Made resolutions? Watched them turn to mush within weeks? Many of us are in the throes of resolution meltdown this week, reducing the New and Improved Self back to the Old Self in record time. Yes, it sucks.

To quote someone I knew and admired, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

My to-do list for 2010 has the usual stuff on it – eat better, get to bed on time, exercise more, blah blah. I also want to tend to my blog and other social networks more regularly. Having said all that, what’s been impossible to manage in 2009 won’t happen in 2010 unless something changes. As my father used to jibe, you can’t fit ten pounds of potatoes in a five pound sack. I think he was referring to blue jeans, but the quip is transferrable.

But it’s useful to note that a simple plan will survive better than a complex one. Let‘s face it – stuff that’s easy is much more likely to get done. The more elaborate and involved the resolution, the less likely it is to thrive—not because of laziness, but time is at a premium, adult attention spans are shrinking, and survival mode prevails. One of the most successful things I did was to remove a lot of ornaments and clutter from the surfaces of my furniture. I got a covered wicker basket for the zillion remotes, adaptors and other gizmos littering the coffee table. I actually got around to hauling unwanted books down to the book sale, thus revealing acres of floor space. It all sounds very Martha, but suddenly dusting became possible because I could do it quickly. Otherwise, forget it.

Put another way, failure breeds sulky avoidance. Success breeds satisfaction, and we go back for more of that, don’t we? It’s no big mystery why the rules of simple, achievable, and measurable are the basis for most goal-setting advice. It applies equally to writing as to house maintenance, fitness plans or getting along with the in-laws. Many small success can and usually do add up to a big one.

But here’s the kicker–Will I follow my own advice? Hmm. Maybe. Good question.

How well we do often depends on what we’re getting out of our bad habits. We all actually know how to do better, are we ready to give our failures up? Do they give us excuses to avoid something else we don’t want to do? Does a person subconsciously keep the house messy to avoid inviting company over? Do we pursue an unhealthy lifestyle because if we felt better we’d actually have to, like, DO something?

What do you think?

Here’s a creepy piece of news to ponder as we launch into the new year with dreams of watching what we eat …

The article reports a study by high school students, who gathered about 150 DNA samples from foods and objects in New York as part of a science project with Rockefeller University and the American Museum of Natural History. After gathering samples from a variety of sources, including supermarkets and fresh markets, “They sent the samples to the natural history museum, which tapped into a databank of DNA bar codes that was pioneered by Canadian scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario.”

A high percentage of the foods they collected as samples weren’t what was listed on the label. “That included a specialty sheep’s milk cheese that was actually made from cow’s milk, venison dog treats made of beef, and sturgeon caviar that was really Mississippi paddlefish.” In other words, cheap stuff substituted for expensive stuff. Not only are consumers being ripped off, but those trying to eat carefully for health reasons, like allergies, can’t rely on the package label.

If that isn’t enough food for thought, the article goes on to say, “The Consortium for the Bar Code of Life project involves identifying a particular DNA sequence in marine and animal life that is unique to the species. . . . Bob Hanner, a biologist at Guelph who led the work on bar coding, said [the project] shows the value of a technology that can be used to identify illicit goods at borders . . . he can soon see a time when people will be able to use tabletop devices at border crossings, schools and government departments to quickly identify a plant or animal.”

In other words, if something has the wrong DNA, they can be scanned at stopped at the border or anyplace else.

Interesting. The conspiracy theorist in me in all a-quiver. After all, people have DNA, too. Now we can really know whom we let pass through checkpoints.

The complete study will be covered in the January edition of BioScience magazine.

Is setting up a new all-in-one Santa brought me. Unfortunately, they never have a tech guy packed in the box. Have made it print so far … we’ll see what else I can make it do …