A Taxing Dilemma

The first paycheck of 2018 has been received by most American workers.  And I've seen several posts on Facebook from people lamenting that their take-home pay actually went down by a few dollars, or only went up by a few dollars, then using that "evidence" to criticize the tax cut passed in December.

This is tragic.

It's tragic that people work hard for their money, but don't pay attention to it.  Their paychecks should instead be diverted to someone like The Curmudgeon, who would manage it for them, and put them on a nice little allowance.

To those complainers, let me speak plainly.  And slowly.  Read this over and over and over until you understand it.  I'll even put it in all caps for you:

THE TAX CUT IS NOT YET REFLECTED IN YOUR PAYCHECK.

Take your time.  Keep reading it.  I'll wait.

Okay, now, got it?  See, the IRS hasn't yet had time to update the tax tables for the new brackets, nor to distribute withholding schedules to employers.  So there is no way employers are able to change your pay to reflect the new tax code.  (And no, they wouldn't estimate it - if an employer doesn't accurately withhold, it faces penalties.)

So the effects of the tax cut have not yet been felt by us working stiffs who receive a paycheck.  (Nor have they yet been felt by corporations, yet many of them are already paying bonuses and higher wages to their workers, but that's another post for another day.)

"But wait!" you cry, "My take-home pay amount changed!"

Okay, fine.  Here's what you do:

Look at your most recent pay stub, and compare it to the last one from 2017.  Then figure out why the net amount changed.  (Hint: it'll be due to the amounts that are different between the two pay stubs.)

Maybe you got a small raise, and that's why your check is a little bit more.  Maybe your state taxes changed.  Maybe you changed your withholding by filing a new W-4, and just forgot.  Or maybe your insurance premiums changed.

It's likely insurance, because premiums typically change with every plan year, and most plan years begin January 1.  And insurance premiums almost always go up (especially now, under the not-so-Affordable Care Act).

One thing is for certain: any change in your take-home pay is NOT due to the tax bill, because it isn't yet reflected in your pay stub.  (Go back and read paragraphs five and seven, if it helps.)

Now, once the tax cut is reflected in your take-home pay, to anyone who wants to complain about how small the difference is, let me just say two things: first, check your voter registration.  If you're a registered Democrat, you might want to consider changing your registration.  Because if you want to pay less in taxes, you are by definition a conservative.  Democrats believe in big government, funded by high taxes.  (Usually on everyone but themselves.)  So if you want lower taxes, you're a conservative.

And second, if you search your soul and determine that, no, you're really not a conservative, and you really do believe paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do (like your beloved President Obama stated), then by all means, when you file your taxes in 2018, add in the amount you saved from the tax cut and pay the extra tax.  There's no law against it.

Better still, just pay that amount to The Curmudgeon.  I personally guarantee I will deploy those funds more effectively than Congress can.

A Private Sector Analogy

Imagine a large, multi-national corporation, one that employs 2.8 million workers.  This is a publicly-traded company, with shareholders who provide capital and a board of directors that provides governance and oversight.

Now, let's say the board is divided roughly equally between two factions, each of which wants very different things.  Further, let's assume these factions get so bogged down in in-fighting and political gamesmanship that the politics become the focus, rather than acting in the best interest of the shareholders, which is what corporations are in business to do.

In fact, let's assume that things get so bad, the board can't even approve an operating budget.  Instead, they pass a series of short-term measures permitting management to spend a limited amount of money on only the most basic business functions.

Every time a long-term operating budget is considered, each of the board's factions seeks to attach items to the approval vote that have absolutely nothing to do with funding long-term operations of the business, nor with acting in the best interest of all the firm's shareholders, and the opposing faction will refuse to consider those additional measures.

Thus, the operating budget vote fails every time, not because the requested budget amount is too high, or the allocation of budget resources is inappropriate, but because each side seeks to turn the budgeting process into a political football, knowing that its requests will be so unpalatable to the opposing faction that the budget vote will fail.  Then, each faction can blame the other, seeking to sow discord among the shareholders.

Why?  Simple: as long as the shareholders remain divided, the divided board can continue to serve as directors in perpetuity, and enjoy the benefits that accrue to being a director of the corporation.

None of the shareholders will demand change on the board.  Instead, they just get sucked into the board's political gamesmanship.  And like the sheep they are, they'll continue to support the board members whose spin they buy into, never recognizing the truth that the entire board is corrupt and dysfunctional, and its political warring does nothing to further the corporation, or to serve its shareholders.

What would happen to such a company?  In the private sector, it could never get funding.  Without a budget, analysts wouldn't be able to forecast the company's earnings, thus they'd never recommend its stock as a "buy."  Instead, every analyst in the market would issue a strong "sell" recommendation.  Potential investors wouldn't put in capital.  The company's stock price would plunge.  Ultimately, the business would fail.

Folks, this is exactly what happens with the federal government every time we get one of these shutdowns.  The only difference is that the board is made up of our elected legislators, the CEO is the President, and we the sheeple are the shareholders.

Except we're not shareholders in the traditional sense; we've got a gun to our heads in the form of the tax code.  We don't have the option to not buy stock - our "investment" is our tax dollars.  The capital we provide to fund America, Inc.'s operations is provided involuntarily.

Our vote on the board members, however, IS our right, and that can't be taken from us.  If we can stop blindly bleating long enough to recognize that the problem lies with BOTH factions, and with the process itself, maybe we'll grow the cojones to vote only for board candidates who will fix the process once and for all.

Now, the Curmudgeon always seeks to educate and inform.  So let's look at the current shutdown in light of the long history of government shutdowns (yes, this isn't the first time this has happened), and in light of the current situation.

First, this is the 18th government shutdown since the current method of appropriations approval has been in place, dating back to President Reagan's presidency.  In fact, President Obama "weaponized" the shutdown process, shutting down access to national monuments and national parks when this nonsense happened under his watch.  At least this time, those facilities are remaining open to the public, even if some aspects, such as visitors' centers, are not open.

Second, it is always a political football.  The appropriations measure that would fund ongoing government operations winds up being tied to some unrelated, ancillary measure that one party or the other wants, and the party that wants that ancillary measure uses the government funding vote to further its partisan agenda.

Here are the facts as they relate to the current situation.  First, no one has voted to shut down the government.  That is a false narrative that has been promulgated by the media.  Rather, the Senate failed to vote to fund the government.  That distinction is important to anyone who's paying attention.

Second, while it is true that the government has never shut down when one party had control of the House, the Senate and the White House, this cannot be blamed on the Republican party.  (Note that I am neither Republican nor Democrat; I am a registered Independent.)

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in majority to fund the government, not to allow it to shut down.  Some Republicans voted against the measure, and some Democrats voted for it.  Thus we can't blame the House.

The Republican-controlled Senate failed to vote in majority to fund the government rather than allow it to shut down (more on that later).  So we can blame the Senate, but at this point, we can't blame any one party.

As for the Republican-controlled White House, we can hardly blame the President, as no bill has been presented for him to sign.  The House approved a bill, but the Senate failed to approve it.  The President cannot be held responsible for not signing a bill that was not delivered to his desk.

Now, what of the Senate's failure to approve a spending bill?  Here's the gist of it: neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want the government to shut down.  And neither party wants to see our military personnel not be paid; that would be a sacrilege.

Beyond that, the Dems want a path to citizenship for the DACA "dreamers."  That's fine; the Republicans are willing to concede to that.  But in exchange, they want to stem the future tide of illegal immigration by providing for border security.  No one can argue that illegal immigration is a problem in the U.S.; Bill Clinton and Barack Obama argued in favor of that very point.

However, the Dems were only willing to provide a small fraction of the funding necessary to provide for border security.  So basically, the position of the Senate Democratic leadership, as presented by Chuck Schumer, was, "We want a path to citizenship for the 'dreamers,' but in exchange, we're only willing to provide a small portion of the funding necessary to provide border security to prevent future DACA-type situations."

That's not a compromise, that's a hostage situation.  Knowing that a successful Senate vote on funding the government (which has nothing to do with DACA or border security) requires a number of Democrats to get on board, Schumer et al used the funding process as a negotiating tactic to add in something his party wanted - a DACA resolution - but without being willing to provide the quid pro quo of border security.

And that's why we are where we are today.  If we were to strip out the totally extraneous issue of immigration from the question of ongoing government funding, there would be no shutdown.  If the Dems would accept a compromise along the lines of a DACA resolution in exchange for full border security, there would be no shutdown.

Note that, not only did the House approve ongoing government funding, but a majority of Republican Senators voted to fund the government while a majority of Democrat Senators voted against it, and the Republican President stood ready to sign an ongoing funding bill approved by both houses of Congress.  So how is this Republicans' fault?

Now, having said this, let me say that a government shutdown is in no one's best interest.  Not paying our military personnel is unconscionable.  Moreover, I have family members who are federal employees, and their families are dependent on their ongoing incomes.  They should not be victimized by the political footballization of their livelihoods.  This is simply and plainly wrong.

Let me next say, related to my initial private sector comparison, that this is why we should all favor lower taxes.  What would never be tolerated in the private sector is considered business as usual in the public sector, and this is why the private sector is always more efficient in deploying the dollars entrusted to it than the public sector.  In short, I'd rather keep more of my money and let private businesses solve our problems than entrust it to the government.  (Lest you doubt this, consider the criticisms of the government response to the catastrophic hurricanes this past year, while private businesses stepped in and helped provide relief far more efficiently.)

Thus, we should all be in favor of paying less in taxes for smaller government, and relying more on the more efficient and effective private sector to solve our problems.

Finally, here's the Curmudgeon's message to every member of Congress:  You work for me.  I pay your salary.  Whether you are my Senator or Representative, or are from another district or state, I pay you, through my tax dollars.  Thus, you work for me, and I own you.  And you'd better by God get your sorry arse in line and do the job I pay you to do, or by God I will do whatever I have to do to bring you home, and you can try to get a job in the private sector, like the rest of us stiffs, and we'll replace you with someone who can get the job done.  You are not special.  You are not privileged.  You are my employee, and I expect you to work for me, not for you.  Thank me later.

If we all take that line, this country actually has a chance of succeeding, and competing, on the world stage.  If we don't, I'm afraid we're destined for banana republic status.

Breaking it Down

Let's examine what is perhaps the most well-known, but often misunderstood, portion of the Declaration of Independence.  (These words are likely misunderstood because of a lack of carefully examining the weight of each word, which I'll attempt to do here.)  The Declaration is an even more important document to our republic than the Constitution.  For without the Declaration, there is no republic, and there can be no Constitution.

I have a friend who can undertake this exercise more knowledgeably and eloquently than I (and while he's not a politician, a lawyer or a historian, he is one of the smartest people I know), but here's my cut.

Let's break down this most fundamental, elemental portion of the Declaration, these 35 impactful words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

1.  These things to follow are accepted as truths.  Not opinions.  Not beliefs.  Truths.  Not subject to debate.

2.  These truths are held by the authors (representing the People) to be self-evident.  They are obvious, they are clear, because of the truths themselves.  Self-evident: they are obvious because of themselves, of what they say.  Self-evident: because of what they are, what they say, they should be clear to all.

3.  Another very important point regarding these first seven words: these truths are not held to be truths by the authors, they are truths, and are held to be self-evident by the authors.  This is a vital distinction; the authors could have said, "We hold these to be truths, and to be self-evident."  That would mean that their status as truth would be conveyed by the authors.  Instead, the authors are saying that they are truths, period, and they hold them to be self-evident.  That removes any suggestion that whether they are truths is a matter of opinion.

4.  The first self-evident truth is that all men are created equal.  Now it's true that the Declaration was written before the suffrage movement or the end of slavery.  However, it has become generally accepted that this truth of equality applies to all races and creeds, and to both men and women alike.

Perhaps that perceived gradual broadening of the intent of the Declaration's authors is what has opened the door for so many to re-interpret the words that follow, namely the definition of what is a right as endowed by our Creator.  However, we don't know what the authors' original intent was.  Maybe it was already sufficiently broad to cover man and woman, slave and free, but they knew that, given the mores of that time, it would take many decades for the full weight of their words to be accepted by all.  Or maybe they actually did view women and slaves as less than equal.

No matter.  What is clear is that their following words did not leave open for interpretation any broadening of intent, because of the thoughtful and intentional use of what I believe is the most important word in this section of the Declaration.  But we'll get to that a little later.

5.  The second truth is that all men (people) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  Now, whether you're a believer or not, this is very important, for several reasons.  First, we are endowed with these rights at birth (some, including me, would argue conception, but that's another argument for another day), by our Creator, meaning that they cannot be taken from us by government fiat.  They dwell within us as surely as our breath, our senses and our beating hearts.

Second, they are not granted to us by our government.  The implication is that these fundamental rights are above the ability of government to provide, that it is not government's role to be in the business of granting such fundamental rights.  The government can ensure the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and other legal rights.  But these rights are so critically important that they transcend government's ability to grant them - and should transcend government's ability to impede them.  It's above their pay grade.

And third, these rights are unalienable.  Webster's defines this word in simple, but powerful terms:

Impossible to take away or give up.

Thus the authors of the Declaration are stating clearly that these rights come from the One who created us, whomever we may believe that to be; the important point is that they are ours, and no king, no president, no lawmaker can take them from us (at least not without a fight, but we'll get to that later also).

Now, on to the rights themselves, but first, let's consider them in light of two things: first, their unalienability, and second, the context in which the Declaration was written.  It was written to declare the independence (hence the name) of a nation of people from the tyranny and oppression of a centralized government that dictated their lives, their freedom, and their ability to achieve whatever happiness they chose in life.

Exactly the kind of powerful centralized government that would try to provide for our every need, by taking from us the means to provide it through our own choices.  Food for thought.

6.  Life.  We have the right to life.  It should be impossible to be taken from us.  Yet it can be, by criminal act, by accident, by war, by our own actions, and by the government, if a death penalty is imposed.  I'm not going to get into that debate here, other than to note that one's own rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another (this is a matter of logic in the academic sense, enforced by law).

What the authors were responding to was the fact that monarchs and other governmental authorities had been determining these rights for centuries, taking the lives or liberties of anyone who threatened or opposed them.  We find Biblical examples including Pharaoh and Herod, and more recent examples through the British monarchs our founders were declaring their independence from, right up to North Korea and Iran today.

7.  Liberty.  We have the right to live as free men and women.  (I'll avoid the debate over the fact that a number of the signers of the Declaration owned slaves.  That's a separate topic, best taken up by friends I know who are far more knowledgeable - in part because it would be a distraction from this discussion, and, more importantly, this discussion would be a distraction from that important topic.  Suffice it to say that I believe chattel slavery was the deepest stain on the fabric of our nation.)

Again in the context of the circumstances, the authors were declaring that no citizen of this fledgling republic would ever again be subject to the whims of a single despotic ruler.  In essence, they were raising a collective middle finger in King George's face.

These first two rights are indeed self-evident, and sufficiently clear.  We have the right to our own lives, and the right to our own freedom.  The next right contains a subtlety that is too often missed, but is critical in understanding the proper role of the government in this republic.

8.  The pursuit of happiness.  Let's first address happiness itself.  The authors don't define it, but leave it to each individual to define - again, a very important and intentional distinction.  For some, it may be unimaginable wealth, the ability to buy every thing and every experience one's heart desires.  Others may be perfectly happy with little in the way of material things, but want to be free from having to work their tails off, free from having to go to school beyond what's required, free from excessive responsibilities and worry.

For some, it's more about family and relationships.  For others, it may be about where they live.  It may be about the meaningfulness of the work one does, or one's pursuits and interests, or one's charitable work.  For many, it's a combination of at least some of the above.

One important point is that, again, the rights of one individual to pursue what makes him or her happy must not infringe upon the rights of another.  So while it might make one person happy to, say, get loaded and go joyriding, doing so puts others' right to life at risk.

However, this cannot be extrapolated to extreme arguments such as this: your right to pursue happiness by becoming wealthy interferes with my right to pursue happiness by having the government give me everything I want, so to pay for that you should be taxed out the wazoo.  (More on taxes later.)

9.  The most important word among these 35 is: "pursuit."

We do not have a right to happiness, however we define that.  Sorry if that bursts your bubble, or seems harsh, but the language is plain - self-evident, in fact.  Would being rich make you happy?  Fine.  You're free to pursue that (not by robbing a bank, by the way).  Invent something.  Work your tail off.  Save your money. Pursue your happiness.  Many have done it, from Sam Walton to Chris Gardner.

Would you be happy running a business, being a CEO?  Okay.  Be prepared to work harder than everyone around you to get there.  To work long hours once you're there.  To carry the burden of responsibility for everyone who works for you, plus any investors in the company.  To handle significant stress.  And to sacrifice other things, like time with your family, evenings and weekends off, vacations spent without checking your work email, etc.  Those things are part of the pursuit, and in a free, capitalist democratic republic, there's nothing stopping you.  (I'm speaking from personal experience here.)

Perhaps happiness to you comes from doing work you find meaningful, like teaching, for example.  I can think of few jobs more important.  Yet, you're also going to be making sacrifices.  A college degree requires sacrifice.  Then there's long hours for relatively limited pay, certainly not commensurate with the importance of the work, but in reality commensurate with the laws of supply and demand.  On the plus side you have high job satisfaction (again, assuming this is what makes you happy) and summers off.  (Lest anyone try to read anything nefarious into these comments, I have nothing but the highest regard for teachers, many of my friends and relatives are teachers, and if I could start my career over, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd rather be a teacher than a CEO.)  In any event, there's nothing holding you back from the pursuit of your dream.

Maybe you'd be happiest being able to spend a lot of time enjoying the leisure activities you prefer, in the company of your friends.  Maybe you're not interested in material things; all you need is a good pair of shoes and a backpack, and lots of free time.  You don't care about the walls that surround you or whether you have to share that space with a roommate or two.  You could be happy doing any work that permitted you those things you enjoy most.  Have at it - those opportunities abound.  (Come to think of it, that scenario sounds pretty appealing too.)  Just know that you may have to sacrifice some other things, like wages that would support a family of four with a house in the suburbs and a late-model car.

But no one is endowed by their Creator with the right to be a CEO, a teacher, or a free spirit hiking his or her way through life.  You have to pursue it.  And nothing is stopping you from that.

What you were endowed by your Creator with is a set of talents, abilities and interests that will allow you to pursue those things, no matter who you are.  Yes, there are people who, sadly, cannot pursue their dreams.  I'm not talking about the poor; there are far too many examples of enterprising, hard-working people who've overcome poverty to achieve great success in life, in business, in medicine, in academia, and in whatever other pursuits bring them happiness.  (Think Chris Gardner again.)

Nor am I talking about people who, sadly, place barriers on their own pursuits in the form of self-imposed limitations.  I'm talking about people who unfortunately have some physical or mental limitation that prevents them from the pursuit of their own definition of happiness.  And I'm afraid I don't have an easy answer to that particular conundrum.

I do believe that we have an obligation to help others.  We can fulfill that obligation voluntarily, assuming we do truly care about others.  And I'm also not opposed to limited government-provided basic assistance such as Medicaid, funded by tax dollars.  We just have to be careful about how far that goes, or we run the risk of straying from the reason for the very intentional use of the word "pursuit."  In other words, we begin to expect that the government will provide for the things that we have the opportunity to earn through that pursuit.

Does the worker at McDonald's have the right to sufficient pay to comfortably support a family of four?  Or as much pay as a teacher, or a nurse?  The answer lies not in the perceived relative importance of the work, nor does it lie in some sense of fairness, equality or compassion.

The answer once again lies in the immutable laws of supply and demand, and in our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.  I'm living proof that a guy who worked in a fast food job in college is capable of doing other things that pay more money.  And I've encountered numerous young people in fast food drive-throughs that I'd have hired in the brokerage firm I ran for 15 years in a hot minute, because of their great customer service skills.  If only they'd had the requisite knowledge to do the job - which they could have pursued (if I can do it, pretty much anybody can) - I'd have done so.

Now, you're perfectly free to spend the rest of your life serving up French fries and McNuggets.  Just understand that, again, there will be some necessary sacrifices involved.

The vast majority of us are endowed not only with these rights as set forth above, but with the skills and abilities to pursue our definition of happiness, if we'll only do it.  That's one of the wonderful things about the prescient vision that the authors of the Declaration laid out, and that has prevailed for more than 200 years.  Quite amazing, really, when you consider how many systems have failed in far less time.

Unfortunately, there is a mindset today that would threaten that vision.  One that suggests the government should ensure our happiness, and that others should be forced to pony up to provide that.  The definition of that happiness has been broadened to include things like health insurance, equal pay no matter the supply of or demand for the work, and myriad other "rights."  (Again, lest my words be twisted, I do believe quite strongly in equal pay for equal work, and I have applied it throughout my career when it was my decision to set pay.)

That broadening of the definition of happiness, of rights, and of the government's role in all of this, is not what the Founders envisioned.  Taxes were virtually non-existent in this country at its founding.  There was no income tax or estate tax or personal property tax.  The first taxes were tariffs on imported goods that were imposed at ports of entry, and an excise tax on whiskey.  (The horror!)

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there a promise (or even a hint) of the taking of money from one group of people in order to provide for the happiness of another group of people.  (In fact, the Revolution that precipitated independence was in part a response to excessive taxation, and to the tyrannical system that employed that practice.)

Granted, the Preamble to the Constitution makes reference to establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare.  This means that:

• We are to be a nation of laws.  This is the system that ensures the logical precept that the rights of one do not infringe on the rights of another.
• We should have a means of keeping peace among ourselves and enforcing those laws - police, in other words.
• We should defend America and protect its citizens, thus we should have various entities to provide for our defense - an Army, a Navy, etc.
• We should promote the general welfare.  This is not to be misconstrued as creating a welfare state; that was not the framers' intent.  No, this speaks to providing the most basic of needs for those who are unable to otherwise meet them.  To ensure that we remain free to pursue our own happiness, not to provide that happiness for us.  To provide for basic roads and other infrastructure that assist in that pursuit.  To clear excessive regulation that would hinder that pursuit.  (The topic of the meaning of "promote the general welfare" could be a blog post all its own.)

The Declaration goes on to say that, if a government morphs into something that threatens those unalienable rights, it is not only the right of the people to "throw off that Government," but it is their duty.

There are those who would twist those words and claim that this is exactly what has happened since November 8, 2016.  To those people, I encourage a careful reading of the Declaration in its entirety (sober, preferably), including the words that precede this discussion of throwing off such a government:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government ..." (italics added).

If the perceived train of abuses and usurpations of our government is long, it has been imposed upon us by both Democrat and Republican, left and right.  No one on the left would accept that as truth over the eight years preceding the current administration, nor would anyone on the right have accepted it for the eight years preceding that.

In other words, you can't go around calling for impeachment every time your party's candidate loses a presidential election, especially within the first few months or so, claiming that the new administration is guilty of abuses and usurpations simply because it's in the hands of the opposing party.

Actually, I'd encourage a thorough and careful reading of the entire Declaration to every citizen, without the blinders of bias, but reading for true understanding of what was intended at the birth of our nation.

One final note: there is considerable debate over whether the Constitution should stand as written, or whether it was meant as a living document to be amended as times change.  There's a slippery slope between that and becoming a banana republic.  For example, a president of a country could seek to amend that country's constitution to eliminate term limits on the presidency, for the sole purpose of retaining power.  So the debate over whether our Constitution is a living document will continue.

However, one thing is certain: the Declaration of Independence cannot be viewed as a living document.  Otherwise, we might as well all be eating crumpets and drinking Earl Grey, whilst singing "God Save the Queen."

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.