It's the Economy, Stupid.

Lately, the economic news has not been good. And that’s an understatement. Anemic or negative job growth – in a nation that needs 200,000 to 300,000 new jobs a month just to keep even with a growing work force. Housing sales down 25 percent. You name it. The only good news? Our remaining bankers and Wall Street wizards are doing quite well, thank you.

As might be expected, the bad news is far from evenly distributed. Take unemployment. I listened to a talk on C-span last week stating that the upper echelons of our society were only experiencing a 1-2% unemployment rate, whereas it was over 16% for those on the lower end. I tried to track down these data, but it’s hard to find unemployment figures categorized by the economic class people used to belong to. But there were enough unemployment numbers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/data/) to construct this little graph.

It shows monthly unemployment for the last few years (through July 2010). On the left, according to educational background for those older than 24; On the right, by sex, race and age (16-19, and older than 20). None of it’s good news, but it’s obviously better for white women with Bachelor’s degrees (5% unemployment), then for men with only high school diplomas (10%), or (God help you!) a black kid who left without graduating (45%). The more education, the better your employment chances; whites are doing better than blacks; and women better than men. No surprises there – except perhaps the last one.

But official figures are the best part of the bad news. The worst part being that they are far too optimistic: they don’t include those who have given up active job hunting, nor those, who can’t find full-time jobs, working only part-time (our government makes no distinction between part- or full-time employment: if you’re working you’re not unemployed). And there is no end in sight. No one, except possibly those shilling for the Obama administration, thinks better news is just around the corner. Even optimists see substantial improvement only by 2014 or 2016; the pessimists, not until 2020; and the real pessimists believe that a good portion of those lost jobs may never come back.

Unemployment, of course, is a tragedy for those who have lost their jobs. Our most basic question of one another is, “what do you do?” The implication being if you do nothing, you are nothing. Ask any woman who has had to reply “I’m ‘just’ a housewife.” But it’s a tragedy for the rest of us too. We are a society accustomed to smoothing over our various fractures and discontents with continual growth – we are a “bigger pie” nation. Not very good at readjusting the size of the various slices, much less slices of a shrinking pie. Our Pledge states: “one nation, indivisible . . . “ But that’s always been a hope, not a fact. We are anything but. Neither are we a nation inured to adversity.

High unemployment – long-lasting high unemployment – is a recipe for civil discontent and a breakdown of societal norms. For increased fear and anger. We are probably seeing some of it already. But not among those who have lost the most. The “Tea-Partiers” are not mostly young, black or disadvantaged. They’re mostly white, older and well-to-do. But the fear and anger are very real.

And the morons, i.e., the Republican Party, are playing with fire. It’s one thing to be against something, quite another to solve problems once you achieve power. You have to believe in fairy tales to think that their time-honored nonsense – free the free market, lower taxes, cut social spending, fix the deficit – offers any solution for current problems. Repeating Herbert Hoover’s prescription for getting out of the Depression is unlikely to work better the second time around. Combining “up the establishment” with “populism” may not prove to be all that clever.

What about the Democrats? Well, give them some credit. Obama and most of the congressional democrats tried, but their feeble and relatively feckless efforts seem to have fallen far short. The “stimulus” was too small and included little of the “infrastructure reconstruction” it was touted to finance. Injecting money into the banks turned out to be not quite the same as injecting money into the economy. Failure to allow bankruptcy judges to adjust mortgages downwards, and give-aways like “cash-for-clunkers” and “first-time home buyer credits,” seemingly emphasized the unfairness of it all, and may simply have increased the anger of those who didn’t benefit.

They have fought hard – and it’s become an increasingly harder fight – for the continuation of unemployment benefits, perhaps the most efficient way to inject money into an economy. So thank ‘em for that. I could go on, but why bother. A majority, perhaps even most, of the congressional Democrats wanted to do better, and would have had the votes been there – and had the administration been more supportive. Unfortunately, come November and the mid-term elections, these are probably the ones who will suffer most.

As for what comes next? Your guess is as good as mine. But I wouldn’t be living up to my chicken-little reputation if I thought the next news would be good news, and it will all turn out swell.
Al

I’ve read lots of book on the economic crash of 2007-09, perhaps because I’m into doom and gloom; or because it just might prove to be the transformational event of our times; or maybe because I’m the son of Depression Era parents for whom an earlier crash was the transformational event.

So let me make a recommendation: Read “I. O. U.” by John Lanchester (its British title, “Whoops,” is far more apt and descriptive). It’s clearly – nay, elegantly – written. It’s simple and short, and to the point. Lanchester, a novelist (winner of the Whitbread Prize) and sometime columnist, has written the absolutely best book on what happened. The best book that’s ever likely to be written. And if that wasn’t enough, it’s wickedly funny (perhaps not to those he skewers). (You can also watch him on a youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RbK2kuN2c but Lanchester writes better than he lectures.)

I’ve read other books worthy of mention, “Crisis Economics”, by Nouriel Roubini (one of the few economists who predicted what was going to happen), “Freefall”, by Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel Prize winning economist whom I always read, but not the most elegant writer), and “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008”, by Paul Krugman (NY Times op-ed columnist and another Nobel winner I always read). All worth getting, but none should be considered “easy reading.” “Diary of a Very Bad Year: Confessions of an Anonymous Hedge Fund Manager” (by Keith Gessen), however, is. It’s a series of transcribed conversations between said hedge fund manager and a not very knowledgeable reporter, conducted as the crisis unfolded. It would be my second pick for those wanting to be informed, but without feeling that they’ve signed up for a college course.

Democracy . . .

“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

The quote is from George Bernard Shaw. And it’s something our founding fathers fervently believed. Which is why they considered the word “democracy” a curse. More than four letters, but an obscenity nonetheless. When they framed the Constitution they did their very best to insure we’d have none of it.

For that “no taxation without representation” bit, left over from the Revolution, they gave us a House of Representatives. It would have the first word over finances. But all else, including the last word on everything, would reside in the Senate. Their finest creation.

First, they made sure that the smallest state would count for as much as the largest; e.g., that economic powerhouse of the Great Plains, that hot-bed of culture, that home to countless millions, North Dakota, has as much influence as California or New York. Next, the slave states would always have an edge. Slaves were property, not humans. Except when it came to determining how many representatives each state would have in that House of Representatives, and, least we forget, who would be elected President. Then each slave would count as 3/5 of a human being. Zero when it came to being human, 60% when it came to counting. Which is why, until the election of Lincoln, every President of the United States was either a southerner, or southern sympathizer (otherwise known as a fan of slavery). Except two: the two Adamses. Guess how successful each of their single terms were?

Not that elections were ever to be decided by one-man-one-vote, but by one-landowning-white-man-one-vote (women, of course, along with poor men or men of whatever other shade, need never think of applying). But even this kind of election was not to be used to elect Senators or the President. Oh no, that might not keep dreaded democracy far enough away. Those elections were left to the state legislatures or special Presidential electors. The Senate election business wouldn’t be changed until 1914 (more than a century later by the 17th Amendment; yep, the same one our present day tea-baggers want to reverse); and we still live with the presidential electoral vote nonsense – thank you very much, founders, for George Bush. And as icing on the cake, they gave Senators a six-year term vs. two-years for a congressional representative.

We’ve been able to change very little of this in the 223 years since; the dead hand of these old white men still dictates how our laws are made. I could go on about how the Senate itself proceeded to put together a rulebook to further reinforce it’s anti-democratic character – thanks, guys (it’s still mostly men) for the filibuster, etc. – but why bother. Because the real irony is that the founding fathers need never have worried. George Bernard Shaw was wrong: you can’t depend on Paul to vote in his own interest. Matter of fact, with a little investment of time and effort – and lets not forget money, never forget money – it turns out you can even convince Paul that he needs to rob himself and give yet more to Peter.

How? Just confuse ‘em about which side they should be on. Here’s what a recognized expert had to say about getting representative democratic government to jump on the bandwagon for war: "Oh, that’s all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That’s easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Call it “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” call it “the Death Tax,” or call “Obama’s Death Panels.” Or “Government is the Enemy.” As if. Government is the only chance we’ve got. If it comes down to you vs. big oil. Or you vs. Citibank. Or you vs. what Eisenhower called the “military-industrial” complex. My money will not be on you. Get enough talking heads in suits-and-ties (or, these days, nice dresses) to shout long enough and hard enough and there you are. Details? Who needs sniveling details? Winning the sound bite war is usually enough.

And who was the recognized expert? Why Hermann Goering, of late, unlamented, Third Reich and Luftwaffe fame. I’ll end with another quote, this one from James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer.

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

You’ll have to make up your own mind, but to me those two wolves might just be named Republican and Democrat. And that sheep? That sheep, my dear readers, is us.

The Election . . . and after . . .

(Writing this on October 31, 2008, it seems I was quite prescient; and, oh, I so wish I’d been wrong. Obama seems to be disappointed in his supporters on the left, but not as disappointed as we are in him. But still . . . would we have been better off with the “Maverick and the Twit”? Probably not. Unless we believe that really bad government would quicken the advent of a new dawn. Unfortunately, I’m not that naive. Although if Sarah Palin were nominated in 2012 . . . )

With the Presidential election just a few days away I thought I’d write something political. No, not about who you should vote for, we’re all getting more than enough direction on that subject. The choice is obvious. So obvious that it’s almost no choice at all. Not even the wealthy can afford to dither, now that the very sources of wealth are at risk. That a washed-up political hack, in the early stages of senility, with a reputation for rage and unthinking reaction, who’s only noteworthy accomplishment was getting shot down over Vietnam and being imprisoned more than a generation ago, is even competitive is a sorry commentary on American Politics.

Let’s assume Obama will win. The alternative is literally unthinkable. No, I want to talk about what happens then. As the (hopefully) failed Presidential hopeful might say, “my friends, we are in sorry shape.” We have gone on for far too long believing in myths instead of looking at reality. Wherever the economy may be heading, it’s unlikely to be a pleasant journey. We’ve been living on borrowed time – and borrowed money. We are less than 5 % of the world’s population, yet we use 25 % of its resources. American financial dominance began to falter in the 70s: We abandoned the gold standard in 1971; oil production peaked in ’72; OPEC embargoed oil in ’73; and in ‘74 our exports exceeded imports for the last time. In 1980 Jimmy Carter told us we had to change direction, and it would be hard work, but we chose Reagan’s “Morning in America.” And now our markers are coming due.

We’re surrounded by failure. Katrina and New Orleans, a joint failure of government and infrastructure, made the lesson obvious. As we’ve been coasting on financial strength built up during WWII and the high-growth years that followed, we’ve been living off of Public Works constructed during the same period: big power-generating projects, the interstate highway system, bridges, sewer and water systems, transmission lines, etc., etc. But we’ve avoided timely maintenance and replacement, and now that we’re running out of money we’re also running out of time. Bills for this neglect are becoming due. Past due in many cases.

We seem to have lost the ability to do things – the very thing Americans used to be famous for. Every President since Johnson has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, yet we use more of it every year. Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 – and 36 years later we are still “making progress.” In 1982 they mandated a National Storage Site for spent nuclear fuel, and settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, by ’87. It was due to open in 1998; that date is now 2017, and no one is taking bets that it will ever actually happen. It’s only a small example, but telling because of its implications for a renewed nuclear power program in light of oil prices and global warming, not to mention homeland security. And speaking of security, the building replacing Manhattan’s twin towers sure showed those terrorists what we could do – didn’t it?

Our military has failed us . . . again and again. A successful military produces quick, economical and meaningful victories. Valor and impressive technology (and no nation has ever spent more on this than us) are not measures of military effectiveness, success is. And success has been sorely lacking. The first Gulf War? That “first” gives it away. A victory? Perhaps, if parades are a sign of victory. But ten years of subsequent bombing and a follow-on invasion have shown it to have been meaningless. And we are now fighting two lost wars. Yes, lost. Lost soon after we announced those victories. We’ve now spent 7 years in Afghanistan, 5 years in Iraq. Our Civil War lasted 4, as did our participation in WWII; even the Revolution took only 6 years. Our Vietnam adventure, however, lasted 16. Do you see a pattern? Vietnam, the lesson we forgot.

Our recent adventures were doomed from the start. Invading foreign places and “killing strange people until they stop trying to make us go away” is not a recipe for success. It’s a formula for wasted lives and treasure, and demonstrates a profound failure of leadership and strategic thought.

Oh yes, the “surge.” Lessening the rate of killing is not the same as victory – especially when it’s achieved by giving arms and money to the “other” side. Actually, all three sides: Kurd, Sunni and Shi’a. Having a war disappear from our TV screens is not the same as making the war disappear.

Can we end these wars and leave gracefully? No. But we can just leave. We did that in Vietnam. Oh, it was disguised with a lot of words and logistical flim-flam, but it all came down to lifting those last Americans off of the roof of the Saigon Embassy. And yes, it was bad public relations, and more soldiers died in the leaving (the Nixon years) than when victory was just around the corner (that’s what happens when you try to leave gracefully), but it wasn’t that bad was it?

The war stopped, the killing stopped, the drain on our treasury stopped, and the violence and rage at home stopped. We are now wearing a lot of Vietnamese T-shirts and former soldiers are taking vacations in Ho Chi Minh City. Come to think of it, Germany and Japan were famous victories, but our troops are still there more than 60 years later; and Korea was a not-so-famous tie, and we’ve been there for over 50 years. But we’re not in China (think Korea) or Vietnam. All in all, we might be better off losing. Losing seems to be a lot cheaper.

Whomever it is we are fighting over there, they don’t represent an existential threat – a threat to our existence as a people and nation. Neither are “terrorism,” North Korea nor Iran existential threats. Oddly enough, the existential threat we faced during the “Cold War,” of Russian nukes aimed at our cities, is still the one we face today. The nukes are still there, and still aimed at us. But we don’t hear much about it, do we? What we do hear is a lot of fuzzy language to obfuscate the issue. It’s no longer nuclear weapons, it’s “WMD,” as if chemical and biological attacks presented threats of equal severity. However, there is another existential threat facing us. One perhaps even more dangerous in the long run: our over-reaction to incorrectly perceived dangers, and the waste of resources that entails.

So if Obama wins, what can he do? Let’s assume he does what he’s promised (and when did that last happen?). It still doesn’t look good. We might be able to leave Iraq, or, at least, kinda leave Iraq, but he seems to believe winning in Afghanistan is still possible. The Russians, and the British before them, would beg to differ. He wants to rebuild our military. “For what” might be an obvious question? He’s proposed a health care plan that includes insurance companies but not all citizens. And by not separating health insurance from the job, does nothing to ease the competitive problems of American corporations. Working towards a green energy future, a fairer tax system, more affordable higher education . . . These are all worthwhile, perhaps even noble, goals, but they require the willing participation of a Democratic Congress. The congress we elected in 2006 to end the war in Iraq – that went swimmingly didn’t it?

Will a Congress who couldn’t summon up the courage to cut off funding for an unpopular war – and by all accounts this will be a great year for congressional Democrats, whether or not Obama wins – challenge a despised administration or end torture, support meaningful change? It’s not as if we are talking about a lot of courage – just the courage to risk your job. I wouldn’t bet on it. And Obama, will he really fight for change, or settle for “Clinton-like” tokenism and gestures? Giving us great words in place of deeds. Meaningful change means sacrifice, perhaps from all of us, but surely from influential segments of our society. Change, however appealing in the abstract, is rarely popular when it strikes close to home.

But perhaps I’m being too pessimistic. Obama is obviously intelligent. Not that intelligence has always served our Nation well. No one ever doubted Clinton’s intelligence, nor Hoover’s, nor Wilson’s. But still, it’s a start (think Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt). We’ve seen what the opposite can accomplish. His campaign, and I have no doubt it was his campaign, has been masterful. He has shown himself to be a great politician. And I mean that as a compliment, in the sense that Washington, Lincoln and FDR were great politicians. How improbable would it have seemed, a few years back, that a relatively unknown black man might well be elected President? To have achieved that is no small accomplishment. And while no one without an inflated ego even contemplates running for President, Obama’s background provides some evidence for selfless and altruistic behavior. So let’s be hopeful. But let’s not expect miracles.

Not even small ones.

There really is no other choice.
Al

Questions . . .

I did get a few questions on a previous post that I’d like to answer. But first I want to thank those who responded. I'm glad when others like my blog . . . and even gladder when someone actually reads it. Oh the horror . . . of writing stuff that no one ever reads, or ever wants to.

I’ve been asked whether or not Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is more prevalent now, and did it even exist back in WWII? It’s hard to know, but PTSD may well be affecting more vets now. (Relatively speaking that is; about 13 million served in our armed forces during WWII and the actual number of vets with subsequent mental problems had to be far greater). Probably because they've been having to repeatedly go back for another tour of duty – each tour lasting about a year. Some have now had to serve 3 or 4 tours. And perhaps because of the highly asymmetrical nature of today’s combat experience, and the dichotomy between their lives and those of the rest of us.

(A cousin had about as extended a WWII combat experience as possible – landing in Africa with the first Allied invasion, fighting in Italy, and then in France and Germany. That's November 1942 to May 1945 – two and a half years. Other friends served in Vietnam – in combat battalions – but only for a year. Vietnam vets experienced many different Vietnam Wars. Most, thankfully, did not have to serve in line companies. We should be mindful of vast difference between those who serve at the point of the spear, and those who back them up.)

It may well be that we are also more prepared as a society to recognize PTSD as a problem. How many suffered from "acid reflex disease" 30 years ago? Or "restless leg syndrome." Give something a name and the number of cases dramatically increases.

We call it "PTSD." We often just give things initials. Initials sound less threatening than words, and it helps conflate what soldiers might be suffering from the occasional odd incident civilians experience. Not to diminish the possible impact of tragedy on the rest of us, but to me there's a world of difference between a school shooting or airplane crash, say, and a year of combat. We don't call what you go through after a parent or a child dies PTSD, as difficult as that might be. And even if we did, it wouldn’t be the same kind of experience.

PTSD has always existed. In WW1 they called it "shell shock." In WWII it was called "combat fatigue" (recall the slapping incident in the movie Patton). It had other names in Korea and Vietnam. And although it existed during the Civil War (we know from stories that survive) they didn't seem to have a special name for it. It seems that PTSD can also be separated into two components, a reaction during or immediately following combat and that brought on by memories afterward. In WWI and WWII attention was mostly focused on the combat reaction (but because the afterwards business was generally not recognized doesn't mean many didn't suffer). In Korea, Vietnam, and at present, the "while in combat" effect seems to be much diminished – probably because of the aforementioned asymmetric nature of our more recent wars.

It may be worse now because modern ways of destruction have become more impersonal and arbitrary, and more removed from what we consider “normal” existence. The complexities and cognitive dissidence of guerilla war – now called “asymmetric” or “counterinsurgency” warfare, or (initials again) “COIN” – may be particularly hard on a soldier’s mental state and memory. A particular horror may lie in the IEDs causing the majority of our causalities. A great contrast between civilian and military life probably doesn’t help. Nor may the reaction of returning vets to society at large. Saying "I appreciate your service" and understanding what many have gone through are two very different things.

I also think that the prospect of a very serious wound may cause a greater dread than that of death. It would to me -- I'd rather die than face life without arms or legs, or with half a brain (or at least I can say this from the confort of my computer). During the Civil War the ratio of dead to wounded was about 2.5 to one. In WWI and WWII, and Korea and Vietnam, it was about 3 to one -- three wounded for every man that died. (Medicine greatly improved, but modern weapons became much more deadly.)

Modern battlefield medicine has gotten so good that the present ratio is about 9 to 1. (And it's not only medicine but the nature of these two wars, where the might of the American military is so overwhelming that wounded can be rushed to medical care within very short times – it's both medical care and the speed of reaching medical care.) All this means, of course, that soldiers who would have died in earlier wars are now living – and the percentage of those with mind-boggling injuries is almost overwhelming. Think of it this way: if the expected ratio of wounded to dead once 3 to 1 is now 9 to 1, roughly 6 of those 9 probably have truly horrific injuries. This is the understated cost of these wars. Something the our military and politicians can be happy about since it diverts attention from the true price. When adding up the butcher’s bill we usually only count the dead. And only the American dead at that.

We don’t have to consider returning vets heroes. Most of them probably weren't – just people, people like us, who were trying to survive. But theirs was not quite an ordinary job either. Most of us go to work every day without the expectation of being killed or catastrophically wounded. Or seeing it happen to our friends and co-workers. Normally the military just sits around training and practicing. But now they are off to war – we sent ‘em off to war. It's us, voting citizens, who are ultimately responsible for that decision. The fact that we sent them and were, and remain, mostly unwilling to go ourselves adds to our responsibility.

So whatever help we can give them is OK by me. Medical care – good, timely, and un-begrudged medical care – not to mention educational opportunity, should be the least of it. We just spent a couple of trillion helping out Wall Street and the Banks – benefiting people I'd much rather see die in the gutter – so I don't care what it costs. Being adult, to me, means being willing to pay for your mistakes. And this war is not just Obama's mistake, it belongs to all of us.
Al

America the Fat

We’ve become a nation of fat people. It’s sad. And it’s disgusting. If you’re fat, it’s your fault. It’s a moral failing. Gluttony is correctly named one of the seven deadly sins, as morally despicable as greed or wraith. The math is simple: eat more calories than your body can burn and you end up fat. Losing weight is equally simple: eat less, or burn more calories.

Almost thirty percent of us are obese, not just fat, obese. Roughly 75 million Americans. And year-by-year, the number is growing (by about 1% a year – faster than most of our savings). How fat are you? Here’s how to tell: multiply your weight in pounds by 703 and divide by your height in inches, and then divide by your height once again. If the number (called Body Mass Index, or BMI) is over 25, you are overweight; if it’s over 30 you’re obese; over 35 is severely obese, over 40 morbidly obese, and over 50 – call it “super obese.” First super-sized food portions, and now super-sized citizens. Is this a great country, or what?

As if being fat weren’t enough, we lie about it. Or we might more kindly call it cognitive dissonance. The average American woman now weighs 165 pounds – a far cry from the images of feminine desirability bombarding us every day. Back in 1947, a size 10 was made to fit a woman with a 32.5 inch bust, 25 inch waist and 35 inch hips. We now call it a “size 2.” Particularly distressing is the trend: women in the 60-74 age group have had an average gain of almost 18 pounds since 1960; those 18-29 have gained significantly more, being, on average, 29 pounds heavier. Alas, those skinny-hippy days seem gone forever.

Men are having no trouble keeping up, but the trend is less surprising – older means fatter. Twenty to forty year-olds have gained 20 pounds since 1960, forty to sixty year-olds around 27, and those older an average of 33 pounds. The overall average weight of an American male is now over 190 pounds. Pants with a 30 or 32 inch waist go begging at local thrift shops.

However, the real crime is not what we have done to ourselves but what we are doing to our kids. A third of them are fat, or worse, up from around 1 in 10 back in the 60s. You don’t have to take my word (or the government’s), just stumble on down to a local school yard and watch the kids at PT or recess. It’s enough to make you cry. The average 16 year old has a BMI of 24. In other words, being fat is on the verge of becoming the new normal. The price they’ll have to pay will be considerable.

Carrying excessive weight when young will shorten your life-span, not to mention an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. But the more immediate costs are reduced opportunity and a less active life, social ostracism and self-disgust. Surely, any parent would want better than this for their kids.

Sadder yet, it’s a class thing. Being poor means being fatter. As does belonging to a minority or failing to graduate high school. Perhaps education and knowledge have something to do with it, but I’m more inclined to believe it’s because it costs less money to buy a McDonald’s Happy Meal than the makings of a salad – not to mention less time. Add in lower opportunity for physical exercise.

I can speak with some authority on this subject because I’m obese – make that severely obese, seemingly aiming for morbidly so – and I’ve struggled with weight all my life. I was a chubby school kid back in those old “1 in 10” days. Even with intense physical activity -- college wrestling, marathon running, bicycling across the country, nordic skiing thousands of miles – the best I could usually manage was being border-line overweight. I’ve spent more than 60 years living with the disgust, lack of self-confidence, and social consequences that resulted.

And now that age and a bad knee have curtailed physical activity, I’m rapidly progressing through increasing stages of obesity. Oh, I could blame it on genes, or glands or franken-food, but it’s really much simpler than that: I eat too much. As do a majority of my fellow citizens. Eating is the pleasure that never fails, always there and always comforting.

Ben Franklin said, “I guess I don't so much mind being old, as I mind being fat and old.” But I notice he didn’t lose any weight ether.
Al