Thank Goodness It's Monday #405



Cloudless Earth from Space
(a composite daytime image from NASA)

ON EARTH DAY

THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE OUR HOME

(OR IS THERE?)

As you know (I hope) my sense of humor tends to favor the paradoxical or ironic. I like “jokes” that make you pause and think as well as smile.

In connecting this to the self-improvement spirit of TGIM: One of my long-time favorite observations in this vein has been the near-classic:

You’re unique

… just like everyone else.

Get it?

Of course you do. It’s appealing because it rightly honors our individuality while at the same time supporting our “Everyman” interconnectedness. And it has the additional advantage of sucking a bit of the hot air out of such a pretentious bit of blather.

 

In a similar vein, with an eye to acknowledging that today is Earth Day 2013, there’s the observation:

You’re one in a million

… which means, that rounding off,

there are about 316 just like you in the USA

and 7,000 or so more in the world.

(If you want to be up-to-the-second precise there’s an enlightening Population Clock moving ever forward HERE.)

And, although we all occasionally have difficulty grasping the scope and meaning of such big numbers, that kind of numerical acknowledgement is the bridge to today’s –

TGIM EARTH DAY OBSERVATION: Our Earth, the one we share with over 7 billion other people is –

Unique -- but unique in a qualified way

Here’s the quick math: Our sun is one of about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way. But it’s not typical. Only about 5 percent of the stars are similar in mass and luminosity.  So, doing the math, there are 10 billion stars in the galaxy similar to our sun. According to recent results from NASA’s Kepler space observatory, 23 percent of sun-like stars have Earth-size planets orbiting them and only 10 percent of those planets are at a similar distance from their suns as Earth is from our sun. That suggests then, conservatively, there could be 230 million habitable Earth-like planets in the galaxy.

So… If there are 230 million more planets just like ours spinning around in the near-by galactic neighborhood –

What’s the big deal with Earth Day?

TGIM TAKEAWAY: In its qualified way, our Earth is unique – just like we are. And we need to honor that uniqueness just as we like to be recognized for our distinctive individuality.

And no, this is not going to be an Earth Day “global climate change” rant. (Although I do stand with the overwhelming number of scientists who caution that we ignore it at our peril.)

But the TGIM case I’d like you to consider is the human-to-human one. 

You (or I) individually make up <0.000000001 percent of the population and that tiny percentage is getting smaller by the nanosecond. But we cannot run our lives without regard for the other 99.999999999 percent.

Thought leader Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) reminded us, “On Spaceship Earth there are no passengers; everybody is a member of the crew. We have moved into an age in which everybody’s activities affect everybody else.”

To live successfully on our highly connected and interdependent Big Blue Marble, we must act with awareness and respect for others.

But you know this.

• Some version of “Do unto others” is fundamental to virtually all religious or philosophical practices.
• It’s certainly a precept that governs successful family dynamics.
• Our communities run best if all the political players can abide by that guiding principle.
• The best business dealings have an “Everyone Wins” component.
• The most productive relationship building begins when we seek to understand and fill the needs of the other guy.
• The lasting partnerships we treasure are underpinned by the ability to find your happiness and fulfillment in striving to meet the needs and the desires of the ones you care about.

 

TGIM EARTH DAY ACTION IDEA:  “Make you the world a bit more beautiful and better because you have been in it.”

 

At its heart that sentiment has a variety of attributions. The source I like best is from the grandmother of Edward Bok, a self-made man who actively did what he philosophized and, in fact, made planet-improving contributions early in the 20^th Century that stand as a testament to him to this day.

TGIM EARTH DAY IDEA IN ACTION: “Be the change you wish to see in the world” – sort of.

This bumper-sticker-on-an-eco-friendly-car sentiment, attributed to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was probably never directly said by the Mahatma (“Great Soul” in Sanskrit).

Sorry.

 

What is definitively spelled out in the Gandhi sources (in a paragraph from 1913 in one of his 98 volumes; Vol. 13, Ch. 153, page 241 to be precise) goes like this:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him…. We need not wait to see what others do.”

Several years ago, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Brian Morton, the director of a writing program at Sarah Lawrence College who is also troubled by the misquote pointed out:

 

 

"Here, Gandhi is telling us that personal and social transformation go hand in hand, but there is no suggestion in his words that personal transformation is enough. In fact, for Gandhi, the struggle to bring about a better world involved not only stringent self denial and rigorous adherence to the philosophy … it also involved a steady awareness that … only a great number of people working together with discipline and persistence” can bring about change. 

TGIM Takeaway: And that’s why and how each of the unique >0.000000001 percent of us should observe/celebrate this Earth Day.

And every day.

 

Now that would be a big deal.

Geoff Steck
Chief Catalyst
Alexander Publishing & Marketing

8 Depot Square

Englewood, NJ 07631
201-569-5373
tgimguy@gmail.com

 

P.S.  “What’s an earth for,” asks the anonymous wit, “but to make a heaven of?”



Cloudless Earth from Space
(a composite night image from NASA)

 

Thank Goodness It's Monday #404

WEALTHY & WISE ADVICE

FOR APRIL 15, 2013

The dread April 15 income tax filing deadline is upon us … again. 

Thank goodness this year’s deadline is Monday. 

Partly because, for filing procrastinators, that means at least you had the weekend to “git `er done” and – if you still support the Post Office by filing the old fashioned paper way – get your bundle properly postmarked today.

Not that that makes the process any less arduous or exasperating (which, I would observe, is one literal definition of “taxing”).

And partly because it gives me a specific TGIM Topic Target to shoot at.

I suspect most of the good citizens reading these posts feel a certain ambivalence about their mandatory participation in the process of progressive income taxation as currently practiced in our version of a capitalist economy.

• We all have moments when we look at what our taxes are funding and agree with the sentiment of respected jurist John Marshall (1755-1835), “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
• And yet we can also find a number of instances to agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

And those two quotes lay the groundwork for today’s TGIM subject matter:

 

WEALTHY & TAX-WISE ADVICE: No, not from me. My mastery of the mysteries of tax-savvy strategies is limited and strictly nonprofessional. I stand with the wit who said, “Few of us ever test our powers of deduction, except when filling out an income tax form.” My personal feeling is, even when you believe you’ve made out your tax return in a scrupulously honest way, you still don’t know if you’ve done right or not.

So I’ll concede the advice-rendering portion of this taxing TGIM – and it’s wise and wealthy guidance – to one of the smartest Americans that ever was or will be--

Benjamin Franklin

“The Way To Wealth”



Franklin first published what later became known as
The Way to Wealth as the preface
to his almanac for 1758. 
It began at the top of the left-hand page and
continued in the available spaces on the calendar pages.

This image is from
The Library Company of Philadelphia
-- the largest public library in America
until the Civil War.
 Founded in 1731 by Franklin,
it is America's oldest cultural institution, 
 

Ben’s essay “The Way to Wealth” was published almost two decades before the Declaration of Independence -- July 7, 1757. While packed with amazingly timeless messages, it is nearly 3,500 words long (and you think I go on!) and has a certain 250-years-old style that makes it challenging to read.

So I will spare you it in its entirety. 

The point is: This long tale is Franklin’s made-up story of stopping in his Richard Saunders -- aka, “Poor Richard” persona -- unrecognized, at a village market and overhearing the local “wise man” regale the crowd with insights he has gained from Poor Richard’s Almanack. 

HIGHLIGHTED FOR APRIL 15: In what follows I’ve exercised editorial privilege to focus on the portions that reference taxation particularly. And I dared to modernize Ben’s telling somewhat to get right down to what’s most relevant for us on April 15, 2013:

*****

They were conversing on the badness of the times, and one fellow called to a plain clean old man, with white locks, "Pray, Father Abraham, what think you of the times? Won't these heavy taxes quite ruin the country? How shall we be ever able to pay them? What would you advise us to?" 

Father Abraham stood up, and replied, "If you'd have my advice, I'll give it you in short, for a word to the wise is enough, and many words won't fill a bushel, as Poor Richard says." 

[Editorial aside: Franklin was always a master of self promotion; that was just another part of his genius. And as you’ll see, he keeps referencing his Poor Richard sources – by name and in an italic typeface -- throughout his essay.]

The crowd joined in desiring Father Abraham to speak his mind and, gathering round him, he proceeded as follows:

"Friends,” says he, “and neighbors; the taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them.

“But we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. 

“We are taxed twice as much by our idleness,

… three times as much by our pride,

… and four times as much by our folly

-- and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us by allowing an abatement. 

“However let us hearken to good advice, and something may be done for us. God helps them that help themselves, as Poor Richard says, in his almanac of 1733.

"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part of their time, to be employed in its service. 

“But idleness taxes many of us much more, if we reckon all that is spent in absolute sloth, or doing of nothing, with that which is spent in idle employments or amusements, that amount to nothing. 

“And sloth, by bringing on diseases, absolutely shortens life. Sloth, like rust, consumes faster than labor wears, while the used key is always bright, as Poor Richard says.

“But dost thou love life, then do not squander time, for that's the stuff life is made of, as Poor Richard says.

 

“If time be of all things the most precious, wasting time must be, as Poor Richard says, the greatest prodigality, since, as he elsewhere tells us, Lost time is never found again, and What we call time-enough, always proves little enough. 

“Let us then be up and be doing, and doing to the purpose; so by diligence shall we do more with less perplexity. 

“Sloth makes all things difficult, but industry all easy, as Poor Richard says; and he that riseth late, must trot all day, and shall scarce overtake his business at night. While laziness travels so slowly, that poverty soon overtakes him, as we read in Poor Richard, who adds, Drive thy business, let not that drive thee.

"So what signifies wishing and hoping for better times? We may make these times better if we bestir ourselves.

“And, as Poor Richard likewise observes, He that hath a trade hath an estate, and He that hath a calling hath an office of profit and honor. But then the trade must be worked at, and the calling well followed, or neither the estate, nor the office, will enable us to pay our taxes.

“If you would be wealthy, says he, in another almanac, think of saving as well as of getting. The Indies have not made Spain rich, because her outgoes are greater than her incomes. Away then with your expensive follies, and you will not have so much cause to complain of hard times, heavy taxes, and the expense of families.

Get what you can, and what you get hold;

'Tis the stone that will turn all your lead into gold,

-- as Poor Richard says. And when you have got that Philosopher's Stone, surely you will no longer complain of bad times, or the difficulty of paying taxes.

"This doctrine, my friends, is reason and wisdom. 

“But, after all: Do not depend too much upon your own industry, and frugality, and prudence. 

“Though excellent things, they may all be blasted without the blessing of heaven. Therefore, ask that blessing humbly. And be not uncharitable to those that at present seem to want it. Comfort and help them. Remember Job suffered, and was afterwards prosperous.

 

"And now to conclude: Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other, and scarce in that. It is true, we may give advice, but we cannot give conduct, as Poor Richard says.

“However, remember this: They that won't be counseled can't be helped, as Poor Richard says. 

“And farther: If you will not hear reason, she'll surely rap your knuckles."

*****

“Thus,” says Franklin as his essay wraps up, “the old gentleman ended his harangue.”

And we shall as well. 

TGIM IDEA IN ACTION: Bestir yourselves. 

Or have your knuckles rapped. April 15, 2014 will be upon us all too soon.

Geoff Steck
Chief Catalyst
Alexander Publishing & Marketing

8 Depot Square

Englewood, NJ 07631
201-569-5373
tgimguy@gmail.com 

P.S.  “The only thing that hurts more than paying an income tax is not having to pay an income tax.” Lord Thomas R. Dewar (1864 – 1930) of whiskey-distilling fame is credited with that observation. Cheers!

Thank Goodness It's Monday #403

WILL YOU JOIN THE EFFORT TO

BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE?

I am shocked – SHOCKED! – to learn that this is still going on. 

Over 15 years ago I cautioned everyone I could reach about an early report I had heard about the dangers of the chemical compound, dihydrogen monoxide.

Back then, building on revelations made in the late 1980s, high school student Nathan Zohner of Idaho conducted an experiment in science class that revealed a serious problem. (It appears Zohner has since gone on to a career at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.)

 

He told his classmates and teachers that they should sign his petition to ban a dangerous substance. 

He explained in detail that this substance -- dihydrogen monoxide, in some write-ups tagged DHMO -- is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year.

• Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation.
• In its gaseous state, it can cause serious burns.
• Prolonged exposure to DHMO in its solid form causes severe tissue damage.

For those who have become dependent, withdrawal means certain death.

 

It’s also --

… a component of acid rain

… contributes to soil erosion

… decreases the effectiveness of automobile brakes

… has been detected in some terminal cancer tumors

 

Despite these and similar known dangers, dihydrogen monoxide continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide.

Some of the well-known uses are –

… as an industrial solvent and coolant, in nuclear power plants

… by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels

… by elite athletes to improve performance

…in the production of polystyrene

… in biological and chemical weapons manufacture

… as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant

OSHA and similarly concerned watchdogs worldwide have issued well-considered regs governing the use of dihydrogen monoxide.

And yet people continue to not listen or think about this threat.

Fast forward to 2013: Just last week two on-air presenters at a radio station in Florida (Gator Country 101.9) alerted their listeners to the incontrovertible fact that dihydrogen monoxide was actually coming out of their taps.

Their reward: These publicly minded individuals were deemed “pranksters” and suspended indefinitely by the station's general manager, who later elaborated –

 

"It is one thing when radio stations change their format or other crazy things they do. But you are messing with one of the big three, food, water or shelter. They just went too far; I just knew I didn’t like that."

How about you? On the summary of facts as I’ve laid them out before you, are you incensed enough to –

 

Join in the campaign?

You can learn more, here: http://www.dhmo.org/

But, before you click away, consider this –

TGIM ACTION IDEA: Have you thought to inquire, "Just what is dihydrogen monoxide?" 

Or did you realize that the out-of-the-tap compound flowing in Florida, and the item the petition-signing students and teachers signed called for banning, is –
 

You remember the H₂O molecule. 

Under the “official” nomenclature of inorganic chemistry,
there is no single correct name for every compound.
Water is one acceptable name for this compound,
even though it is neither a systematic
nor an international name and is
specific to just one phase of the compound.

Plain Old H₂O

– Water

Sorry ‘bout that. But … 

I began TGIM #402 for April Fool’s Day with the meant-to-be-humorous query:

“Did you know they took gullible out of the dictionary?”

I intended to leave it at that until I spotted the April 2 newsflash about the rush-to-judgment outcome of the Florida DJs’ on-air April Fool’s Day prank.

That reminded me of my Zohner item from the last millennium (although I find it hard to accept that it was that long ago) and I knew this TGIM was forming up.

 

So I search-engined back to refresh my memory and, it turns out, what I didn’t know in ’97 was that the title of Nathan’s prize-winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?”

 

His conclusion: Kinda obvious.

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of dihydrogen monoxide.

• Forty-three (43) said yes,
• Six (6) were undecided,
• Only one (1) knew that the chemical was water.

Via a Zohner family blog, Nathan’s mother, Marivene, recently added an enlightening coda to his high-school-era story. She says:

“The ‘rest of the story’ is even better. He presented the ‘paper’ – 1 page – to 2 classes: His Earth Science class & his English class, with the permission of the teachers. 9th grade students, in April, so nearly done with the year. Guess which teacher had to turn her back to the class to hide her grin – - yep, that would be the English teacher!!”

As for us, in 2013, I guess if we too were fooled in our enthusiasm to support the dihydrogen monoxide ban, a starting point to applying the gullibility lesson young Nathan highlighted is to recall one of TGIM #402’s Action Ideas and –

Remember: Being successfully foolish also allows learning to happen. “There are no stupid questions.” But we seldom act as if that was a given. Recognizing that human failing, feel free to take the lead and ask aloud what you need to know, even when others are holding back.

Building on that, I’ll go –

 

Back to the future. My original “Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide” write-up was part of a twice-weekly e-blast newsletter called “Success On-Line.” (I shared editorial responsibility for SOL with my friend Dr. Rob Gilbert.)

The SOL Success Strategy I posted “back in the day” I’m going to keep intact for today's now-16-years-in-the-future --

TGIM TAKEAWAY: Keep your capacity for independent thought.  Hone your critical thinking skills.  Don't be a passive receiver of information.  Shun the politically correct in search of all the information you feel you need to make sound, well-informed judgments and decisions.  Ask the questions you need to ask.

Don't be docile as a dodo.  Remember, the dodo is extinct.

 

Dryly (still),

 

Geoff Steck
Chief Catalyst
Alexander Publishing & Marketing

8 Depot Square

Englewood, NJ 07631
201-569-5373
tgimguy@gmail.com

 

P.S. Although he did not originate the basics of the strategy of presenting DHMO in an exaggerated, eye-opening way, Nathan Zohner’s contribution in advancing the awareness of our gullibility lives on. In recognition of his experiment, James K. Glassman in his capacity of syndicated columnist in the venerable Washington Post coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion."

Thank Goodness It's Monday #402

JUST FOOLIN’ AROUND

WITH THE PARADOX OF FOOLISHNESS

did you know: They took “gullible” out of the dictionary?

This fun, date-appropriate image
is actually the logo
for the very bright people who created
the Twelfth International Workshop
on
Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages
in 2005

I’m just April Fooling around here, of course.

And that’s about the level of April Fool’s Day joking I like to engage in.

Plain old trickery or hidden-camera pranks that make someone look ridiculous have never seemed entertaining to me.

The trouble is: The complicated and open-to-debate “history” of April Fool’s Day would indicate that, at least in some ways, my view is the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand: The 21^st Century world of broadcast and digital tech and social media – the very same one by which this TGIM comes to you today – seems enamored with the April 1 opportunity to appear (and actually quite often be) clever for a world-wide audience.

So the TGIM Dilemma on this April-1-falls-on-Monday is –

Is there a Takeaway or two or three in this paradox of foolishness?

After that big setup, you gotta know I think there is.

I’ve noticed that not a few lessons in my life are accompanied by a feeling of foolishness. We all know such moments.

• On a small scale you ask where the Men's Room is, only to find you are standing in front of it.
• On a grander scale perhaps you misunderstand or misremember critical factual information and boldly and intractably argue its rightness in an important public forum.

Feel foolish – or worse?

You bet. When, in my know-it-all smugness, one of life's mysteries, small or great, is uncovered for me, I invariably feel embarrassed although I’ve gained new knowledge.  The truth was so obvious I feel painfully foolish not having seen it before. Surely everyone else knew this and has observed my willful ignorance with some humor, if not distain.

But hold on a minute. We routinely risk appearing foolish when we reveal our authentic selves.

We take this risk when we try something new

… when we say the thing no one else is saying

… when we expose our vulnerability, perhaps by anger or indignation or tears, in public.

We take these risks any time we commit ourselves to an idea or ideal or dream we are convinced of.

Appearing foolish is difficult for us in our “humanness.” When we say, even just to ourselves, we feel foolish, this usually carries a negative connotation. We mean that we feel embarrassed by our ignorance, our naiveté, that we were caught in a deed or using words not designed for a critical audience.

Truth is: We work hard to appear competent and attractive to the world. Many of our behaviors serve to polish our personas of perfection. Where competence is valued so highly, it can be hard to play with conviction but sometimes be revealed as the fool.  

APRIL FOOL’S TAKEAWAY #1: Don’t give up your foolish ways.

In many of Shakespeare's plays, the Fool is actually really smart – and the only person who tells it like it is.

Facsimile of the first page
of As You Like It
from the First Folio,
published in 1623 

"The more pity, that fools may not speak wisely

what wise men do foolishly.”

Touchstone, the court fool,

makes that complaint to the Duke’s daughter Rosalind

after she instructs him to stop talking

In As You Like It, Act 1 Scene 2

It is because the Fool exists somewhat outside the bounds of societal norms and expectations that he (or she) is so powerful.

Occasionally this character may be a simple, uneducated, or witless commoner or peasant. But, precisely because this version of foolishness does not have the guile to hide behind a polished persona, he has the ability to speak the truth in a way that a character of more noble standing cannot.

The Fool can also take on a critical role closer to the privileged nobility; say, of the Court Jester. That gives the character the opportunity to speak aloud the unspeakable in the presence of the king. And, in part because he is a clown, he can/may not be taken seriously (although he is often insightful) and is less susceptible to punishment.

 

“That, of course, is the great secret of the successful fool – that he is no fool at all.”  Isaac Asimov, no fool he, posited that in his Guide to Shakespeare.

APRIL FOOL’S TAKEAWAY #2: If it’s inevitable that we’re to appear foolish, it would be wise to play a Shakespearean Fool.

The Shakespearean Fool is more than just a funny and brutally honest guy.

►He's also loyal – a trait that, in our foolishness, we should all embody if we want to effectively speak truth to power.

►The Shakespearean-level Fool is also a risk-taker. But not in a calculated way. There is selflessness, an ego-less-ness with which this archetype counsels the mighty with awareness of, but little regard for, personal peril. And so in that way playing the Fool can be –

►An act of personal sacrifice for the group. This is the person who is foolish enough to put himself at the center of a perhaps tense situation, to express the shared ignorance, to seem incompetent so that the group as a whole can feel, and perhaps be, stronger.

In a similar vein, the Fool we can emulate may be the person who risks being –

►Outgoing and friendly in a new situation so that others can feel welcome, wanted and included. In the extreme he may even be willing to be the butt of a joke so that everyone can have a chance to laugh together.

►Being successfully foolish also allows learning to happen. We often hear “There are no stupid questions.” But we seldom act as if that was a given. Recognizing that human failing, a clever Fool may take the lead and ask aloud what others are holding back.

It does not really matter if the inquiry stems from the Fool’s ignorance or a sense of the need to get further clarification for the benefit of others. The point is, although foolish on the face of it, the act of questioning and receiving additional insight has advanced many further down the path of growth and knowledge than they might have attained had not the foolish question been asked.

Finally, although in the beginning of this TGIM message I slammed a good deal of it –

►Look at all the creativity that blossoms in the springtime of April Fool’s Day. Why do we stifle that in the “normal” process of getting through the other 364 days of the year?

It may take great courage to stand by the aspects of your true self that might come across as foolish in the context of your daily routine or buttoned-down business community or the correctness demanded by your social circle.

But remember: When you come to those aspects of your life that make you individual … distinctive … memorable … that set you apart from all others, this is that place where you are creating something truly new, truly unique with your own life.

“We're fools whether we dance or not,

so we might as well dance.”

~Japanese Proverb

APRIL FOOL’S TAKEAWAY #3: Cherish this novelty, this innovative process in yourself. Encourage and enable it for others. Work to make a safe place for the Fool to live in; the Fool in each of us, and the Foolish Others whose behavior can show us a previously unseen part of who we are together.

No foolin’.

Geoff Steck
Chief Catalyst
Alexander Publishing & Marketing

8 Depot Square

Englewood, NJ 07631
201-569-5373
tgimguy@gmail.com

P.S. “The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” Winston Churchill said that.

Thank Goodness It's Monday #401

 WHAT TO DO

ABOUT CATCH-22?

It seems as if some time warp has caught up to me – again.

In a recent conversation with a younger (much younger) colleague I said, about an apparent impasse we had reached with some other folks, “Yeah, that’s a real Catch-22.” 

There was a nod of acknowledgement and agreement, a meaningful silent pause, and then -- while thumbing through the documents we were working on -- I was asked –

“Uh, where in this paperwork is Catch-22 specified?”

Uh, oh. Another classic reference point (at least for my generation) bites the dust.

 

Novelist Joseph Heller (b. 1923) died in 1999 and, I guess, somewhere in the decade and a half or so since then, much of his status as a voice and a depicter of the lives of generations immediately post-WWII has diminished. So the phrase “Catch-22” had some contextual meaning for my young associate, but the roots of its origin have all but disappeared.

I can’t let that happen quite yet. 

So today’s TGIM will take a small, non-scholarly look back in an attempt to appreciate the source a bit longer and find some Takeaways that perhaps we can use to circumvent or even prevent Catch-22 situations.

Heller’s early popular fame as a writer came in 1961 with the success of his novel Catch-22.

The literary “catch” – which involved pilots in the Second World War – was fictional, of course. 

But the situation it sums up – an absurd piece of circular reasoning – quickly entered everyday language.

Here’s how Heller first described the “catch” in Catch-22 itself:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was a process of a rational mind.

Orr (a character in the story) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more (combat) missions.

Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them.

If he flew them, he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.

Yossarian (who is pretty much the stand-in for the author himself, Heller having WWII service very much like that at the core of the story) was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

“That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.

“It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.

Watch this: In the real world the creation of Catch-22s is often inadvertent; the mix up of a number of decisions or instructions that, over time, create an undesirable closed loop of consequences.

TGIM ACTION IDEA #1: Sometimes the unfortunate consequences result from a single decision that’s made without all the facts in place. 

In cases such as these, alert and caring action on the part of an individual willing to step up and acknowledge the predicament can quickly undo the harmful decision.

TGIM ACTION IDEA #2: Sometimes a Catch-22 kind of policy can accomplish a goal (like in the case of Heller’s novel, it discourages pilots from quitting a difficult task).

Most intelligent people can accept such situations if two important leadership factors are present.

 

• One is leadership that’s willing to lead, to get involved and reason through the policy with anyone who fails to grasp its necessity.
• The other is a leadership that recognizes that there are exceptions to every rule and that it may be in the best interests of the overall enterprise to grant an exception and move on with the business at hand.

Either way: Managing a Catch-22 situation requires presence and conviction; taking the leadership lead in a way others look up to.

The characters in Heller’s novel lack such an icon and that lack makes the story.

TGIM TAKEAWAY: Be guided in your leadership style by what the Catch-22 characters conclude about their critically-flawed, top-ranking officer Major Major:

Some men are born mediocre … some men achieve mediocrity … some men have mediocrity thrust upon the. With Major Major it had been all three.

And there’s more sharp-tongued observational wisdom about the human character and human condition from the pages of Catch-22 that shares Joseph Heller’s genius with words: 

He was a self-made man who owed his lack of success to nobody.

He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt.

Even among men lacking in distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.

General Peckem liked to listen to himself talk, and liked most of all listening to himself talk about himself. 

TGIM IDEA IN ACTION: Don’t be like so many of Heller’s characters so much of the time. Fight against mediocrity. Be outstanding, brilliant, and exceptional. 

In the novel the important character of Captain John Yossarian comes to realize that Catch-22 does not actually exist. But, because the powers that be claim it does, and the world believes it does, it nevertheless has power. In fact, because Catch-22 does not exist, it’s more powerful; there is no way it can be repealed, undone, overthrown, or denounced. 

Don’t buy that thinking. In the end Yossarian realizes it is possible to defeat (or at least escape) his situation and the Catch-22 that supports it. It’s not a particularly happy ending but it is true to the spirit of the character and the (IMHO) evolved state of personal awareness growing in the early 1950s and ’60s.

Yossarian justifies his Catch-22-circumventing action with the statement –

"I’m not running away from my responsibilities. I’m running to them.”

Perhaps we can do the same.

Geoff Steck
Chief Catalyst
Alexander Publishing & Marketing

8 Depot Square

Englewood, NJ 07631
201-569-5373
tgimguy@gmail.com

P.S. Literature 201 fact check: What many who use the phrase today even knowing its origin don’t know is that there was almost no Catch-22.

 

From Joseph Heller's original manuscript
now archived in the Brandeis University Library
Special Collections

The first chapter of Heller’s novel was published a half-dozen years before its bestseller long form in the publication New World Writing as Catch-18. But the numerical designation was later altered so that Heller’s book-length version would not be confused with another best seller of the same period by author Leon Uris entitled Mila 18.

Thank Goodness It's Monday #400

LIFE & LEADERSHIP LESSONS FROM

A MAD MAN

He put the eye-patched man in a Hathaway shirt …

 … Gave the world Commander Whitehead of the Schweppes ads and the quality of “Schweppervesence"…

… And told us that “at 60 miles an hour, the loudest noise you’ll hear in this new Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock.”

One of his greatest successes noted, "Only Dove is one-quarter moisturizing cream". This campaign helped Dove become the top selling soap in the U.S.

If you understand any or all of these perhaps-dated references, then you may know that “he” is advertising mastermind –

David Mackenzie Ogilvy 1911 - 1999

David Ogilvy

A not-so-mad Mad Man. In many ways he was the quintessential post World War II, big Manhattan ad agency character recreated and depicted with some accuracy lately in the popular TV series, Mad Men.

Although not quite the series fictional “Dan Draper” leading man, Ogilvy did report, “Many people - and I think I am one of them - are more productive when they've had a little to drink. I find if I drink two or three brandies, I'm far better able to write.”

Elsewhere he commented, “If all else fails, I drink half a bottle of rum and play a Handel oratorio on the gramophone. This generally produces an uncontrollable gush of copy.”

But I’m not sure those are his best suggestions for TGIM purposes.

David Ogilvy’s come back to “top of mind” for me in part as a result of the abundance of “wizard” references in TGIM #399. It reminded me that --

In his heyday (and perhaps its heyday) Time magazine called Ogilvy “the most sought-after wizard in the advertising business.”

And while his namesake agency still survives and thrives, perhaps his greatest legacy was an approach to advertising and management that we can all learn and profit from.

TGIM Takeaway: Ogilvy’s approach assumed the intelligence of the people he was dealing with. “In the modern world of business,” he said, “it is useless to be a creative original thinker unless you can also sell what you create. Management cannot be expected to recognize a good idea unless it is presented to them by a good salesman.”

But this lesson was slow in coming for him.

David Ogilvy was not an obvious candidate for business success. He flunked out of Oxford University, worked in the kitchen of a Paris hotel, sold door-to-door, and tried his hand at farming.

He was 37 years old when, in 1948, he started the now world-renowned Ogilvy & Mather with two staffers and no clients. The firm has become an international advertising, marketing and public relations agency which currently operates 450 offices in 120 countries with approximately 18,000 employees.

In the “How to Run an Advertising Agency” chapter of his book Ogilvy on Advertising (one of several he penned, any or all of which I recommend you add to your business/personal library) he gives four tips that would benefit “leaders” anywhere. Here they are --

#1: Never allow two people to do a job which only one could do. George Washington observed, “Whenever one person is found adequate to the discharge of a duty by close application thereto, it is worse executed by two persons, and scarcely done if three or more are employed therein.”

#2: Never summon people to your office. It frightens them. Instead, go to see them in their offices, unannounced. A boss who never wanders about the agency becomes an invisible hermit.

#3: If you want to get action, communicate verbally. If you want the voting to go your way at a meeting, go to the meeting. Remember the French saying: “He who is absent is always in the wrong.”

#4: It is bad manners to use products which compete with your clients’’ products. When I got the Sears Roebuck account, I started buying all my clothes at Sears. This bugged my wife, but the following year a convention of clothing manufacturers voted me the best-dressed man in America.

Ogilvy also notes:

An early (1892) set of Russian nested dolls
attributed to carver Vasily Zvyozdochkin 
from a design by Sergey Malyutin,
who was a folk crafts painter.

When someone is made head of an office in the Ogilvy & Mather chain, I send a matroishka doll from Gorky (Russia). If he (or she) has the curiosity to open it, and keep opening it until he comes to the inside of the smallest doll, he finds this message:

If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants.

Dwarves and giants and wizards, oh my.

Geoff Steck
Chief Catalyst
Alexander Publishing & Marketing

8 Depot Square

Englewood, NJ 07631
201-569-5373
tgimguy@gmail.com

P.S.  “If it doesn't sell, it isn't creative.” David Ogilvy (1911 – 1999) said that, too.