Perseverance (Or, Succeeding Because You're Too Stubborn to Quit)

NOTE: This blog post is my entry in the 2008 Heart Kids Tweetathon, organized by Dr. Mani to help raise money for children with heart defects. His theme for this year's event is "Passion, Purpose, Persistence."

When I quit my day job in 2005 to live the luxurious life of a freelancer, I never imagined how difficult a life I was volunteering for. Instead of the sanity (and health insurance) that comes with a steady paycheck, I was opting to live by my wits. I was stubborn (or cavalier) enough to think that I could make at least as good a living on my own as I could from all the clients my day job had worked so hard to bring in and keep happy.

In short, I was wrong.

Not about the money part, but about how easy I thought it would be. I took the security of my salary, and the ease with which work fell into my lap, for granted. I spent the better part of two years struggling to make ends meet, paying credit cards with credit cards, and dressing five layers deep in the winter to save on heating bills.

I was a mess.

But I was also stubborn. I refused to blame anyone other than myself for my inability to live a comfortable life. (Well, at least in the end, after I tried a bunch of excuses and realized none of them were legit.) More than anything, I knew that what was separating me from success was my own attitude and motivation, not some karmic conspiracy to keep me down.

So I kept at it. I made new connections, pursued new clients, took chances. And, most importantly, I had support - from friends, from family, and from people who refused to let me sink too far to recover. (Perhaps not coincidentally, all of the business I currently enjoy comes from clients who were either acquaintances of mine or who recommended me to their friends.)

I'm not quite living the life of luxury yet, but I've also held fast to my promise to myself, that I would find a way to avoid having to work a 9-to-5 job again. I hated not having control over my own destiny -- and even though it took me several lean years to figure out exactly what kind of responsibility comes with that control, it's a lesson I wouldn't trade. In fact, I highly suggest it. There's no better way to learn what's inside you than to put yourself through incredible difficulties simply because you refuse to change your course without achieving success.

Just make sure you bundle up in the winter.

Photo by Evan Prodromou

5 Good Things About the Death of Net Neutrality

According the the BBC, the Department of Justice has decided that Net Neutrality is bad for America.

If you don't know, the basic concept of Net Neutrality is that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, should have the EXACT SAME ACCESS TO ALL INFORMATION as EVERYONE else. That means a poor inner-city student using her library's computer and a corporate CEO in his penthouse apartment should be able to surf the EXACT SAME INTERNET at the EXACT SAME SPEED.

The Department of Justice (perhaps momentarily forgetting the name of their office) disagrees. They believe Net Neutrality -- aka the internet as we've always known it -- hinders business growth.

Instead, the DOJ sides with the ISPs in suggesting that ISPs should be able to charge more for priority traffic -- or, in other words, if you want the web to work the way it always has, you should have to pay more.

Normally, I'd be livid about this argument. But, because September is No Woe Month here at Cafe Witness, I'd like to look at things from a different point of view. So, without further ado (and no irony), let's take a look at:

5 Good Things About the Death of Net Neutrality

1. Creative Competition -- Allowing the ISPs to pick and choose what services are available through their systems gives them a cable-like power over what their subscribers can see. If that seems bad, consider this: The Sporanos would never have been allowed on network TV. What other great content can't survive in an open internet, but could flourish in a walled garden?

2. Fewer Trolls -- If it takes longer to surf the web because the information is bottlenecked, you'll be less likely to waste that precious time leaving trollish messages on blogs, won't you?

3. Media Consolidation -- Let's say Verizon signs an exclusive deal to carry ESPN360 -- which, according to Tilzy TV, it seems has happened. Instead of both companies making concessions to meet each others' needs, the next step is to simply consolidate ESPN (and its parent companies, ABC / Disney) and Verizon. Bigger business = bigger reach = bigger buying power = a win-win situation for company and consumer, who won't be distracted by too many choices. (It worked for AOL-Time-Warner, after all.)

4. Higher CPM Rates -- Let's face it, if only the wealthy will be able to experience an uninterrupted flow of internet information, it stands to reason that the ads on the sites their ISPs allow through should carry a higher CPM rate because their audience will be more affluent, have more expendable cash and is obviously determined to use the internet as a lifestyle tool. Great news for everyone trying to monetize social media -- all we have to do now is craft media that the rich want to see.

5. Fewer People on the Internet, Period -- After all, if I CAN'T get the information I want when and where I want it (or, more precisely, I won't be willing to pay extra to get it), I might be inclined to do something else entirely -- like go outside... or read a book... or have a life...

The internet: it was a fun experiment while it lasted.

Limitless Abundance and the $1.50 Cup of Coffee

I had an eye-opening experience this evening.

I was sitting in an Eat 'n Park (a Pittsburgh-area version of Denny's, but brighter) with Dan Stripp (aka Jack Boyd on STBD) and his wife Erica, two old friends who had gotten married, had a baby, moved away and now were back for a visit. They and their now 3-year-old were eating dinner and discussing their jobs and future plans. Both of them recently received raises and were actually working a little less than they had been before.

All in all, life was good.

Meanwhile, I was sitting there drinking water because I don't have enough money in my wallet or bank account to cover the cost of $1.50 cup of coffee.

Why?

Because for the past two years, my priorities have been awfully misarranged.

You Can't Put the Cart Before the Horse if There's No Horse

In 2005, I quit my job to produce STBD full-time. The catch: STBD wasn't making money yet. So, I gave myself three months to get the show off the ground and into the black.

Two years later, STBD still isn't making any money.

Meanwhile, I've been working various freelance jobs to pay the bills -- video, audio, writing, voiceover work. But buy "pay" I mean "barely scrape by," and by "barely scrape by," I mean "occasionally fall behind." And by "occasionally," I mean usually, often or always.

My realization, sitting in Eat 'n Park, is that I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the way I'm living my life right now.

What Came First: Depression or the Egg?

As anyone in debt knows, nothing stays on your mind like money owed. Not even love, though it's a close second. That's because love is an uplifting feeling; even unrequited love is an inspiring promise of what could be.

With debt, the only promise is that if things don't get better quick, they'll keep getting worse. It does more than "occur." It lingers.

It's become apparent that a mere change of priorities won't be enough to steady the ship, but it's certainly a move in the right direction. However, the bigger fault lies in my thought process: I'm perpetually aware that I'm in debt, and therefore, it colors my mood quite drastically.

At this stage, it's impossible to tell if I'm frequently depressed because I'm in debt, or if I'm in debt because I'm frequently depressed. It's difficult enough to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, but doing so while under the thrall of worry, doubt and other non-productive emotions isn't especially motivating.

Fateful Attraction

I recently came upon a blog posting mentioning a new film called The Secret. Much like What the #$*! Do We Know?, The Secret is a film that tackles, in quasi-documentary fashion, the connection between our thoughts and the world around us. Evidently, the actual secret is very simple:

Like attracts like.

When I was in high school, my mom became interested in metaphysics, and I ended up reading many books by one of her favorite authors, Emmet Fox. The general principal of his books seemed to be:

Like attracts like.

So, by that rationale -- explains The Secret -- the way out of debt, depression, boredom or other general dissatisfaction with life is simply to think positive.

After all, if we're endlessly focused on our debt -- or that project that's never done, or that relationship that's forever on the rocks -- all we're doing is reinforcing our current negative emotions about the situation, and therefore, we shouldn't be surprised when we encounter more of the same.

Subconsciously, "we asked for it."

New Age or Common Sense?

Part of me rejects this theory outright. Why? Because, at its base, it seems too easy.

Granted, maintaining a positive frame of mind during the most trying of circumstances is anything BUT easy, but if attracting wealth, health and contentment into your life is as easy as wishing for it and then steadfastly sticking to that mindframe...

Does anyone else see where my doubts are justified?

Beyond that, it's also a fabulous excuse for not getting involved in the lives of others. In fact, in one quote from the film, one of the talking heads essentially suggests that you need to stop paying attention the world around you (to avoid the negativity) and focus solely on what it is that YOU want. Somehow, this seems like the most selfish and counter-intuitive instruction ever...

And yet... in the bigger picture, it does also seem to make absolute common sense.

Pseduo-Scientific Soiree

Let's say there's a guy at a party. He's got great energy, he's kind, he's attentive, he listens when you speak and he remembers people's names. He's a charmer, but his charm is natural, not falsified: he's having a good life. No worries. No stress. He's not bringing you down.

Who wouldn't want to be around that guy?

And, because that guy can essentially have his pick of people to associate with -- after all, he's a hot social commodity -- wouldn't he also want to be around people whose association provides him with what he needs? So he surrounds himself with positive people, fellow listeners, people who take action.

Like attracts like.

(Meanwhile, if you glance around the party, you'll notice that the cynics tend to group together as well -- who else can they mock the crowd with?)

Free Refills

The universe, according to The Secret, operates on one common law: like attracts like. If we focus on what we want and where we want to be, instead of what we don't have and where we are now, we'll naturally move toward our goals. Our minds are programmed to attract to us those things we're focused on.

By that rationale, it does me no good to feel bad about the fact that I can't currently afford a cup of coffee.

Instead, I should be focusing on a bottomless cup of coffee -- or, more importantly, the means through which to acquire a bottomless cup of coffee for life.

That doesn't mean I don't need to take action to get from here to there. It just means I should take action both outwardly and inwardly. It's hard to appreciate the upward climb when your mind is still focused on the depths below.

Thoughts?

Fear of Language

When I was in high school, my English teacher asked each of us to close our eyes. Then he said the word "boat." He asked each of us to open our eyes and describe what we saw in our minds. Invariably, everyone saw something different from everyone else.

I might see a schooner. You might see a sailboat. The guy in the next room might see a rowboat. We're all right, within our own context, but none of us is seeing the same thing.

That's because everyone comprehends every word -- and therefore, life -- differently.

The "V" Word

Three honor students at a New York City suburban high school were suspended for using the word "vagina" during a public reading of The Vagina Monologues at an event sponsored by the school's literary magazine.

School officials say this isn't a case of censorship. But, as it says in the article, "Principal Richard Leprine said Tuesday that the girls were punished not because of what they said but because they disobeyed orders not to say it."

So, basically, the girls were free to say anything... except the words they were told not to say. And telling people not to say something isn't censorship, it's...

... um...

Mean What You Say

Let's forget for a moment that these girls may have been looking to provoke controversy by uttering a "taboo" word in public. In fact, they probably were -- and for good reason.

Why are words taboo in the first place?

It's impossible to have open, intelligent discussions if certain words are off the table. That extends to certain concepts, certain beliefs, certain ideals. In essence, if we can't talk about something, then we have a problem.

On one hand, a "taboo" word / concept / belief draws more power than it rightfully should. Think about your own childhood: whenever someone told you that you COULDN'T do something, what did you then want to do MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD?

(Side note: apply that same concept to most of us trying to spin gold from fiber optic cable here in the new media space and you'll see that some of us were born to be disruptors.)

On the other hand, a "taboo" word / concept / belief means we're limiting our possibilities. We're essentially saying, "These options are off-limits. All sensible discourse must be routed around them." And so countless opportunities that could be explored, whether fruitful or not, are never investigated because to do so would be "wrong" -- according to someone else.

Are we not more highly evolved than we were hundreds or thousands of years ago, when concepts like "unspeakable words" would seem to have been far more laughably quaint?

Instead, if we're drawing parallels, the same city that just outlawed the "N" word is now also censoring the "V" word. That's a grouping of concepts that doesn't seem equally inflammatory to me. In fact, it seems quite reductive.

Why should any word, concept or belief system be closed to discussion?

Think for Yourself

As information becomes available in increasing amounts and at ever more rapid speeds, it becomes more and more difficult to draw our own conclusions.

How many hours a day do you spend online -- surfing the web, reading blogs, checking news sites, social networking, answering email, etc.?

Add to that the amount of time you spend with traditional media -- the radio on your morning commute, the paper in a cafe, the evening news on TV.

THEN add in the time you spend talking with other people -- friends, family, spouse, coworkers, the small talk you make with the barista or bartender...

That ENTIRE time, you're intaking information. Your mind is categorizing it into various sub-compartments -- true / false, possible / impossible, good / bad, right / wrong -- as fast as it can, so you can formulate a new opinion and feed it back into the conversation at the next possible opportunity.

No one wants to be left out of the information loop. No one wants to ONLY be a receiver; we want to be HEARD.

But when do you make time to THINK?

It (Didn't) Work[ed] in Guyana

I saw a documentary yesterday called Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple. For those who don't know, Jim Jones was an evangelist with a powerful cult of personality. He mobilized over 2,000 people to leave their homes and families and come to live with him in his equal opportunity commune in the '60s and '70s, moving first to Redwood Valley, California, then to San Francisco.

When the going got tough -- and ex-members of the Peoples Temple started telling their stories of brainwashing and abuse to the media -- Jones mobilized his troops once again... to Guyana. Essentially overnight, he uprooted several hundred followers and left for a village he'd had built in a jungle in Guyana called Jonestown. There, the people lived in harmony, apart from the "real world"... even as suspicion of Jones's activities rose to a boiling point here in America, and family members of those who'd left began asking the government to get involved and help bring them home.

The part of the story most of us know is the "Kool-Aid." When Congressman Leo Ryan and a camera crew visited Jonestown in 1978, they were gunned down on the tarmac before they could bring the willing deserters home to America. Realizing his time was up, Jones insisted that it was better to "die in peace" than to live in oppression, and so he suggested / cajoled / ordered his followers to drink cyanide. Over 900 people, including children and infants, died -- voluntarily -- in one day.

The documentary is narrated by ex-members of the Peoples Temple, including a few survivors of that day in November -- the ones who suddenly realized none of it made sense.

As their stories reveal, Jones was able to maintain his sway over his followers through a potent mix of personality, sexuality, disinformation, sleep deprivation, guilt, fear and mandated ignorance. Temple members were encouraged to work up to 20 hours a day, were ridiculed if they slept or had intimate relations with others ( both of which were referred to as "selfish"), and were routinely chastised and beaten for transgressions.

But, because Jones convinced them that they could not leave because the world would never welcome them back, few of them attempted to.

In Jonestown, the only media that was permitted was Jones's own voice, which played on a loudspeaker throughout the village, 24 hours a day. No matter what time it was, you could hear "news updates" on the outside world from Jones. This helped cultivate a nonstop aura of paranoia and fear, that someone was always "out to get them."

In the end, the only one who was out to get them was Jones himself. And he did.

And yet... all of this could have been avoided if any of the Peoples Temple members had stopped and taken the time to think for themselves.

Evaluate the Data

Scientists don't jump to conclusions.

They formulate theories, conduct rigorous tests and base their conclusions upon the best evaluations of that data. If they didn't, we'd have laws and theories that could be disproven at the drop of a hat, and the world would still be in the Dark Ages.

There's a reason they're called the Dark Ages: it's because the concept of public knowledge was considered dangerous. The less the peple knew, the more easily they could be controlled.

Today, we have the opposite problem: there's so MUCH information available, we barely have time to make sense of it all before there's more to search through.

But endlessly absorbing information without taking due time to process and comprehend it -- to accept or reject it -- is almost as bad as having no information at all.

Don't get caught up in the information tidal wave. Grant yourself the right to take a break in the day -- several breaks, if needed -- and take a walk. Take a drive. Have a drink. Take a nap. Clean the garage.

Do whatever you need to do in order to allow your mind the time it needs to finish processing what you already know -- or what you think you know. You owe it to the world to put that information to its best possible use. More importantly, you owe it to yourself to understand where you're going and why.