Category Archives: alternative energy

John Doe’s "Psychadelic Soul Record" From the Desert

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

John Doe
The Westerner
Cool Rock Records/Thirty Tigers

Shepard Fairey & Aaron Huey

First heard almost 40 years (!) ago as a member of the great LA punk group X, John Doe never fit the clichés of the genre, intertwining his voice with bandmate Exene Cervenka’s in wailing harmonies that sounded more like hillbilly laments than nihilist diatribes. As a solo artist, he’s compiled a striking body of work that spans the 57 varieties of roots music. Dedicated to his late friend Michael Blake (author of Dances with Wolves), The Westerner is billed by Doe as his “psychedelic, soul record from the Arizona desert,” which is another way of saying he’s delivered a dusty, sure-handed set of vibrant down-home rock’n’folk full of longing, sympathy, and hope. Joined by guest vocalists Debbie Harry of Blondie and Chan Marshall (aka Cat Power), Doe remains a stirring singer who embodies weary determination and impassioned grace on the heart-tugging ballad “Sunlight” and the greasy foot-stomper “Go Baby Go.” Tough and tender and once, The Westerner is a genuine old-school treasure.

Continue at source: 

John Doe’s "Psychadelic Soul Record" From the Desert

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Doe’s "Psychadelic Soul Record" From the Desert

Did the Stagflation of the 70s Ever Exist In the First Place?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In a conversation with Dean Baker recently, I learned something interesting. This won’t be new to anyone deeply familiar with inflation statistics, but it was new to me. Maybe it will be new to you too.

The general subject is the stagflation of the 70s, which ushered in supply-side economics and the Reagan era. More specifically, the issue is the measurement of inflation during part of this era. Housing costs are incorporated into the CPI by measuring rents, but prior to 1982 it was done by directly measuring the price of buying a house. In an era when interest rates were steady, this didn’t matter much, but when interest rates went crazy in the mid-70s it made a big difference, overstating inflation by about two percentage points. If you correct for this, and also take a look at exactly when the worst periods of stagflation occurred, you get this:

If you correct the inflation figures and account for the two oil shocks of the 70s, the period from 1970-85 looks remarkably steady. Inflation and GDP growth are both running at about 4 percent for nearly the entire time.

I don’t have the chops to relitigate this, but the question it raises is: Did stagflation ever even exist? Was there anything seriously wrong with the economy of the 70s other than a pair of oil shocks we had no control over? Would the economy have recovered normally after the second oil shock even if Paul Volcker hadn’t created a huge recession? Feel free to litigate in comments.

More here – 

Did the Stagflation of the 70s Ever Exist In the First Place?

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did the Stagflation of the 70s Ever Exist In the First Place?

Pro-Business Reforms Have Very Little Effect on Economic Growth

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Are pro-business reforms good for economic growth? You’d think so, but the evidence is actually unclear. So Evan Soltas tried a different approach to the question: taking a look at countries that had big, sustained jumps in the World Bank’s Doing Business Index:

This is, I think, a reasonable way of doing things: Even if you are distrustful of the index, as am I, if the World Bank says that your country is in the top 5 percent of reformers in some year, there’s probably something to that. In my sample, it took at least a 10-point increase in the ease of starting a business to qualify as a “reform” year. That is like going from India to China.

A bit of Greek-letter math later, he has an equation that links per-capita GDP growth with the World Bank index:

What I find is that neither term has a significant coefficient. In fact, I can bound the effect of pro-business reforms quite precisely around zero, with a 95-percent confidence interval for the effect of a 10-point reform on the level of per-capita output of -1.4 percent to 3.5 percent. That is far away from the claim that such a reform could double per-capita output.

Now, this isn’t nothing. The reforms led to an increase in economic growth of about 1 percent. And especially in poor countries, there may be other compelling reasons to adopt pro-business reforms. But if Soltas is right, the economic benefits are modest.

Sadly, Soltas did not put this in colorful chart format, which he needs to do if he expects to meet the expectations of his fans. But the bottom line is simple: the United States is already one of top performers in business friendliness. Incremental improvements are all that’s left to us, and the impact of improvements plateau at high levels anyway. More than likely, pro-business reforms in the US would have little to no effect on economic growth. Here’s Soltas:

Maybe the lesson here is to beware the TED-talk version of development economics. Shortening the time it takes to incorporate a small business is not a substitute for deeper institutional reforms, such as those that support investment in human and physical capital, remove economic barriers that hold back women and ethnic or religious minorities, or improve transportation, power, and sanitation infrastructure. Easy pro-business reforms should not distract countries from pursuing changes that, while harder to make, we know to be richly rewarding in the long run.

Roger that.

Visit site:

Pro-Business Reforms Have Very Little Effect on Economic Growth

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pro-Business Reforms Have Very Little Effect on Economic Growth

BinC Watch: It’s Sunday Morning, So Today It’s "Meet the Press"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, is upset with the way the press treats Donald Trump:

Most politicians will drop a talking point if it gets labeled with Four Pinocchios by The Fact Checker or “Pants on Fire” by PolitiFact….But the news media now faces the challenge of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Trump makes Four-Pinocchio statements over and over again, even though fact checkers have demonstrated them to be false. He appears to care little about the facts; his staff does not even bother to respond to fact-checking inquiries.

But, astonishingly, television hosts rarely challenge Trump when he makes a claim that already has been found to be false.

This has been a problem during the primaries, but I’m pretty sure it’s set to change. Now that Trump is the presumptive nominee for a major party, with a real shot at becoming president, he just can’t get away with being the bullshitter-in-chief. The press is going to treat him a lot—

Hmm? What’s that? I should check out Meet the Press this morning? Sigh. What fresh hell awaits?

Trump has been retailing this particular tidbit of bullshit for months, and it’s not just untrue, but obviously untrue. Conservatives know it perfectly well, because they’re constantly talking about the high tax rates in Sweden and Germany and France and so forth, and trying to demonstrate that these high tax rates have strangled their economies. There’s really no disagreement about this.

But there’s good news! Since Trump has said this before, I already have the relevant chart at hand. No need to waste my time looking up the numbers and tossing them into Excel. So here it is. Not only are we not the highest, we’re the third lowest among rich economies:

Jump to original – 

BinC Watch: It’s Sunday Morning, So Today It’s "Meet the Press"

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BinC Watch: It’s Sunday Morning, So Today It’s "Meet the Press"

That Profile of Ben Rhodes? You Need to Read It Very Carefully.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I honestly don’t care much about Ben Rhodes, but reaction to David Samuels’ profile of him is getting out of hand:

Everyone is circling the wagons around Laura Rozen, and that’s fine. She’s a very good reporter. But once again, let’s take a look at what the Times profile actually says:

The person whom Kreikemeier credits with running the digital side of the campaign was Tanya Somanader, 31, the director of digital response for the White House Office of Digital Strategy, who became known in the war room and on Twitter as @TheIranDeal. Early on, Rhodes asked her to create a rapid-response account that fact-checked everything related to the Iran deal.

….For those in need of more traditional-seeming forms of validation, handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Laura Rozen of Al-Monitor helped retail the administration’s narrative. “Laura Rozen was my RSS feed,” Somanader offered. “She would just find everything and retweet it.”

A few points:

This quote comes from Somanader, not Rhodes.
An RSS feed is something you read. Somanader seems to be saying only that she relied on Rozen to keep her up to speed on who was saying what in the Twitterverse.
The idea that Rozen was a “handpicked Beltway insider” comes solely from Samuels’ framing of the quote, not from what Somanader actually said.

It’s common in profiles for authors to intersperse their own impressions with actual quotes. There’s nothing wrong with that. But in this profile, Samuels goes overboard. It’s possible that every quote is well framed, but he’d have to produce far more context to demonstrate that. As it stands, he seems to be a little desperate to spin quotes to make points he wants to make.

This is why I said in my previous post that you have to read Samuels’ profile very carefully. Take a look at what people actually said vs. what Samuels says in his own voice. The quotes themselves are more anodyne than they seem.

Continue reading: 

That Profile of Ben Rhodes? You Need to Read It Very Carefully.

Posted in alternative energy, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on That Profile of Ben Rhodes? You Need to Read It Very Carefully.

A Vote For Not-Trump Is a Vote For Hillary

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jay Nordlinger is confused at the idea that if he doesn’t vote for Donald Trump, he’s effectively voting for Hillary Clinton:

People tell me that, if I don’t vote for either Trump or Hillary, I’m voting for Hillary. My first response is, “So?” My second response is, “What are you smoking?” If it’s true that, if I don’t vote for either Trump or Hillary, I’m voting for Hillary, why isn’t it equally true that I’m voting for Trump? You see what I mean? How come Trump doesn’t get my non-vote? Why does just Hillary get it?

Am I missing something?

Perhaps it’s this: Perhaps people think that Trump has some kind of claim on my vote, because I’m a conservative (and, until earlier this week, I was a Republican)….

Let’s stop right here. I think I see the problem. If not-Trump voters are distributed randomly, the effect would indeed be small. That’s what happened with Ross Perot in 1992. But if millions of people who otherwise would have voted for the Republican nominee are defecting, then the effect is large and decidedly non-random. You really are effectively voting for Hillary since there’s no plausible third-party candidate to take votes away from her.

And it doesn’t even take millions. Ralph Nader effectively elected George W. Bush in 2000 with only a few thousand votes in Florida. It wasn’t his intent, and the odds against it were high, but nonetheless that’s how it worked out.

This is all predicated on the fact that Nordlinger almost certainly votes for Republicans most of the time and for Republican presidential candidates all the time. I’m pretty sure that’s true. And if millions of formerly loyal Republicans stay away from the polls or vote for Gary Johnson or just leave their ballots blank, then Hillary is a shoo-in. I kinda hate to be the one making this case, but there’s really no way around this.

See original article here:  

A Vote For Not-Trump Is a Vote For Hillary

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Vote For Not-Trump Is a Vote For Hillary

Here’s the Latest From the Bullshitter-in-Chief

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump knows exactly how to appeal to the women’s vote:

“Have you ever read what Hillary Clinton did to the women that Bill Clinton had affairs with? And they’re going after me with women?” he added, incredulously, without citing any specific examples or sources.

Oh goody. I guess in a few days we’ll be treated to a barrage of thumbsuckers relitigating the titillating tales of Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, and Paula Jones. Christ. But the BinC didn’t stop there:

Trump also took sharp aim at Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren….In front of a crowd of thousands on Friday night, Trump unveiled a new nickname for the Massachusetts senator: “Goofus.”

Clinton’s “got this goofy friend Elizabeth Warren, she’s on a Twitter rant, she’s a goofus,” he said. “This woman, she’s a basketcase. By the way, she’s done nothing in the United States. She’s done nothing.”

Well, nothing except for all the stuff that conservatives apparently hate her for. Like being the godmother of the CFPB, which is great for most of us but loathed by banks—and therefore also loathed by Trump and the entire Republican Party. And despite being in the minority party and therefore having zero power, she’s been a pretty effective advocate for reining in Wall Street during her 39 months as a senator. Effective enough to piss off Donald Trump, anyway.

Next up: Trump claims that Chelsea Clinton knew all about Benghazi. Huma Abedin is disgusting for sticking with her husband. Beyoncé wouldn’t have any fans if she were a man. Shonda Rimes is an affirmative-action hire who has ruined ABC’s Thursday-night TV lineup. Malia Obama is going to Harvard on the taxpayer’s dime. Kim Kardashian is a total slut. Laura Bush is a loser. Amal Clooney defends terrorists. Gloria Steinem sure hasn’t aged well. Natalie Portman was terrible in Star Wars.

Keep it up, Donald. You’re doing great so far.

UPDATE: This should help him out with the little ladies:

See original article: 

Here’s the Latest From the Bullshitter-in-Chief

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Latest From the Bullshitter-in-Chief

Let Us Now Psychoanalyze Young Ben Rhodes

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of days ago the New York Times posted a long profile by David Samuels of White House communications guru Ben Rhodes. It turns out that in private Rhodes is pretty contemptuous of the foreign policy establishment, and thanks to the Times profile he’s now contemptuous in public too. He also has some harsh words for the press, and as you might expect, the press has taken this with its usual thick skin. This piece by Carlos Lozada is typical. And here’s a typical headline:

Is that a fair summary? In the Times profile, Rhodes describes how his communications shop tries to spin the news. By itself, this isn’t much of a revelation. That’s what communications people do. But was Rhodes really bragging about how easy it was to con reporters? The relevant excerpt comes after the reporter (not Rhodes) explains the “radical and qualitative” ways the news business has changed recently:

Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Is Rhodes displaying arrogance or smugness here? That’s not how I took it when I initially read the piece. To me it scanned as an expression of regret. Rhodes himself is never quoted as being cocky or patronizing about his ability to shape foreign affairs reporting. He’s just describing what he has to deal with, and explaining how that affects the way a modern White House press shop works. More digital, less print. More tutoring of young reporters, fewer tough questions from area experts.

Am I nuts for reading it this way? For those of you who have read the Times piece—And don’t lie! Did you really read it?—what was your takeaway? Is Rhodes arrogant and manipulative? Or unhappy with the state of journalism but realistic about how it affects the way he does his job?

UPDATE: It’s worth being very careful when you read the Times profile. You need to distinguish between what Rhodes says and how Samuels frames the quotes. Rhodes himself is fairly anodyne. In the quote above, for example, Rhodes is merely saying something that lots of reporters say too. It’s Samuels who labels this as “brutal contempt.”

Continue at source:

Let Us Now Psychoanalyze Young Ben Rhodes

Posted in alternative energy, Bragg, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let Us Now Psychoanalyze Young Ben Rhodes

Heroic Passenger Recognizes Quantitative Economics as True Threat to America

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Forget ethnic profiling. The real danger facing America these days is economists and their differential equations:

On Thursday evening, a 40-year-old man — with dark, curly hair, olive-skinned and an exotic foreign accent — boarded a plane. It was a regional jet making a short, uneventful hop from Philadelphia to nearby Syracuse.

….The curly-haired man tried to keep to himself, intently if inscrutably scribbling on a notepad he’d brought aboard His seatmate, a blond-haired, 30-something woman sporting flip-flops and a red tote bag, looked him over….He appeared laser-focused — perhaps too laser-focused — on the task at hand, those strange scribblings.

….Then, for unknown reasons, the plane turned around and headed back to the gate….Finally the pilot came by, locking eyes on the real culprit behind the delay: that darkly-complected foreign man….The curly-haired man was, the agent informed him politely, suspected of terrorism.

The curly-haired man laughed. He laughed because those scribbles weren’t Arabic, or some other terrorist code. They were math. Yes, math. A differential equation, to be exact.

It’s about goddam time, I say. Personally, I’d say that economists and their math have done a lot more damage to the world recently than terrorists and their bombs. We owe this flip-flop-wearing woman our thanks.

On a more serious note, can it really be true that no one recognized what decorated young Italian economist Guido Menzio was doing? Sure, maybe his seatmate didn’t recognize math. But neither the flight attendant nor the pilot recognized math-ish scribblings when they came back to take a look at things? “What might prevent an epidemic of paranoia?” Menzio wrote on Facebook. “It is hard not to recognize in this incident, the ethos of Donald Trump’s voting base.” And that’s quite true: Donald Trump is notoriously an idiot at math. I suppose his followers are too.

POSTSCRIPT: You know what’s missing from this story? The actual page of math Menzio was working on in the plane. Admit it: you want to see it too. You’re all such a bunch of nerds.

Original link – 

Heroic Passenger Recognizes Quantitative Economics as True Threat to America

Posted in Accent, alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Heroic Passenger Recognizes Quantitative Economics as True Threat to America

The Surprising Way Parents Sabotage Their Daughters

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Caroline Paul frantically tried to get her ice pick to take hold in the slushy snow. Her friend had fallen into the bottom of an ice canyon and her other friend, strapped to the rope that held all three of them, was headed in the same direction.

Paul needed to anchor herself and pull them both up. But the unusually warm weather on Mount Denali prevented her ice pick from staying put. In those moments on the United States’ largest peak, Paul had to take everything she knew about climbing (very little) and everything she feared about dying (a lot) and set some priorities.

Caroline Paul calls her latest book the Lean In for girls, with cliffs, trees, and rivers. Bloomsbury USA

Before becoming an author, Caroline Paul worked as a firefighter for the San Francisco Fire Department. Photo courtesy CarolinePaul.com

Paul lived to tell the tale, and it’s become one of the 10 so-called “misadventures” that the scuba diver, paraglider, luge champion, pilot, and firefighter-turned-writer shares in her book.

The Gutsy Girl: Escapades for Your Life of Epic Adventure, isn’t as dramatic as it is thrilling, hilarious, and packed with tips on ways to practice bravery every day. The Gutsy Girl, published March 1, is for young girls but also has a message for parents: Stop telling your daughters to be careful.

We caught up with Paul the day before she went flying in an experimental plane she describes as “a hang glider with a go-kart underneath.” She talked about how we learn to be brave and why the outdoors is the best place to cultivate it. If we want our girls to grow into strong women, we’ve got to let them be gusty, she says.

Mother Jones: What made you want to write The Gutsy Girl?

Caroline Paul: Over the years I had seen that my female peers often said they were too scared to do something, and it struck me because often what they were talking about was not that big of deal, like picking up a bug and putting it outside, like going on bike rides. I didn’t think a lot about it until my friends who are parents lamented to me that their daughter was a real scaredy-cat. In watching her, I saw that her parents were telling her all the time: “Be careful,” “watch out,” “no,” “don’t.” I realized that it was the parents who were really anxious and fearful for her, and that was something she caught from them. I’ve noticed this more, not only with girls but with women. It seems to start at a very, very young age.

MJ: The Gutsy Girl is full of tales of scuba diving, paragliding, ice climbing, and even your eight-mile crawl around a track in an attempt to beat the world record. Not all of your stories are about your successes. How did you choose what to include?

CP: I picked 10 of my misadventures, and I’ve had more than that unfortunately, because it’s the misadventures that really teach the lessons that I want girls to learn. Lessons like bravery, resilience, camaraderie, decision-making, risk assessment, which is a boring word but so important. I feel really strongly that girls are not taught these things; they sort of pick them up as they get older in other areas that aren’t the outdoors.

Caroline Paul in front of her ultra-light aircraft Photo courtesy Caroline Paul

MJ: Why is that a great place for girls to be gutsy?

CP: The great thing about the outdoors is that it’s so obvious out there. When you’re standing on the edge of the cliff with your paraglider and you’re asking yourself whether it’s too dangerous, you’re going to assess your skills, you’re going to look at your fear, you’re going to access your confidence. All of that stuff is super important when we’re adults.

MJ: How can women be more brave in daily life, say, in the workplace?

CP: I often see women’s unwillingness to take initiative in things. First of all, men will do it for them and that really needs to change. I think we as women know that; I do it, too. But men have been taught for so long to try everything.

MJ: What do you recommend for girls who don’t have access to mountain climbing, ski trips, or other extreme activities?

CP: Adventure can happen super close to home. You don’t have to go to far-off countries and you don’t have to climb big mountains and buy fancy equipment at all. An adventure is getting on your bike with your friends; an adventure is hiking through a new park. It’s really about getting outside your comfort zone—then you have become successful adventurer.

MJ: Who are some of your heroes?

Elizabeth “Bessie” Coleman went to France to get her pilot’s license in 1920 when she wasn’t allowed into American flight schools. wikipedia commons

CP: When I was growing up, I didn’t have any. The only hero I knew of was Amelia Earhart; it seemed like she was the big exception to the rule. In other words, women didn’t do adventuring. But upon researching this book I realized there were a lot of women I could have been told about. My favorite is Bessie Coleman, a storm pilot and parachutist. She was African American and female, and since none of the flight schools would allow her to study with them, she went to France. Not only the fact that she wanted to fly back then (in the early 1900s), which is an obstacle psychologically as well as logistically, but then to face all that prejudice and all those naysayers and still do it? That’s the ultimate definition of gusty.

Caroline Paul says it’s not about being fearless, but learning how to manage the emotion. Photo courtesy Caroline Paul

MJ: What’s the hardest part about being gutsy?

CP: Managing fear, which I think a lot of girls and women don’t bother to do because we are infiltrated by this idea that we should be fearful. I’m seeing from other people just how deeply they feel that girls are more fragile than boys. What they’re not thinking about is that before puberty girls are actually stronger than boys, most of the time they’re ahead in terms of coordination and emotional maturity. But studies show that they are already inculcated with the idea that they could get hurt when they think about things like riding bikes. We teach them at such a young age that they are fragile. I hope that this book combats that.

MJ: How are you gutsy in your everyday life?

CJ: Well as a writer, just putting words on the page is such a heartrending and awful, soul-crushing experience. When you start with a book and tell yourself, really, you’re going to finish this, that takes all the life lessons you learn in the outdoors and you have to apply them. It takes bravery and it definitely takes teamwork. I applied a lot of these things. On more than one occasion, I remember Wendy (MacNaughton, who illustrated the book) looked at me and said, “Why aren’t you being gutsy about this?” And of course people call you on your own stuff and you have to knuckle down.

MJ: Anything gutsy you did recently?

CP: Recently when my dishwasher broke my first reaction was, “I can’t do this, I have to call one of my guy friends.” But the truth is, these days it’s all on YouTube—there’s nothing that any one of us can’t do. I fixed my own dishwasher and I felt smug. And great.

MJ: How can we ignore, or defeat, our fear?

CP: I’m not against fear. I think people think I’m fearless, and I’m not. I do believe it’s important that when you do feel fear you take it out and look at it, and then put it in it’s rightful place. What’s ahead is exhilaration and focus and anticipation—all these emotions that will make what you’re about to do super fun. The fear is just reflective, so put it where it should go, which is often the back of the line.

In the book I also encourage girls to practice acts of micro-bravery. The concept comes from Rachel Simmons, co-founder of Girls Leadership (in San Francisco). She says that bravery is learned, and so we need to teach ourselves and be taught it, and one way is by taking small steps. As you do those you start to learn so much about yourself, where your boundaries are, and what the feeling of fear versus the feeling of excitement is, because they often feel similar and chemically they’re similar. So by practicing daily acts of micro-bravery you’re teaching yourself how to recognize the difference between exhilaration and fear.

We have to start so much earlier teaching girls to stand up in the ways that women want to when they’re in the office. At work, it’s just so late by then.

MJ: Is your book sort of a “no boys allowed” space?

CP: I feel strongly that boys should read this book as well. Girls have to sit through so many books with boy characters, white boy characters. There’s no reason at all that boys should be told that this book isn’t necessary for them. They need to see that there are bad-ass girls out there.

Visit link: 

The Surprising Way Parents Sabotage Their Daughters

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Bloomsbury USA, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Surprising Way Parents Sabotage Their Daughters