Investment Clubs August 31, 2000February 15, 2017 Michael Joy: “A group of employees of Nationwide Insurance are starting an investment club that I am considering joining. (I’ve actually gone to one of the meetings.) What are your thoughts on investment clubs?” I think investment clubs are “good for America” because they’re part of the overall fabric that attempts to allocate capital sensibly . . . and the more people who are part of that fabric and feel a stake in it, the stronger we are. They’re also, potentially, fun, stimulating, and a place to build friendships. At the end of the day, however — “the day” here being metaphorical, and covering, say, a 10-year span — you will likely do no better than, and very possibly worse than, you would have done in an index fund. Certainly in any given month or year you might significantly outperform the indexes. But I doubt your club can do it over the long run. Even the Beardstown Ladies, who sold millions of books based on their wildly miscalculated results, found that, at the end of the day, they did considerably worse than the averages. There’s also the potential for disharmony with your fellow club members, either socially (have you noticed how annoying some people can be?) or for tax reasons. You’ll want your club’s partnership agreement to allow pro-rata withdrawals in stock as well as cash, to allow you to exit without generating a taxable gain; and to be able to withdraw your share of certain positions to take a tax loss even if others don’t want to, or to use a big winner to make your 25th college reunion gift. Bottom line: If you’d enjoy it, by all means join the club. Otherwise — the occasional cater-waiter job? — put the same time into earning something extra to invest.
Divisive Issues August 30, 2000February 15, 2017 My own feeling is that on what are perhaps the three most highly charged issues separating much of America — abortion, guns, and gay rights — there really are solutions, if only the direct-mail folks didn’t have such a strong interest in fanning the flames. Abortion. No one likes the idea of abortion. But prohibition worked no better for abortion than it did for alcohol. It did relatively little to keep young women from making this agonizing choice, it just made it even more agonizing — and dangerous. And so I keep coming back to the compromise that the late Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Druyan suggested several years ago in PARADE. Basically, they looked at what differentiates human life from any other, and concluded it was only the capacity for human thought. In every other respect, a cow is just as miraculous a creature — and we slaughter and devour cows routinely, even though we have no need to. (I’m not so crazy about doing that, either, incidentally. But I wouldn’t ban it.) So, Sagan and Druyan suggested, why not determine the point at which human brave waves manifest themselves — around the sixth month — and say that beyond that point — but only beyond that point — abortions should be restricted to extraordinary circumstances (e.g., when the life of the mother is at risk). Those who believe a one-day-old embryo is sacred should absolutely not take a morning-after pill; but neither should they impose their beliefs on others. Guns. Few favor banning guns. But why on earth can’t we agree to treat them with the same degree of responsibility as we do automobiles? With some safety regulation and licensing/registration requirements? I know I owe you a column on the Second Amendment, and it’s coming. So let me hold off on this one. Gays. And then there’s the gay thing, which for many is simply a matter of following what they’ve been taught in the Bible. (They do not, however, seem to regard football as an abomination, even though touching pigskin is clearly proscribed as an abomination; or to want to stone non-virgin brides in the public square until dead, as is also required.) Logic is no match for faith, so here’s what I have long proposed: Let us stipulate that for two people of the same sex to “lie down together” is unnatural. That it is perhaps even an abomination before God — if they’re straight. OK? Let’s agree! STRAIGHT PEOPLE SHOULDN’T DO THAT! But let’s also agree that for two of God’s millions of gay and lesbian children, it’s the most natural thing in the world. Indeed, what is unnatural is to try to force them to live loveless lives of loneliness and dishonesty. Wouldn’t this compromise work? It’s a sin for straight people to have gay sex. But religion aside, what about the law? Here’s one side’s view: “We do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.” — Republican Party 2000 Platform I have full confidence that the Republican Party will get it in due time. Maybe even pretty soon. But they sure don’t get it yet. For starters, it’s not a “preference,” which suggests a choice — red wine or white tonight, sir? The term most thoughtful people have come to use is “sexual orientation,” which suggests something more fundamental. Still, it’s true: People do bristle at the idea of giving anyone special rights. So do I. But consider these questions: Is it a special right to be able to visit your life partner in the emergency room? If so, no one should have that right. Is it a special right to receive Social Security benefits after the breadwinner dies? If so, no surviving spouses should receive benefits. Is it a special right for a widow or widower to inherit his or her partner’s property tax-free? If so, the estate tax should hit the surviving member of all couples, not just gay couples. Is it a special right not to be discriminated against solely on the basis of one’s “status”? (“Irish need not apply.”) If so, it should be legal to fire / not hire / not serve, anyone for being who they are — black, Catholic, disabled — not just gays and lesbians. Is it a special right for two loving adults to enjoy intimate relations in the privacy of their own bedroom? If so, no one should be allowed to do that, except strictly as needed, and in the most peremptory way, to reproduce. George W. Bush supports the Texas sodomy law under which his running mate’s daughter could be sent to prison. Is it a special right to be protected by hate crimes laws? If so, none of the traditional targets should be protected. George W. Bush was willing to sign a hate crimes law after James Byrd, Jr. was dragged to death behind that Texas pickup truck — but only if the phrase “sexual orientation” were removed. The KKK/neo-Nazi types are way out of line going after Jews and blacks, the reasoning seems to be. But gays . . . well, that’s a different story. Gore sees it differently. He supports the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and has promised to appoint a commission to recommend the best way to give the same economic benefits to gays and lesbians as to anyone else. “The cause we celebrate tonight,” he told the 1998 Human Rights Campaign dinner, “is not some narrow special interest. It is really the cause that has defined this nation since its founding: to deepen the meaning of fundamental fairness … to build a good and just society on this bedrock principle: equal opportunity for all, special privilege for none.” That’s why even a lot of my Republican friends are voting Democrat this year. Tomorrow: Should You Join an Investment Club?
ValuEngine.com August 29, 2000March 25, 2012 I don’t think it will help you beat the market over the long run. After all, you’re competing against people who have tools at least this powerful, some of whom have a staff of analysts who do all kinds of research that you probably can’t (when was the last time you chatted with top executives of one of the companies you own shares in?) — and they don’t beat the averages over time, for the most part, either. Still, if you own stocks, I think you’ll have a great time exploring the free tools at ValuEngine.com. Boy, have we ever come a long way from the days of people making charts on graph paper or going to the library to look something up.
No Guts; Phone Home August 28, 2000February 15, 2017 FIXED LINK Sorry about Friday’s link to Forbes. I fixed it, but until Saturday it was pointing to the wrong article. The topic: whether to invest through mutual funds or build your own. Here it is again. FREE PALM Doug Gary: “DLJdirect has the Handspring Visor offer again. This time it is with an opening account deposit of only $1,000. You have to keep the $ there for six months earning a good money market rate — no other requirements. If one wants a Palm-related product, this is an instant 18% extra return on one’s money. Here’s the link.” NO GUTS So it turns out that I get a small plaque on a wall of plaques at a hospital. Asked how I want it to read, I send back: “Thank You for Not Smoking.” This apparently throws the development staff into a bit of a quandary. All the other plaques are “in memory” or “in honor” of someone, or else just “dedicated by” the donor. Do I really want my plaque to say this, they wonder? A little irreverence in a good cause? A little levity to cheer people up? Or would this offend people, ruining the overall “tone” of the wall? Ultimately, I chicken out. It will be a plaque more or less like all the others. But if only we could do a better job helping today’s teens avoid this beguiling addiction, we’d need dramatically fewer hospital beds down the road. Smoking obviously should remain legal. But in Canada, half of every side of the cigarette pack is being devoted to the naked truth: things like vivid photos of lip cancer. How’s the Marlboro man gonna sell that? (Actually, the Marlboro man is long dead of lung cancer.) PHONE HOME Steve Coultas: “Your readers might be interested to know about BigZoo, a company that charges 3.9 cents a minute for long distance anywhere within the 48 contiguous states. They used to have just one 1-888 number (this is a dial-around type plan), but have recently added two more 1-888 numbers to dial, together with local access numbers which, if you use, you are then charged only 3.6 cents per minute. They have just added a 75-cent a month fee, but that’s the only fee they charge. You have to pay in advance, online, using a credit card. I think it’s $10 increments. Phone call quality has been identical to any large company for me.” Dan Beck: “A good site for phone rate comparisons among about every phone service extant is abelltolls.com.”
Are You Ready to Be Your Own Fund Manager? August 25, 2000February 15, 2017 Have you seen Personal Fund lately? It’s now much more than the Mutual Fund Cost Calculator — and even that part has been improved in several ways, including access to 10-year performance ratings. The beta you can now access is a work in progress. But WOW has Stefan Sharkansky, the genius behind all of this, ever been doing great work. Check it out. There’s a lot to it, and it will retain your portfolio information, so you can keep coming back to it. The larger point here is that the world seems to be moving toward this idea of Personal Funds that several of us have been espousing. Click here to read Forbes‘s take, hot off the e-presses. The question is: Should you do your investing through no-load, low-expense mutual funds, as so many of us have long been advising? Or, now that technology and dirt-cheap transaction costs have made it possible, should you build your own Personal Fund to minimize the costs even further and — more to the point — grab the tax advantages? My own answer would be that, while everyone finds his own comfort level and goes at his own pace, Personal Funds are likely to become a Very Big Thing in the next few years. This is what Forbes seems to conclude, also. In the meantime, the tools you’ll find at Personal Fund are free, and they may be useful both in analyzing your mutual funds and in getting a picture of all your holdings — mutual funds as well as individual stocks. (For those of you new to the column, full disclosure: I am a part-owner of Personal Fund.) Monday: No Guts; Phone Home
Read His Lips August 24, 2000February 15, 2017 Corrections: Tuesday, I showed how you’d do investing $2,000 in a Roth IRA from age 25 to 70. Idiot that I am, I entered “70” in my calculator as the number of years when I meant to enter 45 (70 minus 25). I’m usually more careful (and have gone back and corrected the column). But when it rains it pours . . . Yesterday I was asked how the parties decide which one holds its convention first, and I said “It alternates. Next time, the Democrats go first.” Oops. As Bill Jones and others were quick to inform me: “By tradition, the party that does not hold the White House puts on their convention first.” Charles made a sharp observation the other day. We were at a benefit concert that featured a sign language interpreter for the hearing impaired. As Boyz II Men were performing, I leaned over and asked Charles if he could make out the lyrics. Charles — who knows a lot of lyrics but not these — thought about it for a minute, pondered the irony, and replied, “Only the deaf people in the audience know what they’re singing.” And that got me to thinking about signing and the ability to read lips. And that got me thinking about politics. (These days, everything gets me thinking about politics.) Click here.
Loose Ends August 23, 2000January 27, 2017 Mike Cheymann: “Gore couldn’t or wouldn’t stand up and admit Clinton screwed up. That alone disqualifies him from any further sumstantive puplic position.” ☞ Well, that settles that! Amit Basu: “How do the parties decide which one holds its convention first?” ☞ The party that holds the White House goes second. Kurt Hemr: “Just a quick clarification to Jim Batterson’s comments: There is no backlog of criminal cases in the federal or state courts, nor could there be, because the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. Nevertheless, J.B.’s correct that unfilled seats on the bench create a backlog — it’s a backlog in civil cases, which are moved to the back of the line to ensure that the criminal cases are tried in a timely manner.” Jim Batterson: “Since you’ve posted my rant on slavery and other international issues I’ve been checking my facts and thought you might like some references and updates. As to slavery in Mauritania and Sudan, click here . . . I was wrong, or at least outdated, about the US position on children in combat. We refused to sign this treaty for six years but in January the pentagon relented and Clinton signed July 5th. Let us hope the Senate ratifies. . . . Click here for a fierce indictment of the (Republican) Senate Judiciary Committee holding up minority judgeship appointments . . . and here for a country-by-country synopsis that explains why the U.S. has not accepted the International Criminal Court. Finally, it was Trent Lott who blocked the vote on Hormel’s appointment to be ambassador to Luxemburg, not Jesse Helms, although Helms has blocked many on his own.”
Who Wants to be a Millionaire? August 22, 2000January 27, 2017 Richard Ziglar: “USA Today had an article on ways to become a millionaire. It gave different odds on one’s success depending on the method. They gave the same chance for winning a million in a lottery as inheriting a million — twelve million to one. The best odds they gave were through owning a small business — a thousand to one. What struck me as odd were the chances of saving a million at $800/month for 30 years at 7.1% interest — one million to one. Surely this can’t be right. I have to admit $800/month would be impossible for me right now. Still those odds seem depressingly steep. Perhaps my sampling is skewed but I seem to know a lot of professionals who should be able to pull this off if they really wanted too. Unfortunately the paper did not go into why this would be the case. So what are the real odds of attaining a modicum of financial independence just through saving? (A million ain’t what is used to be so I’m not sure if that goal is very meaningful anymore.)” I didn’t see the article, but from what you say, it certainly appears screwy. Why would the odds of inheriting $1 million be 12 million to one? That would suggest that only 23 Americans inherited $1 million this year. And, yes, saving $800 a month for 30 years (and seven months) at 7.1% will absolutely make you a million — if you can do it after tax, and if you actually do it. (It will take you 37 years if you can only earn 5% after tax.) The “real” odds of attaining a modicum of financial independence just through saving are excellent. But you really have to save. Say you put $2,000 a year into a Roth IRA via a couple of index funds starting at age 25 and keep doing it until you’re 70. If the funds compound at 9% a year, you’ve accumulated an extra $1 million and change after tax to supplement your Social Security. Of course, there’s inflation. No way is the stock market likely to beat inflation by 9% a year. But 6% is possible, if still somewhat optimistic. At 6%, the Roth IRA would grow to $425,000. Show me a 70-year-old who wouldn’t appreciate a $425,000 nest egg to help her or him through the next 30 years. And that’s just $2,000 a year. John Stockman: “I was intrigued by your description of I-Bonds, but when I contacted Schwab and Ameritrade they advised that I could not purchase them in their IRA or 401K as they were ‘Bank Products.'” Right. Savings Bonds are not “bonds” in the traditional sense. You don’t buy and sell them in the open market, you buy them from a bank (or, now, with a credit card from the Treasury). Ask your broker to buy you TIPS — Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. For more on the difference between I-Bonds and TIPS, click here. For everything you’d want to know about Savings Bonds, go to SavingsBonds.gov. Russell Turpin: “Stock market and real estate prices make me swoon. But CDs are a lousy investment for a young man. (Well, OK, almost middle-aged guy.) What about convertible bonds? (Background: This question pertains to assets outside my retirement accounts, 95% of which are in equity mutual funds. I figure this is appropriate, almost regardless of my own personal view of the current market, given that their use is twenty years away.)” Convertibles have the safety of bonds and at least some of the potential appreciation of stocks. Of course, you and I are not the first to notice this, and so they are priced accordingly. The interest you earn is pretty modest unless the risk is high and/or the conversion price way above the current stock price. And because you are seeking an investment for your taxable account, both CD’s and convertible bonds are kind of rotten, because a good chunk of the interest would wind up going to Uncle Sam, not Cousin Russell. If I were you, I would consider a steady program of periodic investments in a couple of index funds. Or, if you have a taste for it, the acquisition of a portfolio of your own, geared toward long-term, tax-deferred capital gains. Being one to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, I might include some Microsoft (MSFT), some McKesson (MCK), some Canada Southern Petroleum (CSPLF), some Criimi Mae (CMM), a little Calton (CN), and — from the ridiculous to the preposterous — 100 shares of Borealis (BOREF). And just wait five years and see where they are. If they’re much lower, you’ll hate me, but have the satisfaction of knowing that I lost even more than you did. If they’re much higher, you will have long since forgotten who suggested them. (Do not “pay up” for these stocks. They are currently selling for around $71, $25, $6.50, $1.56, $4.50 and $3.50, respectively.)
On Being Partisan August 21, 2000January 27, 2017 A couple of weeks ago I knocked George Bush’s acceptance speech and got e-mails like these: Kevin Clark: “I came back from vacation and among the alleged Andrew Tobias columns in my e-mail (yeah Quickbrowse!) was one clearly not written by the fair and balanced author I’ve been reading for years. It was the shrill hysterical one about George W.’s speech.” Joe: “You are a journalist. If you’ve changed professions, then note that on AndrewTobias.com. You can’t possibly agree with everything the Democrats do. You are in way too deep to realize how you sound. Trust me on this one. You will gain more supporters if you admit that there are positions you don’t agree with.” I’ve been promising you a response ever since. Here it is (finally). The first thing to say, of course, although I don’t say it with every column I write (mainly because I assume you are all sick to death of hearing it) is that I am – full disclosure — treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. Although none of my comments in this space is “official” in any way, I assume most of you know my leanings. But I would never consciously write something I didn’t believe. Trust me: the pay as treasurer ain’t that good. I believe this is a hugely important election, with stark, stark differences between the two parties on many key issues – what must Ralph Nader be smoking not to see this? – and on virtually all of them, I actually do agree with the Democrats, especially the Democratic leadership. And I actually do find the Republican leadership to be off the right edge of the spectrum. I also believe Al Gore is far better qualified to be President than George W. Bush. (Bush senior was impressively qualified — a war hero, successful businessman, ambassador to China, ambassador to the UN, long-time Congressman, head of the CIA, two terms as Vice President. But junior?) One point of disagreement I’d likely have with the Democrats, if it were an issue in the campaign, is auto insurance reform — a subject on which I have bored many of you to tears. Given strong backing from the trial bar, Democrats tread very lightly in areas of tort reform. But even on auto insurance reform, at least a good chunk of the Party – namely, the chunk that identifies with the Democratic Leadership Council that Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman helped found – leans toward what I view as the correct side of the issue. The DLC endorsed the auto insurance reform we put on the California ballot four years ago. On the other broad issues, even if it makes me seem less credible, I’ve got to admit I really do lean the way the Democratic Party leans. Consider: Tobacco: Democrats lean toward the side of the health advocates, Republicans lean toward protecting the tobacco industry. You might actually say that under Clinton/Gore, all hell broke loose for the tobacco industry, for the first time, and that the tide finally turned. No sane person wants prohibition. But neither, in my view, is it sane to spend $5 billion a year promoting a highly addictive carcinogen that is the leading cause of preventable death. Choice: The Democrats’ platform is solidly pro-choice; the Republicans’ platform solidly anti-choice. I can only begin to imagine the agony a woman has to go through in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Having the government get into the act, and going back to the days of coat hangers and back-alley abortions cannot be the solution. (My own hope is that one day people will look closely at the solution the late Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Druryan suggested in PARADE several years ago. In brief, it noted that the point at which human life becomes unique is the point at which there are human brave waves — around the sixth month. After that, they argued, abortion should be reserved for the most extraordinary circumstances. But before that, a woman should have an unrestricted right to choose.) Minimum Wage: The Democrats managed to raise it from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour, over Republican opposition, and we hope to raise it again. Obviously, there are limits on how high it can prudently go. But I believe modest increases are both good social policy and good economic policy. (One is reminded of Henry Ford, wanting to pay his workers enough so they could afford to buy the cars they were making.) George W. Bush believes this issue should be left to the states. In his own state, the minimum wage (for jobs exempt from federal minimum wage) is $3.35 an hour. I know George W. thinks of himself as deeply compassionate, but I wonder how anyone can live on $3.35 an hour — $6,700 a year — or why he would not want to see them paid more. Earned Income Credit: Democrats pushed for this; Republicans generally opposed it. Yay, Democrats. Family and Medical Leave Act: Democrats pushed for this; Republicans generally opposed it. Yay, Democrats. Guns: Democrats favor what I consider mild, sensible measures, like child safety locks, closing the gun-show loophole, and licensing handguns as we do automobiles. While Democrats have been pushing such notions, George W. has resisted them and signed a law to ease restrictions on bringing guns into Church. The Environment: The Republicans basically scoff at Al Gore for having written Earth in the Balance. But I believe the delicate balance of nature can be affected by what 6 billion humans do, that the there is a hole in the ozone layer, and that a lot of attention should be focused on such things. I love the fact that our air and water are cleaner than they were. Taxes: Bush has proposed a massive tax cut aimed primarily at those, like me, who need it least. It’s terrible economic policy — a booming economy is exactly when not to add massive stimulus — and it’s unfair. Even John McCain, a conservative Republican, said Bush’s plan is weighted too heavily toward the rich. Gore proposes more modest tax cuts, aimed mainly at the middle. The Surplus: Bush would direct much of it to lowered taxes for the rich. Gore would direct much of it, instead, to paying down the public debt. This helps to keep interest rates low, which helps to keep mortgage and car loan rates low (not an issue for the rich); it cuts the cost of carrying our debt; it keeps our prosperity going; it puts us in a stronger position to meet future challenges. Campaign Finance Reform: We badly need it and will never get it under a Republican administration. Al Gore has said that the McCain-Feingold bill will be the first piece of legislation he submits to Congress. (It was killed last time by a Republican Senate.) McCain-Feingold won’t solve all problems, but it’s a start. Diversity: Clinton/Gore have done a vastly better job of tapping the talents of all communities than Reagan/Bush ever did. And this does two great things. First, it makes for a more talented administration. (It just doesn’t compute that all the most talented people are white nonHispanic heterosexual able-bodied gentile males.) Second, it empowers those other communities and gives them a sense that they are at the table along with everyone else. It makes the country stronger. Equal Rights: To what must be the horror of many Republicans — especially those from Texas who bowed their heads in prayerful protest when Congressman Jim Kolbe spoke to the Republican Convention on the subject of trade policy — there were 212 openly gay and lesbian delegates at the Democratic Convention. (Well, 211, and one transgender, a World War II veteran, now a woman, named Jane Fee.) Several of us spoke. The administration has appointed more than 150 open gays and lesbians to significant posts. In the last Bush administration there were . . . zero. Bush sides with the 39 states in which it remains legal to fire someone simply for being gay. And he favors retaining the Texas sodomy statute under which — right now — two adults are being prosecuted for having intimate relations in the privacy of their own bedroom. Hate Crimes: After James Byrd, Jr. was dragged to death and decapitated behind that Texas pickup truck, George W. agreed to sign a hate crimes bill — but only if the phrase “sexual orientation” were deleted. The Byrd family, perhaps thinking that their loss was no worse than that of Matthew Shepard’s family, said no: those words should stay in. So Bush had the bill killed in the Texas Senate. Education: Democrats agree we need standards and competition and charter schools. Where we disagree with Republicans is vouchers. The first thing vouchers would do is take a ton of taxpayer money and give it to the millions of parents whose kids are already enrolled in private schools. Democrats would rather use that money, and more, to renovate and revitalize the public schools and shrink classroom size. Take a look at the aggressive changes and incentives Democratic California Governor Gray Davis pushed through immediately upon being elected. Health Care: Though both parties believe everyone should have decent health care, Democrats seem more anxious than Republicans to find ways, and commit resources, to make it happen. AIDS: Some find it shocking that Dick Cheney voted against funding AIDS research back in the Eighties, and that George W. has not, so far as we know, ever publicly uttered the word while governor of Texas. Naturally, neither man is “for” AIDS. But the level of concern with regard to this worldwide plague that may well kill a billion people by the time it runs its course seems significantly higher within the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Social Security: Both parties promise to keep it strong. But Republicans would siphon off $100 billion or so each year for private accounts — which weakens our ability to pay benefits — while Democrats would, instead, keep that money in the system and create additional incentives for people to save extra money to supplement Social Security. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Democrats wanted to join most of the rest of the world and ratify it. Republicans killed it. U.N. Dues: Democrats seem inclined to pay them. Jesse Helms says no. # Many of my best friends are Republicans — but they are not Jesse Helms Republicans. They are not Trent Lott or Dick Armey Republicans. Or Tom DeLay or Bob Barr Republicans. As a result, many of them are voting Democrat this year. When I wrote the column that Kevin, Joe, and others found too shrill, I was exasperated. The Bush speech — indeed, the entire Philadelphia convention — seemed designed to fool people. Ah, the diversity. Ah, the compassion. I switched off the TV and — exasperated! — wrote my column. I assumed that tone would come through (and tried to signal it by saying, “Yes, I’m not being entirely fair.”). But I do agree that, in general, a moderate, even-handed approach works best. If I stray from this, it is because I believe this is the most important election of our lives. The specter of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms and Dick Armey, et al, “un-vetoed” scares me. The prospect of a Supreme Court in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia for the next 25 years — the two Justices George W. told “Meet the Press” he most admired — depresses me. As one pundit put it (sorry I forget which), the other side’s slogan seems to be: “Out with the new, in with the old!” Were the Bush years that good? I believe Al Gore will win. He is a much better man than most people realize. (The Convention seems to have opened people’s eyes to this possibility.) And with things going so well, why on Earth would anyone want to change course? Thanks, one and all, for your feedback. Coming Soon: What You Taught Me about the Second Amendment
The Party’s Over August 18, 2000February 15, 2017 I had no idea having fun was this much work. I fully expected to be writing columns this week, but every time I turned around, I had to have more fun. Brunch fun, lunch fun, munch fun, caucus fun, hallway fun, skybox fun, even some kind of Moroccan casbah belly-dancer fun (sponsored by the Credit Union National Association, those wildmen). Thanks for giving me the week off. Brian Bouchard: “Good job on the balloons.”