"Hello, Newman." (Seinfeld)

Not a huge fan of Ryan Newman, but a fan nonetheless. He won the Daytona 500 on Sunday, ending a 2-year winless drought.

Newman and his old crew chief Matt Borland won a bunch of races a couple years ago by doing something no one really thought about in racing. Finishing 500 miles the quickest.

They weren't the fastest lap runners, or fastest during certain parts of the race. They were the fastest to complete 500 miles. Fellow racer Tony Stewart was not happy losing the Newman, with the quip "the fastest car should win the race"- not one with better gas mileage.

Last time I checked, winning is who can complete the race faster than the other competitors. Newman and Borland did it through gas mileage. They found that by decreasing the amount of fuel to the engine slightly would drop 5-7 hp, but gain 5-7 more laps per tank. Fewer stops than competitors. A true engineering victory from Purdue grad Newman.

And now he has a 500 victory.

What are you doing in your life to solve a problem by shifting resources around? Something to allow you to move on to a bigger victory?

"I'd try." (Deja Vu)

It's not often I can view all what is going on in a Sunday service; usually I'm watching the band for the next cue or adjustment. This past Sunday I glanced down at a family new to the church and saw something small and significant.

(backstory)

Now, when I started coming to church, the whole worship and clapping was extremely odd to me. It was outside of my expectations- it wasn't a good thing or a bad thing to me. Just different (OK, I was a little freaked out about it). So "learning" worship took some time, so I completely understand new guests not actively participating like some during worship. It's pretty intimidating.

(meanwhile, back at the Hall of Justice)

This new family in worship today were singing and clapping. The dad looked at his daughter and noticed her clapping on the off beats, and bent down and showed her how to clap on the beats, like everyone on stage and in the crowd.

I'm glad that our church can be an environment for that, because if this general situation was placed in the home, with a daughter in her room listening to her iPod and a dad downstairs watching TV, this act of fathering likely wouldn't have taken place.

"Big bear. Big bear chase." (Great Outdoors)

Two years ago I bought a bicycle for the road. Skinny tires- that kind of bike (and no, I do not ride in spandex). I was able to ride on Saturday mornings, but last year, and this year, I won't be able to. So I've been trying to sell it on Craigslist. And I see things a bit differently, so my exchange, or lack thereof, using Craigslist (and ebay) have brought me a few ideas:

1) eBay and Craigslist are basically online mediums for selling quality used/one-offs/repaired items where normal retailers can't (or won't) sell.
2) eBay and Craigslist are basically online garage sales. You post for free, you should get stuff for free. Especially if the ad says "U-Haul."

Given the two options, which one is the seller, and which is the buyer? In my experience, I've bought very cheap (but completely functional) and nearly full price for items. It depends what you buy, or what you are willing to give up (quality, price, time).

However, just because it's on eBay or Craigslist does not mean it's completely dirt cheap, nor should a buyer expect to offer, say, $400 less (about 1/2 the asking price) for a slightly used (less than 200 miles), never ridden in the wet, kept indoors, carbon fork, SPD pedals-equipped Trek road bike. With a cyclometer.

OBO stands for "or best offer," not "take it up the tailpipe."

"What?" (Accepted)

It's been a while since I've thrown down a block o' text...

This week the staff has been on a retreat, stuffed in a box to get Godly direction in our church strategy. It has been a tremendously valuable time, and I think these retreats do more for our focus, passion, and refreshing than we really know.

We are approaching the end of the time here, and I'm excited to run with our new goals and initiatives that has been revealed to us this week.

It's always good to get away from the standard to achieve something un-standard.

"Looking good Lewis!" (Trading Places)

Kristian stumbled across the Canon 1200mm lens on B&H used list. Trying to figure out what it would be used for, we came across this gem. Hilarous.

"Who are you?" (Batman)

Which is worse:

Spending time analyzing methods, arriving at expected results, possible delays, likely changes on-the-fly, expense of project, and creating processes to achieve your expected result.

OR

Getting an idea on what you want and charging forward, thinking of everything as you go, solving issues as they arrive, and achieving the same result.

The result: Failure.

I categorize myself in the former category rather than the latter. Analytical by nature, I want to make sure I have the solutions ready if a problem arises. Therefore, I am leery of embarking on a project because if it fails, then I have to start all over, and my previous effort is wasted.

And effort = time, which is something you can't make more of. I can "justify" not doing anything because I am being effective with my time, not frivolously wasting it on failures.

But what is failing? And depending on the definition, why is it so bad to fail? Thomas Edision failed. Donald Trump failed. Bill Gates failed. Everyone fails.

Failure needs to be defined differently. It's not always a negative.

Failure: A result that was not expected, whether it was from learning (decision making), different expectations (communication), available knowledge base (data or assumptions), or availability of resources (right tool, right job).

"I hope you guys have hobo-stab insurance." (Accepted)

I have a simple philosophy. A person can be smart, but people are dumb. My supporting evidence can be seen everyday. Here are some examples on how a person can be smart, but people are dumb:
1. Elections. A few years ago local "reformist" Tim Eyman pushed the car-tab tax, which also was paired with voter-approved tax changes (paraphrased). Unfortunately, two items can't be on the same bill like Eyman proposed. It passed by vote, but declared unconstitutional. A smart person would read the bill and say, "Hey, why do I need to vote on all the tax changes? Isn't that why we vote representatives and senators? Won't this ADD more cost if we have to vote everytime there is a .0001 cent increase?"
And let's not forget that Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election. And it took 1 out of 3 times to elect Washington "Governor" Gregiore.

2. Traffic. A person can drive easily and merge onto freeways without incident. However, when there are people about, traffic comes to a grinding halt. In the NW it is a place that has four seasons, yet many drivers here can't even drive right in one of them. Snow, rain, whatever, people drive over their heads, beyond vehicle capabilities, and in some cases, way, way, way, below capabilities (these are the 15mph drivers on the freeway).

I think overall it is a breakdown in a person's responsibility to take control of the decision-making process in life that creates a group "idiocity" unable to perform to the level of what is possible. Sports teams constantly disprove this, with lesser talent teams being far better than higher-talent teams. Think about win-win, not just a win for a person. Make decisions that are intelligent all the time, not when they are convenient.

I read a slogan for a company (I forget which one) and it was this:

Think Smarter.