Guaranteed Results will Vary!

Metamorphic results in just twelve weeks!

It’s Sunday morning and 43 television channels are airing infomercials featuring former couch potatoes sporting their new chiseled physiques. Satisfied clients hold up a pair of their old pants, which look more like circus tents with leg holes. The before and after photos are in such contrast, they barely resemble the same species let alone the same person. The promise is that in just weeks you’ll be transformed from a pale 90-pound weakling with grayish teeth and bi-focals, to 190 pounds of lean muscle with Donnie’s Osmond’s choppers, a perfect tan and 20/20 vision. Right.

My acute skepticism has always kept me away from this fitness hype abyss. Even though part of me has wanted to jump in abs first. But considering how much we spend on these products, the deluge of ads isn’t surprising. The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association estimates over $17 billion in membership revenues annually. And according to the American Obesity Association, The U.S. spent $30 billion on diet and weight loss products in 2006. Who wouldn’t want a piece of the $47 billion fitness pie?

American Idle

The result of our fitness investments may, or may not, surprise you. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the percentage of overweight or obese Americans has risen to 64%. That’s nearly two out of every three people. Last year alone, 31 states reported increases in obesity rates. We’re spending more to get thin but still getting fatter.

Given these lackluster results, should we blame the consumer or the product? Probably both. The Federal Trade Commission has brought over 150 cases of deceptive advertising against a variety of diet product suppliers and clinics. The true efforts needed to resemble an “after” photo are clearly not conveyed. With six-hour workouts, a team of Soviet nutritionists, HGH, flaxseed oil, B-12, ephedrine, caffeine, creatine, protein and an iPod it might be possible to go from Arnold Horshak to Arnold Schwarzenegger. But not likely. So why is there no correlation between dollars spent and weight loss? Because we’re a society of instant gratification where four minutes in a microwave is an eternity. We’ll gladly trade more money for less time and effort. But when the fat doesn’t miraculously melt away in our sleep, we give up. The combination of unrealistic goals and unreasonable expectations of effort cause most people to fail.

Change the Mind, Change the Pants Size.

Another major problem with our collective fitness psyche is that there is typically a short-term goal involved. Drop four pants sizes in twelve weeks. Grate cheese on your abs by Groundhog’s Day. Bench-press an entire troop of monkeys in time for Lent. Goals are important, but this type of goal setting can be counterproductive for several reasons. First if you slip, the “titanium buns by winter solstice” is no longer achievable. Once your goals are no longer attainable, it’s easy to slip-slide right back to the Barco-lounger and forget the whole notion of fitness.

The second problem, what if you stick to your plan but don’t get the expected results? You expected abs of steel but only managed abs of tinfoil. Most will assume they just don’t have the genetics to make real transformation. They assume that this is the body they were dealt. And the third pitfall- if you’re successful in your short-term goal, then what? What if you actually do drop twelve pounds in four weeks? Like most people, you celebrate by putting it back on. According to the CDC, nearly 95% of people who successfully lose weight will put all of it back on.In the past, I’ve been as guilty of short-term goal setting as the next guy. Six weeks before we hit the beach and I’d try to undo the previous 46 weeks of neglect. Upon return, I couldn’t find the gym with a divining rod, GPS and the ghost of Ferdinand Magellan.

Then one day while watching reruns of Gilligan’s Island, I had an epiphany. Why do I need an end-state goal or deadline for fitness? Isn’t that setting myself up for failure, or worse - temporary success? The fundamental change I made was to forget about goals. Forget the short term- twelve weeks, beach season, Flag Day, etc. I began focusing on the immediate- this week, today, this next hour in the gym, the next mile, etc. No arbitrary deadlines, just the understanding that six months from now, I’d be in better shape. One year from now, I’d be in even better shape, and so on. Suddenly, the pressure to get in shape was off. It sounds pretty simple, and it was.

Chewing the Fat

I don’t expect to ever look like the Governator, or even Serena Williams for that matter. With a wife, three children, a dog, two fish, a full time gig and plenty of grass to mow, my time is limited and my goals are modest. Improve my stamina and strength, fight off the handles d’amor, and regain that youthful energy that burns right through cheesecake. About one year ago, I added working out to my list of recurring things to do- right in between “take out trash” and ”swerve to avoid neighbor’s dog”. I work out at least three times each week, usually during lunch. My results have not been nearly as dramatic as Jared and his miracle turkey sub transformation project. However, I have dropped three inches from my waste and added two in my chest. I can run five miles without wondering if my will is updated, and I don’t fall asleep at the dinner table anymore. And yes, I can grate cheese on my abs, if I rub really hard. Though I wouldn’t recommend serving it to guests.

Something else that has made a considerable difference are my food shopping habits. If you shop like Charles Atlas, you won’t eat like Rosie O’Donnell. Even with three young kids, I keep the junk out of the house. Now if I get a craving at 10:00 at night, it’s a small handful of almonds and a glass of skim milk instead of a quart of Chunky Monkey with Cheez Whiz. Have I slipped? Sure. We’re all busy and often business trips, deadlines, family events, taking the kids to soccer, basketball, baseball, jai alai, fencing or bi-athalon practice can knock you off your schedule. But I’ve always managed to get back on the horse, even if I missed a couple of weeks. At this point, it’s more about how I feel than how I look. And the best part is that it didn’t cost me nine easy payments of $79.95.

So What if We Hire A Few Contract Killers?

The New York Times recently published a story about the C.I.A. hiring Blackwater, the private security firm, to kill top Al Qaeda operatives. For some reason, this notion has a few people with their undergarmants all twisted up in knots. How could we pay to have people killed? It sounds so mafia. So hip hop. Can you believe we would hire contract killers in order to shed responsibility for whatever their actions might be? What about International law? What about taking the high road? In this case, I'm okay with the low road.



So, we already pay people to kill our enemies, but we call them the military. But that's only in warfare, right? We also pay people to kill covertly, but we call them the Central Intelligence Agency. What about accountability for the actions of these contract killers? The way I see it, these contractors are still accountable. If bad things go down, there is a variety of consequences from imprisonment on foriegn soil, to losing their jobs or even losing their lives.

I understand the desire to take the moral high ground because we're "America". But when your enemy makes their own rules, it's really difficult to continue to follow yours. Especially when the lives of our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters are at stake. My only regret is that they didn't actually whack any of these terrorists Tony Soprano style.

Social Networking/Virtual Reality- Is "The Matrix" Far Behind?

My brother-in-law had to fire one of his employees the other day for addiction. To Facebook. Even after repeated warnings, she just couldn't stay away from her account, spending up to five hours per day on the web site. We all know a few people who spend too much time tweeting and texting, looking for BFFs and exaggerating about their accomplishments on social web sites. Worldwide, Facebook alone has over 250 million users- that's roughly one in every 24 people on the planet Earth. 30 million users update their status at least once per day. This translates into more than 5 billion minutes spent on Facebook each day. Each day.

Let's put these numbers into perspective. Each day, 80 million hours are wasted. Each day, 3.47 million days are wasted. Each day 9,312 years are wasted. Each day, 126 lifetimes are wasted. On Facebook. Let's not even get into Twitter Tweets, MySpace and the host of other dating sites and virtual realities where people spend their days, nights and wee hours of the morning. 80 million hours spent letting people know about more about ourselves. Are we an egotistical species or what? The frightening part is that these social networking sites are still experiencing hockey stick-like growth. As a society, we have yet to reach out full potential for wasting time.

Ego centrism aside, think about the parallels between our fledgling use of online persona's/virtual reality/social networking and the movie "The Matrix". If you're one of the nine people who have not yet seen "The Matrix" (mom), I'll quickly explain. Computers have taken over the planet. Humans are essentially used to power the vast network of machines that have taken over the world. We're kept alive for the sole purpose of supplying the electrical current that runs through our bodies like an entire race of 170-pound hairy Duracell batteries. In the meantime, we're kept in a semi-comatose state, unaware of the reality that we're actually curled up naked in a ball as part of an giant energy-producing human grid. Meanwhile, the computers have downloaded a "program" to our minds, "The Matrix", that masks reality and leads us to believe that we're living normal lives just as we did prior to the computer revolution and subsequent enslavement. This virtual reality is provided to sustain and entertain us while we sit idle, slaves to an oppressive force that only views us as a resource meant to be exploited. Starting to sound familiar?

So maybe machines have not taken over the world, and virtual realities and social networking,are not nearly as sophisticated or malicious. But it's no longer a quantum leap to think that we're becoming enslaved on the online world. Sure, we still have freedom, choice and mobility. We're not actually curled up naked on the floor with a power cord attached to us. Well, most of us, anyway.

But it won't be long before someone starts doing a little math. 5 billion minutes online equals x,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx, of keystrokes per day. A generator hooked up to our keyboards could have the potential of generating xxx wattage. Or maybe it's a kinetic generator in our chair. How many watts can our super-sized bottoms generate? 250 million users at an average of 150 pounds equals a lot of mass that could be converted into energy. Perhaps it's something more obvious that they're after. We're kept in virtual realities, not to feed from our energy, but to feed from our bank accounts.

If you're not familiar with Second Life, the name sums it up well. Create another life for yourself online where you socialize, live and learn with other "real" phony people who have also created second lives. In the first quarter of 2009, 124 million hours were spent living in this fantasy land. My initial reaction is to ask what is so horrible with our "first lives"? Maybe if users spent more time improving their "first lives", there would be no need for a second. Just a thought.

A fundamental advantage of Second Life is that the physical world has limitations. The virtual world has fewer limitations, and entrepreneurs understand this. 124 million hours is a lot of time to sell products and services to users. We're all well aware of Internet advertising, but lets put it in a different context. Now, advertisers have the ability to sell worthless products and services to "improve" not just one life, but two. Because who doesn't need a virtual Ginsu knife that saws through a virtual can, and still slices a virtual tomato with virtual ease?

On Second Life you are given virtual money, but there are real dollars to be made by your "virtual" characters. You can provide goods and services to other members for real currency. For instance, designers will create a custom avatar (your virtual character), or provide designer clothes for your character for a nominal amount. But those nominal amounts add up. There are some industrious members who make more than one million dollars per year in real money, selling fake products and services to fake people. Commerce in Second Life is modeled after the real world, so the opportunities are very similar. You can actually buy land and then rent or sell it to other members for real money. Why would they pay real money for virtual land? Because it's cheap, and they are committed to the success of their Second Life characters. Over 64,000 people made a profit from Second Life "goods and services" last year.

In the meantime, Linden Labs, the creator of Second Life must be getting a cut of the nearly limitless virtual pie. Need more land to sell or rent? No problem. We'll just create another island with 600 miles of virtual waterfront property. Want your avatar to have the latest wardrobe from a virtually famous designer? Done. There are also legitimate "real world"opportunities in the virtual world. For instance, accredited educational institutions and corporations offer virtual classrooms and training for real dollars.

These are just a few of the ways people attempt to keep us online. And yes, I recognize the irony of stating this while writing a blog on the Internet. Not everything online is nefarious. But if you recall the first Matrix movie, it wasn't until Neo realized what was happening, did he crave the physical world- even with all of it's imperfections, mosquitoes, overcooked steaks and reality television. We haven't quite realized what is happening yet.

But as we continue to march toward a Facebook and Second Life congruence with implications greater than I care to consider at 12:07am on a Friday, just try to remember what grass smells like. Think about the sounds of a forest awakening at the break of dawn. The feel of dew on your bare feet. The sound of the wind in the treetops on a quiet, cool September afternoon. The feeling of the sun beating on your shoulders, and salt water in your nose. Think of all of these real things, and then get the hell off of your computer and go experience them. But make sure you come back to read my blogs, of course.

Cash for the Clunker Auto Industry

The Senate just passed another $2 billion in funding for the "Cash for Clunkers" program. If you're not familiar with this Federal jalopy, here it is in a nutshell. If you currently drive a car that gets 18 MPG or less, you can get a federal voucher for $3,500 if you purchase a new car getting a minimum of 22 MPG, and $4,500 toward a car that gets at least 28 MPG. The objective is two-fold; reduce pollution and stabilize the teetering American auto industry. Sounds great doesn't it? And the program name implies that its targeted at people who might not otherwise be able to afford a new car. At least that's what you might be lead to believe.

The reality of this program is that this is doing very little for the American economy, the environment or people in need. Lets break this down by proposed benefit.

Environmental impact: When all is said and done, roughly 700,000 cars or 00.28% of the 250 million cars on the road the U.S. will get an average of 50% better gas mileage (based on Whitehouse figures). This amounts to a reduction of less than 00.09% in annual fuel consumption. In carbon emissions, the estimated reduction is 700,000 of the 6,700,000,000 tons emitted annually by American automobiles. The cost of these nominal benefits is $3,000,000,000. Separate research at Stanford University and and the University of California, Davis concluded that the price for each ton of carbon abated by the program ranged between $200 and $500 dollars. The variance was based on the number of miles the clunkers were projected to drive if not traded. Not exactly cost effective.

According to the Department of Energy, if we all properly inflated our tires we could realize up to a 3.3% increase in fuel efficiency across the board? A 25 cent per car investment, or $30 million could have 35-times the impact for 1/100 of the cost of "Cash for Clunkers". How about reducing our federal income tax by 25 cents per car if we promise to inflate our tires?

Economical impact: It's no secret that even with bailout money, Detroit is still on life support. And I don't mean the Lions. Another objective of this program was to jump start American auto sales. The reality is that over 50% of the Cash for Clunker sales are foreign automobiles. So roughly 325,00 American-made automobiles will be sold thanks to this program. I have two questions for the auto dealers. There were 726,000 domestic passenger cars and light trucks sold in July of 2009. What was the incremental impact of this program? In other words, what was your forecast before the Cash for Clunkers subsidy? You have to assume that a portion of these sales would have occurred regardless of the program. Some consumers were already in the market and were the benefactor of timing. Others likely sandbagged their purchases until the program was in effect. So what was the true incremental impact to Detroit given that there have been 4.2 million domestic passenger and light truck sales in 2009 thus far?

An unanticipated effect of this program is the reduction in automobile donations to charities. Often people will donate if they feel the tax benefit is more significant than trade-in value. Cash for Clunkers vehicles are all marked for destruction when a truly needy individual might make use of the vehicle, if even to drive small distances.

Consumer Subsidy: By using the term "Clunker", we envision an '88 Buick with cracked vinyl seats, a radio that only picks up polka stations, holes in the floor large enough to fit several teenagers and driven by a poor old woman on a fixed income. What we don't see are the myriad of dual income families who are taking this opportunity to upgrade their minivans and SUVs. This program does nothing to help someone without the income or credit to purchase a new car in the first place. In fact, it actually has taken away some of the negotiating power of the consumer. Most will see this "free money" and not get the best deal on their new car. Dealers, on the other hand see this as an opportunity to sell cars at a higher price than normal since less of the purchase price is an out of pocket expense for the consumer. Auto prices are artificially driven up, but also legitimately driven up by supply and demand. While this subsidy may have been just enough to allow someone to get into a new car, how many were "up-sold" due to the euphoria of free cash?

If you're reading this and getting angry, please take a deep breath as I'm not trying to bash Obama or this administration. I have nothing against Obama and rarely take political sides, if ever. Kudos for creativity, but I'm just trying to call this as I see it. A gimmicky way to appease the auto industry, raise consumer confidence, and illustrate a "green" philosophy. The long term impact is nominal.

If you want to cut energy costs, how about replacing my windows? My heating and airconditioning bills are twice as much as my annual gasoline expenditures. Why doesn't the government come and insulate my attic and give me triple-pane Anderson windows with tinted glass? Or maybe a third climate zone and programmable thermostats? Or maybe they could purchase everyone a sweater. You know, one with a reindeer on it.

And for those who were socially responsible enough to trade in their 24-cylinder Chevy Enviroblaster LE years ago, how about a little stimulus cash getting thrown their way? It's like rewarding bad behavior if you don't recognize those who were fuel efficient before "Cash for Clunkers" was passed. Just a thought.

Alright- I'm off to see if I can use some paint and Styrofoam on the old Honda to make it look like a Ford F-750 Landscorcher so I can get me some clunker cash!

How About a $100 Million Gas Refund, Andrew J. Hall?

You may have read about Andrew J. Hall, the Citigroup commodities trader who is owed a $100 million bonus in 2009. Outrageous, you might be thinking that Citigroup, who was the beneficiary of a $45 billion taxpayer bailout, would consider paying such a large bonus to one individual in light of recent scrutiny. The problem is that they legally owe him the money, regardless of public perception. So Citigroup is currently at risk of angry mob backlashby paying the bonus, or getting sued by and losing an employee who has earned the company roughly $2 billion in profits over the past several years. And so is the dilemma of mixing public and private funds. Whose company is this now anyway?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. On the surface, I would say, "pay him". He has earned it. But my real issue is how he earned the bonus. Oil speculation. Mr. Hall and his cohorts were directly responsible for the outrageous spike in oil prices in 2008. And based on that fact alone, I say we tell Mr. Hall to go pound sand.

I have nothing against free markets or risk takers who outsmart the rest of the investment world. But I take issue with the fact that his large gambles adversely affected the pocketbooks of average citizens just trying to scrape up enough cash to fill the tanks of their '99 Toyota Corrollas. It's one thing to take from another investor who chose poorly. It's quite another to take from people who are not in the game.

The cost of oil had a ripple effect, causing food prices to spike and forced people to choose between heating their homes in the winter or eating. To hell with you and your bonus Mr. Hall. And take the rest of your ilk with you. You own a 150-room medieval castle in Germany, a 7500 square foot house in Connecticut and an art collection worth more than Arkansas' public education budget. Do you really need the $100 million? Is it worth your reputation?

Sure, it's likely that he'll land at Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan if they refuse to pay him, but this sort of commidity speculation will probably be under considerable regulation in the coming years, curbing his ability to turn profit.

So Mr. Hall, if you want to save face and receive the money owed to you contractually, how about donating your bonus to the families who lost their jobs during the energy crisis in 2008? Or maybe send one dollar back to each of the 100 million households in the U.S. It may seem trivial considering the addtional hundreds and thousands of dollars that middle class families paid for energy and food last year. But at least you might be able to sleep at night knowing that you're not a total butthead.