Free ... to Choose

Today's post will focus on three intertwined concepts: logic, freedom, and choice. But first, let me explain why I'm writing this.

I recently posted an article to a social media group page about the resumption of cruising by Royal Caribbean. The cruise line is bypassing the CDC's restrictions by sailing out of non-U.S. ports in Bermuda and the Bahamas for Caribbean itineraries. However, RCL is requiring that all adult passengers be vaccinated against covid.

Judging from the reactions and comments, the fact that RCL is raising its middle finger at the CDC was well-received by most members of the group, which was formed in opposition to government mandates imposed in response to the pandemic. However, some members took umbrage at RCL's vaccine requirement. (IMHO, all cruise lines will be requiring vaccinations for adult passengers when they resume cruising, because if they don't, there's not a port in the world that will accept their ships. So blame those governments, not the cruise lines, who have to meet government requirements to remain in business.) One commenter, in defense of her ire, made this statement:

"Freedom with conditions isn't freedom."

That statement sounds good and right and noble and patriotic. I support fully the idealism on which it is based. But unfortunately, it falls flat as a logical statement. Which is why I want to begin with a discussion of logic, before we delve into freedom and choice.

I'm not talking about logic in terms of, "Hey, that seems logical." That is most people's understanding of logic. One of my friends - at least, I hope he's still my friend - was upset by my assertion that masks are ineffective in controlling the transmission of the virus. He sent me an angry message in which he said, "It makes sense to me that if I cover two-thirds of the holes in my face, I'm less likely to get it or give it."

He got covid. I haven't.

But that's not the point of the example. The point of the example is that he believed that because his assertion made sense to him, was logical. It is not.

Logic is an academic discipline. Courses in logic are part of the philosophy curriculum. Logic is deeply rooted in math. One of the smartest guys I ever worked with was a logic professor at a major university, and now runs a very successful hedge fund that invests in complex and esoteric mortgage derivatives. To model the performance of those derivatives requires stochastic calculus.

Here's an example of a fairly simple logic puzzle (feel free to try to answer it in the comments when I post this link on Facebook):

You are at an unmarked intersection. In one direction lies the City of Lies, and in the opposite direction, the City of Truth. Citizens of the City of Lies always lie. Citizens of the City of Truth always tell the truth. A citizen of one of those cities - you don't know which - stands at the intersection. What question could you ask him to find your way to the City of Truth?

(Logic puzzles often relate to truth vs. lies, because those are binary opposites, hence the mathematical roots of logic. Also, since we'll be talking about freedom, choice, and government restrictions, lies vs. the truth seems apropos.)

Logic is the most appropriate discipline to apply to arguments like "freedom with conditions isn't freedom." Let's examine a world where we have freedom without conditions.

In that world, I am free to break into your house and steal your possessions. In response, you are free to break into my house and shoot me dead. Freedom of speech without conditions means that you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussions. Freedom of religion without conditions means that, if your chosen religion requires human sacrifice, you may freely practice it using your neighbors to appease your gods. You know the old saying: your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose. At a minimum, all of our rights are constrained by the equally valid rights of others.

It is clear, then, that true freedom without conditions would lead to chaos, lawlessness and anarchy. (We've seen examples of this in Portland, Seattle and Minneapolis.) We are a nation of laws - we have to be, in order to be civilized. But what are laws?

Laws are conditions upon freedom unfettered.

Now, a cruise line requiring proof of vaccination before embarking is not a law. A governor or unelected health official issuing a mask mandate is not a law, in spite of what that governor or health official thinks (whether such mandates are truly enforceable is a matter for the courts). They are, however, conditions upon our freedoms - to take a cruise, to walk into a store or restaurant or other business unmasked, to gather in large groups, etc.

There are countless examples of conditions upon our freedom that go far beyond this pandemic, and were in place well before it, one of which will be explored in examples below.

My response to the group member who made the assertion about freedom was this: "We all choose our freedoms. Don't be blind to that." I'm not convinced that she understood my meaning, and another group member asked me to explain, so I did. Then I decided to explore that statement further by writing this blog post.

Conditions on our freedoms present us with choices. Let's take Bob, a hypothetical person who adamantly opposes wearing a mask, and refuses to do so under any circumstances. Bob feels that going anywhere that requires him to wear one is a condition on his freedom, and that is unacceptable to him. He believes that by refusing to wear a mask, he is exercising full freedom, without conditions.

Is he?

Bob is not free to fly on an airplane, or go on a cruise. Bob is not free to shop in most grocery stores or big box stores, at least in the Kansas City metro where he lives. Bob is not free to enter many restaurants. He is not free to get a massage, or a haircut, or an annual physical, at least in most places. These are all freedoms that Bob has chosen to give up, in order to exercise his freedom to remain maskless. If he wants to travel, he must drive. If he wants to go to a store, or eat at a restaurant, or obtain other services, he has to find establishments that either don't require masks, or won't enforce their requirements. That's all well and good - but Bob may no longer have the freedom to shop, dine, or otherwise patronize the establishments he prefers. He has chosen to compromise on where he can go and what he can do in order to preserve his freedom to not wear a mask. He has accepted those conditions on his freedom, which is a key point.

By contrast, Brian also hates wearing a mask. Like Bob, he believes that masks are ineffective in preventing the spread of viruses. He bases this on credible medical opinion and on statistically valid studies. Brian wears a mask as little as he can get away with, so unlike Bob, he does occasionally wear a mask. Why, if he hates doing so and believes they are ineffective? Because he chooses other freedoms that he will not sacrifice - freedoms that Bob has chosen to sacrifice.

Brian has a client in Jacksonville that he still visits at least once a quarter. It is a full two days' drive from Brian's home to Jacksonville. Besides the fact that Brian hates long drives, that would add four days of unproductive travel time to each trip Brian makes to see that client. His schedule does not allow him to waste a couple of weeks a year driving unnecessarily, so he flies. This requires him to wear a mask on each flight and in the airport. (Only for a minimal amount of time; he does not wear one while the flight attendants are seated during taxi, takeoff, approach and landing, as they cannot see him, nor does he wear one during the flight as he is sipping water and nibbling almonds throughout. In the airport, he sits well away from other people and does not wear a mask. He has never been hassled.) He chooses to wear a mask for very brief periods of time to afford him the freedom to fly.

Brian also enjoys leisure travel. He recently flew to Cabo with his wife, to celebrate their 25th anniversary. They chose to celebrate this once-in-a-lifetime milestone the way they wanted, because they would never get that day back. And in order to have the freedom to do that, they accepted the condition of wearing a mask during travel, again for only minimal amounts of time. During an 11-day trip involving four flights, Brian wore a mask for about four hours total.

He and his wife also have the freedom to shop and dine wherever they choose, and they accept the condition of having to very briefly don a mask in some of those businesses, rather than losing that freedom of choice and being limited in where they can dine and shop, and potentially having to drive well out of their way to do so.

So you see, we choose our freedoms. Bob exercises his freedom to never wear a mask. In doing so, he chooses to give up other freedoms: flying, cruising, patronizing his favorite businesses, even taking care of his health by going to his regular doctor, who requires masks be worn.

Brian, on the other hand, chooses those other freedoms over the freedom to always be maskless. There is no judgment here regarding whether one freedom or set of freedoms is more important than the other. That is a decision that only the individual can make, for his or her own self. It's a matter of which freedoms you're willing to sacrifice, and which ones you're not, and that is different for each person.

But make no mistake, you are going to sacrifice some freedoms. You are going to accept conditions on the freedoms you ultimately choose to retain. You can't have it both ways. Don't kid yourself into believing that you're not choosing to give up one set of freedoms for another. There is no freedom without conditions in this covid world we've been forced to live in.

In fact, the same holds true irrespective of the virus. Brian lives in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood. It is convenient to his family's work, schools, doctors, dentist, vets, and a variety of dining, shopping and other places they frequent. Brian's neighborhood has an HOA. The HOA has restrictive covenants, which are conditions on Brian's freedoms as a homeowner. He cannot paint his house pink with orange polka-dots. He cannot build a massive shed in his back yard. He cannot buy a boat and an RV and park them on the street for the 50 weeks a year he's not using them.

Why would Brian accept those restrictions? Well, he chooses the freedom to live in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, near all his chosen amenities. One of the benefits is that his property value is always appreciating. Part of the reason for that is that all of his neighbors are subject to the same covenants. So they can't paint their houses pink with orange polka-dots either, or park their RVs and boats on the street all the time (thank God).

Bob, however, will not accept restrictive covenants. As a homeowner, nobody is going to tell him what he can and can't do with his own property (other than restrictions applied by the city and county in which he lives - conditions he has chosen to accept). And that is Bob's right. Unfortunately, it means that he has to sacrifice the freedom to live wherever he chooses. He cannot live in a neighborhood with an HOA. He may have to live in a run-down older neighborhood, where the property values are in decline, and it may not be safe. Or, he may have to buy a rural property, and drive long distances to his chosen amenities.

Look, I am as passionate about freedom as anyone. My Dad was a WWII vet whose unit liberated Dachau and ended the war by winning the Battle of Munich. I'm descended from the same Scottish clan that produced William Wallace of Braveheart fame, for crying out loud. But I also understand freedom in the context of logic, and I recognize that I must inevitably make choices regarding what freedoms I choose, and which ones I'll sacrifice in return.

Friends, we all make choices when it comes to our freedoms, because freedom without conditions is but a noble myth. And there should be no judgment in that, no right or wrong. What's the most important freedom or set of freedoms to you may not be the most important to me, and that's okay. We make our own choices - but there is no mistaking the undisputable truth that we do choose our freedoms. And thus our most important freedom may be the freedom to make those choices as we prefer.

Get Lost!

 Don't be offended. I'm not telling you to go away, vamos, scram, or any such thing. With all the talk over the past year about "following the science," I am warning you: attempt to follow the science, and you will only get lost. Because the "science" leads nowhere.

Witness the CDC's recent proclamation that grade school students can now safely sit only three feet apart, instead of the earlier six-foot distancing requirement. (Which has always been in conflict with the WHO's one-meter requirement. One meter is a little over three feet. Apparently the science differs depending on whether you're under the jurisdiction of the WHO or the CDC. Or maybe covid can jump six feet in the U.S., but only one meter in the rest of the world.)

Except now, it can only jump three feet in a grade school. But wait - that's just in the classroom. In common areas, the distancing requirement is still six feet. Apparently the virus can jump farther in a lunch room or a library than it can in a classroom.

Also, grade schools no longer have to have any kind of barrier between desks. Covid's ability to clear a Plexiglas shield has apparently been disproven. Fine - can banks and grocery stores remove their Plexiglas barriers now?

Of course, we've known all along, through the various closure requirements, that the "science" is more flexible than a carnival contortionist. Covid does not spread in large, crowded big box retail stores, although it does spread in other crowded places, like concerts. It does, however, spread in small mom-and-pop retailers. It doesn't spread in doctors' offices. But it does spread in hair and nail salons. It doesn't spread on naval vessels, but it does on cruise ships. It doesn't spread in government buildings, but it does in churches. It spreads like wildfire in bars and restaurants, even though there are no reported significant outbreaks stemming from one. And it especially spreads in bars after midnight, like the viral equivalent of the Mogwai from The Goonies. I guess you shouldn't get the virus wet, either.

Anyone who believes this new edict has anything remotely to do with science is probably still reaching under his or her pillow every morning, hoping against hope that finally, the Tooth Fairy remembered to show up, and is not only making good on all those lost teeth from childhood, but is paying interest to boot.

No, this has to do with available space. After much pushback from schools nationwide that they just can't reopen with six feet of separation due to space restrictions, and with the shiny new (but even more vapid) CDC Director wanting desperately to make her new boss look good and get schools open more than one day a week, the agency has changed the science. Poof. Just like that. The CDC didn't even try to justify the shift. No worries; the masses will believe it, because hey, it's the CDC. The CDC wouldn't lie to us. They're here to protect us.

Want more evidence that it's about space? Consider the maintenance of the six-foot requirement in common areas. Common areas are larger than classrooms. And in most schools, all kids aren't in the library or the lunch room or the gym at the same time. So space is less of a consideration.

If we know anything about this viru$, it's that there is no *&%$#@! science. Science is settled. But nothing about this thing is settled. Never has been. All we have are a bunch of theories. There's a theory that masks are effective as a mitigant. There's a theory that two masks are better than one. That the only path to herd immunity is mass vaccination. That new variants are far deadlier than the original strain. (Even the fatally flawed IHME model, which I debunked thoroughly and repeatedly last year, blows that one out of the water.)

So if you want to follow the science, be my guest. Don't blame me when you get so dizzy you fall on your arse.

Stimulus for Thought

 Let's take a look at the recent $1.9 trillion "stimulus" bill that was passed on a straight party-line vote (so much for "unity"). Let's ignore the fact that less than 10% of that staggering amount had anything to do with covid relief. Or that taxpayers in states that are fiscally responsible just paid off the accumulated budget deficits over the past two years of San Francisco and New York, without imposing any budgetary discipline on those two profligate cities. Heck, let's even overlook just the staggering size of that number to begin with: 1.9 trillion seconds is more than 60,000 years. And 60,000 years ago, the first pre-Neanderthals were just beginning to drag their knuckles across what is now the Australian outback. (They're now dragging their knuckles through the halls of Congress.)

No, let's talk about the necessity of further stimulus as relates to covid; the effectiveness of this particular package; and what would really be effective.

Let's first remember that covid did not cause a recession. Covid evoked a government response - for now let's say right or wrong - and the government response caused a recession. Some jurisdictions' totalitarian, unchecked executive mandates were more draconian than others, but nearly every state forced schools and businesses to close and put millions out of work. Even after they re-opened, they imposed restrictions on capacity and hours, and some very large jurisdictions had second shut-downs.

The initial actions took place in March 2020. In April, the U.S. unemployment rate shot up to 14.8%, by far the highest since the Great Depression (although unlike that period, last year's joblessness was concentrated in just a few sectors at the lower end of the income scale). Several states saw unemployment rates above 20%. More than 17 million people were put out of work. Initial jobless claims spiked to nearly seven million the first week of the shut-downs, and continued claims peaked at nearly 25 million in May, both far and away record numbers. U.S. GDP dropped by more than 30% in the second quarter, again the most on record.

In response, the government immediately passed the CARES Act, a $2.2 trillion relief package. The bill included $877 billion in aid for affected businesses, small and large; $340 billion for state and local governments, whose tax revenues would be decimated, but by their own actions; $154 billion for public health; and $560 billion for individuals. That latter amount included $260 billion in additional unemployment benefits, and $300 billion in direct payments to individuals earning less than a given threshold (I'll explain why the word "earning" is italicized later).

Late last year, after months of partisan stalling due to the looming election, Congress passed another round of direct payments to those same earners, totaling $920 billion (that amount also included funding for additional small business loans, vaccines, and unemployment benefits).

And now we have the $1.9 trillion package. There were other stimulus bills last year that did not include direct payments to individuals, totaling $716 billion. All tolled, the government has spent four trillion dollars of your money on covid relief. That's more than total U.S. public debt less than 30 years ago - so if you're 30 or older, it's more than the total public indebtedness was in your lifetime. And to put it further in perspective, 4 trillion seconds is more than 120,000 years ago, when the only living organism was primordial ooze (and there's still an abundance of that in Washington, too).

In all, prior to the latest bill, individuals earning up to the specified threshold (which has been the same for all three rounds of direct payments) received $1,800 each. Married couples received twice that. So our first question is this: is further stimulus really necessary?

Well, the U.S. unemployment rate is already back down to 6.2%. That's just above the post-WWII average, and roughly equal to the average from 2009 to early 2020, when the economy was expanding. Initial jobless claims are down by 90% from their peak, and continued claims are down by more than 80% (more on why ongoing claims aren't lower later). Most of the improvement in those numbers took place by the August - October timeframe, well before even the second round of direct stimulus payments. And GDP grew by a record 33% in the third quarter, more than offsetting the second quarter's decline, and ending the recession after just two quarters. That tied for the shortest recession in history.

Because of record low interest rates, auto sales and home sales are booming. Lenders are having record years, when they thought they'd be charging off massive amounts of loans. Home values are surging on the demand, leaving those who sell with more equity to spend.

Between Feb. 19 and Mar. 23, 2020, the S&P 500 plunged by 34%. It reached a new record high in August. Most recently, it is up 16% from the pre-shutdown high, and has recovered 76% from the Mar. 2020 low. The NASDAQ had more than doubled from last year's low, prior to its recent pull-back. Note that stock prices are a leading indicator of economic activity.

In conclusion, that "Super-V" recovery we were promised, materialized. Due to the unique, bottom-up nature of last year's recession, demand remained extant, so as things opened up, people resumed spending. In some cases, the pent-up demand resulted in an acceleration effect. Anecdotally, several local restaurants are seeing record sales due to dining rooms being open at 50% capacity, and take-out more than making up for the tables that are blocked. (Think about it: you can serve one table in about an hour or so, but you can pump out take-out orders as fast as you can prepare and package them.) More new restaurants have opened now than were closed. (I realize that has not been the experience in states with more draconian lockdowns.)

The recovery is in full swing. GDP growth for 2021 was forecast to be more than 5%, which is very strong, even before this last round of payments. Thus, we can conclude that further stimulus was unnecessary.

So why do it?

First, politicians love to spend money, because it isn't theirs, and they believe it makes them look magnanimous, like they actually care about any of us. And second, they're buying votes. But with the voters' money. So think of it as a forced campaign contribution, to candidates you'd never contribute to.

On to our second question, then: how effective will this "stimulus" be?

Herein lies the reason that I italicized the word "earning" above: if you were "earning" the same amount you were earning before the government shut everything down, you didn't need a stimulus payment. Of the first round of payments last March, a third was saved, a third was spent, and a third was used to pay down debt. If you saved your payment or used it to reduce debt, you didn't need it in the first place. You had enough to live on. And if you spent it on a new big-screen TV, or some other discretionary item, you didn't need it. Only if you spent it on necessities, because you'd lost your job or suffered a reduction in earnings, did you need your stimulus check as a direct result of the government response to covid.

So in other words, more than two-thirds of that first stimulus payment was squandered. Oh, you could argue that the one-third that was spent stimulated the economy, and you'd be right, up to a point. But you can't stimulate the sales of a business you've forced to close, no matter how much money you give its patrons.

As for the boost in unemployment benefits, that was indeed helpful. However, the Curmudgeon's First Rule of Perverse Incentives is that any incentive offered, unless very carefully structured, will create unintended consequences that will lead to bad behaviors that may offset the very benefits created by the incentive. We've seen this with executive bonuses many times, in many industries.

With unemployment benefits, the incentive may be not to go back to work. When things did open back up, many Americans were making more on unemployment than they would be working, so why work, and take a pay cut? This isn't laziness, it's sound economic decision-making. So the unemployment piece should never have been structured to provide extra income over and above that which was lost. It should be income replacement insurance, just like short-term disability insurance coverage. And that's why continued claims have not fallen as much as initial claims, in part.

As further evidence that the stimulus was misdirected, we can look at the Personal Saving Rate. It was 7.6% in Jan. 2020. It soared to a record 33.7% in April. (And by record, I mean about twice the previous record.) It declined to 13.4% by year-end. And it jumped back up to 20.5% in January, on the second round of stimulus (which was smaller than the first, so it makes sense that the spike would be lower).

So what can we expect from this third round? Well, the individual payments are larger than either of the first two rounds. However, they will go to fewer people, as the income cap phase-out was tightened considerably. So the total will be about 75% of the total for round one. Also, it's expected that, with higher gas prices, more than a third of this round will be spent. And, with higher interest rates, more than a third will be used to reduce debt, as credit card interest rates are increasing. But, with the saving rate already north of 20%, we'll likely see a spike to 30% or more again.

That is not in and of itself a bad thing. My own research on long-term cycles in the stock market indicates that long-term bull cycles (stock prices generally rising) begin when the saving rate is historically higher than average. Capital drives growth.

However, it is a clear indication that most of the stimulus was misdirected in terms of actually compensating Americans for what their federal, state and local governments have done to them in response to the pandemic.

So what would be more effective? When I was a CEO, I always told my employees that bringing problems to my attention had no value, because I could see the problems for myself. However, bringing me solutions was of high value. So herewith, I offer my solution:

OPEN THE HELL UP.

Open every restaurant, every movie theater, every bar. Don't limit capacity, and don't limit hours. Open churches for in-person worship. Allow as many fans to attend concerts and sporting events as want to buy tickets. Open cruises and other travel. Yes, people will still get sick. But people have always gotten sick. And people got covid even when things were shut down, even when they wore masks, even when they stayed home.

Many more people ate out, traveled, didn't wear masks, and never got sick. Remember, 30 million Americans have gotten covid. But 300 million Americans haven't. Life happens, and illness is part of life. Besides, between natural infection and vaccination, we're rapidly approaching herd immunity, if we're not already there. So don't condition it on vaccines or test results. Open. Up.

What created the perceived need for stimulus? Closing businesses down and placing restrictions on businesses and people. So what's the most stimulative thing that can be done? To re-open those businesses, and remove the restrictions. Anything else is a band-aid on a tumor.

A Tale of Two Vacations

This post reflects on two trips my wife and I took, one in 2020 and one in 2021. Both departed and returned home on nearly the exact same dates. Both were to very nice beach destinations. Both trips were wonderful. But the similarity ends there, in terms of the world we returned home to, and the world in which we were traveling. I thought readers might enjoy reflecting on the contrast, and thinking about how their own worlds are different now vs. a year ago.

**************************************************

Early 2020 involved a lot of travel for my wife and me. First, we flew to Tampa and spent the night in late January. It was during the annual Gasparilla Festival, which attracts a few hundred thousand drunken pirate wannabes to the city for a weekend of carousing, a boat parade, and other activities. It's Tampa's Mardi Gras.

We stayed in the middle of it. Our hotel was crowded with people attending the festival. The lobby was packed. The elevators were full. Nobody was probably going out of their way to wash their hands more thoroughly, not touch their faces, or avoid other people. The only masks were pirate masks.

Then, we embarked on a cruise. We touched the usual surfaces, got food at the buffet, etc. (We've always been diligent about washing our hands. And I will not miss the demise of the cruise buffet. I've seen far too many people grab a food item with their grubby hands, look at it, and put it back.)

When we got home from the cruise, I was sick (that's never happened to me in the 20+ cruises I've taken - so much for the "floating petri dish" myth). I went to the doctor, and tested positive for ... influenza A. In spite of getting a flu shot the previous October. I do recognize that flu vaccines are based on the strain of flu that is expected, and sometimes the flu throws a curve ball, as it did last year. My case was very mild, probably due in part to the vaccine.

I then had several business trips in February: San Francisco, Tampa, Jacksonville and Austin. I followed my normal routine, even though there was some buzz about this coronavirus thing that originated in China. (Okay, I didn't make my usual sojourn into Chinatown when I was in San Francisco, but that's it.) I didn't worry about what I touched in the hotel or on the plane, but again, I washed my hands regularly, as always. And I had no qualms about dining out, no matter how crowded the restaurant. (I still don't.)

Then, my wife and I went to Hawaii in late February and early March. Same story there. We spent the night on the way out in Oakland, and on the way back in San Jose. In the Oakland airport, we did see some people - mostly Asian - wearing masks, but that's common there during any flu season. The flights were fairly full. Nothing was different in Hawaii (the state that would later have the most draconian lockdown and quarantine measures in the nation, in spite of the lowest case numbers in the nation). Restaurants were crowded, the hotels were at capacity.

We didn't really notice that anything was different until we flew back to San Jose. We were the only people on the shuttle bus to our hotel. The driver said the restaurant was closed, and they'd laid off all but the most tenured staff, because the usually brisk convention business in Silicon Valley had dried up. The hotel was indeed like a ghost town.

On March 10, we returned home to Kansas City. The next day, I made a Target run. I was literally laughing out loud as I pushed the cart through the stores, incredulous at the behavior of the panic-driven hoarders. No soup. No beans. No canned tuna. Of course, no toilet paper, no facial tissues, no paper towels, no hand sanitizer, no wipes. I'm still trying to figure out how a respiratory virus can cause one to have to increase one's arse-wiping exponentially. I figured it would be short-lived.

I was wrong.

A few days later, I awoke at oh-dark-thirty, thinking only about what would happen if we ran out of toilet paper. I lay awake thinking of schemes - mostly illegal - to obtain some, should the stores remain out of stock. I decided to be at Wal-Mart when it opened, and try to find some. If they didn't have it - or even if they did - I'd run across the street to Target. Then hit the grocery store on the way home. But I had a back-up plan.

I have Diamond status with Hilton, as I stay at their properties when I travel for business (which I used to do a lot). They offer a digital key that lets you use your phone to open your room door, so you can bypass the front desk. I was going to take an empty suitcase to the nearby Hampton Inn (a Hilton property), walk past the front desk as though I had a room, walk to the elevator, go up a couple of floors, find a maid's cart, and fill the suitcase with TP while the maid wasn't looking. Hey, I said some of the schemes were illegal. I didn't tell my wife what I was contemplating - plausible deniability.

So I set out on my pre-dawn raid, hell-bent on coming home with toilet paper. Fortunately, Wal-Mart had some. They also had wipes, so I scored some canisters of those.

My grocery shopping routine was altered for months. It often took me three stops at different stores to find everything on my list. However, I view grocery shopping the way military leaders view missions. If it's on the list, I am by-God not coming home without it. Besides TP, flour and cream of mushroom soup turned out to be the greatest challenges. (Flour, because of all those first-time sourdough bread makers. What's up with that? Do you really need sourdough bread to survive?)

Every trip I made, I bought toilet paper, which by now was limited to one package per customer. But if I stopped at three stores and they all had it, I scored three packages. I'm no hoarder, but I do worry about the behavior of others. If they're inclined to try and buy up all of an item out of panic, I'm going to make sure that I'm well-stocked in that item. So I continued that buying behavior for a number of items that had been in short supply. Suffice it to say that I'm well-prepared for the next round of irrationality.

Over several months, shopping largely returned to normal, and shortages were once again virtually non-existent. But those few months felt like living in a third-world country - or one governed in a manner that none of us should hope for.

We continued to travel. Only my Jacksonville client had me keep making my regular quarterly visits, so I went there in May, August, November, and February 2021. I also went there for a board retreat in June, and my wife accompanied me, and we stayed a few extra days at a beach resort. She accompanied me again in November. And we took a couple of driving trips with our dogs. One of the advantages of the remote work model is that you can do it from anywhere, so we plan to make additional trips with the dogs without having to take time off work.

**************************************************

March 1, 2021, was our 25th wedding anniversary. Our original plan was to make our first visit to Italy in late May and early June to commemorate the occasion. We booked three amazing properties for three days each: an apartment on Lake Como, a villa in Tuscany, and a home perched above the Amalfi Coast. We booked them after the pandemic began, thinking that by our travel dates, things would be back to normal.

As 2020 progressed into the fall, we concluded that travel to Europe for our dates was highly unlikely without a draconian quarantine requirement. We didn't want to wait until the last minute and cancel, running the risk that the property owners wouldn't be able to re-book our dates. So we canceled our plans. Instead, we decided to go to Los Cabos, Mexico. We had been twice before, and had stayed in the Hilton located between Cabo San Lucas (CSL) and San Jose del Cabo (SJD), using points to pay for the room. Mexico was open for business, and there were no restrictions on going there.

Rather than stay at the Hilton again - even though we were sitting on about a million Hilton points - we decided to try to find someplace special for this milestone celebration. And we did: a three-bedroom, three and a half bath villa with a pool and hot tub perched above the ocean, with expansive views. The villa is in a gated, off-the-grid solar community about 15 minutes east of SJD - well away from the night life and hustle of CSL, which is not our scene. It was perfect.

A few weeks before our trip, the CDC announced that anyone flying into the U.S. from abroad - including U.S. citizens - must show negative results of a covid test taken within three days of the return flight. We considered canceling. But we decided that we weren't going to let the CDC imprison us in our home over a covid test. We found that they did accept the less invasive and inexpensive rapid antigen test. So we began to try to figure out how we'd go about getting tested in Mexico.

Within two days of the CDC announcement, Mexico had mobilized resources to respond. The Los Cabos tourism website had a page with information on testing. Every hotel and timeshare resort had tests (free for guests), medical personnel to administer them, and the forms required by the CDC. The website also listed all hospitals and clinics that offered the tests, which tests they offered, the turnaround time for results, and contact information. U.S. states should be so organized, and they've had months to get there. Private enterprise will always get better results than government.

Traveling was different this time. Yes, masks are required at the airport, and onboard flights. But no one says anything if you're seated in the airport without one, especially if you're eating and/or drinking. The same is true on the planes, and the flight attendants are seated during taxi and takeoff, so they can't see who's wearing a mask and who isn't. So one could basically lower or remove one's mask as soon as the flight attendants sit down before takeoff, then pull out food and drink when they get up, sip and nibble until they sit down again, and then don the mask when the plane stops at the gate.

The flights were, for the most part, pretty full, and there were lots of people out and about in Cabo. The airports were busy. Travel is clearly coming back - especially in places like Mexico that are welcoming visitors.

Arrival in Mexico was the same as always, with an added form to fill out saying we didn't have symptoms, hadn't been in contact with a positive case - the usual.

The situation in Cabo was pretty similar to home. Masks are required until you're seated at restaurants. Some of them ask you to use hand sanitizer, and take your temperature. Masks are also required at the grocery store, but not in most shops. We took a sunset cruise, and had to wear them to board the boat and in the harbor, because hey, we all know that the 'rona spreads in harbors, but not on the open sea, nor on the dock.

Testing was a breeze. Without an appointment, we went to a local hospital where everyone we encountered spoke English. We were in and out in ten minutes, had our test results by email in less than two hours, and picked up the paper forms the next day. The whole thing cost less than $60.

We had to fill out an attestation that we'd been tested on the Southwest Airlines website, which was automatically entered into their system, so all we had to do at check-in was show the negative test result.

**************************************************

Our Cabo trip was amazing, and it made us glad that Italy fell through. It was the best vacation of our lives, and we've had some incredible travels. The villa we rented was amazing. We'd wake up in the morning and step out on the terrace by the pool, and watch the whales play in the ocean. We ate at awesome restaurants, visited beautiful beaches, and saw indescribable sunrises and sunsets. I would not have traded this experience for anything. We will only have one 25th anniversary, and ours is a marriage worth celebrating.

Sure, we could have stayed home because we refused to wear masks for the little time we had to, or to get a test to be able to return to our own country. However, that would not have made us "free" - quite the opposite. We wouldn't have missed this trip for the world, and we weren't about to allow the CDC to imprison us at home with a two-inch by four-inch strip of cloth and a nasal swab.

Oh, and when we got back, I again went to the grocery store. This time, there was plenty of toilet paper, soup, tuna ... you name it. (But the basement's still stocked, just in case.)