Drink in the Driveway

Our 3rd annual Holiday "Drink in the Driveway" came off in grand style last Saturday afternoon.  For 2 hours, from 4 to 6 PM, the Dvorak's Driveway in Sun City Arizona turns into the place to be.  Cocktails, food and fun is had by all. 

This year brought a rather creative twist.  Snow!  That's right, I said, "Snow!"  A nice pile of ice cold, clean, bright, white snow.  Suitable for snowball throwing, as witnessed by the picture, as I was attempting to get a picture of the crowd.  I managed to snap the picture of the incoming snowball and barely cleared the line of trajectory to avoid being hit.

The pile of snow was a novel idea, and many of our guests, young at heart, were thrilled to touch it and play in the snow.

The last of the snow disappeared early Monday morning.  But what a fun party and a great way to get together with our friends and neighbors.

Happy Holidays!

5 Reasons You're Lucky You Didn't Have Winning Lottery Numbers

5 Reasons You're Lucky You Didn't Have Winning Powerball Numbers

By SUSANNA KIM (@skimm)

Nov. 29, 2012

So you didn't have the winning Powerball numbers and aren't one of the lottery winners to win the more-than-half-billion-dollar jackpot. That's OK.
First, you are not alone. If you bought a ticket, you are one of the millions of losers in the country. In fact, leading up to the drawing on Wednesday night, lottery officials said they were selling 131,000 tickets a minute.
If you didn't buy into the frenzy of "lotto fever" because you forgot to buy a ticket or practiced self-control, you may be feeling pretty good when comparing yourself to co-workers who threw away $20 on losing tickets. The odds of winning the jackpot were more than one in 175.2 million anyway.
Media stories are quick to mention the tremendous tragedies that previous lottery winners have faced, with some observers calling winners "cursed." Jack Whitaker, winner of a $315-million Powerball jackpot in 2002, said he wished he never won after his teenage granddaughter became addicted to drugs and then was found dead in 2007 of what authorities ruled as an overdose. His daughter died in 2009 in another apparent overdose.
"Since I won the lottery, I think there is no control for greed," he told ABC News' "20/20". "I think if you have something, there's always someone else that wants it. I wish I'd torn that ticket up."
If you are still feeling regret for not waking up this morning to billions of dollars through no merit of your own, here are five other reasons why it may be good you didn't win the lottery:

Lotto Winners May Be More Likely to File for Bankruptcy

The late hip-hop artist Notorious B.I.G. said it best with his rap single, "Mo Money Mo Problems."

A group of economists conducted research about whether that was true. Scott Hankins of the University of Kentucky, Mark Hoekstra of the University of Pittsburgh and Paige Marta Skiba of Vanderbilt University studied people who won more than $600 from the Florida Lottery between 1993 and 2002.

Their paper, "The Ticket to Easy Street? The Financial Consequences of Winning the Lottery," was published in October 2009.

Although they found recipients of $50,000 to $150,000 were 50 percent less likely to file for bankruptcy in the two years after winning relative to small winners, "they are equally more likely to file three to five years afterward."

Just because you win money does not mean you will be able to manage or hang on to it for very long.

"Bankruptcy records indicate that even though the median winner of a large cash prize could have paid off all of his unsecured debt or increased equity in new or existing assets, he chose not to do either," the researchers found.

Some people choose to maintain their normal lives even after hitting the jackpot.

Bruce Sacerdote, economics professor at Dartmouth College, studied the effects of lottery winnings from Massachusetts winners in the 1980s. He found that several years after winning big prizes, about 40 percent of winners were still working for various reasons.

For each $100,000 won per year, people reduced labor market earnings by $11,000 and people saved about 16 percent of their gross winnings, on average.

Winning the Jackpot Won't Make You Happier ...

Money and happiness is a favorite topic for researchers, and the rare phenomenon of an unexpected cash windfall is just as enticing. Sacerdote noted that happiness from a jackpot is likely a temporary high.

"You see a modest bump in happiness and people get used to whatever their income is," Sacerdote said. "My suspicion, which is based on more general data on income and happiness, is you might not see a permanent bump."

Another group of economists from University of California, Santa Barbara, University of Amsterdam and Tilburg University in the Netherlands studied winners of the Nationale Postcode Loterij (PCL), the second largest national lottery in the Netherlands.

They found that winning the PCL, which amounts to about 8 months of income for an average household, "has no detectable effects on a household's reported happiness," as described in their paper, "The Own and Social Effects of an Unexpected Income Shock: Evidence from the Dutch Postcode Lottery."

The authors noted happiness is linked to long-term personal income rather than short-term fluctuations and that may be because "long-term income differences are more likely to be seen as 'earned' and thus legitimate."

In the Journal of Health Economics, authors Jonathan Gardner and Andrew J. Oswald studied a group of British people who received between £1000 and £200,000, or about $1,600 to $320,760 with current exchange rates. In the year a prize is won, they found that "mental stress goes up, while in subsequent years lottery winners show less stress than non-winners." Of course, the absence of mental stress and happiness are not the same thing, they noted in the paper, "Money and Mental Wellbeing: A Longitudinal Study of Medium-Sized Lottery Wins."

You Might Be Better Off Winning a Smaller Prize Anyway

In the "Money and Mental Wellbeing" study, the authors honed down on medium-sized lottery winners. They analyzed 137 British winners of between £1,000 and approximately £120,000 in 1998 pounds sterling, about $1,600 to $192,456 with current exchange rates. The winners were compared to people who did not win and others with smaller prizes. They found "the medium-size winners go on to have significantly better psychological health."

But, the authors cautioned, the sample size was "fairly small, so it is sensible to be cautious in interpretation."

Keeping Up With the Joneses: You're Not Perpetuating a Rat-Race in Your Neighborhood

In the study of Dutch lottery winners, the researchers found that a winner's neighbors' consumption patterns changed. In particular, the study noted statistically significant increases on car consumption and exterior home renovations, "both of which are likely to be easily, and repeatedly, visible to a household's neighbors."

People who did not participate in the lottery but lived within a winner's postal code were more likely to acquire a new car in the six months after the lottery win than non-participants living in neighborhoods without a winner. The same was true for major exterior home renovations in six months after the lottery.

You May Be Bringing Everyone Else's Hopes Down

Knowing a lottery winner may encourage some people to get into the habit of purchasing tickets. It could also turn off others who think the chances of two people in the same community winning a ticket may be slim.

"For most people, purchasing a ticket and fantasizing about what life will be like once you've won is the most pleasant part of the lottery experience," said Scott Bea, a clinical psychologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, previously told ABC News. "You could probably flush the same amount of money down the toilet and get much the same result -- but then you wouldn't have the dream."

The Dutch study found that people who did not participate in the lottery but are surrounded by households who won the lottery six months ago are less likely to play than nonparticipants who are not surrounded by winners.

The study added that although lottery winnings do not make households happier, they don't make neighboring households less happy.

©2012 ABC News – Good Morning America

5 Reasons You're Lucky You Didn't Have Winning Lottery Numbers - ABC News

Why I Was Wrong

Why I Was Wrong

By Dick Morris on November 7, 2012
 
I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.

The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.

In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.

I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.
But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President Obama. Not to mention Christe’s fawning promotion of Obama’s presidential leadership.

It made all the difference.

A key element of Romney’s appeal, particularly after the first debate, was his ability to govern with Democrats in Massachusetts. Obama’s one-party strident approach, so much the opposite of what he pledged in his first national speech in 2004, had turned voters off. But by working seamlessly with an acerbic Republican Governor like Christie, Obama was able to blunt Romney’s advantage in this crucial area.

Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney’s post-debate momentum. She was, indeed, the October Surprise. She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in Benghazi and let Obama get away with his cover-up in which he pretended that a terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.

Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama’s dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney.

That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father’s United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.  By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite.

If Romney couldn’t manage this trick against Obama in the current economy, no Republican could.

But that doesn’t mean we just give up. Obama barely won this election and we still have a Republican House of Representatives. We still have the ability – and more important, the responsibility – to fight to keep this great country as we know it and love it.

We must stop Obama’s socialist agenda. That’s our job for the next four years. We cannot allow Obama to magnify his narrow victory into a mandate for larger government, bigger spending, and less freedom.
This is not a call for gridlock. If Obama moves to the center and proposes moderate measures, we should support them. But that’s unlikely.

So we have our work cut out for us.

Copyright © 2012 DickMorris.com
Why I Was Wrong

5 ways to spot a great leader

By Melanie Williams

Life Health Pro Publications
October 24, 2012

Exactly what is it that sets apart great leaders from poor ones? Are there certain characteristics that make the difference in a leader’s effectiveness? According to Highland Consulting Group CEO Roxi Hewertson, who specializes in leadership development, there are. “Your attitudes and behaviors…are the biggest differentiators between great leaders and failing leaders.”
Here are the five behaviors and attitudes that distinguish great leaders from poor ones:
 Great leaders

1. Understand their own emotions. Emotional self-awareness is essential for great leadership. Great leaders know how to manage themselves and others in times of crisis and conflict.
2. Know their limits. The best leaders understand they can’t know and do everything. Instead, they leverage the skills they are good at and surround themselves with staff who posses complementary skills.
3. Have strong self-worth. Confidence is a product of high self-worth, while arrogance comes from fear or a sense of entitlement. The best leaders continuously test themselves, stretching, growing and learning.
4. Think positive. Great leaders view the world through the lens of abundance as opposed to scarcity, focusing on solutions, new ideas and silver linings. They may change course, but they never give up.
5. Value the greater good. Because of their strong confidence and sense of self-worth, great leaders have low ego needs and can therefore work for something greater than themselves. Their motto is “win/win or no deal.” Poor leaders

1. Dismiss others. Poor leaders don’t pick up on other people’s signals, showing a fundamental lack of empathy. They drive away staff members, who feel they are not trusted, heard, understood or respected.
2. Miss important cues. These leaders don’t understand the intricacies of organizational norms, hierarchies and politics. Often, they are leaders in name only.
3. Blame others. Poor leaders need to make someone wrong in order to feel right. You’ll rarely hear these leaders talk about how they plan to learn and grow from their mistakes.
4. Avoid conflict. Poor leaders fail to provide constructive criticism and attempt to dodge difficult work relationships. No team can be function well without the ability to resolve conflict.
5. Isolate themselves and their teams. These leaders are lone wolves who think only they or their teams are capable of doing a job. They believe that they are in it alone, and that no one understands them.

As Hewertson says, “Improving one’s emotional intelligence is a life-long journey—one that great leaders relish.”

Visit the article online by clicking this link.  5 ways to spot a great leader | LifeHealthPro

LifeHealthPro.com is the vital online destination for life & health insurance advisors, designed to provide them with the essential elements they need to run their practice and increase their bottom line including breaking news, market trends, practice tips and more.
© 2012 LifeHealthPro. A Summit Business Media publication. All Rights Reserved.

Crowley skews hard for Obama in disastrous presidential debate

The Washington Times

By Joseph Curl

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Another debate, another debacle for America’s media.

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a “fly on the wall” as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open “let me give the president a chance here.”


More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She even chose this question, directed to both men: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a “ticket death wish,” asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to “give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions.”

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: “Let me get a more immediate answer” — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: “We have all these folks here.” In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley’s silent approval. “Here’s what happened,” he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: “It’ doesn’t quite work like that.”

When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama’s assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: “Before we get into a vast array….” she said before asking a completely different question.
The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor “feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.”

For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.

When the immigration question came up, both candidates gave their answers. Then the moderator once again butted in, ordering Mr. Romney to “speak to the idea of self-deportation.”

By then, Mr. Romney had had enough, and talked over her demands. “No, let — let — let me go back and speak to the points the president made and — and — and let’s get them correct.”

At the next question, the moderator lost all control. “Candy,” Mr. Obama said. “Hold on.” “Mr. President,” the governor said, “I’m still speaking.” They mixed it up for a bit, then Ms. Crowley said: “Sit down, Mr. Romney.”

The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.

Mr. Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying.”

Mr. Obama made no defense. “Please proceed, governor.”

“I want to make sure,” Mr. Romney said. “Get the transcript,” the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”

The truth is, he didn’t. The day after the attack, he said only this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.
The Obama people, of course, loved it — having blamed Mr. Obama’s dismal performance in the first debate on poor moderating.

“He’s back,” said Team O spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who lauded Ms. Crowley for her fact checking.
But then she caught herself and quickly added: “He was never really gone, but he’s back.”

Read more: CURL: Crowley skews hard for Obama in disastrous presidential debate - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/?page=2#ixzz29bBZhdaf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

CEO threatens to fire employees if obama is reelected

This might not be right, but it could be an effective tactic to persuade the common worker to vote for Romney.  Actually, I think it is unnecessary, as it goes without saying, because most voting Americans already are feeling the economic effects of Obama's bad public policy and lack of experience in dealing with the problems at hand.   I give Mr. Siegel credit for being forward and blunt.

I share this article from By Noel Sheppard a writer with Newsbusters, an electronic news organization dedicated to exposing and combating  liberal media bias
October 09, 2012 | 17:57

David Siegel, the founder and CEO of real estate company Westgate Resorts, on Monday threatened to fire some employees if Barack Obama is reelected and carries out his plan to raise taxes on the so-called rich.
The following are highlights from an email message sent by Siegel to his staff that was obtained and verified as authentic by Gawker:

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

 Signed, your boss,

 David Siegel

For those unfamiliar with Siegel, he is the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, a real estate and timeshare company.  He and his wife were also the subject of the recent documentary "The Queen of Versailles" about their desire to build the largest home in America.  According to Gawker, they were worth over a billion dollars in 2007, but that could be less now as a result of the real estate bust.

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/09/ceo-threatens-fire-employees-if-obama-reelected-and-raises-taxes#ixzz28qOeVGbA

The top 5 misconceptions about Christopher Columbus

 Today is Columbus Day, time to buy appliances on sale and contemplate other things that have nothing to do with Christopher Columbus. So much of what we say about Columbus is either wholly untrue or greatly exaggerated.

Tourists walk by the tomb of Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus in the Cathedral of Seville, Spain. Spanish researchers recently determined that Columbus' remains are indeed buried in the tomb, based on DNA results. Another Columbus tomb is located in the Dominican Republic, but DNA tests have not been conducted on the remains buried there.

He didn't 'discover' America, but he did earn a place in history.  Here are a few of the top offenders

By Christopher Wanjek LiveScience Bad Medicine columnist

updated 10/08/2012 12:19:50 PM

1. Columbus set out to prove the world was round.
If he did, he was about 2,000 years too late. Ancient Greek mathematicians had already proven that the earth was round, not flat.
Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. was one of the originators of the idea. Aristotle in the fourth century B.C. provided the physical evidence, such as the shadow of the Earth on the moon and the curvature of the Earth known by all sailors approaching land. And by the third century B.C., Eratosthenes determined our planet's shape and circumference using basic geometry. In the second century, Claudius Ptolemy wrote the "Almagest," the mathematical and astronomical treatise on planetary shapes and motions, describing the spherical Earth. This text was well known throughout educated Europe in Columbus' time. [Related: Earth Is Flat in Many People's Minds]
Columbus, a self-taught man, greatly underestimated Earth's circumference. He also thought Europe was wider than it actually was and that Japan was farther from the coast of China than it really was. For these reasons, he figured he could reach Asia by going west, a concept that most of educated Europe at the time thought was daft — not because the earth was flat, but because Columbus' math was so wrong. Columbus, in effect, got lucky by bumping into land that, of course, wasn't Asia.
The Columbus flat-earth myth perhaps originated with Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus; there's no mention of this before that. His crew wasn't nervous about falling off the earth.

2. Columbus discovered America.

Yes, let's ignore the fact that millions of humans already inhabited this land later to be called the Americas, having discovered it millennia before. And let's ignore that whole Leif Ericson voyage to Greenland and modern-day Canada around the year 1000. If Columbus discovered America, he himself didn't know. Until his death he claimed to have landed in Asia, even though most navigators knew he didn't. [Top 10 Intrepid Explorers]
What Columbus came across was the archipelago of the Bahamas and then the island later named Hispaniola, now split into Haiti and the Dominican Republic. On his subsequent voyages he went farther south, to Central and South America. He never got close to what is now called the United States.
So why does the United States celebrate the guy who thought he found a nifty new route to Asia and the lands described by Marco Polo? This is because the early United States was fighting with England, not Spain. John Cabot (a.k.a. Giovanni Cabot, another Italian) "discovered" Newfoundland in England's name around 1497 and paved the way for England's colonization of most of North America. So the American colonialists instead turned to Columbus as their hero, not England's Cabot. Hence we have the capital, Washington, D.C. — that's District of Columbia, not District of Cabot.


3. Columbus introduced syphilis to Europe.
This is hotly debated. Syphilis was present in pre-Columbus America. Yet syphilis probably existed for millennia in Europe as well, but simply wasn't well understood. The ancient Greeks describe lesions rather similar to that from syphilis. Perhaps by coincidence, an outbreak of syphilis occurred in Naples in 1494 during a French invasion, just two years after Columbus' return. This sealed the connection.
But aside from descriptions of syphilis-like lesions by Hippocrates, many researchers believe that there was a syphilis outbreak in, of all places, a 13th-century Augustinian friary in the English port of Kingston upon Hull. This coastal city saw a continual influx of sailors from distant lands, and you know what sailors can do. Carbon dating and DNA analysis of bones from the friary support the theory of syphilis being a worldwide disease before Columbus' voyages.
4. Columbus died unknown in poverty.
Columbus wasn't a rich man when he died in Spain at age 54 in 1506. But he wasn't impoverished. He was living comfortably, economically speaking, in an apartment in Valladolid, Crown of Castile, in present-day Spain, albeit in pain from severe arthritis. Columbus had been arrested years prior on accusations of tyranny and brutality toward native peoples of the Americas. But he was released by King Ferdinand after six weeks in prison. He was subsequently denied most of the profits of his discoveries promised to him by Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.
After his death, though, his family sued the royal crown, a famous lawsuit known as the Pleitos colombinos, or Columbian lawsuits, lasting nearly 20 years. Columbus' heirs ultimately secured significant amounts of property and other riches from the crown. Also, most European navigators understood by the end of the 15th century, before his death, that Columbus had discovered islands and a large land mass unknown to them.
5. Columbus did nothing significant.
With all this talk of a hapless Columbus accidentally "discovering" the New World, as well as the subsequent genocide of native cultures, it is easy to understand the current backlash against Columbus and the national holiday called Columbus Day, celebrated throughout North and South America. This isn't entirely fair.

While Columbus was wrong about most things, he did help establish knowledge about trade winds, namely the lower-latitude easterlies that blow toward the Caribbean and the higher-latitude westerlies that can blow a ship back to Western Europe. Also, while Columbus wasn't the first European to reach the Western Hemisphere, he was the first European to stay. His voyages directly initiated a permanent presence of Europeans in both North and South America.
News of the success of his first voyage spread like wildfire through Europe, setting the stage for an era of European conquest. One can argue whether the conquest was good or bad for humanity: that is, the spread of Christianity, rise of modernism, exploitation and annihilation of native cultures, and so on. But it is difficult to deny Columbus' direct role in quickly and radically changing the world.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work." His column, Bad Medicine, appears regularly on LiveScience.

 © 2012 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.

Humerous Insurance Ads a Miss for Most Insurance Companies

 With the exception of a few insurance discounters, funny insurance advertising is not paying off.  So, Nationwide Insurance has introduced a new campaign called "Join the Nation".   A more emotional "warm & fuzzy" approach aimed at generating an emotional connection to the insured; as we can read in this report from the USA Today:

Except for discounters, insurers' funny ads not paying off – USATODAY.com

Why 'retirees' are still working

Why 'retirees' are still working

7/18/2012 4:15 PM ET

|By Kimberly Palmer, U.S. News & World Report
  More baby boomers are becoming entrepreneurs, out of necessity or as a source of side income. Here are 3 success stories.

Working is the new retirement. But not just any kind of working -- baby boomers are launching their own small businesses to help fund their golden years while keeping themselves busy.
A recent survey by the Kauffman Foundation found that baby boomers are the fastest-growing group of entrepreneurs. The Center of Productive Longevity, which hosts meetings on entrepreneurship for the 55-and-older crowd, attributes that trend to the fact that many baby boomers are forced to leave the workforce before they're ready or can afford to retire.
"You always have to think of yourself as You, Inc., even if you're working full time. What could you moonlight as and do full-blown later on?" says Kerry Hannon, the author of "What's Next? Follow Your Passion and Find Your Dream Job." She recommends getting started three to five years before retirement, for financial as well as health reasons. "Unless you have a pension that's turning out money, it's nice to know you have a little money," she says, adding that people who work longer tend to stay healthier as well.

Hannon recommends keeping startup costs low and creating a new email address and social-media presence that's independent from any full-time work, to avoid potential conflicts of interest. "Create a separate identity yourself," she says.
Ready to experiment with a new side-career yourself? Here are three success stories for inspiration:

 Bling maker
Febe Hernandez, a longtime employee of a federal agency in the Washington, D.C., area, fell in love with beading at a friend's birthday party in 2010. "All my life I've been making things, and this really set it loose," she says. She started giving her jewelry away, until a friend suggested that she sell it. She had her first show a few months later and sold around $2,000 worth of jewelry. Over the next year, she created a website for her business, built a social-media presence and started showcasing her jewelry at more events.

Solo 401k's for the self-employed

FEATURED

TOP PICKS

• 

  Solo 401k's for the self-employed

  7/11/12 2:26

• 

  401k fees become visible

  7/13/12 1:54

1 of 3

Because she works for a federal agency, Hernandez, 59, is careful to follow all of the ethical rules and guidelines. Her agency's internal affairs office vetted her website and business, and she gets permission before doing any media interviews. "We're allowed to have outside employment if they perceive no conflict of interest," she explains.
Hernandez plans to continue to grow her business, and, after she retires, wants to work on it full time. "I see us opening stores, growing our staff, and I plan for it to provide income in retirement," she says.

Natural artist
Morgan Hoth, now 63, first started experimenting with weaving and dyeing rugs and silk when she had summers off from teaching special-education students. "When I got close to retirement, I decided, 'That's what I want to do,'" she says. From her home in Richmond, Va., she creates silk scarves and neckties and sells them online, through Etsy and other online venues.
Hoth kept her startup costs low by using a $6 steam iron, for example, and she says she and her husband live frugally. That allows her to treat her income from her scarf business as "extra" income that can purchase luxuries, such as a trip to Europe or a new sofa, as well as help friends in need. "I couldn't live on it, but I can help if someone I love is on hard times," she says. The income has also funded a new Tempur-Pedic mattress and road trip. She and her husband both have small pensions that cover their basic expenses.
Her main motivator, though, is the pleasure that creating art brings her. "The only thing that really counts is enjoying life . . . I have so much fun creating things," she says.

Banker-turned-card designer

For years, Dorothy Atkins kept her side business as a greeting-card designer a secret. She worked for a bank in various client service and human resources positions. "It was totally unrelated to the card business -- different sides of the brain," she says. She used her commutes into San Francisco to brainstorm and sketch potential designs, and focused on her banking job from 8 to 5. Then, during her lunch hour, she visited local shops to see if they wanted to sell her cards. "I got a couple of clients that way," she says.

Over time, she honed her technique and figured out how to cut costs, by purchasing her card stock from lower-cost shops for artists, for example. "Now I'm more cost-effective," she says.
After she retired in 2002, she devoted more of her energy to her art and card business. (Atkins also paints.) "I don't think I'll ever stop working. I'm just not wired that way," she says. Her father, who lived into his 90s, often said, "Do as much as you can for as long as you can" -- a maxim she continues to live by.

 Reprinted from MSN Money

7/18/2012 4:15 PM ET

|written By Kimberly Palmer, U.S. News & World Repor