Which is a better predictor of future success...Hard Work or Talent?
Be honest, how much do you tip your hair stylist?
Do you love me?
Do you enjoy taking polls? Like this one? Has it brought you heightened amounts of joy and happiness? If so, take the poll now.
The holidays are coming but not everyone in the extended family stays on their best behavior... who are you dreading seeing?
According to an article from the LA Times, baby boomers, who are looking at retirement in the next couple decades and whose kids are grown, are not concerned about leaving a financial inheritance for their children. The story provides evidence of this phenomenon and gives several different reasons why the 77 million 47-to-65 year olds are considering abandoning the tradition of leaving an inheritance for their kids.A source from a wealth management firm in Virginia explained that she sees more older clients splurging on travel and good food instead of setting that money aside for their kids. She says, "I do not see my baby boomer clients giving up a vacation or wine or dinners out so that they can leave more money to their children, because they feel like they've already done it for their kids," by putting them through college or helping out with down payments on homes. The CEO of a research firm observes, "Many boomers already are giving the equivalent of an inheritance, except they're doling out the cash while they're still alive."The boomers also express anxiety that their kids will "squander inheritance money or develop a sense of entitlement" over the funds that the boomers themselves worked hard to earn. "From being self-made I want them to feel [the money] is precious," said one parent. Another good reason to hang onto the cash: "boomers have longer life expectancies than their parents but fewer safety nets such as pensions to guarantee financial security."Are these reasons good enough to explain why some baby boomers won't leave a pile of cash for their kids? Or should they rethink tossing the tradition of inheritance away?
Listening to the Bernie Fine case, I am quite shocked to learn there is a statute of limitations in cases involving pedophile's and child molestation. The victim, Bobby Davis, was prevented from bringing charges and seeking justice against Bernie Fine because too many years had passed since the crime occurred.I understand why there is a statute of limitations on many different types of crimes, but under the circumstances of child molestation and what we know it makes no sense. Victims of molestation are usually ashamed and afraid to turn in their abusers. It often requires a major event occurring that triggers them to finally do it. It can take years if not decades for a victim to finally get the courage to step up and tell their story.The very fact the victim of the crime is a child should be reason enough for their not to be any limits on how long you can wait before you turn the person in. If you were molested when you were six, then you should be able to turn that sicko in whenever you get the courage to do so. How can we allow known pedophiles to continue walking the streets and harming young children just because a victim didn't turn them in right away? This makes absolutely no sense.
We all have our favorite time of year, but what season would you prefer to get married in.
Remember Dumbo's magic feather? Similarly, studies have found that taking vitamins can instill a false confidence in those trying to be better to their bodies and end up causing additional harm. Cheating on healthier endeavors like enjoying a balanced diet, exercising, and cutting back smoking, feels more permissible because it's offset by vitamin intake."In the study of risk perception, people talk about "the licensing effect": when you take a vitamin pill, for example, you think you've done something healthy and wholesome," TheGuardian.co.uk reported, "so you permit yourself to eat more chips and have a cigarette. It sounds like a nice idea, but a bit vague.""Firstly, researchers took 74 undergraduates who were daily smokers, and divided them into two groups at random. The first group were given a dummy pill, a placebo, and were told just that: you're in the control group, taking a dummy pill, with no active ingredient. The other participants were in the vitamin pill group: you've been given a vitamin pill, they were told. But in fact, the researchers had lied.""Everyone in the study got the same dummy pill, with no active ingredient. ...people who thought they'd had a vitamin pill gave different answers on the survey. These featured questions...such as "Special problems, getting an illness or disease, are not likely to happen to me", "I'm unlikely to be injured in an accident", and so on. People who thought they'd had a vitamin pill rated themselves as generally more invulnerable....people who thought they'd had a vitamin pill were 50% more likely to have a cigarette – 89% compared with 62% – and that result was highly statistically significant."When the study was repeated with 80 new participants, aged 19 to 58, from the wider community, the folks fooled by the placebo once again smoked more cigarettes and believed themselves to be more invulnerable to harm. Expanded further into two longer studies, this time people who thought they'd taken vitamins were less likely to exercise or choose healthier food. Can the placebo effect be overcome if caution is applied? Is supplementing your daily nutritional intake spoiling your efforts to get healthy?
The LA Times published an article today titled "Weight loss: Weight Watchers outperforms the doctor's office". The article cites research published in the journal The Lancet following a year-long randomized trail which revealed that "following the Weight Watchers program for a year helped people loose twice as much weight as following doctor's weight loss orders." 772 overweight and obese adults living in Germany, Australia and the UK participated in the study. They were split roughly in half, with one group assigned to a doctor for twelve months and the other given a free twelve month membership to Weight Watchers. 61% of the WW group stuck with it for the whole year, and 54% of the other group kept seeing their doctor through the year. "On average, weight loss for the Weight Watchers members was 11.16 pounds, versus 4.96 pounds for the patients receiving standard care." Weight Watcher's benefits include its wide availability and the services of regular weigh-ins, diet and exercise advice and group support. Doctor aren't usually compensated appropriately for the multiple visits required to help someone through weight loss. The researches suggest that Weight Watchers and similar programs might be useful supplemental tools for doctors to recommend to their patients. "They wrote that further research was needed to see if turning to such a commercial program was more cost-effective than a program of standard medical care."Do you think doctors using Weight Watchers would benefit patients?
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
