WASHINGTON, July 15 (UPI) — What with jihads, invasions and epidemics, you’d think God would be pretty busy.

Now the Rev. Pat Robertson has put yet another side dish on the Lord’s already rather full plate: The televangelist is asking the Almighty to prod at least three Supreme Court justices into retirement.

Robertson launched “Operation Supreme Court Freedom” — a “massive prayer offensive” — this week while appearing on his Christian Broadcasting Network. The televangelist said he felt compelled to ask God to make the retirements happen because of a series of anti-morality decisions since the 1960s. Those decisions include taking prayer and the Bible out of public schools, support of abortion and making it “illegal for little elementary school children to give thanks over their milk and cookies at snack time.”

That last ruling might be a little hard to find, but the others are there all right. You can look them up.

The latest outrage, according to Robertson, occurred at the end of the court’s current term.

“Now, the Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to consensual sodomy and, by the language in its decision, has opened the door to homosexual marriages, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest,” Robertson said on the CBN Web site.

In Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that there is a “privacy and liberty interest” implicit in the Constitution’s guarantee of “due process,” or fair treatment, that gives consenting adults the right to have the kind of sex they want behind closed doors.

“But there is a higher tribunal than the United States Supreme Court,” Robertson assured the nation. “There is the Judge of all the Earth. We must earnestly come before Him now and cry out for redress of our grievances. He loves America as much as we do, and He does not wish to destroy it.”

Robertson was very specific about what he wants his listeners to do.

“Would you join with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the court? If we fast and pray and earnestly seek God’s face,” Robertson said, “then He will hear our prayer and give us relief.”

Robertson was less specific about which justices he has targeted for divine manipulation.

“One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition,” Robertson said. “Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire? With their retirement and the appointment of conservative judges, a massive change in federal jurisprudence can take place.”

There’s no problem in identifying Justice John Paul Stevens as one of the Gang of Three. The leader of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc is also the oldest justice at 83.

However, two of the court’s members have recovered from a form of cancer: moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from breast cancer and liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from colon cancer.

The identity of the justice with heart problems is anybody’s guess. Stevens recovered from heart problems years ago, but he’s already on the list. O’Connor’s husband had a pacemaker implanted in 1999, but he’s not a justice.

Some might find the idea of asking God to push three justices into retirement a trifle off-putting. Asking God to tweak their health problems into a deciding retirement factor is just a bit too close to asking the Lord to become a Celestial Hit Man.

I’m sure, however, that Robertson is just asking God to let nature take its course.

But what about God’s playful sense of humor, which the Lord tends to display from time to time? What if God reaches down and — “doink!” — flips the wrong court member, say conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, off the ledge of retirement?

Then, O Lord, the Rev. Pat Robertson will have a bone to pick with Thee. — On a more serious note, though they won’t say so publicly, Supreme Court police are less than thrilled with Robertson’s campaign. Too often, overly impressionable people hear the message of a religious leader, misunderstand the leader’s reference to “the tyranny of a non-elected oligarchy” and then try to become the armed instruments of God in eliminating the problem.

If you’re reading this column and you’re thinking of coming to Washington and doing the Lord’s work by personally making changes at the Supreme Court, think again. Federal time is hard time.

And everyone will think you’re an idiot.

”’Mike Kirkland is UPI’s senior legal affairs correspondent. He has covered the Supreme Court and other parts of the legal community since 1993.”’

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

LOS ANGELES (UPI) — The surging momentum of the ambitious recall campaign against California’s beleaguered Gov. Gray Davis could be stalled for months by a class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday that threatens to eventually scuttle the entire issue.

A trio of determined lawyers went to state court in Los Angeles Tuesday morning to file a lawsuit that contends large numbers of recall petitions were illegally circulated — in some cases, by carpetbaggers and convicted felons — in three counties and should be tossed out, which would conceivably throw the entire recall effort into chaos and result in its lonely death in the exile of complex litigation.

“There is nothing frivolous about maintaining the integrity of the election process,” said attorney Ray Boucher, whose Beverly Hills firm is one of two that filed the suit on behalf of five individuals and “all others similarly situated.”

Maintaining the sanctity of democracy is indeed a lofty goal that could also shift the momentum to Davis by bottling up the recall process for months and keeping it off the ballot and by way of default, out of the headlines.

The suit alleges that the recall campaign bankrolled by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has gubernatorial ambitions of his own, violated California election laws as it scoured the state for signatures at shopping centers, swap meets and anywhere else registered voters are know to congregate.

“I was shopping for organic produce at the local farmer’s market in El Segundo and was approached by a man who did not even ask if I was a properly registered voter or not,” a woman who did not wish to be identified told United Press International. “All he wanted was my signature.”

It asks the court to order a halt to the verification process and the voiding of signatures gathered improperly in the heavily populated counties of Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange.

Specifically, the suit alleges that some of the signature gatherers were ex-cons or out-of-state residents who listed cheap motels as their California residence address and worked for $1 a signature. State law requires petitions to be circulated by registered California voters, which is difficult to do if the signature gatherers live in Arizona or Colorado or Washington — as is alleged in the lawsuit.

In addition, recall opponents armed with video cameras sleuthed out various locations around Southern California where recall petitions were left “unattended” and with the verification signature attesting that the signer was a registered California voter already filled in. This seemingly minor slip, the attorneys alleged, could mean that virtually anyone could sign their name — or someone else’s name — to a petition that they feel is clearly aimed at subverting the will of the voters who re-elected Davis by a narrow margin last November.

“We are not attacking anyone who has legitimately signed a lawful petition,” noted attorney Paul R. Kiesel. “This suit challenges the legitimacy of out-of-state professional signature gatherers hiring felons and non-registered voters to gather signatures.”

“This suit contends that the proponents of this recall hired these bounty hunters … in order to promote their conservative agenda and stick the California taxpayers with a $30 million to $50 million bill for their special election,” he said.

Monica Getz, a spokeswoman for Issa, told reporters after the news conference that the legal challenge was “pathetic;” however she conceded she had no idea how her boss and the recall supporters might respond to the lawsuit at a hearing Wednesday afternoon before Judge Charles McCoy, the head of the complex litigation branch of the Los Angeles County courts.

“This is a pathetic attempt to derail the democratic process,” Getz fumed. “It’s a three-ring circus.”

The recall organizers have been riding a wave of support as Davis struggles with a massive $38 billion budget deficit and dismal approval ratings. The earliest they can get the recall on the ballot is November and it could be next March if California’s 58 county registrars don’t finish verifying the 1.8 million petition signatures in time.

The registrars’ deadline for reporting the signatures to the secretary of state is Sept. 3, although the chances of the recall getting on the ballot in November are greater the earlier the signatures are verified.

The recall campaign went so far as to file their own lawsuit last week to try to speed up the verification process, so the idea of spending weeks or months before McCoy would appear to be disappointing at best.

“We just hope the registrars keep on counting,” Getz lamented.

Kiesel and his cohorts denied they were deliberately trying to bog down the election in order to save Davis’ skin. Kiesel told UPI that going the complex litigation route would actually save time because judges in McCoy’s division have much smaller caseloads than their colleagues in civil court.

“It’s better than being in downtown Los Angeles where most of the judges are juggling 300-400 cases,” Kiesel pointed out. “We don’t have the luxury of time.”

McCoy, who is considered a precise and serious jurist, could agree to expedite the process of gathering evidence and taking depositions. Even if he does so, the wheels of justice only move so fast and the slow cog will give Davis the luxury of some breathing room.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

LOS ANGELES (UPI) — The surging momentum of the ambitious recall campaign against California’s beleaguered Gov. Gray Davis could be stalled for months by a class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday that threatens to eventually scuttle the entire issue.

A trio of determined lawyers went to state court in Los Angeles Tuesday morning to file a lawsuit that contends large numbers of recall petitions were illegally circulated — in some cases, by carpetbaggers and convicted felons — in three counties and should be tossed out, which would conceivably throw the entire recall effort into chaos and result in its lonely death in the exile of complex litigation.

“There is nothing frivolous about maintaining the integrity of the election process,” said attorney Ray Boucher, whose Beverly Hills firm is one of two that filed the suit on behalf of five individuals and “all others similarly situated.”

Maintaining the sanctity of democracy is indeed a lofty goal that could also shift the momentum to Davis by bottling up the recall process for months and keeping it off the ballot and by way of default, out of the headlines.

The suit alleges that the recall campaign bankrolled by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has gubernatorial ambitions of his own, violated California election laws as it scoured the state for signatures at shopping centers, swap meets and anywhere else registered voters are know to congregate.

“I was shopping for organic produce at the local farmer’s market in El Segundo and was approached by a man who did not even ask if I was a properly registered voter or not,” a woman who did not wish to be identified told United Press International. “All he wanted was my signature.”

It asks the court to order a halt to the verification process and the voiding of signatures gathered improperly in the heavily populated counties of Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange.

Specifically, the suit alleges that some of the signature gatherers were ex-cons or out-of-state residents who listed cheap motels as their California residence address and worked for $1 a signature. State law requires petitions to be circulated by registered California voters, which is difficult to do if the signature gatherers live in Arizona or Colorado or Washington — as is alleged in the lawsuit.

In addition, recall opponents armed with video cameras sleuthed out various locations around Southern California where recall petitions were left “unattended” and with the verification signature attesting that the signer was a registered California voter already filled in. This seemingly minor slip, the attorneys alleged, could mean that virtually anyone could sign their name — or someone else’s name — to a petition that they feel is clearly aimed at subverting the will of the voters who re-elected Davis by a narrow margin last November.

“We are not attacking anyone who has legitimately signed a lawful petition,” noted attorney Paul R. Kiesel. “This suit challenges the legitimacy of out-of-state professional signature gatherers hiring felons and non-registered voters to gather signatures.”

“This suit contends that the proponents of this recall hired these bounty hunters … in order to promote their conservative agenda and stick the California taxpayers with a $30 million to $50 million bill for their special election,” he said.

Monica Getz, a spokeswoman for Issa, told reporters after the news conference that the legal challenge was “pathetic;” however she conceded she had no idea how her boss and the recall supporters might respond to the lawsuit at a hearing Wednesday afternoon before Judge Charles McCoy, the head of the complex litigation branch of the Los Angeles County courts.

“This is a pathetic attempt to derail the democratic process,” Getz fumed. “It’s a three-ring circus.”

The recall organizers have been riding a wave of support as Davis struggles with a massive $38 billion budget deficit and dismal approval ratings. The earliest they can get the recall on the ballot is November and it could be next March if California’s 58 county registrars don’t finish verifying the 1.8 million petition signatures in time.

The registrars’ deadline for reporting the signatures to the secretary of state is Sept. 3, although the chances of the recall getting on the ballot in November are greater the earlier the signatures are verified.

The recall campaign went so far as to file their own lawsuit last week to try to speed up the verification process, so the idea of spending weeks or months before McCoy would appear to be disappointing at best.

“We just hope the registrars keep on counting,” Getz lamented.

Kiesel and his cohorts denied they were deliberately trying to bog down the election in order to save Davis’ skin. Kiesel told UPI that going the complex litigation route would actually save time because judges in McCoy’s division have much smaller caseloads than their colleagues in civil court.

“It’s better than being in downtown Los Angeles where most of the judges are juggling 300-400 cases,” Kiesel pointed out. “We don’t have the luxury of time.”

McCoy, who is considered a precise and serious jurist, could agree to expedite the process of gathering evidence and taking depositions. Even if he does so, the wheels of justice only move so fast and the slow cog will give Davis the luxury of some breathing room.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

LOS ANGELES (UPI) — The surging momentum of the ambitious recall campaign against California’s beleaguered Gov. Gray Davis could be stalled for months by a class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday that threatens to eventually scuttle the entire issue.

A trio of determined lawyers went to state court in Los Angeles Tuesday morning to file a lawsuit that contends large numbers of recall petitions were illegally circulated — in some cases, by carpetbaggers and convicted felons — in three counties and should be tossed out, which would conceivably throw the entire recall effort into chaos and result in its lonely death in the exile of complex litigation.

“There is nothing frivolous about maintaining the integrity of the election process,” said attorney Ray Boucher, whose Beverly Hills firm is one of two that filed the suit on behalf of five individuals and “all others similarly situated.”

Maintaining the sanctity of democracy is indeed a lofty goal that could also shift the momentum to Davis by bottling up the recall process for months and keeping it off the ballot and by way of default, out of the headlines.

The suit alleges that the recall campaign bankrolled by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has gubernatorial ambitions of his own, violated California election laws as it scoured the state for signatures at shopping centers, swap meets and anywhere else registered voters are know to congregate.

“I was shopping for organic produce at the local farmer’s market in El Segundo and was approached by a man who did not even ask if I was a properly registered voter or not,” a woman who did not wish to be identified told United Press International. “All he wanted was my signature.”

It asks the court to order a halt to the verification process and the voiding of signatures gathered improperly in the heavily populated counties of Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange.

Specifically, the suit alleges that some of the signature gatherers were ex-cons or out-of-state residents who listed cheap motels as their California residence address and worked for $1 a signature. State law requires petitions to be circulated by registered California voters, which is difficult to do if the signature gatherers live in Arizona or Colorado or Washington — as is alleged in the lawsuit.

In addition, recall opponents armed with video cameras sleuthed out various locations around Southern California where recall petitions were left “unattended” and with the verification signature attesting that the signer was a registered California voter already filled in. This seemingly minor slip, the attorneys alleged, could mean that virtually anyone could sign their name — or someone else’s name — to a petition that they feel is clearly aimed at subverting the will of the voters who re-elected Davis by a narrow margin last November.

“We are not attacking anyone who has legitimately signed a lawful petition,” noted attorney Paul R. Kiesel. “This suit challenges the legitimacy of out-of-state professional signature gatherers hiring felons and non-registered voters to gather signatures.”

“This suit contends that the proponents of this recall hired these bounty hunters … in order to promote their conservative agenda and stick the California taxpayers with a $30 million to $50 million bill for their special election,” he said.

Monica Getz, a spokeswoman for Issa, told reporters after the news conference that the legal challenge was “pathetic;” however she conceded she had no idea how her boss and the recall supporters might respond to the lawsuit at a hearing Wednesday afternoon before Judge Charles McCoy, the head of the complex litigation branch of the Los Angeles County courts.

“This is a pathetic attempt to derail the democratic process,” Getz fumed. “It’s a three-ring circus.”

The recall organizers have been riding a wave of support as Davis struggles with a massive $38 billion budget deficit and dismal approval ratings. The earliest they can get the recall on the ballot is November and it could be next March if California’s 58 county registrars don’t finish verifying the 1.8 million petition signatures in time.

The registrars’ deadline for reporting the signatures to the secretary of state is Sept. 3, although the chances of the recall getting on the ballot in November are greater the earlier the signatures are verified.

The recall campaign went so far as to file their own lawsuit last week to try to speed up the verification process, so the idea of spending weeks or months before McCoy would appear to be disappointing at best.

“We just hope the registrars keep on counting,” Getz lamented.

Kiesel and his cohorts denied they were deliberately trying to bog down the election in order to save Davis’ skin. Kiesel told UPI that going the complex litigation route would actually save time because judges in McCoy’s division have much smaller caseloads than their colleagues in civil court.

“It’s better than being in downtown Los Angeles where most of the judges are juggling 300-400 cases,” Kiesel pointed out. “We don’t have the luxury of time.”

McCoy, who is considered a precise and serious jurist, could agree to expedite the process of gathering evidence and taking depositions. Even if he does so, the wheels of justice only move so fast and the slow cog will give Davis the luxury of some breathing room.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

“Dick Rowland Image”

”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

– Stocks Soar, Dividends Abound in Q2

President Bush’s Tax Cuts Drive Markets to Best Quarter Since 1998

WASHINGTON – The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index finished its best
quarter since 1998 yesterday, rising 14.8 percent since March 1. Meanwhile, hundreds of companies have responded to President Bush’s dividend tax cut by raising dividend yields or issuing their very first dividends. These developments have investor advocates praising Bush’s tax cuts for stimulating the markets.

“The double tax on dividends made dividends a bad deal, discouraged
investment, and hurt the economy,” said Daniel Clifton, executive
director of American Shareholders Association (ASA). “Since that burden
has been significantly reduced, markets are soaring and investors are
reaping new dividends.”

On Jan. 7th, Bush proposed abolishing the double taxation of dividends
and, by the end of May, Congress had passed a 65 percent reduction of
that double tax. The bold policy change forced companies to reevaluate
their investment policies. As such, many prominent companies have begun
issuing dividends for the first time. These include Microsoft, Cendant,
Qualcomm, Polo Ralph Lauren, Mandalay Resort Group, and World Wrestling
Entertainment. ASA’s initial research finds that well over 100 major
companies have increased their dividends in that same period.

Many other companies are considering issuing dividends in response to
the tax changes. During the tax cut debate, Larry Ellison, CEO of
cash-rich Oracle, said, “[W]e certainly might very well have a dividend.
But it certainly will depend on the Congress enacting a tax change.”

And companies in some industries are feeling pressure to issue
dividends: After two major gaming companies announced last month that
they would begin paying dividends, expectations rose that the rest of
the industry would do so as well. Following Mandalay and International
Game Technology’s dividend announcements, the Las Vegas Sun reported
that it is “likely Harrah’s Entertainment, Park Place Entertainment
Corp., MGM Mirage and Station Casinos will start paying dividends.”

“When companies issue dividends, investors win,” continued Clifton. “Dividend payments signal the true financial health of companies, return profits to their rightful owners, and discourage corporate malfeasance. That’s why Bush’s tax reform was so essential and the markets are correctly responding to the president’s bold action.”

Above article is quoted from The American Shareholders Association Press
Release July 1, 2003 https://www.Americanshareholders.com

– Congress Seeks to Ban Competition?

President Bush has been pushing an effort to require federal agencies to
allow private companies to compete for the work done by all 850,000
federal workers who perform commercial activities. But now federal
employee unions are spearheading an effort in Congress to ban those
competitions. The first targets have been the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Department of Interior, and the Department of
Agriculture.

The Reason Public Policy Institute has released a report, “Frequently
Asked Questions about Federal Competitive Sourcing,” which calls for an
opportunity for federal commercial activities to move to the private
sector, where they usually belong.

To access the report, of for more information about The Reason Public
Policy Institute, visit https://www.rppi.org

Above article is quoted from The James Madison Institute, The Madison
Policy Digest https://www.jamesmadison.org

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

– Penn Central: The Supreme Court’s Big Mistake that Led to Smart Growth

By Randall O’Toole

This month’s issue of “Planning” magazine, published by the American
Planning Association, celebrates the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Penn Central vs. New York City — but
this should be a cause for mourning for supporters of the American
dream. In that case, the Penn Central Railroad wanted to build a
skyscraper above Grand Central Terminal, the much-admired Manhattan
passenger train station. Historic preservationists, upset over the
recent destruction of Pennsylvania Station, Manhattan’s other classic
train station, convinced the city to deny the railroad a permit to
build the skyscraper.

Penn Central sued, claiming this was a taking of property and
required compensation under the fifth amendment to the Constitution.
The skyscraper would have returned millions of dollars per year to
the railroad and would not have significantly changed the appearance
of the terminal. In fact, the terminal was originally designed to
have a skyscraper-hotel built on top of it.

The case began in 1965 when the Penn Central was one of the nation’s
largest companies. By the time the Supreme Court made its decision,
thirteen years later, the railroad had suffered the largest
bankruptcy in the nation’s history up to that point, a bankruptcy
that could have been averted if the railroad had not had to suffer
the kind of regulation exemplified by the Grand Central Terminal
case. (Railroad deregulation in 1980 led to railroad prosperity that
had not been seen since railroad regulation in 1907.)

In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court held that New York had
the right to preserve the character and aesthetic features of the
city. Moreover, no compensation was required because the railroad was
still able to earn a profit from managing Grand Central Terminal as a
train station. As University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein
points out, this reasoning is absurd: What if the railroad had sold
the right to build a skyscraper to someone else? Then the historic
preservation law would take 100 percent of the value of that right.
Why would compensation be justified in that case but not in the
actual case?

In considering the Penn Central decision, Planning magazine claims
that it had “very little” effect on the definition of private
property. After all, the magazine reasons, it is merely a restatement
of the Supreme Court’s 1926 Euclid decision, which authorized zoning.

In fact, Penn Central was vastly different from Euclid. In early
zoning laws such as that contested by Euclid, neighborhoods of
single-family homes sought to protect themselves and their property
values from nuisances such as industrial, commercial, or multi-family
developments. No one ever questioned the right of cities to control
nuisances. If in a residential neighborhood you have a factory that
emits a vile odor, or a vacant lot that you turn into a junkyard
filled with old cars and refrigerators, your actions represent a
nuisance to your neighbors and the city can force you to clean up.

When the village of Euclid, Ohio, enacted a zoning law in 1922, a
local Realtor objected that the ordinance zoned land as residential
that he wanted to sell for industrial use. As in the Penn Central
case, the attorney for Euclid argued that zoning was needed to
preserve the character of the village. But the Supreme Court of 1926
was not impressed by this argument. The Court instead supported the
argument of an early land-use planning attorney, Alfred Bettman, who
filed an amicus brief arguing that zoning was a valid form of
nuisance control. In a six-to-three decision, the Court supported
that view.

Euclid was about maintaining property values by controlling
nuisances. Penn Central was not. No one ever maintained that one more
skyscraper in Manhattan would reduce the value of adjacent
properties. No one ever maintained that a skyscraper was a nuisance.
They just said, “Penn Central has something we want, and we want to
make them pay for it while we get the benefit.”

Penn Central opened the door for downzoning such as that found in
rural Oregon, where no one is allowed to build a house on their own
land unless they own 160 acres and, if it is farm land, actually earn
(depending on soil productivity) $40,000 to $80,000 a year farming
it. Penn Central opened the door for upzoning, such as zoning to
transform a neighborhood of single-family homes into apartments by
requiring, among other things, that if your house burns down you must
rebuild it as an apartment.

Where Euclid allowed zoning to protect local property values, Penn
Central allowed zoning to reduce local property values. Where Euclid
allowed zoning to prevent nuisances in neighborhoods, Penn Central
allowed zoning to impose nuisances on neighborhoods. In short,
without Penn Central in 1978, we would not have smart growth today.

One of the dissenters from the Penn Central case was then-Associate
Justice William Rehnquist. Since he became Chief Justice in 1986,
several cases have chipped away at Penn Central, but most have been
five-to-four decisions. Let’s hope that a larger majority of the
Supreme Court sees fit to completely overturn Penn Central before its
thirtieth anniversary.

Above article is quoted from The Thoreau Institute’s Vanishing
Automobile update #38 https://www.ti.org Randall O’Toole heads The American
Dream Coalition, you can reach him at mailto:rot@ti.org

”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

“The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be
found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every
other means, in my opinion, must fail.” — George Washington

”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

“Suzanne Gelb Image”

”Overspending, What’s the Price of Love?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

My husband and I work hard to support our family of two kids. So I don’t understand why he doesn’t stick to our budget. He comes home with presents that we don’t need, like the latest PC when the one we have works fine, or buying pets for the kids, when we already have a dog and a cat. I worry that he is extending himself beyond our financial means. He says not to worry, he’ll pay off the credit cards. That doesn’t reassure me and I’m worried we’re headed for bankruptcy if he keeps this up.

Overspending

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Overspending:

When people buy gifts excessively and even inappropriately, this can sometimes be due to the gift-giver experiencing a lack of self-worth, resulting in some type of effort to buy attention and praise.

One way that some families have handled this, is for the family to have a round table discussion and share with gift giver (be it mother, father or older sibling, for example) how much that person is loved and hug them more often, telling them how important they are to the family and they don’t have to buy gifts to prove how much they love the family. Then the gift-giver can be reassured that the family knows they are loved, so there is no need to tax the budget by buying gifts to prove their love.

”Mixed Messages, What’s the Truth?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

A few weeks ago I went on a blind date. I thought it was great and my date said he enjoyed it and would call me in a few days. We tentatively agreed on a movie to see this past weekend. He never called. I don’t understand the mixed message I got from him.

Disappointed.

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Disappointed:

The scenario you describe is all too common. There are many reasons why people don’t follow through on their word, such as calling for a second date. Some have no intentions of following up; others actually really like their first date, but emotionally they may have a problem with commitment. This could cause them to not follow-up, or they may call, but not in the timeframe promised.

If I were in your shoes, a few moments of disappointment is all I’d spend on this one, realizing that some people need a way out by expressing a lot of rhetoric. I’d consider the date a pleasant experience and get on with my life.

”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

“Suzanne Gelb Image”

”Overspending, What’s the Price of Love?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

My husband and I work hard to support our family of two kids. So I don’t understand why he doesn’t stick to our budget. He comes home with presents that we don’t need, like the latest PC when the one we have works fine, or buying pets for the kids, when we already have a dog and a cat. I worry that he is extending himself beyond our financial means. He says not to worry, he’ll pay off the credit cards. That doesn’t reassure me and I’m worried we’re headed for bankruptcy if he keeps this up.

Overspending

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Overspending:

When people buy gifts excessively and even inappropriately, this can sometimes be due to the gift-giver experiencing a lack of self-worth, resulting in some type of effort to buy attention and praise.

One way that some families have handled this, is for the family to have a round table discussion and share with gift giver (be it mother, father or older sibling, for example) how much that person is loved and hug them more often, telling them how important they are to the family and they don’t have to buy gifts to prove how much they love the family. Then the gift-giver can be reassured that the family knows they are loved, so there is no need to tax the budget by buying gifts to prove their love.

”Mixed Messages, What’s the Truth?”

Dear Dr. Gelb:

A few weeks ago I went on a blind date. I thought it was great and my date said he enjoyed it and would call me in a few days. We tentatively agreed on a movie to see this past weekend. He never called. I don’t understand the mixed message I got from him.

Disappointed.

Dr. Gelb says . . .

Dear Disappointed:

The scenario you describe is all too common. There are many reasons why people don’t follow through on their word, such as calling for a second date. Some have no intentions of following up; others actually really like their first date, but emotionally they may have a problem with commitment. This could cause them to not follow-up, or they may call, but not in the timeframe promised.

If I were in your shoes, a few moments of disappointment is all I’d spend on this one, realizing that some people need a way out by expressing a lot of rhetoric. I’d consider the date a pleasant experience and get on with my life.

”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com