Now this is one of the dorkier things I have seen lately.

Just goes to show everyone is desperate for the answer, so desperate in fact that they apparently will look to a lawyer, and a lawyer from Harvard no less, for said answers. Though given the fact that Dr. Phil is a best selling author many times over, I guess I can't say I am surprised. But I can stand up for my fellow compatriots in the self-actualization struggle, and try to save you your hard earned $19.95 before you one-click your way to enlightenment here:

Lord knows I want answers, but I am beyond certain they are not here. Just to get it out of the way, and in the interest of full disclaimers (or as full a disclaimer as you are going to get from someone who does not share her name with you on this forum), there are a number of similarities between the author of the book we are discussing and myself. Are my words that follow the result of healthy skepticism or jaundiced eye? Or worse, jealousy? Realistically, all of them inform my opinion. I have long been saying that people are so desperate for answers (myself included) that if you re-packaged any late night conversation with a friend, likely five or six cocktails in, in a nice pretty package, it would sell like hotcakes. We all know the universal truths. We hold them within ourselves. We just need to locate them and then act upon them. No book, DVD, seminar etc. is going to give you the will to implement the changes you need to make. You just need to do that for yourself. The book, DVD, seminar is at best a catalyst, and, at worst, a waste of money but which happened, due to increased afficiency of UPS and/or Fed Ex to have arrived at your doorstep and in your life when you were finally ready to take those steps forward. In the end, it doesn't matter. You made your changes. The authors got their $19.95. We get to see Dr. Phil and Tony Robbins on the multiple channels at any hour of the day. I decry the book we discuss now, just because (1) it really is nothing other than common sense, (2) the author puts herself forth as an expert on everything, when in reality, a little examination reveals that her background doesn't really give her any more insight than you or I, and (3) check out the link to the author's "Institute" on her website. Come on, that smacks of narcissism and completely disingenuous efforts at legitimizing her own theories. Please note, most think tanks are named after the wealthy donors who make the work of the truly bright minds possible on a fiscal level. Any "insitute" named for the bright mind at its center is pretty much either a front for money and/or a cult. Either way, not good.

But she is also a lawyer who managed to get out of the lawyer-cesspool of inertia-mire (even if it is through completely disingenuous meand). And to that end, I will be forever jealous.

As such, I commence:

This author's expertise is based solely on the fact that she is a lawyer and a Harvard alumnus.

First, I can tell you from personal experience that lawyers are some of the most poorly adjusted folks roaming the planet out there. People fancy them sharks, but really on the inside (and many on the outside) are strictly-Eeyore through and through. A group of more emotionally retarded and answer-seeking souls you will never meet. Keep in mind, this is a whole profession of people who studied for years and spent an inordinate amount of money, so that they could work tirelessly till retirement, just because they "couldn't find anything better to do" with whatever liberal arts degree they graduated with (and they all graduated with liberal arts degrees because, rule #1 is that lawyers hate numbers) and/or they needed to make mom and dad happy. So this is a group of pleasers, in a service industry that pays them based on their proven inability to draw boudnaries and say no, and who can hide from any of their problems by saying "I have to go into the office." Clearly, this is a group which is poised to improve the mental health of those around them.

Second, to discuss how ill adjusted Harvard students (graduate or undergraduate, or, any unfortunate combination of the two) are is almost redundant. Having spent four years in the ivory tower - either blaring "Hahvahd" as their main title, or trying desperately to make it an oral footnote - and the rest of their lives to that point, avoiding reality as they either worked their asses off to get there or as they were being told that as John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt the Fourth, he would, as all Jingleheimershmidtzes before him, would be attending Harvard. Now run along now and pack for boarding school and don't bother Mummy any further. Clearly, either of these types are people who have everything going for them and what they don't have they can gain access to easily, but the great unifier in fair Cambridge is the student body's general lack of a clue.

I mean, these are people who find the old, dare I say, adage, "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much." Funny. Ummm, yeah, no. Then again, the band also sings the fight song in Latin. Somehow, "10,000 Men of Harvard" just doesn't sound better in a dead language. Of course, it is not like there is anyone at the football games, so I suppose they can sing just about anything they pleased. Personally, if they must run with the Latin thing, I would be more interested in seeing it creatively applied to modern pop music. It might take on a certain irony that might redeem the "smaht kids" no matter what is going on on the grid iron. Though, as noted before, no one is watching. Britney Spears in Latin. You can't tell me you wouldn't just love to hear Non puella, nondum mulier ("Not a girl, not yet a woman"). Rocking good times. Class of '32 might even be able to stand for a rousing rendition of Ico me tibi unus iterum ("Hit me baby one more time") and subsequently pull off a jubilant ways. Assuming their arthritis meds have kicked in and no one trips on the full length fur coats.