Most of us find our desks under a pile of stuff to do. My big tool for cleaning my desk off is a simple yellow legal pad, which becomes my "master list." Just make a pile of everything on the desk and go through it a piece at a time. Every item on the desk can either be trashed, filed, or needs something done to or with it. Obviously, the trash stuff gets thrown out. If something needs to be filed, it goes straight into a file. If no file exists, I make a new one--just a manila folder, with the title written in ink on the tab.
That leaves items requiring action. These get written on the master list. Once the task is on the list, if there are still materials on the desk required to do the task, those can get their own file folder, or can go into a single "pending" or "unfinished business" folder. Nowadays, both the list and the folder can have an electronic twin. But neither my physical nor computer desktop gets strewn with junk anymore.
To be 100% honest, neither my computer, my desk at home, nor my desk at work is completely bare. I have a couple of key desktop folders on the computer, some cubbyholes built-in on my home desk, and a stacking file tray on the corner of my desk at work. But all of these just serve to subdivide the "pending" work within easy reach.
The bigger question comes when I look at the list--what to do with this uncategorized mess? What do I do first? What do I do today? That's tomorrow's blog.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Plan of Attack
As 2011 gets underway, I am focused on getting all of my ducks properly rowed up. One of my big areas of interest over the years has been organization and time management. My plan for the next few blogs is to share a few tools and tactics that have been helpful to me in terms of staying in control.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Wrap-Up and Resolutions
Looking back at 2010, I'm reasonably pleased. A year ago, I had failed to successfully read through the Bible in a year (died a horrible death in the major prophets) and had to squeeze in an extra mile before midnight on New Year's eve to get 460.5 total miles--just barely enough to maintain my 500 mile per year average going back to 1998. I was a little frightened to commit to any "SMART" goals (you know, Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Realistic, and Timely) because I wasn't sure I'd follow through. But I managed to accomplish both of my big ones--I finished the One Year Bible and ran my 500th mile on December 30th, earning New Year's Eve "off."
On the Bible side, I wish I could say that I read 365 straight days. I didn't; I had to double-up many times (in some cases, up to 4 or 5 days of reading) as momentum waxed and waned. I'm also not exactly sure how many full Bible readings I've done now. I think it's 10, but there are so many "partials" in there (New Testament only, everything but the major prophets, etc.) that I can't be 100% certain. Probably nobody else cares if it's 9 or 10. But my particular form of OCD wants it right. And as a track guy, I hate it when people exaggerate their times or distances. Regardless, that was a success.
On the running front, I'm very pleased. I ran exactly 500 miles in 126 runs. This is the most miles since 2005 (when I did 522) and the most runs since 2004 (when I did 128). I also averaged right at 4 miles per run for the first time since 2005. None of these numbers are any good--they reflect how poorly I ran between 2006 and 2009 more than any excellence this year. But it's a comeback, of a sort. Sadly, the one time I raced this year wasn't very good (40 seconds worse than the previous year's Turkey Day Run). I can blame the weather a bit (it was 20+ degrees warmer), but I really did race poorly. You'd think after 28 years of running, I'd learn how to keep my pace from falling apart. I also came mentally unglued in the last half-mile, a failure of mental toughness that I would find inexcusable in the athletes I coach. I don't mind getting older and slower, but I don't want to get less competitive on the inside.
So that leaves what to do this year. I don't really feel like doing the Old Testament again. Instead, my current plan is to use the Daily Bible, which is arranged chronologically, and to start with the October 18th reading where the New Testament begins. That will take 75 days, after which I'll set a new goal. In theory, I could do the NT four times this year, but more likely I'll pick a more focused study topic in mid-March.
For the running, I'm not sure I want to set a mileage goal (although 500 needs to be the floor for the sake of the average). But I would like to run more consistently. My 126 runs this year included very few from January through April (which, not coincidentally, is the meaty part of track season, when my own workout opportunities suffer). There were also 20 runs of less than three miles (some due to location--like the workout I did on a cruise ship at 11 laps to the mile, others because I simply warmed up with my athletes before coaching their workouts, but also plenty due to being out of shape and lazy). What I'd like to do this year is run at least 10 times every month, even the "bad" ones. I'd also like to have my average run distance come up--not necessarily by going much longer on "normal" runs (I like 4-5 for those, with once a week of 6-10 as a "long run"), but by limiting the number of tiny ones. If I did both of those things, I think I'd see my mileage get to near 600. I also intend to do some upper-body work in my school's outstanding new fitness center (and I've already started, 3 weeks ago).
As far as other resolutions, I want to spend less time online (or at least less time aimlessly online) and do more reading of real books. I also want to be more intentional with my use of my waking hours at home for the rest of the school year (which is related). I also want to encourage the Mrs. in her goals this year.
Finally, I have one big professional goal coming up: this should be the best track team I've coached in almost 10 years. It's hard to set a goal to win a championship, especially in a sport where you can't play defense. Sometimes the other guys are just faster. But I want to be 100% committed to doing what it takes for the next 5 months to put my kids in a position to win.
So... what are YOUR goals?
On the Bible side, I wish I could say that I read 365 straight days. I didn't; I had to double-up many times (in some cases, up to 4 or 5 days of reading) as momentum waxed and waned. I'm also not exactly sure how many full Bible readings I've done now. I think it's 10, but there are so many "partials" in there (New Testament only, everything but the major prophets, etc.) that I can't be 100% certain. Probably nobody else cares if it's 9 or 10. But my particular form of OCD wants it right. And as a track guy, I hate it when people exaggerate their times or distances. Regardless, that was a success.
On the running front, I'm very pleased. I ran exactly 500 miles in 126 runs. This is the most miles since 2005 (when I did 522) and the most runs since 2004 (when I did 128). I also averaged right at 4 miles per run for the first time since 2005. None of these numbers are any good--they reflect how poorly I ran between 2006 and 2009 more than any excellence this year. But it's a comeback, of a sort. Sadly, the one time I raced this year wasn't very good (40 seconds worse than the previous year's Turkey Day Run). I can blame the weather a bit (it was 20+ degrees warmer), but I really did race poorly. You'd think after 28 years of running, I'd learn how to keep my pace from falling apart. I also came mentally unglued in the last half-mile, a failure of mental toughness that I would find inexcusable in the athletes I coach. I don't mind getting older and slower, but I don't want to get less competitive on the inside.
So that leaves what to do this year. I don't really feel like doing the Old Testament again. Instead, my current plan is to use the Daily Bible, which is arranged chronologically, and to start with the October 18th reading where the New Testament begins. That will take 75 days, after which I'll set a new goal. In theory, I could do the NT four times this year, but more likely I'll pick a more focused study topic in mid-March.
For the running, I'm not sure I want to set a mileage goal (although 500 needs to be the floor for the sake of the average). But I would like to run more consistently. My 126 runs this year included very few from January through April (which, not coincidentally, is the meaty part of track season, when my own workout opportunities suffer). There were also 20 runs of less than three miles (some due to location--like the workout I did on a cruise ship at 11 laps to the mile, others because I simply warmed up with my athletes before coaching their workouts, but also plenty due to being out of shape and lazy). What I'd like to do this year is run at least 10 times every month, even the "bad" ones. I'd also like to have my average run distance come up--not necessarily by going much longer on "normal" runs (I like 4-5 for those, with once a week of 6-10 as a "long run"), but by limiting the number of tiny ones. If I did both of those things, I think I'd see my mileage get to near 600. I also intend to do some upper-body work in my school's outstanding new fitness center (and I've already started, 3 weeks ago).
As far as other resolutions, I want to spend less time online (or at least less time aimlessly online) and do more reading of real books. I also want to be more intentional with my use of my waking hours at home for the rest of the school year (which is related). I also want to encourage the Mrs. in her goals this year.
Finally, I have one big professional goal coming up: this should be the best track team I've coached in almost 10 years. It's hard to set a goal to win a championship, especially in a sport where you can't play defense. Sometimes the other guys are just faster. But I want to be 100% committed to doing what it takes for the next 5 months to put my kids in a position to win.
So... what are YOUR goals?
Fresh Starts
Well, I didn't blog much in 2010. Looking back, I didn't realize the effect that Facebook would have on blogging. Being able to post a short status update and share with hundreds of people (and being able to "argue" online) was a very attractive nuisance. Blogging takes more thought and more work, and reaches a much smaller, and self-selected audience. However, FB has its limitations. I have several FB friends who post political or otherwise controversial links and statuses. Sometimes I engage them (whether in agreement or in friendly jousting). But with 400+ friends of varying backgrounds and beliefs, I have tried (I hope more-or-less successfully) to avoid posting anything that could be taken the wrong way. I feel like a FB post is sorta like hitting "reply all" on an email--do I really want everybody at work to read this?
At least with the blog, I figure if you're here, you came because you really wanted to know what I think about stuff. And anybody who is a real friend knows that I'm a conservative, and a Christian, and a history nerd, a neat freak, etc. So hopefully if you come across anything here that bugs you, well, caveat emptor.
I do love the new year (and the new semester, and the new sports season). Nothing is as encouraging as a fresh, clean calendar page (whether we're talking about a DayTimer, a gradebook, a running log, or even an Outlook page online). Doubtless something will come along to foul it up eventually (so long as there's Gamecock football). But today, hope springs eternal.
So, I'm going to start blogging again. Some personal, some political, some observations on stuff I'm reading--whatever. If you decide to read it (whether you're one of my few surviving "original" blog-readers, or a new one based on my Facebook post), perhaps you can drop me a quick comment and let me know. It'll be a month before sitemeter tells me if I'm just talking to myself.
Happy new year!
At least with the blog, I figure if you're here, you came because you really wanted to know what I think about stuff. And anybody who is a real friend knows that I'm a conservative, and a Christian, and a history nerd, a neat freak, etc. So hopefully if you come across anything here that bugs you, well, caveat emptor.
I do love the new year (and the new semester, and the new sports season). Nothing is as encouraging as a fresh, clean calendar page (whether we're talking about a DayTimer, a gradebook, a running log, or even an Outlook page online). Doubtless something will come along to foul it up eventually (so long as there's Gamecock football). But today, hope springs eternal.
So, I'm going to start blogging again. Some personal, some political, some observations on stuff I'm reading--whatever. If you decide to read it (whether you're one of my few surviving "original" blog-readers, or a new one based on my Facebook post), perhaps you can drop me a quick comment and let me know. It'll be a month before sitemeter tells me if I'm just talking to myself.
Happy new year!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Palin, Palin, Palin!
Sarah Palin drives me crazy. I don't know if I have ever been more conflicted over a political figure in my lifetime. I'd like to just lay out a few threads here and see if anybody else is on board with me.
On the one hand, I liked her when she first came on the scene as McCain's running mate. She added youth and energy to the ticket, gave old and lily-white McCain a little boost in the diversity arena (which, of course, made precious little difference in '08), and was the only non-senator of the bunch (the bunch meaning Obama, McCain, Biden, and even Clinton). I also liked the fact that her pro-life credentials, as evidenced by carrying Trig to term, were far less suspect than many pro-lifers.
It didn't bother me that she was savaged so badly by the media--I'm old enough to remember pretty much every republican in my lifetime being called either stupid (Reagan, Ford, Quayle, GWB) or evil (Nixon, Cheney). Even George Bush 41 got called a wimp, despite being the youngest fighter pilot shot down in the Pacific theater of WWII. This is an old one, and it stinks. Adlai Stevenson was the "egghead" candidate in 1952 and 56, even though he didn't hardly read, and Ike was the befuddled old grandpa-type, despite being the guy who planned D-Day and former president of Columbia University.
That said, just because I thought she was good for the #2 job (particularly considering the alternative) doesn't mean that she's my first choice to be leader of the free world. I think President Obama is a great object lesson in what you get when you ignore experience and significant accomplishments in order to vote for a candidate who makes you feel good for either rhetorical or demographic reasons.
But that's where it gets difficult. It seems like if you say what I just wrote, that puts you on the side of the people (both liberals and "elite" conservatives) who act like she's stupid. And I emphatically do not want to find myself on that side. Indeed, the thing I find the most attractive about Palin is the fact that she drives certain people so nuts. If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," then she and I ought to be quite friendly. She antagonizes the group of "elitists" who rub me the most wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I teach elites. By some measures of elitism, I am one of the elites (National Merit Scholar, fancy private school, honors in college, graduate degree, career in academia). But the older I get, the less I value the opinions of people who have very high opinions of their own intellect (except in very specific areas in which they are experts--I'm not sure if it was Will Rogers or Mark Twain who said, "We're all ignorant, just on different subjects.") That doesn't mean that I value ignorance, nor that I am anti-intellectual. I'm anti-snobbery. Maybe pro-humility.
So, anyway, I've described myself ever since the election as not pro-Palin, but "anti-anti-Palin." However, it seems to me that defenses of her keep coming back to a circular logic. Pain supporters keep coming back to the fact that Biden is demonstrably dumb, and/or that she is at least as smart and/or qualified as Obama. Then the conversation invariably turns to how smart he is (or isn't) and how dumb she is (or isn't), and what constitutes "smart," and his missing college transcripts, and how common sense trumps book sense (or doesn't), or how neither Reagan nor Truman were geniuses while Carter and Nixon and Hoover were all brilliant.... AAARGH!
It seems to me that this is exactly the wrong direction to take. It is possible that she is absolutely as qualified as Obama to be president, because neither one of them is qualified! The same can be said of quite a few attractive candidates. I have a man-crush on Chris Christie in New Jersey. I'm developing quite a liking for Marco Rubio in Florida. They will both be great candidates for higher office... someday. But not two years from now. And I don't want my urge to defend Palin from what I feel are unfair attacks to lead all the way to having two unqualified presidents in a row.
All that said, on the matter of "can she win," the answer is tricky. I think if she runs, she has a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. In the same way we got McCain last time... unless a single "un-Palin" emerges early, she could wind up being the winner with a plurality based on the energy of her supporters. And when (if) she runs against Obama, if the economy still stinks, the whole "she can't be any worse than what we've got" equation is a possibility. However, I think whoever is the eventual GOP nominee benefits most if the 2012 election is a referendum on 4 years of Obama. If Palin is the nominee, she'll distract from that message.
One counter-argument is that it doesn't matter--whoever is the GOP nominee will get killed in the media, called stupid, evil, theocratic, heartless, etc. Possibly true. But my personal hope is that she won't run and will jockey to be a kingmaker. However, if she does wind up the nominee, of course I'll vote for her. Crud, I voted for BOB DOLE.
On the one hand, I liked her when she first came on the scene as McCain's running mate. She added youth and energy to the ticket, gave old and lily-white McCain a little boost in the diversity arena (which, of course, made precious little difference in '08), and was the only non-senator of the bunch (the bunch meaning Obama, McCain, Biden, and even Clinton). I also liked the fact that her pro-life credentials, as evidenced by carrying Trig to term, were far less suspect than many pro-lifers.
It didn't bother me that she was savaged so badly by the media--I'm old enough to remember pretty much every republican in my lifetime being called either stupid (Reagan, Ford, Quayle, GWB) or evil (Nixon, Cheney). Even George Bush 41 got called a wimp, despite being the youngest fighter pilot shot down in the Pacific theater of WWII. This is an old one, and it stinks. Adlai Stevenson was the "egghead" candidate in 1952 and 56, even though he didn't hardly read, and Ike was the befuddled old grandpa-type, despite being the guy who planned D-Day and former president of Columbia University.
That said, just because I thought she was good for the #2 job (particularly considering the alternative) doesn't mean that she's my first choice to be leader of the free world. I think President Obama is a great object lesson in what you get when you ignore experience and significant accomplishments in order to vote for a candidate who makes you feel good for either rhetorical or demographic reasons.
But that's where it gets difficult. It seems like if you say what I just wrote, that puts you on the side of the people (both liberals and "elite" conservatives) who act like she's stupid. And I emphatically do not want to find myself on that side. Indeed, the thing I find the most attractive about Palin is the fact that she drives certain people so nuts. If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," then she and I ought to be quite friendly. She antagonizes the group of "elitists" who rub me the most wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I teach elites. By some measures of elitism, I am one of the elites (National Merit Scholar, fancy private school, honors in college, graduate degree, career in academia). But the older I get, the less I value the opinions of people who have very high opinions of their own intellect (except in very specific areas in which they are experts--I'm not sure if it was Will Rogers or Mark Twain who said, "We're all ignorant, just on different subjects.") That doesn't mean that I value ignorance, nor that I am anti-intellectual. I'm anti-snobbery. Maybe pro-humility.
So, anyway, I've described myself ever since the election as not pro-Palin, but "anti-anti-Palin." However, it seems to me that defenses of her keep coming back to a circular logic. Pain supporters keep coming back to the fact that Biden is demonstrably dumb, and/or that she is at least as smart and/or qualified as Obama. Then the conversation invariably turns to how smart he is (or isn't) and how dumb she is (or isn't), and what constitutes "smart," and his missing college transcripts, and how common sense trumps book sense (or doesn't), or how neither Reagan nor Truman were geniuses while Carter and Nixon and Hoover were all brilliant.... AAARGH!
It seems to me that this is exactly the wrong direction to take. It is possible that she is absolutely as qualified as Obama to be president, because neither one of them is qualified! The same can be said of quite a few attractive candidates. I have a man-crush on Chris Christie in New Jersey. I'm developing quite a liking for Marco Rubio in Florida. They will both be great candidates for higher office... someday. But not two years from now. And I don't want my urge to defend Palin from what I feel are unfair attacks to lead all the way to having two unqualified presidents in a row.
All that said, on the matter of "can she win," the answer is tricky. I think if she runs, she has a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. In the same way we got McCain last time... unless a single "un-Palin" emerges early, she could wind up being the winner with a plurality based on the energy of her supporters. And when (if) she runs against Obama, if the economy still stinks, the whole "she can't be any worse than what we've got" equation is a possibility. However, I think whoever is the eventual GOP nominee benefits most if the 2012 election is a referendum on 4 years of Obama. If Palin is the nominee, she'll distract from that message.
One counter-argument is that it doesn't matter--whoever is the GOP nominee will get killed in the media, called stupid, evil, theocratic, heartless, etc. Possibly true. But my personal hope is that she won't run and will jockey to be a kingmaker. However, if she does wind up the nominee, of course I'll vote for her. Crud, I voted for BOB DOLE.
I'm Trying!
Facebook is killing my blog. I have plenty of blog-worthy thoughts rattling around in my head, but it is so much quicker to post a status update on FB than to compose an essay. However, I am often self-censoring on facebook, because I have a very diverse group of friends. I know I personally don't like it when people post inflammatory or controversial stuff. Sometimes I'll comment on one of those threads and I always wind up regretting it. So I don't want to be one of those folks who makes others feel similarly uncomfortable. But here... well, if you clicked over to CoachSal, then you asked for it! Anyway, I'm woking on a little something. It'll be up soon.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
"Those People"
One last thought, for a while. This is a thought that bled over from facebook. A "friend" from there posted a link to an article by Paul Krugman in the New York Times that I thought was terribly unfair. I won't go over the whole thing, but the part that stuck in my craw was that Krugman characterized anyone who was opposed to letting the 2001 Bush tax cuts expire as someone who would rather the poor starve than the top 2% of evil rich plutocrats lose their precious tax cuts. I pointed out that most of us (yes, us) who want the cuts to stay do so because we actually think that taxes going up during a deep recession is economically very bad. Arguments can be made on both sides as to whether that economic assumption is true or not, but to have a Nobel-prize-winning economist so baldly misstate the motives of those who disagree with him seemed to me the very definition of partisan hackery.
But here's where it got interesting. There were over 700 comments on the NYT article, and in the first 3 pages (after which I gave up), about 90% of them amounted to readers cheering Krugman for speaking the plain, obvious truth. And my comment on my friend's status was greeted with similar sentiments. It took a great deal of explaining for many folks (probably not near all) who saw the thread to conclude that I was neither stupid nor evil. Meanwhile, I was bummed that so many people on the "other side" could be so "blind."
This is repeated all over--read the comments on Hot Air or other conservative blogs and you'll get the reverse. We all think we're right (well, of course we do--if we thought we were wrong, we'd change our minds). And we surround ourselves with folks who agree with us. It reminds me of the story of Pauline Kael, a NYT columnist who reacted to the 1972 election results with, "How can Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him!" (Nixon had won 49 states and a huge popular-vote landslide.)
The older and more mellow I get, the more I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that I might be wrong. (Well, I consider the possibility, and then reject it...) This isn't just true of politics, it's true of church stuff, and finance stuff, and professional stuff. One of my ongoing resolutions is to try to at least extend a presumption of good faith to those who disagree with me.
But here's where it got interesting. There were over 700 comments on the NYT article, and in the first 3 pages (after which I gave up), about 90% of them amounted to readers cheering Krugman for speaking the plain, obvious truth. And my comment on my friend's status was greeted with similar sentiments. It took a great deal of explaining for many folks (probably not near all) who saw the thread to conclude that I was neither stupid nor evil. Meanwhile, I was bummed that so many people on the "other side" could be so "blind."
This is repeated all over--read the comments on Hot Air or other conservative blogs and you'll get the reverse. We all think we're right (well, of course we do--if we thought we were wrong, we'd change our minds). And we surround ourselves with folks who agree with us. It reminds me of the story of Pauline Kael, a NYT columnist who reacted to the 1972 election results with, "How can Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him!" (Nixon had won 49 states and a huge popular-vote landslide.)
The older and more mellow I get, the more I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that I might be wrong. (Well, I consider the possibility, and then reject it...) This isn't just true of politics, it's true of church stuff, and finance stuff, and professional stuff. One of my ongoing resolutions is to try to at least extend a presumption of good faith to those who disagree with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)