Audio Tidbits

In these days of fake news and intentional misinformation, it's easy to wonder if anything we read or hear is true. Maybe even more alarming is our inability to know who to believe, who to trust. And of course, that is the point of fake news and misinformation. The goal is not so much to get us to believe false this or untrue that as it is to fuel mistrust and doubt: mistrust of our political leaders and doubt about the intentions and motivations that underpin our government and institutions.

In The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan was definitely on point when he counseled, "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

It's harsh but certainly self-evident that "If you don't control your mind, someone else will." John Allston points out the obvious, but it has gotten to where even the obvious is suspect. In testimony to this sad state of affairs, William Safire advises, "Never assume the obvious is true." At the extreme, we get to where we mistrust what we hear, what we see, what we think; and if the insidious erosion of trust persists, we come to distrust our personal judgment and our self-confidence falters.

There is an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust, but I doubt that many would think it is an easy medicine to swallow. The first dose is to give up our reliance on group-think. "Don't think you're on the right road just because it's a well-beaten path." I don't know who said that first and doubt that it matters much. The value is in being reminded that we are responsible for what we think, what we believe, and just because lots of well-meaning folks have signed onto the trip does not make it okay for us to thoughtlessly follow. Anatole France assures us that "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." It's also true that if fifty million people think or do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. It's up to us to guard against being just another one of the fools.

The second dose serving as an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust is to give up on our habitual reliance on simply accepting the perspectives, views and opinions of people with the loudest voices or the most followers. Let it suffice to remind us of Buddha's advice, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The third dose is perhaps the hardest to swallow. Grace Hopper argued that "The most damaging phrase in the language is, it's always been done that way." Variations on the point are mental crutches such as "I've always thought…," or "I've always believed…, " or "Everyone knows…." The notion is that once I think or believe anything, that's the way it is forever.

Granted, it's being consistent; but as Bernard Berenson cautioned, "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." Or perhaps you prefer George Bernard Shaw's take, "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Even so, Glen Beaman has a point, "Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow." Unless you are content being pulled along by others, there is nothing for it but to take your medicine - all three doses - the only antidote to insidious group-think.

In these days of fake news and intentional misinformation, it's easy to wonder if anything we read or hear is true. Maybe even more alarming is our inability to know who to believe, who to trust. And of course, that is the point of fake news and misinformation. The goal is not so much to get us to believe false this or untrue that as it is to fuel mistrust and doubt: mistrust of our political leaders and doubt about the intentions and motivations that underpin our government and institutions.

In The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Carl Sagan was definitely on point when he counseled, "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

It's harsh but certainly self-evident that "If you don't control your mind, someone else will." John Allston points out the obvious, but it has gotten to where even the obvious is suspect. In testimony to this sad state of affairs, William Safire advises, "Never assume the obvious is true." At the extreme, we get to where we mistrust what we hear, what we see, what we think; and if the insidious erosion of trust persists, we come to distrust our personal judgment and our self-confidence falters.

There is an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust, but I doubt that many would think it is an easy medicine to swallow. The first dose is to give up our reliance on group-think. "Don't think you're on the right road just because it's a well-beaten path." I don't know who said that first and doubt that it matters much. The value is in being reminded that we are responsible for what we think, what we believe, and just because lots of well-meaning folks have signed onto the trip does not make it okay for us to thoughtlessly follow. Anatole France assures us that "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." It's also true that if fifty million people think or do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. It's up to us to guard against being just another one of the fools.

The second dose serving as an antidote for this insidious erosion of trust is to give up on our habitual reliance on simply accepting the perspectives, views and opinions of people with the loudest voices or the most followers. Let it suffice to remind us of Buddha's advice, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The third dose is perhaps the hardest to swallow. Grace Hopper argued that "The most damaging phrase in the language is, it's always been done that way." Variations on the point are mental crutches such as "I've always thought…," or "I've always believed…, " or "Everyone knows…." The notion is that once I think or believe anything, that's the way it is forever.

Granted, it's being consistent; but as Bernard Berenson cautioned, "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." Or perhaps you prefer George Bernard Shaw's take, "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." Even so, Glen Beaman has a point, "Stubbornness does have its helpful features. You always know what you are going to be thinking tomorrow." Unless you are content being pulled along by others, there is nothing for it but to take your medicine - all three doses - the only antidote to insidious group-think.

You've probably heard the advice that tells us that we have to go along to get along. Much of the time, if it's not altogether true, it's at least convenient. Christopher Morley puts it like this, "Lots of times you have to pretend to join a parade in which you're not really interested in order to get where you're going."

We have our individual goals and agenda, but much of the time, prioritizing our personal interests requires too much effort or may actually be counterproductive. Michael Korda is on point when he advises, "The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you're playing by other people's rules, while quietly playing by your own."

The truth here notwithstanding, there is a very real danger. On the one hand, we run the risk of becoming so accustomed to fitting in that we passively subordinate our goals and agenda to the will and wishes of others; or on the other hand, we are so intent on guarding our individuality that we become inappropriately rigid and inflexible. Finding the middle ground is difficult and staying on that middle ground is even more challenging.

Bill Veeck tells us what is needed, "I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity." Nonetheless, for most of us, the trip from knowing to doing is frequently less than smooth. At this point, I think most of us either give up and go along or dig in and side with Bill Watterson's choice, "From now on, I'll connect the dots my own way." As tempting as either alternative may be, experience tells me that the middle ground is still the place to be.

How do you think this works as a helpful way of understanding the middle ground between giving in and digging in? "I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine." Fritz Perls' perspective on the middle ground is one that I personally find helpful. I'm comfortable going along so long as I experience other people's expectations as compatible with or at least not incompatible with mine. However, if I experience those expectations as incompatible, passively going along is no longer an option for me.

Saying this is easy but deciding to dig in and then doing it is not always easy and can be downright risky at times. Dr. SunWolf knows the truth of it, "Sooner or later, you will need the courage to be disliked," or perhaps the courage to accept even more harsh consequences. There is a cost to giving in and going along, but perhaps an even higher cost to digging in. The dilemma is in understanding the cost and benefits of both choices and then living with your choice.

You've probably heard the advice that tells us that we have to go along to get along. Much of the time, if it's not altogether true, it's at least convenient. Christopher Morley puts it like this, "Lots of times you have to pretend to join a parade in which you're not really interested in order to get where you're going."

We have our individual goals and agenda, but much of the time, prioritizing our personal interests requires too much effort or may actually be counterproductive. Michael Korda is on point when he advises, "The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you're playing by other people's rules, while quietly playing by your own."

The truth here notwithstanding, there is a very real danger. On the one hand, we run the risk of becoming so accustomed to fitting in that we passively subordinate our goals and agenda to the will and wishes of others; or on the other hand, we are so intent on guarding our individuality that we become inappropriately rigid and inflexible. Finding the middle ground is difficult and staying on that middle ground is even more challenging.

Bill Veeck tells us what is needed, "I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity." Nonetheless, for most of us, the trip from knowing to doing is frequently less than smooth. At this point, I think most of us either give up and go along or dig in and side with Bill Watterson's choice, "From now on, I'll connect the dots my own way." As tempting as either alternative may be, experience tells me that the middle ground is still the place to be.

How do you think this works as a helpful way of understanding the middle ground between giving in and digging in? "I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine." Fritz Perls' perspective on the middle ground is one that I personally find helpful. I'm comfortable going along so long as I experience other people's expectations as compatible with or at least not incompatible with mine. However, if I experience those expectations as incompatible, passively going along is no longer an option for me.

Saying this is easy but deciding to dig in and then doing it is not always easy and can be downright risky at times. Dr. SunWolf knows the truth of it, "Sooner or later, you will need the courage to be disliked," or perhaps the courage to accept even more harsh consequences. There is a cost to giving in and going along, but perhaps an even higher cost to digging in. The dilemma is in understanding the cost and benefits of both choices and then living with your choice.

There is a popular notion that advises that we can't succeed without first failing. The idea is that we fail forward to success. There are other variations such as we learn best from our mistakes and this sweeping generalization from Herman Melville, "Failure is the true test of greatness."

Since notions like "failure is a prerequisite to success" or "mistakes are prelude to positive outcomes" strike me as absurd, I think I will turn to Buddha for guidance. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." If you are reluctant to take this contrary thinking trip with me, let me remind you of Bertrand Russell's take on contrary thinking. "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." Or perhaps this from J K Galbraith, "The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."

Sure, I've made my share of mistakes and there have been a few times when "failure" is a fair characterization of an unwanted outcome. That likely doesn't distinguish me from you or anyone else. But that is not the question here. The question is whether the mistakes and occasional failure were necessary pre-conditions to my subsequent success.

It may help to make what I think is an important clarification. A mistake is an action or set of actions that get an outcome different than expected. In turn, a failure is nothing more than a mistake that has unwanted consequences that persist. It's a continuum from trying something that doesn't work to trying something that results in a persistent mess. Where along the way you choose to designate the outcome as failure is your call. The point is that mistakes are nothing special or unusual; nor is occasional failure. The only real difference is that failure usually designates the point on the continuum where you stop trying.

Here is the conclusion I draw. Mistakes are likely inevitable, but I have no reason to think they are either necessary or useful. Better would be to get it right the first time, every time. For me, this is obvious. My experience teaches me that the mistakes I have made have little value other than to be put into the folder where I file mistakes under "things to avoid in the future." In this case, I do subscribe to the old wisdom that teaches, "If I keep doing things like I've always done them, what I'll get is what I've already got: mistakes." Thus, mistakes are to be remembered only as a reminder not to repeat them.

There is a popular notion that advises that we can't succeed without first failing. The idea is that we fail forward to success. There are other variations such as we learn best from our mistakes and this sweeping generalization from Herman Melville, "Failure is the true test of greatness."

Since notions like "failure is a prerequisite to success" or "mistakes are prelude to positive outcomes" strike me as absurd, I think I will turn to Buddha for guidance. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it — even if I have said it — unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." If you are reluctant to take this contrary thinking trip with me, let me remind you of Bertrand Russell's take on contrary thinking. "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." Or perhaps this from J K Galbraith, "The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."

Sure, I've made my share of mistakes and there have been a few times when "failure" is a fair characterization of an unwanted outcome. That likely doesn't distinguish me from you or anyone else. But that is not the question here. The question is whether the mistakes and occasional failure were necessary pre-conditions to my subsequent success.

It may help to make what I think is an important clarification. A mistake is an action or set of actions that get an outcome different than expected. In turn, a failure is nothing more than a mistake that has unwanted consequences that persist. It's a continuum from trying something that doesn't work to trying something that results in a persistent mess. Where along the way you choose to designate the outcome as failure is your call. The point is that mistakes are nothing special or unusual; nor is occasional failure. The only real difference is that failure usually designates the point on the continuum where you stop trying.

Here is the conclusion I draw. Mistakes are likely inevitable, but I have no reason to think they are either necessary or useful. Better would be to get it right the first time, every time. For me, this is obvious. My experience teaches me that the mistakes I have made have little value other than to be put into the folder where I file mistakes under "things to avoid in the future." In this case, I do subscribe to the old wisdom that teaches, "If I keep doing things like I've always done them, what I'll get is what I've already got: mistakes." Thus, mistakes are to be remembered only as a reminder not to repeat them.

I am reluctantly considering the conclusion that much of what I have believed for as long as I have believed anything may represent far more hope than truth. Sure, I admit to taking it for granted that things actually are the way I have always thought they are, that my reality is valid and based on the true and factual, and that my sense of what's real is correct and axiomatic. Naive? Simple-minded? Perhaps dangerous? Indeed. But nonetheless, I believed.

I take some comfort in knowing that a preference for belief over thoughtful consideration didn't just start with me. The Roman philosopher Seneca observed that "Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment." It's likely that the "exercise" part of exercising judgment is the showstopper for many, if not most of us. For me at least, it has been easier to relax and believe.

Robert Brault got it right when he pointed out that "An old belief is like an old shoe. We so value its comfort that we fail to notice the hole in it." To my surprise and disappointment, I am starting to notice cracks if not actual holes in some of my most trusted beliefs. The cause and solution may be as simple as E D Martin suggests, "It is easier to believe than to doubt."

Laziness? Indifference? Bertrand Russell says it's our inherent credulity. "Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones." Perhaps I should add gullibility to lazy and naive. The picture is not looking good.

The pragmatist in me is calling out for attention. He or perhaps she is arguing that belief is not the issue. The issue is whether my unique collection of notions and ideas about how things are and how they work are serving me, furthering my interests. Admittedly, this is a rather pedestrian perspective; but if it works for me, I see little need to reason otherwise. If I may lean on Robert Brault again, "Sometimes you believe a thing that isn't true because in the world you wish to live in, it would be true." In the world I prefer, the way I arrange the pieces and parts, notions and ideas is reality, is worthy of belief.

As self-centered and self-serving as my pragmatic self prefers being, I suspect that I'm not alone with my pragmatism. And therein lies the problem, the crack in my carefully cultivated system of beliefs. If all of us adopt this "Me first" approach to life and living, we quickly find ourselves in a pseudo-Darwinian video game where only the most ruthless survive. Me has precedence over us, person has precedence over people, power has precedence over weakness, will has precedence over law, interests have precedence over values, and the winners take all.

I am coming to understand that Laurens van der Post has a point. "Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right." It seems to me that our elected politicians are increasingly convinced beyond doubt that they are right. But the truly frightening element is that they also believe that anyone who disagrees with them is, along with being wrong, stupid, subversive and unamerican. Name calling and finger pointing have become the political coin of the day. Ezra Pound thought that "What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it;" and the "I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong" approach to political discourse is deeply held.

It would be easy to just chalk it up to politics and the political game were it not for what I find to be a most disturbing theme. Dodinsky tells us that "Life will magnify what you choose to believe;" and the political single mindedness is definitely magnifying. Herbert Agar takes the point a step further, "Man tends to treat all his opinions as principles;" and unfortunately, poorly constructed and ill-considered ideas and reactions are elevating to the level of governing principles.

I could make my list of action and inaction within our federal gover...

I am reluctantly considering the conclusion that much of what I have believed for as long as I have believed anything may represent far more hope than truth. Sure, I admit to taking it for granted that things actually are the way I have always thought they are, that my reality is valid and based on the true and factual, and that my sense of what's real is correct and axiomatic. Naive? Simple-minded? Perhaps dangerous? Indeed. But nonetheless, I believed.

I take some comfort in knowing that a preference for belief over thoughtful consideration didn't just start with me. The Roman philosopher Seneca observed that "Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment." It's likely that the "exercise" part of exercising judgment is the showstopper for many, if not most of us. For me at least, it has been easier to relax and believe.

Robert Brault got it right when he pointed out that "An old belief is like an old shoe. We so value its comfort that we fail to notice the hole in it." To my surprise and disappointment, I am starting to notice cracks if not actual holes in some of my most trusted beliefs. The cause and solution may be as simple as E D Martin suggests, "It is easier to believe than to doubt."

Laziness? Indifference? Bertrand Russell says it's our inherent credulity. "Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones." Perhaps I should add gullibility to lazy and naive. The picture is not looking good.

The pragmatist in me is calling out for attention. He or perhaps she is arguing that belief is not the issue. The issue is whether my unique collection of notions and ideas about how things are and how they work are serving me, furthering my interests. Admittedly, this is a rather pedestrian perspective; but if it works for me, I see little need to reason otherwise. If I may lean on Robert Brault again, "Sometimes you believe a thing that isn't true because in the world you wish to live in, it would be true." In the world I prefer, the way I arrange the pieces and parts, notions and ideas is reality, is worthy of belief.

As self-centered and self-serving as my pragmatic self prefers being, I suspect that I'm not alone with my pragmatism. And therein lies the problem, the crack in my carefully cultivated system of beliefs. If all of us adopt this "Me first" approach to life and living, we quickly find ourselves in a pseudo-Darwinian video game where only the most ruthless survive. Me has precedence over us, person has precedence over people, power has precedence over weakness, will has precedence over law, interests have precedence over values, and the winners take all.

I am coming to understand that Laurens van der Post has a point. "Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right." It seems to me that our elected politicians are increasingly convinced beyond doubt that they are right. But the truly frightening element is that they also believe that anyone who disagrees with them is, along with being wrong, stupid, subversive and unamerican. Name calling and finger pointing have become the political coin of the day. Ezra Pound thought that "What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it;" and the "I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong" approach to political discourse is deeply held.

It would be easy to just chalk it up to politics and the political game were it not for what I find to be a most disturbing theme. Dodinsky tells us that "Life will magnify what you choose to believe;" and the political single mindedness is definitely magnifying. Herbert Agar takes the point a step further, "Man tends to treat all his opinions as principles;" and unfortunately, poorly constructed and ill-considered ideas and reactions are elevating to the level of governing principles.

I could make my list of action and inaction within our federal gover...

I'm tempted to initiate our conversation by saying, "There are two types of people: …." Since my plan is to talk about advice and attitudes, I think it will suffice to simply remind us that there are people who ask for advice and those who actually follow it only when the advice we offer is an exact fit with what they wanted to hear. They are usually the same people. Hannah Whitall Smith understood the key to advice giving when she pointed out, "The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right."

If that adequately sets the stage for both of us, let me suggest that attitude matters, and quite often, attitude is all that actually matters. If you doubt the truth of this putative fact of life and living, let me share the perspectives of some other folks who have given a lot of thought to the notion. From there, you can and of course, will draw your own conclusion. In turn, I will remain perfectly indifferent to your personal conclusion and will not persist in trying to set you right.

The first point about attitude is that attitude is nothing more complicated than knowing that we always get to decide what our attitude is today. It's just a state of mind that we impose on our current situation or circumstance. It works like this.

From Annie Gottlier, we get this. "It's so hard when I have to, and so easy when I want to."

Publius Terentius Afer puts it this way. "There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly."

Leland Val Van de Wall makes the same point like this. "You only have to do something until you want to do it, then you won’t have to do it any more."

And Samuel Johnson joins in, "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by changing anything but his own disposition will waste his life in fruitless efforts."

Stephen Covey, William James, and Norman Vincent Peale all agreed.

"Our ultimate freedom is the right and power to decide how anybody or anything outside ourselves will affect us."

"The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes."

"Change your thoughts and you change your world."

Personally, I favor this version of attitude is your choice, even though no one seems to know who said it first.

Your life is your garden, Your thoughts are the seeds. If your life isn't awesome, You've been watering the weeds.

No one claims this version either, but I like it.

"Things turn out best for the people who make the best out of the way things turn out."

David Ambrose, Arthur Christopher Benson and Helen MacInness also want a turn at the microphone.

"If you have the will to win, you have achieved half your success; if you don't, you have achieved half your failure."

"Very often a change of self is needed more than a change of scene."

"Nothing is interesting if you're not interested."

I think I am safe in concluding that the point has been well made: Our attitude is within our control; and either we control it or it controls us, along with controling our future. All that is left are some little tips about a few of those sometimes annoying facts of life that may or may not be important to know. Dare I say that it depends totally on our attitude?

"Whenever you fall, pick something up." (Oswald Avery)

"We cannot direct the wind but we can adjust the sails." (Unknown)

"The world is full of cactus, but we don't have to sit on it." (Will Foley)

"Those who wish to sing, always find a song." (Swedish Proverb)

"Sometimes life's Hell. But hey! Whatever gets the marshmallows toasty." (J Andrew Helt)

I have come to the end but find myself with three dangling tidbits that are begging to be included but don't quite fit. If you want to stop without them, that works for me. But if you have a few seconds, I think they may be worth taking along with you as you get back to your day.

I'm tempted to initiate our conversation by saying, "There are two types of people: …." Since my plan is to talk about advice and attitudes, I think it will suffice to simply remind us that there are people who ask for advice and those who actually follow it only when the advice we offer is an exact fit with what they wanted to hear. They are usually the same people. Hannah Whitall Smith understood the key to advice giving when she pointed out, "The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right."

If that adequately sets the stage for both of us, let me suggest that attitude matters, and quite often, attitude is all that actually matters. If you doubt the truth of this putative fact of life and living, let me share the perspectives of some other folks who have given a lot of thought to the notion. From there, you can and of course, will draw your own conclusion. In turn, I will remain perfectly indifferent to your personal conclusion and will not persist in trying to set you right.

The first point about attitude is that attitude is nothing more complicated than knowing that we always get to decide what our attitude is today. It's just a state of mind that we impose on our current situation or circumstance. It works like this.

From Annie Gottlier, we get this. "It's so hard when I have to, and so easy when I want to."

Publius Terentius Afer puts it this way. "There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly."

Leland Val Van de Wall makes the same point like this. "You only have to do something until you want to do it, then you won’t have to do it any more."

And Samuel Johnson joins in, "He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by changing anything but his own disposition will waste his life in fruitless efforts."

Stephen Covey, William James, and Norman Vincent Peale all agreed.

"Our ultimate freedom is the right and power to decide how anybody or anything outside ourselves will affect us."

"The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes."

"Change your thoughts and you change your world."

Personally, I favor this version of attitude is your choice, even though no one seems to know who said it first.

Your life is your garden, Your thoughts are the seeds. If your life isn't awesome, You've been watering the weeds.

No one claims this version either, but I like it.

"Things turn out best for the people who make the best out of the way things turn out."

David Ambrose, Arthur Christopher Benson and Helen MacInness also want a turn at the microphone.

"If you have the will to win, you have achieved half your success; if you don't, you have achieved half your failure."

"Very often a change of self is needed more than a change of scene."

"Nothing is interesting if you're not interested."

I think I am safe in concluding that the point has been well made: Our attitude is within our control; and either we control it or it controls us, along with controling our future. All that is left are some little tips about a few of those sometimes annoying facts of life that may or may not be important to know. Dare I say that it depends totally on our attitude?

"Whenever you fall, pick something up." (Oswald Avery)

"We cannot direct the wind but we can adjust the sails." (Unknown)

"The world is full of cactus, but we don't have to sit on it." (Will Foley)

"Those who wish to sing, always find a song." (Swedish Proverb)

"Sometimes life's Hell. But hey! Whatever gets the marshmallows toasty." (J Andrew Helt)

I have come to the end but find myself with three dangling tidbits that are begging to be included but don't quite fit. If you want to stop without them, that works for me. But if you have a few seconds, I think they may be worth taking along with you as you get back to your day.