Googling Over Audible As We Married Guys Support the Troops December 30, 2003February 24, 2017 GOOGLE Gloria: ‘You’re a great admirer of Google. I read in today’s paper that there’s speculation they will most likely go public in mid-2004. The article reflected on how this is the most exciting thing to happen in Silicon Valley since the dot.com fiasco. What are your thoughts re this potential Google IPO?’ ☞ My thought is that it will not – remotely – be an overlooked bargain. I will be an enthusiastic user, not an investor. AUDIBLE John Hamilton: ‘You have mentioned Audible.com a couple of times and stated you are a shareholder. I don’t know if this is a private or public company, but if it is a public company would you please advise the stock symbol. I have had no luck trying to find it.’ ☞ It’s ADBL, but hang on. I wasn’t even sure you should buy it when it was cheap. I’m definitely not sure you should buy it now that it’s significantly less cheap. I first bought a little at $1.50 a share because I was so enthusiastic about the service. In short order I watched it go as low as 23 cents. At that price, this past February I bought a great many shares. This is the old ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ financial strategy, and it doesn’t always work, needless to say, which is one reason I lacked the courage to recommend it to you. (I am much more loath to lose money for you, even if it’s bound to happen from time to time, than I am to lose it for me.) Even though the company was losing money like crazy, my thinking was that, at 23 cents a share with 30 million shares outstanding, the whole thing was valued at just $7 million or so . . . and they had some loyal customers like me, some good technology, some relationships with publishers, and, well, who knows? And here it is at $3.63 last night – it got up around $4.20 a few weeks ago – all this in less than a year, and now I am doing my best to justify its new lofty level (always a bad sign). But look: in addition to all the joggers and commuters who might want to listen to ‘books on tape’ without having the hassle or expense of actual tapes, you have an increasing segment of the aging population finding it hard to see . . . or to read for long periods of time . . . some very bright septuagenarians, octogenarians, nonagenarians. Maybe there’s a growing market for listening to books. And if ADBL, which I believe signed up 27,000 new subscribers last quarter, ever got to 1 million subscribers and could make $20 a year from each . . . well, that’s 67 cents a share, or, at 15 times earnings, a $10 stock. So – I tell myself – it could conceivably triple in five years. But would I buy it at $3.63 ten months after buying it at 23 cents? Not on your life. And I have lightened up a little. Very important note: This success with ADBL is not remotely typical of my life or investing prowess. It was a huge stroke of good fortune. If I had dreamt ADBL would do so well, I would surely have urged you to buy it, too. SUPPORT THE TROOPS Michael Griffin: ‘My daughter brought anysoldier.us to my attention. It seems like the kind of thing you’d like to publicize – even your ‘get back to finances’ readers will surely respond well to a chance like this. Also, it won’t be lost on you that in many cases, these guys are asking for the tools and supplies they need to do their job! If we learned anything from Nam, it should be that those opposed to a war should stay in the forefront of supporting the soldiers who get sent out to fight it.’ THE TRADITIONALIST MARRIAGE VIEW I am not the Andrew in this Tom Toles cartoon.
Paul Krugman’s New Year’s Resolutions December 29, 2003February 24, 2017 Give it up for Paul . . . New Year’s Resolutions By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: December 26, 2003 During the 2000 election, many journalists deluded themselves and their audience into believing that there weren’t many policy differences between the major candidates, and focused on personalities (or, rather, perceptions of personalities) instead. This time there can be no illusions: President Bush has turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right’s takeover is complete. But will the coverage of the election reflect its seriousness? Toward that end, I hereby propose some rules for 2004 political reporting. • Don’t talk about clothes. Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean was a momentous event: the man who won the popular vote in 2000 threw his support to a candidate who accuses the president of wrongfully taking the nation to war. So what did some prominent commentators write about? Why, the fact that both men wore blue suits. This was not, alas, unusual. I don’t know why some journalists seem so concerned about politicians’ clothes as opposed to, say, their policy proposals. But unless you’re a fashion reporter, obsessing about clothes is an insult to your readers’ intelligence. • Actually look at the candidates’ policy proposals. One key proposal in the State of the Union address will, we hear, be the creation of new types of tax-exempt savings accounts. The proposal will come wrapped in fine phrases about an “ownership society.” But serious journalists should tell us how the plan would work, who would benefit and who would lose. An early version of the plan was floated almost a year ago, and carefully analyzed in the journal Tax Notes. So there’s no excuse for failing to report that the plan would probably reduce, not increase, national savings; that it would have large long-run budget costs; and that its benefits would go mainly to the wealthiest few percent of the population. • Beware of personal anecdotes. Anecdotes that supposedly reveal a candidate’s character are a staple of political reporting, but they should carry warning labels. For one thing, there are lots of anecdotes, and it’s much too easy to report only those that reinforce the reporter’s prejudices. The approved story line about Mr. Bush is that he’s a bluff, honest, plain-spoken guy, and anecdotes that fit that story get reported. But if the conventional wisdom were instead that he’s a phony, a silver-spoon baby who pretends to be a cowboy, journalists would have plenty of material to work with. If a reporter must use anecdotes, they’d better be true. After the Dean endorsement, innumerable reporters cracked jokes about Al Gore’s inventing the Internet. Guys, he never said that: it’s a malicious distortion of a true statement, and no self-respecting journalist would repeat it. • Look at the candidates’ records. A close look at Mr. Bush’s record as governor would have revealed that, the approved story line notwithstanding, he was no moderate. A close look at Mr. Dean’s record in Vermont reveals that, the emerging story line notwithstanding, he is no radical: he was a fiscally conservative leader whose biggest policy achievement — nearly universal health insurance for children — was the result of incremental steps. • Don’t fall for political histrionics. I couldn’t believe how much ink was spilled after the Gore-Dean event over Joe Lieberman’s hurt feelings. Folks, we’re talking about war, peace and the future of U.S. democracy — not about who takes whom to the prom. Political operatives have become experts at manufacturing the appearance of outrage. In the last few weeks the usual suspects have been trying to paint Howard Dean’s obviously heartfelt comments about his brother’s death in Laos as some sort of insult to the military. We owe it to our readers not to fall for these tricks. • It’s not about you. We learn from The Washington Post that reporters covering Mr. Dean are surprised — and, it’s implied, miffed — that “he never asks a single question about them.” The mind reels. I don’t really expect my journalistic colleagues to follow these rules. No doubt I myself, in moments of weakness, will break one or more of them. But history will not forgive us if we allow laziness and personal pettiness to shape this crucial election.
Absquatulate December 26, 2003January 21, 2017 1. Do you have to work today? Take the rest of the day off – just absquatulate if you have to – and go see Love Actually. Much better than any stock tip I could offer. (Santa brought me a dictionary of ‘weird and wondrous words.’ Absquatulate.) 2. There’s more than one way to skin a cat (all extremely repulsive to contemplate), but here, thanks to Jim and Melissa Skinnell, reacting to Wednesday’s column, is the way to skin a pomegranate. 3. Mark Kennet: ‘I’ll see your pomegranate and raise you one cherimoya. As anyone who has had the good fortune to spend any time in South America knows, this fruit is like a rich ice cream that grows on a tree. It is almost enough to overcome the despair over the political situation.’ ☞ Don’t despair – click here.
Holiday Joy December 24, 2003February 24, 2017 Behold! The magnificent pomegranate. Its icy rubies are a treat too many have never even experienced. If this is you, hie thee to the produce department! Thence to your refrigerator! Thence, after a suitable cooling off period, to your first experience trying to remove the seeds! (Unless, that is, you can hie yourself to a Korean market in New York that – wonder of $4.98-cent-a-tray wonders – has done all the work for you.) Thence, at last, and worth it, to enjoy – pondering, as you mash the succulence twixt teeth and tongue, whether to ingest or discard the mealy seed cores that remain. (It’s okay to do either.) Hey, it’s Christmas Eve. Live it up. If you can, find a camel and a palm tree to complete the scene. And if you get the hang of it, consider ice cold pomegranate seeds with your champagne for New Year’s Eve. Behold! Operacast.com! Looking for Handel’s Messiah tomorrow? Check this site any time to see what’s playing – free, through your computer speakers – anywhere in the world. Okay, okay, so I’ve only been to the opera once in my life, if you don’t count Tommy and Sweeney Todd, and am not rushing to go back. But this! This is so easy! And who cannot enjoy Aida in the comfort of his own recliner? Behold! PCG, suggested here February 3, has doubled! And stodgy old PCL, suggested here August 15, is up 14%! O, joy! And look at this! Borealis isn’t zero yet, either! I am just filled with holiday spirit and hope you are, too.
Year-End Tax-Selling — And Buying Turning $900 into $69,000 December 23, 2003February 24, 2017 It’s not too late to sell losers for a tax loss. (First, to reduce or eliminate your 2003 taxable gains, if you have realized any; then to reduce your taxable ‘ordinary income’ by up to $3,000 a year.) But it may also not be too late to do some year-end buying – perhaps from people who are still cleaning out their losers. As I’ve mentioned before, this can be one of those rare instances where both the buyer and the seller can be ‘right.’ Say a stock that got as high as $30 in some craze is actually worth $2 (to the extent anyone can know what a stock is worth) – but is now selling for 50 cents. For you or me, it’s a good buy at 50 cents (because it’s worth $2). For the genius who bought it at $30, it can be a good sell at 50 cents (because he gets a $29.50 tax loss on each share . . . and he also gets rid of the damn thing so he doesn’t have to keep looking at it on his statement each month). That tax loss now, at 50 cents, could be of greater value to him than waiting to take it later at $2 (if the stock ever returns to what we’re positing to be its true value). Yes, this is a simplified example, and was way more apt at the end of 2000 or 2001, say, than it is here at the end of 2003. By now, most investors have probably harvested their tax losses from the bubble of the late ’90s. Not too many stocks fell from 30 to 2 this year. Still, the point is that specific stocks are sometimes beaten down below their reasonable values – particularly in the last quarter of the year when people are doing their ‘tax selling.’ You could have bought 10,000 shares of a bankrupt manufacturer of women’s clothes, a company called KasperASL, for nine cents each – $900 – in December of 2000. There was a (very) slim chance that when it emerged from bankruptcy there would be enough, after paying off all the creditors, to leave some value for the shareholders. And, wonder of wonders, today, three years later, it’s selling for $6.90 – $69,000. So these things happen, and, with hindsight, are relatively easy to spot. It is only spotting them in advance that is hugely difficult. (I knew about Kasper only because a designer I greatly admired was going to work there and I figured that, seeing as how he was my life-partner and all, I’d bet a little on his talent.) But my point, again, is that irrationality is the rational investor’s friend. So if you find a stock people are selling out of disgust . . . they just hate this miserable son of a bitch stock (and themselves for ever having bought it) . . . or if you find a stock people are selling because they’re just sick to death of waiting (impatience being, similarly, the patient investor’s friend) . . . well, the odds with such a stock, while undeniably long, may nonetheless be tilted in your favor. [Note that when buying penny stocks, particularly, the brokerage commission makes a big difference. At Ameritrade, for example, buying (and then selling) 100,000 shares of a 9-cent stock costs a total of $22 in commissions ($11 each way). A full-service broker would typically charge $4,000. Even some deep discounters have a per-share minimums, so check the commission before you make the trade.] I don’t have any specific stocks like this to recommend, but one I’ve nibbled at, at 35 cents, has the symbol CICI. I’m assuming it will go to zero (really, the only sensible assumption under which to buy a ‘penny stock,’ as stocks selling for under a dollar are called) . . . but I’m also guessing it may have been beaten down out of irrational disgust (and rational tax-selling) at least a few pennies beyond a more objective value. Another is ILA, at $3.50 or so, down from near $40 in 2001. In a somewhat different category is CMM, at $10.15, of which I’ve written before. Many twists and turns along the way with this one – among them, preferred stock distributions and a reverse split. But my guess is that between its complexity and investors’ just getting tired of waiting, it could work out okay. (Please remember, as always, that I really mean it when I tell you in these columns never to invest money you can’t truly afford to lose. I think it’s unlikely – though possible – that CMM would totally tank. But CICI certainly could.)
US Against the World December 22, 2003February 24, 2017 AMERICA: WILLING TO STAND ALONE WHEN NEED BE Thanks to Peter Brown for drawing my attention to this November 26 post, by New York-based human rights attorney Joanne Mariner, on alternet.org. In relevant part: Here are some numbers to consider: 14 million, 35.9 billion, and 1. The first is an estimate of the number of people who will die of AIDS and other treatable diseases over the course of the coming year, most of them in the poor countries of the developing world. The second figure represents the combined 2002 profits, in dollars, of the 10 biggest pharmaceutical companies listed in Fortune magazine’s annual review of America’s largest businesses. The third figure corresponds to the number of countries that, last week, voted against a U.N. resolution on access to drugs in global epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The resolution emphasized that the failure to deliver life-saving drugs to millions of people who are living with HIV/AIDS constitutes a global health emergency. One hundred sixty seven countries voted in favor of the resolution. The single vote against it was cast by the United States. I would like to think this is not an accurate portrayal of the position our country took – and if it’s not, I’ll post your corrections promptly. But it sure sounds like us lately. To fix that, click here. Tomorrow: Year-End Tax Selling – And Buying
Your Thoughts on Marriage December 19, 2003February 24, 2017 But this item first . . . MUTUAL FUNDS TIPS From the estimable Less Antman: ‘There is now an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that follows an index of TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) and has only a 0.20% annual expense ratio. It has obtained the clever ticker symbol TIP. Thus we now have a reasonable facsimile of your book‘s millionaire maintenance plan using ETFs that bear rock-bottom expenses: 1/3 TIP – Barclay I-shares TIPS Index – 0.20% expense ratio 1/3 VTI – Vanguard Total Stock Market Index – 0.15% expense ratio 1/3 EFA – Morgan Stanley Europe Asia & Far East Index – 0.35% expense ratio ‘With mutual fund managers continuing to embarrass the industry (though none of the ones in your book), and stock commissions comparable to cups of coffee at Starbucks, I wonder if we have reached the point where passively-managed ETFs have moved from potential to reality as the perfect tool for the lazy investor.’ ☞ The only thing I don’t like about them is that they are so easy and cheap to trade. Index funds held at mutual fund companies just sit there. ETFs held at a deep discount broker, that can be traded with a couple of mouse clicks and an $11 commission, may lead to a life of gambling and depravity. Heck, just look at me! MARRIAGE There’s a lot here, so before I post some of your thoughts from last month, let me post Al Hunt’s column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, and, following that, the text of an ad that the South Carolina equality group is running. Please promise me you’ll buy a copy of the Journal at the newsstand for $1 today so I don’t feel guilty running this here. (Better still, sign up for an online subscription, for which no trees need die.) By ALBERT R. HUNT Wall Street Journal December 18, 2003 “Public Ambivalence on Gay Unions” I am a convert to accepting gay marriages. But as a political issue it’s a time bomb for both sides. This is evident in this week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News national survey. Americans are evenly split on the question of civil unions, or granting spousal benefits to gay and lesbian partners; but solidly against gay marriages. Only marginally, however, does the public support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. There is evidence to suggest that both the intensity of feeling and the demographics of the electorate favor the pro-gay side on this explosive issue; demagoguing against it could backfire. But it’s clear that an increasingly tolerant public wants to move cautiously. Bob Teeter, who conducts the poll with Peter Hart, believes gay unions is “becoming the number-one social issue in the country” with “fascinating” cross-currents: “The country and young people especially are becoming much more tolerant of gays. However much of the country also is religious and considers marriage a sacrament. . . . My instinct is the public will stay divided for awhile.” I used to be a skeptical agnostic on gay marriage, not outrightly opposed yet uncomfortable. But times are changing. When I asked my seventeen-year-old son if he supported gay marriage he shrugged and replied, “Sure. What’s the big deal?” The WSJ/NBC News poll shows that younger voters — 18 to 34-year-olds — by an overwhelming 68% support civil unions, and a majority even supports gay marriages. As was also true during the drive for civil rights a generation or two ago, younger Americans are not encumbered with many of the hang-ups and prejudices of their elders; the tide is with change. Another is the transparent phoniness of much of the anti-gay case: It will destroy the institution, ignores the centrality of procreation to marriage and will afflict a moral depravity on children. Destroy marriage? How about the 50% divorce rate, more than double what it was in 1960, or the one-third of children born to single mothers, more than triple the number in 1960? If the social right really is concerned with marriage, how about some serious efforts, and resources, to address these far more fundamental threats? Was procreation the purpose of all wedding vows? I wouldn’t trade my three kids — most days — for anything; yet other couples are different, some intentionally, some without choice. We have a number of childless married friends, including a few prominent conservatives. They chose not to procreate or to adopt. Should this carry a penalty? Annul their vows, or get slapped with a childless-marriage penalty tax? Conservatives complain that gay adoptions have an insidious effect on the kids. Yet studies suggest that adopted children of gay and lesbian parents are no different from adopted children of heterosexual couples. Virtually every body of experts — starting with the American Academy of Pediatricians, whose members actually deal with kids in the real world — agrees. Gay and lesbian couples adopt a disproportionate number of mentally and physically challenged kids, the most unadoptable. Right-wing critics would let these children rot in foster homes instead. A recurring, but specious, argument is that if gay marriages are not precluded, that opens the door to polygamy or incestuous relationships. The reality: A central tenet of marriage is to promote stability, far more likely in two-way relationships than in multiple relationships; and the risk of birth defects in children of close relatives is a powerful reason to prohibit such marriages. Further, gay marriage doesn’t undermine religious institutions; any church, temple or synagogue is free to perform, recognize or prohibit such unions. There is a very persuasive positive case. Marriage, whatever its imperfections, is a stabilizing structure encouraging commitment, caring and responsibility. What rational society tells 5% of its population that they are banned from such an institution? (Most experts now believe that sexual orientation is biological.) Moreover, how can we assail gay men and lesbian women for promiscuity and then deny them the right to an arrangement that promotes monogamy? I am not, however, going to criticize Democratic presidential hopefuls who duck the matter of gay marriage, staying on the safer ground of civil unions. Politically, many parts of the country aren’t ready. But social conservatives who saw this issue as a huge bonanza after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry may find this a double-edged sword. A majority of Americans will resent demagoguing against people’s sexual orientation. And the business of writing an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment is messy. A narrow provision is too tame for some, but a broader attempt that also would affect civil unions — where spousal rights and other benefits are widely accepted by many businesses and local governments — would backfire. There is considerable tension within the social right-wing movement now just on how to proceed, and for good reason: The notion of putting sexual relationships in the Constitution is bizarre. President Bush, with an eye to his political base, declares marriage should be “between a man and a woman,” but waffles on a constitutional amendment. In a television interview this week, he seemed to support the 2000 position of Vice President Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, that the federal government should stay out of this issue. Karl Rove would, in the words of his political soul mate Ralph Reed, love to wage this fight “under the radar screen,” with lots of red meat for true believers but little to turn off the general public. There are, to be sure, major differences between the fight for gay equality and the racial struggles of yesteryear. But the two struggles share common bonds, a sense of ultimate inevitability and more than a little hypocrisy from the status-quo opposition. Just this week, we learned that the late Strom Thurmond has an African-American daughter, secretly fathered with the family’s maid almost eight decades ago. This was the same Strom Thurmond who ran for president in 1948 vowing to oppose any social “mixing of the races.” Now here is the ad from South Carolina’s Alliance for Full Acceptance (founded by the wonderful Linda Ketner). Picture a photo of two little kids, maybe six or seven years old, sitting beside each other on a stone wall, dangling their feet and talking. The little girl is Zoe. The little boy is Cristopher. I am actually taking advanced computer science courses to be able to post photos on this column – one day you might actually be able to see me Cooking Like a Guy™ – but I don’t trust myself with it yet, so just picture them sitting on that wall above this headline: Why Is Zoe Worth $308,880 More Than Cristopher? … Because 1,049 laws discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans and their families. Zoe’s parents, Tom and Debra, have been married 10 years. Should either Debra or Tom die, 5-year-old Zoe and her surviving parent would receive social security benefits totaling $308,880 by her eighteenth birthday. In addition, the surviving parent’s inheritance would be tax free, easing the financial burden. Cristopher’s parents, Warren and Jim, have been together 18 years, and are not allowed a civil marriage license. Should Jim die, Cristopher and Warren would be eligible for absolutely nothing, even though Jim has paid into the program all of his working lifetime. Any inheritance Warren or Cristopher would receive from Jim’s estate would be subject to up to 53% in estate taxes. And, if Jim were to be in the hospital, his partner of 18 years, and his four year old son, might not be allowed to visit him – because they aren’t legally “family.” Worst of all, if Warren – the adoptive parent – should die first, Jim may have no legal rights to his child. To review the 1,049 inequalities, visit this government website: www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf. You’ll find unequal treatment of gay and lesbian families in rights that most of us take for granted, such as: Social Security Benefits Retirement and Pension Benefits Veterans’ Benefits Family Sick and Bereavement leave Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits Divorce responsibilities and protections Inheritance exemption on spouse’s death Family medical insurance protection Medical decision-making and visitation Say “No!” to the Federal Marriage Amendment Act that would embed discrimination in the Constitution. Support all loving, committed American families. And remember, this is a civil matter; not a religious one. No religious group would be told what relationships it must recognize. Our country was founded on fairness and equality. Equality honors all of us. Of course, the ad looks better than that in real life. My apologies to the creative team. But even slapped up on the web site this way, I think it makes its point. And now, some of your comments . . . Brooks Hilliard: “I think the case for same-sex unions would be more ‘saleable’ if, when describing the characteristics of it, you would state that it would extend not only ‘equal economic benefits and rights’ but also equal obligations and responsibilities.” ☞ Good point! I think it’s at least in part an awareness of these obligations and responsibilities that has kept the number of folks going to Vermont for civil unions, or Canada for marriage, relatively low. Really, it seems to me, if one decried promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, one would want to encourage, not amend the Constitution to prevent, the formation of legal, stable, long-term gay relationships. Gary: “I read your column after filling out employment forms at work. The forms asked for an emergency contact (simple, my lover of 13 years), phone number (simple, his cell phone number and our home number), and our relationship (complicated, we had a civil union in VT but live in NJ which does not recognize our relationship).” Aaron Stevens: “I didn’t get the reference to GLBT people increasing real estate values. Is this a purely economic argument, e.g. more qualified households will increase demand for homeownership, hence a rightward shift in the demand curve which, along with stable supply curve (at least in the Northeast corridor), would lead to a new equilibrium condition where the two curves intersect at a higher overall price? Or was there some pun that I didn’t get?” ☞ I just meant that when gay people move into a ratty old area, it tends to get restored, cleaned up, landscaped, gentrified, and more valuable. Think of it as Queer Eye for the Straight Neighborhood. Bob Fyfe: “You wrote that gay residents “can actually send real estate values soaring.” Asbury Park, New Jersey, was once the place for New Yorkers to go in the summer. However, it had declined into a virtual wasteland over the past several decades. After many failed attempts, Asbury Park is experiencing a renaissance, largely due to the gay community renovating buildings in the city. Although all of the best deals are obviously gone, I think that you and Charles should buy a place there and have it fixed up as your summer home. It sure beats Miami in the summer [g]. Here are two websites: asburyboardwalk.com and gayasburypark.com. Full disclosure: I have no financial interest in Asbury Park, only a nostalgic one. I grew up only a few miles from there and as a child that is where we went to the beach and boardwalk.” Eric Hjelmfelt: “You may want to check this out from the United Methodist News Service. The writer patiently reviews the passages commonly cited from the Bible in arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage. He finds that most of the time, they are really addressing the issue of divorce, and it is quite a reach to claim they are applying to homosexuality.” Marc Fest: “Here is a nuanced Christian Science Monitor article about the Dutch experience with gay marriage in the past two years (they have the longest track record with it).” Caleb: “This might be a fun link to post on your marriage column. A straight friend here at Wharton sent it to me. ‘Hey,’ he wrote, ‘a “pro-family” group is collecting petitions to show that, by gosh, everyone who visits their webpage (how scientific and unbiased) is against homosexual marriage and/or civil unions. They’re presenting the results to Congress. Wouldn’t it be neat if a bunch of other people went to their webpage and gave them a bit of a wider sample of the population? I mean, if the American Family Association tells Congress that by their own study most people are in FAVOR of homosexual unions, wouldn’t that be kind of neat?” ☞ Why do I think that if the poll turns out that way they won’t report it? Ward and George: “We were referred to your column by John Sewell, one of the two Annapolis graduates now, bless their hearts, tormenting the Naval Academy by trying to found an alumni group called ‘USNA out,’ devoted to Gay and Lesbian graduates. My question (he comes to the point)is, do you maintain a mailing list for your column? Ward Stewart and George Vye, 48 years together and yet strangers before the law.” ☞ When I was growing up, the only thing most people knew about gay relationships came from a hugely bestselling book by one Dr. David Rueben, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask). Thirty million copies were sold. In the book, Reuben described gay relationships as fleeting and impersonal – a quick encounter in the basest of circumstances . . . a note passed under a partition, a quick physical act. He then asks himself, “Are all homosexual contacts as impersonal as that?” (Was the book a hit in part because of its bite-sized q-and-a format? Yes, I think it was.) And he answers: “No. Most are much more impersonal.” Most of us don’t even have time to write notes, he explained to his estimated 100 million readers (including my parents). “But all homosexuals aren’t like that, are they?” he asks, answering, “Unfortunately, they are just like that.” It’s a testament to guys like Ward and George that they found a way to forge a 48-year life together with so little encouragement from “society” . . . they were already 13 years into it when Reuben wrote his book explaining that such relationships never last more than a couple of minutes. It is equally a testament to our fellow citizens that in so relatively short a time such deep and widely-held ignorance and fear could have been so significantly dispelled. Is this a great country, or what?
Don’t Click Here December 18, 2003January 21, 2017 MARKET SCHEDULES Jim: ‘Here’s where to look to see when the market’s closed.’ ☞ You’re right – it is open on Wednesdays! Stephen Gilbert: ‘I’m sure others have already done this, but just to be safe: THE MARKET WILL BE OPEN TOMORROW, AS WELL AS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK.’ ☞ Perhaps. But not Thursday of next week, I venture. And only half open Wednesday and Friday – expect even more half-witted columns. REPUBLICANS: DO NOT CLICK HERE Seriously. I don’t want to annoy any of my loyal Republican readers. Democrats: even after the animation ends, hang on – there’s a little more. (Thanks to the very estimable Paul Lerman for this link.) NO ONE SHOULD CLICK HERE . . . Unless he or she is truly not offended by four-letter words. Because there are a lot of them in this thing. Seriously. (Mom: do not click.) SPEAKING OF REPUBLICANS President Bush told Diane Sawyer yesterday that he’d be okay with amending the United States Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage by prohibiting divorcees to remarry. It sounds a little nutty, but the idea is to make sure people take the institution of marriage really, really seriously – as they should. Wait, no, that’s not what he said he’d support. He said he’d prohibit any marriage where procreation is not possible or not intended. No. He said he’d support an amendment to reinstate the long-held ban on inter-racial marriage. (If God had intended the races to intermarry, he would not have put them on separate continents, as the argument went in Virginia, until finally struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967. But the Court can’t strike down an amendment to the Constitution as unConstitutional, so this would be a way to restore Virginia’s authority to have such a law.) No (well, I know you know where this is heading, but in for a penny, in for a pound), he said he’d support an amendment to bar fourth and fifth marriages – vaguely patterned after ‘three strikes and you’re out.’ No, he said he’d support an amendment overturning the law of any state that tried to grant state marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That’s it! So this seems like a good time to post several of the many thoughtful reactions many of you offered on this topic in response to last month’s column. Look for them tomorrow. (I’m hoping – don’t gasp – to do touch on a financial topic Monday.)
My Bad December 17, 2003March 25, 2012 As you know, this column only appears on days the market is open. (That’s because, as you also know, it is relentlessly focussed on money and investing. And the occasional recipe.) Well . . . no one told me the market would be open TODAY! See you tomorrow . . .
Three Sites Without Machine Guns December 16, 2003January 21, 2017 MACHINE GUNS Craig: ‘Where in this country is there a gated community that is guarded with machine guns? [as you suggested yesterday].’ ☞ No where. But I’ve been in countries like that, where the gap between rich and poor is just overwhelmingly wide, and my point was that this is the direction we are headed in . . . even though, you’re right, I dearly hope it is an exaggeration to think we’ll ever actually get there. In 1980, the every big-company CEO made 40 times as much as his average worker. In 2000, it was 532 times as much (if memory serves). And now we’ve had huge tax cuts for the best off, paid for in part by cutting back on things like after-school programs. CHEAP TRAVEL Click here to see some of the world’s greatest sights ‘without leaving your desk.’ (Thanks to Bryan Norcross for this one.) GIVING FREE TRAVEL TO GIs Bob Price: ‘In addition to the American Airlines site you mentioned, heromiles.org has sites for a number of other air lines.’ PALLINDROMES James Redekop: ”Weird Al’ Yankovic’s latest album, ‘Poodle Hat,’ features a Bob Dylan spoof composed entirely of palindromes. You can find the lyrics here.’