Contact Michael Hsiung

(949) 999-6905

“Career analyst Dan Pink examines the puzzle of motivation, starting with a fact that social scientists know but most managers don’t: Traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think. Listen for illuminating stories — and maybe, a way forward.”

With a trio of influential bestsellers, Dan Pink has changed the way companies view the modern workplace. In the pivotal A Whole New Mind, Pink identifies a sea change in the global workforce — the shift of an information-based corporate culture to a conceptual base, where creativity and big-picture design dominates the landscape.

His latest book, The Adventures of Johnny Bunko, is an evolutionary transformation of the familiar career guide. Replacing linear text with a manga-inspired comic, Pink outlines six career laws vastly differing from the ones you’ve been taught. Members of the Johnny Bunko online forum participated in an online contest to create the seventh law — “stay hungry.”

A contributing editor for Wired, Pink is working on a new book on the science and economics of motivation for release in late 2009.”

Because this video has no closed captioning, I have also provided the transcript:

“I need to make a confession at the outset here. A little over 20 years ago I did something that I regret, something that I’m not particularly proud of, something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know, but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal. (Laughter) Late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. (Laughter)

Now, in America law is a professional degree. You get your university degree. Then you go on to law school. And when I got to law school, I didn’t do very well. To put it mildly, I didn’t do very well. I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90 percent possible. (Laughter) Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life. I pretty much wasn’t allowed to. (Laughter)

But today, against my better judgement, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills, what’s left of those legal skills. I don’t want to tell you a story. I want to make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is called the candle problem. Some of you might have seen this before. It’s created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker. Karl Duncker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of experiments in behavioral science. And here’s how it works. Suppose I’m the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches. And I say to you, “Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn’t drip onto the table.” Now what would you do?

Now many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. Doesn’t work. Somebody, some people, and I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here. Some people have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall. It’s an awesome idea. Doesn’t work. And eventually, after five or 10 minutes, Most people figure out the solution, Which you can see here. The key to to overcome what’s called functional fixedness. You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. The candle problem.

Now I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University in the U.S. This shows the power of incentives. Here’s what he did. He gathered his participants. And he said, “I’m going to time you. How quickly you can solve this problem?” To one group he said, I’m going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem.

To the second group he offered rewards. He said, “If you’re in the top 25 percent of the fastest times you get five dollars. If you’re the fastest of everyone we’re testing here today you get 20 dollars.” Now this is several years ago, adjusted for inflation. It’s a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work. It’s a nice motivator.

Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem? Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer. Three and a half minutes longer. Now this makes no sense right? I mean, I’m an American. I believe in free markets. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Right? (Laughter) If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That’s how business works. But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity. And it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.

And what’s interesting about this experiment is that it’s not an aberration. This has been replicated over and over and over again, for nearly 40 years. These contingent motivators, if you do this, then you get that, work in some circumstances. But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don’t work or, often, they do harm. This is one of the most robust findings in social science. And also one of the most ignored.

I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation. Particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what’s alarming here is that our business operating system — think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources — it’s built entirely around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks. That’s actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn’t work, often doesn’t work, and often does harm. Let me show you what I mean.

So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here. Okay? Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn’t drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we’re timing for norms. You: we’re incentivizing. What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group’s butt. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box it’s pretty easy isn’t it? (Laughter)

If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind. That’s why they work in so many cases. And so, for tasks like this, a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well. But for the real candle problem, you don’t want to be looking like this. The solution is not over here. The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.

Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white collar workers are doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. That routine, rule-based, left brain work, certain kinds of accounting, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computer programing, has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

Think about your own work. Think about your own work. Are the problems that you face, or even the problems we’ve been talking about here, are those kinds of problems — do they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we’ve built so many of our businesses, don’t work.

Now, I mean it makes me crazy. And this is not — here’s the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay? I’m a lawyer. I don’t believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I’m an American. I don’t believe in philosophy. (Laughter) This is a fact. Or, as we say in my hometown of Washington D.C., a true fact. (Laughter) (Applause) Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let me marshal the evidence here. Because I’m not telling you a story. I’m making a case.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues, did a study of some MIT students. They gave these MIT students a bunch of games. Games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration. And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards. Small reward, medium reward, large reward. Okay? If you do really well you get the large reward, on down. What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance. Okay? But one the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.

Then they said, “Okay let’s see if there’s any cultural bias here. Lets go to Madurai, India and test this.” Standard of living is lower. In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful there. Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards. What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all. In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance.

Is this some kind of touchy feely socialist conspiracy going on here? No. These are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. And do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That’s the American experience.

Let’s go across the pond to the London School of Economics. LSE, London School of Economics. Alma mater of 11 Nobel Laureates in economics. Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger. (Laughter) Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of paid for performance plants, inside of companies. Here’s what the economists there said, “We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic collapse, is that too many organizations are making their decisions, their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science. And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, and if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things. To entice people with a sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole new approach.

And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who’ve been studying motivation have given us this new approach. It’s an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they’re interesting, because they are part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy, the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery, the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose, the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.

I want to talk today only about autonomy. The 20th century came up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature. Management is like — it’s not a tree. It’s a television set. Okay? Somebody invented it. And it doesn’t mean it’s going to work forever. Management is great. Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. But if you want engagement, self-direction works better.

Let me give you some examples of some kind of radical notions of self direction. What this means — you don’t see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on. Because what it means is paying people adequately and fairly, absolutely. Getting the issue of money off the table. And then giving people lots of autonomy. Let me give you some examples.

How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half. (Laughter) Atlassian is an Australian software company. And they do something incredibly cool. A few times a year they tell their engineers, “Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it’s not part of your regular job. Work on anything you want.” So that engineers use this time to come up with a cool patchwork coat, come up with an elegant hat. Then they present all of the stuff that they’ve developed to their teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and wooly all hands meeting at the end of the day. And then, being Australians, everybody has a beer.

They call them FedEx Days. Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight. It’s pretty. It’s not bad. It’s a huge trademark violation. But it’s pretty clever. (Laughter) That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.

And it’s worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with 20 Percent Time. Done, famously, at Google. Where engineers can work, spend 20 percent of their time working on anything they want. They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique. Okay? Radical amounts of autonomy, And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new products in a typical year are birthed during that 20 Percent Time. Things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.

Let me give you an even more radical example of it. Something called the Results Only Work Environment. The ROWE. Created by two American consultants, in place in place at about a dozen companies around North America. In a ROWE people don’t have schedules. They show up when they want. They don’t have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them. Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.

What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, These are the building blocks of a new way of doing things. Now some of you might look at this and say, “Hmm, that sounds nice. But it’s Utopian.” And I say, “Nope. I have proof.”

The mid 1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right incentives. All the right incentives. They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. Well compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time. A few years later another encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a Euro or a Yen. Do it because you like to do it.

Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, And said, “Hey, I’ve got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they went head to head, who would win?” 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth, who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.

This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation. Right? This is the Thrilla’ in Manila. Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks. And who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. Let me wrap up.

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are the natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to high performance isn’t rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive. The drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter.

And here’s the best part. Here’s the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does, If we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world. I rest my case.” -Dan Pink

If you find this to be an Idea Worth Sharing, please SHARE IT!

To Success!

Michael A. Hsiung

for video with closed captioning: click here

“During the twin tragedies of the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, Ipswich water-treatment expert Michael Pritchard winced helplessly at televised coverage of throngs of refugees waiting for days for a simple drink of clean water. Stricken by the chronic failure of aid agencies to surmount this basic challenge, Pritchard decided to do something about it.

Using a non-chemical nano-filtration hollow fiber membrane with 15 nanometer pores (it is designed to block viruses), the Lifesaver bottle can make the most revolting swamp water drinkable in seconds. Better still, a single long-lasting filter can clean 6,000 liters of water. Given the astronomical cost of shipping water to disaster areas, Pritchard’s Lifesaver bottle could turn traditional aid models on their heads.”

______________________________________________________________________

It is pretty amazing what some talent and a true passion to help others can turn into.   I am sure this business is taking off and it’s products are being utilized all over the world in nearly every survival situation.

I found this on TED.com today and I thought it was pretty awesome.

If you find this to be and Idea Worth Sharing… SHARE IT!

All the best,

Michael A. Hsiung

Initially developed as an instant messaging tool with a limit of 140 characters, Twitter has grown into a powerful marketing tool and is used extensively by internet marketers, SEO service providers, and website development and designing companies to promote and build a strong online presence. People swear by Twitter these days and we will discuss different ways of how to use this tool to boost your sales and improve business.

Twitter is a wonderful medium for free publicity, as it creates brand awareness and builds a relation based on trust with potential customers. An enterprise can convey it to the people about its latest product offering and future work. So instead of maintain an in house marketing and branding team, companies are getting attracted to Twitter in greater numbers than ever because of its viral nature. This type of publicity ensures greater product visibility and increases revenue.

A company can build up its own set of followers as it gives the consumers a broad platform and more choice. Classic examples are Dell and HP. Dell increased its sales by a massive scale when it started promoting their products on Twitter. Taking the cue, every company nowadays has a separate Twitter page dedicated wholly to Twitter responses and users. Twitter attracts web traffic and is changing the business landscape on a global scale.

Using Twitter wisely and strategically is every company’s prerogative to increase its SEO ROI and guarantee more hits to the web site. This is the age of social media. The more social a company is the more visitors it will attract. This is gradually becoming a challenging domain for SEO analysts and webmasters.

Twitter has replaced newsletters to a large extent, and a company is offering its latest updates, news to its customers on the go and at a better pace. If it is running a website related to classifieds or web directory, it can share the updates like new items in the list. Twitter allows a business to attract a target audience to its business website or content. Searching twitter, often people try to find the persons of their interest. In this way, if you are someone offering business consulting services, people in search of your service might follow you. Twitter is a great platform for idea exchange and sharing of knowledge resources amongst interest groups, peers and associates. Now those having business blogs can easily post some new content and tweet it for view by the followers.

Twitter can help a business stay ahead of the competition. It can analyze its competitors’ marketing and branding strategies and can devise ways and means to counter those. Using Twitter, a business can reach out to maximum pool in minimum time, using minimal resources. This has certainly become a challenge for web designers and developers, who have to design websites, conforming to the strictest industry standards, so that the site comes out tops in search engine queries. SEO experts have to come up with ingenious optimization and Web Designing Services to edge out the rat race in the online world.”

see Best Syndication

Twitter came out with their own special guide on how to utilize twitter for business! 

Click here to check it out!

link to Twitter 101 for Business

If you would like to learn more about twitter and hear about my first-hand experience using twitter, CONTACT ME!

Michael A. Hsiung

www.Occent.com

(949) 999-6905

To Future Success!

Michael A. Hsiung

Gonzalez and two other unidentified hackers believed to be from Russia have been charged with hacking into Heartland Payment Systems, 7-11 and Hannaford Brothers Company. Heartland announced the series of intrusions on Inauguration Day earlier this year and reported them to authorities.

Gonzalez has previously been charged in a case involving the restaurant chain Dave & Busters, where almost 5,100 credit card numbers had been taken from their computer systems. Also known as “Segvec”, “SoupNazi,” and “j4guar17,” Gonzalez was previously charged in that case with wire fraud conspiracy along with Maksym Yastremskiy. Yastremskiy, who hails from Kharkov, Ukraine, and several associates were indicted in the U.S., accused of installing sniffing software at the restaurant chain Dave & Busters. The indictment in that case was overseen by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York.

Rogue Informant

After concluding that Gonzalez had become a rogue informant, officials say they decided to charge him in the TJX case in an indictment out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office from Boston. That breach compromised cards processed at the corporation which includes discount stores in the U.S. such as T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and the T.K. Maxx chain in Europe. Gonzalez was charged along with 10 other defendants for also hacking into BJ’s Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority, Forever 21 and DSW.

he new charges returned by a grand jury out of New Jersey allege that Gonzalez provided “sniffer” software used to intercept the credit and debit card numbers for the Russian hackers. The indictment also mentions an unindicted coconspirator only identified as P.T, who is believed to split his time between Virginia Beach and Miami.

The indictment alleges that P.T and Gonzalez would visit retail store locations and conduct surveillance to locate their computer servers to gain access to the store’s corporate headquarters. “Gonzalez and P.T. would travel to retail stores of potential corporate victims, both to identify the payment processing systems that the would-be victims used at their point of sale terminals (e.g., “checkout” computers) and to understand the potential vulnerabilities of those systems,” the indictment alleges.

It is unclear how many of the compromised numbers resulted in fraudulent transactions, Robert Siciliano, an identity theft expert and consultant in Boston told ABC News. “I can’t imagine that with so many cards compromised that there would be no fraudulent purchases,” said Siciliano. He added that the companies involved do not have to disclose if cards were actually used. “It’s not in the best interest of retailers to disclose this either, since the purchases would have to be nullified,” he said. The charging documents also allege that Gonzalez and the other hackers openly discussed targeting Hannaford Brothers supermarkets In reference to a March 2007 internet chat, the indictment alleges that Gonzalez and the other hackers openly “participated in a discussion over an internet messaging service in which one of the participants stated ‘planning my second phase against Hannaford.’”

Dave and Buster’s Case

The hackers used a series of computers they leased and established in New Jersey, California, Illinois, Latvia, the Netherlands and Ukraine as part of their hacking platform, according to the indictment. It also alleges that “Gonzalez, HACKER 1, HACKER 2, and P.T. would conceal their efforts to hack into the corporate victims’ networks by, among other things, leasing the hacking platforms under false names, communicating over the Internet using more than one messaging screen name, storing data related to their attacks on multiple hacking platforms, disabling programs that logged inbound and outbound traffic over the hacking platforms.”

The indictment also alleges that the hackers hid their tracks, “through the use of ‘proxies’ the Internet Protocol addresses from which their attacks originated.”

Gonzalez is facing trial next month for the Dave and Buster’s case in New York and trial in 2010 for the TJX case in Boston.

A Secret Service spokesman acknowledged that Gonzalez Tad been an informant in other cases but declined to provide specifics of his previous work for the agency. Gonzalez’ attorney did not immediately return a call from ABC News.

__________________________________________________________________

If you do not have identity theft protection, you can get it through me.

Contact Me Today to Protect Yourself with the Best I.D. Theft in the Nation

__________________________________________________________________________________

Call Me Directly:  (949) 999-6905

Email Me:  MichaelHsiung@occent.com

All the best,

Michael A. Hsiung

]]> http://michaelhsiung.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/three-charged-in-largest-ever-credit-card-data-breach-alleged-ringleader-a-former-secret-service-informant/feed/ 0 Michael Hsiung id-theft-sheild http://michaelhsiung.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/paypal-adds-fees-sneakily/ http://michaelhsiung.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/paypal-adds-fees-sneakily/#comments Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:20:52 +0000 Michael Hsiung http://michaelhsiung.com/?p=708 ]]> Jared Newman

“When it comes my personal finances, I like to stay informed, so imagine my dismay when PayPal quietly tacked on fees for a service I’d previously enjoyed for free.

As a writer, a significant chunk of my earnings come through PayPal. For all parties involved, it’s faster and more convenient than sending a check. I hold a personal account, rather than a premium one, which means I previously didn’t have to pay any fees as long as the money was transferred directly from another PayPal user’s account balance.

But when money started rolling in last month, I noticed that a fraction of it (2.9 percent, plus 30 cents) wasn’t making the jump from my employers’ accounts to my own. In June, PayPal had started charging for payments classified as “Goods” or “Services,” even if you have a personal account. It’s possible to send money for free as a personal transfer, but this is only intended for friends and family.

As I explained to Charlotte Hill, PayPal’s PR manager, the fees themselves don’t really bother me. PayPal can run its business as it pleases, and I have every right to take my business elsewhere. What’s really infuriating is that there was no warning about the new fees, and no notification once they were instated.

Hill protested. An e-mail did go out, she said, and there were news articles and a post on PayPal’s official blog.

Well, not really. Coinciding with the new fees, PayPal started allowing people with premium accounts to make personal transfers for free. That’s great for users who do a lot of business on eBay, for instance, because they no longer have to pay for transfers to friends and family. Thing is, that’s all PayPal talked about when the changes took place. The news articles Hill cites make no mention of new fees.

I did get an e-mail along the lines of what Hill showed me, but it says nothing about changes to the fee structure for the sale of goods and services. If you want real confirmation that the fees changed in early June, you’ll have to look for grumblings on random Internet forums. (Of course, this is nothing compared to some of the previous controversies PayPal has stirred up among customers.)

“We didn’t want to make a huge formal communication out of this pricing change, because we weren’t really adding any fees, and we were hoping it would be a more useful experience for people,” Hill said.

Maybe, but in any situation where you’re taking more money from customers – even if it’s a small amount – a formal communication is what they deserve. Otherwise, you’re just being underhanded.”

see original post PC World

Why are you letting Paypal take your money?  This is a case where the “big guy” gets away with a shady play that gives people in the payment processing industry a bad name.

Give me a call or shoot me an email if you want to stop dealing with Paypal and learn about having your own merchant account.  With good credit, you can have your account approved and in action in 24-48 hours.  You will have a personal account manager so you’ll never have to deal with any convoluted automated phones systems, you’ll always have someone to call directly.

We pride ourselves in being transparent in the way we do business.  There is a reason why Occent Merchant Services has a flawless rating with the Better Business Bureau (which is very rare in the payment processing industry).

Thanks for checking out the post!  Feel free to contact me if you want to chat.

To doing good business!

Michael A Hsiung

(949)999-6905

for video in closed captioning:  click here

Seth has also written a book on this topic titled: “Tribes- We Need You to Lead Us”

Who is Seth Godin?  See Seth on Wikipedia

If you find this to be an “Idea Worth Sharing,” Share it!

I will be creating a post soon about using this concept of tribes and how you can possibly use facebook and twitter to build your business!  Stay Tuned!

To Future Success,

Michael Hsiung

IF YOU ARE A MERCHANT THAT DOES BUSINESS CURRENTLY WITH NETWORK SOLUTIONS—–>GIVE ME A CALL TODAY AT 949-999-6905

I WILL HELP MAKE YOUR ECOMMERCE SITE MORE SECURE AND COMPLETELY CUSTOMIZED!!!

EMAIL ME:

The Road Ahead or the Road Behind

Sometimes I think the fates must grin as we denounce them and insist,
The only reason we can’t win is the fates themselves have missed.
Yet, there lives on the ancient claim – we win or lose within ourselves,
The shining trophies on our shelves can never win tomorrow’s game.
So you and I know deeper down there is a chance to win the crown,
But when we fail to give our best, we simply haven’t met the test
Of giving all and saving none until the game is really won.
Of showing what is meant by grit, of fighting on when others quit,
Of playing through not letting up, it’s bearing down that wins the cup.
Of taking it and taking more until we gain the winning score,
Of dreaming there’s a goal ahead, of hoping when our dreams are dead,
Of praying when our hopes have fled.  Yet, losing, not afraid to fall,
If bravely we have given all, for who can ask more of a man
than giving all within his span, it seems to me, is not so far from – Victory.
And so the fates are seldom wrong, no matter how they twist and wind,
It’s you and I who make our fates, we open up or close the gates,
On the Road Ahead or the Road Behind.

-George J. Moriarty

Ideas Worth Sharing

Michael A. Hsiung