Letter To America

TOUGH IS ENOUGH 

Over the past year, as the Presidential campaign wound its way slowly to a conclusion, I have tried to stay away from the back and forth of the flame wars that erupt on Facebook or the comments sections at the end of news articles.  This is essentially because most of the memes that substitute for arguments in these sorts of "discussions" are shallow, false, misleading or incomplete.  Here’s an example from either side of the aisle:

First - there is the one where a picture of Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton are set up side by side and the captions under each reads as follows: 

Nixon:  "This guy erased 18 and half minutes of tape and had to resign" 

Hillary:  "She erased 33,000 e-mails and they want to make her President".

Now look - you can make the e-mail controversy your ultimate reason for not voting for Hillary Clinton if you want.  She clearly did not handle the situation well.  But I know that this meme is a complete falsification of history.  Nixon didn't resign because of the 18 ½ minute gap in his tapes.  In point of fact - he survived the erasure - even though it looked terrible and damaged his reputation, the consensus was that you could not force the President to resign because of something that "might have been" on the tape.  That would be "assuming facts not in evidence".  It was the tapes that were not erased, the so-called "smoking gun", that caused Nixon to resign.  If you were to make a true historic analogy to Hillary's emails it would be that she made a bad PR move but didn't interfere in a manner that equated to criminal behaviour.  The Nixon comparison simply doesn't make sense.

Then there are the Democratic memes.  One, for example, shows the Dos Equis "most interesting man in the world" saying "I don't always watch Fox News - but when I do it is on Comedy Central".  Well, yes, Fox News does provide a slanted view, but so does MSNBC.  That's just the way news happens to be presented these days - and yes, it is a problem.  But think about that with something approaching an open mind.  Is Fox News really that far outside the realm of the believable? After all, who has been the best journalist during the course of this campaign?  I would at least nominate Megyn Kelly as a contender.  She moderated a debate in which her questions were pointed enough to lead to Donald Trump's "bleeding from her wherever" retort, has maintained pressure on the Democrats while simultaneously (1) making her position as regards a truly biased "journalist", Sean Hannity, known; (2) refusing to concede on the "birtherism" positions that Donald Trump has consistently taken; (3) maintained her dignity and integrity during the Roger Ailes controversy and (4) let's not forget who stood up to Karl Rove in 2012 when Fox had to admit reality and declare Barack Obama re-elected.  She may be right wing - but she's pretty damn good at her job - so what is the benefit of making a joke out of the network for which she works?

So a pox on both their houses.  But that doesn't mean that I don't have a preference in this election.  I do.  Just because I don't feel it necessary to provide the world with a running commentary on my opinions doesn’t mean I don’t have any.

Still - while I haven't been posting constant rants on Facebook there is, if you haven't noticed, an election in a couple of weeks.  I've written some political commentary on here before and, to paraphrase a certain politician "Here I go again".  In this case I want to do what I did in 2012 and post what I hope is a reasoned analysis of the choices available and see what people have to say.  First - let's end the mystery.  I choose to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.  I'm not celebrating this choice - I'm just making it. I looked at all choices and decided first that I couldn’t vote for one candidate and could vote for the other. Here's why.

Reasons to Not Vote For Trump

Let's start with the underlying reason Donald Trump is considered a viable presidential candidate - his supposed business acumen. This is why we would even consider someone who has never held office in his life for the highest office in the land.  It is because of his accomplishments in another sphere of life – in this case the world of high stakes business dealings.

Donald Trump says he is a good businessman.  He is not a good businessman.  He simply is not.  He operates in a field, commercial real estate, where he happened to be a player at a time when it was possible to make a huge fortune with very little risk.  In the intervening period, when he has had to operate in areas where there was substantial risk requiring true business acumen - he has continually failed.  I would simply ask that people not make one of the single most common mistakes when assessing businessmen - do not equate money with success.  You would be quite surprised to see the number of functional illiterates who have lots of cash.  You have heard about Steve Jobs and his uncanny ability to zero in on the nexus between design and the desires of the market.  You have also heard about those experiments where a chimpanzee picks the stocks to buy and ends up being the best investor out of a group of business school students. Trump is more like the chimp than Steve Jobs.

So Trump is not all that when it comes to business success - but there are other things he does that force you to conclude that this isn't someone worth voting for.  The most obvious is that Trump routinely insults our intelligence.  Why can’t he just admit a shortcoming and say he’s going to work on it?  There are numerous examples of this type of ongoing disregard for his audiences' sensibilities.  For instance, we don’t need to go back over the most sordid chapter of this campaign, but off the back of that leaked tape Donald Trump actually said that “No one has more respect for women than I do”.  

Really?  

What was worse - he then went on to try to prove this by showing that he has more respect for women than Bill Clinton does.  This is bit like saying "No one is a better driver than I am" and then trying to prove it by showing that you are better behind the wheel than Stevie Wonder.

Trump’s own life story embodies hypocrisy and inconsistency. He advocates a tax cut that benefits the highest tax bracket in the country and defends this on the basis that this will lead to additional jobs.  However, he concedes that he has not paid any federal income tax for many years due to tax breaks that favor this same tax bracket.  If there are already such huge advantages in place for this level of taxpayer - why do they need a tax cut? If this is the class that will create these jobs why are they at the forefront of the same effort Trump decries - the migration of those same jobs to overseas suppliers?

Then there are the foreign policy shortcomings.  Donald Trump does not understand international politics and puts the nation in danger because of this fundamental lack of knowledge.  He believes that NATO needs to become more equitable militarily and that allies like Germany, Japan and South Korea need to begin to re-arm.  I live in Europe and I know that the bi-partisan consensus which has kept our NATO allies dependent upon the military strength of the United States is, without any doubt, the single most important facet of American foreign policy.  That is distasteful but true.  The United States pays much, much more than anyone else to provide the lion's share of the military strength that our allies rely upon.  Of course - because we do that we also get to call all the shots when it comes to military engagement.  We are, as a result, continually accused of being the "world's policeman", of being a bully of trying to impose our will just because we're the biggest kid on the block.  Very often these charges are absolutely true.  Despite that I would still rather trust America with the means of being a bully than any other country in the world, including our allies.  When Donald Trump starts to encourage other nations to arm themselves - I worry.

For example, I have no desire to see Germany with a strong military.  None.  The same with Japan or South Korea.  Nations with military strength eventually decide that it might be best to use it. I know it sounds like a great idea to have all of these countries contribute more to the cause – but look at history.  I love the Germans – I do.  I learned German. My kids take German. I've travelled to Germany. I've hosted German students in my house.  But  experience shows that giving Germany an army is not a particularly rational decision.  Trump would do this because it might save some money.  This is an extremely dangerous position for him to take.  Holding the "nuclear umbrella" (and not handing it off) is what protects us from a hard rain.  Trump's clear lack of understanding of this most important foreign policy dynamic is per se disqualifying.  This, I believe, is the primary reason why so many military and cabinet level officials, from both parties (including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) have made their dissatisfaction with Trump known - he would upset the status quo with no real alternative plan.

That's one of the major foreign policy problems I have with the Republican nominee - but there are plenty of domestic ones as well. Trump degrades the electoral process on a continuing basis.  Here is one example. While I would not have done it, I did not dispute Mr. Trump's right to have three accusers of Bill Clinton present at the second Presidential debate.  I don't see them as particularly relevant to the campaign, but it's his race to run and I didn't see why so many Democrats crumbled to dust at the thought of this "outrage".  However - there was a fourth woman there - and with that one he lost me.  This was the one woman who we know, for sure, was actually sexually abused.  She was attacked, at 12 years old, by a sexual predator.  Trump included her in his “line up” because Hillary Clinton represented her abuser in court.  That sounds pretty awful except:  Clinton was a young lawyer at the time who was appointed to that job by a judge.  She did not want the client and asked to be removed from the case.  The judge refused to release her - she had to represent the man to the best of her ability.  She did not "get the guy off on a technicality" - the prosecution made a critical mistake and the defendant plead out to a lesser offense.

I have been in exactly that same situation.  I've had a client so distasteful that I desperately wanted to get out.  Judges never let you do that - because then someone else has to take the son of a bitch on.  This, like it or not, is a cornerstone of our legal system - everyone is entitled to counsel.  To use this as the basis for attacking Hillary Clinton was completely dishonest - but not many people would know this - they'd just hear "child rapist - she defended him" and not realise what really happened there.  I do know what happened there - I can't support someone who would pull something like that.

Donald Trump has threatened to throw his political opponent in jail through the use of a "special prosecutor".  Many have rightly pointed out that we don't do that in America - you can promise to beat them at the ballot box but then Americans reconcile and at least attempt to work together.  Hasn't the level of vitriol been enough over the last 16 years without this being thrown in the mix?  I tend to agree with this broad criticism but would also focus on the use of the term "special prosecutor".  The point of appointing a special prosecutor is that they are investigating matters over which the appointee would have a risk of criminal involvement.  Nixon appointed a special prosecutor because he was thought to be involved in Watergate.  Bill Clinton appointed a special prosecutor because he was accused of wrongdoing in Whitewater.  You don't appoint a special prosecutor to go after someone totally apart from you - that's what you have an ordinary prosecutor for.  Such an appointment would be tantamount to a "bill of attainder" a directive to find someone guilty of a crime outside the parameters of the court system.  Conservatives have a problem with ignoring the constitution -and I admire that in them.  But this is a prime example of constitutional ignorance - it must be refuted.

Trump has recently taken another step that ignores the constitution of our government - and I use a small "c" this time.  The Constitution (Big C) of the United States is predicated upon a bedrock assumption - that its tenets will be respected.  I could have the best written Constitution in the world - but if it is routinely ignored it is useless.  So, underlying the basic foundation of our democracy is an even more critical element - the understanding that democratic results will be respected and accepted.  If you win, I'll tip my hat to you, wish you well and move on to fight another day.  If you lose I will treat you graciously and not pursue a vendetta.  Trump has undercut both of these assumptions.  Yes, as noted above by threatening to jail Hillary Clinton if he wins - but even more distressingly by threatening to not accept the verdict of the democratic process if he loses.  Does anyone really think that American elections are "rigged"?  If you do - then you should quite happily pack up and move away.  After all - isn't that what drove people in East Berlin to risk gunfire to scale the wall?  Isn't it what put people in boats to escape Castro's Cuba?  If you really think American democracy equates with the rigged elections of those places - show you have an equal level of guts and escape while you can.  What - not fleeing for the border?  Then how can you vote for a candidate who has stated that this is the level at which our democracy operates?

And then there are "the issues".  I won't try, on either side, to change people's minds in this article.  There simply isn't enough room - and your positions (and mine) are likely more nuanced and fully formed than those articulated by either candidate as they attempt to spin their views in a way that causes them the least amount of damage to their "base" while leaving the door of possibility open to the "undecided" voter.  But I do think it is fair to discuss the candidates' approach to issues.  Do they discuss them fully - can you tell what they really mean?  Do they accept the consequences of their positions - can they (for example) pay for them?  Do they maintain some level of consistency - is what they are saying now reflective of a long held view, an understandable evolution of thought - or - is it really an expedient "flip-flop" in the truest sense?

I don't believe in "secret plans", imaginary funding for huge construction projects, "we'll get it done because I'm a winner" or any such pie-in-the-sky pronouncements.  I am a wonk when it comes to issues - and proud of it.  My favorite campaign "leaflet" was actually a 75 page book called "A Call to Economic Arms" that Paul Tsongas wrote when he ran against Bill Clinton.  I actually handed those things out in New Hampshire in 1991/92.  This interminably long article you are reading is my idea of a Facebook meme for crying out loud.  So I pay attention to the substance of the candidates’ stands on issues.  That said, there is so little substance in the Trump policy papers that it is hardly worth considering them actual position documents.  They read more like Facebook memes than Facebook memes do.  Moreover (and this is something I would ask my conservative friends to consider) they do not reflect someone who really has any bedrock ideology.  There are a lot of people out there who seem to be acting on the assumption that Donald Trump is a reliable standard bearer for the Republican party, while people like Paul Ryan, a long-time Republican stalwart, are actually betraying the Republican/conservative legacy.  But read what Trump really says.  Here are a few examples:

Trump would seek to stem the loss of U.S. jobs overseas by restricting the ability of corporates to freely contract in the international market.  The long-standing conservative position has been that government should not be interfering with the ability of individuals or businesses to conduct legal business.  There is little detail on how he would do this - but it is a clear cornerstone of his economic policy.  Is more government regulation of industry what conservatives really want to vote for?

Trump has articulated no set position on abortion.  His answer in the final debate as to what he would do about Roe v. Wade left both conservatives and liberals shaking their heads.  Look - I may disagree with you on this topic but do conservatives, at this point in time, really want to support someone who can't articulate a position on an issue which has been front and center since the early 1970's?

Trump has played a complex shell game on the issue of immigration - alternately making it the cornerstone of his candidacy and then hinting at a "softening" of his position.  This is why the absolute failure to articulate a deportation plan, a funding mechanism for the Mexican wall or an approach to naturalisation should cause conservatives such worry.  You want to insure that nothing happens to improve the immigration problem? - just elect someone who has absolutely no possibility of implementing the fundamental core of his program. This “fantasy world” approach guarantees continuing inaction in this area.  And don't take my word for this - take the word of the Republican Party itself.  Following the 2012 election the Republicans appointed a commission to review the reasons they lost when almost all their internal models showed them winning comfortably.  One of the primary causative factors identified was the need to de-emphasise the status of immigration as a major issue at the national level.  The report (rightly) concluded that this was killing the Republican's while not really addressing any real core national problem - illegal immigration has been decreasing for years.  Accordingly, the party ramped up to court Hispanic voters - primarily by presenting three candidates who had distinctive Hispanic connections - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.  None of these candidates planned to make border issues central to their effort.

Then along came Donald Trump - who not only made it central to his campaign but began that same campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists".  This isn't where conservative politics was going - in fact - it was directly opposite to where this issue was heading.  The country should not be having this discussion right now - but it was pulled into this abyss.  Without calling anyone any names or questioning whether this worked politically for Mr. Trump (it did) - it can't be taken seriously by anyone concerned with real issues.  It just can't.

I also would say this to those people who feel that their anger needs to be expressed in some way and that Trump is the person whom they see as best able to make their discontent with the system known.  Look - I get it.  It would be impossible for me to tell someone who has lost a job, or struggles with a business or has a son or daughter serving in the armed forces or as a police officer that they shouldn't be angry.  But sometimes, despite legitimate grievances, that anger leads to mistakes.  Trump - with what he has shown throughout this campaign - has proven to be such a mistake.  The intent in setting out to express frustration was quite possibly well founded - but this is not the guy to bear that standard, this is not what you want to become.

I think this is enough to show why Trump is not worthy of a vote.  I won't even lower myself to go into the horror show of tapes, accusations and behaviour patterns.  You don't need to in order to make the decision not to vote for Donald Trump.

But that is entirely different from the other end of this argument - yes, don't vote for Trump - but why vote for Clinton?

Reasons to Vote For Hillary Clinton

I'll be quite honest - this is not a very easy argument for me to make.  I am, to say the least, not inspired by the Democratic nominee.  In the interest of full disclosure - I was never that crazy about Bill either.  I’m pretty sure I worked harder than anybody who would ever read this article to prevent Bill Clinton from being President.  When I was in the final year of law school, preparing for the bar exam, working a full time job (I went to school at night) and trying to get at least a small amount of sleep - I spent my nights until about 2:00 AM working out of the Tsongas headquarters in downtown Boston, making calls (usually to other headquarters and the west coast), organising mailings and doing other grunt work in order to beat Bill Clinton.  I regret not one second of that effort.

I ended up voting for Clinton in both general elections however, but never for any of the reasons other people seemed to fawn over him.  Inexplicably to me others seem to get all weak kneed at the way he'd bite his bottom lip and shake his head when feigning sincerity.  I just saw a snake oil salesman.  I never bought the whole "Aw shucks, ah'm just lil' ole Arkansas boy who just happened to stumble into a Rhodes scholarship and then the White House" routine.  And I don't really buy in to the whole "I'm just the pick me up by my bootstraps daughter of a draper from Chi-Town act" either.

The reason why I could vote for either Clinton stems not from what they profess to be, but from what they really are.  They are not the inspirational leaders of a generation.  They are not the 1960's era power couple who rocked the country to old Fleetwood Mac tunes in 1992.  They are not even "They" - I only refer to the "Clintons" as an entity because that is how they are perceived - what they "profess to be".  But the Clinton persona is not real.  That is mere perception.  In reality the value of Bill, and, I believe, Hillary Clinton lies in the mundane and not the profound. They work very hard, make the people around them work just as hard and turn their papers in on time.  They are the sort of people you knew in school who always got their homework done, probably laughed a bit too hard at the teachers’ jokes and ran for class president because they knew it would look good on their college application. But – they did get the grades, they did put the time in – and they did deserve the “most likely to succeed” notation in the yearbook.  Jesus – they were annoying.

Well – annoying is in the eye of the beholder. True, these aren't the kind of people we like hanging out with - and the efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton to appear to be "jes' folks" can often be painful to watch (remember "Trumped up trickle down").  They're not very inspirational. But they are the type of people we would want running the store.   In fact, if we are being honest with ourselves, they are highly competent executives.  This is important in that a governorship, a senate office, an executive agency - and, indeed, the Presidency require skilled executive oversight.  Towards that end Hillary Clinton is (and here we go back to the singular because she is the only one from her family running this year) the most qualified candidate for the Presidency in this election. 

How's that for the least inspired endorsement ever given.

But - c'mon people - can we grow up for just one second here?  All of us are adults - we ought to know by now that choices, including election choices, very often come down to the lesser of two evils.  That's the real world.  We don't get to walk out of the voting booth every time feeling like we've just changed the world - sometimes we just get to feel that there is less of a chance we've destroyed it.

And you can, at least, feel that way with Clinton.  The same lack of detail that mars Trump's purported policy documentation certainly does not apply to Clinton's material.  When she says you can go to HillaryClinton.com to see something - you actually can do that.  All those policy documents are right there - and they are detailed.  Her positions are actual positions - whether you agree with them or not is up to you - but no one is seriously accusing the Hillary campaign of "fuzziness".  By the same token her core issues are real issues.  Job growth, spiralling college costs, a health care plan that goes beyond just "repeal Obamacare", global warming - those are all truly important issues that are addressed by only one candidate in this election.

Finally - I want to address the people who look at this rather tepid endorsement and ask "why not just vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all"?  First of all - not voting is a viable option - but it also then requires you to shut up when it comes to the next four years.  If you don't participate - you really don't get to complain.

The third party point is more legitimate. Or I should say - the question is legitimate - the third parties themselves are not, and therein lies the rub.  When the third party options are as non-viable a choice as they are in this election they simply cannot be treated seriously.  Gary Johnson (and, to a lesser extent, Jill Stein) have had an opportunity to make a case this election.  It was a narrow opportunity - but more skilled campaigners could have done something with the situation that they were faced with when the general election campaign got under way back in July (high unfavorables for both major party candidates, general dissatisfaction with the process) .  They did not. They had their chance – and didn’t take it.  As a result a vote this year for any third party candidate is a vote wasted.

We live in what is, essentially, a two party system.  As someone who sees the questionable "benefits" of a multi-party system all the time - I think that this is generally a good thing.  The downside is that sometimes you can't find that close a fit between yourself and the nominees of the two major parties - and so are forced to make the types of choices outlined above, rather than waste a vote on a non-viable third party option.  Again - this is the real world - grow up and live with that fact.

Finally - there should be no doubt, after reading the above, that I wish there had been some different choices available on the ballot this year.  I'll get over it.  You should too.  If it is absolutely necessary for you to have at least some positive feeling about voting for Hillary Clinton perhaps it is best to remember this.  On a couple of occasions during this campaign, when asked to say something complimentary about Secretary Clinton Donald Trump acknowledged her "toughness".  This is undoubtedly true - Clinton's ability to fight through extremely trying situations - be it her husband's infidelities, the rough and tumble of political campaigns (both winning and losing), professional challenges (the Osama Bin Laden mission) or the constant degradation of this campaign – all these speak well of her ability to deal with the office of President.  If she wins – she will be our first woman President – and she will have earned it.  No one can doubt that she has been tested.

Trump is correct - she is one tough woman.  That is what, when all is said and done, Hillary Clinton brings to the table.  She is indeed tough – and, sometimes - tough is enough.

THIS JUST IN - SONG AND DANCE MAN WINS NOBEL PRIZE!

Here is a short selection of great Bob Dylan tunes in celebration of the coolest Nobel Prize winner ever.  I first tried to compile this list in honor of Bob’s 70^th birthday by picking my top 7 seven songs (one for each decade).  Couldn’t do it.  There is no way I could pick seven and leave others off.  So I went to a standard Top 10 list.  Couldn’t do it.  Ten is not enough space if you want to cover even the basics.  So I’ve forced myself to stop at an even dozen, despite the pain this caused me.  I’ve got approximately 450 Dylan songs on my iPod and I suppose I could have comfortably left the list at about 200.  OK – 250.  But I left off any live songs and kept any alternate versions out of scope.  I still don’t know how I didn’t put some songs on here, (“What – no Don’t Think Twice!”), but here’s a selection of what I think covers off a range of Bob’s best.  (Alphabetical order – don’t make me choose amongst these).  The songs are great but what I’m really looking forward to now is the ceremony when the award is bestowed – that is going to be one hell of a speech.

 

1.  Baby Stop Crying – Off the Street Legal album this song really showcases the song part of Dylan’s “songwriting”.  There is nothing particularly profound about the words, but the combination of a great band, very good timing from Dylan on his lead vocal (yes – it’s good) and most of all incredible backup singing makes this a classic.  Oh yeah – Dylan name-checks The Supremes “Come See About Me” in the tune as well.  See it here (with the added bonus of Top of the Pops "Legs Inc." dancing to it - hilarious):  http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjI1ODM0NzUy.html
    
2. Everything is Broken – Off Oh Mercy this song is the best Dylan song to drive to ever.  Seriously, get in the car, get out on an open highway, crank this up and drive.  There are a few other Dylan songs you might want to take on that trip – Silvio, Tight Connection to My Heart and Someday Baby come to mind.  Here’s a link to the song:  http://videos.sapo.pt/EZNZizOUtzpQctOD4U1U
    
3. Hurricane – OK – put this one in the car too.  Dylan pretty much left off singing “protest songs” after about 1964, fearing he was getting pigeonholed.  This was an exception – the story of the wrongful imprisonment of Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, the song also features a tremendous violin accompaniment and has one of the best openings of any Dylan song (which is saying something).  “Pistol shots ring out in a barroom night…”.  You can find it on the Desire album. Here’s the link: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr3q27_bob-dylan-hurricane_music
    
4. If You Gotta Go, Go Now – Little change of pace here, but the fact that this comes from an earlier phase of Dylan’s career doesn’t mean that this song rocks any less.  In fact, the difference between the “electric” versions and the acoustic one done at the Newport Folk Festival (easily googled) I think show how Dylan’s progression from folk to electric was a natural and valuable step (not the betrayal it was originally seen as).  The song just sounds better on electric.  You can find this on the first Bootleg Series album and here’s a link to an electric version of the song:  http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTc0NzA5MjU2.html
    
5. Love Minus Zero/No Limit – However – here’s one that shows there was nothing wrong with the earlier phase of the career – it was just different.  This is some of the best wordplay off the Bringing it All Back Home album – which is famous for the wordcraft used in its creation -“she knows there’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all”. Brilliant.  http://videos.sapo.pt/JlQLVVV26f69KCbWsye8
    
6. Make You Feel My Love – This one’s on the charts at the moment (for Adele) and is one of the best representatives of a genre that has many entrants – the Dylan song everyone loves to cover.  From the days of the Byrds (Mr. Tambourine Man) through Manfred Mann (Quinn the Eskimo) on to Rod Stewart (Forever Young) and on to today everyone loves Bob.  One of these lists will be made up of my favorite Dylan covers (Johnny Cash wins) but on this list I’ll stick mostly to originals – one exception here since it seems everyone covers this one (the originals on Time Out of Mind).  I had a hard time choosing who to put as the cover artist (Billy Joel, Garth Brooks, Bryan Ferry, and many more) I decided to go with Joan Osborne’s version – eat it Adele. Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumOb2-EwK4&feature=related#
    
7. The Man in Me – Yeah, I know, this is not just from New Morning – it’s also from The Big Lebowski.  Great movie (“The Dude abides”), but also a great song.  The song kind of reminds me of The Beatles “Hey Jude”, with an extended play-out and a good deal of “La-la’s” that make it one of the better Dylan sing-along songs.  Here’s a link:  http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/HQbyZ3JIFmY/
    
8. On the Road Again – This, I think, is the funniest Dylan song (and there is a good bit of humor in his work).  Confronted with the family from hell this becomes the ultimate “fear of commitment” song – mainly because there is a hell of a lot to fear.  “Even the butler – he’s got something to prove…”  This is a short section of the song off "Bringing it All Back Home" (I gotta find a full version on line)http://www.juno.co.uk/miniflashplayer/SF413213-01-01-06.mp3
    
9. Thunder on the Mountain – Off the Modern Times album, this is Dylan at his current, super-grainy voiced best.  The song really rocks and the writing is amazing.  “Gonna raise me an army of some tough sons-of-bitches, gonna get that army from the orphanages…”Consider this – this song came out in 2006 and name checks Alicia Keys.  Dylan’s first album came out in 1962 and name checks Woody Guthrie.  That’s a journey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RPkJeziNyI
    
10. Tomorrow is a Long Time – “If today was not an endless highway…”.  This is the only Dylan song that I know of that was covered by Elvis, and The King made a good choice.  The story is that this is the first in a trio of songs Dylan wrote that charted the curve of his relationship with Suze Rotolo (there were many others but these three were connected).  This tells of the immediate loss felt after Rotolo left on a trip to Europe.  “Boots of Spanish Leather” chronicles the increasing separation that a trip of that sort creates.  Finally, “Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright” tells how things can end.  The last two songs are better known, (the Dylan version is stuck on “Greatest Hits 2”) but give me this one.  http://tu.tv/videos/tomorrow-is-a-long-time
     
11. Tonight I’ll Be Staying Here With You – Man, I love Nashville Skyline – it’s a really short album and some criticize it as slight, but Dylan’s voice sounds great and the obvious affection he has for country music shines through.  There are many good tunes on the album but I’ll throw my suitcase out for this one.  Link here:  http://mp3.xalo.vn/bai-hat/bob-dylan/tonight-i-ll-be-staying-here-with-you/a5a16528
     
12. You Ain’t Going Nowhere  –  Another where the best version can be found on Greatest Hits 2.  Done with The Band, this song features one of the few Genghis Khan references in all pop music and name checks Roger McGuinn (The Byrds ended up doing a cover).  Great story about McGuinn and Dylan – Bob was approached to write the title song for the film Easy Rider, but was too busy – so he just jotted the words “The river flows, flows to the sea” on an envelope and told Dennis Hopper to “give this to McGuinn, he’ll know what to do”.  The resulting song and movie became classics.  Here’s the link for Going Nowhere:  https://vimeo.com/150077648 and as a bonus here’s Easy Rider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8jC1lRZGTU

Five Takeaways from the Trump Tax Article in the NY Times

Here are some things we may have learned from the recent revelations:

1.        The losses described in the article appear to be actual losses as opposed to "paper losses" - and this is important.  "Actual losses" mean that businesses in which Trump was involved suffered commercial setbacks that are actual and measurable as opposed to being based upon a purported depreciation schedule, “tax shelter” or accounting quirk.  This is a double edged sword for Trump.  He is claiming that the way he has manipulated the tax code is proof of his "genius".  That would seem to imply that he really didn't lose the money - he just was able to structure his finances in a way that took advantage of loopholes and left him owing nothing - but still, very, very, very rich.  Hardly an argument a conventional candidate would make, but, as has been said many times - Trump is not a conventional candidate.

The problem with this, of course, is the fact that you or I cannot manipulate the system in this way without going to jail.  Trump is advocating a tax cut for people (like himself) who can afford to manipulate the system - and his own tax returns are the best possible argument for the idea that these people scarcely need to pay less tax.  This is buttressed by the fact that Mitt Romney, a squeaky clean candidate by comparison, was also revealed to have paid a percentage of his income at a rate more akin to a low wage earner than a multi-millionaire.  So why cut taxes for such people instead of just cutting loopholes?

More to the point - every indication is that Trump, in fact, did not manipulate the system that much.  The losses he reported seem to reflect actual business losses associated with disastrous investments in casinos and hotels.  He seemingly did lose nearly one billion dollars in a single year.  That, while less manipulative of the system, is also hardly indicative of a sharp business mind.  You really have to be colossally stupid to lose that much money in a year.  If an analogy to his casinos could be drawn - it looks like Trump took all of his assets and put it on a single number on the roulette wheel.  He seems to have drawn to an inside straight numerous times.  He played the one armed bandits thinking he was going to beat the system.

Yes, this stupidity has left him with losses that he could use to offset future gains on his taxes.  But it also left him in a huge hole, one which it seems he is still trying to dig himself out of.  That is where the second major takeaway from this week's revelations arises.

2.       The business losses manifest themselves in ways other than tax savings.  Trump was attacked by Hillary Clinton on two fronts during last week's debate.  The first - the tax return issue - has garnered all the headlines.  Clinton savaged Trump’s failure to disclose his returns, postulating that he has paid little to no federal income taxes. This is what everyone has zeroed in on. However, it is the second line of attack Clinton followed that may be more damaging.  Since we now seem to  know how Trump may have avoided taxes (he has enormous carryover losses) - the question arises - how is he still around despite such an enormous loss?

Here’s how - if he had huge losses he likely would have needed a massive dig out to even think about avoiding ruination.  That is what Clinton was referring to when she said, during one exchange, that it is possible Trump owes "up to $650 million to foreign banks and investors".  That is the second crucial line of attack. To absorb the types of losses he reported in the ‘90's Trump has to have been somehow kept afloat. He doesn't seem to have been kept solvent by rolling up massive profits because that would mean his tax losses would have run out very quickly - (you can only make use of losses to offset gains - and if he had made billions in profits he would presumably have long since used up his accrued losses).  Instead - you can be relatively assured that Trump has, as alleged, relied largely upon extensions of credit to remain in business.  The borrowings he had to have undertaken would be enormous. He must have exposures - huge exposures - to numerous lenders.


3.       The fact that he has exposures to outside creditors explains some of the more bizarre choices Trump has made over the past couple of decades.  Why, for instance, would someone who holds such massive wealth (according to him) ever get involved in setting up a venture as shallow (and unprofitable) as "Trump University"?  What billionaire has ever marketed something as crass as "Trump Steaks"?  Where did "Trump the Board Game" come from?  Why, aside from an admittedly massive ego, would such a wealthy individual spend over a decade on a reality TV show like "The Apprentice"?  The list goes on.  One of these side ventures would maybe be understandable.  Two would be excusable.  But Trump never gets off the self promotion wheel.  He seemingly loves the sort of activity most people would see as demeaning.

The reason for this may have a great deal to do with what really keeps Trump afloat financially.  As fellow billionaire Mark Cuban has pointed out - the most valuable thing about Trump is the Trump brand.  If he is in hock for most of his real estate holdings, many of which he doesn't even hold (he just leases out the use of his name - branding again) - then the returns from his hotels, golf courses, resorts and offices are probably earmarked for servicing debt ranging back to his days of losing billions.  His actual cash liquidity must come from things like hosting The Apprentice, selling meat, trying to convince people to enroll at a bogus "university" or otherwise slapping his name on anything that he can shill at an inflated price.  As Cuban (who, while possessing a huge ego himself also backs things up with a razor sharp mind and actual business accomplishment) has stated - Trump needs his brand to survive financially.  One can very plausibly construct the following scenario from the revelations in the Times' story.  Donald Trump lost huge amounts in the mid-1990's.  He may have approached the banks who held the paper or from whom he sought credit and said as follows:  "Guys - I'm not going to be able to pay you according to our original contract.  You can shut me down now - and get about 25% of your money back.  Or - you can stick with me, let me retain the brand and image of a being a savvy financial high flyer - and get everything back.  Which option do you choose"?  If I'm Trump's bankers I say "Sure Donald - you just have to sign every penny of income from your real estate empire over to me.  All the rents, all the proceeds following a sale, all the fees generated off the properties.  You can keep the name and whatever money you can squeeze out of that."

If I were Trump I take that deal - and if that is what happened the obligations would hang around his head like a noose.  Clinton was probably right on both counts - he pays no taxes - but he also is nowhere near as wealthy as he would like you to think, since he has to service a huge debt.  In that case - Donald Trump hosts The Apprentice not because he enjoys the experience - he hosts it because he doesn't want to starve.


4.       The need to retain the Trump name and image explains Trump's unwillingness to commit to a true "blind trust" arrangement.  One of the more amusing news clips of recent times was that of George Stephanopoulos vainly attempting to get Donald Trump Jr. to acknowledge that it is impossible for his brother, sister and himself to run a "blind trust" for the Trump business.  <iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yuOZ_qm7Vq4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>   The very definition of a "blind trust" is that it is not run by family members - the president (in fact, anyone attempting to place assets in a qualifying blind trust) is assumed to have ongoing contact with members of his/her immediate family.  Such contact makes them ineligible as a trustee of a truly blind trust.  But for Trump - whose wealth is solely predicated upon the family name and brand - the possibility of allowing that name to be run by someone other than a family member is terrifying.  That's why there is all the flim-flammery when it comes to committing to do what every president has done for decades - remove themselves from personal involvement in the running of their business ventures.  "Trump" is not a name supporting a vast business empire - it is a vast business empire supporting a name.  And that is what leads us to the final, critical takeaway from the Trump financial disclosures.


5.       Donald Trump is potentially seriously compromised when it comes to his personal finances.  If Trump indeed owes money on the scale indicated by his past losses and Hillary Clinton's allegations - he is seriously exposed to financial manipulation.  Here is a very basic example of how that might manifest itself.  Let's say that a week-long stay at a high end suite in the Trump Doral costs an individual $10,000 (it may be more, it may be less, but let's use a round figure).  A wealthy lender who has taken a position in Donald Trump's personal finances may wish to bring an entourage of 25 of his closest friends to Doral for a week - and, in the past, knowing that such a stay greases the wheels of finance Mr. Trump may have comped the whole stay.  Trump would see this expense as good for himself personally - keeping the brand strong and maybe gaining some leverage with a lender who will be less inclined to call a note when due.  A family member would know that taking the quarter of a million hit is worth it for them on the back end.  This may not even be illegal - resorts can offer reduced rates.  It is certainly problematic for some of the creditors of Doral - who, if the resort goes Chapter 11 after a few too many such "gratuitous" stays, may end up getting stiffed.  But for the big picture - Trump - or a family member - would take the risk.

A true blind trustee would not.  They would look at the request for the freebie and tell the lender to go pound sand.  That is what keeps Trump awake at night tweeting about Miss Universe.  “How do I keep this whole house of cards from crumbling around me”?  Now - extend that spider's web of financial complexity across continents.  Keep in mind that people you owe money to expect some quid pro quo if they give you a break.  And now think of the kinds of "breaks" a president would be expected to give.  If Donald Trump owes the kind of money that is reflected in his historic losses - then he is not in a financial position to serve as president.  If he owes large amounts of money into countries where American interests conflict with personal interests - he is not in a financial position to be president.  If he cannot remove himself and his family from his financial activities while serving in office – he is not in a financial position to be president.

Of course, this may not be a problem of any kind.  All of this is conjecture and none of it may be a concern. There is, of course, one way to find this out.

Release the tax returns.

ALONG THE BANKS - SNEAK PREVIEW

Just to bring everyone up to speed - the manuscript for "Along the Banks" has been completed and we're looking for a release in the spring or early summer of 2017.  I'm giving a bit of a sneak preview here by sharing a few short excerpts from the book.  That's the good news.  The bad news - shocking actually - is that the Irish government pulled the funding this week for the Royal Canal Greenway, saying that once the LUAS is finished it will revisit the project.  You know, the LUAS, the trolley system that should have been joined up when it was first built and has been disrupting traffic in the city for years in a belated effort to finish it off.  So, because of poor planning for one project the government has decided to double down on poor planning for another one.  And it's not just the Royal Canal - the Dodder and Grand Canal Greenways have been shut down as well. Meanwhile, yet another cyclist was killed in Dublin this past week as the unsafe road system claimed another victim.

In protest at this ridiculous decision I'm going to take part in the re-creation of the most famous walk ever made along the banks of the Royal Canal.  On the 16th of October 1843 Sir William Rowan Hamilton took a stroll down the canal into the fourth dimension.  That journey is repeated by a group of devotees every year on the anniversary of that date - here's the story of why:

(From Chapter One “Beginnings”)

Broom Bridge is sometimes rendered as “Brougham Bridge” because it was constructed to allow the passage of Brougham carriages, a one horse vehicle commonly used as a cab.  In truth it was named after one of the founding directors of the canal corporation, just like many of the canal’s Dublin bridges.  The connection to carriages is real though – the bridges did carry a substantial amount of such traffic.   In addition to carriages Brougham Bridge also carried walkers from the outskirts of the city to the centre.  It was while enjoying just such a stroll that Sir William Rowan Hamilton had a moment of inspiration. 

Hamilton had long been considered one of the premier scientists of his age.  Recognised as a genius early in his life he had, by 1835, attained a prime position (and an accompanying knighthood) within the Royal Academy, at only 30 years of age.  This isn’t a maths class, but a short explanation of Hamilton's greatest achievement requires a bit of math history.  In mathematics there is the concept of “complex numbers” which allow you to plot out where the intersection of two points will occur in two dimensions.  As a very simple example think of when you look at a map and it says to look for something at point “A-4” and so you count one square one way to “A” and then 4 the other to get to the desired point.  There is a very simple equation to express that mathematically.

Hamilton was fascinated by the prospect of extending that concept to three dimensions (imagine if the map I just described was made out of paper mache’ so that hills and mountains were depicted as well).  He wanted to describe mathematically a point that had length, width and depth, and it was not proving easy to do get that done.  Hamilton even related that his kids would tease him about it at breakfast.  Then – on 16 October 1843 Hamilton went for a walk in to town with his wife.  While crossing the arch of Broom Bridge he had a “eureka moment” and realised that he could postulate a three dimensional plot if he assumed the existence of a fourth dimension.  Terrified that the inspiration would leave him he interrupted the walk and inscribed the resulting equation on the stones of Broom Bridge itself.

His discovery, which he termed “quaternion multiplication” eventually provided the mathematical basis for navigable spaceflight (it is how scientists are able to plot the course of a spacecraft to the moon or Pluto from Earth) and also addressed the concept of multiple dimensions which was later explored by Einstein and others when developing space-time theory.  And it all started at Broom Bridge, on the Royal Canal. Today you can find the event commemorated on a plaque embedded in the bridge, which reads:

     Here, as he walked by
            on the 16th of October 1843,
            Sir William Rowan Hamilton,
            in a flash of genius, discovered
            the fundamental formula for
            quaternion multiplication
            i² = j² = k² = ijk = -1
            & cut it on a stone of this bridge

Every 16^th of October Hamilton’s historic walk is repeated by a cadre of loyal devotees who follow the original path along the canal. These walks will typically draw people from all over the globe and have included some scientific superstars like Murray Gell-Mann, who won a Nobel Prize for describing a unique sub-atomic particle, which he dubbed a “quark”, a name he got from reading James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake.  This was the first description of such a basic component of matter – and also the first known instance of someone actually reading Finnegan’s Wake.

Next, in a section of the canal outside of Enfield I found the opportunity to talk about some of the furry critters you might run across while on the journey. 

  

(From Chapter Four "Many Rivers to Cross")

At Kilmore the path changes over to the north side of the canal, requiring you to cross the bridge.  There is a bit of a blind curve here so be careful, particularly if you are travelling in a group.  Once you get to the new pathway it will become immediately apparent that this stretch is going to be different. Gone are the wide grassy tracts or paved paths you’ve become used to since Fern’s Lock.  Instead this is a narrow wooded trail that will often barely have room for a single person.  In point of fact the first time I ever went this far out the canal I ended up turning back from here when I ran into a cross country footrace that was going the opposite way – there was just too much traffic.  While I’d never want to see the trees here damaged there is scope to widen this pathway and make it a bit easier to navigate.  In the meantime I’d recommend just enjoying the trip through the forested section, especially since a definite reward lies at its end.

One of the benefits of entering this type of habitat is that the presence of trees offers an opportunity to see a much wider variety of wildlife.  The chance of seeing squirrels feeding in the treetops, for instance, only arises in the event that you actually have trees above your heads.  By the way - at this point in the journey, if you do see squirrels, you’re probably going to see the grey variety, which is a story in itself – for grey squirrels are not native to Ireland.  How they got here is a bit of a cautionary tale.  In 1911 the Duke of Buckingham sent a “wicker hamper” full of grey squirrels to the wedding of a young woman from Castle Forbes in County Longford.  When the hamper was opened the squirrels leapt out and headed for the trees, as squirrels are wont to do.  From that single event the grey squirrels went forth and multiplied (as squirrels are also wont to do).  This has had a somewhat disastrous effect on the population of native red squirrels in Ireland.  Evidently being smaller and cuter doesn’t cut the mustard in the Darwinian sense and the larger, hardier greys have virtually wiped out red squirrels east of the Shannon.  That natural river barrier seems to have held up thus far, so – if you should happen to see a grey squirrel while travelling along the Royal Canal please leave him be and do not take him along as a wedding present to anyone living west of the canal’s terminus.

Squirrels of any variety aside – there is a much wider selection of wildlife on view along the canal.  In particular the section following Kilmore Bridge gives you the opportunity to view a number of the canal’s non-human residents.  Let’s discuss the mammals first, since, other than the domesticated pets, horses, cows and sheep that you may run in to along the way they are probably the most difficult to easily view.

Almost all of the furred inhabitants of the canal side are either fully nocturnal or primarily active around twilight or dawn.  That means you’ll have to be lucky or starting/finishing your ride in semi-darkness to really have much chance of seeing them.  The one major exception to this rule would be rabbits and hares, who can often be seen in the fields or darting across the pathways during the middle of the day.  The hares are especially interesting as their behaviour varies significantly throughout the year.  During the height of breeding season the males become much more aggressive and will often be seen darting around establishing their territory.  As this rushing about takes place most often during the spring months you get the expression “mad as a March hare”.  You’ll know the difference between rabbits and hares mainly by way of the fact that hares are much bigger.

The rest of the canal’s mammalian inhabitants will be evident mostly because of the clues they leave along the way.  For foxes this will often be spoor or a pile of feathers from the previous evening’s meal.  For badgers you’ll possibly see a pathway through a hedge or the opening to a burrow (or “sett”).  For the evidence of hedgehogs, wood mice and shrews you’ll have to watch to see where the leaf litter has been stirred up in their search for worms and slugs.  If you see some evidence of hunting having taken place, like bones or feathers, it isn’t always down to foxes – stoats, mink or pine martens could be to blame as well.

There is another Irish mammal that prefers the twilight – and if you’re out around that time you have a really good chance to see them.  These are bats – and the insect population, together with the old stoneworks and farm buildings near the canal make it an ideal habitat for these creatures. Ireland is home to a surprisingly large number of bat species (some of which are found only here) and the evening traveller should ignore any old wives tales about bats flying into your hair (increasingly, as the years pass, not a problem for some of us anyway) and take the opportunity to watch the acrobatics as the flying creatures leave their roosts to seek out a meal.  For those from North America who are out at night – there is one thing you do not have to worry about in Ireland when you see a bat as rabies is not present in Irish mammals.  (The country wants it to stay that way – this is why it is so tough to get your dog through Irish customs).

Finally, in the area near Kilmore Bridge you may note a few places where there appears to be paths or chutes worn directly into the canal.  These are likely runs used by otters, one of the canal’s largest residents (clocking in at over a meter in length, when the tail is added), and one that you’ll be most happy to have spotted if you should get the chance.  They are playful animals, but tough to see other than at the times nearest darkness.  Ireland has a diminished but still fairly healthy population of these critters, which have been hunted to extinction in a number of other European countries.  Otters feed on fish (amongst other things) and if you see a gnawed fish carcass along the canal this is likely a good indication that they are about.



In Memoriam

CLASS

I was an annoying kid.  Many would say I’m still annoying but have just matured in my methods of being annoying.  Probably true, but when I was a kid of about 2 or 3 years old I was particularly good at it in a “someone shut that kid up” sort of way.  One of my favorite parlor tricks was to repeat what people would say about me to the entire room. One of the great aunts in the house would look at me and say “aren’t you the best little boy!” and I would take that on board, go to the middle of where everyone was sitting and announce loudly  “I’M THE BEST LITTLE BOY”.  Didn’t matter what was said, I’d let everyone know.  “You have the bluest eyes” – “I HAVE THE BLUEST EYES”; “you’re a strong little fella” “I’M A STRONG LITTLE FELLA” – you get the picture.

My Uncle Frank had what might charitably be called a “mischievous” side.  He scoped this habit out and called me over to him one day.  Getting me up close so no one else could hear he whispered something to me knowing full well that whatever he said would be broadcast to the entire house in short order.  Sure enough I was soon in the middle of the floor letting people know all about the latest compliment I had been paid. There I was, proudly proclaiming:

“I’M NOT STUPID, I’M JUST A LITTLE SLOW”.

It brought the house down and, thinking I’d hit on something profound (I had), I spent the rest of the day repeating it. It became a family legend. So in reading the rest of this please keep one thing in mind.

I’m not stupid, I’m just a little slow.

That same Uncle Frank, who was only about 13 or 14 years old when I was born, went on to graduate from high school (a story in and of itself) and join the service, where he was stationed in and around Vietnam during the war, at the same time that my other Uncle, Chuck, was there as well.  (This too is another story – there are lots of stories when it comes to the Higgins side of the family, lots).  This leads to the next thing I want to talk about.  Yes, this is all leading somewhere – trust me, and remember – I’m just a little slow.

Anyway, one day when I was about 8 years old there was a neighbourhood picnic where the whole street had arranged to use a nearby park to have a barbeque and organize games for the kids, etc.  It was a hot summer’s day and I had just sat down at the table across from my mother preparing to tuck in to a burger when she suddenly jumped up and started running across the field, arms waving.  There was a strange man over there, silhouetted against the sky, and I thought he was maybe trying to steal some of the baseball gloves that had been lying on the ground.  I trailed after her, and watched as she wrapped the man in a bear hug.  I wandered up, perplexed as to what was going on.  I looked at the man – who looked a bit familiar – and finally copped on when she said “It’s Frank”. Again, and I can’t emphasize this enough – just a little slow.

I don’t remember if I also wrapped him up in a hug that day but I damn well should have.  Anyone coming back after having served deserved that type of welcome.  Frank was indeed back and, while looking older, he still had the same sense of humor and trouble, could still make my grandmother laugh and shout at him at the same time, could still raise a bit of hell when called for. 

He also managed to get himself a girlfriend and, through a variety of circumstance and fate two things rapidly became apparent.  First, my uncle had landed himself a bit of a babe and second, she fit in to the family about as well as it is humanly possible to do.

Let me take a moment to dwell on point number two.  This was not as easy a task as it might sound.  Now, there was never any question about being welcomed into the family – the clan is and was very much an “any friend of yours is a friend of mine” type of group.  The problem was, especially back then, surviving the welcome.  The Higgins family in and around the Berkshires was a very – how to put this – “energetic” collection.  On any given weekend back in the early ‘70’s you might find yourself:

a. taking part in a wedding where the larger part of the guest list ended up being arrested for overly enthusiastic celebration and placed in a jail cell where they promptly invented the game of “musical toilets”;

b. engaging in a decade long summer picnic at a location known simply as “The Land”, where all the adults and about 20,000 children slept in an old army surplus tent or their cars until rolling out of bed to start over the next morning. (By the way – note to Cleveland, congratulations on the championship, but you are not “The Land”. “The Land” is “The Land”, and “The Land” is in Hancock Massachusetts.  You are Cleveland and you are in Ohio.  Again, all the best on winning a championship, but this is not up for discussion);

c. featured in the local newspaper for supplying three-quarters of the entrants in a “beer-drinking” contest (hey – why not? – they gave out free beer if you entered), which was followed by a softball game where new meaning was given to the phrase “asleep in left field”.

And that’s just three random examples.  If I felt like sitting here and writing for the next three weeks I could maybe get through about half of the rest of the stories.  The point is – if you jumped into this group and survived – you were doing well.  If you enjoyed it – you were noteworthy or perhaps a bit crazy – possibly both.  But if you managed to master it – you were exceptional.

And that is where I really start to talk about the subject of this essay, my Aunt Linda.  (Bears repeating – a little slow, a little slow).

For my uncle, in what all would agree was one of his better moves, did in fact marry the girlfriend who had fit in so well with the group, and she had become an aunt in a seamless and (seemingly) effortless manner.  Linda may have been someone who came to the family from the outside – but it never felt that way.  Instead she seemed like she had always been there – someone who was equally at home hosting the Thanksgiving Day meal, pitching horseshoes with (and beating) all the men at various gatherings, or gliding across the dance floor whenever there was some kind of formal celebration, like a wedding. 

There is a subtle combination of grace and toughness, beauty and perseverance, elegance and grit, simplicity and sophistication that when mixed together creates a certain type of person.  Because it seems rare to find this we often project those qualities onto distant celebrities – who may or may not have the actual combination in their makeup – but we like to think they do. So we say “Jackie Kennedy” or “Grace Kelly” and automatically know what kind of image we are attempting to invoke.  The word most often used, is “class” – as in “that person has class”.  For a long time that’s what I thought – that you had to look to public figures to find representations of class.  After watching the example of my aunt (amongst others) it gradually dawned on me that there was class to be found in people much closer to home.  It took a while for this to register – again – not stupid, just a little…well, you know.  Nonetheless it was impossible even for me to miss.  In the laughter, thoughtfulness, inclusiveness and respect she engendered my aunt was obviously one very classy lady. 

Was.  That word hurts.  When someone becomes part of the family so quickly that you feel they’ve always been there the danger is that you begin to think they always will be there.  Reality can then provide a rude slap in the face.   When Linda became ill, not very long ago, it didn’t seem possible that she wouldn’t beat this.  When things took a very severe turn my reaction was much like my wife’s, who recently wrote my sister to say, “I can't believe this is happening. Poor Linda who was so nice to everyone...” But it was happening, and then this morning came word that Linda had passed away.  So the word is now “was”, and things switch to the past tense.  I feel so much for my uncle and my cousins.  I think I have a grasp on how much we’ve lost, for it is a shared loss, but there are some who carry more of the burden.  I wish there was something I could do to make them feel better – and being so far away doesn’t help.  Right now I feel both slow and stupid.

I’m often asked “do you miss the States?” and the answer is complicated.  The world is smaller, and I don’t miss the day to day things, because we all have daily lives and ways to fill the time.  If you can’t find a way to do that – then you aren’t doing it right.  But I do miss events – weddings, graduations, and, as strange as it sounds, funerals.  I’m going to miss this one and even though I’ll be back in a couple of weeks I’m not happy about it. 

There is a sense of comfort to be had in the gathering of mourners because there is the reminder that this is more than a remembrance – it is also a statement of hope.  Hope that the spirit of the person we are all missing endures – in all of our thoughts, yes, but also in a deeper way.  Such faith is often ridiculed these days – and sometimes with good reason.  There are a lot of increasingly vocal lunatics out there who use religion as an excuse for expressing their lunacy.  Critics of religion properly point this out – but they forget that people who aren’t looking to dispatch every non-believer are entitled to their beliefs.  We may not be able to provide an absolute proof of their validity but the comfort that is given at a funeral does provide proof of their value. 

There is a series of books written by C.S. Lewis about a country called Narnia.  Most everyone knows them.  Beginning with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe they tell stories about children who pass between our world and Narnia and the adventures they have.  I loved those books.  I think I’ve read them each over twenty times. And it wasn’t until I was about 17 years old that I realised they were actually highly regarded as religious allegories.  If you are wondering how I possibly could have missed this rather obvious fact just let me tell you again – a little slow folks, a little slow.

Anyway – in one of the books, “The Silver Chair” (soon to be a major motion picture) two children, a long missing prince and one completely invented companion called a “Marsh Wiggle” are kidnapped by an evil queen and held captive in an underground kingdom.  The witch/queen prepares an enchanted fire and lulls the group into a belief that the underground world is all that exists, that their belief in an above ground life is foolish.  “Where does the light come from” she asks – and when they describe the sun she laughs and says “You actually believe there is a burning light that hangs above you”?  When they describe the sky she says “you actually believe there is a sky with no roof to keep it in – it just magically stays in place?”  The same applies to the stars and the mountains.  They all must be made up.  There can’t be any world beyond that which they can see and touch and as the enchantment takes hold the children and the prince begin to despair and agree – yes, there can be no sun, yes there can be no sky – they can’t see them so they must not exist.  Then, out of nowhere, the Marsh Wiggle, who had been an extremely gloomy and depressing character up to then, gathers his strength and stomps his bare, webbed foot into the fire, breaking the enchantment.  With the smell of burnt Marsh Wiggle clearing their heads the group hears their friend say the following:

I suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world.

I’m going to stand by it too.  Because as slow as I may be, I’m not stupid. I can make this world as good as possible without abandoning hope in a next one.  I can believe that the best things here do not just end.

That a strong spirit doesn’t just end.

That a sense of joy doesn’t just end.

That class doesn’t just end.

That Linda Higgins doesn’t just end.

So to my Uncle Frank, to my cousins, to the rest of the family I’m sorry I’m not there right now. Keep the faith, I’ll see you soon.  This is a terrible loss, but you’ll get through and the sun will rise.

Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord, and perpetual light shine upon her -

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.