Le Raison d'Etre

That's French for "the reason for being."  Not yours or mine, but the Economic Curmudgeon's.  In other words, why do I write this blog?

I actually started it nearly ten years ago, just as the housing crisis was hitting full bloom.  Back then, I was still in the brokerage business, and still writing daily economic commentary for my firm.  So I was watching the numbers every day, and breaking them down.  (Yeah, I'm one of those people who thinks that's fun.  Wanna party with me?)

But it was also an election year, and there was a new kid on the political block.  One whose inexperience concerned me.  Feel free to disagree; it's okay, and it has no bearing on the reason for the Curmudgeon.  (By the way, the name comes from the fact that, at the time, I'd been pretty bearish on the economy for quite some time, so it only seemed fitting.)

I gave it up for quite a while after I left that world, but I picked it back up not too long ago.  Why?

Simple.  I have political views, as do most people.  But I get sick and tired of reading political crap on Facebook.  Show me your puppy pictures, your grandkids, your flowers, what you ate for lunch.  Tell me what's going on in your life.  Just spare me the Occupy Democrats memes, or the lengthy comments on the latest Trump conspiracy, or the relentless name-calling.

But I wanted to voice my opinions as well, especially to refute so much of the nonsensical misinformation out there.  However, I wanted to spare my Facebook friends who lean left having to read my political views, because I assume they'd no more want to do that than I'd want to read theirs (even though some of them still do post their views on Facebook, and that's okay with me - they're my friends, and my mouse wheel scrolls pretty fast).

So I decided to voice it here instead.  This is my space, and you're invited in - heck, argue with me in the comments, even.  I try to use reason (laced with sarcasm, as is my wont), and to actually read the source documents in question, like a proposed bill, rather than reading some biased news source's interpretation of it, and accepting that as gospel.  Hopefully some find value in that.

Now, I do post links on Facebook to most of my blog posts.  I do this because not everyone who wants to read the Curmudgeon's ramblings knows how to follow the blog, and because a good friend specifically requested that I post the links on Facebook.  And I've actually had a few hundred people read some of these posts, and several of my friends share them with their friends.

If you don't want to read my views, I figure it's easy enough to just not click the links and read the blog posts.  (Hint: if you lean left, you probably don't want to read this blog.)  Just scroll on by, like I sometimes do.  That way, my friends who see the world differently can still see my puppy pics (and trust me, the grandson pics will be coming soon), but they don't have to read my political views.

So why am I explaining this?

After my last post (the one about the Huffington Post article), I received the following comment on the Facebook link:

"I am disappointed that someone of your intellect, integrity, and education could hold these views. I am going to have to say goodbye to you as a FB friend. Wish you the best."

(Note: I only added the italics because another FB friend suggested that it's easier to see something I've called out in quotes if I also put it in italics, when perusing FB on a phone screen.  I mean no disrespect to the commenter by using italics.)

I deleted the comment out of respect for that person, because frankly, I thought it made them look bad.  It basically reinforced everything I said in the blog post about intolerance of views different from one's own, and I didn't want to invite any further comments making that point.

A second reason I deleted it is that I find it rather undignified, if not downright sophomoric, to turn the process of unfriending a person on Facebook into a public event, inviting all the world to spectate.  Hey, you want to unfriend me on Facebook?  By all means, feel free.  Just go ahead and do it, though; no need to announce it to the world.  If you must, send me a private message first, explaining to me why you're doing it.

I promise I won't be offended, nor will I lose a nanosecond's sleep over it.  After all, it's Facebook, it's not life.  And besides, if our relationship was that tenuous, we never really had one to begin with.

Finally, and on a related note, the parting comment, "Wish you the best," seemed ... well, disingenuous, given what preceded it.

So there you have it.  I hope I can spare anyone else feeling the need to sever our Facebook relationship - publicly or otherwise - over the fact that I may see the world differently.  So again, if you've read this blog, and don't like what you see, and we're connected on Facebook - just scroll past the blog links I post, and focus on the puppy pics.  In fact, if you're in that camp and you've read this post, let me close with one:

(Charlie loves everybody, no matter what their political views are.  Maybe there's a lesson in that for all of us.)

I Don't Know How to Explain to You That You Should Think

The drivel below was penned by Huffington Post contributor Kayla Chadwick.  Now, I never would have seen it, because I don't read dreck like HuffPo, but it's been making the rounds on Facebook.  So here it is, followed by my observations.

"I Don’t Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People

Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society. Like many Americans, I’m having politics fatigue. Or, to be more specific, arguing-about-politics fatigue.

I haven’t run out of salient points or evidence for my political perspective, but there is a particular stumbling block I keep running into when trying to reach across the proverbial aisle and have those “difficult conversations” so smugly suggested by think piece after think piece: I don’t know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people.

Personally, I’m happy to pay an extra 4.3 percent for my fast food burger if it means the person making it for me can afford to feed their own family. If you aren’t willing to fork over an extra 17 cents for a Big Mac, you’re a fundamentally different person than I am. I’m perfectly content to pay taxes that go toward public schools, even though I’m childless and intend to stay that way, because all children deserve a quality, free education. If this seems unfair or unreasonable to you, we are never going to see eye to eye.

If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP. Poverty should not be a death sentence in the richest country in the world. If you’re okay with thousands of people dying of treatable diseases just so the wealthiest among us can hoard still more wealth, there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged.
I don’t know how to convince someone how to experience the basic human emotion of empathy. I cannot have one more conversation with someone who is content to see millions of people suffer needlessly in exchange for a tax cut that statistically they’ll never see (do you make anywhere close to the median American salary? Less? Congrats, this tax break is not for you).

I cannot have political debates with these people. Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society, how to be a good person, and why any of that matters.

There are all kinds of practical, self-serving reasons to raise the minimum wage (fairly compensated workers typically do better work), fund public schools (everyone’s safer when the general public can read and use critical thinking), and make sure every American can access health care (outbreaks of preventable diseases being generally undesirable).

But if making sure your fellow citizens can afford to eat, get an education, and go to the doctor isn’t enough of a reason to fund those things, I have nothing left to say to you.

I can’t debate someone into caring about what happens to their fellow human beings. The fact that such detached cruelty is so normalized in a certain party’s political discourse is at once infuriating and terrifying.

The “I’ve got mine, so screw you,” attitude has been oozing from the American right wing for decades, but this gleeful exuberance in pushing legislation that will immediately hurt the most vulnerable among us is chilling.

Perhaps it was always like this. I’m (relatively) young, so maybe I’m just waking up to this unimaginable callousness. Maybe the emergence of social media has just made this heinous tendency more visible; seeing hundreds of accounts spring to the defense of policies that will almost certainly make their lives more difficult is incredible to behold.

I don’t know what’s changed ― or indeed, if anything has ― and I don’t have any easy answers. But I do know I’m done trying to convince these hordes of selfish, cruel people to look beyond themselves."

Okay, my thoughts.

This is nothing more than an uninformed, hypocritical, intolerant partisan rant wrapped up in a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou false sense of superiority.

Why uninformed?  In the first place, while Ms. Chadwick has read a study that claims that "fairly compensated workers typically do better work," she has apparently ignored the myriad studies that have shown that artificially raising wages above what supply and demand would dictate is a job-killer.  It leads to automation (order-taking kiosks in fast food restaurants) that replaces workers, employers cutting hours to cut costs, and small businesses hiring fewer people.

Moreover, a job flipping burgers at McDonald's was never supposed to provide for a family.  I worked in a fast food job my freshman year in college.  I also bagged groceries, made window screens for mobile homes, mowed lawns and worked a soda fountain at a drugstore during my youth.  I never expected any of those jobs to provide a living for me so that I could start and raise a family.  That's why I went to college.

(And lest anyone decry my "privilege" at being able to do so, note that my family at the time met the definition of lower middle class, and I had to pay my own way through school.  I worked my butt off, got two degrees, and realized the American dream: taking advantage of the opportunities afforded me by living in a free, capitalist democratic republic.)

She's also apparently ignorant of Medicaid, of the miserable failure that is the "Affordable" Care Act, or of the fact that health care is not a right, at least according to the Bill of Rights that the rest of us have actually read.

And she's ignorant of the fact that, if you're a homeowner, you do indeed pay taxes to support schools, whether you have kids or not.

Finally, she has totally misrepresented the conservative platform - and ethos.  It is well-documented fact that conservatives give more to charity, for example, than liberals.

I would in no way imply that all conservatives are caring, compassionate, selfless and tolerant.  Nor would I imply that all liberals are uncaring, lack compassion, are selfish and intolerant.  However, I can say with authority that the most caring, compassionate, selfless and tolerant people I know lean conservative.  And the most selfish, intolerant, uncaring people I know lean liberal.  Again, not all conservatives and liberals I know fit those descriptions, but that is the central tendency.

Maybe I hang out with the wrong liberals.  Maybe Ms. Chadwick hangs out with the wrong conservatives.  It would help, of course, if she'd actually have a conversation with them to learn how they feel, what they think and believe.  That would be ... well, tolerant.

Why hypocritical?  While Ms. Chadwick claims to care so much about the less fortunate, she callously assumes that someone living at the margin can afford to pay an extra 4.3% for their Big Mac.  Wage growth under President Obama averaged less than one-fourth that amount.

So if we assume that a family at the margin would see their food budget - a necessary, not discretionary, expenditure - increase by 4.3% when their wages under a liberal administration are increasing at about 1%, they're going to run into difficulty pretty soon.  Apparently Ms. Chadwick can afford such an increase in her spending; good for her.  However, a lot of folks can't, including the burger-flipper at McDonald's who's trying to feed his family - you know, the guy she cares so much about, but you and I don't.

Of course, you could buy your own hamburger at the grocery store and make your own burgers for a lot less than the cost of a Big Mac.  But then you'd put the poor burger-flipper out of work altogether.  Then again, what about the people who work at the grocery store?  Apparently Ms. Chadwick doesn't care whether they have jobs or not, since she seems to be too lazy to cook for herself.

Likewise with taxes to support public schools, for those without children.  I'm assuming she's proposing additional taxes on top of the taxes that already go toward public education; either that or she's just plain ignorant.  (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.)  Some people might not be able to afford a tax increase for that, in addition to a 4.3% increase in their food budget.

Or for government-subsidized health care.  How many marginal families' finances have been damaged by having to pay the increased premiums that resulted from ACA, or having to pay a tax because, while they don't feel they need health insurance at this point in their lives, they have to pay for it or else pay a surtax.  That surtax itself was cruel: it was imposed so that President Obama could say, "See?  Everyone is insured!"  That's like holding a gun to someone's head and threatening to kill them if they don't buy a house, then crowing about the record homeownership rate.

And why intolerant?  Because, like so many on the "tolerant" left these days, she refuses to have a conversation with anyone who doesn't participate in her groupthink.

Probably because she knows her assertions would be handily refuted.  So she resorts to this sanctimonious hogwash, and people who should know better buy it.  Sad.

I simply don't believe I should have to pay more for goods and services than what they're worth from a true economic (i.e. supply and demand) perspective, hence I don't want to pay an extra 17 cents for a Big Mac so the person frying it up can feed a family on starter-job wages.  (For that matter, I don't even eat at McDonald's.  From her post, presumably Ms. Chadwick does.  Maybe if she laid off the Big Macs, the rest of us wouldn't have to subsidize her health care.)

I do believe my property taxes should help pay for public schools, even though my daughter is grown.  In fact, they do.  The issue isn't paying for public schools, it's the dismal state of education in most of this country.  Let's fix that, even if it means a choice between public education in poorly-run districts and vouchers for private schools as an alternative.  I created a foundation to support private school education for kids in the poorest country in the world, because the government schools in that country are horrible.  Is that uncaring?  If not, why can't we do the same thing here at home?

And again, I don't believe health care is a right, though I support Medicaid to provide it to the indigent (and Medicare, because it's my money).  ACA is an abysmal failure.  The proposals to fix it thus far aren't much better.  So let's just go back to the days before Obamacare, or else let's truly fix the system, starting with FDA and tort reforms.

No, Ms. Chadwick, you and I are nothing alike.  But not because I don't care about people.  My attitude is far from, "I've got mine, so screw you."  You want to make that assertion?  Let's compare our charitable giving.  The taxes we pay.  Our record of volunteer work to help those less fortunate than themselves.  Honey, I'll bet you've never even seen real poverty.  I have.  So save your inexperienced sanctimoniousness for someone who's naive enough to accept it.  Others apparently are, but I'm not.

See, it's one thing to demonstrate your compassion with your words.  It's quite another to demonstrate it with your works.  So put your money - and your sweat - where your mouth is.  Or keep it closed.

In fact, Ms. Chadwick, I really can't think of anything that I need you to explain to me.  Do a little research, be willing to let some facts interfere with your biases, and gain a little life experience.  Then maybe we can come up with something you can explain to me that I don't already understand.  I won't hold my breath.

But really, it's okay that Ms. Chadwick and her devotees don't want to have a conversation with me.  I don't want to have a conversation with them, either.

That's not intolerance on my part.  It's simply a reflection of the fact that, while I could explain some things to them, I can't understand those things for them.

Catching Up - Play Ball?

Long time, no blog.  Between my work schedule of late and bonding with our new pup, Charlie, I've fallen woefully behind.  So I'm going to be playing catch-up, possibly in a torrent of posts.

Schedule notwithstanding, I couldn't bring myself to post anything in the immediate aftermath of the tragic shooting at the Republican team's practice for the Congressional baseball game.  Not because I'm a Republican (I'm not), and not because I have any stronger feelings about Republican Congressmen being shot at than Democrats.  All partisan violence is abhorrent to me.  In fact, increasingly, all extreme, over-the-top partisan rancor and rhetoric is abhorrent to me.

Time to tone it down.

One of the unfortunate by-products of the 24/7 cable news environment is the propensity to want to assign blame for things.  Within 24 hours of any incident, the finger-pointing begins.  Whose fault was it?  In my view, that tends to demean the tragedy itself, and turns it into an exercise unworthy of dignified consideration.

I've seen, heard and read blame being ascribed to the Left, to the Right, to Donald Trump, to guns, to the media, mental illness, and to just about everything but global warming.  To be sure, various factors play an indirect role.  But all that direct blame is misplaced.

First and foremost, blame lies at the feet of one James Hodgkinson.  He alone targeted his victims, for his own reasons.  He alone loaded his weapons and pulled the trigger, repeatedly.  The gun didn't fire itself.  No one on the left deliberately goaded him into taking this damnable action.  He is to blame.  Period.  And he paid the price for his deplorable actions.

Now, let's talk about influence.  Should he have had access to the weapons he had access to?  The rifle he used was not a particularly powerful one.  You wouldn't use it to shoot big game.  It fell well within his Second Amendment rights to own.

I posted on Facebook over a year ago about the gun issue, trying to bring sanity to the topic by defining what an assault rifle is and what an AR-15 is, because most people with strong opinions on the gun issue have no earthly clue what they're talking about.  Sadly but predictably, it didn't sway anyone from their pre-conceived notions.  The truth will only set you free if you recognize it, and truth has been devalued more than crude oil over the past several years.

The question of gun ownership among the mentally ill has been raised.  But I haven't read any credible account of the shooter to suggest that he was mentally ill.  Sure, he'd been the subject of other complaints: shooting his guns on his own property, domestic violence (which, sadly, is not indicative of mental illness; too many sane people abuse their loved ones).

Hodgkinson was, by all accounts, a successful business owner, a property inspector.  He was also radical in his political views.  And this is an important point:  there are a lot of people who are radical in their political views - on the left and on the right - who are perfectly sane.  Extreme, perhaps, but sane.  And the line between that extremism and violence can be thin.

The man was a Bernie supporter.  Bernie is anti-gun.  So it's hard to make the quantum leap that Bernie's politics encouraged this act, which Bernie himself described as despicable.  The perpetrator was anti-Trump; so are a lot of people who would never commit an act of violence on the basis of their political views.

Still, the rhetoric is pretty over the top.  Madonna said she'd thought about blowing up the White House after Trump was elected.  Kathy Griffin posed for her now-infamous picture with a fake beheaded Trump.  Snoop Dogg (why does this talentless guy still garner media attention?) featured shooting Trump in a video.  And on, and on.

Sure, there was equally disgusting anti-Obama rhetoric, just not nearly as much - Ted Nugent, the bombing of Emmanuel Cleaver's campaign headquarters, etc.  The "you do it too" defense just doesn't cut it here, but it points to the fact that the anti-"other side" rhetoric has gone entirely too far.

I found it ironic that, the day of the shooting, George Stephanopolous, ABC talking head, former Bill Clinton staffer, and Clinton Foundation contributor, wondered aloud whether the extreme partisan rhetoric in this country might have played a role in the shooting.  Hey George, you're part of the reason for that.  You foment that rhetoric at every opportunity.  So yeah, the media is complicit.  And I'm not just talking about George, or Rachel Maddow, or Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann.  Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin have also played a role in ratcheting up the partisan rhetoric.

The entertainment world also has to acknowledge a share of the burden.  Not just fringe no-talents like Griffin and Snoop Dogg, or talented (you have to admit, the guy is a brilliant guitarist) but fringe names like Nugent, but accoladed stalwarts like Robert DeNiro and Meryl Streep, have contributed to the current divide.

Then, let's talk about the gun debate.  Now, those guns didn't just up and load themselves, and fire at the Republican Congressmen on that baseball field.  But to listen to the anti-gun brigade, you'd think they had.  To her credit, even Gabby Giffords, herself the victim of gun violence, didn't go there in her comments after the shooting.  Again, re-hashing the gun debate here isn't going to sway anyone from their pre-conceived notions.

But some did take that extreme position.  One Facebook poster said that he didn't want anyone grieving beside him if they were pro-gun rights.  That's okay, dude.  I don't want to be grieving beside you, either.  Because my grief is genuine, while yours is disingenuous.  You're merely exploiting a tragic situation to forward your own political agenda, while I am truly grieving for the potential loss of life, and the very real loss of security.

Moreover, your intolerance of any view that differs from yours is a major part of the problem.  "I won't stand next to someone whose views disagree with my own."  Wouldn't it be more tolerant to say, "I want you to grieve alongside me, then I want to engage in a discussion with you, so I can try to understand where you're coming from, and have an opportunity to try to persuade you to my views"?  To be unwilling to even consider the opinions of others is a statement of extreme intolerance, and that's the first step toward a violent reaction to those whose views differ from your own.

Look, I'd like to be able to say that the rhetoric is equally bad from both sides of the political spectrum.  Maybe it's a function of who I'm friends with, or what news outlets I follow (for the record, I have friends from all walks of the political spectrum, and I watch CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNBC - an affiliate of NBC and MSNBC - Bloomberg, One America News, and BBC, and I read news outlets ranging from Al-Jazeerah to Der Spiegel; I also don't read blogs like Drudge or Occupy Democrats, because they're ... well, factless garbage).

I'd like to be able to say that, but in the current environment ... I'm afraid I can't.  I see more vitriol from the left than from the right these days.  Probably because the left lost an election they thought they couldn't lose, to a candidate they thought they couldn't lose to, and they're still bitter about that.  Fine.  So focus your energy on how you're going to keep that from happening in 2018 and 2020.  Don't re-litigate 2016 at every turn, and vow to do your damnedest to eradicate the outcome of 2016.  That only fosters notions of desperate action as the only alternative.  We survived eight years of Barack Obama; we'll survive four years of Donald Trump.

Consider Nancy Pelosi, the crowned queen of the Democrat party.  Less than 24 hours after the tragic shooting, she was blaming Republicans for the outbreak of violence, which totally negated any positive remarks she made on the House floor in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

Simply put, Nancy Pelosi is a despicable human being.  Always has been, always will be.  Probably best to just ignore her, and look forward to the happy day that she steps down from office.

So we're left with an abhorrent act committed by an abhorrent individual, crazy or otherwise.  What we do with that will determine whether this politically caustic environment continues to spawn acts of violence, or whether we return to a world where we all accept the realities of a democratic republic, in which sometimes our "side" wins and sometimes it loses.

We tend to forget that what divides us is smaller than what we share in common.  We are all human beings.  We are all Americans.  We all want the best for all citizens of this republic.  We differ greatly on what that looks like, how it's realized.  But at the end of the day, we want the same thing.  We shouldn't be killing each other over how we get there, or wanting to kill each other over how we get there.  Family members shouldn't be unfriending their relatives on Facebook over their political differences.

When we reach that level of intolerance, we are only promoting the kind of intolerance that inevitably leads to tragedy.

Unconditional Love

You won't get it from your spouse.  Oh, husbands and wives love each other, and there has been many a great love story throughout history.  But unconditionally?  We do a thousand little things that get on each other's nerves.  They start out small, but can snowball out of proportion in a hurry.  We push each other's buttons.  And there are those things said that shouldn't have been said, those things unsaid that should have been.  We get absorbed in our own worlds, and don't always listen or give our undivided attention.

We're human.

You won't get it from your parents or your children, either.  If you're a parent, you know that indescribable feeling when your child is born, or when you first bring your adopted child home.  But you also know the times they test you, try your patience.  If you don't pay attention to your kids, you'll be paid back in spades.  And hell hath no fury like a two-year-old that doesn't get what he or she wants.  As parents and children, we love deeply, but not unconditionally.

We're human.

No, the only two sources of unconditional love are God and dogs.  (Note the similarity?  Same three letters, different order.  Probably no coincidence.)

I've experienced both, but I'm not here to preach.  Let's talk about dogs.

We've had three miniature Schnauzers: Dominic, Kramer and Max.  Max is still with us and going strong at 14 years of age.  We had to say good-bye to Kramer (Max's litter mate) almost a year ago.  And Dominic, who we got a couple of years before Max and Kramer, died in my arms about four years ago.  Dom and Kramer were both blind in their later years, and Max is deaf.  Dominic struggled with diabetes, a couple of bouts of pancreatitis, and other issues, but before that he was the strongest, fastest, smartest dog we'd ever known.

All three of them have shown us the kind of love that only a dog can give.  They want you to play with them, pet them, pay attention to them.  If you're too busy (or just think you're too busy), they're still going to come to you later with the same expectant joy.  "Maybe this time you have time to play, or to sit a while with me on your lap?  Please?"

If my wife was crying, Dominic was in her lap, kissing away her tears.  Kramer was her little stalker, following her throughout the house constantly - so much so that she took to carrying him around in a shoulder bag so she could get household chores done, like a little marsupial dog.  And Max just wanted your hand on him - constantly.

So many times we let our dogs down, we disappoint.  Every time, they come back.  All is forgiven.  Then that day comes when we have to say good-bye, and we're filled with regret - just one more day, we pray.  But how many days did we spend doing our own thing, when we could have spent time with them?  And yet, as they're departing this world for the next, they don't accuse.  They just want us to be there for them in those last moments, our hands on them, hearing our voices one last time.

I could write a book about Dominic, Max and Kramer, but I want to talk about another dog today.  Because this dog perhaps embodies unconditional love more than any I've known.  See, we got our other three guys as pups.  They never knew a life without a nice home, cold days spent indoors, regular grooming, proper food and care, a big backyard, and plenty of love.  They never had to deal with neglect, never had a reason not to trust people.

Meet Charlie.

We brought him home today.  This is Charlie as he looked when we met him at his foster home two days ago:

Pretty happy, right?  Looks pretty good, right?

This is Charlie's "before" picture, taken by The Rescue Project as they found him:

Yes, it's the same dog.

Charlie is somewhere between five and eight years old, so we're told; we'll have a better idea when we take him to our vet next week.  Reportedly, he spent those years either chained in the back yard or in a kennel in the basement of his previous owner's home.

The amazing people at The Rescue Project found him a couple of weeks ago.  They are saints.  They go into the community looking for neglected/abused animals, and try to persuade the owners to surrender them.  In this case, the owner agreed to surrender Charlie (they called him Harley, but he just has that Charlie personality, don't you think?)

I'll give the owner a modicum of credit for that, but that's as far as I can go.  How anyone can neglect a pet to that degree is beyond my comprehension, or ability to forgive.

A wonderful groomer went to work on Charlie, and he got happier with each chunk of matted fur that came off.  When she was done, an adorable mini Schnauzer was unveiled.

He looks like Dominic, floppy ears and all.  He's a bit bigger than Max, like Dom was, and has the coarser coat that Dom had, instead of Max's soft fur.

He doesn't appear to have been abused, just neglected (as if neglect warrants the word "just").  He doesn't shy away from people.  When you reach out to pet him, he doesn't cower or growl.  The look on his face is expectant joy, anticipation of the connection dogs crave, not fear.  He doesn't know a stranger - he took to us immediately.

Now, here's the lesson in this:

You'd think it would be hard for a dog like Charlie to trust.  To expect attention, to give love that, in his experience, won't be given back.

Not Charlie.

He is unafraid to show his love and seek ours, fully expecting that we'll give it back.  He is trusting enough to let us pick him up, believing he'll be safe in our arms.  He's happy, and he's confident that he will remain so.  He believes in us, even though he only knows us as humans, and has no reason to believe in humans.

And he will be happy.  We'll earn his belief in us, even though he gives it freely without our having yet earned it.  This guy is going to have the home he's deserved from birth, for the rest of his life.  He'll go on walks, he'll roam a big back yard (with a fence to keep him safe - no more chains for Charlie), he'll chase squirrels and birds.  He'll look out the window and bark at everything that moves, master of all he surveys (just like Max).  Hopefully, he and Max will cuddle together, like Max and Kramer did.  Max already wants to play with him.

He'll learn to obey, because he wants to please, and wants to be a good dog (so at some point, he'll hopefully stop trying to mark every corner of the house).  He'll be well-fed (but not overfed), he'll receive the best medical care (shout out to the fine people at Camelot Court Animal Clinic).  He'll presumably sleep in his kennel, but I won't be surprised to find him in bed with us and Max.  I'll re-learn to sleep on a sliver of bed.

And he'll be loved.  He'll receive attention, he'll be cuddled and petted.  He'll be allowed on the furniture - he's family, after all.

But ...

He won't receive all the attention he craves.  His "Let's go for a walk!" looks will sometimes be met with indifference, as we're too busy, too preoccupied to take the time.  "Maybe later," we'll say.

And yet, the next day, even if we don't make good on our half-hearted promise, he'll be back at our feet with the same look on his face.  We'll feel guilt for not taking him yesterday, but all will be forgotten and forgiven as we clip on his leash.  He'll be perfectly happy to give us all of his love, in exchange for however much of ours we'll give.

He will love unconditionally, in other words.  And we will not.  Because we're human, and he is above that human condition.

But maybe, just maybe, as we consider how Charlie spent the first years of his life, we'll do a little bit better.  By him, by Max, and by each other.

And for that, we can thank Charlie.  Like all dogs, he'll have made the world - and the people in it - better for his having been in it.

The Distractions Have Become the Focus

Occam's razor is being dulled.  By dullards.

By the most elementary definition, Occam's razor postulates that the simplest explanation is probably the correct explanation.  In today's political climate, however, there is a growing reluctance to accept the simple explanation, but to cling to an alternative explanation that is so meandering in its "logic" that it defies comprehension.  To wit:

Parties to the Trump campaign had contact with the Russians prior to the election.  The simple explanation is that a Trump administration wanted to forge better relations with Russia, at the same time putting Putin on notice that, unlike Barack Obama, Trump isn't going to be Putin's whipping boy.  Trump, after all, has already struck at Syria, enforcing the "red line" that Obama backed away from, even though that rankled the Russians.

The alternative explanation is a convoluted conspiracy theory that resurrects The Red Scare, and suggests that Trump and Putin are besties.

Trump jokingly said during a debate that he hoped Russia found Hillary's "lost" emails.  The simple explanation was that Trump was being Trump, speaking without thinking and making a stupid joke.

The alternative explanation is that Trump actually invited and encouraged Putin, in front of millions of TV viewers, to hack the DNC's servers, ridiculous as that notion is.  (Never mind the fact that, at the time, no one on the left screamed, "Conspiracy!", because everybody on the left smugly assumed Hillary would win.)

Hillary Clinton lost the election.  She lost states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  The simple explanation is that she didn't campaign in Wisconsin, and she promised to take a lot of jobs away from coal miners in those other states.  You don't ignore a state, or threaten people's livelihoods, and expect to win the minds and hearts of voters.  Especially with the pain of the Great Recession so fresh in people's memories.

The alternative explanation is a combination of racism, sexism, bagism, shagism (John Lennon reference - get it?), homophobia, Russian meddling, James Comey, deplorables, and whatever other excuse Hillary can come up with to compensate for the undeniable fact that she was a horrible choice of a candidate who ran a horribly flawed campaign.  Even the bumbling Joe Biden has acknowledged that, and no amount of head-bobbling on Hillary's part could change it.

Trump withdrew America from the Paris Accord.  The simple explanation is that it was a crappy agreement, entered into without proper approval, that would have penalized the U.S. for the strides it's already taken in reducing emissions, at great cost, while allowing the worst offenders to continue their offenses.

The alternative explanation is that TRUMP HATES TREES AND WANTS THE WORLD TO END!!

Et cetera.

Russiagate.  Comeygate.  NATOgate.  Parisgate.  Melania-jacketgate.

The Left has a new weapon in the war on Trump, and it's distraction.  Manufacture a new "scandal" every day, and cover it 24/7 to shift the focus to it.  The mainstream media is more than willing to help in the effort.  George Stephanopolous, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Martha Raddatz are at the Dems' beck and call in deploying this strategy.

Activist judges, many of them Obama appointees, are also at the ready.  They will challenge every executive order, inciting the administration to re-do what it has already done, rather than trying to do anything new.

Those matters will distract the administration from pursuing its policies.  The Left knows this, and knows that they cannot stop those policies from being put into action through legislative means, because they lost the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate in the election.  So they have to do something, anything to stop those policies from being enacted before the mid-terms, when they hope to win back control of at least one of the houses of Congress.

At which point they'll continue to ensure that nothing happens in Washington.  And thus they distract.

Make no mistake, these are manufactured "scandals" intended to do nothing more than obfuscate.  And this is the shiny new wrench in the toolkit of partisan politics.  The wrench that will be thrown into the works of policy change, change that the people voted for.

So tax reform, health care reform, border security, fighting terrorism, all the things that the voters wanted in November, will have to wait.  Indefinitely.  To hell with the will of the voters; there are partisan interests and political careers at stake here!

And what of the Republicans?  John McCain et al appear to be jumping on the Dems' bandwagon, focusing on the distractions.  Why?

Here's the insidious truth; pay heed:  Donald Trump promised to return government to the people.  Say what you will about the guy, it's refreshing when a President invites a bunch of plumbers into the Oval Office because it's THEIR house, paid for by the sweat of their brows.  Far better than somebody who sells nights in the Lincoln bedroom to his influential friends, like Hillary's philandering husband did.

And guess what?  The government - the old guard, the McCains of the world - don't want government returned to the people.  They want the people to serve them, not the other way around.  (By the way, if you want to learn what kind of a guy John McCain is, google "Keating Five."  I knew of that scandal by way of the fact that I started my career as an S&L examiner during the thrift crisis.  McCain has always been a palm-greaser, a favor-grantor.  A politician of the old school of back-room deals cut in smoke-filled rooms.  That's why I was never able to bring myself to vote for him.)

So why were the Dems able to coalesce behind Barack Obama, if the GOP won't stand behind their party's President now?  Why were the Dems able to work with Obama to move his agenda forward?

Simple.  Obama favored bigger and bigger government.  Government not of, for or by the people, but over the people.  So the Dems got on board, because that's their platform.  So, sadly, did too many Republicans, because that perpetuates their power.

And when not enough Republicans did get on board, Obama advanced his agenda through the unilateral fiat of the executive order, the phone and the pen, as he put it.

Trump has done that, too.  But Obama had the courts on his side; after all, he appointed the judges.  Those same judges who now thwart his successor's orders, but stood idly by while the guy who appointed them wielded his pen.

Career politicians profit by perpetuating their time in power.  (So do their friends, who line those politicians' pockets.)  So they rally behind the champions of big government, but are threatened by those who would return the government to the people.

Yet, that's what the people have said they want.  We're sick and tired of politics as usual in Washington; that, after all, is precisely why Donald Trump won (the simple explanation, yet again).  Hopefully, we wake up and send a message in 2018, similar to the message sent last year.  Hopefully, it's not too late.

In the meantime, I fear the distractions have become the focus.  And thereby the focus is lost.

Random Saturday Musings

First, some follow-up points on my latest post regarding the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord:

• I mentioned that the Athabasca glacier in Alberta has receded a little less than a mile over the last 125 years.  So logic would tell us that the glacier began that process in 1892, correct?  (Actually, it was probably even earlier; at one point, much of northeast Kansas was covered in ice.  I'm glad it's not today.)
• In 1892. Benjamin Harrison was President.  The gas-powered automobile was not yet in production.  The U.S. population was about 63 million, less than a fifth of today's total and about equal to the combined populations of California and Texas today.  Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states.  In other words, the glaciers were receding long before our world was filled with cars, long before the carbon footprint was a thing, long before sign-waving protesters screamed about climate change before climbing back into their gas-burning cars and driving back to their coal-fired electricity cooled homes.
• Could it be that the Athabasca glacier is receding in part because, in an effort to educate the masses about the impact of global warming, the Canadian government transports tourists across it in massive, 30-ton, diesel-powered vehicles?
• The day the withdrawal from the Paris Accord was announced, a very well-educated, successful woman commented to me, "We don't need coal!"  She made this comment while we were sitting in her air-conditioned boardroom, with the lights on and our laptops plugged in, the Keurig and mini-fridge running, in the state that leads the nation in consumption of electricity fueled by coal.  She is also passionately anti-Trump.  Obviously, there are a lot of people who don't understand this issue, but form their views about it based on party affiliation.
• So Elon Musk dropped off the President's business advisory council.  Pardon my yawn.  Massive government spending on climate change directly benefits Musk's companies, which are innovative, but famously unprofitable.  Without government subsidies, they'll be even more unprofitable, and could fail.  Too bad, Elon,  Figure out a way to make an unsubsidized profit through alternative energy, and you're our biggest hero.  But don't suck our tax dollars to prop up your little experiments, especially when your net worth is about $13 billion.
• Meanwhile, kudos to President Trump for being that rare politician who appoints a guy like Musk to his council, then doesn't grease his palm with the people's money.  Trump did what he thought was the right thing, even if it cost him an influential guy like Musk.  Most politicians sacrifice the right thing to give special favors to their friends.  Nobody else is talking about this.
• CNN is gushing over French President Macron's English-language response to President Trump's decision to pull out of the accord (like the fact that the guy can speak English is a big deal - hey, je parle Francais, un peu).  One talking head went so far as to declare him "the new leader of the free world."  Please.  The guy was only elected 20 days ago, and thus far all he's accomplished has been kissing Angela Merkel's skirt.  Declaring him the new leader of the free world at this early juncture would be as premature as handing a U.S. President the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration, for doing nothing more than going on a global apology tour.  Oh wait ...
• Consider this: the U.S. didn't pull out of the Paris Accord because we're planning to revert to wholesale pollution and destroy the earth, nor because Donald Trump doesn't believe in climate change.  We pulled out because we're already doing our part, and we don't need to subsidize those who aren't, and who won't well into the future.  The U.S. has reduced its carbon footprint dramatically over the last few decades, so let's let the rest of the world do their part.
• Now, some would argue that saving the world from global warming is so important that the U.S. should be willing to subsidize other countries' efforts.  Those same people would argue, in the next breath, that the U.S. shouldn't be the world's cop.  Can't have it both ways: the U.S. should save the world from one threat, only to sit back and see it destroyed by another?  Folly.  Besides, I don't need some kid living in his parents' basement, playing Guardians of the Galaxy after he gets done with his shift flipping burgers at McDonald's, spending my tax dollars so freely.  Let the people who buy into the notion that climate change is our biggest threat donate their money to combating it, rather than demand everyone else foot the bill.  Meanwhile, I'll keep driving my 35mpg car and picking up other people's trash.

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

A lot of people are outraged over Kathy Griffin's latest stunt, and are plastering stories about her all over social media.  I'm not going to do that.  In fact, I'm reluctant to even mention her here.

Why, you ask?  Shouldn't I be outraged?

Perhaps.  But I understand why she did it: she's a relatively talentless attention junkie who has made a career of trying to extend her 15 minutes of fame by being outrageous, since she can't do it on the merits.

She likes to brag about all the talk shows and venues she's been banned from as a result of her shenanigans.  She proudly created and starred in a reality TV show about being on Hollywood's D-list, probably because she's bitter about the fact that she lacks the chops to make the A-, B-, or even C-list.

She pranced topless beside a road in Miami while the paparazzi snapped away, and even posted some of the images on her own Twitter account.  Most celebrities who get caught au naturel try to suppress those photos.  But they've typically become celebrities by being talented, and don't need the extra publicity.  While everyone else participated in the Ice Bucket Challenge a few years ago, she did so fully nude and on camera.

I would have to imagine those images are far more disgusting than her most recent one.

Thanks to all the attention she's been getting, she's been able to command headlines, even calling a press conference and playing the victim card, and pointing out that Ted Nugent did something equally reprehensible (ah, the "you do it too" defense - the last resort of small but guilty minds).

I'd rather not play her game by spreading her name all over social media, drawing more attention to her like a fly to ... well, you know.  When people do that, Kathy Griffin wins.  Let her fade into oblivion, where she belongs.

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

I've been wanting to address this for a while now.  I cringe every time I hear some anti-war lament about "sending our sons and daughters into harm's way."  Do these people think the government goes about raiding people's homes, snatching little Bobby or Suzy from their cozy beds under the cover of darkness, and sending them off to slaughter?

Last I checked, we have a volunteer military.  People sign up to defend this country, even if that requires the ultimate sacrifice.  And the military people I've known are more than ready to go defend the U.S., even if it means risking their own lives.  Remember the surge in enlistments that took place after 9/11?

Sure, there are a handful who join up for the pay and benefits, but when they get their deployment notice, they say, "Hey, that's not what I signed on for."  Thankfully, they're few and far between.

If my own daughter or son-in-law enlisted and got sent to the front lines, I'd worry about them.  I'd pray for their safe return.  And if, God forbid, they lost their lives, I'd be crushed.

But I wouldn't blame the government that deployed them after they volunteered to serve.  I wouldn't disown them for that choice.  I'd be proud of them, and I'd honor their memory each and every day.

The military folks I know understand that while drone strikes can be effective, there is no substitute for boots on the ground in some applications.  A drone strike did not take out bin Laden, nor did a spy satellite locate Hussein.  We want them on that wall, we need them on that wall.

I hate the notion of war, of armed conflict, of people having to kill other people in order to achieve peace.  There should be better ways, but sometimes there aren't.  Especially if the other side doesn't want to achieve peace, and insists on continuing to threaten lives.

Had the U.S. never engaged in armed conflict, we'd all be singing "God Save the Queen" or shouting "Sieg Heil."

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

So, in my last post I mentioned the fact that I'm going to be a grandpa.  And I do worry about the world we're going to leave to that precious lad.  However, I don't believe his biggest threat will be eking out an existence in a barren desert with no food or water, thanks to global warming.

I worry about a world in which people have to live in fear of violence, and not just from terrorism.  The anonymity of social media has made snark en vogue.  I used to comment that people would say things on social media they'd never say to someone's face.  Sadly, that seems to no longer be true in a time when people get into fistfights on airplanes, or at political rallies.  When protesters punch police horses, for crying out loud.  A time when civility is dead.

I worry about a nation in which you have to work for more than half the year just to pay your tax bill.  A nation where the government rules the people, instead of the other way around.  Where the minority rules, where we're so divided that civil discourse is impossible, where the media controls the message, and where the outcomes of free and fair elections are only accepted by those who voted for the winner, with everyone else claiming they don't have a President, yet demanding their rights as a citizen.

I worry about him not being able to find a job in high school, because all the menial jobs are required to pay a wage that would support a family of four, so automated kiosks have replaced those jobs.  So he has to wait until he has a degree to be able to learn the value of work, of managing his own money, of contributing to his own support.  I worry that he won't be able to afford a car, because emissions standards have priced them out of reach for all but the wealthy.

And I especially worry that my grandson won't be able to avail himself of one of the most valuable benefits of a college education: exposure to multiple, divergent viewpoints that will expand his horizons, encourage spirited but respectful debate, and allow him to use his God-given judgment to form his own world view.

But I have hope.  I see it when I see his parents not succumb to the media spin, the thought police, the temptation to be nasty to other people.  When they champion values like hard work, personal responsibility and thrift.  When they show a willingness to listen to others' views, whether they agree with them or not.

Sadly, crazy has become the new normal, and vice versa.  Thankfully, there are still those who are fine with being the neo-crazy.  I'm putting my hope in them, for my grandson's sake.

We'll Always Have ... Paris?

Let me state for the record that, while I would not be labeled an environmentalist - at least not by those on the left (most of whom, by and large, do not truly understand or embrace environmental issues) - I do care about the environment.  I care about the environmental legacy we leave our children, and our grandchildren.

Oh, did I mention I'm going to be a grandpa in November?  Every kid needs a curmudgeonly grandparent, yes?

I'm one of those guys who, when hiking, picks up other people's litter and packs it out.  I don't litter, myself.  My car is "greener" than most, getting about 35mpg.  (Take that, Al Gore.)

I once worked with a woman who smoked, and I'd go outside with her on her smoke breaks and we'd talk.  She was liberal, and very keen on environmental issues, as she'd point out while she puffed away.  Then, she'd flip her spent cigarette butt into the flower beds outside our building.

Yes, I believe we should continue producing fossil fuels, because that's what drives the world, still (as the climate change fanatics prove in their energy consumption habits).  I believe there are significant risks related to nuclear power (see Chernobyl), I believe wind farms are a blight on the landscape, and solar is great, but expensive.

I don't, however, subscribe to some Ayn Rand notion of development as the highest and best use of all resources.  (For the uninitiated, Ayn Rand was an uber-libertarian author who penned the classic, "Atlas Shrugged," a great read.  In it, she postulates this notion to the point of asserting that all of our mountains, streams and other natural treasures should be put to productive capacity in order to maximize output.)

Maybe, but I disagree with the notion.  I love the mountains, the beaches, the forests, the fertile valleys, and the land in between.  And, as a still-occasional cyclist, I like clean air.  (This is the basis for my objection to wind farms: ever drive from San Bernardino to Palm Springs?  The otherwise beautiful mountain landscape is marred by those ugly white windmills.  Should we sacrifice the aesthetics of the environment for wind power?  I say no.)

I don't believe the sky is falling, but I do believe we need to continue to address these issues - but rationally, and with a sense of economic balance.  I also believe that advances in technology will make sources like solar energy more affordable, and I'm all for heating and cooling my house with the sun.

Especially if said house is a shack on a beach on some idyllic island.

Having said all that, I don't get the hoopla over President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.  Let's unpack the issue.

First, those who are screeching about it likely haven't read the agreement.  This article provides an excellent recap, for those who are willing to take the time to read it objectively, rather than just screaming that the world is going to end from global warming in five years (take that, too, Al Gore):  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate

In short, the biggest polluters in the world - China and India - are party to it.  However, they basically agreed to nothing in terms of their emissions.  In fact, taken as a whole, the agreement - according to the experts, not Fox News - would only reduce global warming by a minuscule amount in the long run, if at all.  And, of course, the U.S. - which has already taken a leadership role in the strides we've taken to address environmental issues - is expected to make the biggest commitment, in terms of reducing emissions and ponying up money (yours and mine, let's not forget) to subsidize the rest of the world.  To the tune of $100 billion.

No, thank you.

Yet again, those decrying the withdrawal haven't read the agreement, wouldn't understand it if they did, and don't walk their own talk.

Those same people likely heat their homes with natural gas, or electricity that in part comes from coal.  Many of them use wood-burning fireplaces and/or stoves.  They love their fire pits.  They drive gas-burning cars, even for short trips - say, down to the mailbox.

They decry the impact on the glaciers - the glaciers! - but have they ever seen one in person?  I have.  I visited the Athabasca glacier in Alberta, among other glaciers I've seen in Canada and Alaska (by the way, I highly recommend a trip to the Banff/Lake Louise area in Alberta - indescribable beauty).  Signs there (which, incidentally, didn't grow there naturally) indicate how much the glacier has receded over time - a total of a little less than a mile over the last 125 years.  The horror.  I'm getting warmer just thinking about it.

Well, for one, the glacier is nearly four miles long still, so - if we hadn't done anything to slow down climate change, which we have - it would theoretically be gone in about 500 years.

I rarely agree with Keynes, but I do agree with his assertion that, in the long run, we're all dead.  In fact, 500 years from now, my grandchildren's grandchildren will be long gone.  For perspective, 500 years ago, Columbus had barely discovered this rock.

Moreover, this is a straight-line extrapolation of the last 125 years, which is folly for a couple of reasons.  One, as noted, we are addressing climate change, and will continue to do so.  And two, this may not be a linear function.  Places where glaciers exist are still damn cold, and they're not likely to turn into temperate deserts in the next 1,000 years, no matter what Al Gore says.

And there are a lot of glaciers; Athabasca is but one of them.  Fly from Anchorage to Seattle and you'll see dozens on a clear day.  (I've done that, and have the photos to prove it.  The Paris-Accord-withdrawal-screechers probably haven't.)

Look, climate change happens.  There was an Ice Age, if you remember your history classes.  It ended.  (There were also dinosaurs.  Does anyone on the left bemoan the extinction of the velociraptor?)  Does man influence climate change?  You bet.  Is that influence as dire as Al Gore would have you believe, as he flies from stop to stop in his fuel-guzzling jet to preach his nonsense?  Nope.  Should we just eliminate man altogether, and hope that the velociraptors come back?  I'd rather not, for my grandchildren's sake.

The climate change-istas always cite "the science," and label anyone who disagrees with them a "denier."  (Ah, how the left loves their labels.)  The vast, vast majority of them couldn't understand the science if they took the time to educate themselves on it.  But Bill Nye says it, they believe it, that's that.  Seems kinda silly to get your science education from a pseudo-Captain Kangaroo, but if that's all you can understand, go for it.

Yes, climate change is real.  No, it's not our biggest threat (take that, Bernie and Hillary).  I still shovel a foot or so of global warming off my sidewalks every other winter or so.

Free-market mechanisms will do more to address the issue than government mandated initiatives or ridiculously ineffective multi-nation "accords."  (In fact, the Honda Accord has done more to slow climate change than the Paris Accord ever could.)  Driverless cars are an example of a market disruptor that will have a positive influence.

So in summary, this is like any other issue the Left screams about: they haven't read the source document, they don't really understand the issue, they don't practice what they preach.

But President Obama got us into the Paris Accord, which makes it sacrosanct to them, and Donald Trump is pulling us out, which automatically makes it a bad decision.