Break the Cycle of Failed New Year’s Resolutions with New Book, Achieve Anything in Just One Year

This is a spon­sored guest post writ­ten by Jason Har­vey on behalf of Achieve Any­thing In Just One Year. Post pow­ered by Spon­zai.

On Jan­u­ary 1, more than 100 mil­lion Amer­i­cans will make a New Year’s res­o­lu­tion, accord­ing to a Uni­ver­si­ty of Wash­ing­ton sur­vey. By March, how­ev­er, most res­o­lu­tion-mak­ers will already have bro­ken their new­ly mint­ed promis­es. 

In his new book, Achieve Any­thing in Just One Year: Be Inspired Dai­ly to Live Your Dreams and Accom­plish Your Goals (Amaz­ing Life Press, $29.95, http://www.amazinglifepress.com/), Jason Har­vey pro­vides a blue­print for per­son­al suc­cess that can make 2010 the year that res­o­lu­tions become real­i­ty. 

Most res­o­lu­tions fail because peo­ple try to change too fast and accom­plish too much all at once,” said Har­vey, a Cer­ti­fied Life Coach. “My book is about learn­ing how to make small dai­ly changes and be your own per­son­al life coach.”

The most com­mon res­o­lu­tions — to quit smok­ing, lose weight, exer­cise more, spend more qual­i­ty time with fam­i­ly, etc. — are also the eas­i­est to break. “The truth is, we set our­selves up to fail by mak­ing res­o­lu­tions that are sweep­ing and unre­al­is­tic,” explained Har­vey. 

The result­ing cycle of mak­ing and break­ing promis­es is self-defeat­ing — so how can indi­vid­u­als make res­o­lu­tions stick? Achieve Any­thing in Just One Year equips read­ers with the tools to: 

  • Be tru­ly com­mit­ted.Don’t just go through the motions — act like you’re mak­ing a promise to your com­pa­ny, or to your best friend. 
  • Be spe­cif­ic. A res­o­lu­tion like “I want to lose weight” is eas­i­er to ignore than “I want to lose five pounds by March.” 
  • Set a dead­line. A time­frame equals com­mit­ment and helps quan­ti­fy suc­cess. 
  • Avoid over­whelm­ing your­self. You may want to lose weight, quit smok­ing, achieve mod­er­a­tion with mar­ti­nis and cut up your cred­it cards all at once, but let’s get real. Focus on a lim­it­ed set of goals and plan on tak­ing stock mid-year. 
  • Change one thing at a time. Rec­og­nize that change is hard. Wait to achieve one goal before start­ing on the next. 
  • Be real­is­tic. Tak­ing charge of a fit­ness reg­i­men is a real­is­tic goal, while exer­cis­ing sev­en days a week may not be. Don’t set your­self up for dis­ap­point­ment with lofty goals. 

The idea is to take dai­ly action that cre­ates a rip­ple effect in your life,” said Har­vey. “By trans­form­ing your life with small steps, you can stay moti­vat­ed, focused and bal­anced. Best of all, you’ll feel hap­pi­er about pur­su­ing your per­son­al suc­cess.” 

Achieve Any­thing in Just One Year is avail­able to BUY NOW at Amazon.com.

Oh, he was obviously such a terrorist!

Dr Peter Watts, Cana­di­an sci­ence fic­tion writer, beat­en and arrest­ed at US bor­der
Obvi­ous­ly, sci­ence fic­tion writ­ers are scary peo­ple. And his rea­son for being in Nebras­ka in the first place (help­ing a friend move) was high­ly ques­tion­able, so it makes total sense that the bor­der patrol would search his vehi­cle. Get­ting out of the car to ask a ques­tion was obvi­ous­ly a ter­ror­ist act, so the bor­der batrol beat him, pep­per sprayed him, and threw him in jail. After his wife paid his bail, they tossed him out in his shirt sleeves (obvi­ous­ly, his coat had to be impound­ed along with his car, com­put­er, and oth­er belong­ings as a threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty) in the mid­dle of the night, after charg­ing him with a felony, claim­ing that he struck a fed­er­al offi­cer (both the author and the pas­sen­ger in his car state that nev­er hap­pened). Now the man has to return from his home in Cana­da to face felony charges in Michi­gan.

I still have a hymen (or “vaginal corona”) ? And I thought I just had the box it came in!

Swedish group renames hymen ‘vagi­nal coro­na’

…(T)he term hymen is root­ed in the Greek word for mem­brane. Rather than a frag­ile mem­brane that breaks, how­ev­er, the hymen is actu­al­ly mul­ti­ple folds of mucous mem­brane.

The vagi­nal coro­na is a per­ma­nent part of a wom­an’s body through­out her life. It does­n’t dis­ap­pear after she first has sex­u­al inter­course, and most women don’t bleed the first time.

After read­ing the arti­cle, I have to say that I agree with the rea­son­ing as to why there should be a name change, but I don’t real­ly think it’s going to go far. It’s far bet­ter to just con­tin­ue to work on tak­ing vir­gin­i­ty off the ridicu­lous pedestal upon which it has been placed than on try­ing to replace one word with anoth­er.

“Go ahead, America. You don’t need us.”

“Watch all the top­soil go down the Mis­sis­sip­pi. Trans­port your chil­dren in bas­kets on top of your SUV death­mo­biles. Keep play­ing with your cute and cud­dly pal, the atom. Press your nose against the TV screen for even more edu­ca­tion­al 3rd Rock From The Sun enjoy­ment. Use plen­ti­ful gaso­line to burn book- read­ers at the stake. Don’t eat any­thing but sug­ared pork lard. Do what­ev­er you want.”

Nation’s Experts Give Up: ‘From Now On, You’re On Your Own,’ Say Experts

I need­ed that laugh, so I fig­ured you might enjoy it too.

Why make an exception for rape and incest?

I always look for­ward to Dr. Mar­ty Klein’s Sex­u­al Intel­li­gence newslet­ters, so I was tick­led to see one in my inbox today. But one of the head­lines took me by sur­prise: End Rape & Incest Excep­tions to Stu­pak Abor­tion Ban. Dr. Klein always has excel­lent analy­ses, and this one is no excep­tion.

If you’re against repro­duc­tive choice for so-called “moral rea­sons” (as if any­one get­ting an abor­tion or sup­port­ing its legal­i­ty isn’t “moral”), be con­sis­tent. If killing a fetus or even a fer­til­ized egg wan­der­ing around a wom­an’s body is the same as killing a per­son (the posi­tion of every anti-choice activist), why should it mat­ter how the fetus or fer­til­ized egg got there? Why is a fetus’ right to live dimin­ished because its father was a rapist or a sadist? After all, we don’t say the chil­dren of such men have few­er rights than oth­er chil­dren.

Long term opiate use safe; One woman’s experience with Savella

There are two great arti­cles from Karen Lee Richards in Health­Cen­tral’s Chron­ic Pain Con­nec­tion newslet­ter today.

The first, Long-Term Opi­oid Ther­a­py – What Are the Effects?, brings us the results of Dr. For­est Ten­nan­t’s ground-break­ing study. He eval­u­at­ed 24 chron­ic pain patients from 30 to 79 years old who had been using opi­oids for 10 to 35 years, and “con­clud­ed that the sig­nif­i­cant improve­ments in qual­i­ty of life and phys­i­cal func­tion­ing from opi­oid ther­a­py are so pos­i­tive they out­weigh any neg­a­tive com­pli­ca­tions, which can be eas­i­ly man­aged.”

Almost all of the patients (22 of 24) said their pain had per­ma­nent­ly decreased over time. And the vast major­i­ty (20 of 24) felt their opi­oids still pro­vid­ed the same relief as when they start­ed treat­ment. All of the patients report­ed one or more func­tions or activ­i­ties they can do now that they could­n’t do pri­or to begin­ning opi­oid ther­a­py (i.e., get out of bed every­day, take walks, shop or vis­it friends).

The arti­cle details the patients’ diag­noses and gives fur­ther infor­ma­tion, and I encour­age you to read the rest of it. While the study was small and obvi­ous­ly needs to be repeat­ed with a larg­er group, this is mar­velous news, and I for one am very grate­ful for Dr. Ten­nan­t’s work and the par­tic­i­pa­tion of his sub­jects.

I have to say that I find Health­Cen­tral’s sites to be gen­er­aly decent, but the Chron­ic Pain Con­nec­tion is out­stand­ing. I encour­age you to vis­it and sub­scribe to the newslet­ter.

Next, in One Patien­t’s Expe­ri­ence with Savel­la for Fibromyal­gia, Richards brings us detailed feed­back from one of her con­tacts, Bren­da, who has been tak­ing the new drug for sev­en weeks. Many of us have heard of Savel­la, but so few have had an oppor­tu­ni­ty to try it or know any­one who have that this arti­cle is very help­ful in mak­ing a deci­sion as to whether or not to ask our physi­cians for it. After read­ing about Bren­da’s advice regard­ing insur­ance expe­ri­ences, deal­ing with side effects, and pos­i­tive results, I for one will be talk­ing to my neu­rol­o­gist about a tri­al pack.

Stupak is back! Time to call your legislators again!

This time it’s in the Sen­ate, folks. In case you just crawled out from under a rock, I’m talk­ing about the Stu­pak-Pitts amend­ment to the Afford­able Health Care for Amer­i­ca Act that was orig­i­nal­ly intro­duced in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives by Demo­c­ra­t­ic Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Bart Stu­pak of Michi­gan and Repub­li­can Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Joseph Pitts of Penn­syl­va­nia, along with a long list of Con­gressper­sons. The bill tried to keep any fed­er­al funds from being used to pay for an abor­tion, but was also word­ed in such a way that it would have pro­hib­it­ed women from pur­chas­ing pri­vate cov­er­age to cov­er abor­tions. That’s a ridicu­lous restric­tion on the repro­duc­tive free­dom of every woman who needs health care, and an even fur­ther eco­nom­ic restric­tion on what pri­vate cit­i­zens can pur­chase with their own funds. Women would be los­ing cov­er­age they have now!

The let­ter I sent to my Sen­a­tors last month was, like every­thing I send to Sen­a­tor Isak­son, not read as far as I could tell, because his office just respond­ed with a form let­ter bab­bling about his reli­gious beliefs. That’s a bit bet­ter than Sen­a­tor Cham­b­liss’ office, at least, which does­n’t even do that much. Still, that form let­ter was some­thing of a straw break­ing this par­tic­u­lar camel’s back, and it inspired me to write anoth­er let­ter back to Sen­a­tor Isak­son, one that he has­n’t respond­ed to at all. I’m not ter­ri­bly sur­prised, as I asked that he not respond at all if his only response was going to be anoth­er form let­ter. Still, writ­ing it pre­pared me, to a cer­tain extent, to respond to the alert going out about the renewed Stu­pak amend­ment, which is why I men­tion it here.

Con­tin­ue read­ing “Stu­pak is back! Time to call your leg­is­la­tors again!”