Think It Over

When traveling with someone, take large doses of patience and tolerance with your morning coffee.

   - Helen Hayes (1900-1993), American stage and screen actress

I'll be away for a couple of weeks and there will be no posting. The wife and I will be driving, yes driving, to Texas to visit one of our sons who lives in Fort Worth. We both know this trip will test our marriage for we've never been in the car together for two weeks straight. Our travel preferences differ greatly--she's a "get there as quickly as possible" person; I'm a "why don't we go down this little road and see what's there?" type. We both hate to compromise. Wish us luck.

I've been fighting the urge to give up on this little project so maybe the time away will re-ignite my enthusiasm for continuing to blog. Sometimes, as I've discovered in the past, getting away from an activity that I've been excited about but gradually lost interest in helps me to get refocused and return with renewed passion. Let's see if it works this time.

In the meantime, everyone take good care of yourselves, be kind to each other and stay safe wherever you may be.

Ron 

rnantz at 8:53:42 AM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 13 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

A man is never on trial as in the moment of excessive good fortune.

   - Lew Wallace (1827-1905), American writer, statesman

Sometime earlier today the AOL Welcome Screen featured a story, actually a rather sad one, about people who have won the lottery. It seems to have disappeared from the screen as I write this, but I think the link still works. If it doesn't you can try this one over at Yahoo! Finance. I believe it's still up.

I've never known anyone who actually won the lottery, so I have no personal knowledge about what happens to a person when they suddenly come into tons of money. Ellen Goodstein has done some research though, and what she has discovered should make anyone think twice about the potential downside of striking it rich. Just listen to some of the stories:

"Winning the lottery isn't always what it's cracked up to be," says Evelyn Adams, who won the New Jersey lottery not just once but twice (1985, 1986) to the tune of $5.4 million. Today the money is all gone and Adams lives in a trailer.

Adams couldn't say no to those who wanted to share in her good fortune nor could she stay away from the slot machines in Atlantic City.

Perhaps if the prize were larger a person could hang on to enough to still call himself wealthy. William Post won $16.2 million, three times more than Ms. Adams, yet today he lives on his Social Security:

"I wish it never happened. It was totally a nightmare," says Post.

A former girlfriend successfully sued him for a share of his winnings. It wasn't hisonly lawsuit. A brother was arrested for hiring a hit man to kill him, hoping to inherit a share of the winnings. Other siblings pestered him until he agreed to invest in a car business and a restaurant in Sarasota, Fla.,--two ventures that brought no money back and further strained his relationship with his siblings.

Within a year, he was $1 million in debt.

Missourian Janite Lee won even more than Mr. Post--$18 million to be exact. Alas, she too was unable to manage her windfall:

Lee was generous to a variety of causes, particularly politics, education and the community. But according to published reports, eight years after winning, Lee had filed for bankruptcy with only $700 left in two bank accounts and no cash on hand.

Ms. Goodstein relates account after account of lottery winners who hit the jackpot, enjoyed their new wealth for a short time, then found themselves entangled in financial nightmares that ultimately resulted in the loss of all they had won. How does something like that happen?

Goodstein cites financial expert Susan Bradley who tells us that many lottery winners go broke:

Going broke is a common malady, particularly with the smaller winners. Say you've won $1 million. What you've really won is a promise to be paid $50,000 a year. People win and they think they're millionaires. They go out and buy houses and cars and before they know it, they're in way over their heads.

She says there is an emotional connection to the windfall that many winners fail to address:

There are two sides to money. The interior side is the psychology of money and the family relationship to money. The exterior side is the tax codes, the money allocation, etc.

The goal is to integrate the two. People who can't integrate their interior relationship with money appropriately are more likely to crash and burn.

Often they can keep the money and lose family and friends--or lose the money and keep the family and friends--or even lose the money and lose the family and friends.

The bottom line (no pun intended) in all this is that being really wealthy is much more complicated than most of us would ever believe. Should you ever be fortunate enough to suddenly become the lucky recipient of mega-millions, Ms. Bradley suggests that you immediately set up a decision-free-zone:

Take time out from making any financial decisions. Do this right away. For some people it's smart to do it before you even get your hands on the money.

People who are not used to having money are fragile and vulnerable, and there are plenty of people out there who are willing to prey on that vulnerability--even friends and family.

It's not a time to decide what stocks to buy or jump into a new house purchase or new business venture.

It's a time to think things through, sort things out and seek an advisory team to help make those important financial choices.

Good luck. Now excuse me. I've got to go check my PowerBall numbers.

 

rnantz at 10:39:22 PM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 1 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.

   - Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Irish born British statesman

The London Daily Telegraph's Philip Johnson is a wee bit upset at the spate of new legislation flowing from his country's parliament. I would imagine that many of his countrymen share his distress. He recalls freer times:

It is said, though less often now than it used to be, that the basis of English liberty is the rule of law, under which everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. According to A.V.Dicey, the 19th century constitutionalist, this was one of the features that distinguished England from its continental counterparts...

Effectively, this principle limited the scope of the state to intervene in people's lives. Law set boundaries of personal action but did not dictate the course of such action.

Mr. Johnson laments the continuing erosion of British liberty, providing example after example of parliamentary intrusions into the lives of ordinary citizens:

The Housing Bill will make it an offence to place your own home on the market without first spending £600 or more on a home information pack...

By February, or within a few years, depending on what happens in Parliament this week, it will be a crime to mount a horse and ride off in pursuit of a fox...

Since 1997, it has been a criminal offence to possess any handgun, even a .22 calibre, for sporting purposes. An individual whose most aggressive instinct is to fire at a target can no longer do so in this country, even under licence...

Since June, it has been illegal to own a horse, a donkey or a Shetland pony without obtaining an ID card for the animal to ensure it does not poison anyone who eats it...Atthe last count, for we are a law-abiding nation, 400,000 owners had registered their animals, paying £50 or more for a 20-page document that must include a description drawn up by a vet, who, understandably, charges for doing so...Failure to get the "passport" will mean a £5,000 fine or three months' imprisonment, or both...

Pausing, perhaps to catch his breath, Johnson takes a moment to share one of the ironies of all the new legislation:

Yet, at the same time, the Government has introduced a new regulation whereby a thief who steals goods worth £200 or less from a shop will not automatically be arrested and taken to the police station but handed an £80 fixed penalty notice, without any criminal record provided it is paid on time.

So, you can go to prison for not getting a horse an ID card when it has been perfectly lawful to own an animal without state interference since our forbears painted their faces blue. But if you are a thief, expect a rap on the knuckles, apparently because it takes up too much police time to deal effectively with "low-grade" shoplifters.

New laws have also been passed prohibiting the use of cell phones in cars even though the car is not moving but the engine is running and criminalizing teenage necking, or "canoodling" as the Brits call it. Setting off a firework after 11 PM is now a crime as well--punishable by a £5000 fine or six months in jail.

Mr. Johnson, obviously writing out of some frustration with all of this, concludes that even the right to exist may be in jeopardy:

Until now, at least it has not been an offence simply to exist; but the Identity Card Bill in next week's Queen's Speech will mean that, from 2007, everyone renewing a passport will be issued with a compulsory ID document and their details entered on a national register.

He has my sympathy. As time goes by, it seems there's a natural tendency for governments to pass more and more laws. Many are well-thought out and necessary to ensure that society functions smoothly, citizens are secure and the thieves among us are appropriately punished for the crimes they commit. But some legislation, as Johnson suggests, seems to be ill-considered and appears to hinder rather than enhance the freedom of those being governed.

I suppose English citizens have the right to express their disapproval to those in power as we do here in the U.S. If they're all as unhappy about what's coming out of London as Johnson seems to be, they need to start writing, calling and e-mailing. Tomorrow would be a good time to begin.

Update: In an earlier Telegraph article by Caroline Davies, Dr. John Reid, Britain's Health Secretary, expresses the bureaucratic viewpoint which raises the ire of Philip Johnson and others like him:

"What people want in today's world is as much support and assistance from the Government as possible to help them make the healthy choices that will give them a better quality of life," he said.

Oh really? Blogger Andrew Sullivan begs to differ. Money quote: We can't even eat anymore without government help?

rnantz at 11:29:41 PM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

An obstinate man does not hold opinions--they hold him.

    - Joseph Butler (1692-1752), English theologian

I've been somewhat disenchanted and dismayed by the insults and disparagement being hurled back and forth by both sides since the election. The fracas seems to have a life of its own, and I have found myself pulling away from it, disappointed that the rifts can't seem to be allowed to heal.

I know those who wished for a Kerry win are disappointed. I know those who were pulling for Bush have breathed a sigh of relief. I know there's a tendency on the one hand to bitch about the loss and on the other to gloat over the victory.

Whatever one's inclination, I think it's time to be done with the emotional rejoinders and get on with trying to make the best of the realities we now face. For supporters of both parties I think this means making an attempt to find common ground and working together to do what's best for the country.

With command of the presidency and majorities in both Houses, the GOP runs the risk of allowing its advantages to overshadow the need for bi-partisanship. Awareness of and sensitivity to the issues that are important to the voters who cast their ballots for Kerry will be critical if we are to have any semblance of unity over the next four years. Is cooperation possible? That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the Dems need to get their act together so they'll be able to run a viable campaign in 2008. I've seen much advice tossed back and forth about how they might accomplish this. I think the best counsel I've come across appeared in this op-ed by Jonathan Gurwitz at the San Antonio Express-News. Gurwitz suggests, and I agree, that our two-party system depends on the vitality of both parties and that the Democrats have some work to do:

Republicans need you to challenge their assumptions in meaningful ways. Right now, you've priced yourselves out of the marketplace of ideas with shrill attacks on the traditions and beliefs that animate most of our fellow citizens.

He follows through with some specific suggestions for the Democratic leadership:

Lose the hate. Successful politics depends ultimately on optimism about the future, not hostility about the past. Personal animus toward Bush has commandeered your partisan vehicle. When you allow the likes of Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy to take the Democratic wheel, they drive your party off a bridge into political oblivion.

End the arrogance and condescension. The necessary corollary to the accusation that Bush is a moron is that anyone who would vote for Bush is also a moron, particularly conservative churchgoers. Liberal columnists are giving this theme expression. Nowhere is it better displayed than in a Slate magazine article with the subtitle, "The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States."

Remember that we are all Americans. The best message from either candidate during the entire election came from John Kerry in his concession speech at Faneuil Hall:

"In an American election, there are no losers. Because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning, we all wake up as Americans. And that--that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth."

Gurwitz closes his piece with a couple of observations:

Dwell on that message as you consider a poll on the Democratic Underground Web site: "Which was more depressing--what happened on 9-11 or what happened the day after Election Day, 2004?" A week after the election, 73 percent incomprehensibly chose 11-3 as more depressing than 9-11.

Start with these basics and they'll lead you to broader truths, such as why 22 of the 27 Democratic congressional candidates supported by the MoveOn PAC went down in defeat.

That's pretty sobering, at least to me it is. Yes, we desperately need a two-party system--now more than ever. My fear is that one will be a long time coming unless some of my liberal friends are willing to face truths they still seem unwilling to face. Hopefully, there are level-headed realists in the Democratic ranks who will step forward, grab the party faithful by the scruff of the neck and convince them to make some hard-nosed, much needed changes before it is too late.

Hat tip to RealClearPolitics for the Gurwitz link.

Update: Syndicated columnist William Raspberry gives us his thoughts about how the healing might begin. Brief registration required. Sorry 'bout that.

rnantz at 11:58:05 PM EST Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Indecision may or may not be my problem.

   - Jimmy Buffett (1946-     ), American singer, songwriter

In the last couple of weeks I've seen more and more bloggers who were undecided about who they planned to vote for in next week's presidential election take the plunge and name a name. Perhaps the most reasoned and thoughtful outline of the issues that I've seen is on Megan McArdle's weblog, Asymmetrical Information.

Megan gives us her assessment of each candidate's probable impact on such matters as the environment, education, health care, gay marriage, the economy, trade, tax policy, the budget and foreign policy among other things.

If any of you who still don't know which man will get your vote on Tuesday, you may gain some insight that will help you decide by taking a look at McArdle's excellent post.

rnantz at 11:42:42 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

The only thing that should surprise us is that there are still some things that can surprise us.

    - Francois de la Rochefoucauld, (1613-1680), French writer

Not that it matters but the largest newspaper in Europe, Germany's BILD, has just endorsed Bush for president. I don't know what to make of that in light of most of the continent's alleged dislike of the American chief executive.

Davids Medienkritik weblog has posted an English translation of the editorial and lists the ten--yes, you heard that correctly--ten reasons BILD editors give for their support of the President's re-election. There's also a link to the original German version if you're so inclined.

You may want to take a few minutes and look at BILD's rationale for their endorsement. I'm still scratching my head over the irony here. Who knows? BILD's offices may get torched tonight by angry anti-American Berliners. Such brazenness on the part of their journalists would have to be punished, don't you think?

Thanks for the links are in order for Michael Totten who is posting at Instapundit while Glenn Reynolds is away.

rnantz at 11:56:35 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to learn they're not it.

    - Bernard Bailey, American corporate executive

Earlier today I decided to visit one of my favorite little brunch spots and indulge myself a bit. Shortly after I found a comfortable spot to sit, the waitress showed up and took my order: a fluffy seafood omelet, a bowl of creamy grits, one hot buttermilk biscuit, grape jam and a tall glass of freshly squeezed orange juice. I could hardly wait. 

As I settled into my chair I noticed four young ladies being directed to a table near me. Judging from their attire I assumed they were business people and perhaps on their lunch break. 

One of them, dressed in a red sweater and black skirt, was expressing herself rather animatedly as they seated themselves. She continued her discourse as the menus were distributed, was briefly interrupted as orders were taken, and continued chattering as they waited for their meal.

I was mildly amused as I watched her companions' reactions to the monologue. One was feigning interest, making occasional eye contact but interacting not a whit. The other two had these blank stares on their faces, obviously not doing a very good job of concealing their lack of interest. Ms. Chatterbox was oblivious to all of it. She just kept right on talking.

My meal arrived which usually signals the end of any people watching I may be doing. I dug in, intending to concentrate on feeding my face, but continued to be distracted by the lady in red. She was, as some less tactful than I might put it, a real motor mouth.

I spent about 45 minutes from when I sat down until I left the restaurant and she blathered on the entire time I was there. I never could figure out what great truths she was sharing with her three friends. I doubt if they could either.

It was obvious to me after watching and listening for the better part of an hour that she didn't have a clue that she was the only person talking. I left wondering if her three friends would be riding back with her to wherever they worked and if the remainder of the afternoon would be a continuation of what went on at their luncheon. I hope that it wasn't, but I fear that it was.

Update: Listening--David Cornfield tells us how it's done in Why We Don't Listen. Perhaps the lady in red reads my weblog. Awww, that would be asking too much.

rnantz at 11:54:30 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

There is only one thing about which I am certain, and that is that there is very little about which we can be certain..

    - W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965), English writer

On rare occasions I see a movie that begs for another viewing. I think you know what I'm talking about--one that presents so many possibilities that you know you didn't absorb them all the first time you saw it.  What the !#%*@ Do We Know? is one of those movies. It's about quantum physics.

I'm kidding, right? Nope. I'm not kidding. This is not the quantum physics of your high school or college classroom, at least not like you'd remember it. Think Quantum Physics textbook with diagrams, equations and boring hard-to-understand scientific language. Now think Alice In Wonderland with animation, well-acted scenes and erudite but plain-spoken narrators. In this movie you get the latter, an entertaining and thought-provoking story that will tweak your curiosity and perhaps inspire you to see it more than once.

If you'd like to read a well-written review take a look at this one by Stephen Humphries. Humphries does a good job of capturing one audience's reaction to the film:

By the time the staff of the Metreon cinema had finished sweeping up the last kernels of popcorn in the theater aisles, no one had left their seats--over 600 people were buzzing about the independent movie that poses metaphysical questions such as "Is matter real?" and "What effect does thought have on our bodies and our experience?"

It made such an impact on me that I decided I wanted to learn more about quantum theory. A rather heavy subject, yes, but the film simplified it to a degree that I felt I could handle it. A trip to the local bookstore resulted in the purchase of John Gribbin's In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. I finished it tonight and must admit that I'm afraid to look in the box to see if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.

The book was a bit of a struggle for me even though Gribbin made a Herculean effort to write so that a layman could understand what he was saying. Alas, my frame of reference where science is concerned made his task virtually impossible. I won't say he failed, but he came up miserably short. 

Faced now with the embarrassment of going back to the bookstore and asking for something more basic, like a quantum physics comic book, or seeing the movie again as a refresher course, I think I'll opt for the movie. It's more fun.

Why don't you check out the film's website? Who knows? You may want to learn a little more about quantum physics too.

rnantz at 11:29:29 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Everyone realizes that one can believe little of what people say about each other. But it is not so widely realized that even less can one trust what people say about themselves.

   - Rebecca West (1892-1983), English journalist

PC Magazine's John Dvorak has written an entertaining column titled The Zeros vs. the Ones in which he predicts "the Internet will prove to be the undoing of society and civilization as we know it." He cites politics as an example in making his point:

Just look at politics. Thanks to the Net and the so-called New Media, the entire political scene has become one massive virtual Hyde Park corner filled with kvetching, squabbling bores...

Rather than benefit from intelligent debate, the public is subjected to a lot of bickering fanned by the Internet. I used to think that everyone was entitled to his opinion, but no longer. Most opinions are worthless. As a culture, we are trained never to believe or say that opinions are worthless. For some reason, opinions are supposed to be revered because, uh, well, it's free speech!

John suggests there are simply "too many opinions from too many people--a large number of whom are seriously disturbed or feebleminded." He continues his thesis by reminding us that the great majority of bloggers cloak themselves in anonymity, which he believes should give us pause:

Almost everyone on the Net is anonymous. When you see someone on the street handing out a flyer, it is usually not hard to determine whether he or she is a lunatic. Not so with the haughty blogger who, by hiding behind a good online template, is actually taken seriously. A blogger who stays hidden long enough may even become famous. I know, not every blogger is a whack job--but that's the point. How can you tell?

Dvorak's on-line experiences lead him to believe that the anonymity of the Web encourages some people to pretend they're someone other than themselves:

I first noticed it with alter egos cropping up in e-mail, newsgroups, and especially online chatrooms, where true dweebs are suddenly transformed into Don Juans. The persona thing sometimes goes into new dimensions as boys are turned into men, men pretend to be women, and women turn into sex fiends. Just keep the lights turned off.

Not being one to identify a problem without offering a solution, he tells us how he would take care of the mess created by the Internet:

If it were up to me, I'd shut down the Net tomorrow and make people get out of the house and mingle. By the time the liberal and conservative extremes, incensed by blog-driven blather, leave the house, it will be as two swarms of locusts hell-bent on revolution--or on battling each other: The Zeros versus the Ones.

I suppose after such strident criticism by a celebrated columnist I should consider closing down Think It Over  even though it sports a well designed AOL template and a color portrait of yours truly. John gets the big bucks for sharing his views with thousands of PC Magazine's readers so you'd assume he knows what he's talking about, wouldn't you? 

I, on the other hand, am one of the lowly bloggers of whom he speaks. It's probably doubtful that I am offering anything of value to the 14 people who read my journal each day. So Mom, brothers, nephew, wife, friends and acquaintances--when you sign on tomorrow, go to your "Favorite Site" and get a "Page Not Found," you'll know what happened: John Dvorak has convinced me that I should be doing more mingling than writing, and my immediate resignation is required in order to save civilization.

Maybe I'll drive over to Harold's Diner in the morning and break bread with the locals. Surely none of the breakfast patrons will want to talk politics or have any opinions, and I will be safe there. Thanks John. 

rnantz at 11:57:50 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 6 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

You will always find some Eskimos ready to instruct the Congolese on how to cope with heat waves.

   - Stanislaw J. Lec (1909-1966), Polish writer

Someone at The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain decided to recruit its readers to launch a letter writing campaign in hopes of influencing U.S. voters in Clark County, Ohio. Ohio, as the pollsters remind us, is one of the swing states in this election and Clark County has been identified as a place where Bush and Kerry are neck and neck. The Guardian, being a rather liberal publication and having no use for our current president, would like to see Kerry elected come November.

Well, the Brits' letters began arriving yesterday and many Clark County residents are not all that happy with our "across the pond" neighbors' interest in how Ohioans cast their votes. Terry Brown is one of those people:

Terry Brown had received a letter from a Scottish Guardian reader. The navy veteran and retired lorry builder was "offended" as he read the polite note, from Nicola Smith of West Lothian, with its denunciation of the Iraq war as a "farce," and closing plea to remove from power "the parties responsible for this war."

Mr. Brown looked out at his front garden, decorated with a US flag on a tall pole, a giant carving of an American eagle and a wooden cross marked: "September 11, 2001."

"I feel very strongly that this was an invasion of my privacy," he said. "The right of my wife and myself to decide whom to vote for should not be affected by any other country. That was a freedom we fought for many years ago. It was 1776." 

The Guardian editors were able to buy a list of what they thought were undecided voters from Clark County officials, which is interesting in itself. They then published the list on their website and urged their readers to write those whose names appeared on it in an effort to persuade them to vote for Kerry. Unfortunately, there was a slight problem with the list:

But the newspaper misunderstood Ohio polling law, according to the county's elections supervisor, Linda Rosicka. Being "undeclared" on the roll means someone did not choose to vote in the last two party primaries, in which party candidates are chosen. "It doesn't have anything to do with being undecided," she said.

So instead of the letters going to real "undecideds," most of them went to partisans. Oops! On top of this little glitch, many of The Guardian's letter writers were left-wing celebrities who perhaps were less restrained in their criticism of Bush and the US than were average citizens who decided to correspond with the Americans: 

Ken Loach, the film director, began his letter: "Friends, you have the chance to do the world a favour. Today, your country is reviled across continents as never before. You are seen as the greatest bully on earth."

Antonia Fraser, the historian, suggested: "If you back Kerry, you will be voting against a savage, militaristic foreign policy of pre-emptive killing, which has stained the great name of the US so hideously in recent times."

The Guardian project "has sparked disdain from the Right, and dismay from Kerry campaigners." Hundreds of letters and e-mails are finding their way back to The Guardian and a majority are highly critical of the British intrusion into the affairs of American citizens.

What did they expect, I wonder? Probably not what they got. Can you imagine the reaction of the British, the Australians or the Canadians if we Americans pulled a similar stunt and began writing individual voters about who they should or shouldn't vote for? Arrogance may produce results I suppose, but I believe the results this time will be the opposite of what was intended--at least in Clark County, Ohio.   

 

rnantz at 10:20:54 PM EDT Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own