There are a handful of ideas that to me are as elusive as an autumnal breeze.

One of them is the idea of “priority”.

It is not that I don’t know what is a priority.

It is that I have trouble making priorities a priority.

What made me think of all this is a scribbled note of a quote mentioned at a company meeting last week in New York.  The quote was attributed to Tom “The Dean” Watson.  He’s called “The Dean” because of his role behind Omnicom University.

Watson’s dictum:  “The urgent always crowds out the important.”

I’d say that defines the term “trenchant observation.”

Let’s all put aside the urgent and tend to the important.

I was talking with my wife this afternoon.  It has been awhile.  I was on the road three of every four days over the past two weeks and she’d spent the weekend with the kids in Richmond.

It was good to talk.

And as is usual, my wife did most of the talking.  That’s because she usually has more interesting things to say than I do.

And then she talked about something that floored me.  It is a new mental disorder that, according to my wife will likely be headed to the DSM IV.  For the uninitiated that is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  My wife should know.  She’s a licensed social worker who works for the county mental health system.

The disorder?

Gender disappointment disorder.

That is, people getting depressed, anxious, pissed off, and otherwise mentally unbound because the baby was a boy … and they wanted a girl.  Or vice versa.  Yes, friends, this is a real issue with today’s parents.  This, according to an article in Elle magazine by Ruth Shallitt Barrett entitled “Girl Crazy:  Women Who Suffer from Gender Disappointment.”

As one would think given the source, Elle focuses on women.  Specifically, the article is a series of stories of women who are depressed, medicated, and miserable … all because they had a little Johnny instead of a little Jane.  (Apparently most women desperately want girls, not boys.)

You really have to read this stuff to believe it.  And even after I read it I find it difficult to believe.  Here’s one of my favorites …

“The way society is now—I feel there’s a preference for girls,” says Linda Heithaus, a marine biologist from Hollywood, Florida, who has two sons and is contemplating doing IVF/PGD in the hope of getting a girl. “They can do everything a boy can do, plus you can dress them up. It’s almost like, to fit in, you need to have one.”  Girls, in other words, are boys plus. They can play sports and have careers, and you can dress them in pink and take them to tea at the American Girl café. What’s not to like?

There are no shortage of heated discussions on the subject.  Go to BabyGaga, or Just Mommies or the talk on Digg .

It is easy to wonder what is worse — these women having little boys and suffering mental illness … or these women having little girls and having the little girls suffering a mental illness.

Someone needs to tell these people that having a baby isn’t like going to Starbucks and ordering a half-caf latte.

Hey gals, it is not about you!

“Life is too much with us … near and far.”

A line of a poetry was never so true.

Having failed to respond to email in a timely way, been horribly inconsistent in updating my Facebook page, tried and failed to consistently use my Twitter account, and totally spaced out on our corporate blog and Yammer platform.

In the midst of all this and travel three days weekly and a host of other commitments that make sleep akin to a three week vacation.

I — along with my best friend in Washington — launched a new blog.

It is a appropriately named “What were they thinking:  the chronicler of good intentions gone awry, unintended consequences, and simple bonheaded decisions.”

If you like the JuiceBar, I think you’ll love this.

Let me know what you think.

Jody Powell was a great man.  Not because of his political achievements which were many.  Not because of his business accomplishment and there were plenty of those too.  In a curious way he was a great man in spite of all that.  He was great because despite of his “Washington insider” status, he was totally without pretense and took a personal interest in the many people he knew and worked with.

I was fortunate to be one of those individuals.

I worked for Jody first at Ogilvy and Mather and then as one of the original Powell Tate team.  He was a great mentor and an even greater friend.   He was at the same time demanding and incredibly forgiving.  He was a hard nosed negotiator and also extremely generous.   He was loyal to those close to him but also open to others.   His care for people went beyond the individual.  He made an indelible impact not only on me, but also on my wife and children.

I encourage everyone from the Juicebar community to read some of the tributes to Jody.

Don’t be impressed with the names of the celebrities on the list.  Focus on the content of what they are saying.  Read how many people he mentored.  Read about his loyalty to friends.   Read about his genuine interest and concern for people regardless of their status.  About his intense love of family.

And from that, begin to think about what “great” really means.

I suggest that it is not about achievements, trophies, records, or money.  Look around.  A lot of mediocrity can achieve acquire such.

Great people — like great brands — are about much higher and more important things.  Like working hard.  Being honest.  Helping people who need a hand.  Making a difference in someone’s life.

Jody did that for many.

What about you?

I must admit that I’ve never been a big Barney Frank fan.  It is not that I didn’t like him.  It is just that I never was a big fan.

Until now.

If you want a lesson on how to defuse outrageous claims with a combination of simple language, mild put-downs, some humor, and compelling logic, watch and listen to how Rep. Barney Frank dealt with town hall protesters claiming that President Obama was a facist and that health care reform was akin to Nazi policies.

First start with the mild put down that comes in the form of a question.  Typically it is something like:  “You can’t be serious.”  In this case Barney Frank uses a more provocative variation, “What planet are you from?”  Then, once you’ve gotten someone to admit that they are truly serious about this outrageous claim, highlight the stupidity of it by applauding the right people to be stupid.  In Barney Frank’s diagnosis, being free to be stupid is what America is all about.  Then, when there is persistence the persistence of the screams and rants mount, state the obvious — that dialogue is useless.  Or akin to having a conversation with furniture.

This is superior thinking and communication at its best.

You’re a free market,  capitalist, Milton Freidman, private enterprise, Ronald Reagan, market-driven type of person.

Then along comes the great market meltdown.  Unregulated capitalism goes crazy.  Markets melt down.  Some capital owners get dinged but most capitalists do well.  Meanwhile consumers take it on the chin.  CEOs still pull down healthy checks but blue collars are standing in welfare lines.

Capitalism is under attack.

What to do?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce decides to launch a campaign to defend capitalism.  Only one problem.  People think capitalism sucks.  Capitalism is greed.

So what do like? They like “free”!  Specifically, free enterprise.

“Free” is so much more compelling than the “enterprise.”  Capitalism is dead.  Long live free enterprise.

Only one caveat.

What then are enterprises “free” to do?  Anything?

Isn’t that capitalism?

Creating a sense of urgency in your life leads to success.  And there’s a study out that proves it.  A good friend of mine, Greg Schneiders, recently sent to me a NYTimes story about a study on the issue of motivation, fear, and something economists call “loss avoidance.”

The question is this — when your back is up against the wall and you MUST do something or risk losing, are you better at doing what you do than when you simply have an opportunity and CAN do something to win.

For the Wharton professors, question was this:  “All other things being equal, is there a difference between a putt for a par and a putt for a birdie?”  For folks not skilled in the rules and scoring of golf, a par is the number of shots set as a “standard” for a particular hole.  A “birdie” is one less than par.  So a hole that is set on the scorecard as a “par 4” is a hole that you’re expected to complete in four strokes or shots.  If you do it in three, that’s a birdie.

Back to the question.  Is there any difference between a 4 foot birdie putt and a 4 foot par putt?

Apparently there is.  According to the study:

Even the world’s best pros are so consumed with avoiding bogeys that they make putts for birdie discernibly less often than identical-length putts for par, according to a coming paper by two professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. After analyzing laser-precise data on more than 1.6 million Tour putts, they estimated that this preference for avoiding a negative (bogey) more than gaining an equal positive (birdie) — known in economics as loss aversion — costs the average pro about one stroke per 72-hole tournament, and the top 20 golfers about $1.2 million in prize money a year.

What does that mean?  It means that faced with two identical putts — one for birdie and one for par — the pros are more likely to make the par putt because they have to and miss the birdie putt because … well … because they can.  According to  Justin Leonard:

“When putting for birdie, you realize that, most of the time, it’s acceptable to make par. When you’re putting for par, there’s probably a greater sense of urgency, so therefore you’re willing to be more aggressive in order not to drop a shot. It makes sense.”

So there it is … the key phrase … “a greater sense of urgency.”

Reminds me of the National Lampoon cover.  If you don’t buy this magazine then I’ll shoot the dog.

A greater sense of urgency.

So don’t get fat and comfortable.  You’ll miss the putt.

Create a greater sense of urgency … we’ll all perform better.