in this particular area, I haven't a clue, and that is okay."

“If you’re going to have a difficult life, it might as well be childhood, since it’s so short” might be the dumbest thing ever said.

Someone recently told me that “If you’re going to have a difficult life, it might as well be childhood, since it’s so short.”

I disagree. It’s the percentage of life that is difficult that matters most, and a difficult childhood skews that percentage for a long, long time. 

If you have a difficult childhood, that means that 100% of your life up until a certain age is difficult, and these are fundamental years upon which the foundation of our lives is often set.

This alone is exceptionally damaging to people. 

Equally important, it takes a long, long time for that percentage to even shift to a 50/50 split.

If you're life was difficult until the age of 16, for example, you won't attain a 50/50 split of difficult to not difficult until you're 32 years old, and that is assuming that none of the years between the ages of 17 to 32 were difficult, which is unlikely.

Even if that's the case, you've now only reached a 50-50 split. Half your life was hard. Half was not. You're still not looking back with rose-colored classes.  

You'll need to reach the age of 48 before two-thirds of your life wasn't difficult and 64 before three-quarters of your life wasn't difficult, and all of this is assuming that none of the years between ages 17 and 64 are difficult, which is, of course, a ridiculous assumption.

No, if you're going to have a difficult life, make it anything but childhood. I wish every person on the planet a childhood filled with love, joy, learning, productive struggle, and great success. 

If it's then followed by hardship, at least the foundation will be solid and coping strategies will be in place, and the person experiencing the hardship will be able to lean on the memory of those childhood years with a sense of what has been and could be again. 

Do you know what kind of person thinking that if you’re going to have a difficult life, it might as well be childhood, since it’s so short?

It's a person who experienced a childhood free of hardship and has no understanding of the long term impact that 100% of your life being difficult can have on the remainder of your life. 

Half years are stupid.

I will never understand why adults count half-years when accounting for time.

Yesterday I heard a person asked how long he was at a company. His response:

"Eight and a half years."

Eight and a half?

You're not a toddler, dude. No one over the age of ten counts half years. No one even keeps track of half years. Besides, what even constitutes a half year? 

Must it be exactly six months to call it a half year?
What about four months? Should we round up to the half year or back down to the full year?
What about eight months? Can we round up to a full year? What about nine months? Or ten?

Everyone understands that when you say that you were with a company for eight years, it probably wasn't eight years on the nose. It was probably eight years and some additional weeks or months, or maybe it was almost eight years and you're rounding up.

Stating time in half years makes you sound like a wonk. It's meaningless. No one cares about your stupid half year.    

There are so many things wrong with this sign.

The capitalization of Do and Not is terrible. Of course. I despise random and inaccurate capitalization.

The lack of punctuation is forgivable but still annoying as hell. 

But it's the existence of the sign that bothers me the most. Why taint a perfectly good table with a sign asking patrons not to move it and the adjacent furniture? It's as if the table only exists for the sign asking that it not be moved. 

Why have a table at all?

I would submit that a collection of poorly appointed furniture is far more egregious than this plastic and paper monstrosity. 

Dear Adam Cloud: “Yard Goats” is the definition of unique. Also, your argument that the name is offensive is absurd.

If you haven’t heard, the New Britain Rock Cats – the Colorado Rockies Double A affiliate – are moving to Hartford and have been renamed The Yard Goats.

The Yard Goats get their name from an old railroad slang term for an engine that switches a train to get it ready for another locomotive (thus harkening back to Hartford’s supposed railroad roots), but the goat will most assuredly play a role in the marketing of the team.

The naming was done via fan voting and revealed a couple weeks ago. 

image
image

The Yard Goats is a great name. Perfectly befitting the kitchiness of minor league baseball. The Yard Goats will be perfect alongside such teams as the Savannah Sand Gnats, the El Paso Chihuahuas, the Casper Ghosts, and the Albuquerque Isotopes.   

image
image
image
image

Hartford Treasurer Adam Cloud, who sits on the board of the Hartford Stadium Authority, doesn’t agree with me. He doesn’t like the name one bit. He’s not happy.  

I have no beef with Cloud for not liking the name. My wife doesn’t like the name, either. She was hoping for the Honey Badgers, and for good reason.

About a third of my students don’t like the name.

It’s admittedly an eclectic name.

What I take issue with is Adam Cloud’s comments regarding the name.

Cloud said the name is "neither creative, or unique."

We could argue the merits of the name based upon creativity (though it’s hard to argue that it’s not at least a little creative), but he couldn’t be more wrong in his assertion that the name is not unique.

It’s absolutely unique. No other sports franchise in the world is name the Yard Goats.

That, Mr. Cloud, is the definition of unique.

Cloud also said that Yard Goats is an “absurd” name and is insensitive to people in the city’s Caribbean community, many of whom at one time or another may have owned or tended goats.

That statement, Mr. Cloud, is far more absurd than the team’s new name.

How could using the name of an animal that a person may have owned at one time possibly be offensive to that former owner? The use of the name in no way impugns the current or former owners of said animal. In fact, if anything, the animal is being elevated to celebrity status by the naming.

Should owners of horses, which also eat grass, be offended by the Denver Broncos’ or Indianapolis Colts’ choice of names?

Should the owners of sheep, which also eat grass, be offended by the St. Louis Ram’s choice of name?

Should the parents of twins, which hopefully don’t eat grass (but might), be offended by the Minnesota Twins choice of name? Yes, the Twins are actually named after the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but the Yard Goats are named after a type of train. If Cloud can conveniently ignore that reality, why shouldn’t the parents of twins also ignore the origins of the Twins name and feel similarly outraged?

There’s nothing wrong with hating the name, Mr. Cloud. My wife doesn’t like it either, and I don’t think any less of her for this opinion.

But the reason she doesn’t like the name?

She thinks it’s dumb. You probably do, too. But in defending her position, my wife doesn’t make any ridiculous claims about the name being offensive to goat owners or failing to be unique. It’s simply a matter of taste.

You don’t like the name. Too bad. Don’t spout nonsense. You sound ridiculous.

Yard Goats for life.

Three sentences that everyone should say more often

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I have many flaws. In fact, I list them annually. The 2015 list is 35 items long.

But here’s something in which I excel:

I say these three sentences often. I probably say each one of them more than once a day.

  • I’m sorry.
  • I was wrong.
  • I don’t know.

Perhaps it’s because I’m so flawed that I find it so easy to say these three sentences. A person who blunders as often as I do relies on these three sentences to get through the day.

But there is no clearer sign to me that someone is a confident, accomplished, self-possessed person than his or her ability to say these three sentences often and without reservation.

Sadly, a lot of people have a hard time with these three sentences. My life often seems filled with people who can’t say them or only say them disingenuously. 

I’ll never understand it. I can’t begin to imagine how difficult it must be to go through life having to be right or thinking that you’re always right or needing to give off the illusion that you’re always right when everyone around you knows it’s not true. 

image
image

Why do I blog? Because it’s nearly led to national television, and it still might. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I’ve been blogging for over ten years now. Every single day for more than a decade, I have sat down and written something for a blog. Before this blog, there was another, and before that one, there was my first, born in a blogging class at Trinity College.

I am often asked why I continue to write a blog. Is it worth the time? Doesn’t it ever become a burden? Wouldn’t the time spent writing it be better spent working on my books?

I’m often asked if I generate income from my blog, and while there was once a time when I did – and maybe someday I will profit from my blog posts again – I don’t do it for the money.

There are many reasons why I write a blog. Too many to list in just one blog post. But this past week was a clear indication of just one of the reasons:

Back in 2011, I wrote a post proposing that brides and grooms hire me as their professional best man. While I was serious about my skill set and the need for this position, I never thought that anyone would actually take me up on it. Last Saturday – with an hour of each other – two prospective clients (one bride and one groom) contacted me via email, inquiring  about my professional best man services, and it looks like I will actually be hired by at least one of them for their wedding. They aren’t the first to reach out to me. In the past two years, six other potential clients have contacted me, and in all instances, geography and scheduling were barriers to employment.

Still, just to be contacted was amazing.

In addition, three different reality show producers and a documentarian from the UK have contacted me over the past two years, asking if I would like to be a part of a potential television show about a professional best man.

Six months ago, actor and comedian Kevin Hart also contacted me to give me credit fro coming up with the professional best man idea before he did for his most recent film.

All because of a simple blog post.

image

On Sunday, I spent about an hour on the phone talking to a booker at Fox & Friends about appearing on their national morning show to discuss a post I wrote in 2014 about my failed attempt at becoming a member of the social network BeautifulPeople.com. This past week, Beautiful People kicked off about 3,000 members for no longer being beautiful enough, and for a moment, I was going to appear on their show to discuss my experiences. Ultimately, they found someone who had been actually kicked off the site and went with her instead, but none of it would’ve ever happened had I not written that blog post.

image

And although this opportunity didn’t work out, the booker liked me and plans to use me on their weekend parenting panels, so I may still have my shot at national television.

There are many, many reasons why I have been writing a blog post every day for more than a decade, but one of them is this:

The unexpected, unpredictable, unbelievable doors that blogging sometimes opens.

Curt Shilling is wrong about evolution, but his response to Internet trolls was commendable and enough to make this Yankees fan cheer.

As a New York Yankees fan – as well as someone who supports science and knows that evolution is real – I’ve never been a fan of Curt Shilling.

image

But when Shilling took to Twitter last week to congratulate his daughter on her invitation to pitch for the Salve Regina University baseball team, Internet trolls emerged from under their bridges in numbers that Shilling never expected.

“I expected the trolls. The one kid kind of came at me and said, ‘I can’t wait to take your daughter out.’ Kind of borderline stuff, which again, I expected. I’ve been on the Internet since, I started playing on computers in 1980, so I understand how it works and I knew there would be stuff. The stuff that they did, that is not bad or vile, it’s illegal. It’s against the law.”

“When that started -- again, I thought it might be a one-off, but then it started to steamroll. And then [my daughter] started to get private correspondence and then I said 'OK, this needs to get fixed.’ This generation of kids doesn’t understand, and adults too, doesn’t understand that the Internet is not even remotely anonymous.”

Shilling went on the offensive, attacking the trolls on his blog and identifying a handful of the offenders.

One of the offenders – a part-time ticket-seller for the Yankees – has been fired, the team’s director of communications confirmed to NJ.com. Another, a student at a community college in New Jersey, was reportedly suspended from school.

As the victim of an large scale, anonymous attack on my professional credibility several years ago, I understand the power that a person has when they hide behind the curtain of anonymity and hurl false accusations and libelous statements at people who are unable to confront their accusers. I also understand how anonymity can embolden a person to say terrible things that they would never dare say in public.

Shilling refers to his not-so-anonymous offenders as “garbage” on his blog. I have often called them cowards, but I like garbage a lot, too.

image

Unlike Shilling, I was never able to positively identify the persons responsible in my case, mostly because the cowards (or pieces of garbage) used old fashioned paper and ink, thereby eliminating any digital trail (though the search for their identities remains active). As a staunch  advocate of free speech, I believe in the power of using that freedom to publicly identify people who make threats and spout hatred and vulgarity online.

It’s time to pull back that curtain of electrons and force people to own their words.  

Shilling may be wrong when it comes to evolution, and that stupid bloody sock may have been completely overblown, but when it comes to his response to Internet trolls, Shilling has my full support.  

The sooner we let these cretins know that they cannot hide behind their computer screens, the sooner they will crawl back under their bridges and leave the rest of us alone.

Emergency and Evacuation Plan maps should not be designed to produce panic

Just a thought, but perhaps your Emergency and Evacuation Plan map shouldn’t indicate your present position in an amorphous speech bubble that seems to engender a sense of flame, heat, and panic, and shouts the three words with the use of an exclamation point.

The message should be: “You are here.”

This one reads: “AH! You are here! Right next to the fire! The heat! The flames! The humanity! You’re all going to die!”

image image

There is no female counterpart to the word “guys,” and that is a tragedy.

One of college supervisors’ favorite critiques of student-teachers is their use of the word “guys” when addressing the entire class, claiming that the word is gender specific and therefore inappropriate.

This critique is made for two reasons:

  1. College supervisors, in my experience, have very little to say that is critical of a student-teacher’s performance. They tend to heap an inordinate amount of praise upon student-teachers while rarely correcting anything that wasn’t written on paper prior to the lesson. I have yet to understand the rationale behind this culture of incessant praise, but it doesn’t make anyone a better teacher. So targeting the use of the word “guys” is a simple, non-threatening, and nearly universal form of criticism that supervisors can make without any actual critical analysis of the lesson or the student-teacher’s performance.

  2. As gender specific as “guys” may technically be, these college supervisors apparently spend no time with actual kids, who use the word “guys” in a non-gender way throughout the entire school day. Girls refer to other girls as “guys” all the time. Boys refer to girls as “guys.” Girls refer to boys as “guys.” Even my wife refers to her girlfriends as “guys.” It’s a word that is gender specific in definition only. 

But here’s the real problem:

There is no decent female counterpart to “guys.”

“Guys” is a great word. It serves a necessary purpose and does so with skill and aplomb. It denotes a group of people. By definition, this group should be males only, but this is rarely the case, because the feminine alternatives of this word are nonexistent.

 

image

And please don’t say “gals.” It’s no good. Use this word in almost any context and you’ll sound like an idiot.

If you live in the South, you have the option of “y’all,” which I actually like a lot, but again, if you use it outside the South, you sound like an idiot.

I’ve heard people use the word “ladies” as an alternative, but “ladies” lacks the casual ease of “guys.” “Ladies” is like a pretentious brunch. “Guys” is a like a burger and fries. 

And besides, there is a masculine counterpart to “ladies,” therefore maintaining “guys” singular status.  

So when I am working with a student-teacher, my solution to the “guys” issue is simple:

I make sure that I use the word in the presence of the college supervisor before my student-teacher does. This will either afford my student-teacher permission to use the word (if the teacher is modeling the use of the word, how can I fault her?), or it will cause the college supervisor to engage in a discussion about the use of the word, which is always highly entertaining.

Poetry memorization need not be boring or a waste of time. I have used it to make a woman swoon (possibly) and enact one of my greatest pranks of all time against a fellow teacher.

Mike Chasar of Poetry Magazine writes about the lost art of poetry memorization. While it’s true that the academic demand to memorize poetry has all but disappeared from the American school system, I’m happy to report that this dying art remains alive and well in tiny corners of the world, including several of my own.

I took a poetry class in college with the late, great poet and professor Hugh Ogden, and he required us to have a newly memorized poem “of substance” ready for each class. 

image

“Of substance” meant that it had better not be four lines long.

We sat around a large, wooden table and recited our poems as our classmates listened on. Remarkably, Hugh had many of the poems that we recited committed to memory as well. He would close his eyes as we recited, almost as if he were listening to music and not the fumbling, occasionally inarticulate words of an nervous, undergraduate English major.

It was an incredibly difficult but incredibly rewarding expectation. I still have about half a dozen of those poems committed to memory, including Dylan Thomas’s “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night,” which I fell in love with through the process of memorization and still love today.
__________________________________ 

Later, when I had students of my own –third graders and then fifth graders – I would require them to memorize at least one poem “of substance” each year. My students would grumble and complain about the requirement, but once they had the poem memorized and performed it on stage, they were happy to have done so.

Today, my students perform Shakespeare, and they memorize dozens and sometimes hundreds of lines with nary a complaint. And we still memorize our one poem of the year, myself included, in honor of Hugh.
__________________________________

Years ago, in a time when Elysha and I still exchanged a present for every night of Hanukkah, I memorized Elysha’s favorite poem, William Blake’s  “The Tyger” and presented it as one of my gifts to her. With the poem committed to memory, I told Elysha that she had access to it at any time as long as we were together, and I would always recite to her on demand.

She loved the gift, or at least pretended to love it. And I can still recite the poem today, as can she.

image
__________________________________

But my favorite moment of poetry memorization occurred about ten years ago when the teacher in the adjoining classroom began using the following call and response with his students:

Teacher: Oh Captain!
Students: My Captain!

I asked the teacher if he knew the Whitman poem that he was using – which I had memorize in college for Hugh and still have committed to memory to this day – and he did not. He had taken the idea from Dead Poet’s Society, the Robin William’s film about an English teacher at a boy’s boarding school in the 1960’s. 

I thought this rather unfortunate, so the next time he was absent from his classroom, I handed a copy of the poem to each of his students and asked them to begin memorizing it in secret. I explained that I would pop into their classroom whenever he was out to help them memorize the poem and rehearse, and one day, when they all knew the poem by heart, they would leap to their feet in the midst of the call and response, and instead of simply saying, “My Captain!” they would proceed to recite the entire poem to him.  

It finally happened on a morning in April. Since our classroom had an adjoining door and window, I was able to wait and listen for him to shout his first, “Oh Captain!” of the day. Then I watched as they all stood and recited the poem back to him. Shouted it back to him. 

In my memory, their recitation was universal and flawless. I suspect the truth was something not quite so cinematic. Still, it was amazing.

Had I been more familiar with the film at the time, I would’ve had them all stand on their desks. That would’ve been cinematic.

image