MegaMillions – MegaRipOff
I was standing in line at the gas station the other day. The line was 6 or 7 people deep and was moving at a snail’s pace. I looked at out the gas pump island and I was the only car out there. What were all of these people doing? It was then that I noticed that the MegaMillion jackpot was estimated at $100 million. These people were in line to hit it big. They were going to win the jackpot!
There are few things that disturb me more than standing in line and watching people waste their hard earned money on the lottery. The very same people who struggle to make ends meet each month are willingly handing their money over to the government on the pipedream of hitting it big. They are desperate in their pursuit for happiness.
The arguments for and against the lottery have been around since the Revolutionary War, when it was used to raise money for the Continental Army. On one hand, I understand the argument that it is totally voluntary. Why stand in the way of a hard working citizen who wants to dream a little of untold riches and the pleasures all of that money would bring. I can respect that argument and from time to time, I too indulge in this fantasy. Unfortunately, these lottery players are not the ones that fund the multi-billion dollar lottery industry.
The lottery is financed by the working poor who spend a disproportionate share of their income on this government sanctioned revenue generation scheme. One could argue that if someone is foolish enough to voluntarily give the government money in the hopes that they will get rich, let them. Think of it as a voluntary tax. Whoever said the government was stupid. They have devised a way to raise billions without imposing a tax. The only problem is that this voluntary tax is the most regressive tax scheme out there. It exploits those who least can afford it. Where are the bleeding hearts on this issue?
The only reason the Georgia lottery is palatable is that the use of the ill gotten booty is good. Zell Miller should get credit for hard wiring this money to the Hope Scholarship and pre-K initiatives. These are noble initiatives. The only problem is their source of funding is repugnant. It is never justifiable to exploit the weak to benefit the strong.
In the government’s eyes the lottery and smoking are very similar. They are cash cows. Both are extremely harmful to their users but more importantly both raise tremendous sums of cash for the government on an allegedly voluntary basis. I say allegedly because anyone who smokes cigarettes knows that the drive to smoke is far from voluntary. The same is true for the habitual lottery players. They are addicted to the thrill of instant winnings just like the smoker is addicted to the hit of nicotine. For them, playing the lottery is no more voluntary than eating or sleeping.
Both smoking and the lottery are firmly entrenched in today’s society and both are harmful to the users long-term well being. Neither vice is going away. Society has recognized this for smoking. There are warning labels on every cigarette package.
I think the lottery should do the same. In my fantasy world the lottery program would behave like the cigarette company. They would have to have a warning label on every ticket. It could read: “Common sense has determined that playing the lottery is harmful to your financial well being.” Another warning could be “The odds of winning the MegaMillions jackpot are 176,000,000 to 1. Your odds are 60 times better to be elected to the United States Senate than winning this jackpot (as if you really wanted to be elected to the Senate).” Actually I think the best warning label would be “Thanks for sending my kid to college for free. What are you doing to send your child to college?” I think you get the idea.
Properly funding education is one of the most important responsibilities performed by our government. The desire to make college education affordable to all qualified students is just. In fact in today’s world it is an absolute necessity. It is a crying shame that the best the grownups can do to fund this imperative is to willingly exploit those who can least afford it and need the most help. What kind of example does that send to our children?
Publish LDN November 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
Is this any way to run a country?
All of Washington is a buzz with the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. The presidential appointment of a Supreme Court nominee is perhaps the single most important decision a president can make. The president’s ability to influence the land’s highest court allows him to shape the judicial, if not, political landscape for decades beyond his own presidency.
Given the importance of such a decision, just how does the President select a nominee? According to a recent Newsweek article, the President met with Judge Roberts for a few hours where they got to know each other. They talked about family, school and the fact that Roberts had small-town values. They chatted long enough for the president to know that Roberts was his man. For several hours the two spoke to each other and, if the article is correct, the two men never discussed the specifics of the judge’s judicial philosophy. Can you imagine these two men, sitting in the personal residence of the White House and talking about everything but the specifics of Judge Robert’s judicial philosophy? What else matters when appointing a Supreme Court justice?
Of course this is the game modern Republican presidents have to play. Republican presidents are forced to find the most conservative nominee that has no paper trail to prove that he or she is in fact a conservative. They must have unsurpassed educational and legal training. They must be the best and the brightest of their generation. But most importantly, they must have expressed no opinion on any of the controversial issues of our time.
Think about this for a moment. The president must limit his search for a lawyer who has never expressed an opinion on the most important legal issues of our day. Again, I repeat, a lawyer who does not have an opinion?! This is like commissioning an artist who has never painted - an artist who is qualified to paint, but has never actually painted anything. The artist may have gone to a great art school (Harvard). They may have studied the masters (clerked for Justice Rhenquist), they may even have some paint by number paintings they did themselves (rulings while on the Federal Court of Appeals). However, the artist must have never painted an original work of their own (no opinion on the role of the Supreme Court). Who would commission such an artist?
Why have we gotten to this position? It is due to one over-reaching decision in 1972. Of course, I am talking about Roe v Wade. Today’s selection of a Supreme Court nominee has been reduced to one, and only one criterion. Where does the nominee stand on abortion? In the end no other issue matters. Affirmative action, eminent domain, civil rights and even church and state issues pale compared to the abortion issue.
The Democrats demand a candidate that will support abortion on demand - the essence of the 1972 decision. The Republicans try to find a candidate who has no record on the subject. At the very least the candidate must have enough double speak so that no one really knows how they will rule on the subject.
For the life of me I do not know why Republican presidents play the game this way. Quite frankly, their record at playing this game stinks. Three members (the majority) of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents – Stevens, Souter and Kennedy. Souter and Kennedy were stealth candidates; candidates with no defining legal trail. Republicans chose them not because they were the best and brightest conservative jurists of the day. They chose them because they appeared conservative but no one could prove it. Since their appointment these justices have aligned themselves with the liberal wing of the court. More often than not, they have voted counter to the views held by the president who nominated them.
This brings me to my final point. George W. Bush ran on a platform of electing conservative judges who would not legislate from the bench. There is no surprise here. The voting public knew there were going to be vacancies in the Court during his tenure and they knew what type of judge Bush would appoint. The fact that the president plays the political game and is forced to limit his choices to nominees with a stealth record is no way to select a Supreme Court judge.
I hope and pray that Judge Roberts is the type of justice that President Bush promised he would appoint. I have no reason to think otherwise. The real shame in the matter is that I am left with nothing but a hope and a prayer. Of course, there is no written record to prove otherwise.
Originally published August 2005 - LDN
Given the importance of such a decision, just how does the President select a nominee? According to a recent Newsweek article, the President met with Judge Roberts for a few hours where they got to know each other. They talked about family, school and the fact that Roberts had small-town values. They chatted long enough for the president to know that Roberts was his man. For several hours the two spoke to each other and, if the article is correct, the two men never discussed the specifics of the judge’s judicial philosophy. Can you imagine these two men, sitting in the personal residence of the White House and talking about everything but the specifics of Judge Robert’s judicial philosophy? What else matters when appointing a Supreme Court justice?
Of course this is the game modern Republican presidents have to play. Republican presidents are forced to find the most conservative nominee that has no paper trail to prove that he or she is in fact a conservative. They must have unsurpassed educational and legal training. They must be the best and the brightest of their generation. But most importantly, they must have expressed no opinion on any of the controversial issues of our time.
Think about this for a moment. The president must limit his search for a lawyer who has never expressed an opinion on the most important legal issues of our day. Again, I repeat, a lawyer who does not have an opinion?! This is like commissioning an artist who has never painted - an artist who is qualified to paint, but has never actually painted anything. The artist may have gone to a great art school (Harvard). They may have studied the masters (clerked for Justice Rhenquist), they may even have some paint by number paintings they did themselves (rulings while on the Federal Court of Appeals). However, the artist must have never painted an original work of their own (no opinion on the role of the Supreme Court). Who would commission such an artist?
Why have we gotten to this position? It is due to one over-reaching decision in 1972. Of course, I am talking about Roe v Wade. Today’s selection of a Supreme Court nominee has been reduced to one, and only one criterion. Where does the nominee stand on abortion? In the end no other issue matters. Affirmative action, eminent domain, civil rights and even church and state issues pale compared to the abortion issue.
The Democrats demand a candidate that will support abortion on demand - the essence of the 1972 decision. The Republicans try to find a candidate who has no record on the subject. At the very least the candidate must have enough double speak so that no one really knows how they will rule on the subject.
For the life of me I do not know why Republican presidents play the game this way. Quite frankly, their record at playing this game stinks. Three members (the majority) of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents – Stevens, Souter and Kennedy. Souter and Kennedy were stealth candidates; candidates with no defining legal trail. Republicans chose them not because they were the best and brightest conservative jurists of the day. They chose them because they appeared conservative but no one could prove it. Since their appointment these justices have aligned themselves with the liberal wing of the court. More often than not, they have voted counter to the views held by the president who nominated them.
This brings me to my final point. George W. Bush ran on a platform of electing conservative judges who would not legislate from the bench. There is no surprise here. The voting public knew there were going to be vacancies in the Court during his tenure and they knew what type of judge Bush would appoint. The fact that the president plays the political game and is forced to limit his choices to nominees with a stealth record is no way to select a Supreme Court judge.
I hope and pray that Judge Roberts is the type of justice that President Bush promised he would appoint. I have no reason to think otherwise. The real shame in the matter is that I am left with nothing but a hope and a prayer. Of course, there is no written record to prove otherwise.
Originally published August 2005 - LDN
Dem's Just Don't Get It
The Democrats just don’t get it. For years now the Democratic Party has been losing ground on the values debate in this country. This was most evident this past election when George W Bush won by a comfortable margin despite an uncertain, if not unpopular, war in Iraq. The issue that pushed him over the top was values.
The Democratic Party does not understand values. They confuse values with political, policy positions. Values are so much more. The dictionary defines values as “a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.” I would go further and say that values are the principles that define a person’s character. They transcend the moment and are rooted in a person’s moral and religious beliefs. They are the ideals that every person tries to live up to. Values provide the foundation for our individual moral compass.
This poses a unique problem for the Democratic Party. The Democrats are not really a party united in a core set of values or ideals. Rather, it is a coalition of fragmented special interest groups cobbled together under the Democratic banner. How else do you explain a party whose party apparatus is dominated by Labor Unions, Minority Interest groups, Academic Elitists, Women’s Rights groups, Anti-War groups and Environmentalists? These groups have very little in common with the exception that each group has a powerful, single-interest lobby that promotes their own self-serving positions.
Sure both parties are influenced by special interest groups. The problem for the Democratic Party is that they are so beholden to their groups that they have become intolerant of any dissenting views. They refuse to distance themselves from the extreme positions taken by many of these groups. These positions are often well outside of the values held dear by middle class America.
The Republican Party and their special interest groups are more pragmatic. They recognize that they will not get everything they want and are willing to give a little to keep their party in power. In other words, they compromise to ensure they are there to fight another day. This is the very nature of politics. In contrast, with each election cycle, the Democratic groups step up their rhetoric. The result is, they had rather lose than seek the middle ground.
The lightning rod issue to illustrate this point is abortion. There are numerous other issues such as gay marriage, sex education and even social security reform to name a few which illustrate the same point. The point is that the American middle, those voters who are not aligned with either party, is uncomfortable with the Democratic Party. For the voters in this group, their current allegiance to the Republican Party is not a definitive, decision; rather it is a subtle conclusion that the Democratic Party’s values are not aligned with their own.
In the abortion debate, these non-aligned voters are faced with the Democrats’ extreme pro-abortion position of abortion on demand under any circumstance and the Republican position of limiting abortion to extreme cases. These voters understand that thousands of babies are killed every day. On one hand they are afraid to lose the right to an abortion, but on the other hand, they know in their hearts, their values, that this is wrong. The voters are torn by their self-serving desire to retain abortion as an unpleasant option or to uphold their higher ideal that abortion is wrong.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the American people vote their pocket books. In other words, they will vote to promote their own self interests. This cynical view underestimates the American electorate. This country was founded on a set of ideals and the voters consistently return and vote to support these ideals. They rise above the here and now and vote for the candidate who genuinely shares their values, their desire for a better world.
Howard Dean, the new Chairman of the Democratic Party, stated ``People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas and Utah and West Virginia if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves and tell them what we believe.” This statement must make the Republicans ecstatic. If the special interests continue to define what the Democratic Party believes, Dean’s strategy of telling the voters what the Democrats believe will continue to drive middle America to the waiting arms of the Republican Party.
Originally published 2-05 LDN
The Democratic Party does not understand values. They confuse values with political, policy positions. Values are so much more. The dictionary defines values as “a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.” I would go further and say that values are the principles that define a person’s character. They transcend the moment and are rooted in a person’s moral and religious beliefs. They are the ideals that every person tries to live up to. Values provide the foundation for our individual moral compass.
This poses a unique problem for the Democratic Party. The Democrats are not really a party united in a core set of values or ideals. Rather, it is a coalition of fragmented special interest groups cobbled together under the Democratic banner. How else do you explain a party whose party apparatus is dominated by Labor Unions, Minority Interest groups, Academic Elitists, Women’s Rights groups, Anti-War groups and Environmentalists? These groups have very little in common with the exception that each group has a powerful, single-interest lobby that promotes their own self-serving positions.
Sure both parties are influenced by special interest groups. The problem for the Democratic Party is that they are so beholden to their groups that they have become intolerant of any dissenting views. They refuse to distance themselves from the extreme positions taken by many of these groups. These positions are often well outside of the values held dear by middle class America.
The Republican Party and their special interest groups are more pragmatic. They recognize that they will not get everything they want and are willing to give a little to keep their party in power. In other words, they compromise to ensure they are there to fight another day. This is the very nature of politics. In contrast, with each election cycle, the Democratic groups step up their rhetoric. The result is, they had rather lose than seek the middle ground.
The lightning rod issue to illustrate this point is abortion. There are numerous other issues such as gay marriage, sex education and even social security reform to name a few which illustrate the same point. The point is that the American middle, those voters who are not aligned with either party, is uncomfortable with the Democratic Party. For the voters in this group, their current allegiance to the Republican Party is not a definitive, decision; rather it is a subtle conclusion that the Democratic Party’s values are not aligned with their own.
In the abortion debate, these non-aligned voters are faced with the Democrats’ extreme pro-abortion position of abortion on demand under any circumstance and the Republican position of limiting abortion to extreme cases. These voters understand that thousands of babies are killed every day. On one hand they are afraid to lose the right to an abortion, but on the other hand, they know in their hearts, their values, that this is wrong. The voters are torn by their self-serving desire to retain abortion as an unpleasant option or to uphold their higher ideal that abortion is wrong.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the American people vote their pocket books. In other words, they will vote to promote their own self interests. This cynical view underestimates the American electorate. This country was founded on a set of ideals and the voters consistently return and vote to support these ideals. They rise above the here and now and vote for the candidate who genuinely shares their values, their desire for a better world.
Howard Dean, the new Chairman of the Democratic Party, stated ``People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas and Utah and West Virginia if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves and tell them what we believe.” This statement must make the Republicans ecstatic. If the special interests continue to define what the Democratic Party believes, Dean’s strategy of telling the voters what the Democrats believe will continue to drive middle America to the waiting arms of the Republican Party.
Originally published 2-05 LDN
Can A Marshmellow Predict Your Future?
Can a Marshmallow predict your future?
Originally published in July 2006 - LDN
I am sure you remember the grasshopper and ant story. The grasshopper played in the sun and enjoyed the moment. The little ant worked everyday, taking a few moments out of his schedule to enjoy the sun but spent the rest of the day storing up food and preparing for the future. In short the grasshopper died and the ant went on to live another day. That story is thousands of years old, but it is relevant today.
In a recent article by David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, Mr. Brooks described the classic experiments of psychologist Walter Mischel. In his study, Mischel left four year olds in a room with a bell and a marshmallow. He told them that if they rang the bell, he would come back and they could eat the marshmallow. If however, they did not ring the bell and waited for him to return, he would give them two marshmallows they could eat.
In the videos of the experiment you can see the children desperately trying to exercise self control so they could wait and get two marshmallows. Some broke down within a minute and others held out for fifteen minutes.
The children who waited went on to get higher SAT scores, go to better colleges and on average had better adult outcomes. The children who rang the bell the earliest became bullies. They received poor teacher evaluations and were more likely to have drug problems by the age of 32. In short, those children who could not exhibit self-control have been statistically proven to succumb to “teen pregnancy, drugs, gambling, truancy and crime.”
Why should you concern yourself about a marshmallow experiment conducted almost 35 years ago? It is important because politicians and education experts spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on structural solutions to fix public education. They mandate certain class sizes, create standardized tests and add layer upon layer of bureaucracy all in the hope of the holy grail of education – higher test scores. They do all of this while ignoring the single best indicator of education success – the ability to delay instant gratification.
Take for example, the latest great new hope for education in Georgia, passed this year by our legislature – mandated class sizes. Common intuition holds that the smaller the class the better the education. While this has been proven to be true in the very early grades, no study has shown that the same holds true in middle and upper grades. There are no conclusive studies that prove taking a class of 10th grade history students from a class size of 34 to 28 has any impact. Some studies show that a class size of 12-15 could have a positive impact. However, this class size is unrealistic and would be an incredible inefficient use of resources. The cost to implement this change would be prohibitive.
Large, mandated structural reforms allow politicians to boast that they have helped solve the problem, but in reality local school districts are forced to spend money to achieve this goal and take precious recourses away from those areas that have been proven to work. J. Alvin Wilbanks, Gwinnett schools superintendent, stated “that this is an election year and they are trying to get votes.” In short the politicians are putting politics before students.
Mr. Brooks states that if you are a policy maker and not talking about core psychological traits like delayed gratification skills, then you are dancing around the issue. The problem is that this issue is not well suited to be solved via the political process.
How can a politician speak the truth and blame his constituency for the problem. It is our failure as parents to instill the discipline of delayed gratification in our children. For a politician to make that claim he or she would lose votes. It is better to spend taxpayers’ money to impose impersonal, structural reforms than to hold us accountable for failing to instill this important principle in our children.
The good news is that Mischel did not stop at quantifying and documenting this problem. He determined that it is possible to teach kids that it pays to work towards the future instead of living for instant gratification. These skills can be taught. Young people who are given a series of tests that demand self control get better at it over time. These tests will inject personal accountability into our educational process.
Remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant. If a politician proposes a grasshopper solution – no real sacrifice, no personal accountability; run away. He is selling you a bill of goods. Like the ant, a real education solution requires a genuine long-term commitment to take time today to prepare for tomorrow.
Originally published in July 2006 - LDN
I am sure you remember the grasshopper and ant story. The grasshopper played in the sun and enjoyed the moment. The little ant worked everyday, taking a few moments out of his schedule to enjoy the sun but spent the rest of the day storing up food and preparing for the future. In short the grasshopper died and the ant went on to live another day. That story is thousands of years old, but it is relevant today.
In a recent article by David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, Mr. Brooks described the classic experiments of psychologist Walter Mischel. In his study, Mischel left four year olds in a room with a bell and a marshmallow. He told them that if they rang the bell, he would come back and they could eat the marshmallow. If however, they did not ring the bell and waited for him to return, he would give them two marshmallows they could eat.
In the videos of the experiment you can see the children desperately trying to exercise self control so they could wait and get two marshmallows. Some broke down within a minute and others held out for fifteen minutes.
The children who waited went on to get higher SAT scores, go to better colleges and on average had better adult outcomes. The children who rang the bell the earliest became bullies. They received poor teacher evaluations and were more likely to have drug problems by the age of 32. In short, those children who could not exhibit self-control have been statistically proven to succumb to “teen pregnancy, drugs, gambling, truancy and crime.”
Why should you concern yourself about a marshmallow experiment conducted almost 35 years ago? It is important because politicians and education experts spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on structural solutions to fix public education. They mandate certain class sizes, create standardized tests and add layer upon layer of bureaucracy all in the hope of the holy grail of education – higher test scores. They do all of this while ignoring the single best indicator of education success – the ability to delay instant gratification.
Take for example, the latest great new hope for education in Georgia, passed this year by our legislature – mandated class sizes. Common intuition holds that the smaller the class the better the education. While this has been proven to be true in the very early grades, no study has shown that the same holds true in middle and upper grades. There are no conclusive studies that prove taking a class of 10th grade history students from a class size of 34 to 28 has any impact. Some studies show that a class size of 12-15 could have a positive impact. However, this class size is unrealistic and would be an incredible inefficient use of resources. The cost to implement this change would be prohibitive.
Large, mandated structural reforms allow politicians to boast that they have helped solve the problem, but in reality local school districts are forced to spend money to achieve this goal and take precious recourses away from those areas that have been proven to work. J. Alvin Wilbanks, Gwinnett schools superintendent, stated “that this is an election year and they are trying to get votes.” In short the politicians are putting politics before students.
Mr. Brooks states that if you are a policy maker and not talking about core psychological traits like delayed gratification skills, then you are dancing around the issue. The problem is that this issue is not well suited to be solved via the political process.
How can a politician speak the truth and blame his constituency for the problem. It is our failure as parents to instill the discipline of delayed gratification in our children. For a politician to make that claim he or she would lose votes. It is better to spend taxpayers’ money to impose impersonal, structural reforms than to hold us accountable for failing to instill this important principle in our children.
The good news is that Mischel did not stop at quantifying and documenting this problem. He determined that it is possible to teach kids that it pays to work towards the future instead of living for instant gratification. These skills can be taught. Young people who are given a series of tests that demand self control get better at it over time. These tests will inject personal accountability into our educational process.
Remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant. If a politician proposes a grasshopper solution – no real sacrifice, no personal accountability; run away. He is selling you a bill of goods. Like the ant, a real education solution requires a genuine long-term commitment to take time today to prepare for tomorrow.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Clothespin Republican
You have heard of yellow dog democrats. It is said they would vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket. You probably know a few staunch Republicans. Right now I am none of those. I am a clothespin republican. I am going to hold my nose and vote Republican on November 9th.
At this point I am deeply disappointed by the current Republicans in Washington. However the time to make a change is over. That time was the primary season. Today the choice is between the do nothing, drifting Republicans or the ultra-liberal Democratic leadership.
A strong Republican turnout is critical to prevent a disastrous takeover of Congress by the Democrats. It is not the mere fact that Democrats may take control of Congress that is troubling. It is the Democratic leadership in Congress that scares the hell out of me. The idea of a Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel or Kennedy is frightening. The Democratic leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, etc. is far to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party and the American people. However, these individuals will assume the leadership of the legislative branch of our government if the Democrats gain the majority.
The Republican¹s have done little to tackle the key issues of our day: the war in Iraq, immigration reform, social security reform, etc, Do you really think the Democrats will do a better job? No way. They do not have a viable plan for any of these issues. They are fueled by nothing but comtemp for president Bush.
Change for change sake is not the answer. The consequences are too severe. If you need help voting Republican this election cycle, email me at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com and I will send you a clothespin so you can hold your nose and vote on November 9th.
At this point I am deeply disappointed by the current Republicans in Washington. However the time to make a change is over. That time was the primary season. Today the choice is between the do nothing, drifting Republicans or the ultra-liberal Democratic leadership.
A strong Republican turnout is critical to prevent a disastrous takeover of Congress by the Democrats. It is not the mere fact that Democrats may take control of Congress that is troubling. It is the Democratic leadership in Congress that scares the hell out of me. The idea of a Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel or Kennedy is frightening. The Democratic leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, etc. is far to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party and the American people. However, these individuals will assume the leadership of the legislative branch of our government if the Democrats gain the majority.
The Republican¹s have done little to tackle the key issues of our day: the war in Iraq, immigration reform, social security reform, etc, Do you really think the Democrats will do a better job? No way. They do not have a viable plan for any of these issues. They are fueled by nothing but comtemp for president Bush.
Change for change sake is not the answer. The consequences are too severe. If you need help voting Republican this election cycle, email me at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com and I will send you a clothespin so you can hold your nose and vote on November 9th.
1000 Marbles
This is the story which inspired my blog.
The older I get, the more I enjoy Saturday mornings. Perhaps it's the quiet solitude that comes with being the first to rise, or maybe it's the unbounded joy of not having to be at work. Either way, the first few hours of a Saturday morning are most enjoyable.
A few weeks ago, I was shuffling toward the kitchen with a steaming cup of coffee in one hand and the morning paper in the other. What began as a typical Saturday morning turned into one of those lessons that life seems to hand you from time to time. Let me tell you about it. I turned the volume up on my radio in order to listen to a Saturday morning talk show. I heard an older sounding chap with a golden voice. You know the kind, he sounded like he should be in the broadcasting business himself.
He was talking about "a thousand marbles" to someone named "Tom." I was intrigued and sat down to listen to what he had to say. "Well, Tom, it sure sounds like you're busy with your job. I'm sure they pay you well but it's a shame you have to be away from home and your family so much. Hard to believe a young fellow should have to work sixty or seventy hours a week to make ends meet. Too bad you missed your daughter's dance recital."
He continued, "Let me tell you something Tom, something that has helped me keep a good perspective on my own priorities."
And that's when he began to explain his theory of a "thousand marbles."
"You see, I sat down one day and did a little arithmetic. The average person lives about seventy-five years. I know, some live more and some live less, but on average, folks live about seventy-five years."
"Now then, I multiplied 75 times 52 and I came up with 3900 which is the number of Saturdays that the average person has in their entire lifetime. Now stick with me Tom, I'm getting to the important part."
"It took me until I was fifty-five years old to think about all this in any detail," he went on, "and by that time I had lived through over twenty-eight hundred Saturdays. I got to thinking that if I lived to be seventy-five, I only had about a thousand of them left to enjoy."
"So I went to a toy store and bought every single marble they had. I ended up having to visit three toy stores to round-up 1000 marbles.
I took them home and put them inside of a large, clear plastic container right here in my workshop next to the radio. Every Saturday since then, I have taken one marble out and thrown it away." "I found that by watching the marbles diminish, I focused more on the really important things in life. There is nothing like watching your time here on this earth run out to help get your priorities straight."
"Now let me tell you one last thing before I sign-off with you and take my lovely wife out for breakfast. This morning, I took the very last marble out of the container. I figure if I make it until next Saturday then God has blessed me with a little extra time to be with my loved ones...
"It was nice to talk to you Tom, I hope you spend more time with your loved ones, and I hope to meet you again someday. Have a good morning!"
You could have heard a pin drop when he finished. Even the show's moderator didn't have anything to say for a few moments. I guess he gave us all a lot to think about. I had planned to do some work that morning, then go to the gym. Instead, I went upstairs and woke my wife up with a kiss. "C'mon honey, I'm taking you and the kids to breakfast."
"What brought this on?" she asked with a smile. "Oh, nothing special," I said. " It has just been a long time since we spent a Saturday together with the kids. Hey, can we stop at a toy store while we're out? I need to buy some marbles."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)