24 Hours to Live

A guy named Jim Moret wrote a book called The Last Day of My Life, and my friend John Moret gave it to me to read.  The premise of the book is that Jim imagines what he would do if he had only one day left to live, then extends that to a series of life lessons.

First, I can't recommend the book.  Mr. Moret tells some decent stories, but he isn't very convincing as a life coach.  Nevertheless, I thought about the premise and decided maybe there is something to the exercise.

I don't really want to guess at exactly what I would do if I had only one day left to live, but I think, maybe, what Mr. Moret was trying to say is that we all have 24 hours to live.  OK not literally, but time is relative, we only have one shot at this, our hours are limited, and we should use them wisely.  At least he should have been trying to say that.

If I only had one day left, I probably wouldn't want to spend any of it wasting time by watching soap operas or playing solitaire or something similar.  I wouldn't want to get really drunk or pick a fight with anyone.  I would want to talk to the people I care about and spend some time with the ones who are closest.  I would want to have some fun.

Anyway, the point is, live your life well.  Do enough that you can be proud of your accomplishments in the end.  Take some time to relax.  Have fun.  Cultivate good relationships.  Love the people who are close to you.  Make the world a better place, and try to be sure that people who knew you are glad for it.

One shot.  Make it count.

Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse

These movies sucked.  Pun intended.

Finances

Waaay back in May, I wrote a post about various criteria one might use for assessing a life, and made this list:

Marriage 
Kids 
Family (everyone else) 
Friends 
Work 
Finances
Health 
Fun 
Experiences

 I have written about some things on the list, so now it looks like this:

Marriage  
Kids  
Family (everyone else)  
Friends  
Work  
Finances 
Health  
Fun 
Experiences

 So, making progress, and finances are next.

Unlike some people, I think the main goal behind getting your finances in good shape is to retire as early as possible with at least a decent income.  We will see if I feel the same when I get there, but I see not having to go to work as the ultimate luxury.  Imagine every day is Saturday.  Sleep in whenever you want.  Never commute again.  Devote the majority of every day to something you want to do.  I can't wait.

On a more serious note, I have seen a lot of couples get to their retirement years with plans to do things together, only to have something go wrong with one or both of them.  When people get into their middle sixties, they start to have serious health problems.  A lot of times, only one of them makes it that far.

My father retired on his 65th birthday; a month later he was diagnosed with colon cancer that had gotten into his liver.  He had about three more good years and a few not-so-good months after that.  My mom's health was already deteriorating by then as well, so she was not able to walk far and was limited in her activities.  I want to retire before that happens to Jackie and me.

From what I have seen, retirement planners set the bar too high, causing people to work too long and leave a bunch of money to their kids.  I usually see numbers that say you should expect to spend 70-80% of what you spend now after you retire.  Really?  There are families of four who live on half what I make.  Even though my kids will be out of the house and I will not have a mortgage, I'm going to spend 70% or more?  I wonder.

Here's a better plan:  Jackie and I will both receive social security for all the years we worked.  I have a pension -- an actual old-fashioned pension -- coming to me from my current job at Farmers.  In addition, I have equity in my house that should at least be enough to purchase another house outright, plus three 401Ks between us.  Why not just reduce our standard of living to the point that we can live on what we take in?  We live a relatively posh lifestyle currently compared to what we should need in retirement, with a smaller house, no kids, and no jobs to go to.  Without family, I just think our needs will be simpler.

In the end, we have less than financial planners think we should, and more than most people.  We'll make do.

Zombieland

I never would have thought to watch a movie called Zombieland, but I caught a few minutes of the beginning on cable last Saturday and was hooked.  It came on again that evening, and we watched it.

The basic story is not that unusual -- it's a post-apocalyptic world in which nearly everyone has become a zombie, but a few stragglers survive.  But the acting, with Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, and Emma Stone, is top-notch, the characters are quirky, and the writing is extremely clever and never lets up.

Eisenberg plays Columbus -- the characters mostly don't use their names, just places they are from -- a loner who needs to visit the bathroom frequently and has 31 rules that keep him alive.  Definitely not the Will Smith/Chuck Norris competent, ruthless type you expect to survive the zombie apocalypse.  Woody Harrelson (Tallahassee) is more the zombie-killer with a real chip on his shoulder, but he is also on a quest to find and eat the last Twinkie before they all go bad.  Emma Stone (Wichita) is a con artist still conning her way through life in Zombieland along with her little sister, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin).

All of these people are headed different directions but end up traveling together to try to find a fabled safe haven in Los Angeles.  Along the way they scam each other, fight zombies, look for Twinkies, and grudgingly get used to being together.  But what makes it work is that the movie is just different, quick-witted and fun almost all the way through.  My advice is, watch it for 20 minutes; if you like that, you'll like the rest.

There is one very different portion of the film that plays almost like an intermission.  The four main characters decide to stay in Bill Murray's mansion, and it turns out Bill Murray himself is one of the few people still alive and is living there when they show up.  Although this is remotely plausible within the parameters of the movie, it takes you away from the story for a few minutes, until Bill moves on and the movie does too.

It looks like they are planning a sequel.  Count me in.

Something For John

Don't get your hopes up for this one dude, but I have a couple more ideas queued up.  Nice picture though.

John complains that I don't blog very consistently, which is true; last post was August 7.  I tend to write when I am inspired, with no goal to entertain a readership (I don't think a smattering of infrequent readers counts as a "readership") nor to write consistently just for the discipline.

The trouble lately is that a couple of work things have dominated my thoughts, and I cannot write about work, which makes it tougher to get inspired about a writing topic.  However, the work things have smoothed out for the moment, and I took today off and have some time.

That said, I have a conundrum, one I expect will only be of interest to Joel (not John) and me.  Let us imagine a universe.  Not this one, but one that adheres to the same natural laws.  However, in this universe, there are only two objects:  a planet and an orbiting moon.  The moon orbits in a perfectly circular orbit.  The planet spins at a speed that keeps the moon geostationary, spinning once with each orbit of the moon, in the same direction.

Nothing in this universe moves in relation to anything else. However, Newton's laws tell us that there must be motion; otherwise the moon would come crashing down onto the planet.  So how would you detect the motion?  In other words, how is this system fundamentally different from another universe in which the law of gravity is suspended and the moon just hangs over the planet?

I need to remember to ask Joel.  Maybe Joel can figure it out.  At least he will appreciate the question.