Jay Lillie

Barney Frank has been staying out of the limelight he loves so much, since the liberal agenda has hit a rough patch. He’s like a spirochete germ, hiding in key places and bursting out to do his thing when the coast is clear. He’s very good at bullying those in his district, or in his way, especially those who are easy marks.  It works for him, and has kept in power in the House long enough to have far too much influence. Shame on us.

Vice President Joe Biden has been mostly invisible of late. Is it one gaff too many, or is he a bit too honest for the others to take? He has a very nice family, and we hope he’s minding them instead of the White House.

Nancy Pelosi is the classic case of someone rising to a level where she’s over her head. We haven’t seen much of her recently either. In her case, it probably means she’s up to no good, penning bad labels for those who don’t think the way she does, or planning another overseas trip at our expense to escape the upcoming debate on the runaway federal deficit. She has more money than God. Why do we have to pay her travel bills?

Also temporarily missing are outstanding moderate Republican candidates to appeal to independents who usually determine the out come in National elections. The ranks are thin, and with few exceptions unimpressive. Most of us tend to vote against candidates, not for them, but it makes it too easy for incumbents when the opposition lacks the luster of leadership. The country needs the balance, which the independent voters can deliver if given good opposition candidates from which to choose.

Where are the spokespersons for small business? I’ve been looking all over. I even advertised on radio. He or she is not on any of the Nation’s business school campuses – even those that have chairs in entrepreneurial studies. There are imposters out there trying to convince us they know what small businessmen and women need. Where’s a strong leader to take on the issues that are killing small business – too much overlapping regulation and taxation at federal, state, and municipal levels. This needs fixing now, or the American economy may never come back.

Atlantic hurricanes have gone into hiding along with my golf swing. I found the golf swing last month, but it took off again, seduced by a promise of hitting golf balls farther. It’s not fair to my putter, which has to carry me on every hole. I don’t miss the named storms, but I’m lost without that easy, grooved, swing.  How’s this for a deal – bring back the swing and I’ll put up with Barney Frank for another 18 months?

I had the chance to speak with Jane Powers yesterday. She doesn’t really know more than you or I, but she’s been there, done that.

“Look out for governments when they start throwing around statistics,” she said.

I guess you mean politicians?

“No, I mean governments. In case you haven’t figured it our yet, a clever bureaucrat with an agenda can pretty much make the numbers come out to make his case. Politicians also use the same tactic, mostly to distract you from other issues where the numbers are less favorable to their cause.”

Like unemployment figures?

Sure, but I was thinking about Social Security, Medicare, and other so-called entitlements. These government expenditures cannot be maintained forever by borrowing. You know that (unless you’re Rip Van Winkle), I know that, and every one in the White House and Congress knows that. But do you ever hear anyone giving us the real and complete statistics?”

So that’s where you came up with “Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics”?

“Not really. That was what the professor that taught me statistics in B School called his course. It got a lot of attention.”

What should government do then . . . about entitlements?

“No one is prepared to agree upon a definition of ‘entitlements‘ ”. This is the issue Obama and both sides of the aisles in Congress and in the 50 Statehouses are fighting over, but they mask the debate in various disguises and a lot of doctored statistics (no pun intended). Instead of making this an ideological war from which no one will emerge a winner, certainly not the United States of America, why don’t we ditch the lies, damn lies, and statistics and go to the heart of the problem?”

And what do you think that is?

“To what in fact are all of us entitled to receive from our neighbors? Sure, some of us have better means to pay for what we think we need without taking handouts, either because we received it for value and hard work, inherited it, stole it, or were just plain lucky to be born in the right place at the right time with the right talent; but so what? Does the fact that you were lucky give others less fortunate the right to insist that you cough up some of your results? If not, where does the government get off doing it for them? If we agree it needs to be done, wouldn’t it be better to give the lucky ones an incentive to voluntarily help the less fortunate?”

It seems we passed that milestone some time ago, except for giving charitable tax deductions.

“Sure, but no one bothered to tell us about it at the time. Look, none of us know the right answer to what we all should be entitled, but it begs the real question.

Which is?

“What kind of society do we wish to live in and try to maintain. We have to start somewhere being honest, and when we have a starting point, then we can whittle away with full disclosure to achieve a balance that an overwhelming majority of us accept, endorse, and are willing to pay for.”

Isn’t that exactly what we’ve done . . .except the paying for part?

“No it’s not. Tell me if you can where all this business of entitlements started?”

I guess during the Great Depression.

And WWII interrupted it? Look, if this country were one of the more homogeneous European kingdoms from which our forbears escaped, our starting point might embrace a closer social compact ending in a productive society like, say, Sweden was 60 years ago, when it had the highest standard of living in the world. But Sweden then took entitlements to extremes and today is a broken model and not homogeneous enough to go back and fix it. How would they undo it even if they could?”

So you’re saying we should start at some point where we all could agree what was there at that time, and from there make the changes we want to make for today.

“Why not? If we go back 60 years in this country to the start of the postwar expansion we would see a far different picture than Sweden. We were still basically a white euro-extracted society, but with a severe and growing problem of social inequality not present then in most Western societies. We can’t go back and do things better or differently any more than Sweden can. The very freedom to act, and to sink or swim as individuals, that America offered over the intervening period was both our blessing and our curse. Not all that were here had the same opportunity, but we can’t change that either. You can’t change what we did and didn’t do by trying to make up for it. We can, however, make sure the playing field is more even in the future. But let’s face it, if we have to pay for what we gave away in the past the only ones that can do it are those with most of the money.”

But what entitlements are attempts to make up for past inequalities?

“All of them, and some are legitimately so, but others are more like saving our national conscience.”

Which are legitimate in your opinion?

“Well, first of all, only those the taxpayers are prepare to pay for – now as they’re incurred – not later when their children are paying.”

Okay, so we pay now – which ones do you see as legitimate?

“It’s not what I see. It’s what the nation sees . . . after an honest, frank, discussion and vote. And by honest I mean no lies or damn lies.”

And no statistics?

“None that aren’t fully supported by honest assumptions. Change the assumptions and the figures change. That’s what we learned in that statistics course.”

How do you implement the new structure once it’s agreed?

“Ah Ha, the devil’s in the details. Our leadership, especially in Congress, did not grow with the rest of the country. The place where this failure is most obvious (but it’s everywhere) is in Chicago and California. The old guard political machine in Chicago is as it has been for decades – feed the poor for their vote, take a little piece of everybody to keep the politicians in clover, and encourage business by maintaining very, very strict law and order for third parties. And California is now where the whole country will be in a few years if we don’t solve the entitlement problem. They’ve kept paying and borrowing, and now it’s over.

So where do we start?

Health care is the most complex of the so-called entitlements. But make no mistake we have the best health care in the world in this country. No one goes unattended here the way it happens everyday in Sweden, the UK, and Canada. I know. I’ve been there, done that. Our hospitals in the U.S., both private and public, take in all who need help, but those who have insurance or are educators, subsidize the cost for those that don’t. But isn’t this better than having the government subsidizing and bureaucrats rationing the way they do in those three countries . . . at least until we can figure out how to do it cheaper?”

What needs fixing then?

The real problem again is not the uninsured as the government statistics would have you believe – it’s the nationalized healthcare system for the over 65’s called Medicare. To say it’s abused at every level would be an understatement. Whatever we’re entitled to, it certainly is not to commit fraud, but that’s what suppliers, patients at all levels and many doctors do under the Medicare Rules (run by the government by the way). Stamp out the fraud and you probably solve the excessive cost problem. But more importantly, where is it written that I have the right to a doctor or a hospital bed? I only insist that I have what others have. We might decide to make such available, but if so, we need to make sure it’s paid for. This is where all the lies and statistics come in. Agreeing on the truth would be a great place to begin.”

How about Social Security?

“The easy answer is because it’s there, and has been for long enough that people have figured it into their lifestyle. Most persons below the age of 50 that I know do not seriously expect Social Security to be around when they are their parents’ age. So why keep it? The answer goes back to the big lie. Most people thought the money they paid into Social Security belonged to them, in principle if not in fact. But Congress used it for other things like paying their own salary and goodies and they’ve never been willing to own up. That’s why Congress would not agree with the Bush Administration to let individual payors decide where the money would go – they need to keep control over it to pay for other handouts.”

So, what happens if Congress scraps Social Security?

“Good question. They’d get voted out in the next election. That’s why they won’t do it, except with lies and statistics. Recipients would not be able to afford their home, food, car, boat, etc., and this will have an awful affect on the economy. For these reasons Congress will do nothing, except slowly and quietly double tax it into oblivion without telling you that’s what the plan is.”

That’s pretty cynical.

“Yes it is. I’m very cynical when it comes to Congress ever standing up for the truth. You can see it now with their blaming everyone but themselves for the uproar over the proposed health plan. Wait until the other so-called entitlements come up for discussion. Could it be that the American people are smarter than Congress thinks they are. Is it possible that elected representatives, including the President, are too wrapped up in their own past and the next election to clearly see the issues confronting the nation? Are they fooled by their own lies and statistics?”

That’s a lot to think about, Jane, but I gotta go. I’m meeting Joanie at her doctors. She’s getting a breast implant to go along with the tummy tuck.

The party’s Over is the title of an interesting opinion posted in today’s Miami Herald by J. Suchlicki, a director of Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. It’s worth following. 

·      Raul Castro’s base is the military;

·      The military runs commerce, and is enforcing more austerity measures;

·      Chavez has told Raul he’ll need to cut his assistance to Cuba;

·      Raul is making deals with Russia and others for replacement help;

·      There is wide-spread malaise among the people; and he ends by saying:   “While an opening to the market and a relaxation of the totalitarian system may improve life in Cuba and even entice the Obama Administration to relax the embargo and travel ban, Cuba’s military leadership seems more reluctant than ever to change.” 

Cuba’s military leadership seems reluctant to change??? Ordered to resist change that might get out of hand is more like it! 

The Russians put down the early revolts in Eastern Europe, but it was just a matter of time before those countries broke free of Soviet despotism. The same can happen now in Cuba if American business is permitted to do in Havana what they did in Prague and Budapest prior to the revolt. Show all that’s possible in a free society. 

This is one of those times when things in place are at risk around the globe. Don’t believe for one minute that all the Cuban malcontents already left for Miami. But so long as Washington continues to help the Castros’ repression with their own version – keeping American engineers, teachers, investors, and entrepreneurs out of Cuba – the people of Cuba have nothing worth fighting for. 

Give the Cuban people a taste of what could be – hope for a future – the advent of American business allowed by their own government to invest in Cuba – not just in tourism, but in the products of a modern society, and see how long Raul’s military/communism lasts.

There was a well-written article posted by Ms. O’Grady in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, July 27th, pointing to the mistakes President Obama is making in Central America and the Caribbean. The jist of it was, “Know your facts first . . . then act, and don’t confuse Populism with democratic supported freedom. She went on to suggest that constitutions are not there to be ignored and broken. Not something you normally think requires pointing out to a man who was Editor & Chief of the Harvard Law Review. The Journal, on another page, suggested the President was listening to the wrong people on Honduras and not his Secretary of State.

I sent the article to a good friend of mine who’s been very critical of prior administrations’ relations with our Latin neighbors. His name is David, and he called me this morning.

“I don’t always agree with that lady, but she made a convincing argument in the instance of Honduras. But you know what hit me the hardest?”

I waited.

“She could have been talking about what the Obama/Pelosi crowd are doing in the good old USA.”

I waited some more.

“Obama’s espousing pure, unadulterated, populism. It’s clothed as national health care, high taxes, cheap Dollars, a strong pro-union agenda, and a cash fix for our retreating economy. These notions could be coming out of Havana or Caracas. Don’t they understand letting people fail is part of the freedom we’ve fought so hard to maintain?”

Isn’t that a bit extreme?

“What he’s doing is extreme. And once a powerful leader like our President gets the bit between his (or her) teeth he will tend to extremes. In the case of Obama, it’s better we see it now rather than after he and his Congress have done it all. It’s much harder to turn things around when an ideologue accomplishes his goals. Better to nip him in the bud or, better yet, turn him back around to where he is what I thought he was . . . the brilliant, fair-minded, practical, solution-oriented, politician I voted for . . . not an arrogant, my-way-or-the-highway manipulator, using social means to empower his government and himself. But slim chance of that I reckon.”

How did you get all this out of her article on Honduras and an ill-advised Latin policy?

“Populism is populism. Promise your people everything, hand out cash to the poor, tell them there’s more where that came from, and by the time the duped wake up to what’s really happening it’s too late to change it back or make it right. In Honduras they stopped it before the damage could become eternal. When I read that in her article it made the connection for me. Our President doesn’t want it stopped in Honduras or in Washington. Otherwise he’d have opted out like he did on the demonstrations in Iran.”

Do you really think that’s his agenda?

“His backing of the deposed Honduran president, who was bent on abolishing their constitution in much the way Chavez has in Venezuela, let Obama’s cat out of the bag. He’s sympathetic, and at best has confused populism with democracy. No one truly anchored to freedom of the individual could be taking the position he has on the Honduran situation. Hillary Clinton disagreed with him on Iran, and I suspect she didn’t like much the President’s statements on Honduras. It made him seem out of touch.” Why have a State Department if you’re not going to use it?”

You were critical of Bill Clinton’s Latin policies.

“And George Bush’s too. But this is more troubling, because it goes to the heart of what makes the U.S. the best place to be and to be from. Populism cannot work without a strong, one-sided, central authority calling all the shots. Alexander Hamilton warned us about the Dictatorship of the Majority. We know now that this is where they’re going. Evita Peron would recognize the rhetoric.”

I agreed to join David for coffee tomorrow and talk about this some more. If nothing else he’s making me think.

His nose twitched and he wickedly winked at me. “Come on Big Boy, give it up.”

How much?

“What you got?”

Twenty Five cents. Will that do it?

“What you think, Big Boy?”

I don’t know. I’m from Missouri.

“You certainly are not from Missouri. You from D.C., Big Boy.”

Okay, so how much?

“All the Kings Horses, and all his woooo-men.”

I don’t have any horses.

“You got no woooo-men either, Big Boy.”

So what do you want from me?

“A license.”

To do what?

“Anything and everything: To spend your money; make you pay and pay; mortgage your children’s lives; give my friends what they want; buy your vote; send you packing; tie your hands; and bury you on the lone prairie.

Not much room in there for what I might want. I thought you were on my side.

“What side is that?”

Aren’t we on the same side here? It’s all one country.

“You don’t really believe that, do you?”

Who do you think you are, anyway?

“Exactly. Just check your vote at the door, and get the HELL out of here.”

No. I’m not giving you my vote, and you’re the one who’ll be leaving.

“You can’t get rid of me. I’m in the details.”

I should have known . . . the devil’s always in the details. 

I bumped into Charlie Rich on the Shuttle to Washington this week. We hadn’t seen each other in a while. I was surprised to see him sporting a brilliant tan. 

“Yeah,” he said, “I quit smoking and began putting on weight. So, I had to start working out or buy a new wardrobe.” 

Have meetings on Capital Hill? 

“No one has meetings on the Hill anymore. We just go there and let them work us over.” 

I looked at him, knowing an explanation was coming. 

“They employ the old best defense is to have a good offense rule – except they spell the word ‘offence’.” 

The new administration has brought in some pretty smart people. 

“Maybe, but 80% of the House of Representatives are in over their head on 90% of the subjects coming before them.” 

Are you talking about this new Health Bill they came out with last week? 

“Not just that. These people are only interested in one thing – making sure they get reelected next year. To do this they have to put on a show and throw their weight around. It’s all about sound bites and doing what the unions and other large contributors want them to do. Then, they get reelected and the whole thing starts all over again.” 

So why do you bother? 

“Are you kidding? I work the system. If I look at the country as a whole the politicians in the House are a disaster – and I mean a real disaster – I don’t use that word figuratively. But for my own affairs they are gifts from heaven. All I have to do is smile, nod, and play to their needs for getting reelected next year, and I can get anything I want.” 

Doesn’t that make you part of the problem? 

He looked at me as if I’d just wet my pants. “We’re all part of the problem. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do the best I can with the hand I was dealt. If it’s not me, these people will be using someone and something else to get what they want. Why do you think our education system sucks? Who owns GM? Why don’t we deal with illegal aliens? How does Barney Frank, who represents a few thousand people in Fall River, Massachusetts, have so much power? How did Nancy Pelosi get to run the place? That’s the world you and I live in. I didn’t design it, but that’s what it is. You either work the system or you better have a rich uncle who can help you send your kids to private school.” 

But how can you complain when you’re aiding and abetting? 

“Who’s complaining? I’m making fun. These people think they rule the world – I’m not kidding, they really do. The reality is they’re just butt boys and girls for the unions and special interests. The hardest thing for me in these sessions is keeping a straight face when these people try to appear like they know what they’re doing. I can’t exchange eye contact with their back-up staffers in the room. It would be immediate recognition of the obvious, and I’d break up laughing whenever one of them tries to repeat what some advisor with an agenda has suggested they say.” 

Charlie, that’s the most cynical description of Washington in action that I’ve ever heard. 

“So, come with me tomorrow. I’ll introduce you as one of my vice presidents. You can see for yourself.” 

Mean it? 

“Absolutely, but you’ve got to promise not to laugh . . . and you can’t cry either, or they’ll know I’ve brought in a ringer. On that kind of stuff they’re real smart.”

My good friend Susanne was relaxing in the Tennis Lounge, reading today’s Wall Street Journal, and coughing like she had something caught in her throat.

I asked her what was wrong.

She looked up and winked at me. “It says here that Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer want to enact a new law requiring brokers and investment advisors to look after their clients before themselves.”

Isn’t that what they should be doing?

“Of course, but so should Shumer and that twit Barney Frank.”

Persons in Congress do tend to look after themselves first, don’t they?

“Every hour of every day. Look at Chris Dodd from Connecticut getting special mortgage deals from the very people he’s pushing Fannie May to support with bad loans. Is that an abuse of fiduciary duty or not?” Now these people all want us to blame stock brokers for their own abuses. It’s really laughable.”

So, you’re saying Congress needs to be regulated too?

“That’s a very good idea. How can we do that?”

We could get someone to run for office against them . . . demanding change.

“Didn’t we already do that?”

Apparently not . . . in the case of Democrats in Congress at least.

“How about the guy that did run on a change ticket? Maybe we can get him to regulate his mates in Congress.”

Don’t forget the separation of powers set out in the Constitution.

“Oh, yeah, you’re right. So, it’s left up to the voters. But don’t they tend to put their own interests first too?”

Maybe they need to know what those interests really are.

“They could ask Nancy Pelosi. She’s very rich and knows everything.”

Now, I was coughing.

It reminds me of the task of clearing the minefields in Europe after WWII. The problem was each warring nation had laid mines on top of the other, and after the war no one knew exactly where they all were. They still had swept channels in the Baltic and North Seas as late as the 1950’s.

The 50 United States and our local and federal governments have done the same thing here with all forms of regulation. Small business owners need a minesweeper to get them through this maze of interwoven and duplicate regulation, but sweepers are too expensive for all but the very largest.

Small business creates and houses most of the jobs in this country. How many times have you heard some Congress or White House spokesperson say that? The politicians talk a good game, but the truth is small business is treated like they’re bad people who need close watching to keep them in line. The end result of this approach too often is loss of business and loss of jobs.

Ask any small business owner what’s her or his biggest problem. They’ll all tell you it’s filling out all the forms and otherwise complying with federal regulation, much of which by any test of reason or common sense is unnecessary or counter-productive and often designed and passed by Congress to control Big Business. Add to this a plethora of interwoven state and local copycat regulation, and compliance becomes more than just a headache. The cost in productivity and making ends meet can be debilitating when you can’t afford to pay an expert to handle compliance.

Why doesn’t the White House establish an independent group to sift through the labor, environmental, and other major areas of regulation applicable to a defined level of small business? Such a group can identify duplication, unnecessary overlap, interwoven contradictions, and test the true necessity of every provision as it applies to small business. The difficulty of course lies in the politics and agendas of special interest groups in regulating everything you do in their area.

How might President Obama find an unbiased observer to study these issues and recommend solutions?

The Princeton Review lists over 50 top colleges who offer graduate degrees in Entrepreneurial Studies. It lists them 1-50 by stated criteria. This might be a good place to start. Most, if not all, of these schools receive federal grants, and some of them are state owned, but many should be willing and able to conduct this research and analysis on a truly independent basis, without succumbing to outside pressures.

We need strong and vibrant small business. It’s time for Congress and the rest of the huge government apparatus we’ve created in this country to simplify, streamline, and pare down to essentials the amazing grid of regulation that is strangling American competitiveness at the very roots of our economy.

We need a good minesweeper to clear the way to success.

The United States has been a spendthrift nation at least since Lyndon Johnson’s “Guns & Butter” policy following Jack Kennedy’s assassination. Since then, our federal government has continuously spent more at home and abroad than it collects from you and me in taxes. Washington has financed much of this deficit by borrowing Dollars from your Social Security payments and selling bonds to foreign countries. Since the Dollar has become the currency for settlement of international transactions, governments like Saudi Arabia, and more recently China, have huge surpluses of Dollars and, until recently at least, were happy to lend them back to our government at interest. You weren’t asked to lend your Social Security funds . . . Congress just took those Dollars, and now can’t afford to pay them back either, without borrowing more.

Today’s relatively weak Dollar is partly a result of world supply (too many Dollars) and demand (no one wants so many). The problem feeds on itself . . . the lower the value the less demand and less demand the lower the value. Ironically, when times get really scary foreign currency flows momentarily into gold and the Dollar, but the long-term health of our currency depends upon government being fiscally responsible, and Congress to stop spending Dollars they don’t have in their pocket (which by the way is really your pocket).

Unfortunately, cheap currency is also a definition of inflation, and the government’s measures of inflation tend to mask its reality. No one needs to tell you the things you really need are more expensive. Inflation spirals are vicious when they set in, and take drastic measures to stop and reverse. Rampant inflation in Germany helped bring Hitler to power in the 1930’s. I recall in the 1980’s seeing farmers waiting outside restaurants in Brazil to get paid for the food they’d delivered that afternoon, because the value of Brazilian currency was going down by the minute. This seemed well on the way to happening here in the late 1970’s, with 21% prime interest rates aimed at stemming inflation and unemployment at rates higher than today.

Looking now toward 2011 and beyond, where will our government get the trillions of Dollars it plans to spend on increased entitlements, nationalized healthcare, and social security benefits, along with the massive stimulus spending already in the works? The answer of course is to borrow it or print it. But who’s going to lend it to us, on what terms, and under what conditions? If we can’t borrow the money, the Treasury will have to print more Greenbacks like the Banana Republics do. It’s a no-win situation once it gets into gear.  

Those countries with critical commodities in the ground or which they have bought up (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are already lobbying to abolish the Dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, used to pay for products bought and sold in international trade. The Dollar has become too unstable and this has the propensity to suck the profits from a deal for one side while giving the other side a windfall. It’s no accident that China has spent the last ten years in Africa and South America making long term Dollar denominated deals for commodities they know they will need down the road. Their Dollars are better spent there than financing our deficits. Measured against our own need for these same commodities the Dollar needs to be strong or we Americans will do without. And we won’t get there without a Congress that’s fiscally responsible. What do you think are the chances of that?

It appears, though neither Congress nor the Administration has actually said as much, that they plan to spend our way out of this recession, and when that has been accomplished, raise taxes through the roof to stem inflation and get the budget back in balance. But to pay back all the Dollars we owe and continue to borrow to finance entitlements will take a very long time and more money than anything but a robust US economy can afford in taxes. And we know that high taxes don’t tend to produce robust economies. It almost appears an impossible task given Congress’ announced priorities.

Unless I’m missing something, this all means that long term the Dollars in your pocket are going to buy less and less of almost everything. To experience this will be as painful for Americans as it will be if and when Congress finally decides to stop spending money it doesn’t have.

It’s hard to live up to the “Lighter Side” these days. Everyone’s agenda seems to be negative or on the dark side. Even Barack Obama has lost his campaign smile. Maybe it’s the weather . . . tornados and wild fires in the west and rain, rain, rain in the southeast. As a friend of mine said last week, “If disaster doesn’t kill you, it’ll make you stronger.” 

So cheer up. The Brits have a new singing sensation, and the French Open is underway. I miss going to Roland Garros to revel in the awful red clay.  But Paris is wonderful this time of year and Wimbledon is right around the corner. There’s nothing better than watching Grand Prix Tennis in daylight at Ten PM . . . if it’s not raining. 

Speaking of tennis, don’t take your eye off the ball. The deals out there are coming. The big boys jumped in too soon in the real estate gamble and all the stuff they bought is still inventory. Wait until the fall, and meanwhile lean back and brush up on your Shakespeare. 

It helps bring me out of negative times to remember clear, cold, streams high in the mountains and full of native trout; or lines of cresting, see-through waves breaking over the sandbar and rolling in to a beautiful white sandy beach; or rounding the windward mark first and setting a bright red spinnaker to head for home. 

Memorial Day brings it all back. I was trying to figure out how I could count the number of Memorial Days I’ve lived through when there was a war in progress . . . without giving away my age. I decided instead to mention that my father fought in two world wars, my brother in Vietnam, one son recently flying search and rescue missions, and I was active during Korea, though I don’t actually remember anyone shooting at me. If they did they missed. 

Not so friends, acquaintances, and unknowns who paid the price. If you or the one you love has never been in harms way how can you begin to know what it’s like? But that shouldn’t stop the rest of us from paying homage to those that have put, and as we speak are putting, their lives on the line for the rest of us. 

Have a pleasant and thoughtful Memorial Day.