The Latest From Bulgaria February 28, 2006March 3, 2017 FROM RUSSIA Yana: ‘My name is Yana Y. Sazhina I am russian student. I found your web-site when was looking for any information about ‘male in rebates.’ I would like to describe this way of getting money back from any purchase. The ‘male in rebates’ is widely used in US but absolutely unknown in Russia. Could you please give me any information about it.’ ☞ The mail-in rebate is a marketing gimmick. It is a way to advertise a low price for a product – a $500 television advertised in big bold letters at $400, but (small print) ‘with a $100 mail-in rebate,’ to get people to buy the product for $500. Often, the companies that do this hope people will NOT send in the coupons, so they do NOT have to send the $100 back. Especially for less expensive items, where the rebate might be $2 instead of $100, many do not. Sometimes, the companies purposely make it difficult to get the rebate. They require paperwork that is hard to complete perfectly, and/or do not send the rebate unless someone sends a second letter to complain. So . . . what good is this mail-in rebate system? How does it make society richer or more productive? It is just a waste of a lot of time and energy. Mail-in rebates are not an idea Russia should import. (And does Russia even yet have a reliable postal / banking system for sending money?) FROM BULGARIA Mark Lefler: ‘You probably know about sites like tvtorrents.com. They let you easily download TV shows and watch them wherever you want. You can watch on a PC, or put the video files on a portable Media Player (like the Archos GMini 402 I use). Great for catching up with shows you might miss or never told your Tivo about. Most people edit out the commercials (a pity; I miss US commercials here in Bulgaria). ‘And, if I may, a small plug: I and a friend wrote a universal game program years ago called Zillions of Games. It plays around 5000 board games so far, and people can create their own games. Like what if you want to play chess, but the goal is to checkmate the queen instead? With Zillions, this is a one line change anyone can do. I am proud of Zillions since it is both a non-violent thinking game, and also because of the big game inventor community it inspires.’ WELCOME TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY The mail this week has been bright red. I got a large envelope with a photo of the President, inscribed to me and signed in blue. I have several of these by now. Where does he find time to sign them all? And I got my personalized 2006 Republican National Committee Platinum Card – ‘one of a very limited number reserved exclusively for the Republican Party’s most extraordinary leaders.’ (Note to new readers: I’m treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.) I keep it in my wallet along with my 2005 Platinum RNC card, my 2005 RNC Sustaining Member card – I have cards going back at least to my 2002 Charter Member card, issued to me ‘in recognition of outstanding service to our Party.’ With the current card, Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman (has he seen Brokeback Mountain?) writes: ‘Mr. Tobias, I believe your exemplary record of loyalty and patriotism proves you are a leader President Bush can count on.’ ‘What makes the Platinum Card so prestigious,’ he goes on (emphasis his), ‘is that only a very limited number were commissioned and only a select few chosen to receive it.’ He’s asked his staff ‘to carefully track every card issued’ and – if I don’t confirm receipt of ‘this prestigious honor’ in the next few days – he’ll be so distraught at the thought it was not delivered, he’ll have to ‘go to the extra expense of ordering and sending a new one.’ He hopes that along with my confirmation of receipt, I will send $25 or more – it’s that exclusive. Equally sincere are his substantive statements. My favorite: ‘Republican tax cuts,’ he writes, ‘helped shrink the federal deficit by $108 billion in 2005.’ WELCOME TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY Warren Spieker: ‘The Republican party has finally broken me. The fact that Bush has threatened his first ever veto for an item as stupid as the port deal (when it should have been used about runaway spending) was bad enough. But with South Dakota Republicans intentionally setting up a Roe v. Wade review, I’ve had it. Please, please, please, run a half-decent candidate in 2008.’ ☞ Will do. Not to mention a lot of them in 2006. NTMD For the week ending February 17th, BiDil’s total weekly IMS prescriptions decreased slightly – 1,255 versus 1,273 the week before. As usual, about two-thirds of the scrips are ‘new’ – leaving one to wonder why monthly refills from happy patients who started on BiDil in July, August, September, October, November, December and January have not further swelled the numbers. Assuming all these prescriptions are written at full price (and none under the voucher program for the uninsured), sales are annualizing at 1,255 times 52 weeks times 90 pills times $1.80 = $11 million or so, versus $95 million in projected annual expenses. You never know, but – don’t sell your puts.
Say Your Aunt Owns an Airbus A320 February 27, 2006March 3, 2017 BOREALIS I keep telling myself: Television did catch on. Television did catch on. But – invented in 1926 – it took a little while. Younger readers may think the Simpsons have been in reruns for 100 years; but television itself didn’t even begin entering people’s homes widely until 1950 or so. The other thing I keep telling myself: The plane moved. (‘It was said you couldn’t drive an airliner around an airfield with an electric motor,’ Semikron UK Managing Director Paul Newman told Electronics Weekly. ‘The prototype has done it.’) And if Borealis owns a subsidiary that owns a subsidiary that has an electric motor that can actually move a jumbojet in a revolutionary way, maybe the company’s other incredible claims have some validity as well. (It claims to own valuable iron ore deposits, to be able to turn heat into electricity with no moving parts – all kinds of stuff.) And so we taxi down the tarmac of my financial fantasy. (Full disclosure for new readers: I own bundles of Borealis. It is a speculation only to be made with money you can truly afford to lose.) Want to see what a WheelTug™ motor could save you if you owned your own plane? Click here. Almost nothing, as it turns out, because, c’mon, how often would you really use it? Twice a week? And you’d probably fly in and out of odd little airports like Teterboro, where ground delays are minimal. But let’s say you own a fleet of 737s that average 3.55 flights a day into airports like LaGuardia and Hartsfield and O’Hare. And let’s say fuel costs you a couple bucks a gallon. According to this nifty calculator, you will save $388 per flight – $502,083 a year on each plane. That could be worth something. Assume $3 fuel and a 767 and the WheelTug™ calculator estimates annual savings north of $1 million. That could be worth even more. Not to mention the environmental benefits (less noise and pollution), or the benefit to frequent fliers (who frequently find themselves stuck on a plane a few minutes longer than necessary as they wait for a tug to pull the plane). Of course, all this is only as good as the calculator’s underlying assumptions . . . which you can judge for yourself . . . and the success with which they are able to win orders to supply new planes, and retrofit old ones, with WheelTugs™ at a price higher than it costs to do the work. But when you compare Nitromed, which has a single product readily available in generic form at a fraction of the price – yet commands a market cap of $350 million – with Borealis, which has half a dozen chips to build a dream on (and commands a market cap of $75 million), I say: Don’t sell your Borealis. And don’t sell your puts. AUNTIE MAIM A couple of Mondays ago, I wrote: “Adults – most insidiously parents or uncles, but any adults, obviously – should not molest children.” Well, duh. And yet to my surprise I got an angry e-mail. “I hugely resent this,” Frank wrote. “For someone who was molested by an aunt, that is just the kind of prejudiced, sexist language I find particularly painful and outrageous. Shame on you. You should be apologizing in your column, but of course you won’t do that.” My first instinct was to dismiss this. But Frank seemed genuinely upset, so I wrote back that, “I guess I need a little more from you to understand this. You want me to apologize for not including aunts as especially heinous child molesters (as opposed to merely including them in the ‘or any adults, obviously’ category)?” Frank replied: “Yes, I think that sort of oversight is far too much the norm and deserves illumination. The sexism in the statement, obvious to me and to many men, is that only uncles, not aunts, are portrayed as sexual predators. The statement leaves those boys who have been molested by women (and there are many more than you think, since boys are MUCH less likely to report it than girls, for many reasons) are left feeling unacknowledged, feeling that they don’t count. I’m not exactly without volatility on this, especially since most of the planet doesn’t want to hear about this problem from men. Our culture doesn’t want to see women this way, and doesn’t want to allow that men can be victimized by women in any way. People get really angry if a guy brings this up. You’d be astonished, as you would also be if you could hear how widespread it is. In my men’s group – started without this topic as any kind of inspiration – a surprising number of men have stories like this to tell. For a primer, go to menweb.org and to batteredmen.org. There’s a lot there to enlighten you. But it rarely surfaces. Guys like me feel we have no voice at all.” ☞ Point taken. AXP Meanwhile, look at American Express – up from $52.50 this summer to the equivalent of about $64 Friday, adjusted for its Ameriprise spin-off ($54.87 for AXP and one-fifth of a share of AMP adding $9.25). That’s 22% in ten months. If we don’t have a financial crisis, AXP could have another 20% to run. (And if we do, AXP will hardly be the only stock to get clobbered.)
Leapin’ Roombas! The FBI's Looking at Your Bumper Stickers February 24, 2006March 3, 2017 There’s always been something strange about February. Sure, I can understand the need for a month that enjoys an extra day every fourth year (except every hundredth year [except every fourth hundredth year]). But why 28 and 29 days when all the rest have 30 or 31? Would it not be fairer to take the 31st day from December and January and give them to February? Then all three would be 30 days long, except in leap years, when February had 31. I’m not saying this weirdness directly accounts for the mysterious return of my old photo on this page (unless it’s mysteriously flipped back — oh, look at that: it flipped back again). I don’t know what’s going on with my site. It seems to have developed a mind of its own. The robots may be stirring. We have them cleaning dust from under our beds, and they are beginning to IM each other and their cousins, the servers and routers and controls on your dishwasher . . . and I’m just saying you should keep a watchful eye. John Dicks: ‘I’m a proud owner of a Roomba! My wife rolled her eyes and my dog barked at it . . . but now even the two of them have accepted the little robot into our home. It works quite well (better than me) and the dog thinks it is there for her personal amusement.’ Kathi Derevan: ‘I have one. I thought they looked kind of cool, but assumed they were wacky toys that really wouldn’t work. But then I visited a friend and saw one in action, and found out, yes, they DO work. I find I still need a ‘normal’ vacuum too, but the Roomba is not a toy, and does some things a regular vac won’t, like go under the bed and couch. And, I am vacuuming RIGHT NOW. How cool is that?’ Glenn Hudson: ‘My wife bought one about a month ago. We were concerned it wouldn’t do the job since we had bought a similar product from Sharper Image that didn’t work very well. We have a long-haired dog that sheds. As the thing vacuums, the hair twists up around the brush. With the Sharper Image version, eventually the dog hair was too much and it would just stop vacuuming. With the Roomba, the dog hair still gets wrapped up in the brushes, but it continues to pick up quite a bit of dirt. It’s kind of neat how it can find its recharging dock after vacuuming at the far end of the house. If you’ve got the extra money, a house or apartment that isn’t littered with obstacles that prevent the Roomba from manipulating its way around, we recommend it.’ John Peterson: ‘Is it worth it? Probably not if you only consider cleaning floors. Should you buy one? Absolutely yes – and give one to everyone you know. (To be fair, I have been waiting for this product ever since I read The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury in high school (a long time ago). That book has robotic mice that do the vacuuming.) The first generation ones that I bought, for myself and parents and parents-in-law, are kinda like running a Dustbuster randomly around the floor, so the cleaning is OK . . . but don’t expect too much. Newer ones may be better. It also makes enough noise to be irritating to some in the household, so running it while you are away is best. They are great fun at nursing homes. The residents love to see them run around and clean the room. Drop one on a table in a high school class and suddenly all of the kids want to know why it does not fall off the edge. A sudden interest in science and engineering! Anyway – the overarching reason to buy these is to encourage more and better devices like this so that we can all quit doing chores. I am hoping for [a bed maker] next. IT’S NOT THE MIDDLE AMENDMENT OR THE LAST – IT’S THE FIRST In isolation, this is a small story. (Park your car on federal property with a pro-war bumper sticker and you’re okay; with anti-war stickers . . . maybe not.) Some, though, will see it as part of a larger story. WANT FAIR ELECTIONS IN FLORIDA? This is a bipartisan effort to prevent one party in an evenly divided state from seizing all the power. (Guess who’s likely to oppose it.)
Ooga Chakka, Ooga Chakka! February 23, 2006March 3, 2017 I MISSED YOU, TOO Charlie Mac: ‘I start every weekday with your column and a cup of coffee. One of those things was missing today, and I want it fixed ASAP. I’m not paying you to sit around.’ ☞ Well, to serve us better, our web provider (or whatever they’re called) changed server farms and IP nodes (or whatever they’re called), and, well, my apologies. There may be a bump or two more as we get it sorted out, but all subscriptions will be extended. OOGA CHAKKA Mark Lefler: ‘Here is a very odd, but oddly compelling video. I bet you cannot watch it without smiling.’ ☞ For hundreds of thousands of years, man spent his time trying to find food and shelter. But once you have those, and a roomba* and a Starbucks within walking distance – what, really, is there left to do? Make videos to post on youtube, apparently. Here‘s one involving a train wreck and broccoli. *Does anyone actually have one of these? Or a scooba? Do they really work? Are they worth it? GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR – BUT NOT IF THEIR KIDS GET SICK Ralph Sierra: ‘Another example of the mean-spirited effect of the income redistribution engineered by the Republican leadership.’ Seldom does a budget cut help cripple a child. Yet when Maryland cut $7 million last year and eliminated health care coverage for some recent immigrants, surgery was canceled on Eelaaf Zahid’s malformed hip. Now, as her family looks to the courts and other state programs for help, an outgrown medical device implanted in her hip three years ago protrudes from her small body. The Glen Burnie kindergartener walks with a limp. . . . More than 3,000 children lost Medicaid coverage in July, an issue that has inspired a high-level policy debate among Maryland lawmakers, officials, lawyers and judges — and a desperate struggle among the parents, all of them poor but legal immigrants, to navigate a complex patchwork of programs in search of care for their children. . . . ☞ Well, no one can be happy about this, but look on the bright side: It is grand time to be rich and powerful in America. It is the irony of ironies, I think – and it deeply pains many an evangelical I have talked to (not all evangelicals are Republicans!) – that, despite their strong hold on the Republican Party, the needs of the rich come first. Which leads me to this next item . . . HOW TO BE ONE OF THEM Andrew Henckler: ‘Not sure if you have seen this, but I thought it was frighteningly accurate and funny.’ ☞ My apologies to those of you not reflexively Democratic. I don’t want to lose you, and a link like the one above does not lead (as you’ll see) to a model of respectful dialog. But in your heart of hearts, I’ll bet even you will find some notes in it that ring true. (And look: What’s subtle about a little girl whose outgrown implant protrudes from her hip? Or eight trillion dollars in new debt piled on by just three presidents?)
New Photo Breaks the Server Sorry - Back in Business Now February 22, 2006March 3, 2017 THAT VIRGINIA SPEECH Bruce: ‘I found a line in that speech on Virginia’s anti-gay amendment to be very descriptive: ‘We have heard from the other side that this amendment must pass sooner rather than later, as if there is some kind of crisis.’ To see the character of the crisis one need only look to the younger generation. This fall, when my daughter and friends went to their high school fall formal dance, some had dates, some did not. One of their gay friends did not have a date. What did they do? Brought him along so he wouldn’t miss out on the dance, of course! Our children – heaven willing – are far less likely to live in a manufactured fear of gays. They see and understand the reality. This IS a crisis to the other side. If moves are not made NOW to entrench the discrimination, they are less likely to be successful when their children and grandchildren reach voting age. I hope that if we can, as an enlightened nation, move to block the entrenchment of discrimination and hatred, our children will have a world where they can sweep it away.’ Jeff Bauer: ‘This portion of David Englin’s speech really nails it: ‘We have heard from the other side that this amendment must pass sooner rather than later.’ Some politicians must feel in their gut the tide is running out on this issue. Demographics are working against them. An overwhelming majority of the 20-40 age group couldn’t care less about a person’s sexual orientation and know that it’s inherently unfair to discriminate on that basis. In my generation (and yours) the bogeyman was interracial marriage. The last of the anti-miscegenation laws was struck down in 1967. Even the interracial dating prohibition at Bob Jones University was nullified in 2000.’ PHOTOSHOP Mike Kelley: ‘I think your picture at the top of this page is better if you are not wearing a suit. My first thought was you turned into a Republican.’ ☞ Now, now. I just thought it was getting a little ridiculous to be using a picture from 1923. This one isn’t brand new either, but at least it’s from the right century. Wayne Arczynski: ‘I hate to say this, but the new pic makes you look, well . . . like . . . sort of like… a . . . Republican.’ ☞ Enough with that! (Some of my best friends are Republicans – though very few of them have been voting that way lately.) LIBERTARIANS Well, the Libertarian candidate is not going to win anytime soon, so most people probably assume that Libertarians generally vote Republican. And maybe they do. But according to this analysis of Congressional voting patterns, most Republicans don’t vote the way Libertarians would like them to. Compared with their Democratic colleagues, they are a lot more likely to vote for Big Brother interfering with your life. ISLAMICISTS Mitchell R: ‘Your lumping of Nazis, Slave-owners and Islamicists caught me by surprise. According to the Wall Street Journal style guide, an Islamicist is someone who studies Islam. Perhaps you picked the term up from anti-Islamic ideologues who, judging from a quick Google search, have recently used the term as a shorthand for militant Islamic movements.’ ☞ Thanks for the correction. Have changed it to ‘radical Islamists.’
Geo. Washington and Demeaning of Demeanor February 20, 2006March 3, 2017 But I’ll get to that. CBH Judy M: ‘Re Friday’s comment, I can vouch for Commerce Bank‘s customer service. Open late weeknights, open Saturdays, and even open on Sundays! (Now another local bank started opening on Sunday to compete with Commerce. So they’re improving customer service even for other banks’ customers.) And they have great little touches, too. At the drive-through window, lollipops for people and doggie biscuits for your pooch. They have one of those coin counters so you can bring your coin jar in and get it counted and deposited (no fees either). They have online banking (not very high tech) and 24-hour customer service. Best of all, very few nuisance fees. You just need a $100 minimum balance for free checking.’ Jim Taylor: ‘I recently needed to have paperwork notarized for moving some 529 plans to Vanguard. I went to a branch of Commerce Bank and they notarized without even asking me if I had an account there! (I do but it is in a different branch and I’m sure these people did not know me as a customer.) We have been with Commerce for over 10 years and they have always been exceptional in their service no matter what the transaction.’ ☞ I think their logo is ugly, but reading comments like these make me feel better and better about owning the stock (as suggested here a couple of dollars cheaper). And, yes, of course, they’re open Presidents’ Day. NTMD Sid Knight: ‘The sad thing about your NTMD fixation – worse, if it works – is that it is an object lesson in how not to keep your eye on the ball. People who treat the market as a casino (zero-sum game) can expect casino-like returns. A teacher’s caveats are powerless against his example.’ ☞ Sid makes a good point. I have been arguing for the better part of 30 years that the options game is generally a bad one to play – a less-than-zero-sum game. So . . . what if some people get the bug with NTMD puts and decide this is a game they can win? (Or just enjoy the thrill of playing?) If that’s the outcome, I will feel bad. Because the options game really is one I rarely suggest playing. Especially the short-term options game.* But, if you bought them with money you can truly afford to lose – don’t sell your puts. *LEAPS – long-term options that offer, among other things, the possibility of lightly taxed long-term capital gains – are not always a good idea, either, but are considerably less casino-like. Here are the most recent weekly BiDil prescription figures I’ve seen: 12/30/2005 1,063 1/6/2006 1,046 1/13/2006 1,206 1/20/2006 1,152 1/27/2006 1,203 2/3/2006 1,347 They’re inching up, and you can imagine their hitting 3,000 a week someday. Maybe. But 3,000 times 52 weeks times 90 pills times $1.80/pill equals $25 million a year in sales against $95 million a year in expenses. Not a business you want to be in – or pay $350 million for (30.5 million shares at $11.50 each). As of February 13, the 7-day rolling-average prescription rate was 185.1 (1295 for the week), of which two-thirds were new prescriptions. I continue to wonder why so many of the prescriptions are for new prescriptions – shouldn’t a lot by now be for refills? What about the patients who started on BiDil in July, August, September, October, November, December and January? I also wonder what proportion of these prescriptions may be written under the company’s voucher plan for low-income uninsured patients. Under that plan, instead of getting $1.80 a pill, Nitromed gets less than 30 cents. DEMEAN YOURSELF In the spirit of Presidents’ Day, here’s a recent speech delivered on the floor of the Commonwealth of Virginia House of Delegates by David Englin (D-45). He quotes President Washington, whose birthday we celebrate today; and nothing in his speech, I suspect, would have drawn anything but approval from President Lincoln, whose birthday we also celebrate, were he alive today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I’m not going to talk about same-sex marriage. I’m no fool – although others might make a different judgment about a freshman delegate rising in this chamber on the third day of session. But I understand that on the issue of marriage, I’m in the minority, perhaps even in my own caucus. I also sleep very well at night knowing that at some point in the future of this great Commonwealth, those of us of my opinion will be judged to have been on the right side of history. But let’s for a moment forget about the question of same-sex marriage, because this amendment addresses much more than that. We need to be clear and honest: This amendment also outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar private legal arrangements. We have heard from the other side that this constitutional amendment is necessary to protect conventional marriage. I am blessed with a beautiful and brilliant wife who is the love of my life. In June, Shayna and I will celebrate our tenth wedding anniversary, and I would fight with every ounce of my strength anything that would threaten my marriage. So I would like to know, how exactly civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my marriage? We have heard from the other side that this amendment will protect families. Shayna and I are blessed with a strong and bright six-year-old son, Caleb, and we have a strong family. My friend the gentleman from Rockingham County, Delegate Lohr, and I have discussed how we come from different backgrounds and different parts of this great Commonwealth, yet we share a deep and abiding commitment to our families. I want nothing more than to protect my family. I spent 12 years wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force to protect my family. I’ve been in harm’s way to protect my family. So I would like to know, how exactly do civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my family? Because if they do, I will be the first one to stand up and fight, because nobody better threaten my family. Moreover, we have heard from the other side that this amendment must pass sooner rather than later, as if there is some kind of crisis that is more important than issues like transportation or education or health care. Why else would this be our first order of business? Yet Virginia law already makes same-sex marriage and civil unions and domestic partnerships illegal. So if this amendment doesn’t help protect my marriage, and doesn’t help protect my family, and if it doesn’t even change the status of same-sex marriage and civil unions and domestic partnership contracts, then what exactly does this amendment do? I submit to my fair-minded colleagues that this amendment sends a message. And that message is, if you are gay, or lesbian, or even a man and a woman living together and committed to each other who are not married, you are not welcome in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And who are these people whom we are shutting out in the cold? They are my dear friends Karen and Sue, who have been together for years and are as loving and committed to each other as any husband and wife. They are my friend Lou, who served with me at the Pentagon, and continues to serve our country today. They are Father Mychal Judge, the gay priest who died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 while ministering to fallen firefighters. They are Mark Bingham, a gay passenger on United Airlines Flight 93, who fought back against Al Queda hijackers and sacrificed his life to save others. They are Ronald Gamboa and his partner Dan Brandhorst, who, along with their 3 year old son David, were killed when Al Quaeda flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center. They are David Charlebois, the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon when Al Qaeda tried to kill me and my comrades who were on duty inside the Pentagon at the time. They are friends and neighbors and teachers and doctors and soldiers and loving parents who want nothing more than to live life without fear that the government will tear their families apart. I’m a student of history, and I find our Founding Fathers to be a great source of wisdom on many matters, so I want to close my remarks by reading from a letter that great Virginian named George Washington wrote more than two centuries ago: “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind . . a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.* ‘May the Children of the Stock of Abraham who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you, be strong and of good courage and vote down this resolution. * How doth he demean himself / Let me count the ways. Groveling, bad puns, moral compromise . . . No, not that kind of ‘demean.’ Dat’s da meaner kind. Back in George Washington’s day, how you ‘demeaned’ yourself determined your demeanor. What a language, this English! ☞ And while we’re at it, here’s a site that compares statements in a Nazi propaganda film with statements from the Family Research Council and others dehumanizing their fellow citizens who are gay and lesbian. I think it’s important to remember that most Nazis didn’t wake up every morning thinking they were evil – any more than most radical Islamists do or slave-owners did. But that doesn’t mean their sense of moral superiority is or was justified. We’re making rapid progress toward equal rights. Thanks to young leaders like David Englin, there’s lots of reason to be hopeful. Happy Presidents’ Day! (See you Wednesday.)
Up 79% – Now What? February 17, 2006March 3, 2017 THE SUNDAY TALK SHOWS TILT RIGHT Even leaving aside Fox, the guests are skewed 58% to 42%. Click here for details. KOREA Andy Frank: ‘The Korea Fund you suggested in late 2004 – any thoughts on how far this goes?’ ☞ It’s up 79% since then (including dividends), so the easy money has been made. Also, its discount to net asset value – a ‘cushion’ of sorts when buying a closed-end fund like this – has shrunk from 9% to 2%. You’re still getting $1 of Korean stocks for 98 cents – a little discount. But as I’ve argued, closed-end mutual funds should sell at a discount (probably around 10%, other things being equal), because the management fees eat into the return you’d get if you owned their stocks outright. (Of course, for most of us, assembling a portfolio of Korean stocks is not practical, which is why most people don’t insist on a 10% discount and sometimes even run funds like this to a significant premium – at which point you should certainly consider selling.) The question is, which stock market – the Korean or the U.S. – will do better going forward. I am no expert in global economics (and they don’t know, either), but I’m inclined to think that – especially when adjusted for relative strength of the two currencies – it makes sense to retain KF for the element of international diversification it gives your portfolio. I worry that, as we rack up deficits well in excess of half a trillion dollars a year*, we are not likely to see the U.S. dollar strengthen relative to the Korean won. And as our the National Debt rises to $10 trillion by the time the White House changes hands in January 2009 ($8 trillion of that $10 trillion having been racked up by just three of our 43 presidents, Reagan, Bush, and Bush), we are boxing ourselves into an economic corner. Even today, with the debt not yet at $10 trillion and interest rates relatively low, the interest on the Debt is equivalent to 40% of all the personal income taxes we pay each year. The Republicans have set us on a course where that already scary percentage is likely to rise. And then there’s the scary degree to which consumers finance their spending by borrowing against the equity in their homes – which might not keep rising. So I think it’s never smart to keep 100% of one’s money (if one has enough money to talk in the haughty, well-heeled third person this way) in a single country’s stock market, even ours. KF could be a reasonable component of your diversification. *Remember, the official figures generally don’t include the ‘special’ appropriations for the cost of the war and never include the $200 billion or so we’re borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, even though that borrowing is indisputably real. VICE J. Duvall: ‘I always enjoyed time spent on our family’s South Texas ranch when I was growing up. It is a great life. It is surprising many, many people aren’t killed hunting. The macho men go out to drink and hunt, shoot anything that moves. They say alcohol keeps them warm as they stalk their prey. At night they continue drinking and play poker until they pass out. I recall after one hunt, my father was sitting on one of those red Coleman ice chests and his deer rifle fell over and somehow killed the ice chest, blew a long hole all along one side. But drunk or sober they always managed to get double the hunting limit and never shot each other. It is very bad form in Texas to shoot your hunting companions.’ ☞ OK, that’s not relevant to anything, and certainly not representative of all Texas hunters – but you can’t tell me it’s not colorful. I will slowly wean myself off this story, I promise. ESTATE TAX Paul: ‘I’d like to propose a different justification for the inheritance tax. It starts with how people get rich. My belief is that it’s through using public resources, which is not a bad thing. Bill Gates, for example, became rich by hiring tens of thousands of remarkable employees whose educations were directly or indirectly funded by the government. His stock is valuable because the government regulates (somewhat!) the stock market. His intellectual property is valuable because the government enforces his patents and copyrights. His software is standard because the government buys so much of it and everyone who works with the government needs to adopt that standard. You can make a similar case for Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, and, yes, Andrew Tobias. (Copyright is a very, very good thing.) It’s only possible to get wealthy through massive use of public assets. And that’s a good thing because it creates jobs, homes, technology, food supply, medicine, etc. But it’s also an unspoken obligation to continue the cycle. Bill Gates’ heirs should have no more claim on his billions when he passes than America should.’ PERSONAL SERVICE Kathi Derevan: ‘Yesterday I needed to have some papers notarized. I went to my branch of Wells Fargo Bank, where I have been a customer for 30+ years (even in their ‘private banking department,’ for what that is worth). [Apparently, not much – A.T.] I waited in line and then told the teller that I need to have a couple of signatures notarized. He asked if they were Wells Fargo documents. No. Well, we don’t do that. Startled, I asked if he knew where I could do it. His supervisor walked over and directed me to a UPS store. I said I knew where the store was, but I had assumed my bank could help me. The supervisor turned away without speaking again.’ ☞ Well, perhaps it’s time to switch to Commerce Bank if there’s a branch near you (plug, plug, conflict of interest, conflict of interest, suggested here – CBH – a few months ago). I don’t bank there myself, but I’m told they’re known for their customer service. Have a great long weekend!
This Will Probably Just Annoy You But I Can't Help Myself February 16, 2006March 3, 2017 REACHING A HUMAN Jeff Bauer: ‘We really shouldn’t be doing business with companies that keep us from speaking to someone in their organization. But in practical terms, you can’t exactly cancel your account with Con Edison or Medicare. So Paul English has launched a new website: gethuman.com. The site also features consumer rankings of companies and other tips for deal with intransigent customer support departments.’ ZILLOW.COM John in Atlanta: ‘All data re my house were wrong – I mean all.’ John Seiffer: ‘The estimates on houses I know about in Connecticut were high by about 25-50% but the ones in Texas (where there’s no bubble) are priced about right. Guess they’re still getting their algorithms worked out.’ VICE John Peterson: ‘You printed a quote today which implies that all Texas hunters drink while hunting (or before they hunt). I am a hunter in Texas. Alcohol is never allowed before or during my hunts and I have lots of hunting friends with the same rules. The implications of that quote (that we all drink abusively) are insultingly prejudicial to many of us. I am no fan of Mr. Cheney, but he pretty much just messed up like humans do sometimes. Just like someone who makes a driving mistake and injures someone. Texas is a big state. People writing about it (James Moore in this case) should not pretend that we are all the same. (For example, my part of the state went huge for Kerry in the election.)’ ☞ No disrespect intended. Accidents do happen, but more frequently, I think, when faculties are impaired. It seems to me that wheeling around and shooting a friend in the face and heart may not be something a sober, responsible hunter would do even by accident. Mike Lynott: ‘My fellow Idahoans are not sympathetic to the VP’s plight. Thought you’d like to hear a red state paper’s view:’ Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting accident could easily have been avoided if he followed basic rules, said Idaho Hunter Education Association President Walter Rost of Homedale. . . . “I am sorry to say, but there’s no such thing as an accident when it comes to firearms,” [fellow hunter education instructor Bob Lytle of Boise] said. “You or someone has to pull the trigger; it doesn’t go off by itself.” Dan Flikkema: ‘My favorite quote from the Vice President’s office: Mary Matalin, adviser and spokesperson for the Vice President, said he felt ‘bad, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violated any of the rules. He didn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to do.’ See, now I would have thought shooting someone in your hunting party would fall into the category of ‘things you aren’t supposed to do.’ If there is no ‘rule’ against shooting your fellow hunters I politely suggest we make it one.’ Carol Vinzant, author of Lawyers, Guns, and Money: One Man’s Battle with the Gun Industry (America has more licensed gun dealers than gas stations): ‘Drunk hunting isn’t necessarily a crime. Depends on the state. Unlike with cars, there’s often no set alcohol limit; you get a hunting license by written, not physical, test; guns have no oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission; and owners aren’t required to buy insurance. Another interesting thing about the Cheney shooting: Unlike the typical shotguns that spray a wide pattern, his fancy one shoots a 30 inch circle at 35 yards. So what are the chances Whittington got accidentally in that 30 inch circle with the birds as opposed to Cheney hearing Whittington, turning around and shooting before he identified his target?’ Warren Spieker: ‘Without apology for what happened during Cheney’s hunting accident, quail hunting is known to be one of the most dangerous kinds of hunting – why do you think everyone wears orange vests/hats/etc? I won’t bore you with all the details, but quail hunters are in relatively tight quarters, with no indication which way the quail might ‘flush.’ The hunters then try to track a very fast, very low-flying bird to shoot it. It is both difficult and dangerous.’ Joe Cottrell: ‘Great bumper sticker: ‘I’d rather hunt with Dick Cheney than drive with Ted Kennedy.” ☞ Several of you sent this. To me it says you still haven’t forgiven Ted Kennedy after 35 years but you’ve already forgiven Dick Cheney. Why? And I have another question (first raised by Maureen Dowd, I think): With Iraq and Katrina still such enormous problems, and North Korea and, well, so much else – doesn’t anybody work on weekends? Quail hunting? This truly is a grand time to be rich and powerful in America – unless you happen to be mistaken for a quail. PAUL HACKETT Neil (and others): ‘I’m upset by the Paul Hackett story coming out of Ohio. I think he deserves to have equal support in the primary as any ‘inside the beltway’ good old boy. I’m pissed as hell to see this sort of nepotism AGAIN. The reason this party loses is largely because we aren’t raising up dynamic young talent like Paul. Shame on the Democratic establishment. Sorry to rant, but you are the only whipping post I have.’ Lucky me. Paul Hackett attended Charles’s fashion show last Tuesday, where I got to meet him, and – bang – now this happens. But just so you know . . . For every passionate Dem rightly disappointed by this, there is another who yells at us for not being tough and disciplined, like our opposition – because THE WHOLE WORLD IS AT STAKE. To those critics, it’s hugely important to avoid destructive primary fights . . . using that time (and the millions Democrats would have spent fighting each other) to win the general election and perhaps the Senate. So while I’m not certain those who pushed Hackett out were right or wrong – both choices sucked mightily – I don’t believe we should be angry at them for making this very tough choice. I think it was born of pragmatism, not nepotism. Just my two cents. Stephen Gilbert: ‘This is why people like me find it hard to care about your party: ‘For me, this is a second betrayal,’ Mr. Hackett said. ‘First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me.’ I know that Hillary or Al Gore or even John Kerry would each be better than George Bush, but not enough better for me to be very excited about the Democrats.’ ☞ That’s where we differ. ‘Excited’ might not always be the word, but for me ‘resolutely committed’ certainly fits – because to me the difference between rushing to attack Iraq and not, degrading FEMA and not, favoring the ultra-rich and not, allowing the coal mining industry to regulate itself and not, impeding stem cell research and not, teaching intelligent design in Science and not, nominating judges in the mold of Scalia and not, addressing global climate change and not – these (and more!) are just too important not to stay in the game. Tomorrow: Something (anything!) less preachy.
So, When ARE We Going to Stand Together and Fight? February 15, 2006March 3, 2017 But first . . . ZILLOW.COM Shane Hubbard: ‘Find out what your home, and the homes of your neighbors, are worth on this free site, launched last week.’ ☞ This is amazing. When I tried it on some Florida homes I know, the estimate was low but the level of detail was remarkable, and the ability to edit for corrections / improvements – well, knock yourself out. VICE Doug Mohn: ‘Do you still think its wrong for Scalia to go hunting with Cheney?’ [Yes – A.T.] Harry Mark: ‘Was there any evidence Cheney was drinking? That would make it a criminal matter.’ [Dunno. Would it?] Wallace: ‘I have quail hunted all my life and never come close to seeing anyone shot. There is probably a little truth in what you read (by James Moore) below.’ I don’t know anything about the personal habits of the vice president of the United States . . . I do, however, know something about hunting in Texas. And it’s not just about huntin’. It’s also about drinkin’. If you are going to a ranch in the brush country of South Texas to shoot birds, you are almost certainly packing guns and Jack Daniels and some big coolers of beer. . . . The smart hunters start putting the guns up as they take the bottles down. Not all hunters are smart, though, and, of course, alcohol clouds judgment. There is much about the Cheney shooting incident that demands more questions. First, the person holding the gun is always responsible for knowing where the other hunters are. Harry Whittington was not at fault for his failure to let Cheney know his location. Before the covey of quail was flushed, Cheney should have considered who or what was on his right and left. He ought not to have brought his gun up unless he was completely aware of the location of all the other hunters. . . . It’s naïve for anyone to think there wasn’t alcohol on the scene, too, or at least consumed in the ranch house before getting in the truck and driving into the brush. That’s how it’s done. And ask any of the people in the Bush administration who have been hunting on that ranch through the years and they will have to admit to that fact. The Armstrong Ranch has been used as a retreat, a fund-raising headquarters, a recruiting office, and a place to drink and hunt. This brings us to the heart of the matter. There was no reason to delay reporting the incident to authorities unless Cheney was worried about a blood alcohol test. He had just shot a man and if the local police showed up and the vice president of the United States of America had booze on his breath, we would be talking today about something more than jokes on The Daily Show. There would almost certainly be political fallout and charges of irresponsibility. But this is a well-managed White House. The sheriff decided not to even go to the scene when he heard and the deputy didn’t talk to the VP till what — 16 hours later? Sobriety by sunrise. Anne Armstrong went out to spin the reporters who had shown up and made “blasted by a shotgun” into the lesser “peppered.” She had been on the phone the night before with Karl Rove. Nice message work, pal. . . . SO? Don Rudolph: “When in hell are the Democrats going to stand together and fight back?” ☞ I would argue that we’re already fighting back (read, for example, the transcript of Howard Dean on Sunday’s “Face the Nation”). And we largely stand together. But both the fighting and the standing are hard when you don’t have one leader, and – ours not being the British system – the out party doesn’t have one leader. There’s not agreement within the party on everything. That’s just real life. It’s true of the other party as well – take their split on stem cells or the teaching of evolution, for example, or their split on torture and warrantless wiretaps. But they all know who’s boss, for better or worse, and the entire press corps is there to cover whatever he chooses to say. Even so, the other party almost lost the White House last time – which would have been the first time a sitting war-time president running for reelection had ever lost – and they may lose one or both houses of Congress in November. Their numbers are bad these days, as more and more voters question the competence and priorities, and in some cases the integrity (and marksmanship), of the Republican leadership. Remember that Newt Gingrich unveiled his 1994 “Contract” just six weeks before the 1994 election – not 37 weeks before. So . . . I share your anxiety, but am trying to channel as much of it as possible into constructive action. For example, consider buying a Democracy Bond here, and/or setting up your own ePatriots fundraising page here. (Have you written a letter to the editor lately?) CORRECTION Jon Frater: “Your claim that the maximum 45% tax rate on estates over $3.5 million takes effect next year is a teensy bit premature: that tax rate won’t become law until 2009. From 2006 to 2008, only estates over $2 million pay the tax, at slightly higher maximum rates.” ☞ We’re both wrong, but my error was worse than yours. If this set of tables is right, the 45% rate does kick in 2007, as I said; but – you are quite right and my face is quite red – the $2 million exclusion does not jump to $3.5 million until 2009.
Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People February 14, 2006March 3, 2017 But first . . . don’t forget the flowers, candy or card (Happy Valentine, Sweetness) Speaking of which (thanks, Roger) . . . 1. HER DIARY Tonight I thought he was acting weird. We had made plans to meet at a bar to have a drink. I was shopping with my friends all day long, so I thought he was upset at the fact that I was a bit late, but he made no comment. Conversation wasn’t flowing so I suggested that we go somewhere quiet so we could talk. He agreed but he kept quiet and absent. I asked him what was wrong; he said nothing. I asked him if it was my fault that he was upset. He said it had nothing to do with me and not to worry. On the way home I told him that I loved him, he simply smiled and kept driving. I can’t explain his behavior. I don’t know why he didn’t say I love you too. When we got home I felt as if I had lost him, as if he wanted nothing to do with me anymore. He just sat there and watched T.V. He seemed distant and absent. Finally, I decided to go to bed. About 10 minutes later he came to bed, and to my surprise he responded to my caress and we made love, but I still felt that he was distracted and his thoughts were somewhere else. He fell asleep – I cried. I don’t know what to do. I’m almost sure that his thoughts are with someone else. My life is a disaster. 2. HIS DIARY I shot the worst round of golf in my life today, but at least I got laid. And since it is a day for true love . . . Yet one more reason to spend less than $1 a week on Times Select – namely, so you can read columns like this: February 10, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys By DAN SAVAGE Seattle FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen “Brokeback Mountain” or “End of the Spear,” both of which I’m going to discuss here. But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for “Brokeback Mountain” were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.) So, let’s get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in “Brokeback Mountain,” conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in “End of the Spear.” “End of the Spear” tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries’ families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the “martyrdom” of the slain missionaries has “inspired thousands if not millions of Christians.” But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen’s presence in the film negated any positive message. The pastors claim they’re worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen’s name, and discover that he’s a “gay activist.” (“Gay activist” is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn’t a gay doormat.) They needn’t be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren’t Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight – not when Paris Hilton’s sex tapes are still out there. Frankly, I can’t help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn’t playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do? That’s precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in “Brokeback Mountain” – at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don’t, and can’t, ever really love them. “Brokeback Mountain” makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together. That world didn’t exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now – even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman. Straight audiences are watching and loving “Brokeback Mountain” – that’s troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become “ex-gay.” It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I’ve never met a gay man who was moved to join it. This “movement” demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay – once he’s got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut – he’s supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood. What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn’t be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable. Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don’t think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren’t actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that’s their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce. If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we’re safely married off – to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies. Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly. Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company And now . . . SMART AND SIMPLE FINANCIAL STRATEGIES FOR BUSY PEOPLE This is the title of my friend Jane Bryant Quinn’s new book. Jane, in case you didn’t know, is a wonderfully practical, responsible, engaging financial writer. If you are interested enough in your finances to want to be handling them sensibly – but not interested in spending even an hour more than that – this book is a very good choice. Of course, if this does describe you, then you must be here largely for the politics. Or else it doesn’t describe you, and you want to get rich faster. That’s not really what this next item is about, but it seemed like a good way to draw you in. GETTING RICHER FASTER Andy Frank: ‘I suspect the Republican tax cuts for the rich are more a tool than an end in themselves. My suspicion is that their primary goal is a dismantling of the last century’s programs that help the poor. As they cannot come right out and say this, they first institute tax cuts which most people shortsightedly approve. These tax cuts result in a large deficit. Then, to reduce the deficit, we see these reductions in programs that help the poor. The result is one entirely against the religious teachings most Republicans claim to be guided by.’ ☞ Bingo. (Except that they could have achieved the same goal slashing middle class taxes. Instead, most of the tax reduction went to people at the top. So it’s not just moving back to a more Darwinian, every man for himself, pre-F.D.R. sort of arrangement. A lot of it really is about helping the very rich – who during the Clinton era were already getting richer faster than everyone else – to get richer faster still.) In fairness, I don’t think even the coldest-hearted Republican wants to hurt the poor. They just don’t see why it’s their problem. And/or, they just think that people will be stronger and do better if they are forced to provide for themselves. Because they are right about this much: You don’t always do someone a favor by making him dependent on you. But where welfare-to-work (signed by President Clinton) was, I think, needed to correct the unintended consequences of good intentions gone awry, so many other Republican positions – freezing the minimum wage for ten years while executive pay doubles; opposing hikes to the earned income tax credit while more than halving the tax on dividends; cutting student aid while providing tax breaks for the purchase of $100,000 Hummers – are not about encouraging poor people to boost themselves up, they are about the rich taking care of their golfing partners. Did you know that, adjusted for the cost of living, the minimum wage today is 28% lower than it was in 1956? It is a grand time to be rich and powerful in America – and the Republicans want more. For one thing, they want to eliminate the federal tax on giant estates. (Your estate is not at issue here – it will either be entirely untaxed, as 98% of estates are, or else lightly taxed. Trust me: this is not about small family farms or your RotoRooter franchise.) THE ESTATE TAX Alex: ‘The problem with using Warren Buffett to argue for keeping the estate tax is that he plans to avoid it by leaving his assets to a foundation controlled by his family. When his wife died recently, less than 1% of her estate went to pay taxes. A similar situation exists with Bill Gates: he dodged the Gift Tax for his donations and wound up as ‘Person of the Year,’ when it could be argued he was the ‘Tax Avoider of the Year.’ If we’re going to have an Estate Tax, the rich should actually pay it: otherwise, we wind up with a situation where to paraphase Leona Helmsley, only the little people pay estate taxes.’ ☞ Well stated, but I disagree. When someone ‘avoids’ the tax by giving 100% of his money to charity, that is a good, not a bad, social outcome. That person is throwing 100% back into the community chest rather than the 46% top rate (going down to 45% next year) currently required. One might argue that Buffett’s or Gates’s giving choices won’t be as wise or sensibly prioritized as Congress’s would be. But I like the current system because I think (a) sometimes their choices will be even wiser; (b) at 100% instead of 45% they are giving back more than twice as much; (c) it gives them the personal freedom to make these choices themselves – unless their choice is to give their fortune to just a handful of the already best off (their own kids, say), in which case, yes, the community comes and grabs roughly half (above the first few million) as its share. Buffett’s point is that the community deserves a share, because his success would not have been possible without the community. We are all building on, and benefiting from, the contributions and hard work of millions and millions of people who came before us, and who joined in what – for all its precious individual freedoms and opportunities, which I cherish as much as the next guy – is in many ways a shared effort. Another point Buffett and others have made is that eliminating the estate tax would widen the gap between the plutocrats and everyone else, widen the power gap between the very-rich top fraction of one percent and everyone else . . . and concentrate capital in the hands not of those most talented at deploying it (like Buffett himself), who have gained control of it by their talent and drive, but rather in the hands of (typically) off-spring who may be chips off the old block – but who may not be. Buffett, I think, believes meritocracies are likely to provide more prosperity for large numbers of people than aristocracies or plutocracies will. The final point I can imagine Alex wanting me to address is the difference between giving it all away at once – to the Red Cross or to Tulane or wherever else – versus the giving it to a foundation that bears your name and retains control of much of the money for what may be perpetuity (doling out only income, rather than principal, from the fund). For all the world’s pressing needs, I, for one, am really happy there are endowed institutions like the Ford Foundation and, yes, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (and, one day, the Buffett Foundation), that take the long view, largely immune from political pressure. To the extent their boards may do a less wise job than Congress would have done in allocating their resources, I say again, well: better to get 100% than just 45%, so there’s a pretty good margin of error. So to me, the case for retaining the estate tax more or less where it ends up in 2009 – a 45% top rate on estates over $3.5 million – if you index that limit for inflation (and recognizing that with by-pass trusts the $3.5 million becomes, in effect, $7 million) is overwhelming. And the relentless push by the Republican leadership to cut the rate to zero – while they are totally entitled to favor this – speaks volumes about their priorities and their vision. Are you sure this is the party you are comfortable with? It’s taken an awfully sharp turn to the right, even as the leadership of the Democratic Party, over the last couple of decades, has moved pretty much to the center. SO? Don Rudolph: ‘When in Hell are the Democrats going to stand together and fight back?’ ☞ An excellent topic for tomorrow.