Jeremiah Stanghini

Which Type of [Soccer] Goal Do You Prefer: Individual Effort or One-Timers?

[Editor’s note: I didn’t realize that I was missing an ‘R’ in the title until after this post was already published. As a result, the permalink to this page does not include an ‘R’ in “one-timer,” but the title now does.]

First, I want to recognize that most of the world refers to “soccer” as football and I respect that. Since I’ve grown up in the West, I’m still used to calling it soccer. With that out of the way, I thought I would ask all of you which kind of “goal” you prefer: goals that required a great deal of individual effort or goals that were the result of one-timers.

Right now, FIFA is hosting a poll to help select the “favourite” goal of 2012. I put favourite in quotes not because of the spelling, but because I think it’s important to name the measure by which these goals are being voted. I re-read the paragraph a couple of times to make sure that it wasn’t referred to as the “best” goal or the most “athletic” goal or something else like that.

So, after watching the 10 goals, I noticed a bit of a divide. About half of the goals seemed to happen as a result of a great deal of individual effort. Similarly, about half of the goals seemed to happen as a result of a one-timer. The voting closes on November 29, 2012. There are a number of confounding variables here (the first of which would be the number of “fans” for a given team or a given player), but I think it’ll be fun to see which goals make the top 3. It’s not specifically stated when, but after the voting closes on the first poll, at some point, FIFA will re-post the three goals that earned the most votes. We could say that if there are two goals that are one-timers, fans prefer one-timers and if there are two goals that are “individual effort,” then fans prefer individual effort.

Again, this is not scientific, but I think it’ll be fun. Let me know in the comments — which kinds of goals do you think will have more votes?

It didn’t seem necessary (or right) to embed all 10 of the goals on this post. So, if you’re interested, head on over to the FIFA page to check them out.

Canadians CAN be President of the United States

I came across an article yesterday that talked about Ted Cruz‘s (Senator-elect for Texas) intentions of running for President. When I first saw the line talking about Cruz’s intentions, I had to re-read it a couple of times — and then I had to double-check the source — it all checks out, which I found as weird: I thought you had to be born in the United States in order to run for President.

Apparently not.

Here’s something I found on Amazon’s Askville:

Here is the exact language of the federal Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

That is all that the constiution has to say on the subject. The reasons for this provision are a bit obscure.

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

The issue hasn’t been litigated, so there isn’t any meaningful case law to help our analysis.

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ”a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 94 Whatever the term ”natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ”naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ”[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ”the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .” 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ”case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/03.html#1

Bottom line: It seems that the phrase in question means that you were a citizen at the time that you were born, rather than acquiring it later.

So — if I understand this correctly, even though I was born in Canada — I could run for President of the United States. Who knows what the future holds…

Where on the Internet is Jeremiah Stanghini — November 2012

Everything is dynamic — nothing stays the same. As I looked back at on the first time I wrote a post of “Where on the Internet” I am, I was struck by how much has changed. As it is, I updated the other post 3 times (I didn’t include a note when I updated it the first time) — and that was just between January 2011 and June 2011… 6 months!! Now, a year out from there, a lot more has changed. As a result, I thought it worth it to give you an update. Notice this time, I’ve included a month/year in the title of the post because — while I don’t anticipate any major changes, there’s a good chance that things will change. Without further adieu!

Jeremiah Stanghini’s Blog — Since moving my posts from Genuine Thriving to JeremiahStanghini.com, this is probably one of the best places to find me. In the top right-hand corner, there’s a button you can click to get updates of every time I publish a new post — which — I’ve been aiming for two a day (during the week) and once a day on the weekend.

Twitter — Jeremiah Stanghini — Since starting to tweet in June of 2011, I’ve gone through quite a process. I used to only use Twitter through the web client (twitter.com), but since realizing the value of TweetDeck and lists (!); if my computer is open, there’s a high probability that I’ve got TweetDeck open, too. I do my best to tweet things that are interesting, news-y, noteworthy, or funny. Of course, I don’t always tweet links. On the sidebar, you’ll see some of my most recent tweets and a follow button — (shameless plug) — follow me on Twitter! There’s also a link to my Twitter page in the menu at the top of the page.

Facebook — Jeremiah Stanghini — I recently switched my Facebook profile to a Facebook page. Like Twitter, I do my best to post articles/videos that are interesting, noteworthy, or funny. Like with Twitter, there’s a Facebook widget on the wide bar — (shameless plug) — like me on Facebook! Again, there’s also a link to this Facebook page in the menu at the top of the page.

LinkedIn – Jeremiah Stanghini – Of course, I have a profile on LinkedIn that provides my professional resume. As with Twitter/Facebook, there’s a link to this profile/resume in the menu at the top of the page.

As I wrote in the first version of this post in January of 2011, I have profiles with two of the more popular commenting services for blogs, Jeremiah Stanghini – Intense Debate and Jeremiah Stanghini – Disqus. On these profiles, you’ll be able to see the various comments I have made on blogs around the Internet.

Quora — Jeremiah Stanghini — Lastly — I’ve started to Quora use a little more frequently. There are some interesting questions that I find on Quora and when I can, I try to pitch in and answer questions.

Humans Reach the Top of the Sky and the Bottom of the Ocean — in the Same Year!

Earlier this week, I came to a realization: humans have made some startling ‘achievements’ this year as it relates to pushing the boundaries of experience up — and down. Forgive me if you’ve already made this connection (or if someone else already has), as I said, I just came to this realization a couple of days ago.

Down
Almost 8 months ago, director, screen-writer, visual artist, imaginary genius, and all-around cool guy (he’s Canadian, too!), James Cameron reached the “bottom of the ocean” — the Mariana Trench. Cameron was the first person to do this dive solo and no doubt, saw things that no other human being has ever seen. Absolutely remarkable. I can’t wait to see what kinds of things that Cameron comes up with after having added these new images to his realm of possibility.

Up
Just about a month ago now, Felix Baumgartner reached the “top of the sky.” Baumgartner travelled almost 40 km up into the stratosphere — and then jumped! The stratosphere! Baumgartner now has the record for highest manned balloon flight and the highest altitude jump. Part of the purpose of the jump was to collect data to assist in the probability of space tourism.

So — in case you hadn’t put “Up” and “Down” together, humans have gone to places they’d never gone before. The strange part that I see is that in amongst everything, both of these events weren’t necessarily initiated by government agencies. The “Up” certainly had NASA assistance, but it wasn’t something (from what I’ve read) that was initiated by NASA. Similarly, the “down” wasn’t initiated by a government agency, either. I wonder if this will be a sign of things to come. That is, can we expect more exploration paid for by private funding rather than public funding?

Day 60 of the NHL Lockout: Learning From the Past

Previously, I’ve written about my interest in history and how I think it’s important for us to have some semblance of an understanding of the past, so that we can make more informed decisions about the future. That is, the past can certainly help in forecasting the future (to some extent). This is part of the reason one of the categories I write about is “history,” and it’s also one of the reasons why I was so keen to watch John Green’s Crash Course in World History.

One thing that has baffled me recently is the inability of the NHL and the Labour Union to come to some agreement. No, that’s not true. The thing that has baffled me is that this is not new. This has happened before. There was a lockout in 2004/2005. There was a lockout in 1994/1995. There was also a strike in 1992. All things being equal, one would think that these two sides would have learned something from the first lockout that could have helped prevent the second lockout. And then one would think that these two sides would have learned something from the first two lockouts to have prevented the third lockout. I guess not because as you can see from the title, we’re into Day 60 of the lockout.

I should say that part of my bafflement with this situation may be a bit colored by my disappointment in the cancellation of the 2013 Winter Classic, which was to feature the Toronto Maple Leafs (!) and the Detroit Red Wings. I grew up watching the Leafs and the Red Wings duke it out in the Western Conference Playoffs, so I was pretty excited (and strongly considering traveling to) see them play at the Big House in Michigan.

Getting back to the lockouts…

Before I sat down to write this post, I had the sense that the NHL Labour Relations were going to be worse than those of the other 4 major sports in the USA and Canada. So, I was a bit surprised to find that the other sports have also had some poor labour relations (in recent history):

NBA: Locked out in 2011, 1999/1998, 1996 (only for 3 hours), and 1995 (well before the season and no games cancelled)
NFL: Locked out in 2011. Strike in 1982 and 1974.
MLB: Locked out in 1990 (no games cancelled), 1976 (no games cancelled), 1973 (no games cancelled). Strike in 1995/1994, 1985 (no games cancelled), 1981, 1980, and 1972.

In looking at the number of lockouts and strikes, it certainly seems like, while the MLB has had a number of labour relations issues, most of them had no ramifications on the games. The NFL has only had a few labour relations issues, though I wonder if there may be some more on the horizon. The NBA has had a couple in the last decade (and a bit), but that’s about it. So, we might conclude from this that the NHL has had more labour relations issue than the other major sports.

Regardless of when this lockout ends, I sincerely hope that the NHL can find a way to keep (at least) the next decade strike- and lockout-free!

How Can You Be Blackmailed with Public Information: the CIA, Petraeus, and Paula Broadwell

By now, you’ve no doubt read about Gen. Petraeus‘ resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). And, you’ve no doubt read about how this resignation came to be. I’m not inciting conspiracy, but something about this situation doesn’t feel right to me — particularly — the idea that Petraeus could be blackmailed.

The argument goes that it was important for Petraeus to resign because the information (affair) could be used to blackmail him. Okay, I hear that, but — the information is now public. Why does he have to resign? Why couldn’t the information have been made public and then Petraeus could have gone on as the Director of the CIA? Of course, this might not have been the most pleasant news conference or press release, but it would have allowed someone who is widely considered one of the smartest minds in Washington to continue in an integral position for the administration of the US.

I want to say that I’m not endorsing Petraeus’ actions (nor) am I endorsing extra-marital affairs. Though, it is worth noting that public officials having affairs (and resigning) is not new. One would think that they may learn from other’s past transgressions. Of course, expecting them to learn from other’s past transgressions is a bit unreasonable.

Circling back to my main point: why would someone have to resign if the information is public? In this particular instance, that information had to do with an extra-marital affair. Due to the culture of the US, this kind of transgression is just about unforgivable and as a result, requires that the leader resign. However, sex (and affairs) are seen much differently in other countries. That’s not to say that other countries would endorse extra-marital affairs, but it’s worth noting that had this happened in another country, the leader’s resignation would not even have come up in conversation.

[UPDATE: I wrote this post on Saturday afternoon, so there’s been some time for the story to develop and for others to opine. Here’s the closing paragraph from an article in The New Yorker posted on Sunday:

A final question, at least from my standpoint, is whether Petraeus had to resign at all. It appears that Clapper, who like Petraeus is a military man, saw it as a no-brainer. Within the military, there are rules about adultery. But within civilian life, should there be? The line of the day on the morning talk shows in Washington seemed to be that Petraeus did the “honorable” thing, or “he had to resign.” The old saw that, if he wasn’t squeaky clean, he could be subject to blackmail by his enemies, thus endangering national security, was mentioned again and again. To me, the whole Victorian shame game seems seriously outdated. Something like half the marriages in the country now end in divorce, and you can bet a great many of those involved extra-marital affairs. Is it desirable to bar such a large number of public servants from top jobs? It certainly seems fair to question Petraeus’s judgement, ethics, and moral fibre in this matter. But if infidelity wasn’t treated as career-threatening, its value to black-mailers would be much reduced (the fear of a spouse is another matter). In this instance, evidently, there were no crimes. So why again did this blow up as it has? Fans of thrillers, like me, are waiting for more answers.

21-Day Meditation Challenge: UPDATE and Research!

So — we’re into day 8 of Deepak Chopra‘s 21-day meditation challenge. How’s it going? Are you finding it easy to stick to meditating? Are you finding it hard? Are you noticing any benefits? Are you noticing any strange thoughts coming up? I’d love to hear about any/all of it! Let me know in the comments. If you’re finding it somewhat difficult to stick to the meditation, you might want to read about the importance of stillness and unplugging. This may (or may not) help to motivate you to stick with the meditations.

I came across some research this past week that I thought you might find interesting, especially in the context of meditations. From the Daily Stat:

After just 5 weeks of daily 5-to-16-minute training sessions in focused-attention meditation (“Relax with your eyes closed, and focus on the flow of your breath…”), research subjects showed strong brain-wave changes associated with positive emotions, says a team led by Christopher A. Moyer of the University of Wisconsin. The findings suggest that the benefits of meditation may be more accessible than was previously believed, the researchers say.

Pretty cool, eh? Of course, the Daily Stat is a secondary source, so if you’re interested in reading the journal article, you can find it here: Frontal Electroencephalographic Asymmetry Associated With Positive Emotion Is Produced by Very Brief Meditation Training.

So, maybe this is more motivation for you to get back to (or start!) meditating.

I’ll Be Ready in 300 Seconds…

“I’ll be ready in 5 minutes…”

“Be there in 5…”

“I’m almost ready — give me 5 more minutes…”

How many times have we heard someone say 5 minutes only to have them take triple that time? A very specific measurement (5 minutes) — in my experience — has lost a great deal of its validity. That is, our understanding of 5 minutes is not universal. Five minutes to you is not always 5 minutes to me — but you’re saying to me, “this makes no sense!” Indeed. It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t. “Five minutes” is empirical. It is something we can measure. It has a specific ending. Though, it is rarely used in its proper form.

Michio Kaku had a great series on time for the BBC a few years back and one of those episodes had to do with daytime. In it, Kaku explores the concept and experience of time (on a small scale). He also explores it from the perspective of “life” time, “Earth” time, and “cosmic” time. If you get a chance, I highly recommend watching it. Back to 5 minutes, though.

As I said earlier, part of the problem with using the term “5 minutes” is because we all have a different relationship to time. Some people come from countries that are more polychronic, while others come from countries that are more monochronic. Typically, those who come from cultures that are polychronic tend to have a more fluid understanding of (and relationship to) time. Conversely, those who come from cultures that are monochronic cultures tend to have a more rigid and precise understanding of (and relationship to) time.

As a result, it is my supposition that when folks who come from contrasting cultures (with regard to time), there is bound to be a misunderstanding when using “5 minutes” as a term of measurement.

As a way around this — sometimes — I like to use the term “300 seconds.” Why 300 seconds? Well, 300 seconds is the same amount of time as 5 minutes. (Weird, eh?) But it sounds different, doesn’t it? Similarly, if I’m going to need more than 5 minutes, say 10 minutes, I might say 600 seconds. Of course, if we all start using “seconds” as a more frequent term of measurement (in this way), the same problem is likely to occur. Although, until then, I just may have a unique advantage in communicating as it relates to time.

Democrats Get More Votes Than Republicans — Still Lose The House of Representatives

I’ve written about politics a great deal in the last couple of weeks. Part of that is because it’s one of my interests (and one of the categories that I write for) and part of that is because the US just had a presidential election. I do have some other posts in the coming days that won’t be about politics, but this will be another one about it.

In the US, every two years, Congress is up for an election. That is, all the seats in the House of Representatives are up for election every 2 years. The Republicans had a majority in the House going into the election and were expected to keep that majority (they did). Though, something intriguing did happen during the election — there were more total votes cast for Democratic Representatives than there were for Republican Representatives. According to ThinkProgress:

Although a small number of ballots remain to be counted, as of this writing, votes for a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives outweigh votes for Republican candidates. Based on ThinkProgress’ review of all ballots counted so far, 53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic candidate for the House and only 53,402,643 were cast for a Republican — meaning that Democratic votes exceed Republican votes by more than half a million.

For those people who follow American politics, it’s quite understandable as to why this happened. Every 10 years, there’s a Census in the US and as a result, an update on the population of the states. By extension, those states are then responsible for redrawing the districts [areas of representation]. Since the 2010 election was one where there was a great deal of Republicans swept into office, it made it easier for them to redraw the districts in a way that made it easier for members of their party to keep their seats. This is known as gerrymandering and it’s not unique to the Republicans. had the Democrats won, they most certainly would have done the same thing.

Lost in this discussion is the apparent “will of the people.” I realize that taking a straight popular vote can silence minorities (and was one of the primary reasons for the Electoral College), but it does seem a bit strange that there will probably be 1 million to 2 million more votes cast for Democratic Representatives than Republican Representatives and yet, the Republicans will maintain a 35- to 45-seat advantage.

Redistricting (called redistribution outside of the US) isn’t a problem that Americans have to deal with — it happens in other countries, too.

When the Data Don’t Match Your Beliefs

By now, you’ve no doubt seen (or at least heard about) Karl Rove — noted Republican strategist — challenging the decision of the network for which he is a contributor (Fox News) to call Ohio for President Obama. If you haven’t, it’s worth checking out. This example is a good display of the data not matching one’s beliefs. While Rove has had experience with networks calling states prematurely, based on the data, all the networks were pretty confident in awarding Ohio for President Obama.

Cognitive biases are not unique to Karl Rove — we all have them. Similarly, there is also a tendency to discount data that does not fit one’s previously held beliefs. This past week, I finally cracked Jim Collins‘ new book: Great By Choice. I really liked Good to Great (and even included the story of the Stockdale Paradox a few months ago!)

Within the first 10 pages of the book, Collins’ writes about “entrenched myths” and “contrary findings.” That is, as part of Collins’ (and his team’s) research, they found that some previously held beliefs did not hold true when looking at the data. In case you’re interested, I’ve included them below. Take a look:

Entrenched myth: Successful leaders in a turbulent world are bold, risk-seeking visionaries.
Contrary finding: The best leaders we studied did not have a visionary ability to predict the future. They observed what worked, figured out why it worked, and built upon proven foundations. They were not more risk taking, more bold, more visionary, and more creative than the comparisons. They were more disciplined, more empirical, and more paranoid.

Entrenched myth: Innovation distinguishes 10X companies in a fast-moving, uncertain, and chaotic world.
Contrary finding: To our surprise, no. Yes, the 10X cases innovated, a lot. But the evidence does not support the premise that 10X companies will necessarily be more innovative than their less successful comparisons; and in some surprise cases, the 10X cases were less innovative. Innovation by itself turns out not to be the trump card we expected; more important is the ability to scale innovation, to blend creativity with discipline.

Entrenched myth: A threat-filled world favors the speedy; you’re either the quick or the dead.
Contrary finding: The idea that leading in a “fast world” always requires “fast decisions” and “fast action”—and that we should embrace an overall ethos of “Fast! Fast! Fast!”—is a good way to get killed. 10X leaders figure out when to go fast, and when not to.

Entrenched myth: Radical change on the outside requires radical change on the inside.
Contrary finding: The 10X cases changed less in reaction to their changing world than the comparison cases. Just because your environment is rocked by dramatic change does not mean that you should inflict radical change upon yourself.

Entrenched myth: Great enterprises with 10X success have a lot more good luck.
Contrary finding: The 10X companies did not generally have more luck than the comparisons. Both sets had luck—lots of luck, both good and bad—in comparable amounts. The critical question is not whether you’ll have luck, but what you do with the luck that you get.