D-Day Remembered

Last September I was able to fulfill a longstanding wish to visit the beaches of Normandy where American, British and Canadian forces came ashore in their quest to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II.

It was a memorable experience to tour the beaches and fields where so many brave men fought and died for the cause of freedom.

You cannot help but feel emotion as you look at the beautiful views and countryside while also thinking about the bravery, commitment and sacrifice that was made 74 years ago.

Here are a few pictures that I took as I visited those beaches in Normandy.

I am also re-posting a blog post I wrote five years ago about June 6, 1944---The Longest Day.

There are no words to describe how grateful I am to all those who embarked on that journey across the English Channel on that day. For all too many it was not their longest day---it was their last day.

Gold Beach--British Invasion and site of the makeshift harbor where 300,000 men and the material to support them were brought ashore in the 6 days after D-Day
Arromanches, France

Remains of a German pillbox at Pointe du Hoc which were prime objectives of the US Army Rangers led by Col. James Rudder. The Rangers had to scale a 100 foot vertical cliff from the beach to get to the pillbox. 70% of the unit were killed or wounded in the first two days after landing on Omaha Beach

Another view of the pillbox.
This is what awaited the Rangers after they finished their 100 foot vertical climb up the cliff from the beach.
How willing would you be to charge this position as machine gun fire strafes the top of the cliff?

The vestiges of a bomb crater at Pointe du Hoc

Omaha Beach Memorial

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

The Longest Day
(originally published June 6, 2013)


June 6. The Longest Day.




Credit: OmahaBeach.org

How many people today remember the significance of this day?

My first real exposure to the events and sacrifices of that day were in 1962 when my father took me to see the movie, The Longest Day, about the Normandy invasion of Europe.  He was a WWII veteran and he wanted to make sure that I understood what went on that day.  He told me after the movie, "I hope you never have to go through anything like that but you need to appreciate the sacrifices these men made for you."

Over 6,000 Americans lost their lives that day 69 years ago on the beaches of northern France.  By contrast, that is roughly equal to the total lives lost in over ten years of the War on Terror in Iraq and Aghanistan.

It was a day of incalculable horror and heroism.

I hope we never forget men of courage like Walter Taylor who pushed forward as so many others fell (or drowned) around them.

This article from the examiner.com, "Remembering D-Day", written two years ago by Christopher Coughlin is worth the read.  You might also want to read this 1960 account of the "First Wave at Omaha Beach" by S.L.A. Marshall, the U.S. Army's chief historian, for a more comprehensive view of what transpired on those beaches that day.


From "Remembering D-Day".

History shows that on June 6, 1944, 160,000 US and allied troops were involved in Operation Overlord, the code name for the invasion of Europe. It was and remains the largest amphibious operation in history.

June 6th was also expected to be one of the most lethal days for US troops in American history, with carnage unheard of since the American Civil War.

Allied high command was so concerned about the anticipated, epic levels of violence, destruction and death that would meet the first wave of troops that they were reluctant to assign veterans of other invasions, fearing the men would be overwhelmed and break down. As a result, two of the three US divisions assigned to hit the beaches at Normandy had never been in combat.

And as history turned out, the high command's expectations of violence were more than justified.

At Omaha Beach, the US 1stand 29thInfantry Divisions, and the 2ndand 5thRanger Battalions, faced the veteran German 352ndInfantry Division, one of the best trained units in the German army.

Through acts of commission and omission, the majority of the allied landing craft missed their assigned sectors on Omaha Beach, causing confusion, and in some instances, landing American troops directly in front of German machine gunners.

As a result, casualties among the first wave of trooops were nothing short of catastrophic, where surviving American soliders were leaderless, isolated and traumatized by the violence surrounding them. The situation was so grave that senior commanders considered abandoning Omaha altogether.

But from the unspeakable carnage came a profound courage.

This is where Lt. Walter Taylor enters the story.

Slowly, small units of infantry, based on nothing more than individual initiative and survival instinct, formed up as ad hoc groups, and began to move the 1,000 yards off the beach to dunes to take on the German pillboxes and establish an allied foothold in Europe.

It was at that critical time of decision that Lt Walter Taylor, Company B (or Baker), 116th Infantry, of the 29thDivision, landed with the second wave.

Coming ashore, Taylor didn’t know that his commanding officers were already dead.
But, seeing the chaos, Taylor immediately took the initiative.

He led a group of men off the beach, crawling past the obstacles, barbed wire and mine fields, and eventually over the sea wall.

He continued to lead his men straight up the bluff and into the town of Vierville, where he engaged the Germans in a two-hour fire fight, and won without losing a man.

It was only later, meeting up with other elements of Baker Company, that Taylor realized that he was in command. The sergeant did a head count – there are only 28 men out of the original 240.
Undeterred, Taylor proceeded to lead the 28 men inland against an imposing German fortification with rock walls and artillery proof tunnels.

Taylor engaged the Germans there and continued the fight throughout the day, leading a force mixed from his company and several Rangers, trying to reach goals outlined in the Overlord plan for Day 1. This despite the fact, borne out on Normandy, that no battle plan survives the beginning of the battle.

By nightfall, Taylor and his men made camp near the village of Louvieres. An allied runner found them with a message to fall back to meet up with the remnants of the battalion, closer to the sea.

Taylor had led his men to a place a half a mile ahead of the rest of the United States Army in Europe. It was an incredible accomplishment.

From the "First Wave at Omaha Beach"

Taylor is a luminous figure in the story of D Day, one of the forty-seven immortals of Omaha who, by their dauntless initiative at widely separated points along the beach, saved the landing from total stagnation and disaster. Courage and luck are his in extraordinary measure.

Later, still under the spell, Price (one of Taylor's men) paid the perfect tribute to Taylor. He said: "We saw no sign of fear in him. Watching him made men of us. Marching or fighting, he was leading. We followed him because there was nothing else to do."

Thousands of Americans were spilled onto Omaha Beach. The high ground was won by a handful of men like Taylor who on that day burned with a flame bright beyond common understanding.

God bless Walter Taylor and all the courageous men who stormed the beaches of Normandy 69 years ago today.  We all owe them a debt of gratitude.  May the memory of their service and sacrifice never be forgotten. Let's hope that the flame that burned bright by their actions should never be extinguished.

Second Lieutenant Walter P. Taylor, United States Army, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy while serving with the 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division, in action against enemy forces on 6 June 1944. Second Lieutenant Taylor's intrepid actions, personal bravery and zealous devotion to duty exemplify the highest traditions of the military forces of the United States and reflect great credit upon himself, the 29th Infantry Division, and the United States Army.

General Orders: Headquarters, Ninth U.S. Army, General Orders No. 75 (1944)

Action Date: 6-Jun-44

Service: Army

Rank: Second Lieutenant

Regiment: 116th Infantry Regiment

Division: 29th Infantry Division

Source: Military Times Wall of Valor



Postscript: After I wrote this blog post 5 years ago the son of Walter Taylor posted this comment on my blog to complete the story.

"Walter P Taylor Jr who received the DSC on D Day did survive the war but not until he received two purple hearts. One at St Lo and another in Belgium. Walter married my mother who was serving in the American Red Cross in Nice France. Lt Walter P Taylor was reassigned there at the very end of the war as part of a detail to detain "very bad Germans and Frenchmen" for the occupation forces. Walter was assigned here because he spoke fluent German. Walter studied German in high school and was sent to Germany in 1936 as an exchange student. Walter who was born in 1915 died in 1973. Pictures and documents available."


Geoff Taylor sudbury3333@gmail.com


I also received this comment from Nicolas Bulte post this past February (almost 5 years after I wrote the original blog post and several months after I had visited the Normandy.  I wish he had seem my blog post earlier. It would have been nice to connect.

"I'm the owner of the farm-manour house of l'Ormel in Vierville where Lt. W. Taylor took shelter and so courageously distinguished himself on D-Day. Very happy to welcome you here if you happen to pass by Normandy and grateful for any additional information you may have about this particular action."

It all goes to show you what a wondrous thing the internet is.

Home Sweet Home

Home prices have been increasing in the United States over the last few years, but prices adjusted for inflation, have still not risen to the levels seen in 2006. Nominal prices have fully recovered but real prices are still 14% below the levels they were 12 years ago.

Prices are up 6.9% over the last year in the latest nationwide value report by CoreLogic.

This chart shows the changes in the Home Price Index (HPI) that CoreLogic tracks. Note that the western states of Washington, Idaho, Nevada and Utah have seen the highest one-year home price increases---all have had double-digit increases over the last year.

More telling is the fact that CoreLogic reports that it now finds that more than half (52%) of the nation's 50 largest housing markets are now overvalued. Only 14% of these markets are considered undervalued.

CoreLogic determines affordability "by comparing home prices to their long-run, sustainable levels, which are supported by local market fundamentals (such as disposable income)." A market is considered overvalued when home prices are at least 10 percent higher than the long-term, sustainable level.

The rise in housing prices together with the rise in mortgage rates is making more homes unaffordable in a number of markets.

Consider the math.

In May, 2016 the average 30-year mortgage rate was 3.60%. To purchase a $300,000 home with a 20% down payment resulted in a $1,091 monthly mortgage payment.

Today that $300,000 house is more likely to be a $340,000 house. The additional down payment requires another $8,000 up front. The current mortgage rate is now around 4.50%. That means the monthly payment has risen to $1,378/month. You can be sure that the property taxes and insurance are higher as well.

Over various points in my lifetime over the last 40 years I purchased homes with mortgage rates of 10.75%, 8.50%, 7.50% and 6.75%. Then again, my last mortgage rate was 2.875%.  I can assure you that based on historical norms, rates can go much, much higher than they are today. Unless the amounts that people get paid go up with interest rates, houses will get more unaffordable until they start dropping in price to a point at which people can afford them.

That is basic economics and we saw how that works in the 2008-2010 period.

Unison does a report that compares housing affordability across the country by examining the amount of income that is necessary to purchase a median priced house in various markets. It assumes a 10% down payment, a 4.625% mortgage interest rate on a 30-year loan, 1.25% annual property taxes and .4% annual insurance costs on the home's value. It further assumes that no more than 30% of gross income is being used for housing costs.

Here is what it takes in income to afford a median-priced house in major U.S. cities using those assumptions.

What I find remarkable is that it takes 50 times the income to buy the median home in New York City as it does to do the same in Detroit!

Those home prices in New York City, San Francisco and Boston are high so it means many in those areas are forced to rent.

However, rents are no bargain in those areas either.

Here is another interesting chart from Statista that compares how much space renters get for $1,500 per month in various cities around the world.

New York City, San Francisco and Boston are all among the highest cost cities to rent in the world.

Anyone interested in relocating to Istanbul?

However, if you move make sure you get a job that pays you in US dollars.

Turkey's currency has dropped nearly 20% against the dollar this year. In an attempt to curb the slide the central bank officials in Turkey have raised their interest rate to 16.5%!

As I said, interest rates can get much higher than we see currently in the United States.

We always like to think of the place to which we always return to be our Home Sweet Home.

Here's hoping it is sweet for you wherever you live.

Recycling-Seen and Unseen

In life, things are seen and unseen.

We are good at seeing those things right in front of us. They are easily visible and observable and don't require additional effort beyond what we see immediately. They are seen.

However, every action in life creates a series of effects that are unseen. They emerge subsequently and often result in final effects that are far different than what we thought was seen at the beginning. They are unseen.

Consider the parent that continually lets their child get their way. The action that is seen is of a parent who wants a happy child. Unseen is that this path inevitably leads to a spoiled, self-absorbed, unhappy adult.

Or consider the group of high school students who laugh at the bookworm who never goes out on Saturday nights because they want to study. Who would want to spend their weekends doing that? It is only later that the unseen effects of that extra work is apparent.  That hardworking student ends up living on easy street and her friends end up talking about how unfair life is.

I have previously written  about the "seen and unseen" dimensions of important political issues such as abortion, immigration, gun control and the minimum wage. I have also observed that Democrats seem to be particularly prone to confining themselves to those things that are "seen".

Democrats generally confine themselves solely to visible effects.  They seem to consider only first-level effects and ignore everything else that might flow from that.  All of their focus is on what they see in front on them.  They ignore the unseen issues. Republicans, on the other hand, are considering both the immediate effects and second-level effects. The seen and the unseen. Especially the unseen effects which should be foreseen.

Recycling is another issue where there are "seen and unseen" effects.

I first started looking into this issue more deeply a few years ago when a friend of mine who was in the Real Estate Facilities business and I ate lunch at a newly-opened fast food restaurant.

As we finished eating and went to dispose of our trash we were confronted with a waste station that looked something like this.

Credit: Arete Industries

As I dutifully sorted my trash between waste and recycling my friend chuckled and opened the door beneath to show me that both depositories were going into just one trash can.

That is how I was introduced to the "seen and unseen" sides of recycling.

Who cannot be in favor of recycling? It is the one positive action each one of us can do to protect and preserve our earth's environment. It is seen and it has to be good.

The image below is a common sight in my neighborhood and many others across the country on trash days. We have been told that recycling is good so we dutifully separate and segregate our trash to be good citizens.

Credit: Rumpke Recycling

In fact, in some progressive cities across the country it actually can get confrontational should a neighbor notice that you are not recycling. You don't care about our environment? You don't care about our children's future? What is wrong with YOU?

Investor's Business Daily took on some of the "unseen" facts about recycling last week in an editorial titled, "Some Inconvenient Truths About Recycling".

It has become an article of faith in the U.S. that recycling is a good thing. But evidence is piling up that recycling is a waste of time and money, and a bit of a fraud.

The New York Times recently reported that, unknown to most families who spend hours separating garbage into little recycling bins, much of the stuff ends up in a landfill anyway.

One big reason: China has essentially shut the door to U.S. recyclables.

The Times notes that about a third of recyclables gets shipped abroad, with China the biggest importer. But starting this year, China imposed strict rules on what it will accept, effectively banning most of it. That, the Times reports, has forced many recycling companies who can't find other takers to dump recyclables into landfills.

Let's put the amount of trash we have been exporting to China in context. In 2016, it amounted to 16 million tons of various amounts of trash and scrap commodities worth more than $5.2 billion. That ranks 6th in the value of anything the U.S. exported to China. It is more than we exported in crude oil. medical equipment, logs and lumber, pharmaceuticals. liquid natural gas and telecommunications equipment.

This insight might also provide some better understanding of why President Trump complains so much about our trade policies with China. We have been exporting more trash to China than oil, drugs and medical equipment? What is wrong with that picture?

However, China doesn't want our trash anymore and the value of all recyclables has crashed as a result. There simply is not enough demand for this stuff anywhere else in the world.

Of course, most recycling efforts were not worth the time and effort even before the Chinese added this additional disrupting factor. You just never heard the real facts on the evening news.

Journalist and New York Times science columnist John Tierney wrote an opinion piece for the paper several years ago detailing many of the "unseen" effects of recycling.

The bottom line--there is not a lot of value in recycling. In fact, for the most part it is far more expensive to recycle than simply trashing it.  And it doesn't do much for the environment anyway.

The claim that recycling is essential to avoid running out of landfill space is hogwash, since all the stuff Americans throw away for the next 1,000 years would fit into "one-tenth of 1% of land available for grazing," Tierney says.

Other environmental benefits, he finds, are negligible, and come at an exceedingly high price. Tierney notes, for example, that washing plastics before recycling them, as is the recommended practice, could end up adding to greenhouse gas emissions. And the extra trucks and processing facilities produce CO2 as well.

Since it costs far more to recycle trash than to bury it, governments are wasting money that could be more effectively spent elsewhere.

Another couple of factoids on the "unseen" effects of recycling. In 2015 it cost New York City $300 more per ton to recycle its trash than to bury it. Waste Management also reported that over 2,000 municipalities were paying to dispose of their recyclables rather than getting paid for them in 2015. The situation is undoubtedly even worse today from a cost/benefit analysis than it was then.

Where should you focus your recycling efforts if you want to really help the environment?

The best financial paybacks and environmental benefits from recycling come from aluminum cans, paper and cardboard. In fact, Tierney calculates that 90% of the greenhouse benefits of recycling come from these items.

Recycling glass and plastics is not worthwhile. It is simply too energy intensive and expensive to reprocess these products. They are better placed in the landfill.

All of these facts may have been unseen by you in the past. They most certainly will remain unseen by the person who glares at you in Portland or Palo Alto as you throw your plastic water bottle in the trash can rather than the recycling bin.

Despite the dirty looks, take comfort in the fact that by doing so you are both a good financial and environmental steward.

As IDB points out, however, that means little when recycling has come to be accepted with almost religious conviction by so many---especially on the political Left.

Good luck convincing people of any of this. Recycling is the new religion. And as Tierney put it, "religious rituals don't need any practical justification."

The "seen and unseen" of recycling. Like many issues, the seen is easy to see. The unseen requires some critical thinking and forethought.

Spends some time every day thinking beyond what you see in front you today.

Take time to foresee what for most will always be unseen.

As for me, it's time to take the trash out.

How Do The Rich Become Rich?

"How can I become rich?"

That is a question I often hear from young people.

In my career I have had the good fortune to meet and know many wealthy and successful people. I have observed these people closely and I have also studied the available research on what separates the rich and successful from everyone else.

At the core of anyone that has achieved success is someone who has good habits. They utilize their time wisely. They are disciplined and work hard.

Despite the popular narrative, the wealthiest Americans are not living on trust funds that were handed to them along with a silver spoon when they were born. Most got rich by simply working hard for it. In fact, wealthy households contain on average more than four times as many full-time workers as do poor households---1.97 workers per rich household compared to .42  earners per poor household. The fact is that there are not many "idle rich" folks in this country.  There are, however, a lot of "idle poor".

If you don't believe it takes work to get to the top of the economic ladder just consider the differences in the traits between those that are wealthy and those that are poor in this research that compared the habits and traits of the two groups.  Almost every one of these traits requires some work, effort or discipline on the part of the individual.  It does not necessarily occur naturally in the human condition.


What you see is that those that succeed use their time more productively.


                                                                     Wealthy                    Poor


Maintain a to-do-list                                             81%                        9%
Wake up 3+ hours before work                          44%                        3%
Listen to audio books during commute            63%                        5%
Network 5+ hours or more each month           79%                       16%
Read 30+ minutes or more each day                88%                        2%
Love to read                                                           86%                       26%
Watch 1 hour or less of TV everyday                 63%                       23%
Believe good habits create opportunity            84%                         4%

If you work hard and use your time wisely it is difficult to not find success in life. As you see above, the wealthy believe that good habits create opportunity. They should know better than anyone.

You can be successful but that does not guarantee that you will be wealthy. There are many things in life that are rewarding that do not necessarily translate into increasing your financial net worth.

Becoming wealthy usually requires that you do at least two of these three things.

1. Get people working for you

2. Get your money working for you

3. Stay out of debt

Why is it difficult to become wealthy simply by your own labor and talents?

It is a question of time. We all only have so many hours in the day. We may be very productive but time is a finite resource. It is a limiting factor in utilizing our labor.

The amount that any one person is willing to pay another for their labor is also limited. For these reasons, it is hard to grow rich simply by your own individual labor.

Entertainers and professional athletes are exceptions to this rule. They are able to showcase their talents and labor to a broad audience and are able to get many, many people to pay them for it in the form of ticket prices or a media audience. However, each member of that audience is paying just a small price that gets leveraged with the size of the audience.

Inventors and authors are similarly advantaged. An invention that is used by millions of people or a best selling book creates large royalty payments that allow them to leverage their sole labor effort.

Most of us are not so fortunate. Therefore, if we are to become wealthy we have to leverage our time by getting other people to work for us whereby we gain a portion of their labor for our own benefit. Starting a business is the path that entrepreneurs follow to gain this advantage.

The other path is to simply work, save and invest and begin to get your money working for you through compound returns. As your money begins to work for you the need for you to labor to support yourself is reduced. If you can get enough money saved and invested you eventually do not have to labor at all. Your money does all the work to support your lifestyle.

It is hard to become wealthy carrying debt. Your lender may become wealthy. You will not. Borrowers are on the wrong side of compound returns. Getting compound returns to work for you is a path to riches. Paying interest on compounding debt leads to the poor house.

If you doubt any of this,  consider this chart that compares the percent of assets and liabilities held by the wealthiest 1%, next 9% and the remaining 90% compiled by Edward Wolff of New York University.

The top 1% has 63% of business equity (other people working for them), 55% of financial securities and 50% of stock & mutual funds (money working for them) but only have 5% of the debt (stay out of debt).

The bottom 90% has only 6% of business equity, 6% of financial securities, 9% of stocks & mutual funds but holds 74% of the debt. They also have 59% of the value of all personal residences. That may explain why the 2008-2010 period was so devastating for this group when housing prices collapsed in much of the country. It is also suggests that this risk could also form again---in particular if mortgage rates continue to go up.

This data conforms with a chart I put together last year from IRS statistics (from 2013) comparing the sources of before-tax income based on the distribution by income groups (by quintiles plus the top 1%).

Notice that only 35% of the income of the Top 1% comes from labor income. 61% of their income is derived from business income (other people working for them) or investment income (their money working for them).

On the other hand, in the 3rd and 4th quintiles (the heart of the middle class), labor income makes up 66% of total income. Business and investment income are almost non-existent.

The rich become rich by building a business and/or saving and investing to get their money working for them. They also are careful in their use of debt.

Keep these lessons in mind if you want to become rich.

Use your time wisely.

Develop and maintain good habits.

Have a strong work ethic.

Get other people working for you or get your money working for you.

Be careful about debt.

That is how the rich become rich.

Remembering Vietnam

The Vietnam War defined the lives of many Baby Boomers while they were in their high school and college years.

There is a lot of talk about how divided the country is today. The same was true during the Vietnam era.

One of the great tragedies of that era was that those who did not agree with U.S. policy did not limit their criticism to their elected leaders. They also vented their animus and anger at the young men (there were few women serving in those years) who were wearing the uniform of the United States of America. Those that served did not get recognized and praised. They were often berated and maligned for their service.

Despite the political divisions of today I am thankful that we have moved past that dark period of American history and the men and women who serve in our military are honored irrespective of our political views.

50 years ago---in 1968---was the point at which popular opinion on the Vietnam War began to turn. More and more people questioned what we were achieving for the blood and treasure we were sacrificing in those rice paddies on the other side of the world. 1968 marked the year in which deaths reached their highest levels in the war.

58,220 (58,212 male, 8 female) gave their life in the Vietnam War. 16,899 of those were in 1968.

Here is a listing of deaths by year in the years 1964-1972 of that conflict to provide some perspective of how significant those numbers were in the war and the effect it had on public opinion.

Vietnam War U.S Military Fatal Casualties
Credit: National Archives, Military Records

They came from all branches of the service.

Credit: National Archives, Military Records

And all races. Bullets and bombs do not discriminate.

Credit: National Archives, Military Records

Also consider their ages.

Credit: MilitaryFactory.com

A lot of lives not lived. Parents who lost their child. Children who lost a parent. Spouses who lost their partner. Most never even got the chance to marry. Or have a child. How much potential and promise was left on that battleground?

For context, consider that there have been a total of 6,713 deaths in the combined Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts since 2001.

On this Memorial Day, 50 years removed from 1968, it seems appropriate to specifically remember the sacrifices of these soldiers as well as the others that served in Vietnam but never got the recognition and respect they deserved.

There are many magnificent places to visit in Washington, DC but nothing is more powerful and sobering than the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial (VVM).

Credit: Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Fund

For those of you who are younger, you probably have no idea of the controversy that was created when the design for the VVM was originally announced.  The design for the memorial was chosen from entries in a national contest. Maya Lin, an architecture student at Yale who was only 21 years old, won the competition.  Lin always believed that her design would never have been selected but for the fact that it was a blind competition. However, controversy soon followed. This is how Wikipedia describes the opposition to the design.

The selected design was very controversial, in particular its unconventional design, its black color and its lack of ornamentation. Some public officials voiced their displeasure, calling the wall "a black gash of shame." Two prominent early supporters of the project, H. Ross Perot and James Webb, withdrew their support once they saw the design. Said Webb, “I never in my wildest dreams imagined such a nihilistic slab of stone.” James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under President Ronald Reagan, initially refused to issue a building permit for the memorial due to the public outcry about the design. Since its early years, criticism of the Memorial's design faded. In the words of Scruggs, "It has become something of a shrine."

Lin was an iconoclast.  To that point, memorials were statues.  They were not long stone walls that blended into the earth with 58,220 names etched into the stone.  However, when it was completed, the VVM captured the very essence of what a memorial should really be about.

Read this article from Biography.com. for more background on the remarkable story of Maya Lin and the original controversy about the VVM. A fun fact I did not know is that Lin received a "B" on the design when she submitted it for a seminar on funereal architecture at Yale. Interestingly, the professor who gave her that grade was one of another 1,400 who submitted a design and was bested by Lin in the design competition.

I do not believe anyone has captured the magnificence of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial better than photographer Angela Pan.

Her images are a wonderful way in which to reflect on the sacrifices of those who served in Vietnam on this 2018 Memorial Day.

Credit: Angela Pan

Credit: Angela Pan

Credit: Angela Pan

Credit: Angela Pan

Thank you to all of those who served and sacrificed in Vietnam.

Never Trump No More

There was no one among conservative Republicans that was a bigger Never Trumper than Glenn Beck.

Beck (as I was in the primaries) was a huge supporter of Ted Cruz. Beck constantly bashed Trump through the primaries and continued right up to the general election. For the first year of the Trump presidency he continued to be a Never Trumper.

However, in recent months I noticed that Beck was not saying as much about Trump.

I happened to tune into his show last Friday when I was on my way to an appointment and I hardly could believe what I was hearing. Glenn Beck was fully on the Trump Train.

Glenn Beck
Never Trump No More?

What caused this transformation?

Beck stated that he had laughed at Trump's promises during the campaign thinking they were like any other "political promises" we have come to expect. The candidate says one thing but when it comes to governing we see something altogether different.

Beck explained that has not been the case with Trump. He is actually delivering on what he said he would do. Many candidates (especially so-called conservatives) have stated they were going to do something if elected but then lacked the political courage to actually follow through.

Beck cited the move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as a prime example. Others have said they wanted to do this but never followed through. And Trump has done it quickly. It did not involve a 7 year construction plan. The embassy has already moved.

He did it.

Trump said that he was going to get the United States out of the Paris climate accord.

He did it.

Trump said that he was going to decimate ISIS.

He did it.

Trump said that he was going to push for a big tax cut.

He did it.

Trump said he was going to substantially lower the tax on the repatriation of foreign profits.

He did it.

Trump said he was going to renegotiate NAFTA.

He has both Mexico and Canada at the negotiating table.

Trump said he was going to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

He did it.

Trump said he would not sign the TPP trade deal that the Obama administration negotiated.

He did not sign it and threatened tariffs on Chinese goods. This weekend the Chinese indicated they were going to "significantly increase" their purchases of American goods and services in order to reduce its $375 billion trade surplus with the United States.

Trump said he would cut two regulations for every new regulation.

He did better than that in his first year. He cut 22 regulations for every new regulation.

Trump said that he would appoint conservative judges to the federal courts.

He appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and in his term thus far he has had 21 of his federal circuit court judicial appointments confirmed by the Senate. In a little over a year in the job, Trump has now appointed one out of every eight Circuit Court judges that is on the bench. No President in modern times has had so many judges confirmed in such a short period of time.

Trump said that he would get North Korea to the negotiating table to do something about their nuclear arsenal.

He is scheduled to meet with Kim Jung Un in June about the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Glenn Beck cited many of these examples and stated that he could not ignore the facts. Donald Trump is not an ordinary politician. He has accomplished things and kept promises that Beck thought were simply impossible. Beck stated that he simply could no longer ignore what the man had done. He also could not stand by and see how unfairly the media had covered these accomplishments.

Do you remember all of the talk during the campaign and leading up to Trump taking office of how Democrats told everyone that we should be in fear of what Trump would do as President?

I wrote at the time that the there was only one real fear the Democrats really had about Trump......
that he would be successful.

This might explain why are seeing the Democrats, the media and the deep state becoming more unhinged by the day.

They see the mounting successes of Trump.

They see the economy improving and unemployment declining.

They see the rising approval ratings.

They see Kanye West saying good things about Trump.

They see Never Trumpers like Beck throwing in the towel.

They see the margin the Democrats had in the Congressional generic ballot getting smaller day by day. In fact, the Reuters poll out today has the GOP up 6 points. In April, the Democrats were up by 10 points!

They see the investigation of Trump beginning to become an investigation of the FBI and the Deep
State rather than Trump.

All of this seems to be having an effect.

The Democrats and Deep State seem to get more desperate by the day. Their entire world is being turned upside down. They told everyone that Trump would be a disaster.  Every day that passes with another Trump success destroys that narrative. Instead of more "Never Trumpers" we are seeing more voters who are seeing what is happening with their own eyes. There are more Glenn Beck's out there and that has to really scare the Democrats and the Deep State.

Since Trump first gained the GOP nomination they have been determined to find something or do something to drive Trump from office. There is not much they have not thrown at him over the last two years. I am still amazed that Trump is not only standing but succeeding. It would not surprise me to see the attacks get even more ferocious in the coming weeks.

Desperate people do desperate things.

Keep all of this in mind as we look for what might be next.

We live in interesting... and dangerous... times.

Trump Never Gives Up

There seems to be no bounds to the animus that many people have for President Trump.

I know it pains many to even utter the words. President.... Donald.... Trump.

They attempt to demean, denigrate and demonize everything about the man.

They say he is stupid. They say he is unhinged. They say he is a fascist. Or a racist. They say a lot of things.

Ian Jackson who writes for something called LiberalAmerica.org said this about Trump recently on Quora which seems to be a common narrative about Trump among liberals.

He doesn’t like doing his homework and has a hard time taking advice from experts or at least he seems to prefer the advice of the last expert he spoke to. He likes bullet points which suggests some kind of attention deficit and cable news which suggests limited imagination.

Doesn't do his homework?

Has a hard time taking advice from experts?

Likes bullet points?

Limited imagination?

I recently finished reading a book by Trump (with Meredith McIver) that was written a decade ago. It was written as a type of self-help book in which Trump chronicles some of his biggest challenges and lowest moments and how he overcame those setbacks. I read it to try to get some further insights on Donald J.Trump.

If there is one thing that is true about Trump is that he has been consistently underestimated by Democrats and Republican politicians alike.

There is also one other truth about Trump. He does not give up. He fights for what he wants. He fights even harder when he is opposed.

I believe that one of the major strategic mistakes the Democrats and their allies have made in dealing with Trump is the confrontational tone they have taken with him. Such actions have only resulted in making Trump more conservative and more confrontational with the Democrats.

At his heart, Trump loves to do deals. He spent a career enjoying the success of putting money and people together to develop and build beautiful properties. He is motivated similarly as President. He wants to get things done. He would love to do deals with the Democrats. It is simply the way he is wired.

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have cut off their noses to spite their faces in their dealings with Trump. The result is that Trump, who was a Democrat most of his life, has become a conservative that even the most steadfast Reagan supporter could be proud of. I am certain that Trump would not be nearly as conservative as he has been but for the actions of the Democrats.

Let's look at the claims about Trump above and see if they stack up with true facts about Trump.

Trump doesn't do his homework.  This could not be further from the truth if you look at the Trump career. He was able to do most of his big deals because he found some type of loophole or had an insight that no one else was aware of or thought of. The Grand Hyatt and Trump Tower deals only came about because Trump did his homework. Those are both sites than hundreds of other developers would have loved to have. Trump found ways to put the deals together that others failed to do. He was only able to succeed because he did his homework better than anyone else.

Has a hard time taking advice from experts. This also does not hold up to scrutiny in looking at Trump's career. He wrote about his first deal involving an apartment complex in Cincinnati that he bought right when he just got out of college. It was two years old and 3/4 vacant. Trump bought it for 50% of what it cost and was able to mortgage the entire property. He quickly started fixing up the property and hired a good property manager. It was soon fully occupied and throwing off good cash flow. Trump visited often and talked to the residents. One resident told Trump a few years later that he should consider selling despite the profit and substantial cash flow it was generating. Trump asked why and the resident told him that the apartments were great but the surrounding area was turning bad. Trump did further research and concluded the "resident expert" was right. He soon sold doubling his original purchase price. There are many other examples in the book of Trump listening and taking the advice of experts.

Likes bullet points. This is true but I don't see this as a shortcoming in a leader. Trump is a strong believer (as I am) in the power of focus. Any problem can be solved with the proper focus. Trump argues that most people spend all of their time dwelling on problems but little time on solving the problem. He always wants to focus on the solution, rather than the problem, and having an action plan of bulleted items that are needed to get to that end result. Yes, he likes bullet points because it narrows an issue down to its important elements.

Limited imagination? Take a look at some of the properties that Trump has developed and tell me that he has limited imagination. He took a personal residence in Palm Beach (Mar-a-Lago) and turned it into a private club resort. He took an old post office building in Washington and turned it into a luxury hotel. He developed the first hotel condominium in NYC in Soho. Limited imagination?

Trump's detractors also like to argue he has a short attention span. I think they mistake his energy to be involved on a number of issues when they argue this. Most of the big deals Trump has accomplished in his career were property locations that he targeted for years and years before he got his opportunity to try to do something with it. He had a long term vision and objective and he never lost focus of his goal.

Trump is by no means perfect. He has many flaws. He is no different than any human being.

Early in the Republican primary I wrote about many of those flaws. I liked a lot of what Trump stood for but I thought he would be a flawed candidate and squander the GOP's chance to win the Presidency over an ever more flawed Hillary Clinton.

I underestimated Trump then as many others are doing now. I continue to marvel at how one man can take so much criticism and negative media attacks and continue to stand and deliver. It is unrelenting but Trump is also relentless. How else do you explain it?

Consider the Rasmussen Presidential Approval Poll from May 18. Trump is at 50% approval. Barack Obama was at only 46% approval at the same point in this presidency. It is nothing short of remarkable considering the incessant negative media coverage.

You also have to wonder what these numbers would look like if the media were even-handed?

Notice that Trump's approval has generally been improving since last summer. Obama's approval was declining over the same period. Those that strongly approve of Trump has also been increasing while those who strongly disapprove has been declining over the same period. 33% strongly approve while 40% strongly disapprove for a -7 total intensity score.  Obama was at -17 points at the same point.

For additional context consider that Obama was -8 on this measure on the day he was re-elected in 2012.

Those that underestimate Trump do so at their own peril. To those who do so I would suggest they pick up the book I just read and gain some insights about the man you may not be aware of.

Make no mistake. Trump knows what he wants. Trump will work long and hard to get there. He will also never give up.

Never give up. Never give up. Never give up.  It is first on Trump's top 10 list for success.

He also rarely gives in unless he gets something substantial in return.

Accordingly, it would behoove Democrats and Never Trumpers to think twice about how they might want to deal with Trump going forward.

They think he has a short attention span. They should understand that he also has a very long memory.

Age Limits Rather Than Term Limits?

We hear a lot about the need for term limits for our elected representatives.

In fact, President Trump recently reiterated his support for Congressional term limits.

I have mixed feelings about term limits. I like the fact that it forces new blood and new ideas into the our political system  but I also see value in having those with institutional experience in charge to provide the necessary leadership and perspective to the legislative process.

We have had legislative term limits in Ohio since 1992 (limit of no more than four 2-year terms in the House and two 4-year terms in the Senate) but I have seen little evidence that it has had much effect on the political class. It seems to have mainly created a lot of political gamesmanship. A House member is term-limited and then moves to the Senate. A Senator becomes a County Commissioner and then comes back and runs again for the Senate.

As I wrote in "It's All In The Name", the largest asset a politician has is their name identification. The substantial "asset value" that a politician has in his or her name is also the reason why so many politicians have a hard time stepping away. They know they have an "asset" and they want to use it. It really becomes a question of "use it or lose it."

The Toledo Blade did a story in 2015 on why "Term limits do little to oust Ohio lawmakers"  where it reported on the political games being played because of those term limits.

It's been two decades since Ohio voters amended their constitution to cap the number of consecutive years a state lawmaker can hold his office.

But today, five state representatives and a senator who were here in the General Assembly when the term-limits clock first started ticking are still here, their service uninterrupted as they've jumped from one chamber to the other and back again.

Two will have 30 or more years under their belts by the end of the current session.

Term limits were very popular in the 1990's. 14 of the 15 states that now have term limits on the books enacted that provision during that decade. Nebraska was the last to enact term limits in 2000.

After thinking about all of this I believe that it might make more sense to consider age limits or a mandatory retirement age rather than Congressional term limits.

I know that it would spark cries of ageism and all the rest but it would prevent some of the problems with term limits while also providing the opportunity to infuse new blood into Congress from time to time.

It seems that I am not the only one thinking about this. Consider this question that was put to Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on the CNN Town Hall this week that was hosted by Chris Cuomo.

CUOMO: "I have something for you along these lines. You gave as you good segue there. I want to bring in Mary Pat, retired, lives in Maryland. Mary Pat, what is your question? A beautiful scarf you have on."MARY PAT: "Leader Pelosi, quorum.us says more than half the senators running for re-election this year are over 65 years old. If they win, their term of service will be six years. Their constituents are about 20 years younger. Isn't it time for some members to return to private service and to encourage younger folks run for office so --"[ applause ]

I am certainly not suggesting that there is a certain age at which someone is not fit to serve. For example, consider this story and video of 83-year old Senator Chuck Grassley pounding out 19 push ups to best a teenage student at an Iowa school meeting. No one should say that Grassley is not fit to serve.

It just seems logical that at some point the decisions affecting the nation and its future should be turned over to the next generation. Does it make sense for an 80-year old to be voting on legislation that will affect the lives of those much younger who will have to live under those laws for a much longer time than that Senator?

It should also be remembered that the U.S. Constitution already has an established minimum age criteria for the U.S. House (25 years), Senate (30 years) and President (35 years). Our Founders saw the wisdom of that minimum age to insure that there would be a basic level of maturity and life experience in our elected leaders. Perhaps there should also be a maximum as well?

It is also not uncommon to see required retirement ages in the corporate world for CEO's and Board members. It seems to be understood that at some point there comes a time when you should step aside for the good of the organization to let a new generations of leaders have their opportunity.

My suggestion would be to cap the maximum age at which a federal elected official could be sworn into office at 40 years from the minimum age to serve that is currently established in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, a House member could not be more than 65 years of age or a Senator older than 70 when beginning a new term of service. I would add an age 75 limit to the President in addition to the term limit already in place. This effectively would mean that there would be no House members older than 67, Senate members older than 76 or a President who was 79 or older based on the required retirement age limit.

What effect would this have if it was in place right now?

President Trump would still be eligible to run for re-election in 2020 as he would  be under the age 75 age limit on Inauguration Day January 20, 2021. (Trump will not be age 75 until June 14, 2021)

Interestingly, not one of the 45 Presidents we have had would have been precluded from serving if this provision had been in place from the beginning of the nation's founding.

However, this provision would prevent Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden from running for President in 2020 if it were in effect. It would also mean that Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren could run in 2020 but each would be precluded from running for re-election in 2024 as they would be beyond the age limit on Inauguration Day 2025. If you are a Democrat can you honestly say that it is a bad idea to have these people step aside and allow for some fresh faces in the party?

The biggest effect would be on the U.S. Senate.

There are currently 7 Senators that are at least 80 years of age. (Shelby-AL, McCain-AZ, Feinstein-CA, Grassley-IA, Roberts-KA, Inhofe-OK, Hatch-UT.

There are an additional 18 Senators that are at least 70 years of age.

The average age of a Senator right now is 61 and the U.S Representative average is 57. These are both about the oldest averages in our nation's history. By comparison, as recently as 1981, the average Senator's age was 53 and the average Representative was 49. On average, both are now 8 years older than they were 35 years ago.

Quorum recently did a study for the 115th Congress and found that in 44 of U.S House districts the age of the Representative was at least double the median age of those they represented. In 38 of the 44 districts the Representative won re-election with at least 60% of the vote. Name ID is everything and the reality is that most of these politicians are not leaving the pay, privileges and perks of Congress voluntarily. It is almost as if they have a lifetime taxpayer-paid annuity.

There are merits to term limits but they also have inherent limitations.

Perhaps it is time to start thinking about retirement age limits instead?

#FollowMeTo

From time to time I post about photography that makes a statement to me.

Some of the most beautiful images I have seen over the last few years are the work of Murad Osmann. Osmann is a Russian who has been traveling the world with his wife, Nataly Zakharova, capturing truly spectacular photographs.

Osmann started the project in 2012 with his then-girlfriend on a trip to Barcelona. Originally all of the photos were taken with an iPhone but Osmann is now using a DSLR camera for a wider field of vision.

Osmann has 4.1 million followers on Instagram where you can enjoy his work. I have put together a few of the images that I like the best below.

If you have not made any vacation plans for the summer, consider this to be proper motivation to start planning to go somewhere in this beautiful world of ours.

Barcelona

Kyoto, Japan

Abu Dhabi

Taj Mahal

Hong Kong

Igauzu Falls, Brazil

The Dead Sea, Jordan

Moscow

Las Vegas

The Maldives Islands

San Francisco

Havana

Myanmar

East River, New York City

Singapore

It is easy to underestimate the amount or effort and work that goes into creating these images. Consider the travel to the locale, the time it takes to find just the right location, the consideration of colors and the coordination it takes with the wardrobe for Nataly, styling her hair, getting the shot with just the right lighting and dealing with crowds and bystanders that would ruin the shot.

Murad provides a little background of some of what goes on behind the scenes with his comments on Instagram that accompany the last image above from Singapore..

Thank you Murad and Nataly for this wonderful work.