Lemuel

Probably an assassinated one. See, I have this habit of being honest ...

Well, you need something to be confident about ... confidence isn't causeless. To the OP: I thought I was "introverted" until I finally entered my chosen career. My accomplishments were banal at best until then, and there was really nothing in my high school and college years I could look at as a true success. When I finally got into my business (electronic music instrument sales & marketing), I was able to apply skills in practical ways and see the results. A letter grade on a term paper meant nothing to me ... the difference between a $200,000 sales month and a $500,000 sales month is palpable ... real, tangible, meaningful, and best of all financially rewarding! When I'm at work, especially when I'm at trade shows, I'm totally "extroverted" - I have a great deal of confidence, I talk to people I'd normally ignore, and am able to work a crowd. My public speaking anxiety went away, and even though I'm only a hobbyist musician, I no longer fear playing piano in front of people. An unexpected benefit was the ability to remain myself when I meet famous musicians, some of whom I've idolized since my youth, and not gush over them like they were somehow more than human. I'm at the point now that if I somehow lost my job and could not re-enter my industry, such would not tear my confidence down easily - I know, because I have demonstrated in physical reality, that I am a person of value. Having a passion and a skill to match is a tremendous confidence-booster. Do what you love, do it well, be proud, and don't be humble about it (i.e. making yourself appear less efficacious than you are, either for unearned praise or to be accepted by inferiors). You won't need to change to being "extroverted" then - people who recognize your value will come to you, and you don't ever have to be something you're not, act in an uncomfortable manner, or sacrifice what you like in others for the mere company of uninteresting people.

Along the same lines, this 60 Minutes story is among the funniest things I've ever seen ... Who the &@*#! is Jackson Pollock? The best line ... "They call it 'connoisseurship'." ("What do you call it?") "BULLSHIT!"

I grew up in a Christian home. My parents were very active - volunteering for youth groups, teaching Sunday school, singing in choir, etc. I was made to participate in many activities that, when I become a teenager, I resented simply because they didn't interest me. I discovered Ayn Rand in college, and over a two year period, I rejected Christianity and became a student of Objectivism. At first, I was a bit angry, but I knew that while I was in a transitional philosophical state, I didn't trust my feelings. I maintained silence about leaving the church, even though I'd stopped attending, and kept my mouth shut until my mind was on straight. Now, 15 years later, I realize that my parents only wanted me to be protected, and that the best way they could do that was to raise me in the church that had given them stability and safety. Members of their family who were not active Christians were constantly in trouble, so they simply accepted that the only way to have a moral, happy life was to achieve it through their faith. Everything they did for me was out of love, even if it wasn't the optimum upbringing to start a rational, independent life. Despite the church's heavy influence and the parts of my life I've had to reconstruct from rational principles, I choose to focus on the things that were of rational value that they taught me. My imagination and creativity was encouraged, but a sense of hard work and practicality shaped my upbringing. I was encouraged to think for myself, question my conclusions, and have the courage to admit that I could be wrong. They taught me to separate fantasy from reality (whoops!). They taught me manners, tact, and when to stay silent. The rest I, perhaps irrationally, put in the "everyone is mad at their parents for something" category, and considering my Dad kept the lights on, my Mom was always ready with a hug or a bit of wisdom, there are no divorces, step-kids, affairs, or domestic violence episodes in my past, the "somethings" to be mad about are pretty minor. I've overcome them on my own, in my own way, and of my own choosing. Plus, living as an Objectivist can be very lonely, and I value the fact that, when no one else gets me, they do.

Maybe it's simplistic, but the next time you're in one of these debates, ask why these "miracles" never seem to manifest themselves in ways that others can see with their own eyes. One can claim to be in chronic pain, or be blind, and another may have a condition that remits of its own accord - no one can see these things as there are no visible symptoms. It's always some internal condition no one can quite see that gets healed, but it's never something like growing back a severed arm, or severe burn scars healing over. Whatever mystical miracle force is healing people, it doesn't prefer that people actually know for themselves that this sort of thing is real ... nor does it believe in permanent cures - I've heard from a few places (sorry, no citations) that the symptoms of those claiming to be faith-healed "mysteriously" relapse very soon.

Thanks for the link - those are beautiful sculptures!

Speaking from experience, emotional habits are hard to break. I come from a religious background, and it took me a long time to purge those habits. With time, I became more adept at recognizing when those old feelings would arise, discovering their causes, and "changing my mind" about what I was facing. There's no greater validation of holding rational ideas than when your emotional reactions change. Before, I might have reacted with apathy to witnessing some remarkable achievement of science or engineering - now, I stand in awe. Before, I was depressed at my loneliness - now, I understand its cause, and am happy despite it. Personally, I don't like the word "spiritual", as it's indefinably subjective. In my former self, I would have defined it as having an internal connection to a "higher power", God, that was uniquely mine. However, in the absense of such a higher power, there is no connection to speak of - only an emotional habit. I use the word to occasionally deflect the random religious proselytizer, as the time and place may not be right for a metaphysical discussion, but it's not a word I use to seriously describe myself. I admire that which others achieve that excel beyond my abilities. I respect those who stand by their own good ideas and refuse to compromise. I seek understanding in all things, and greater knowledge in many. I aspire to be more than I am, to improve myself in every way, work to achieve my goals, and experience happiness when I do, and even when I see progress. I love what is beautiful and appreciate those that create it. Nature fascinates me, not in a mystical sense, but in the sense that each new discovery gives us information that we can capitalize on to enhance and extend human life. If all of that together can be called "spiritual", I'll accept such a description from another. But it is inaccurate, and I would never say that about myself. Given the context, I'd use another word that more aptly decribed my appoach to living.

The next book you should read is Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. She very clearly and succinctly answers this issue. I think you may be a bit misguided on one thing, though - selfishness does not create the ego; the ego is the cause and justification of selfish action. In Rand's meaning, selfishness is (basically) acting in a manner that benefits the quantity and quality of your life, and selflessness is that which acts against your life. Your ego is your self, so acting in a selfless manner is, in effect, working against your own mind and your own life. Any value you selfishly pursue requires first that you know you can achieve it. If you lack a skill, you develop it. If you lack money, you earn it. You do what it takes to earn your highest values, which means having intelligence, ability, ambition, discipline, and confidence - all are applications of a man's ego. A broken man has none of those qualities - he is confused, inept, content, apathetic, servile, and second-guessing himself all the time - and he achieves little beyond momentary and meaningless satisfaction … even if he appears confident and able or enjoys some success. Ego is the difference between men like Howard Roark and men like Peter Keating - or between Lance Armstrong and Lane Staley - true happiness versus the ephemeral, recognizing reality versus evading it.

Are you saying they would only benefit the rich, or just that such would be the claim of critics?

If I were casting director, I wouldn't even give him a role in a crowd scene.

I've heard several such comments in the media lately. It's certainly reflective of a rejection of a perpetual 'war on terror' that will never be won. Whether that realization is finally being recognized by the talking heads, or if it's just a pre-election talking point, I can't say, but it's good to hear people at least talking about it. Of course, we may already be so entrenched in the 'war on terror' that all this talk won't lead to policy changes. Until leaders start talking about - and moving on - reversing some of the permanent rights violations signed into law by President Bush, as well as abolishing the Dept. of Homeland Security, this is just talk. And it will be forgotten the next time some stupid social policy issue comes up and dominates the media's attention.

Excellent essay, Edward. My own story of airport lunacy: Three years ago, I moved to Florida from Mississippi to take a new job. I had been working in music instrument retail, and this new job was my first professional outside sales position. Because I never really made enough money to buy a new car, I've always driven used cars, and 3 months after taking the new job, my car died. Having lived in hotels all that time, spending everything I had while I looked for an apartment, I had no money to buy even a decent used car. My sister came to the rescue and sold me her car for the price of getting another one registered, but I had to go back to Mississippi to pick it up and drive it back. I bought a one-way ticket from Tampa to Jackson using some frequent-flyer miles, and showed up at the airport ... on the anniversary of September 11th. Perhaps I should have picked another date, but I had little choice. Since it was an overnight trip, I had no luggage and just a backpack with a single change of clothes, my laptop, toiletries, iPod and adapter, cell phone, cigarettes & lighter, and some reading material - a week-old, margin-noted copy of the 9/11 Commission Report. You can see where this is going. A single passenger on a one-way flight, carrying electronics but no luggage, and a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report on 9/11 doesn't just slide through security. Try it sometime - you get the four star treatment. I passed the metal detector, the wand, a public pat-down, and a mechanical bomb-sniffer booth (do those even work, or are they supposed to just scare copycat anniversary terrorists?) before being taken to a room and strip-searched to my underwear. After dressing, I was questioned by three different people - where was I going, why was it a one-way trip, what kind of car I was bringing back, and a half dozen other irrelevant questions. My backpack was brought in, the contents scrutinized thoroughly, and the dumb questions continued. "What do you intend to do with this?" "Read it." "What are you interested in 9/11 for?" "I want to understand what happened to us, why, and what the government intends to do about it." Right - I'm going to recreate a plane hijacking, alone, on the anniversary of 9/11, with the instruction manual in my backpack. You foiled my plan; you're a worthy adversary, Mr. Bond! All my possessions were returned ... but most were ruined. The laptop was dented, and they had taken the battery and hard drive out, tried unsuccessfully to re-install them, then left them loose. My backpack was in shreds, as they had ripped out the inner lining. My toiletries had obviously been opened and inspected, but not closed properly, so everything got mouthwash and shampoo all over it. It was everything I could do to not show how absolutely pissed I was, as I knew that anything other than complete compliance would have exacerbated an already tense situation. Even thinking how unfortunate it was that I had to choose a compliant attitude made it even harder. If it weren't for the fact that I have to for my job, and that my family is so far apart, I wouldn't dream of flying. Unfortunately, I have to deal with these TSA goons several times a year. I'm a little smarter about my plans and packing now ... if I were a conspiracy-minded person, I'd think "their" behavior modification program is working.

I thought it was a pretty funny movie. It's also one the most scathing polemics on pop culture I've ever seen. Frightening, too ... there's not much scarier than a planet full of Jerry Springer guests. When I was a kid, I was frightened of a world like the one in 1984 ... I fear the dystopia in Idiocracy will get here first. Heck, it will probably pave the way for 1984 - people too busy watching movies like Idiocracy's fictional Oscar-winning film Ass to notice the country swirling down the drain. I am suddenly reminded of last night's CNN/YouTube Presidential Debate, particularly the part where the asks the Democrat candidates about global warming. I couldn't take it anymore and turned the TV off before I killed it with a hammer. There would have been substantially more intellectual and political nourishment in an episode of "Ow my Balls!" ... It's sad Judge couldn't get distribution on the film - I was lucky to have chanced by it at Wal-Mart. Hopefully it will make its way to cable so the masses can see it - hopefully they'll be bright enough to see this as much more than a movie about stupid people. What is really needed, though, is a film that poses rational intellectuals in a positive light. People need to see that being intelligent, cultured, well-read, and concerned for things more important than reality TV doesn't mean being the uptight, snotty, elitist, academic Frasier Crane type.

Thanks for the link - I'll be sure to check this out in detail tonight.

For me, Moose, it's more an issue of tactic than content. I grew up in a Christian home, and in church, and I remember how fiercely defensive people got when the word 'atheist' was mentioned. It's often treated as insulting a term as racial epithets can be. I don't have a problem saying I'm an atheist, but knowing it insults those that would benefit from calm dialogue on the issue of God or religion, I prefer a different tactic. Sure, their offense isn't my responsibility ... but if I know I'm pissing them off, and know that the only thing that will follow is an emotional reaction that undercuts their rational capacity, am I not somewhat responsible? Knowing that there are many Christians that have never been exposed to rational philosophy, or rational and Godless morality, I prefer a subtler approach. Beginning with the positive ("I am an Objectivist"), I can inspire productive curiosity; beginning with a negative ("I reject your beliefs") can incite destructive defensiveness. The manner in which these guys - especially Hitchens - approach the topic is, I believe, very unproductive. As they say in the South, "you draw more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Asimov acknowledged that his Laws were limited, and built several interesting plots around those flaws. An educated guess says the intended consequence of creating those laws was to give himself logical conundrums to navigate. How clever is a robot that is either a simple machine? How clever is one that the reader assumes has human qualities, like emotions and desire? Neither are, really ... but creating an airtight morality for robots, then finding the weaknesses, is very clever. It always seemed to me that Asimov's message was something like "if they are tools, they are controllable; if they are intelligent, they will desire freedom". This subject fascinates me, and I think Asimov was the only one (certainly that I've read) to treat the subject of robots correctly. A robot that is not an individual, self-aware entitity (if there can be such a thing) is merely a tool, even if it can communicate in a rudimentary fashion and act semi-autonomously. But, they are objects, and objects can be neither slaves nor altruists. A slave is someone who - by virtue of his existence as a human being with a human mind - is a free individual forced into labor by another person. Robots are built to perform labor - they are objects, posessions, machines, and products that have no rights. You are not "exploiting" a microwave; you're using it to perform a specific task. It, nor a Roomba, nor a simple logic-oriented android has any awareness or feeling that it is being "exploited". An altruist is someone who consciously decides to deny himself desire in service to others' needs or desires. While his actions may be those of a slave, the difference is that the slave desires freedom, and the altruist desires slavery. In both cases, though, rights and desire are vital. A robot has neither of these things - it only has maintenence requirements and task instructions. If an android/robot existed that: could think independently; was not hooked up to some remote-control AI hive-mind; used a quantifiable process of logic and reason to learn about the world around it, as well as form correct concepts; had a physiological structure that was truly integrated with its mind*; and understood the full philosophic nature and consequence of rights, one could potentially argue that it is alive. Until then, they're just expensive, useful, possibly anthropomorphic (a wasteful form, IMHO) toasters. (* I've heard of research results that state as you collect experiences and develop personal thoughts, feelings, etc. your physical brain actually changes, and is individually mapped according to those thoughts and memories. That would be a big part of being an individual being with an autonomous mind.)

You mean this part? Yes, I believe so. If not directly (I can't remember right now), Objectivists have time and time and time again. It would be nice if these "new atheists" would stop railing against religion and start standing up for something. Sure, science is defensable, but special sciences don't determine morality. They need to stand up for reason and self interest instead of lashing out at people. These guys like Hitchens and Dawkins have some guts, I'll give them that. But mostly all they accomplish is inciting anger rather than inspiring debate. I've stopped identifying myself as an atheist because of guys like this. It's not axiomatic; it's a logical consequence of accepting real axioms. If they ask if I'm a Christian, I say no, I'm an Objectivist ... at least then, there's an opportunity to discuss what I do believe, rather than irritate them by criticizing what they believe. If we talk long enough, atheism will come up, but I'd rather lay some foundation before getting to that all-too-contentious issue.

They didn't market this movie as well as they should have. With some films, the studio will cut different trailers to attract different demographics. This is one of the reasons why you sometimes go see a comedy, but all the gags are in the trailers, leaving nothing to laugh at. (Ivan Reitman films like My Super Ex-Girlfiend are notorious for this.) I vaguely remember the marketing for Farmer being tailored for the family-oriented soccer-mom/NASCAR-dad crowd. It's not surprising since that's a tremendous demographic. However, one had to look closely to see this had potential as a heroic film, and I'm glad I saw it. The "supportive family" angle is a bit over-played in the film, but it didn't get in the way of my enjoying the film. In fact, Farmer has a beautiful family which the audience doesn't have to take for granted.

*** Please note that there are few plot spoilers here - rather, it's a review of the film's thematic and character elements. If you wish to skip the below text, here's the summary: see this movie ASAP!!! *** I just finished watching The Astronaut Farmer, and I must say that this is one heck of an inspiring film!! Charlie Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton) has always dreamt of going into space, and works relentlessly to achieve that dream by building a rocket in his barn. He had been a pilot, and trained at NASA, but left the program, yet his dream lived on. His friends dismiss him, the town bets against him, people think he's crazy, and the only support he gets is from his wife, Audrey (Virginia Madsen), and his kids. Farmer's troubles begin when he attempts to buy rocket fuel, which isn't quite legal, and this brings the attention of the FBI. When the news media hears about it, they bring national attention onto Farmer - some good, some bad. Farmer had applied for an FAA permit, but they never responded, so he assumed he was okay to launch. Now that things look serious, though, the government wakes up and pays close attention ... While some movie-goers might think The Astronaut Farmer is a schmaltzy "follow your dreams, no matter what" kind of film, or see it as a kind-of dilluted, surface-level, Disney-ized kids' movie (it's most definitely not), this is exactly the kind of film that an Objectivist could value. Here are some thematic & character elements that ought to be of interest: 1. Farmer is a determined, proactive protagonist - he is working to achieve a goal despite great opposition, using his mind, and not allowing anything to stop him, be it the doubt of former colleagues or mounting debt. 2. Farmer recognizes, and states, that no one can tell him what he can't do - he treats direct government intimidation and threats as merely an annoyance. 3. Farmer is the individual versus the state. He is the representation of a man's "unalienable right", and that the state can only stop him by force. 4. Given the object of his dreams - building a rocket that will send him into orbit - Farmer's quest is wholly a benevolent-universe product. He isn't an artist for whom someone else gives him a break - there's no luck factor, or chance, or divine providence - he's an engineer creating a machine that must work if he is to survive the journey. 5. The film is a glorification of achievement, heroism, and triumph. 6. Farmer is a man of principle translating his principles into physical reality. There is no "fatal flaw", no quirk of character one must overlook. There is an insinuation that his quest is tied to the story about his father, but it's not some "psychological imperative" premise that propels him as one scene reveals - it is completely about achieving a dream. The important elements in this movie speak directly to Ayn Rand's sense of life, and others also speak directly to her Romanticism and literary style (such as the goal-oriented protagonist driving the plot). There are a couple of insignificant nods that are unObjectivist - one scene shows the family preparing to leave for church during a particularly difficult trial, for instance - but, really, this sentence is far weightier than the scene is worth ... and by the end, there's not a church in sight. The Astronaut Farmer comes highly recommended by this Objectivist devotee. Don't just put this on your NetFlix list - go buy it. If you are inspired by stories of heroism, this is a wonderful film. There should be many, many more like it. I fully plan on sending emails of praise to Mr. Thornton, Ms. Madsen, the director, producer, and writer of this film, as well as anyone I can find who was associated with this movie. (I'll take some time to carefully craft my letter, and once I am done, I will post it here for all to read.) For any Objectivist parents out there, there are a few instances of language, but they're glossed over quickly - I say with confidence (even though I'm not a parent) that there is nothing at all inappropriate about this film ... in fact, if you have a movie night or regular family activity times, make this movie part of it.

I picked up Shooter this weekend and watched it a couple of nights ago, and it was a very good movie in my opinion. The subject matter was somewhat familiar, but the understated highlight was the protagonist, Bobby Lee Swagger, played by the increasingly impressive Mark Wahlberg. (I no longer hear "Feel the vibrations!" in my head when I see him on film. That's something!) IMDB sums up the plot as best as I ever could: A marksman (Wahlberg) living in exile is coaxed back into action after learning of a plot to kill the president. Ultimately double-crossed and framed for the attempt, he goes on the run to track the real killer and find out who exactly set him up, and why. Swagger plays what one would imagine as an ideal sniper - calm, cool, professional, and considerate of every variable needed to be successful - wind, temperature, distance, etc. One scene has him running down how a sniper could potentially assassinate someone from over a mile away (I assume that's 'impossible shot' territory), factoring in everything including trigonometric values. Wahlberg pulls it off great, and one sees him as a kind of Randian hero; to steal from Rand, Swagger is a sniper "as he should be and ought to be." What is surprising is how Swagger acts in a few situations. It reminded me many times of a few of the scenes from Atlas Shrugged. Spoilers follow ... Swagger isn't a complicated hero, but he is molded - intentionally or not - in the style of a Randian hero. No "character flaw" is evident, and Swagger handles himself with intelligence, resourcefulness, imagination, and pride. He is purposeful in everything that he does. Another character of redeeming value is Nick Memphis, a rookie FBI agent that eventually comes to Swagger's aid. Shooter is a really good movie with lots of great dialog and action, and refreshing characterization. If anyone likes a good popcorn-chomper that won't make your eyes roll at the conventional altruist-collectivist nods often found in film - and in a small way negating the pervasive anti-Americanism in current movies with a military theme - Shooter is, IMO, a well-spent 2 hours for Objectivist movie lovers.

How delightfully concise.

First of all, change the "we" to "I". Objectivism isn't a political party, and there is no organized Objectivist movement to endorse a particular candidate. Secondly, throw out "principles" - not that one shouldn't use them, but very few candidates espouse any principles that one could gauge with any consistency. For example, Clinton is a closet socialist, not an embodiment of socialist doctrine - she would most likely deny such a charge, but continue to make unconscious or semi-conscious nods to socialist doctrine as part of her personal patch-quilt of disparate, unconnected, and expedient political ideas. Third, you must decide for yourself which is the most important standard upon which to judge your vote. In the last Presidential election, Leonard Peikoff announced he would vote for John Kerry, on the basis that Bush would continue inserting evangelical Christians in government offices (which he has done) - his concern was one of preventing the more dangerous of the mystics from retaining political power. Other Objectivist thinkers threw their support to Bush, since his leadership in the "war on terror" would be potentially more effective than Kerry's leadership, which could have resulted in all manner of compromises with our enemies (as it turns out, Bush is doing that anyway). Personally, I'm pragmatic when it comes to elections. Given that there is no major movement to restore freedom in America along rational lines (only one among Constitutional, or Founders' lines, i.e. the reckless Libertarians), I can only look to the immediate future of our country, and pick who would be best given limited parameters. What issues are important to me that are actually going to be affected by legislation? Which candidate will do the most good when faced with those issues? Example: Evolution vs Creationism is not an issue will not come across the President's desk. No candidate (so far) has been bright enough to turn the question into one of making decisions between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence - so, outside of the character such answers reveal, asking a candidate which he believes in is meaningless vote-pandering. For me, it's about concrete issues that the President will face such as ... Iran - Will the gov't finally retaliate against them, or will they buy them off like they did North Korea? Immigration - Will anyone with a pro-freedom agenda lead legislative change? Taxation - Will there be income tax cuts or raises? Corruption - Can a wedge between government and industry be driven without socialist controls, and can this candidate make it happen? Government power - Who will rescind the unjust laws and lay down unjust powers that have been assumed under the Bush Administration? Again, I hate thinking in such concrete terms, but these are extensions of abstract political values. There's no guaruntee that any candidate who met the bill would get these things done, or that the next Administration won't just reverse them. Given that even the most (seemingly) principled of Presidential candidates is still largely thinking in terms of "concrete particulars", it is only concrete particulars upon which I can make a decision. [Right now, I'm on the fence; it's far too early to decide, especially with a few unannounced candidates still out there. Besides, a lot can happen in 16 months to change the priorities of these issues. I may still be scratching my head the night before Election Day.]

While this is an unprecedented achievement, it is achieved amid great bureaucracy, and outmoded thinking regarding modern technological capabilities for space travel. Even though it's not an architectural structure or statue, I'd go for Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne before I'd go for the ISS: I'm with you 100% on the Statue of Liberty & the Hoover Dam.

I took Shyamalan's word - "It's just a bedtime story, no more" - and approached the film that way, not looking for deeper meaning. I thought Giamatti's character was definitely a hero - he rose to the challenge, and despite the odd reaction from the other tenants, convinced them that his goal was real and true. He used his mind and creativity to put the puzzle pieces together, and discover what and who would help him help Story. Not a great literary achievement ... just a well-told, enjoyable fairy tale that doesn't take advantage of the viewer. (I can't stand suspending disbelief then having some message rammed down my throat. A good story is told so that the message is implicit in the motivations of the characters, the plot elements, the central struggle, and other media-appropriate mechanisms - let the viewer/reader draw their own conclusions.)

I've never been a morning person. Even when I was younger and had more energy I never dealt with mornings very well. The few times in my life that I've had a more nocturnal schedule, I was happier, more energetic, and far more productive. Several years ago I was waiting tables at a nice restaurant. I'd go in in the afternoons for the dinner shift, work until 1am, then either go home and write music or go out and enjoy some night life. I'd stay up until 5 or 6am, sleep, then wake up around noon or 1pm to start the day over. Now I have a professional job with normal business hours. I've done nine-to-fivers before, but up until now they've been non-professional jobs were 100% mental acuity wasn't necessary first thing in the morning. That's different now. The nature of my job requires me to be more self-motivated in the morning when incoming calls are slow and I have time to work on projects. Being productive in the morning means being better in the afternoon when the calls come in. Unfortunately, this is a very infrequent thing. I like what I do, and it's definitely part of the overall plan for my life. I don't want to jeopardize my future by giving a lackluster performance at work. I want to be there first thing in the morning. I want to be the last one out the door. I want to accomplish everything I have to do so that I have time to accomplish some personal work goals, and start some projects I want to finish. But my body's "clock" keeps me groggy until noon, behind in my work, and desiring rest by the time the day ends. What are some good methods for changing this? How can I rewind my "clock" six hours? The temporary fixes - coffee in the morning, milk in the evening - don't work for me, and I'd rather not resort to amping that up to using ephedra and alcohol. I suspect that - since I don't exercise other than what I have to do for work - a workout regiment will be beneficial. But when is a good time? Mornings? Evenings?