Guru #6

Year-End Thoughts from The Guru

The server at the Pie Plate Bakery and Cafe in Virgil set two coffees and two slices of pie in front of us---apple for the Guru and pumpkin for me. 

As I looked at the pieces of pie, I thought it was wrong to refer to the Pie Plate's pie as 'pie'. It is like referring to a filet mignon as a 'chunk of beef'. 'Pie' is what you get at a normal restaurant. The scratch-baked, flaky-crusted and deep-fruited creations of this restaurant deserve some better appellation.

Probably a French name starting with 'tarte'---something that conveys the ambrosial nature of the restaurant's desserts.

The Guru brought me back from my reverie by pulling a package from his pocket and carefully unwrapping it.

"What's that?", I asked.

"It's 6 year-old cheddar from  the Maple Dale cheese factory. When you have apple pie as great as this, you have to combine it with a cheddar that is equally great."

He  placed the cheese on the plate beside the apple pie, and then combined a small piece of cheese with a forkful of pie.

I said, "Looking at your obvious pleasure, I'm tempted to say to the server, 'I'll have what he's having' "

"That was a great movie!" 

My pie was delicious as well---the same crust with a smooth, creamy pumpkin filling, subtly seasoned, and topped with a generous mound of real whipped cream.

We were meeting after the Guru had emailed me a draft of his year-end newsletter to his subscribers and asked if we could discuss it over coffee and pie at the Pie Plate---his treat.

How could I refuse?

"What did you think of the draft newsletter?", he asked.

"I liked it a lot, but I have some comments and questions."

"OK, shoot".

"I thought the first part, on the events of 2011, was very strong. Your analysis of the Arab Spring was excellent---its causes and the reasons for its remarkable success. As were your forecasts for the Arab Spring's impact in other countries, for example the likely outcome of the events in Syria, the Occupy movements and the recent protests in Russia.

I carried on, "I also liked your section on the Republican primary campaign. Let me read part of it:

" 'Pundits are asking why the field of Republican candidates is so weak, when Obama continues to face terrible economic problems. Why aren't leaders like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or others running?

"I think there are three reasons. First, anyone in the While House has a built in advantage and Obama, as a powerful campaigner, is likely to use that advantage with great effect.

"Second, the four years from 2012 to 2016 are going to be tough, economically, as the country climbs out of George Bush's financial crisis. Why not let Obama slog through all that misery, and then run in 2016 when the economy is getting back to normal?

"The third is perhaps the most powerful. Strong Republicans understand that Obama is running not against the Republican Party, but against the greedoholics---whom I have written about before (see Posting #1). The greedoholics have controlled the GOP for the last couple of decades and have made it a party where---as Bill Clinton has joked---if you want to run for office you have to pretend to have an IQ in single digits. You have to deny or be sceptical about obvious truths such as climate change, evolution, and the income gap. The strong Republicans are sitting back hoping that Obama will defeat or at least weaken the greedoholics, and thus give them back their party.' "

I paused, took off my reading glasses, and said, "I thought your third point was really telling. Just think if Obama is able to restore a functioning two party system in which the parties can disagree on their philosophy of government but still be willing to compromise! No more ridiculous pledges to never raise taxes! No more filibusters based on irrational ideological arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!"

"Yes, if Obama can accomplish that he would deserve a place on Mount Rushmore. Other comments?"

"A couple. Your comments on the Republican attacks on Obama's so-called 'leadership deficiencies' were well done. You point out that leadership is not always about being in front of the troops, leading them into battle. Rather it is about carefully selecting the style of leadership that is appropriate for a particular situation. The Republicans are just frustrated at how skilful Obama has been in choosing the right leadership style, whether it is in the slaying of Osama bin Laden, the removal of Khadafy, or getting payroll tax changes through Congress."

The Guru nodded, "As I said in the draft, the Republican attacks on his leadership are just politics---they don't believe their own 'talking points'---but what bothers me is that media pundits get sucked into responding and into discussing 'What's wrong with Obama's leadership style?'; or, 'Is he a weak leader?'.

I agreed, "You know I have thought for some time that media commentators need some kind of accreditation so that readers or listeners can judge whether they know what they are talking about. My thought is that a bipartisan group would be set up to develop three tests: one on national politics; another on international affairs; and one on economics. Taking the tests would be voluntary and pundits who successfully passed would be able to display a symbol after their by-line on columns or blogs. On television, the symbol would appear after their name in that little box beneath their image."

"I like that idea, May I steal it for this newsletter?"

"Be my guest," I said. "My last comment was about your prediction for the 2012 Presidential race. I agree with you that at the moment it looks like Obama will be re-elected. I notice that Ladbrokes has him as the odds-on-favourite at 4/5, while Romney and Gingrich are both at 7/2 . I also agree with your newsletter that a lot can go wrong between now and November 2012. Could I just suggest that you consider changing the quote you use, 'A week is a lifetime in politics'? The quote is actually from Harold Wilson who said, 'A week is a long time in politics'.

"It doesn't have the same punch but let me think about that."

"A similar comment was made by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. When asked by a journalist what was most likely to blow his government off course he replied with that Etonian, upper class accent, 'Events, dear boy, events'."

"MacMillan was right---he was obviously thinking of the Profumo scandal---but who can know what impact 'events' will have on the 2012 race."

The server brought our bill.

After grabbing it, the Guru went back to scraping his plate with his fork, trying to get every smidgen of pie and cheese.

"Watch", I joked, "you'll take the glaze off that plate!"

He smiled, "It's so good!"

As we got up, he said, "Thank you for your help with the newsletter".

"Anytime."

We wished each other a Merry Christmas and promised to get back together in February, after he has finished picking and crushing his icewine grapes, and I have returned from a research visit overseas.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) normally appears every Sunday morning but will be on holiday until February 12, 2012.

Guru #5

 

Are Canadian Politics Dull?

(A political science professor liked to tell his first year students that there was a key question about politics that they would have to answer. Which is correct: "Politics is dirty", or "Politics are dirty"? Leaving aside the question of whether I agree with the premise that politicians are crooks, I opt, on grammatical grounds, for the plural, "Politics are dirty".)

The Guru and I were on the Go Train from Toronto to Burlington having spent the day at the Metro Centre where the Guru had been judging an icewine competition.

I had driven us from Virgil to Burlington early in the morning so we could catch the Go Train and avoid the hassle of Toronto traffic and parking.

A reader of the Icewine Guru blog had asked me why the Guru and I hadn't yet talked about Canadian politics. Did we find it too dull? Or was it beneath us? So, I had suggested to the Guru that on our way home, we should spend some time chatting about Harper, McGuinty, Charest et. al. He agreed.

But first, I wanted to get a little update on how he thought the US presidential race was going.

"Very well!", he beamed.

" So", I asked, "you think that Obama's secret plan that I agreed not to write about (see Posting #4) is unfolding as you expected?"

"It is, but one thing that has surprised me a little is how quickly public anger about the income gap has turned into a protest movement. We talked about the income gap in mid-August but it wasn't on the radar of the mainstream media back then."

"Are you worried about criticism that there is no clear leadership for the movement and no clear statement of demands?"

"No, not at all. Are you", he asked me.

"No, I'm not. I've studied the history of social movements, and the ones that ultimately have a major impact often start off the way the Occupy Wall Street has. Over time, leaders emerge, and the demands become clarified. It is interesting that often movements throw up two leaders, one with strong views and good organizational skills, and the other with strong presentational and negotiating skills. There is often a tension between the two leaders but in successful movements they learn to work together. I'm waiting to see who will emerge."

"Good points. I agree with you. What do you think about the Republican primary battle?"

"I'm enjoying it", I replied, "I love to see two groups of greedoholics---to use your term---throwing their money around, the Wall Street one supporting Romney and the Energy one supporting Perry or Cain or whomever."

"It's getting nasty", the Guru chuckled. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice effect that I talked about back in August is driving the adult Republicans crazy. Funding the Tea Party helped the Republicans win the House of Representatives in 2010, but now the Tea Party crazies won't let the adult Republicans do what they must do to counter Obama's re-election strategy.  Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and others can see what is happening and but their protests aren't having any effect, at least for the moment."

"Yes", I added, "the Republicans should be trying to engineer a discreet flip-flop on their no-increase-in-revenue policy (that would of course have to be presented as something other than a flip-flop) but instead the crazies are trotting out flat tax proposals that are going to make the income gap worse. It's truly bizarre!"

"Agreed. Perhaps in one of our future conversations, we should discuss how one would go about reducing the income gap. It is not going to be easy."

"A good thought", I said, " but can we change the subject, and talk about Canadian politics. We have a fan of our blog who believes that we have been short-changing 'our home and native land'.

"Well, politics that spring from a philosophy of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are almost certainly going to be more exciting than those that have their roots in 'peace, order and good government'. But we have had our moments, moments when Canadian politics were pretty damned exciting. Think of the War of 1812, the 1837 Rebellions, the Riel Rebellion, Conscription in both World Wars, the Quebec Separation movement."

"True, but at the moment there are no great issues dividing Canadians. The greedoholics tried to inject the virus of right-wing political philosophy into our discourse but I think the body politic is rejecting it. The Reform Party took over the Progressive Conservative Party but I sense that Harper's victory this year may be the high-water mark for the that mix of Ayn Rand, regional angst and evangelical religion. We are facing terrible international economic problems and challenging domestic problems such as the rising cost of health care and of other social programs. This is a time when the Canadian DNA calls for cooperation and negotiation, not my-way-or-the-highway."

"I agree", the Guru chimed in.

"What do you think of Harper?", I asked

"Well", the Guru responded, "I thought at one time that he had great potential but once he became Prime Minister I started to change my mind. I've now come to the conclusion that while he has some of the attributes of a successful Prime Minister he lacks some important qualities. He has ambition, stubbornness, a touch of paranoia and an authoritarian streak---it is tough to succeed in politics without those. But he doesn't, in my view, have a first class mind and the mind that he has is not well trained. He seems to have a disdain for facts, witness the stupid decision about the census forms, the decision to build more prisons despite statistics that show crime in Canada has been declining and that longer jail sentences have not worked in the States, and the decision to abolish the long gun registry, which the main users---the police---say has been working well."

"Yes", I added, "those decisions seem to have been made on ideological grounds, not on any analysis of the facts."

"In addition he appears to lack highly developed political antennae. How could a politician with any sense of what was going on in Toronto and Ontario publicly talk this summer about a likely 'trifecta' in which a Hudak victory would complete the sweep of elections by conservatives---Hudak, Rob Ford and himself? Rob Ford was so unpopular in the Greater Toronto Area, that Harper's remark helped re-elect Dalton McGuinty."

"Are you worried about the legislative changes he can make in the next four years with a majority government", I asked.

"A little bit, but the provinces will limit his actions in key areas like health care. But his biggest problem is that he is trying to run everything from the Prime Minister's Office, because he doesn't trust his ministers or the public service.  As I've said, a little bit of paranoia and a little touch of authoritarianism are necessary in a PM but he is showing too much of each. John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney suffered from the same problem and tried to run things from the PMO. Look what happened to them---huge majorities followed by humbling defeats. No one can run a modern government with all its complexities from the Prime Minister's office. Serious mistakes are inevitable. As his popularity polls drop, and as we get closer to the next election, enemies in his party will start to conspire against him."

"A Tory 'Night of the Long Knives'?"

"That's it, and Harper will either be deposed or badly wounded. The new Prime Minister will be from either the Liberal Party or the NDP, most likely from the former. I have no idea who the Prime Minister will be but someone will emerge."

"So, you're saying, Guru, that anyone who thinks that Canadian politics are dull should just wait until the knives come out?"

"Exactly!"

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) appears every Sunday morning.

Guru #4

 

Is Obama a Wimp?

The Guru and I were in his winery's bottling room gluing labels on his attractive, dark green 375 ml icewine bottles.

"Those damn people at the Liquor Board held up the bottling by three weeks", he complained as we readied the bottles to go under the filling spout.

He explained that the wineries can't print their labels, which have to show the alcohol content, until the Board has tested and ruled on the amount of alcohol in the wine.

"My lab equipment is as good as theirs, in fact it's probably better, and I knew it was 11.4%. But I couldn't get the labels printed until I had their results---which came in at exactly 11.4%. I can see the need for government testing to keep everyone honest, but why should it take three weeks?"

After we had finished bottling ten cases, we sat at a table in the sunny lab, overlooking his vineyard. He poured glasses of a charming Riesling wine---not icewine---from a neighbouring winery and we began to talk.

"What happened to that Op-Ed you were going to send to the New York Times on community employment programs?", he asked.

"They told me that they get dozens of Op-Eds a day and they can't print them all, etc. etc. etc. Nice letter, though."

"What did you think of Obama's Jobs Act?", he asked.

"I liked it, especially the component for summer jobs for youth. And I liked how he plans to pay for it, with revenue from the wealthiest. But he's taking a beating from both the left and the right. All those claims that he's a wimp."

"He's no wimp. It's just that people don't understand his secret strategy for re-election."

"And you do?"

"Of course." The Guru is nothing if not self-confident.

"Could you explain it to me?"

"I will but first you will have to promise not to publish it in that blog you're writing. You don't have a large readership (not like my monthly newsletter!) but I would hate to have someone leak the strategy to Obama's enemies. I want to see him re-elected, not because I like him particularly---I never got caught up in the Obama frenzy---and not because I like the Democrats, a hapless lot most of the time. But because he seems to be the only adult in Washington, and the only person who fully understands the danger of the income gap. So don't publish, OK?"

"Agreed."

I am used to being amazed at the Guru's capacity for analysis and exposition but the next 15 minutes left me in awe.

"It's a brilliant strategy, but will it work?", I asked.

"That's hard to say, it depends on the greedoholics"

(In Posting #1 in this blog, the Guru defined what he means by the word 'greedoholic': "That's what I call the billionaires and special interest groups who are so hooked on greed that they have lost all sight of what is good for the country---if they ever had it. And they have also lost sight of what is in their own self-interest as capitalists, but they are too hooked on greed to see that."

( Later, I asked him this question: "You aren't saying, of course, that all wealthy people are greedoholics?"

(And he replied: "No, certainly not. Take Warren Buffett. He has a good bit of greed about him but you wouldn't see him upgrading his yacht (if he had one) because it has just one heliport and he needs 'his and her' helicopters, like the hedge fund manager he plays golf with. I think Buffett is sincere when he complains about a tax system that means his secretary pays federal tax at a higher effective rate than he does. He's a Democrat but there are wealthy Republics who aren't greedoholics---some of them are my clients---who understand that the income gap is dangerous, but they are afraid to stand up to the greedoholics. It's sad---they know that an income gap this huge is bad for the country and bad for capitalism.")

(Although he didn't name any of the greedoholics he is worried about I think it is clear that the brothers whose family name sounds like a popular drink would be included.)

The Guru continued, "The greedoholics  have many advantages---we've talked about that before---and the economic situation inside and outside the US is so bleak that even a brilliant strategy may not be enough. But think of Eisenhower on June 5th 1944 as he pondered what would happen the next day when hundreds of thousands of troops would cross the English Channel and try to invade France. He had put together a daring and ambitious invasion plan but so much could go wrong. But it turned out well. Success has to start with a clear goal and a brilliant plan, and I think Obama and his people have both of those."

"Is there anything at all that I can tell my readers?", I asked.

"Well let's see. You could tell them to study Sun Tzu, and also read up on the Ground Sparrow".

"I'm not sure that would be very helpful to my readers, as intelligent and discerning as they are. Can you elucidate a bit, without giving away the essential features of the strategy? Perhaps by starting with Sun Tzu and his "The Art of War", which I know you keep on your bedside table."

"Well, Obama's strategy that I just outlined shows that Obama has read and absorbed "The Art of War". Let me choose one lesson that your readers might like to think about. Sun Tzu argued back in about 400 BC that a wise general will always choose the battlefield that he wants to fight on, not the one his enemies want him to fight on. Now, think about Obama and how he bypassed several possible battlefields, for example the Republican threats to close down the government in December 2010 and April this year, or the Debt Ceiling issue in August. His enemies taunted him and tried to get him to fight on those battlefields. Instead, he compromised and his enemies and even some of his allies called him weak, and a wimp."

"You talk about 'his enemies'. Who are you referring to?"

"Oh, the greedoholics, they have the money, and they pull the strings. Not the Republicans, they do what the greedoholics tell them. By the way, isn't it tragic to see some of the 'adult' Republicans being forced to grovel and recant by the greedoholics. As for the Tea Party members, they are unwitting pawns of the greedoholics."

"So, if the greedoholics are the enemy, are you saying that Obama's goal is not just to win re-election but to trounce the greedoholics?"

"That's it. The US can't begin to correct the income gap until the greedoholics are beaten, or at least have their wings clipped."

"So that brings us back to the questions of a battlefield. Are you saying that Obama has chosen a battlefield?'

"Yes, and he's fighting on it right now. The Jobs Act, the components of which the majority of Americans support, is part of it. The other part consists of the deficit and debt proposals set out in his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday this week, in which he said that he will veto any deficit/debt plan that doesn't include tax increases on the wealthy.  That's again a policy that most Americans support."

"That's not a battlefield that the greedoholics would have chosen, some pretty tough terrain for them." I added.

"Exactly, and that's why you see such weak, ineffectual attacks on Obama's proposals. 'The plan is too large' or 'It's just another stimulus program', or "It's class warfare'---the last from people who have been stealing money for years from the working and middle classes through lobbyist-inspired tax loopholes and concessions!"

"But aren't some Democratic representatives and senators opposing Obama's proposals?"

"The greedoholics are powerful, and it is understandable that some Democrats are frightened of, or beholden to them."   

"How long will the battle last, do you think?", I asked.

"That's the beauty of this as the battlefield. The greedoholics could decide in the next few months that they are being beaten and decide to retreat to fight another day. The Obama proposals could then be adopted by Congress, which would be good for the country---and by the way, give him a victory he could take into the election. It is more likely that the greedoholics will see the proposals as the thin edge of the wedge and opt to battle them right to the election in the hope that they can defeat Obama."

"And by that time", I added, "you hope that the American people will have made a choice about what kind of country they want. And the battle will have stripped away the camouflage and the subterfuges that the greedoholics have used, thus permitting the public to see how they have been manipulated by people who are only interested in lining their own pockets. "

"That has to be Obama's hope. But the greedoholics are tough, with tubs of money and many influential allies, so the battle could go either way. Closer to the election, I will be warning my readers that if Obama loses the election, the 'lame duck' period from November 6th to the inauguration of a Republican president on January 20th, 2013 is very likely to be a time of great social unrest."

"That's a sobering thought. So, getting back to what I can report in the blog, I will not discuss what you covered in our private talk but will cover the conversation we just had. OK?"

"Agreed".

"Now what's this about the Ground Sparrow?"

" When I was a kid, there was a vacant field next to our home. Sometimes when my friends and I walked through the field a little sparrow would appear and then limp ahead of us. Thinking it was injured, we at first tried to catch it to help it by fixing its wing or its leg. But it always stayed just a little ahead of us. After we had gone a hundred yards or so, it would fly away, in a perfectly healthy way. We learned that the Ground Sparrow, the Killdeer and some ducks use this ruse to lure people away from their nests and fledglings."

"So what does that have to do with Obama?"

"Think! What is Obama's most important legislative achievement, his baby, his fledgling?"

 "The health care reform."

"Exactly, and 'his baby' is getting stronger by the day, with regulations being developed, agreements with states and insurers being formed, and so on. All of this while Congress is being distracted by discussions of debt, deficit and jobs."

"So you don't think Obama is a wimp?"

"Like a fox!"

"I hope you are right, but even foxes sometimes get outwitted."

"We'll just have to see, won't we?"

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The Icewine Guru postings will appear from time to time---when I have something on my mind. The Letter from Virgil postings (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) appear weekly, on Sunday mornings.

Guru #3

 

Covered Faces

The Guru and I and our wives had just been seated at the Grill on King, a restaurant in Niagara-on-the-Lake that the Guru had recommended.

It was our first visit and my wife and I looked around.

I said, “It has a warm ambiance and is surprisingly busy for mid-week.”

The Guru nodded, “We have been here once or twice and enjoyed it.”

When a waiter asked if we would like drinks, I looked at the Guru and asked what he was going to have.

The waiter cut in, “Mr Guru will be having a small draft Stella Artois.”

Grinning, the Guru said, “Maybe we have been here more than once or twice.”

We gave the waiter the other three drink orders.

Before I describe our meal, perhaps I should introduce our wives, the Guru’s wife, Gloria, and mine, Paula (These are not their real names---and to help keep everyone straight, I have chosen pseudonyms that have the same first letter as the husband’s. So, Gloria for Guru, and Paula for the Professor---the Professor, that's me.)

I met Paula while we were part of the Oxford University contingent at a huge ban-the-bomb protest in London in the 1960s. At one point the police charged the parade and Paula was knocked to the pavement, spraining her ankle. Her Oxford friends got carried away by the crowds and it was left to a fellow from the colonies to help the pretty damsel in distress.

I managed to get her to an A and E (Accident and Emergency) department of a nearby hospital and then to the Oxford train.  (Paula comes from a prominent London wine merchant family---Tories the lot---and she didn’t want to call them for help and have to admit she was ‘a ban-the-bomber’.) We talked all the way to Oxford, and have kept on talking ever since.

After she got her doctorate---in biology---we married and returned to Toronto where she joined the biology department at York University.

The Guru met his wife, Gloria, in the 1960s during a lecture he was giving at UCLA on the reasons behind the tumultuous happenings on the streets and campuses of the US at that time. In the question and answer session, she told him he didn’t know what he was talking about.

After the talk, she came up to carry on the argument. He invited her for a drink to discuss their differences, and they discovered they had a lot in common. The rest is history.

Gloria is a sociologist---she writes articles and lectures on her specialty, the sociology of world religions---and helps manage the Guru's consulting business.

As we finished our drinks the waiter came back for our appetizers and entrees. Gloria said that everything on the menu was good but she could recommend the lamb shanks, which were slow cooked and served with garlic mashed potatoes.

Salads and lamb shanks sounded good to all of us.

The Guru laughed and told the waiter, "We are all going to be sheep and have the lamb".

I imagine---or at least hope---that Gloria gave him a kick under the table. He tends to get carried away with his little witticisms.

I asked the Guru and Gloria about their recent trip to France---the Guru had given a lecture in Paris and then they had gone to the Bordeaux Region to sample the wines.

He said they had had a fine time, the speech had gone well and the weather had been great.

Gloria agreed but said she was upset at the tensions between the French nationals and the Muslim immigrants, which had become focused on the face coverings worn by some of the Muslim women. Right-wing political factions were using the face-covering issue to win support among French voters and it seemed to be working.

Gloria said she was deeply opposed to forcing women to cover their faces but was troubled by the government’s efforts to pass legislation banning the wearing of face coverings. She wasn’t sure that legislation was the right answer, either in France or  in Quebec, which she noted has also been flirting with the idea of banning face coverings.

The Guru said, “But the wines in Bordeaux were great and the vintners expect that this year’s crop will produce truly remarkable wines.”

“You’re trying to change the subject”, Gloria blurted, “I hate it when you do that!”

“But”, the Guru responded, “if we carry on discussing Muslim rules about women’s dress we’ll end up talking about San Francisco's attempt to stop rabbi’s snipping bits off new-born boys.”

“Look, we are talking about Muslim dress not circumcision!”

I noticed that the people at nearby tables were tuning into our conversation.

But, the Guru protested, "Muslim dress and circumcision are both based on religious tenets. They are based on faith and belief, not rational thought, and I don’t find it very useful to try to have a productive discussion of them.  If you try to argue with adherents, they will point to a book they consider sacred---the Koran, the Bible or whatever---and for them that’s it. The matter is settled. Case closed.”

“But I agree with Gloria’, Paula joined in, “that forcing women to cover their faces is awful. Why can’t we cut out talk of circumcision---the pun is intended---and focus on face coverings?”

“Thank you, Paula!”, Gloria said. “I keep thinking of that Harvard philosopher, John Rawls, and his book, “A Theory of Justice: Justice as Fairness”. You remember how he argued that when people were considering whether a law or behaviour was just and fair, they should imagine themselves behind a 'veil of ignorance'. Behind this veil, they should imagine that they were not yet born and that the details of their eventual birth were unknowable, details such as their gender, time of birth, location of birth, wealth of parents and so on. In that ‘pre-birth’ state, people should ask themselves what sort of laws and societal rules and customs they would consider just and fair”

“Your point’s  a good one”,  I said, “if we honestly played the ‘behind-the-veil-of-ignorance’ game no one at this table, and probably no one in the restaurant would want to be born into a situation in which they were  forced to wear facial covering, no one would agree that that was just and fair. But the issue we should be talking about is: what should be the role of government, if any, in trying to correct that?”

“Now, that’s something we can have a rational discussion about’, muttered the Guru who had been playing with his salad---a little peevishly, I thought. “It’s a really complex issue and to make it easier to discuss, can we agree that we are talking about women who have moved to a ‘Western’ country----Canada, the UK, France, Australia etc--- and continue to wear face coverings, and that we are not talking about women in the Saudi Arabia’s of this world. What if anything we should do about those women in their countries of birth is another matter. Can we agree on that?”

“Agreed, dear”, said Gloria, “now can we just discuss whether the wearing of face coverings in Western countries should be made illegal?”

I felt I had to join in, “I’m not sure I should be commenting on something in your sociology bailiwick, Gloria, but it seems to me from my study of the history of the integration of immigrants in Canada that there is something at work that is similar to what physicists call entropy---you know when systems break down. I call it 'social entropy'. We have taken in Doukhobors , the Amish, the Mennonites and other groups who came with highly ordered, even rigid beliefs and behaviours but gradually most have shed them. Can I give you an example of what I mean by social entropy? Recently, Paula and I were in a waiting room in the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga, a hospital with many Sikh patients---and Sikh donors!. We watched as little family clusters went by. There would be an elderly couple, who looked as they would have looked back in their native countries---men in their turbans and women in long tunics and matching trousers. Then there was the next generation, probably the original immigrants to Canada, who had sponsored their parents. Some of the men in this generation wore turbans but some didn't. In the third generation, few of the men wore turbans and their wives wore designer jeans.”

Gloria responded, “Are you saying, Professor, that we shouldn’t do anything, just let time and this social entropy do their work, and in the meantime, we let thousands of women be forced by men--- their fathers, or husbands---to swelter in the heat, and be unable to participate fully in the opportunities our society offers?”.

“No, I’m not ruling out legislation, but I am saying that governments should be careful not to hinder the working of social entropy. Legislation that looks mean-spirited and discriminatory can create resistance and martyrs, and slow down beneficial changes that are already taking place.”

The waiter took away our plates and asked about dessert. After the richness of the delicious lamb shanks we chose light desserts---two champagne sorbets, and two small caramel crème brûlées.

The Guru picked up the discussion, “When looking at legislation to change social behaviour, everyone points to Prohibition. 'Temperance' groups and some churches forced the passage of legislation that was, to use the Professor's phrase, ‘mean spirited and discriminatory’. They denounced drinkers as immoral and unchristian. In the end they got their way, booze was banned, many people got criminal records, some people died of poisoned hooch, and some bootleggers got rich enough to create wealthy and socially respectable dynasties. And then the law was repealed because the voters decided that it was causing more harm than good."

"But", Paula said, "what about smoking in public places like this---those laws have worked?"

"It's marvellous", Gloria said, "to enjoy a meal like this without smoke. Compare it with Asia, especially China, But there was a lot of softening up of society before laws were passed---public service announcements about the dangers to your health etc---and then the laws were phased in. First there were non-smoking zones and when everyone realized how ridiculous they were, full bans were imposed."

"That's true. Is there any way we could use that approach to deal with face coverings?", Paula asked.

"When we started talking about this" Gloria responded, "I said I wasn't sure whether law was the answer. I guess I'm becoming convinced that it isn't. If we ban face coverings in public, then we ban those women from an education, a career, a life outside the home. We keep them locked in a ghetto. I'm wondering if the government could encourage a change. Could it have public service messages that have the theme, 'Welcome to Canada. We want to get to know you and want you to have a full role in our society. But that can't happen when people can't see your face." And have pictures of smiling Muslim women in head scarves."

"I'm not sure about that", Paula said,  I feel so sorry for those women who are being dictated to by men. But when I think about it, I get just as angry at our media and fashion industry that are objectifying women. I honestly don't know how teenage girls can grow up with any self-esteem with all this emphasis on boobs, bums, beauty and sexiness. In a sense face coverings and western objectifying of women have the same source---the need to reinforce the male ego. And that's so wrong. But at least with western objectifying, women have a choice, if they choose to exercise it---women can decide not to play the 'T and A game'. In the case of face coverings, it is men who decide, men who have the power.  I still think there is a place for a law that bans face coverings, perhaps after some public relations campaigns---as in the case of smoking---to win public support."

The waiter took away our dessert plates

The Guru said, " I'm not sure we have settled anything, but it's been a fine discussion. In honour of that I would like to suggest we end the meal with some coffee and a glass of icewine." He whispered to the waiter.

The waiter appeared with coffees and a bottle of the Guru's latest vintage.

I had helped the Guru bottle the icewine and having, of course, sampled it as we went, I knew it was excellent, full of subtle fruit flavours---apricot, peach and apple. 

We tasted the wine and raised our glasses to the Guru, "Superb", we said.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear on September 25th. The next Letter from Virgil posting will appear on September 18th.

Guru #2

 

Jobs! Job! Jobs!

The Guru and I had been to the Home Depot store in St. Catharines to get some parts for his icewine bottling machine and we were now sipping lattes in the nearby Starbucks. (I should add that the lattes were fat free---we were both feeling a bit guilty about our ice cream binge two weeks before at the Avondale Dairy Bar.)

I asked him if he had had much reaction to his newsletter on the medium-term prospects for the US (see Posting #1 for discussion of that newsletter).

"Surprisingly good, given its bluntness---except for one fellow from Texas. He wanted to know what gave a Canadian the right to criticize the US, and added some nasty, rather unimaginative, slurs about my parentage. He ended by saying that if I didn't stop criticizing the US, he would cancel his subscription."

"What did you say to him?"

"I mentioned that one of our prime ministers had said that living next to the US was like being a mouse in bed with an elephant---that the elephant didn't care when the mouse rolled over but the reverse couldn't be true. That fact gave Canadians the right to study what was going on in the US and to comment on it. And then I poured gas on the fire by saying that the prime minister in question was Pierre Trudeau. Those old guys in Texas don't know much about Canada but they remember Trudeau, who they believe was a pal of Castro.

"That would certainly upset him!"

"And then I told him I would continue to write what I wanted and that if I hadn't heard from him in 24 hours I would cancel his subscription and return his money. Three hours later I got a two word email, "Don't cancel".

A student with a laptop in one hand and a large paper cup of hot coffee in the other was looking for a table close to an electrical outlet. We offered him our table, which was close to a wall outlet, and moved to another one.

There was a newspaper on the new table and I pointed to a headline that said that Obama was going to make a speech in September on the job situation in the US. "What do you think he is going to say?"

"He's in a tough spot. Since he took office in 2009 he and his people and the Fed Chairman have been trying to play down the potential impact of the financial crisis they inherited. That was totally understandable as they tried to restore confidence so that people would resume buying and investing. But it left the impression that this was just another cyclical recession, and that after a year of so in the doldrums the economy would suddenly start to produce new jobs at a great rate and unemployment would fall rapidly--- as happens with normal recessions. That's not happening, so he's in trouble."

"But the downturn triggered by the 2008 financial crisis wasn't the start of just another cyclical recession."

"True, but the White House hasn't seemed to be able to find the right words that would do two things: first, make the point that this isn't just another recession; and secondly, not scare the pants off consumers and investors. Perhaps there was no way to square that circle. It's going to take a decade to recover from the crisis. The 2008 book by two of your academic colleagues, Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, “This Time Is Different,” makes this point but the policy makers in Washington were already aware that this was going to be a tough slog, with higher than acceptable unemployment for a long time. There is no quick fix for what I think we should call 'the greedoholic's hangover' because it is the greedoholics that got us into this mess. The irony is that most of the greedoholics aren't suffering---they got their bailouts and are again getting outlandish bonuses---it is the rest of the population that is feeling the pain."

"What bothers me," I said, "is that some experts seem reconciled to letting millions of people suffer for years---students leaving school who are trying to find their first jobs, older workers who are losing their skills and motivation as they keep sending out resumes and going to interviews with no response. Something has to be done for those people, especially for minorities whose unemployment rate is double the national rate of 9%."

"I agree. As we were saying last time, letting unemployment fester is not just bad for the economy but it can produce a hurricane of social unrest, as the income gap gets greater and greater. I've been wondering if the White House should be looking at some of the programs Roosevelt used during the depression. For example, the famous WPA, the Work Projects Administration, that hired millions of unemployed workers for public works projects."

"I've been thinking about that as well", I said," but I don't see how Obama could ever get the  House of Representatives, with all its Tea Party members, to support a major Federal initiative like the WPA.  I think that the President should---instead of looking at FDR and the New Deal---be looking at Canada."

"Wow, what did you have the barista slip into your latte! Do you seriously think that anyone in Washington is going to pay any attention to  what my Texas friend calls 'a godless, socialist country'?"

"Hear me out. In the early 1970s in Canada we  had a huge jobs crisis. Canada had had the largest proportion of Post World War II baby boomers in the industrial world. We had mounted crash programs to build thousands of primary and secondary schools and hundreds of colleges and universities to educate them. By the early 1970s, these kids were coming out of the educational pipeline and there weren't enough jobs for them. You have to remember that there had been enormous student unrest in the 1960s, and that in Quebec young people were being attracted to the terrorist Front de Liberation du Quebec. And to make the situation worse, large numbers of housewives  decided that they would like to get jobs outside the home."

"And," the Guru added, "as is the case now in the US, the economy just wasn't generating enough jobs for all those people."

"Exactly! The Government of the day---the Trudeau government--- brought in a range of programs that sopped up a lot of that unemployment until the economy could start to generate enough private sector jobs. The programs---like the New Deal programs---weren't perfect but they helped Canada get safely through a difficult and even dangerous period in our history. It was an impressive success that has had too little attention. To help remedy that, I persuaded a bright graduate student---a few years before my retirement---to work with me on a paper about the steps the Trudeau Government took."

"I remember that period, there was some very creative programming."

"You may be thinking of programs like 'Opportunities for Youth", 'Local Initiatives Program' and some others."

"Yes", I remember the acronyms---Canadians are great creators of acronyms---OFY, LIP etc. Why exactly did the government move to those programs?"

"Well, they had been busy trying all the traditional and  'responsible' ways of soaking up unemployment. They tried using infrastructure projects, but they proved to be slow to get off the ground and the cost per job---usually over a million dollars a job---meant that although they were doing useful things they didn't have a big impact on unemployment. The government also tried paying subsidies to employers to hire workers, and although those programs had some impact, many employers took advantage of the subsidy for people they would have hired anyway.

"So as the economists say, the subsidy programs had low incrementality. People can always figure out how to 'game' the system".

"Right, so the Government decided that it needed to have a program that would get more bang for the buck. It would ask the unemployed young people (it started first with the young) to come up with useful projects and submit a proposal to a local panel that included the Federal Member of Parliament, municipal politicians, service club representatives, Chamber of Commerce officials. Tens of thousands of proposals were submitted and thousands were accepted. The successful groups then had to hire workers, train them and manage the workers and the project budgets."

The Guru nodded, "When you think about it, the Government was taking quite a risk. Kids could've used the funds to grow pot or do god-knows-what."

"There were a few---very few---problems that had to be dealt with but overall the program was a great success. A lot of young people were put to work quickly doing useful things and the annual cost per job was low, perhaps $35,000 in today's money and that included the cost of administration. Later on, the same general approach was used for unemployed adults."

"As I remember that period, a lot of projects had to do with tourism, building hiking trails, snowmobile tracks and so on."

"That's right, but there was an enormous range of project types---from creating small theatre companies to helping housebound seniors with their shopping---all of which were aimed at benefiting the local community. And then as the economy improved and private sector employment picked up, the programs were phased out."

"So", the Guru asked, "you think the US should adopt something similar?"

"I really do. I'm working on a op-ed piece that I plan to submit to the New York Times."

"Aren't you the ambitious little beaver! But where would the White House get the money and how would they get past the Tea Party to get Congressional approval?"

" I'm going to suggest they start with young people and have a hundred billion dollar program that would produce nearly three million jobs. If they can't find that money in their budgets, I would suggest that they do what some economists have been suggesting, that is do a deal with those big businesses that have trillions of dollars in profits hidden off shore to avoid tax. The Government could offer to let them repatriate a portion of that money without paying tax  so long as a substantial chunk goes into a Job Creation Bank. The Bank would finance these community-based projects."

"That makes sense, so long as it is tied to legislation that prevents companies from hiding profits away in the Cayman Islands of this world in the future. But what about getting Tea Party agreement?"

"Have you noticed that the Congressional representatives and senators who voted against 'earmarks' otherwise known as 'pork for the boys back home' are now having trouble finding ways of showing their voters that they are doing something for them.  The funds for the community program I am suggesting would be divided among the 435 congressional districts (with some money for the District of Columbia) based on some criteria including unemployment levels. But every district would get some money. And the representatives would be involved in the approval of projects. I think this approach would win over many of the Tea Party people."

"You've obviously been giving this a lot of thought", the Guru said.

"I have. It is just wasteful and immoral to leave millions of people unemployed while we wait for the economy to recover from what you are calling the 'greedoholic's hangover'. By the way, would you mind looking over my draft op-ed and giving me your views?"

"Sure, but can I give you a bit of advice?"

"Of course---what is it?"

"Don't mention Pierre Trudeau."

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear on September 11th. The next Letter from Virgil posting  will appear on September 4th.

Guru #1

Introduction

For some time I have been writing a blog, "Letter from Virgil", that recounts stories collected over the years from family and work experiences.

I have decided that I would like to write a second blog, one that discusses current political, social and economic issues.

The two blogs will alternate, with Letter from Virgil one Sunday, the Icewine Guru the next.

Please give The Icewine Guru a try and let me know what you think.

What Is The Biggest Problem Confronting the United States?

The Guru and I were driving along a Niagara back road, flanked by vineyards, in his new Lexus Hybrid heading for a decadent treat---ice cream cones, two-scoops in sugar cones---at the popular Avondale Dairy Bar on Stewart Road. A sign proclaims," All our ice cream is made FRESH daily right here".

"Look at the weed killer that farmer is using", the Guru muttered pointing at rows of vines with long strips of brown grass below the green foliage.

"How are your experiments coming with an organic weed killer?", I asked.

"They're promising. I am till trying to find the right proportions of vinegar, salt and soap but I'm making progress. My mix kills grass and weeds above the ground but of course it doesn't' kill the roots, so I have to re-spray every few weeks."

He turned back to the road and I could tell from the way he grasped the steering wheel and the way his jaw was moving that he was upset about something.

Perhaps I should introduce us. The Guru took 'Business' (as it used to be known) at the University of Toronto, and after graduation studied successfully to become a Charter Accountant. He was hired by an international firm of accountants and gradually moved away from accounting to business management consulting. After a few years he set up his own firm specializing in interpreting future trends for large businesses and wealthy investors. He is semi-retired but is still picked up regularly by corporate jets at our local airport and whistled off to points in the US and overseas.

I took History and English at the University of Western Ontario, an MA in History at McGill, and then a DPhl at Oxford. (Oxford doesn't use the term PhD for its doctorate degrees). I taught social history (European and North American) as a professor at the University of Toronto for 35 years. I have written several books and too many articles to count for learned journals. Since retirement, I have been working on a history of prohibition in Ontario and its impact on the culture and politics of the province.

The Guru and I met after we both settled---with our wives---in Niagara-on-the-Lake a few years ago.  We became friends, and our wives did as well.

My role in this blog could be seen as my playing Boswell to the Guru's Dr. Johnson but that would be wrong. I will try to record our conversations but I won't be a fawning admirer like that pathetic Boswell. I have my own personality and views.

At the Dairy Bar, we made our choices from flavours such as Moose Tracks and Death by Caffeine (our choices were more sedate---chocolate for him and mango for me). The clerk put the cones on a scale to weigh them (70 cents an ounce---and worth every penny). We decided to eat at a table inside the Dairy Bar because it was so hot outside that the cones would have dripped all over.

It was mid-afternoon and we had the room to ourselves except for a mother and her little boy of 3 or 4 who had a huge cone of bubblegum ice cream that he was enjoying mightily. We took a table in the corner so we could talk.

Even with a cone in his hand the Guru looked preoccupied. I asked him if he was worried about something.

He bit off some ice cream---he's a biter and I'm a licker---and said, "It's my semi-annual newsletter on the US. I can't figure out how to end it."

In addition to jetting off to advise wealthy investors, and company chairmen and CEOs, the Guru writes a monthly newsletter on the medium-term investment situation for major countries. The newsletter, which has 'a ridiculously high subscription price' (his term, not mine) gives a blunt, no-nonsense assessment of the prospects for major countries.

"I'm really bothered by what is happening in the US but I don't know how hard to come down."

"Is it the deficit, debt and downgrade problem?"

"No, the US is a wealthy country and the deficit and debt problems could be easily resolved. The greedoholics are preventing a solution---for their own purposes."

"Greedoholics?"

"That's what I call the billionaires and special interest groups who are so hooked on greed that they have lost all sight of what is good for the country---if they ever had it. And they have also lost sight of what is in their own self-interest as capitalists, but they are too hooked on greed to see that."

"But you go on and on about the wonderful benefits of greed."

"Sure, I love capitalism and therefore I love greed. It produces innovation that makes us all richer. But you can have too much greed. It is like salt in cheese-making. If you don't have enough salt, the milk will just sour and go bad, but if you have too much salt, it will kill the bacteria and enzymes you need to produce the cheese."

"So, you're saying that there are greedoholics in the US who are making improper use of the debt and deficit issue?'

"Sure, they are using the issue to argue for cuts in social programs but they are refusing to accept any change in their tax rates or their tax loopholes. Trying to solve a debt and deficit problem without using both spending cuts and revenue increases is as dumb as trying to cut fabric with scissors that have only one cutting blade."

"So if you aren't worried about the deficit and debt, what are you worried about?"

"Look, I agree that the deficit and debt situation are out of whack and have to be fixed. What worries me is that the US will fix them in a way that makes their biggest problem even worse than it is now."

"OK, I'll bite. What's the really big problem?"

"The Income Gap. The gap between the super rich and the rest of the population is greater than at any time since 1928. That's what politicians should be worrying about. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: 'It's the income gap, stupid!'.

"I've seen a few articles about the income gap and the statistics are really horrendous." 

"A society can't live with that kind of disparity for long without the poor---and the middle class---rebelling. Sometimes violently. "

"Surely", I said, "you can't attribute all of the income gap to tax and other legislation that gives preference to the wealthy. Changes in the way the economy works---for example, a move away from manufacturing---have worsened the income gap, haven't they?" 

"That's right, but I would argue that those changes were allowed to happen without adequate measures to cushion the blow to the poor and middle class."

We stopped talking while we watched the mother try to console her child whose ice cream had fallen on the floor. What a voice the little kid had! A kind clerk finally got him some more bubblegum ice cream, and peace was restored.

"So", I said to the Guru, "you are worrying that sometime in the next 5 years or so, there is  a real risk of social unrest or even rioting in the US, and that your subscribers should take that into account when considering what to do about investments they now have in America or about possible future investments?"

"That's it."

"What about the riots in the United Kingdom? Do you think they are being caused by the income gap in Britain, which although considerable is but not as great as in the US?"

"You have to be careful in assigning causes. Everyone's digestive tract has noxious bacteria, that are controlled by good bacteria---so long as the body is generally healthy. In the same way every society has hooligans and anarchists who are kept in control so long as the body politic is healthy. Prime Minister Cameron decided that he would be heroic and correct the UK's deficit and debt problem not by gradual measures but by a shock and awe program of huge layoffs, and deep cuts in social payments and services. Those measures by themselves were sure to put the society under great stress but he then made matters worse by deciding to reduce the police by 19,000 bodies! That was really dumb---attacking the morale and capacity of the very people you need to fight the hooligans and anarchists!"

"OK", I said, "I agree that Cameron was dumb, but can I put on my historian's hat and try to give the income gap some historical perspective?"

"Sure."

"Isn't there a good chance that the US and other governments will take steps that will reduce the income gap before there is serious social trouble. I'm thinking of Britain in the 1840's. Remember that Marx as he wrote Das Kapital in the Reading Room of the British Museum was convinced that the proletarian revolution that he was predicting was inevitable in capitalistic countries, would happen first in Britain because of the enormous income gap at that time. But Parliament brought in legislation that improved the lot of the poor. Like passing a law that banned factory and mine owners from working women and children for more than 63 hours a week. By the way, the owners fought it hard but lost."

"See, those guys were 19th century greedoholics!"

"So why can't that kind of change happen in the US?"

"It could. The pendulum has been swinging to the wealthy since even before Reagan and it could start to swing back. The democratic political process has generally been pretty good at bringing about that return swing in the pendulum without a lot of social unrest and violence. But what is really troubling me is that in the US the greedoholics have been making changes in the way key institutions operate, changes that can may prevent the pendulum from swinging back."

"For example?"

"There are so many. But start with legislation to limit the power of unions, the natural counter-balance to the greedoholics. And then look at the financing of election campaigns. The Supreme Court has made it much easier for the greedoholics to 'buy' politicians, and destroy ones they can't buy with negative campaigns. And then think about the growing power of right wing media that distorts the facts. And fat cat lobbyists. But what worries me even more is the way the greedoholics have been able to 'capture' people who are suffering, and turn them around so that instead of supporting policies that would improve their lot, they actually support policies that make the rich even richer ."

"I agree. John Edwards had a lot of trouble keeping his zipper up but he was right that the poor and middle class were voting against their own self interests."

"Just take the Tea Party", the Guru carried on. "The greedoholics have been able to prey on the insecurities of worried people and convince them that what is wrong is not that the rich have too large a share of the nation's wealth but that it is 'godless socialism', 'gay rights', 'a president with a different skin colour', 'Sharia Law'---or whatever. They have a long list of issues that they can use to push the buttons of frightened people,  But, you know---and here I may be arguing against my own thesis---I sometimes think the greedoholics may have gone too far and created a kind of Sorcerer's Apprentice situation."

"Sorcerer's Apprentice?"

"Yes, surely somewhere in your liberal arts education you must have learned about the Sorcerer's Apprentice!"

The Guru, as I've said, is noted for his bluntness, a quality his clients admire, but when he is worried he can be downright rude. Often I ignore the rudeness, knowing that it is a reflection of things that are bothering him. Other times, I let him have it---in kind.

"No, I was just trying to figure out what version of the Sorcerer's Apprentice you were referring to: Goethe's poem of 1797, or Paul Dukas's orchestral composition of 1897, or whether with your accounting background you were more likely referring to the Walt Disney versions: Fantasia in 1940 or its sequel Fantasia 2000, released in 1999."

Silence, while the Guru studied my face.

Finally, "You're right that was stupid, and ignorant. I'm sorry."

"That's OK, I know you are under pressure. But let's talk about how the Tea Party resembles the Sorcerer's Apprentice. The Apprentice was told by the Sorcerer to get some water from the well while he was away. The Apprentice used the spell he had overheard the Sorcerer using to get a broom to carry pails of water from the well to the house. But he couldn't turn the spell off, and when he split the broom with an axe, both parts starting carrying water, and the more he attacked the brooms with the axe, the worse things got."

"Well", the Guru said, "the greedoholics hired organizers, poured in money and convinced worried people that the answer to all the nation's problem was to starve Washington. The 'spell' was wildly successful and the Tea Party took effective control of the House of Representatives in 2010. But the greedoholics can't turn them off. The Tea Party has become an embarrassment to the adult part of the Republic Party." 

"I like the analogy. Are you going to use it in your US newsletter?

"Probably."

"I've been thinking about your greedoholics. You aren't saying, of course, that all wealthy people are greedoholics?"

"No, certainly not. Take Warren Buffett. He has a good bit of greed about him but you wouldn't see him upgrading his yacht (if he had one) because it has just one heliport and he needs 'his and her' helicopters, like the hedge fund manager he plays golf with. I think Buffett is sincere when he complains about a tax system that means his secretary pays federal tax at a higher effective rate than he does. He's a Democrat but there are wealthy Republics who aren't greedoholics---some of them are my clients---who understand that the income gap is dangerous, but they are afraid to stand up to the greedoholics. It's sad---they know that an income gap this huge is bad for the country and bad for capitalism."

"So why are you bothered by what you should recommend in your US newsletter? Are you like your Republican clients---afraid to tell the truth?'

"Ouch! That hurts. But you're right. I have to tell them about the dangers I see. Perhaps it will encourage some of them to fight back against the greedoholics."

We gave our faces a good scrub with napkins so our cholesterol-conscious wives wouldn't know that we had sinned.

And walked back to the car.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear on August 28th. The next Letter from Virgil posting will appear on August 21st.