Learning About Languages 

Steve Leveen, founder of the America the Bilingual Project and author of America’s Bilingual Century, an excellent book, is a friend of mine.

He recently copied me on an essay he posted on his America the Bilingual Project website titled “Cratering Language Enrollments Reveal America’s Linguistic Divide.” It began with a quote from Guadalupe Valdés, a professor emerita in Stanford’s Graduate School of Education:

“Bilingualism has always been a gift the rich have given to their children.”

That’s ironic, I thought. Because in America today, it can be said that bilingualism is a gift that the poor, those who migrate here, give to their children!

I should know better by now. But I find that I’m still stunned by how quickly the children of our migrant Latin American employees at Paradise Palms (the botanical garden we’re establishing in Western Delray Beach) become fluent in English.

One of our Guatemalan workers, Nasario (who Steve tutored for a while), has a five-year-old daughter who did not speak a word of English. Despite their trepidations, Nasario and his wife enrolled her at a nearby (to Paradise Palms) public school in September. (Their main concern was that it did not have a functioning TEFL-type program for monolingual Spanish speakers.)

On her first day, I watched her get on the school bus that stopped for her in front of Paradise Palms. As I said, she spoke zero English. My heart broke thinking about what hardships lay before her.

Just this morning, eight months after that day, I encountered her in our “Kids Park.” I started a conversation with her in Spanish. She switched immediately to English. And she spoke both fluently and without an accent. In fact, had I not known otherwise, I would have assumed she grew up in an English-speaking home.

This should not have surprised me.

In the late 1970s, I lived in N’djamena, Chad, as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching English Lit at the University of Chad. To make a few dollars on the side, I took a job teaching English to the teenage daughter of a French father and English mother who had decided, since the official language of Chad was French, to speak English at home to help their children learn the language.

The first time I met this girl, who was five or six years old at the time, I began the conversation in French. (My French at the time was strong.)

But she answered me in English.

I tried to continue the conversation in French, but she insisted on responding in English.

Frustrated, I thought I’d shake her up a bit by switching to Chadian Arabic (which I had a functional control of).

She looked at me derisively and said, in her perfect English, “Why are you trying to speak to me in the language of gardeners?”

He Was, I Thought, Just Another Bright Young Friend of Michael’s with an Impossible Dream. I Was Wrong! 

Alex Edelman was a good friend of Number Three Son Michael when they were both in college. I knew him then as a keenly smart, socially awkward, and almost pathetically likable young man who, I suspected, would one day become an influential doctor or scientist like his dad. Instead, he dreamed of being a stand-up comic. And while he pursued his dream, he was always hustling to make money by writing and selling TV scripts, jokes, and even advertising copy. (I knew from Michael that he had begun writing when he was very young. He was barely into his teens when he wrote a kids’ column for the Boston Red Sox.)

Stand-up comedy is about the scariest thing I can imagine doing. I have no problem making speeches about business or wealth building in front of 500 people. But trying to make them laugh? Just the idea makes me shudder.

I remember attending one of Alex’s performances earlyish in his career at a small venue in London. I was there with K, and maybe Michael, along with my business partner, who I had invited since he was in town at the time. There were only about a dozen other people in the audience, and I was nervous – afraid that people wouldn’t laugh at his jokes… and afraid that he would spot us (he didn’t know we were coming) and draw attention to us.

As it turned out, Alex’s performance that day was not great. But he was good. Strong enough to score on several bits and strong enough to make me proud of him.

So there he was, having ignored the Nobel Prize I had imagined for him and living poor, like new performers do, but making progress.

However, making progress as a comedian and becoming a genuine success in any of the performing arts are two very different things. I’ve known many talented young people in all sorts of areas – from drama, to dancing, to mixed martial arts. And when I’ve watched them perform, the experience for me has always been nerve-wracking. I fear some sort of stumble. Even when the performance is faultless, I carry with me the anxiety of knowing that their chance of success is slim, equivalent to the chance of becoming a professional athlete or movie star.

Anyway, time went on. And during those years, Alex would occasionally visit us when we were with Michael and our paths crossed, either at our home in Delray Beach or in New York or LA.

Then, in 2014, Michael wrote to tell us that Alex had won the “Best Newcomer” award at the annual Fringe Fest in in Edinburgh, Scotland. I’d never heard of it, but apparently it has been a launching pad for several now-famous comedians.

And then, in 2018, Michael told us that Alex was doing a one-man show Off-Broadway that was getting great reviews. The show – “Just for Us” – went to Broadway last year, and was recently made into an HBO Comedy Special. I didn’t get to see it on stage, but I saw the special on video, and it was really, really, funny. The jokes were smart and true, and the delivery was honed to perfection.

And then, two weeks ago, Number One Son’s wife, who makes a living doing hair and makeup for stars before they appear on TV talk shows, sent us her weekly calendar with the usual “big names” on it. And there, on Thursday afternoon, was Alex Edelman.

He had made it!

And now…

Last week, Michael sent me news that Alex had just been named by Time Magazine as one of “The 100 Most Influential People of 2024”!

Click here.

Things I’ve Been Thinking About Lately 

What Will Israel Do Now? 

From Michael Snyder on Iran’s direct attack on Israel last week. I thought this was a good, early assessment of the quandary Israel is in now:

Just like October 7th, the shocking attack on Israel that just took place altered the course of history. This was the first time that Iran ever attacked Israel directly, and I was flooded with emails by readers that were concerned about World War III. So now that the Iranian attack is over, what will Israel do now? That is the big question. If Israel directly attacks Iran, the Iranians will inevitably respond and the conflict could spiral out of control. But if the Israelis do not strike back, they will look weak and the Iranians could feel like they will be able to get away with similar things in the future.

Read more here.

Two Movies I’m Not Sure I Can Recommend 

K and I watched two movies on two consecutive evenings last week. Given our schedules (often still working after dinner), this was a rare treat. We selected the two out of a list of five that had been recommended to K. Both were foreign films. And both had won numerous awards.

The first one, The Taste of Things, was a French period piece set in 1889. It was, in principle, about the professional and romantic relationship between a wealthy gourmand and his cook. About half of the movie consisted of scenes in which the two protagonists, along with some helpers, gathered ingredients and prepared elaborate gourmet meals. Another 40 percent consisted of scenes wherein the gourmand and four or five of his gourmand friends consumed the meals and chatted about great cooks of the past and great wines of the present. About 10 percent of the movie was about the relationship itself, in which a dash of flirting, a dusting of yearning, and a soupçon of lovemaking takes place. As far as K and I could discern, nothing else of consequence happened in the entire two hours and 20 minutes.

After failing to comprehend or much appreciate The Taste of Things, we were more optimistic about the film we saw the following evening: Perfect Days. In this one, the protagonist was a 60-something Japanese man who lived in a small apartment and whose job it was to clean public toilets in Tokyo. The first half-hour followed a day’s activity in great detail from the moment he woke up until he went to sleep. Nothing unexpected happened that day, so we were hopeful for something engaging and dramatic to unfold when the film moved on to his next day. Day Two, however, was, in almost every respect, the same as Day One. This went on for the full length of the two-hour movie.

There was a brief scene where the protagonist had a nearly wordless conversation with his estranged sister, and a day when his estranged sister’s daughter came to live with him and accompany him on one of his endlessly routine days. That was it. I’m all about subtlety in fiction and film. I have no problem being required to see below the surface. But for the life of me, I couldn’t find enough of either to help me understand why Perfect Days has been so widely well-regarded.

If you’ve seen either of these movies and have an idea of why it earned the plaudits it received, let me know.

Illegal Immigration by the Numbers

You would think it would be easy to find out how many illegal immigrants have come into the US since Joe Biden took office 2020. It’s not.

What can be said is that the US Border Patrol has reported “encountering” 8.7 million undocumented migrants, of which 7.2 million came across the southern border and 1.5 million came from other locations. However, according to several sources, of that 8.7 million, as many as 2.8 million were sent back. That would bring the total illegal immigrants that the Border Patrol released into the country to about 6 million.

But the complexity doesn’t end there. Those numbers do not include the “getaways” – people that managed to enter the US illegally without being apprehended by the Border Patrol – which must be somewhere between 600,000 and 1.8 million.

So, what’s the actual number? Considering the biases of those releasing the numbers, I’m thinking it is more than 7 million but probably less than 10 million. What do you think?

As Promised: A Fact About Real Estate Your Broker Doesn’t Want You to Know

In the April 8 issue of this blog, I said:

“Watch this short clip. It’s a teaser for some sort of information product – but what these two men are referring to is probably the most important secret in selling houses. I’ll tell you what it is in next week’s main issue.”

So, here is the secret…

The most important factor in selling a house – or any product whose financial value can be easily determined through a simple internet search – is pricing it right. But brokers seeking to list your property won’t tell you that.

They will most likely begin by telling you that your house is worth far more than it really is. They will do this to get you excited about signing with them. Once they have the listing, they will do everything they can to get you to sell your place as cheaply as you will let them.

You may think that, because they are on commission, they would want to get the highest price possible for your house. But that’s not how brokers get rich. They get rich by getting lots and lots of listings and then turning them over (selling them) as quickly as possible. And the best way for them to sell your house quickly is to get you to lower your price… as soon as they possibly can.

And they will start doing that as soon as you sign the contract.

“About the price…” they might say.

Things I’ve Been Thinking About Lately 

Some Good News about China’s Economy… and Why I Am Happy About It 

I’ve never understood why politicians and other thought leaders in the US celebrate economic decline in large economies like China or Russia. I understand why influential and powerful people make a living by casting the world as a battleground between the US and some big, powerful political enemy. I understand the trillions of dollars made by the Military-Industrial Complex. But I can’t figure out how they can convince large swaths of the public that Russia or China getting power is an economic negative for the US.

It doesn’t take a deep dive into macro-economics to understand that as wealth increases in any country, all kinds of desirable things happen. More international trade, for example, which means more global profits and less war, which means less wealth destruction for every country involved. Maybe someone can explain that to me.

In the meantime, I was happy to hear that in March, after five months of decline, China’s factory activity edged up to 50.8 from February’s 49.1, beating a forecast of 50 by economists polled by The Wall Street Journal. (The 50 level separates expansion from contraction.)

This news followed a number of indicators for the January-February period showing the world’s second-largest economy started off the year on a solid footing, led by the manufacturing sector, with exports topping expectations and industrial profits returning to growth.

While the recent run of positive data will help lift the immediate pressure on China’s leaders, who recently set a growth target of around 5% for the year, they must still deal with a long slump in real estate property values, which I, for one, am hoping they can overcome.

Click here.

Speaking of China’s economic potential…

I loved this piece by Garrett Baldwin in the March 31 issue of Postcards from the Florida Republic:

“The Francis Scott Key Bridge won’t be ‘quick, easy, or cheap’ to replace.
“Those are Pete Buttigieg’s words.
“To that… I say… ‘Of course not.’
“Every politician in Maryland has their hand out right now.
“China built a mega bridge in 43 hours with 8,000 workers. [Click here.]
“And they did it for $1 billion.
“We can’t do that.
“You see, because of red tape, the US government will likely have to commission a study on the bridge’s impact on diversity and equity.
“Do you think I’m kidding?
“I’m not.”

Read on here.

A Century of Masterpieces Brought Together by One Passionate Collector 

I’ve always loved reading about wealthy US businessmen who, during the gilded age of American Capitalism, assembled massive collections of art and then bequeathed them for the world to enjoy after their death. I’m thinking of William Vanderbilt, Henry Clay Frick, Andrew Carnegie (all in NYC), and William Walters (in Baltimore). I’m drawn to their stories because each one has two parts: how they amassed such large fortunes, and how they went about building their collections.

Joseph Hirshhorn 

Smithsonian Magazine recently published this piece about Joseph Hirshhorn, who came to America from Latvia, broke and barely speaking English, and became one of the preeminent financiers of his time.

His collection is housed at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, DC, and the museum is presenting an exhibition (“Revolutions: Art from the Hirshhorn Collection, 1860 to 1960”) of some of the best of his pieces. It includes 208 artworks in the museum’s permanent collection by 117 artists (Francis Bacon, Jean Dubuffet, Lee Krasner, Wifredo Lam, Jacob Lawrence, Georgia O’Keeffe, Jackson Pollock…) made during 100 turbulent and energetic years.

The show runs until April 20. I’m going to get up there and see it before it closes, even if that means going up there and back on the same day.

The Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, DC 

he Legal Tactics to Jail or Bankrupt Trump Before the Election Are Failing. What Can Anti-Trumpers Do Now to Keep Him from Running and Possibly Winning?

On March 4, as you know, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the State of Colorado could not proceed with its effort to keep Colorado residents from voting for Trump by taking him off the ballot. This was a win for pro-democracy thinkers, but a painful blow to all who wanted him eliminated from America’s future by any means necessary.

According to the WSJ:

The Court struck down a Colorado Supreme Court ruling claiming that because Trump had engaged in “insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, he would not be allowed on the Colorado presidential ballot. The court set aside the question of whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection, and simply ruled that states cannot choose whether to disqualify candidates for federal office as insurrectionists.

The ruling was not a surprise to students of the Constitution because it was based on an interpretation of a clause that was so strained that even the “Liberal” justices couldn’t get behind it.

The NY Civil Fraud Case 

As for the civil fraud case brought by NY Attorney General Letitia James and adjudicated summarily by Judge Arthur Engoron (both Democrats) against Trump (for supposedly overvaluing his collateralized properties’ bank loans), I’m 100% sure it will be reversed on appeal.

Like the Colorado ruling, it is so wrong on so many levels, including the facts that his valuations were actually understated, and that the banks, which were in theory the injured parties, made millions off the loans.

And there is another reason, which, though rarely discussed, tops them all. If NYC’s novel interpretation of the banking law were enforced, billion-dollar development projects (which are the driving force of real estate values in every city in America) would screech to a halt almost overnight.

The other cases against Trump are the Georgia “election interference” case, the federal Jan. 6 “insurrection” case, and the federal classified documents case. Taken all together, they accuse him of no fewer than 91 criminal offenses.

The Racketeering Case 

The Georgia case is quickly falling apart in soap opera fashion before our eyes. Fani Willis, the prosecutor who became a national figure by bragging about her intent to put Trump in jail, has just narrowly survived a judgement that would have taken her off the case. But to stay on, she had to fire Nathan Wade, her married boyfriend and the lead prosecutor. And this, as the judge said in his ruling, will leave a bad “odor” on the case for the prosecution.

The Classified Documents Case 

As for the classified documents case, it was a Hail Mary effort from the beginning, which became even less likely to cause Trump any damage as the very similar case against Biden was brought to light. Even if the government sanctions Trump for some piece of the complex of charges, it is inconceivable that it will inhibit his ability to continue as his party’s candidate or make a difference in the vote itself.

The Incitement to Insurrection Charge 

That leaves what is, in my mind, the most absurd and unlikely case against Trump: that he incited the “insurrection” of Jan. 6.

First, the case will not succeed because the event was not, by any legal or reasonable definition, an insurrection.

Second, because the basis of the charge is a clear and purposeful misreading of the Constitutional amendment it is based on, which would almost certainly be seen as such by the Supreme Court.

Third, because Trump called for a “peaceful protest,” not an insurrection.

And finally, because it’s recently been documented that he explicitly called for the city’s Democratic leadership to protect the Capitol and its environs by ordering the National Guard to bring in ten thousand guardsmen to prevent rioting and violence. (A call that was inexplicably ignored.)

So, on my scorecard, the Democratic Party’s attempts to get rid of Trump through legal warfare looks to be a 4 out of 4 win for Trump.

What now? 

What can the Anti-Trump Party, which currently represents about a third of American voters, do to defeat the Pro-Trump Party, which comprises a slightly larger number of voters?

What can the Anti-Trump Party do to keep the foul-mouthed, orange-haired, irrepressibly annoying former president from running in November and possibly becoming our next president?

It’s clear now that any further legal attacks won’t work.

Since the first indictment against Trump in April of last year, every poll I’ve found shows Trump’s support rising, while Biden’s numbers have edged downward.

(Averaging the data I’ve accumulated from a half-dozen of the most “respectable” polls, Trump’s support in April was about 45% and stands at 47% now. Biden’s promising 49% support in April is down to 42%.)

I was wrong. 

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that had I been running the Democratic Party, Biden would have by now given up his run for the 2024 election in favor of endorsing Gavin Newsom. In fact, I predicted it would happen sometime between Thanksgiving and the new year.

That didn’t happen. And since Biden managed to successfully read the teleprompter during his State of the Union address, it looks like – short of Biden getting seriously ill – Newsom is out and the Biden/Harris ticket is locked in.

Thus, American voters in November will be choosing between 78-year-old swaggering Donald Trump and 80-year-old lost-in-space Joe Biden.

So, who is going to win? 

Most presidential elections since I was old enough to pay attention to them have been decided by fear, rather than hope or inspiration.

The 2016 election was, to a large extent, a contest between the fear of illegal immigrants versus the fear of deplorable American citizens. In that election, the fear of illegal immigrants was stronger.

The 2020 election was largely a contest between the fear of the Black Lives Matter movement and the fear of COVID. COVID won.

I see the 2024 election as a rhetorical contest between five fears: one that has already worked once, another that has failed once, a third fear about inflation, a fourth fear about culture, and a fifth that is too weak because nobody will believe it.

The Democrats seem to be betting all their chips on the one hard-to-believe accusation: that Trump will become a “tyrant” in his second term and put an end to US democracy.

The Republicans have four fears to stoke.

First, they will double down on stoking the fear of illegal immigration again – this time strengthened by the more than 8 million migrants that have crossed the border since Biden took office.

Second, they will argue that Biden’s social justice policies, supported by liberal judges and DAs around the country, are allowing the illegal immigrants and other law breakers to be released from jail without bail and get back to what they were arrested for: cleaning out retail stores, hijacking cars, and mugging and murdering law-abiding citizens.

Third, they will remind American voters of a fact that the Democrats can’t contradict: The economy is weaker now than it was when Biden took office.

And for the cherry on top, the Republicans will blame Biden for unleashing a new social culture of trangenderism, institutional racism, and White privilege that will destroy traditional American culture.

Again, if I were heading up the Democratic reelection campaign, I’d be looking very hard for several more ideas – ideas that are stronger than the fear of tyranny under Trump – if they want to win in November.

Were It Not for Hypocrisy…

For ten years, from 2000 to 2010, I wrote a blog called Early to Rise. It was, in general, about self-improvement – building wealth, optimizing health and fitness, and living a rich and satisfying life.

I chose the title because I had recently discovered that instead of going to sleep at one or two a.m. and waking up seven hours later, which had become my habit, I could get much more accomplished by going to bed at ten or eleven p.m. and waking at five or six.

For ten years, I reported on my experiences with building wealth… diet and exercise… and the many philosophical approaches to life that I tried out.

The year 2000 was really the dawn of email-based blogs, and mine attracted a growing audience of young and middle-aged readers. At its peak, Early to Rise had more than 900,000 subscribers.

In 2010, I was invited to head up a business dedicated to just one of the topics I had been covering in the blog: creating personal wealth. So, I sold most of my equity in Early to Rise to a young man that I thought could continue its mission, and I devoted my next ten years to writing about entrepreneurship, business, and investing.

By 2020, I had written more than 10,000 essays on various aspects of wealth building and published 24 books. I had also established two non-profit organizations, made three movies, and started about a dozen small businesses.

No doubt about it. The early-to-bed/ early-to-rise idea had really been working for me!

I was on the verge of what would have been my third attempt at retirement and had to make some decisions about what I would be doing with my time once I stepped away from actively participating in business.

Since I’d stopped writing Early to Rise, I had developed an interest reading and writing and traveling and all sorts of other things that, if you’ve been reading this blog, you are well aware of. But something had happened between then and now that was not good. I had gradually developed a habit of going to bed later and waking up later until I was back to my old routine of staying up till one or two in the morning and waking at eight or nine.

I had also abandoned my number-one rule for being productive, which was to devote the first hour or two of every day to a goal that was “important but not urgent.”

I was getting by in terms of getting done what I had to get done every day. But I had stopped making progress on my important-but-not-urgent objectives, which included finishing 14 half-written books and building a museum of Central American art.

Somehow, just two weeks ago, I decided to return to my early-to-rise strategy and began to set my alarm for 6 a.m. and rearrange my daily schedule accordingly.

I’m happy to report that (so far, at least) it seems to be working out as well as it did 24 years ago. I’m back to exercising at seven a.m., and then spending the next hour or two on something I really want to get done before I shed the old mortal coil. And I’m feeling better than I have in years.

I’m telling you all this because I remember that when I did my first stretch of the early-to-rise lifestyle, I received many letters from readers that doubted the premise. And although I couldn’t guarantee that they would do better by getting up earlier, I advised them to give it a try. Many, I’m sure, did not. But over the ten years that I was writing Early to Rise, several hundred of my readers wrote to say that they were getting up earlier and it was working for them.

So, even if you are a confirmed “night person” and you feel that you are doing fine that way, I can only urge you to give the early-to-rise lifestyle a 30-day trial to see if your life doesn’t get noticeably better.

Old Men Worrying About the Future:
Three Predictions We Won’t Live to See 

I got into an email chat with my Myrtle Beach crew that got briefly serious. In a single afternoon, we covered the economic, political, and social future of our country. Plus overpopulation. Plus global warming.

I thought the conversation was brilliant. On every topic, the group differed, with about a third presenting a pessimistic view of the future, a third feeling optimistic, and a third admitting they had no idea. Lots of good points were made. But I’ll just give you my best recollection of what I said:

Global Warming

The globe may continue to warm for some time, and that may change our climate and our topography to a significant degree. But it won’t end the world. Nor will it end the presence of Homo sapiens. As the physical world changes, population densities and lifestyles will adapt, aided by technology that will allow human beings to continue to be an important part of Earth’s ecosystem for hundreds or thousands of years. Which is, even in my most forward-caring moments, all I can bring myself to worry about.

Overpopulation 

Our more urgent concerns were for our children and grandchildren, with overpopulation seen by many in the group to be a major issue. But for much of the world, and most of the developed world, populations are shrinking. And to my mind, that is going to be a bigger problem than overpopulation for our children and grandchildren – perhaps the most serious economic and cultural challenge they will face.

Life and Lifestyle in the Future

My feeling is that there is a 50% to 60% chance that we will nuke ourselves into oblivion in the next 10 to 20 years. If, however, we can avoid doing that, technological advances that are already underway (e.g., robotics and AI) will change the human experience drastically. The world will no longer be comprised of have and have-not countries. Hunger and abject poverty will be problems of the past, violent crime will be rare, and most other forms of crime will cease to exist.

But what will also cease to exist will be personal privacy and liberty.

This will happen because everyone on the planet will be monitored, 24/7, by ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and other sensors (including some embedded in their bodies) that will feed millions of bits of data about everything they do and say into remote monitoring systems that will provide the government (and who knows who else) with almost instantaneous reports on their actions, statements, and (quite possibly) even their thoughts.

Along with the disappearance of personal liberty and privacy, the appreciation of independent and especially contrarian forms of thinking will be gone. Humans will gradually and happily give up their freedom to be and think differently in return for comfort, safety, and predictability in their lives.

What’s Going On with Me, You Ask? I’ll Tell You… I’m Fat! 

RJ, an old friend who recently reconnected with me, asked me to bring him up to date on my life. “What are you spending your time on?” he asked. “Are you still working or retired? How’s the body? And the mind? Give me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

After telling him how glad I was to be in contact with him again, I answered thusly:

“What’s going on with me? Let me start with the most important thing, RJ: I’m fat. Now, I’m not one of those people that say they are fat when their eight-pack turns into a six-pack. I have 15 to 20 pounds of blubber hanging on my bones, slowing me down, and increasing my blood pressure.

“So that’s number one.

“Second, third, and fourth, I’m dealing with a bunch of personal and business challenges that I doubt you’d be interested in.

“Fifth, for the first time in my life, I’m beginning to worry seriously about the direction of the world and what life is going to be like for my children and grandchildren.

“And finally, I’m fat. Oh, right… I already mentioned that.”

Then I thought… “Maybe I should write about this in my blog. I’ve written about my struggles with weight in the past, but maybe I should write about the new routine I’ve started that I’m excited about.”

I thought that was a pretty good idea. So that’s why you’re going to see it here now.

My new routine allows me to eat whatever and as much as I want – every day – and yet lose weight. So far, I’m averaging a pound a day. Which means that, if this continues, I’ll be back to fighting shape by the end of this month.

But before I tell you what it is, I’d like to share with you how, over the years, I have coped with those periods when I’ve draped a bath towel over the full-length mirror directly across from my shower and, if I ever found myself at the beach, had my beach towel tucked just beneath my chest so that onlookers could guess, but never know, how big my belly had grown.

My Psychological Approach: Switch-Hitting My Values

Whenever I’ve gone through one of those times, I’ve forced myself to think positively. I reminded myself that my physical appearance doesn’t matter. That what really matters is my family, my work, and whatever good I can do for other people. I told that to myself not just every morning, but every time I caught myself in profile passing a shop window.

And, of course, all of that is true.

So my vanity-based anxiety would recede. And I would begin to experience the true joy of being at peace with myself.

And when I lost the fat (which I always managed to do after wallowing in it for a year or so), I basked in my recovered body image with great jubilation, taking every chance to take off my shirt in front of strangers.

But that’s beside the point.

Here’s my new diet…

My Crazy New Eating Strategy

This diet is based on one that worked very well for me about 30 years ago. I combined it with the new information out there about the advantages of fasting, plus something I heard about a 50-year-old martial artist friend of mine who has always looked lean and muscular.

It’s simple. I eat only one meal a day. And I limit that meal to exactly 60 minutes.

I know how crazy this might sound. I know it contradicts the many other diets that advise eating lots of small meals throughout the day. It contradicts paleo diets, because I allow myself to eat all the carbs and artificial foods I care to. It even sort of contradicts the new fasting diets, which are based on having three meals a day but within restricted time limits.

I don’t know for sure the biological explanation for why it’s working. But I do know that eating once a day significantly limits the number of times per day my body will experience the ups and downs of insulin spikes that have always made me hungry a few hours after every meal (however healthy) and, when one of my meals was high in carbs, set off my metabolism so that it wanted to burn energy for fat, which meant my body would store more fat, even if the portions I was eating were small.

Actually, I think the main reason this diet is working for me is that it gives me another way to tap into the power of positive thinking. On this new diet, I no longer feel deprived. I no longer think about what I can’t eat. I don’t even have to think about how much I’m eating. I spend all my food-thinking energy imagining how I’m going to stuff my face during that one-hour period. How great it’s going to be to begin the meal with a cocktail, eat all the steak and mashed potatoes and gravy I can fit into my craw while drinking copious amounts of wine, end the meal with a pint of ice cream, and then, if there’s another five or ten minutes left, end the evening with a quick Cognac and a long-lasting cigar.

Not only is this diet working (so far), but since I started it, I have never felt a moment’s hunger. I’ve never wanted to grab a cookie when passing the cookie jar, and I’ve never gotten out of bed at 11:00 p.m. to raid the refrigerator.

I do drink a cup or two more coffee in the a.m. than I have in the past, and a glass or two of caffeinated diet cola in the afternoon. But I’m never pining for food. It’s 4:00 p.m. as I write this. We are having dinner at 6:00. I’m starting to think happily about what I’m going to eat, but I’m not pining.

I’ll keep you posted on my progress…

A Good Example of Bad Science 

Early in the COVID-19 breakout, I caught the bug from a young’un I was rassling, and then passed it on to PB, one of my trainers.

PB is in his fifties. He’s scrupulous about staying in shape, and looks like he’s 40. He is also a committed vegan, which gives us something to good-naturedly spar about.

PB had a terrible time with the virus. He was in bed for a week, and unable to work for another two. My experience was considerably better. I spent a fairly miserable 24 hours in bed, but woke up the following day feeling A-OK and was able to resume my normal schedule.

I felt sure that my much easier bout with the virus must have felt comically unjust to PB. Why would he, with his optimum health habits and scrupulously nurtured biosystem, have suffered so greatly, while I, a tequila-drinking, cigar-chomping, meat-eater 20 years older than he, beat it so quickly!

To make him feel a little better, I said, “It makes sense. Imagine when that tiny little COVID virus dropped into the lush, green fields of your unsullied bloodstream. What a paradise the little feller discovered! Now imagine an equally fragile little bug falling into my biosystem, a steaming swamp of meat fat and alcohol, struggling to stay alive while sudden gusts of toxic cigar smoke surround him. He had to be thinking, ‘I’ve got to get the hell out of here! And fast!’”

That Was Then and This Is Now: To Watch or Not to Watch 

I’m reminded of that now because after my last training session with PB, he recommended a movie to me, a four-part documentary titled You Are What You Eat. It is based, he told me, on a study comparing vegan and omnivorous diets. And since he was recommending it, I didn’t have to ask him which one proved out to be better.

Knowing that PB was earnestly trying to help me with my diet, just as he helps me with my exercise and my physical therapy, I told him I would watch it. But I also told him that I was willing to bet that the study was flawed, if not outright rigged.

And then, I think it was the very next day, I read a review of You Are What You Eat by one of my favorite health journalists, Peter Attia.

Attia begins with this:

“The investigators behind this research (and docuseries) claim that their study design – which involves the use of identical twins to control for genetic factors – has allowed them ‘to investigate metabolism in a very comprehensive way,’ including effects of the respective diets on cardiovascular and metabolic health. So how well did the study accomplish that goal? And what can we take away from the results?”

You can read the rest of Attia’s review here.

And you can watch the four-part documentary on Netflix here.