As biological organisms, it is in our nature to move away from discomfort and move towards comfort. Interestingly, this can serve as a disincentive to economic growth. We can see this, readily, in a simple example of personal economics.

How many families adhere to a strict program of saving some money, each and every week? Now, certainly, many people struggle to pay their weekly bills. So, the thought of saving money seems out of the question. The operative word here is seems. For example, how many of us feel that we cannot get through the day without making a few cell phone calls or sending a few text messages? How many snack foods or sodas do we feel we must have to simply exist? Is this really true? What if we curtailed our habits just a bit? How much money might we save over time?

However, the challenge of saving money is that while it can help us create wealth – and consequently more and greater comfort in the long run – in the short run it might make us feel uncomfortable, because we have to give up certain things we have gotten used to.

Where does Greece go from here? Faced with a harsh curtailment of spending and services, I would guess they will leave the Euro, return to the Drachma and attempt, to print their way out of their predicament. Of course, this will cause wealth destruction, punish people who are savers and throw that nation into greater tumult. We might read that as potentially greater discomfort.

And Europe as a whole? Might Spain follow Greece’s lead? I do not know, but we could see a domino effect in Europe. Perhaps, the best we can hope for is the greatest contradiction in terms; orderly chaos – chaos restricted within a range of possibilities -rather than out and out random chaos – a seemingly redundant concept.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com

What, however, of mothers who have never had or adopted children. Do we recognize their contributions on an individual as well as a societal level?

Some of you might be scratching your heads. “Mothers who have never had or adopted children?” you are asking yourselves, “Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?” And the answer is yes, mothers who have never had or adopted children and no it is not a contradiction in terms.

There is being a mother by way of biology. There is being a mother by way of adoption. And there is being a mother by way of action, even when it is not supported by biology or adoption. What of all the aunts, cousins, next door neighbors and friends – women who do not have children of their own – who often step into the role of mother but do it without carrying that title?

These women often act in the same ways as “official” mothers. They work as caretakers and educators. And they bestow upon those in their charge much love.

Where would society be without the aunt who, having no children of her own, freely nurtures her nieces and nephews? Often, these aunts share in the process of child rearing to such an extent that the actual mothers of these children have more time available to work or pursue an education. What is the net economic benefit of this to society?

What about the neighbor who might not work and might not have children of her own but is always there with a helping hand to care for neighborhood kids? And, of course, what of the childless godmother who gives her all in the raising of her godchildren? Not only do these good women provide essential love to these children, they have a positive economic impact on society.

Let’s give thanks to all mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, etc., not simply those with the official title but those who fulfill that role by way of action. Women who are childless yet take upon themselves the role of mother make a valuable contribution to society, economically and otherwise.

*A very smart person made me aware of this powerful concept of mothers who have never had or adopted children. I thank them.

Image: Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

*Authors note: You might see this column pop up online in a newspaper, under the name Both Sides. I am publishing this column here first at CYInterview.com. For a bunch of years, I have been writing newspaper columns. Since my columns have received a good response on CYInterview, I thought I would share it with you. Hope you enjoy.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com

In a philosophy course I took in college, the professor started out by stating that one of the most basic philosophical quests is to discern appearance from reality. I accepted what my professor said without question. Years later, I happened upon a book about philosophy. In it, the writer offered that, “Appearance is not apart from reality, it is a part of reality.” A light bulb went off in my brain.

Those of us who are enamored by substance – and we should be – often become dismissive of appearance. We claim that how something looks is unimportant. We only care about how it functions. While this utilitarian mentality sounds noble, it lacks a fundamental understanding of how people come to conclusions.

Some questions:

Would you go to a toothless dentist?
Would you go to a nutritionist who is obese?
Would you go to a hair stylist whose own hair looks like it had been styled with garden tools?

I suspect your answers to the above questions are no. But think about it. In each case, the above mentioned people might be very good at what they do. The issue is that they do not look the part. There is a lack of congruence. You see, for better or for worse, we take image into consideration when judging performance.

So, for example, if you are in business you might want to think about how your appearance affects your sales. An individual does not have to be a movie star to have a sound professional image. However, keeping in mind certain basics like grooming and neatness can go a long way to aid us in our endeavors.

Being able to accomplish something is not always enough to be successful. Frequently, we must look like we can accomplish it as well, in order to be given the opportunity to demonstrate our abilities. Is this fair? We will leave that philosophical question for another time.

Image: Idea go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

*Authors note: You might see this column pop up online in a newspaper, under the name Both Sides. I am publishing this column here first at CYInterview.com. For a bunch of years, I have been writing newspaper columns. Since my columns have received a good response on CYInterview, I thought I would share it with you. Hope you enjoy.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com

1.) Smile – When you walk down the street, when you speak with people or when you just casually say hello to someone, smile! This can be easier said then done. Just ask me. Because of my own self-consciousness and shyness, remembering to smile takes a bit of work. However, it is worth it.

No doubt, there are times I walk around looking like I am either constipated or angry – or both. I could make up all kinds of excuses about being wrapped up in focusing on something important or some such. Those would just be excuses though. When I remember to smile or I am reminded to smile, something interesting happens. People smile back.

When we smile at someone, we help to uplift their spirits as we uplift our own.

2.) Be a good listener – We learn by listening, not by speaking. Sometimes I am a good listener; sometimes my listening skills leave something to be desired. The fact of the matter is, I am interested in what people have to say and I do learn far more when I listen then when I speak.

There are those times, however, when I am so filled with enthusiasm and passion for something I want to express that I forget I was given two ears and one mouth and that I should use them in that proportion.

By listening to what another person has to say, we can make their day. The act of listening helps us not only to learn but to validate the importance of another human being’s thoughts and feelings. That is truly important.

3.) Find something to compliment – We might, at times, have a tendency of being too critical of both ourselves and others. When we meet people, discuss things with them, hear their life plans, etc., too many times our first impulse is to find something wrong and correct it. Sometimes, we do not articulate our negative criticisms, but they take us away from looking for the positives.

As teachers, coaches, mentors and parents we might feel our first order of business is to correct the errors of the person in our charge. Helping someone overcome their errors is important, no doubt. However, it absolutely pales in comparison to helping someone believe in themselves.

We must strive to first find what someone does right, and compliment that, before we become critical of the areas they need improvement in. Finding what is right and building on that lays a solid, positive base rather than attempting to build on the quick sands of negativity. This includes self-assessment as well.

Giving a sincere compliment to someone for a positive quality they possess or something they have done well can make their day. It can make ours as well, by reminding us to have a more optimistic outlook about life and ourselves.

On this last point I am on the right track. Additionally, I am smiling more than I used to. And, I am going to make it a point to listen more.

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

*Authors note: You might see this column pop up online in a newspaper, under the name Both Sides. I am publishing this column here first at CYInterview.com. For a bunch of years, I have been writing newspaper columns. Since my columns have received a good response on CYInterview, I thought I would share it with you. Hope you enjoy.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com Like today’s column? Check back frequently.

Recently, I was rereading the book, The Crowd. Written by Gustave Le Bon and first published in French in 1895, it is an important work for anyone interested in persuasive communication, especially as it relates to groups.

Drawing from Le Bon’s book, I offer a three part breakdown of how effective messaging works. I am not quoting Le Bon here; rather, I am paraphrasing some of his concepts and adding my own interpretations:

1.) Make your message concise – If more than one hundred years ago it was necessary to communicate persuasive concepts to groups of people using tight, impactful phrasing, imagine how important the same concept is today. With the advent of the Internet and the subsequent rise of text messaging, we have become a society of people who are used to reading things that are short and sweet.

For maximum impact in advertising, for example, come up with a short, powerful, easy to remember slogan – it would not hurt if it rhymed – in order to get your message out.

2.) Repeat your message frequently – According to Le Bon, Napoleon thought that repetition was the most important tool in persuasive communication. In the selling profession we often say, “Repetition makes the sale.” In public speaking we are often taught to, “Tell the audience what you are going to say. Tell them. Then, tell them what you have told them.”

3.) Things catch on – Assuming, a concise, memorable message and the will and the means to have it disseminated frequently, at some point in time what is being said is going to catch on. How long does it take for things to catch on? It is difficult to say.

Take infomercials for example. Effective marketers often pack their infomercials with tight, easily digestible pieces of information. Then, the infomercials are run with great frequency. These program length commercials air when the presumed buyers of the product being advertised are most likely to be watching television. How many times does the average individual view an infomercial before making a purchase? More than once, I would guess.

However, after a period of repetition the product starts being purchased in increasing quantities. In advertising and public relations, we need a big enough budget to sustain a campaign until our messaging catches on via repetition. In sales, we need to endure all the no’s we will hear on the road to yes. This calls for capital of spirit.

Repetition makes the sale.

To see my open letter to former U.S. Comptroller General David
Walker, mentioning Gustave Le Bon’s book The Crowd, see here.

To listen to the CYInterview with Mr. Walker and hear his shocking
answer to Chris Yandek’s question about where the United States is
heading, see here.

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com Like today’s column? Check back frequently.

Most people are not schooled in financial, accounting and economic terms or concepts. We must soberly recognize that we live in an age of overspecialization. The majority of us focus on what we need to know in order to win our daily bread and not much more. Additionally, we live in an escapist/entertainment driven culture. The bread and circuses of Rome come to mind.

We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, guilty of where we stand as a society. And yet, we are not likely to respond positively to the scolding we so richly deserve.

On the whole, “We the People” get up, go to work and seek some kind of entertainment – typically simplistic and empty – for the purpose of soothing our existential woes. Consequently, when it comes to communicating with us, the saying, “If you confuse us, you lose us,” must be obeyed.

Chris Yandek and I were discussing the interview we had with you on Friday. As we spoke about how best to get your critical message out, he brought up the trial of O.J. Simpson. He quoted Johnnie Cochran, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” using that quotation as an example of simple, reductionist messaging utilized to devastating effect.

Attorney Cochran’s words were memorable because they rhymed, his point was specific and the action he asked for was concrete. Success leaves clues. Interestingly, he utilized this messaging modality – predicated on brevity being the soul of wit – back in 1994. Our collective attention deficit, owing to the Internet and the proliferation of related information delivery technologies, has increased substantially since then.

The days when Walter Cronkite’s news reports served as a national campfire, around which to reflect and dialog, are long gone. We live in a time of drastically splintered societal focus.

Accountants, economists and financial professionals, assuming they have the best interests of the American people at heart, might do their level best trying to convince us there is little time left to take action and change the national trajectory before we land upon the shoals of devastating calamity. However, if these otherwise intelligent individuals do not understand the way in which people process information and messaging, their good intentions will land on the ash heap of history, along with our once prosperous nation.

David, please forgive me what may seem impudence. I suggest you read or reread Gustave Le Bon’s very short book, The Crowd. Written in the 19th century, it is as pertinent today as it was then. In short, Le Bon says that people do not listen to those who simply tell the truth. They listen to, and are mastered, by those individuals who tell them what they want to hear.

The book is available online here.

Please pay careful attention to Chapter III, section 2 pages 125 to 132 here.

It is a sickeningly sad truth that the likes of Hitler and Mussolini – damnable and despicable individuals that they were – took heed of Le Bon’s observations and used them for unspeakable evil. The good news is that the application of crowd psychology need not and should not be the province of despots and dictators bent on controlling others for their sick and twisted desires.

Instead, great and noble communicators can take the truth and, obeying the mechanics of crowd psychology, put it into a form that people not only need to hear but want to hear and, most importantly, will act upon. To ignore the dynamics of persuasive messaging is to accept defeat.

Great people of history, be they FDR, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc., found ways to tell people the truth while at the same time motivating them to take action leading to necessary, meaningful change.

You said that we are two years away from where Greece was when its debt crisis began, assuming we do not change our trajectory now. Do you really believe that a hard working person, who likely has little if any financial background, will viscerally connect with solutions that do not articulate direct and simple remedies?

Simple does not mean easy. Yet, if we say, “Cut Congress, the president and vice president’s pay in half and make it illegal for any of them to ever make money out of lobbying,” people will understand what precisely needs to be done. It is a small enough pill to swallow for starters. It is a concise message that taps into the anger of our times.

Some might say this type of call to action is populism at its worst. Others will say it is a waste of time because its impact on the budget is infinitesimal. So too, there are those individuals who will say it is interesting as a symbolic gesture but nothing more.

I disagree.

One of the points you make, David, is that we need leaders who lead. How do we do that unless our first course of action is to create a climate under which those in positions of leadership have no other choice but to lead? You say that the term “professional politician” is an oxymoron. I offer that “lead by example” is redundant. There is no other way to lead but by example.

Making our elected officials live the financial realities that are upon us will, in turn, give them the requisite motivation and needed moral authority to take the kind of action that the public would otherwise find completely unacceptable.

Without the Congress, the president and the vice president out in front, setting the example for the nation – like courageous platoon leaders in the midst of battle – how will we ever come close to asking ourselves the most difficult, unpalatable and, to many of us, unthinkable questions about how to put America on the road to true financial health?

How do you ask federal workers to take a pay cut?

How do you significantly cut the military budget?

How do you ask seniors to give up or accept lesser prescription drug benefits, once they have gotten used to having them?

How do you let certain tax breaks expire?

How do you ask people to pay more in order to fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

How do you pull in the reins on foreign aid?

How do you enforce fiscal sobriety and discipline?

I will tell you how. You do it by example, or you will never be able to do it at all.

None of us wants to take a pay cut. None of us wants to receive fewer services. None of us wants to pay more for the services we already have. Such is the human condition. Yet, if our leaders were to lead courageously, taking great cuts themselves before asking us to take more modest cuts, it would serve as a mighty motivator and open our minds to doing what is in the best interests of the nation.

David, you call our two party system a duopoly. Of course, you refer to the Democrats and Republicans. I say we have a different two party system, the people in power and the rest of us. The general public feels this and is angry. This has given rise to movements like the Tea Party and Occupy. Frankly, I think they have far more in common than what separates them.

What I humbly suggest is the creation of a victorious cycle. It would be initiated by people like you, individuals who enjoy absolute credibility. You would call for a few concrete steps to be taken to right our ship of state. I refer to steps that “We the people” could readily identify with. They would be steps that defied partisanship, were concise and concrete in nature and could be used as both rallying cry and starting point to fix things.

What fiscal conservative or person on the Right is going to be able stand up to the American public with a straight face and say, “No, don’t cut my pay, just allow me to cut from everyone else?” What liberal or progressive person on the Left is going to be able to lay claim to altruistic goals if they are not willing to do their fair share by lightening their own pockets before those of the average citizen?”

Roman ruin is upon us. Yet, what can save us is the same thing that has been tearing us down; that is our modern ability to communicate and disseminate information. Ultimately, you must communicate with us in a concrete, concise and repetitive manner.

How much time is spent by “We the People” idling ourselves online, narcotizing ourselves with bits of random information as a way to avoid facing the difficult road ahead? This is what you are competing with.

David, you must offer us simple steps that we must take in order to rescue our future. We need a rallying cry leading to results.

I sincerely believe most Americans have an “us and them” mentality when it comes to our elected officials in Washington. We need high credibility individuals like you to take the spotlight right now and articulate a plan of action with, perhaps, three tangible steps to get the ball rolling.

If a bill were passed in Congress cutting the salaries of the president, vice-president and the Congress in half; if that bill eliminated their rich after office benefits and if that bill included a lifetime prohibition against any kind of lobbying by them or their assistants, it would act as a monumental lever for change.

This action would directly tap into the nation’s outrage. In truth, we are not simply outraged at Washington. We are outraged at ourselves for squandering the blessings of Providence. If we force our leaders to lead, by bringing them to heel, they in turn will have the moral high ground from which to operate and convince the rest of us to take part in a national process of healing and redemption that, while being somewhat painful, will restore our national pride and the future of our progeny.

I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to read this. I know your time is extremely valuable.

Thank you again for your magnificent efforts in the face of daunting indifference and learned helplessness. And, while you might not find my course of action to be one you particularly agree with, at least please reconsider the tactics you might use to best communicate with “We the People.”

Long Live the United States of America!

With gratitude,

Jay Bildstein

*Editors Note:

Prior to posting this letter, we sent a copy of it to David Walker. The former Comptroller General of the United States was kind enough to give us a response. We thank him.

Jay,

Thanks for your comments and recommendations. I commit that I will read “The Crowd”.

I agree that we need changes to the compensation system of federal elected officials, including post employment benefits. We also need strict prohibitions on lobbying by former elected officials for an extended period of time. However, these actions should be in addition to rather than in lieu of the other political reforms outlined in “Comeback America” and others that I have advocated publicly.

My desire is simple, to state the facts, speak the truth, and offer non-partisan solutions that can achieve bipartisan support in connection with the fiscal and other key sustainability challenges facing our nation. My goal is simple, to keep America great and to help ensure that our future will be better than our past.

All the best,

Dave Walker

*You can see the CYInterview with David Walker here.

Image: Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In many educational traditions, studying ancient cultures is considered an important part of developing a foundation from which to understand the workings of contemporary society.

Today, Persia is known as Iran while Greece is still known as Greece. Both Iran and Greece enjoy illustrious histories dating to antiquity. And now, these modern nations with ancient histories – tied in the public imagination to Alexander the Great – are at the forefront of the world’s challenges.

These challenges highlight the intersection of geopolitics and economics. Greece is struggling mightily with indebtedness which threatens the financial future of Europe as a whole. European leaders continue seeking a way to resolve Greece’s situation, only to find they are putting small bandages on an axe wound.

Iran, on the other hand, has pursued the development of nuclear technology which it says is for peaceful purposes but that a substantial number of nations doubt. They believe Iran is striving to create nuclear weapons. This has caused those nations to impose sanctions on Iran.

I am no prognosticator, yet in the case of Greece, I believe there is no easy way out of its economic struggles. The people of that nation do not want to live in a state of perpetual austerity. Yet, they have become accustomed to living on more than what they make. Something’s got to give.

Sooner than later, Greece may be forced out of the Euro and or it may, along with other European nations with unsustainable debt, set off a domino-like crisis of national defaults. The best Europe can work for at this time is a controlled crash for Greece and, eventually, for the other overextended nations sharing the same debt dynamics.

Meantime, if sanctions against Iran do not work and it continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions, it is well possible that military action may be taken against it. That a military conflagration may take place seems likely to drive the price of oil higher. Actual military action may cause a short term panic in the world’s energy markets.

So, we now live under the shadow of the Alexander Effect. Events in Greece and Iran – nations connected in history by the exploits of one of the great figures of history –appear likely to have a significant impact upon the world’s economic future, at least in the short to midterm. In Alexander’s time, Greece and Persia held great sway over the world’s trajectory. Today, we find ourselves again tied to what happens in those ancient lands.

*Authors note: You might see this column pop up online in a newspaper, under the name Both Sides. I am publishing this column here first at CYInterview.com. For a bunch of years, I have been writing newspaper columns. Since my columns have received a good response on CYInterview, I thought I would share it with you. Hope you enjoy.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com Like today’s column? Check back frequently.

What is contemplation?

Contemplation is the act of thoughtfully observing, considering and reflecting upon things. We might contemplate the universe and its nature. We might contemplate our career path. We might contemplate any number of things. Do we, however, set aside some time each day for contemplation?

We live in a frenetic world, driven by rapidly evolving technologies. But, as I have said on other occasions, “Technological innovation without applied philosophical enlightenment is not progress. We need to evolve philosophically if we are to evolve at all.”

How can we become philosophically enlightened if we do not spend time contemplating things?

Excuses abound. Ask a person if they put some time aside each day to think and they will probably look at you like you have two heads and purple hair. I can hear the voices now, “Set aside time each day to think? Hey, that’s a nice thought, but I have to earn a living, clean my home, go to the grocery store and stuff like that. Sit around thinking? That’s funny. What world do you live in?”

These, of course, are the same excuses made for not exercising a little bit each day. “Do 30 minutes of walking each day? That sounds nice, but who has the time?”

We tell ourselves we have no time, not even 15 minutes a day, to set aside for quiet contemplation. In our hearts we know better. We know, deep down, that we have the time. What we really question is our discipline and dedication to thinking. It is just too easy to behave robotically.

We may be dedicated to our work. We may be dedicated to maintaining our home. With the passage of time, however, many of us lose the belief that we can dedicate ourselves to much more, even something as basic as walking 30 minutes a day or spending 15 minutes in contemplation.

The reality is that we can fool ourselves for a while. Then, in an unexpected moment, we find ourselves immersed in thought wondering why our life has taken the trajectory it has. Perhaps, systematic contemplation is the key to avoiding spontaneous regret.

Image: Evgeni Dinev / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

*Authors note: You might see this column pop up online in a newspaper, under the name Both Sides. I am publishing this column here first at CYInterview.com. For a bunch of years, I have been writing newspaper columns. Since my columns have received a good response on CYInterview, I thought I would share it with you. Hope you enjoy.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com Like today’s column? Check back frequently.

The goal of business is to provide value to customers, via products and or services, and in turn receive value from them in the form of money. Essentially, business is, or at least should be, about the fair exchange of value for value. The goal of finding a soulmate, raising a family, participating in charity, exercising, as well as a myriad of other activities, is different than that of business.

However, while business has a distinct end goal compared to other endeavors, it is subject to the same fundamental principles that govern the rest of human behavior. For example, if you treat people poorly in your personal life you end up alienating them. Similarly, if you treat people poorly in business you do the same.

Conversely, if you treat people well in your personal life, you tend to make friends and be well regarded in general. If you treat people well in business, the same ends up being true.

Some businesspeople feel that being kind and courteous falls outside the purview of what business is about. I have heard owners of companies say things like, “I do not have to be nice to my employees; I pay them.” This is a defective attitude. What it breeds is discontent and disloyalty.

Ultimately, no matter what you pay a person, if you treat them poorly in your interactions with them, they are going to give less than their best efforts working for you. They may pay lip service to your goals, but that is all it will be. Many employees show up to work because they need the money, not because they love what they do. And if their boss is ill tempered and condescending, eventually they leave.

Sure, there are cases where a person works for a miserable boss, but they stay in their job because the money is too good to walk away from. Yet as soon as they have another opportunity that meets their economic needs, they are gone.

In and outside of the workplace, treating people well is a sound prescription for success.

Image: David Castillo Dominici / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

*Authors note: You might see this column pop up online in a newspaper, under the name Both Sides. I am publishing this column here first at CYInterview.com. For a bunch of years, I have been writing newspaper columns. Since my columns have received a good response on CYInterview, I thought I would share it with you. Hope you enjoy.

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com Like today’s column? Check back frequently.

Actually, it is easy to be critical of any performance at any time, especially for those of us – read most of us – who are not performers. Well, lots of us do perform if you count downing a soft drink and stuffing chips in our mouths while we render our criticism. Maybe we could try out for a new reality show, Couch Potato Critics Sound Off. Hmmm, maybe not. Sounds like too much work.

But, I guess it is inevitable that for a spectacle like the Super Bowl and its well hyped halftime show, we are bound to mouth off. So, I will do mine. Just for the record, however, I was not downing a soft drink and eating chips while I watched the game and the show.

First, Madonna looked phenomenal. At 53, she proves that shelf lives for women are and should be a thing of the past. This was proven for men in 2006’s halftime, when a very energetic 62 and a half year old Mick Jagger took to the stage with the Rolling Stones. It was shown when an almost 66 year old Roger Daltry, and his Who-mates, performed in 2010. A few years earlier, Paul McCartney showed the same thing. 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond – they are just numbers.

Back to Madonna. Looks aside, she was in good voice. Yes, we can be critical and say that she does not possess one of the greatest voices in pop history. Yet her voice was solid in her glory years and continues to be. Madonna has always been about the package; a rare combination of steely will, good looks, good voice, strong dance and movement skills and superb promotion.

While I enjoyed the show, perhaps, I was most let down by Madonna’s dancing. I had hoped for more. However, during the press conference for the halftime show the greatest female star in pop history mentioned that she had pulled a hamstring. Maybe that is why she had trouble stepping up onto a bleacher at one point during her routine. No matter, I was still entertained.

I suppose, for those of us who have followed Madonna’s career, she is to some extent, a victim of her own success. After all, with almost thirty years in front of the public and even with a remarkable ability to reinvent herself, just what type of spectacle could she put on to completely blow us away.

I would give Madonna’s halftime performance a score of 8.5 out of 10. It was a solid performance if not one for the ages.

What I liked best about her show was what appeared to be Roman centurions pulling this modern-day-entertainment-Cleopatra’s throne out before the crowd – an apt metaphor.

The Like A Prayer finale was powerful. At its finish, Madonna vanished. Thankfully, she’ll be returning soon, sure to provide us with more years of entertainment.

Image: vegadsl / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com Like today’s column? Check back frequently.