Radical Islam and Homophobia .... Calling A Spade a Shovel .... America Is At War, Even If Our Politicians, Media and Electorate Choose to Deny It

Islam's Jihad Against Homosexuals is subtitled 'The rise of modern Islamic extremism has worsened an institutionalized Muslim homophobia.'

The following editorial in crystal clear language spells out that which even Hillary, Barack and Donald should be able to understand.

But even if they do 'get it,' their political selves won't allow them to speak clearly, so I will do it for them. POLITICS SUCKS AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS DANGEROUS.

"The Orlando massacre is a hideous reminder to Americans that homophobia is an integral part of Islamic extremism. That isn’t to say that some people of other faiths and ideologies aren’t hostile to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community. Nor is to say that Islamic extremists don’t target other minorities, in addition to engaging in wholly indiscriminate violence. But it is important to establish why a man like Omar Mateen could be motivated to murder 49 people in a gay nightclub, interrupting the slaughter, as law-enforcement officials reported, to dial 911, proclaim his support for Islamic State and then pray to Allah.

I offer an explanation in the form of four propositions.

1. Muslim homophobia is institutionalized. Islamic law as derived from scripture, and as evolved over several centuries, not only condemns but prescribes cruel and unusual punishments for homosexuality.

2. Many Muslim-majority countries have laws that criminalize and punish homosexuals in line with Islamic law.

3. It is thus not surprising that the attitudes of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries are homophobic and that many people from those countries take those attitudes with them when they migrate to the West.

4. The rise of modern Islamic extremism has worsened the intolerance toward homosexuality. Extremists don’t just commit violence against LGBT people. They also spread the prejudice globally by preaching that homosexuality is a disease and a crime.

Not all Muslims are homophobic. Many are gay or lesbian themselves. Some even have the courage to venture into the gender fluidity that the 21st century West has come to recognize. But these LGBT Muslims are running directly counter to their religion.

In his 2006 book “Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law,” the Dutch scholar Rudolph Peters notes that most schools of Islamic law proscribe homosexuality. They differ only on the mode of punishment. “The Malikites, the Shiites and some Shafi’ites and Hanbalites are of the opinion that the penalty is death, either by stoning (Malikites), the sword (some Shafi’ites and Hanbalites) or, at the discretion of the court, by killing the culprit in the usual manner with a sword, stoning him, throwing him from a (high) wall or burning him (Shiites).”

Under Shariah—Islamic law—those engaging in same-sex sexual acts can be sentenced to death in nearly a dozen countries or in large areas of them: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, the northern states of Nigeria, southern parts of Somalia, two provinces in Indonesia, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates. Death is also the penalty in the territories in northern Iraq and Syria controlled by ISIS.

Iran is notorious for hanging men accused of homosexual behavior. The Associated Press reports that since 2014 ISIS has executed at least 30 people in Syria and Iraq for being homosexual, including three men who were dropped from the top of a 100-foot building in Mosul in June 2015.

No fewer than 40 out of 57 Muslim-majority countries or territories have laws that criminalize homosexuality, prescribing punishments ranging from fines and short jail sentences to whippings and more than 10 years in prison or death.

These countries’ laws against homosexuality align with the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of their populations. In 2013 the Pew Research Center surveyed the beliefs of Muslims in 36 countries with a significant Muslim population or majority, including asking about their views of homosexuality. In 33 out of the 36 countries, more than 75% of those surveyed answered that homosexuality was “morally wrong,” and in only three did more than 10% of those surveyed believe that homosexuality was “morally acceptable.”

In many Muslim-majority countries—including Afghanistan, where Omar Mateen’s parents came from—LGBT people face as much danger from their families or vigilantes as they do from the authorities.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Islamic extremists condemn homosexuality in the strongest possible terms. The Middle East Media Research Institute reported in 2006 that when Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the world’s leading Sunni clerics and chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, was asked how gay people should be punished, he replied: “Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement. . . . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”

Such ideas travel. In 2009 Anjem Choudary, an infamous London imam and self-proclaimed “judge of the Shariah Court of the U.K.,” stated in a press conference that all homosexuals should be stoned to death. Here in the U.S., Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, has written: “Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption . . . No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.”

Farrokh Sekaleshfar, a Shiite cleric educated in London, declared of homosexuality in 2013: “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence.” He was speaking at the Husseini Islamic Center outside Orlando. Yes, Orlando. He spoke there again in April.

These men express their hostility toward the LGBT community only verbally, but the Orlando attack was hardly the first manifestation in the U.S. of Islamist antigay violence. During a New Year’s Eve celebration in the first hours of 2014, Musab Masmari tried to set fire to a gay nightclub in Seattle; he is serving 10 years in prison on federal arson charges. Law-enforcement officials say that Ali Muhammad Brown, an ISIS supporter who is now in prison for armed robbery, also faces charges for terrorism and four murders, including the 2014 execution of two men in Seattle outside of a gay nightclub.

Following the horrific attack in Orlando, people as usual have been rushing to judgment. President Obama blames lax gun laws. Donald Trump blames immigration. Neither is right. There has been comparable carnage in countries with strict gun laws. The perpetrator in this case was born in the United States. This is not primarily about guns or immigration. It is about a deeply dangerous ideology that is infiltrating American society in the guise of religion. Homophobia comes in many forms. But none is more dangerous in our time than the Islamic version.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is the author of “Infidel” (Free Press, 2007) and “Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation” (HarperCollins, 2015)."

Summing Up

When, if ever, will our politicians have the courage to call a spade a shovel?

Sadly, my own view is that they will decide to speak in clear language only if and when We the People demand that they do so.

Let's hope that day arrives soon.

POLITICS SUCKS. 

That's my take.

Thanks. Bob.

Emotions and Investing ... Low Cost and Knowledgeable Fiduciaries Beat Robo Advisers Every Time

Emotions are often determinative in individual decision making. The lack of objectivity can lead us to make really bad and uninformed choices at important and stressful times. That in turn can result in long term and unnecessary pain.

So while we all have the capacity to act rationally and objectively, in times of perceived peril we are prone to do just the opposite. And while we can't change human nature, we can and should be aware of our propensity to do the wrong thing when tired or under stress.

Negativism and emotionalism can be harmful to our health, financial and otherwise.

Imagine if Robo Advisers Could Do Emotions has these cautionary words of wisdom and advice for us mere mortals:

"Andrew W. Lo is the Charles E. and Susan T. Harris Professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, director of the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering, principal investigator at MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and chief investment strategist at AlphaSimplex Group.

At a conference last year, I was approached by an audience member after my talk. He thanked me for my observation that it’s unrealistic to expect investors to do nothing in the face of a sharp market-wide selloff, and that pulling out of the market can sometimes be the right thing to do. In fact, this savvy attendee converted all of his equity holdings to cash by the end of October 2008.

He then asked me for some advice: “Is it safe to get back in now?” Seven years after he moved his money into cash, he’s still waiting for just the right time to reinvest; meanwhile, the S&P 500 earned an annualized return of 14% during this period.

Investing is an emotional process. Managing these emotions is probably the greatest open challenge of financial technology. Investing is much more complicated than other chores like driving, which is why driverless cars are already more successful than even the best robo advisers.
 
Despite the enthusiasm of tech-savvy millennials—the generation of investors now in their 20s and 30s who are just as happy interacting with an app as with warm-blooded humans—robo advisers don’t take into account the limits of human cognition; they don’t make allowances for emotional reactions like fear and greed; and they can’t eliminate blind spots. Robo advisers don’t do emotion. When the stock market roils, investors freak out. They need comfort and encouragement. During last August’s stock-market rout, Vanguard Group told The Wall Street Journal it was “besieged” with calls from jittery investors and had to pull volunteers from across the company to handle the call volume."

Summing Up 

While we can't take the emotions out of stressful situations, we can  learn to recognize them and not react by doing the wrong thing in the heat of the moment.

This too shall pass should generally be the operative phrase of caution when witnessing stock market ups and downs, and especially the downs.

And recognizing that we are prone to adopt negative behaviors in times of stress can help us to take some deep breaths, sit still and do what's best and in our long term interests --- nothing.

Having a trusted and knowledgeable financial adviser who has 'been there and done that' also makes a great deal of sense.  

And if he has his own skin the game, so much the better. 

That's because the friendly knowledgeable and experienced adviser won't do to us that which he won't do to himself.

That's my take.

Thanks. Bob.

'Scary' Stock Markets ... Advice for Individual Investors Who May Be Experiencing FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)

It's scary time in the stock market. Or is it?

Stock market prices are high, and the pundits are saying it's time for the market to fall. But then again, maybe prices will continue to rise for awhile and then drop.

Or they may fall today, next week, next month or next year --- by a lot. And when that happens, it can be scary until fear subsides and calm returns --- which it always does --- but who knows when? Not I, that's for sure.

As a result, many individuals are getting scared about falling share prices, and the so-called experts are adding to the FUD factor, aka Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Is it time to sell and head for the sidelines until the dust settles? Or should we stay the course and hang in there until the all clear signal arrives?

In other words, what's an individual investor in it for the long haul supposed to do? Well, this individual investor is doing nothing other than what he ordinarily does. If I decide to sell something, which I do from time to time,  it will be so I am in position to buy something else that is deemed to be a better investment.

But staying diversified is always important so I won't load up on any single stock or sector. I will play put and take, and let the short term chips fall where they may. After all, one thing I know for sure is that nobody knows for sure what will happen to stock prices in the near term. I sure don't.

And three other things I know are that (1) over time stock prices increase, (2) dividends received on blue chip stocks now and for the foreseeable future will yield more than interest paid on bonds (or gold and CDs), and (3) that stock  prices inevitably will fall from time to time, and sometimes hard.

The simple fact is that people who sell during times like this tend to stay away from buying again until prices have increased to heights greater than current levels. That is the classic playbook definition of what not to do as a long term oriented individual investor --- sell low and buy high.

Notes on Scary Markets From Your Sketch-Wielding Drill Sergeant says this:

"I want to talk to you about scary markets. For the sake of this particular subject, I want to be blunt and a little bit in your face. So for the next few minutes, please, just think of me less as your friend and more as your Scary Markets Drill Sergeant. O.K.? Great.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, “Why is he talking about this now? The markets aren’t even that scary.” That’s true. And it’s also true that I can’t predict when the next bad market is coming.

But I can predict that another bad market will come again, eventually. And when it does, you’ll want to have a plan. That’s precisely why now is such a good time to hash this out. Because you don’t wait until your house is in flames to buy a fire extinguisher, right?

Let me set the stage for you. It’s sometime in the near future. The market just got really scary, like 2008 or 2009 scary. You and I are sitting down together for lunch to talk about what you should do. 

We’re going to start with a couple of assumptions. First, you have a portfolio that was built specifically and intentionally to give you the greatest likelihood of reaching your goals. Second, your portfolio is down 20 percent or more, and you want to sell all of your investments and go to cash because that feels safest.

But before you do that, before you make this huge, drastic decision, I will have a little conversation with you. Here’s how that conversation would go.

Me: “Why are you invested the way you are?”

You: “Because this portfolio gives me the greatest chance of meeting my goals.”

Me: “Are your goals still the same?”

You: “Yes, they’re still the same.”

Me: “O.K., great. Step one, you own the right portfolio. Check.”

Let’s pause there a moment for dramatic effect and reiterate that you have the right portfolio. Back to the conversation.

You: “But I just can’t take it anymore! I’ve got to sell everything.”

Me: “Got it. Now, just so I understand, if you do that, is that going to be a permanent decision? In other words, are you getting out of the stock market forever?”

You: “Well, no...”

Me: “O.K., then. So when do you think you are likely to get back in?”

You: “When things settle down!”

Let’s hit pause again.

Now we know three very important things.

■ You have the right portfolio.

■ You’re not going to abandon the stock market permanently.

■ You’re going to reinvest when things clear up.

Let’s flesh this out a bit. I want you to imagine what it will be like when things clear up. So why don’t you go ahead and answer just a few more questions from your Scary Markets Drill Sergeant:

■ When the market clears up, will it be less scary than it is now?

■ When the market clears up, will the economy be better?

■ When the market clears up, will that guy on the financial pornography network be telling everyone and their mother to buy more stocks?

■ When the market clears up, will all your neighbors and friends be sitting around the barbecue grill again chatting about investing?

We all know the answers to those questions: yes, yes, yes and yes.

But one last question. Drum roll please: If the market isn’t scary, the economy is better, the guy on the financial pornography network is yelling “buy, buy, buy!” and everyone you know is planning to invest, how do you think the market then will compare to the market now?

It’ll be much higher, of course!

So, to review: Your plan is to sell your perfectly tailored portfolio, right now while your investments are down. Then, you’re going to wait until the market improves. When it does, you’re going to buy back Plan A at a much higher price.

To which I say: Seriously?

I hate to be annoying, but I really want to hammer this conversation home. It doesn’t make a lick of sense to sell a portfolio tailored for you when the market is low, and then buy it back when the market is higher. It makes infinitely more sense to simply keep your portfolio through the scary times and tough it out. Right, soldier?

Instead of doing what fear is making you want to do, just think back to your Scary Markets Drill Sergeant and remember these three things:

■ You made your portfolio based on your goals.

■ It still matches your goals.

■ If you sell that portfolio now and buy it back later when the markets are better, all you will do is lose money.

It’s that simple. Just. Don’t. Do it.

Think of this as something of a lifeboat drill. This is meant to help you remember that when the ship goes down and you find yourself in the lifeboat scared and cold, you don’t throw common sense to the wind and jump in the icy water. Just stay in the rescue boat, tough it out through the turbulent times and wait until the next big ship comes to pick you up to carry you safely to your destination."

Summing Up

Share prices fall by 10% or more at least every several years. When they do, they sometimes fall both fast and hard.

And there's nothing wrong with taking some money 'off the table' in anticipation of the decline. That said, have a plan for both getting out and getting back in later which is of the 'sell high/buy low' type and not the other way around. So if you sell, plan and wait to reinvest the money at a lower price than you get when selling. Ok?

Nobody knows when that fast and hard fall in prices will occur. And sometimes the unforeseeable happens, both bad and good. That's why it's unforeseeable and unforeseen.

That said, my present view is that the U.S. economy is improving somewhat and that a recession isn't in the cards for the next several years.

As for our U.S. debt, Fed interest rate increases and the overall political craziness, those are known and big problems. And with regard to future terrorist attacks, the Chinese economy, the Brexit issue, energy prices, and the deeply troubled economies of the rest of the world, who knows how markets will respond to whatever happens? Not I, that's for sure.

I also believe that share price valuations aren't excessive and that cash dividends paid on the stocks I own are yielding more than interest paid on bonds and alternative investments. And I never buy gold.

Thus, I plan to continue business as usual with respect to buying and selling a basket of diversified solid blue chip stocks which pay decent dividends from their stable earnings.

That's my call, and that's also my take.

Thanks. Bob.

Pogo Is the Reason the 'Good Old Days' of Individual Saving and Investing Weren't All That Good ... But If We Heed Pogo's Advice, the Future Looks Bright Indeed

For individual savers and investors, the 'good old days' weren't all that good. But if we heed the lessons that could have been learned, the future looks bright indeed.

That's a result of the Pogo effect, "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US."

Let's consider the findings of a DALBAR study about the ill considered behavior of individuals with respect to overall stock market performance over several ten year periods:

"One conclusion: No matter whether the market is booming or busting, "Investor results are more dependent on investor behavior than on fund performance." Investors who buy and hang on are consistently more successful than those who move in and out of the markets.

For its data, DALBAR studies mutual fund sales, redemptions and exchanges each month to reflect investor behavior in the aggregate, as if the sum total of all inflows, outflows and exchanges were made by a single investor. That hypothetical investor's return is regarded as the average return for purposes of this study.

These "average" returns are compared with results of mutual funds themselves and of common indexes for stock and bond funds. This captures the effect of capital gains, dividends, interest, trading costs, fees, expenses and other costs.

Here are some highlights of what was found. . . .

In 30 calendar years (1984 through 2013), the Standard & Poor's 500 Index compounded at 11.1%. In that same time, the average mutual fund investor (as defined above) achieved a return of only 3.7%. In other words, actual investors actually earned barely more than a third of what they could have earned.

During the past 20 calendar years, the index was up 9.2%, while the average investor got only 5%. In the past 10 years, the S&P 500 was up 7.4%, and the average investor's return was 5.9%."

Pogo indeed!

So when it comes to saving and investing habits, let's say good riddance to those not-so-good-old-days. And what we do old folks have to offer in the way of useful advice to help the younger set avoid doing what too many of us have done? Why not use that hard earned, already paid for, and sometimes painful experience to try to do just that?

So was it better for saving and personal investing in the 'good old days' or will it be better in the future? And the correct answer is as always --- that depends on us. Pogo rules apply.

For one thing, 401(k)s and IRAs weren't even implemented until the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Fast forward to today and 401(k) and IRA plans have largely taken the place of most pension plans. As a result, individuals are left to our own devices to save and invest for ourselves and our families. But too often we're not capable of doing that, and the price to be paid for failing to prepare will often a big one.

So here's the question du jour --- Which way is better, the old school employer pension plan benefit or the 401(k)/IRA self directed way? And what difference does it make anyway?

Well, we'll report and you decide. Ok?

Believe it or not, investing has never been so simple contains some valuable information in assisting us to answer today's self graded quiz question:

"Most of today's investors don't know how good they have it. When I started in the business 50 years ago in 1966, the costs were much higher and choices were much more limited. Knowledge, understanding and information were primitive by today's standards.

This is not to say that investing is easy today. Investors face a daunting volume of choices. We're flooded with information and advice, much of it hardly more valuable than self-serving posturing.

Let's recall the investment scene in 1966, then contrast it with the situation today.

Investing in 1966

If you were an individual investor in 1966 . . . . Your investment choices may have seemed less crucial than they do today. More than three-quarters of large companies offered pensions to their workers at retirement (today the percentage is less than one-third that high). Along with Social Security, that was likely to cover your needs.

Still, you set aside money for the future. If you were average, you saved 11% of your income — more than twice today's rate.

Investing back then was quite expensive, and there was no way to avoid sharing a significant chunk of your returns with Wall Street.

Trading and information

The only way to buy stocks and bonds was through your stock broker. . . .

Online information? A pipe dream. Online trading? Utter nonsense. . . . Stock and bond commissions were regulated, and sky high by today's standards. A trade that would cost less than $10 today could cost many hundreds of dollars in 1966.

In addition, the spreads between bid and ask prices (the wholesale markup, in other words) was as much as 2.5%. (Today it is often less than 0.1%.)

In 1966, brokerages didn't compete on price. A few years later, it was considered a scandal (although a legal one) when the first discount brokerage opened for business.

Diversification

There were some mutual funds available to individuals, of course. They claimed to charge buying commissions of 8.5%, but that up-front sales charge was actually 9.3% of the money that was invested on your behalf. Index funds hadn't yet been invented. . . .

Investors rarely complained about these high costs. This was just the way things were done....

Investment advice

Your sources of investment advice and information were comparatively limited. . . . The main distinctions presented to investors were vague mutual-fund descriptions like aggressive growth, capital appreciation and equity income. . . .

Your job as an investor was to identify and buy stocks that would do better than the market. To do that, you almost certainly relied on your broker. Oh, and "the market" back then didn't mean the S&P 500 Index. It meant the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which still, defying common sense, is widely regarded as "the market").

Investing in 2016

Today, as you know, the scene is very different. Trading costs and ongoing expenses are much, much lower. . . . Information is easily available online. . . .

Trading and information

Today's investing scene is not all rosy, of course. Our overall savings rate is about 5%, double what it was in 2007, but less than half of what it was in 1966.

Unfortunately, even in this new century, emotion-driven buy-and-sell decisions still cost investors untold millions of dollars, as evidenced by the depressing results reported every year by the DALBAR study. (At least today's investors have access to such information, something that was totally unavailable half a century ago.)

Wall Street is still intent on nickel-and-diming us to death with small fees and promises of gurus who see into the future. We're constantly taunted with suggestions that we can beat the market (which is itself a pretty lousy idea). . . .

Diversification . . . .

Far fewer of us can rely on pensions today, but we have access to IRAs and 401(k) retirement plans with favorable tax characteristics that were unknown 50 years ago. (Taxes on capital gains and many dividends are much lower today, as well). . . .

Investment advice

Here's another welcome change: Today, thousands of fiduciary advisors are available to help individual investors navigate the choices without a conflict of interest. (In 1966, to get fiduciary advice, you had to do business with the trust department of a bank.)

So overall, I think this is a much better time to be an investor. We are much more in control. But the way we exercise that control has a huge influence on our investment results."

Summing Up

To repeat, the comic strip character of my childhood Pogo said, 'WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.'

Pogo hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head when it comes to how our individual behaviors negatively impact long term personal savings and investing results. {NOTE: Please see the above linked DALBAR study for a more detailed and sobering analysis of just how bad a job we tend to do for 'us.'}

In the final analysis, saving and investing is up to each of us. Low cost and highly valuable investment help is available, but first we have know enough to act and seek it out.

Achieving solid investing results over time isn't all that hard. In fact, it's much easier to turn our investment dreams into reality now than it was during the 'good old days.'

Guaranteed pension plan benefits are disappearing with each passing year, but that can be a good thing, since our 401(k) and IRA amounts are just that --- ours.

We can create, grow and retain them throughout adulthood.  Unlike pension plan benefits, it's always our money.

Since I much prefer today's self help investing environment compared to that of yesteryear, that somehow must make me 'new fashioned.'

That's my take.

Thanks. Bob.

When Investing, Everything Is Relative ... Probable Future 'Nominal' Annualized Investment Returns on Stocks of ~6% to ~7% Will Be Lower Than The ~10% They Have Earned Historically ... But When Compared to the Various Alternatives Out There, They Look Really Good to Me

In the play "Hamlet," Shakespeare said this, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be.' He was way ahead of his time. Those are still words to live by, and are especially relevant today.

Yes, unnecessary borrowing is bad for one's financial health and well being, even when interest rates are low. That's because the debt will most probably have to be repaid in low instead of high inflation dollars, by far and away the most expensive form of borrowing.

Here's the deal. When seeking above average investing results, whether by using our own money, aka MOM, or borrowing what we then spend, everything is indeed relative. That's always been the case, and will be in the future as well.

Today's interest rates and inflation are at historic lows. As a result, the returns on real estate, gold, energy, other commodities, bonds, CDs and other fixed income investments will not prove to be nearly as good investments as will owning stocks.

And that's likely to be the case for years to come. The double digit inflation and interest rate days of the 1970s are gone and won't be returning for a very long time to come. That's a good thing.

However, future absolute investment returns for stocks are almost certain to be lower than they have been these past several decades. Compared to other investments, however, they will be great and perhaps return ~7% at an annualized rate. This will beat returns on bonds and other investments by ~3% to ~5% annually over the long haul.

But don't take my word for it. Listen instead to what Bill Gross, a highly successful investor in bonds and other fixed income instruments, has to say on the subject.

Bill Gross: The Past 40 Years Are Unrepeatable is subtitled 'The fund manager writes that economic trends that have fueled outsize returns are coming to an end:'

"Experienced managers that have treaded markets for several decades or more recognize that their “era” has been a magnificent one despite many “close calls” characterized by Lehman, the collapse of Nasdaq 5000, the Savings & Loan crisis in the early 90’s, and so on. 

Since the inception of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate or Lehman Bond index in 1976, investment grade bond markets have provided conservative investors with a 7.47% compound return with remarkably little volatility. . . .

The path of stocks has not been so smooth but the annual returns (with dividends) have been over 3% higher than investment grade bonds. That is how it should be: stocks displaying higher historical volatility but more return.

But my take from these observations is that this 40-year period of time has been quite remarkable -- (an) event that cannot be repeated. . . .

(A bond portfolio) will almost assuredly return between 1.5% and 2.9% over the next 10 years, even if yields double or drop to 0% at period’s end.

The bond market’s 7.5% 40-year historical return is just that – history. In order to duplicate that number, yields would have to drop to -17%! . . .

The case for stocks is more complicated of course with different possibilities . . . . Equities . . . are correlated significantly to the return on bonds. Add a historical 3% “equity premium” to GMO’s hypothesis on bonds if you dare, and you get to a range of 4.5% to 5.9% over the next 10 years ....

Here’s my thesis in more compact form: For over 40 years, asset returns and alpha generation from penthouse investment managers have been materially aided by declines in interest rates, trade globalization, and an enormous expansion of credit – that is debt.

Those trends are coming to an end if only because in some cases they can go no further."

Summing Up

Some of you will recall the 'unfun' double digit interest and inflation rates of the 1970s. I know I do --- vividly!

But none of us can recall an ongoing global economic environment with low economic growth, negative to ~2% interest rates, inflation at risk of turning into deflation, and a global indebtedness that will restrain economic growth for many years to come.

But that's exactly where we are and what we have facing both us and the rest of the world.

Now add in robotics, automation and related technological advances such as artificial intelligence, tomorrow's self driving cars, and the wonders and connectivity of the internet age.

Next combine these things with a globally competitive work force that is willing and anxious to work for much lower wages and at equal or great productivity than ours, and the economic plot really thickens.

The 'old' days saw massive agricultural employment turn into massive industrial employment, but the 'new' days are definitely different as we are witnessing offshore workers and automation replacing low and semi skilled American workers.

For the foregoing reasons and more, I'm staying away from investing in bonds, and both private and public sector pension funds should as well.

When investing, the alternatives to owning shares of stock in a diversified basket of blue chip, dividend paying and growing companies are unattractive at best and financially dangerous at worst.

Maybe a 6% to 7% annualized rate of return over time doesn't seem like much to those of us who are used to the double digit returns on stocks over the past several decades, but money invested at that rate will still double in 10 or 12 years --- and so on.

And that beats whatever ends up in second place by a whole lot!

That's my take.

Thanks. Bob.

Wasting Time, Money and Borrowing Capacity ... The Unintended But Frequently Harmful Lifetime Effects of Student Loans and 'Free College'

There are at least three precious things in life that should be invested wisely and not wasted needlessly and foolishly. They are (1) time, (2) money and (3) borrowing capacity. Each is available to us in limited quantities. Tradeoffs are always an issue when quantities are limited, and time, money and borrowing capacity come in limited amounts.

And since we can't have everything or do everything we'd like to have or do in life, learning to make good and productive choices is a personal habit we need to develop and keep improving during our lifetimes. And on those occasions when we make bad choices, as we inevitably will from time to time, we should take the time to learn from them and 'fail forward' instead of dwelling on our bad 'luck.'

That's because time lost is gone forever and tomorrow is never today twenty fours hours later.

Now let's talk about government's proper role in influencing our precious personal decisions.

When it involves preparing young Americans for a lifetime of adult achievement, 'do no harm' should become our government's stated objective. Sadly, that's not the case today and likely won't be the case for a very long time to come, if ever.

In many cases, if not most, America, our government, our kids, their families and U.S. taxpayers would all be better off if the government simply did nothing to 'help.' Let's take our probable future President Hillary Clinton's bogus 'free' college proposal, as an example.

If a student is ill prepared to succeed in college after completing a K-12 curriculum at the local government sponsored public school, college for the student will not be free. And that's the truth, regardless of whether tuition payments are waived or not.

The very high opportunity costs of attendance in terms of (1) time invested or wasted, (2) financing, commuting and living costs, excluding tuition, (3) foregone income opportunities from not working a 'real' job, and (4) the likelihood of not graduating on time, if ever, all argue persuasively for implementing credible selection criteria which would limit rather than expand college attendance.

We need to avoid setting kids up for failure, and the simple fact is that after enrolling, too many of college students do fail to graduate. Meanwhile, the time, money, borrowing capacity and self esteem are gone --- and sometimes forever. Government provided blank checks for unqualified students are wasteful and expensive freebies.

Over half of the kids who enroll aren't the 'beneficiaries.' Instead the real beneficiaries are vote seeking politicians, public sector union leaders, and countless self interested individuals who depend on the government for their daily bread by working 'in the system' as educators, administrators and other taxpayer funded employees.

For a clear understanding of what as a society we're doing to and not for all too many young Americans by providing them with free college, please take the time to read and reflect on the following comparison of government's role concerning today's developing college debacle with the enormous and most recent government 'aided' colossal American housing fiasco.

College Loan Glut Worries Policy Makers is subtitled 'Massive investment in improving skills turns sour, echoes of housing crisis' has this to say:

"The U.S. government over the last 15 years made a trillion-dollar investment to improve the nation’s workforce, productivity and economy. A big portion of that investment has now turned toxic, with echoes of the housing crisis.

The investment was in “human capital,” or, more specifically, higher education. The government helped finance tens of millions of tuitions as enrollment in U.S. colleges and graduate schools soared 24% from 2002 to 2012 . . . .

The government financed a large share of these educations through grants, low-interest loans and loan guarantees. Total outstanding student debt—almost all guaranteed or made directly by the federal government—has quadrupled since 2000 to $1.2 trillion today. The government also spent tens of billions of dollars in grants and tax credits for students.

New research shows a significant chunk of that investment backfired, with millions of students worse off for having gone to school. Many never learned new skills because they dropped out—and now carry debt they are unwilling or unable to repay. Policy makers worry that without a bigger intervention, those borrowers will become trapped for years and will ultimately hurt, rather than help, the nation’s economy.



Treasury Deputy Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin compares the 7 million student-loan borrowers in default—and millions of others who appear on the same path—to homeowners who found themselves underwater and headed toward foreclosure after the housing crash. . . .

In a working paper released last week, economists at George Washington University and the Treasury Department tracked the earnings of some 1.4 million students who left a for-profit college in the two years through September 2008. Seventy percent of them dropped out. Those who enrolled in associate’s and bachelor’s programs earned an average of $600 to $700 a year less in the six years after leaving school compared with the six years before they entered. Almost all of them left with student debt—an average $8,000 for associate’s candidates and $13,000 for bachelor’s candidates....

There are similar problems in nonprofit colleges, which enroll about 2.7 million students a year. A report released in May by Third Way, a nonpartisan think tank, revealed that among students who enrolled in 2005, on average only half graduated from such institutions within six years. On average, nearly four in 10 undergraduates at those schools who took on student debt earned no more than $25,000 in 2011, the same as the typical high-school graduate. Other research shows similar dropout rates at public colleges and universities.

Along with the weak job prospects, most of these students are now severely behind on their payments, damaging their credit and limiting their ability to borrow for homes and cars. More than a fifth of all student debt is at least 90 days delinquent, according to the New York Federal Reserve, and federal data show dropouts are three times more likely to default than degree earners.

No group saw its net worth decline more between 2010 and 2013 than college dropouts. The median value of their assets minus debts fell 14% over that period, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. By comparison, the typical college graduate saw her wealth increase 5%.

In that sense, student debt threatens to widen the gap between society’s haves and have-nots. A disproportionate share of for-profit college students is poor, black and Hispanic. . . .

During the housing crisis, plummeting home values left millions of Americans underwater on their mortgages, preventing them from selling their homes and moving to better jobs. The lack of mobility in turn hurts productivity, since it limits the pool of workers that employers can choose from.

The Obama administration faced criticism that it was too slow to help ailing homeowners during the foreclosure crisis, which impeded the economy from recovering more quickly from the recession. The administration is determined to avoid similar criticism with student-loan borrowers.

It has already put forth an array of programs to help borrowers, including slashing monthly bills by tying payments to incomes, and forgiving some of their debt. But this time they face a different challenge: How to get borrowers to pay anything—even a penny—for an asset they never received."

Summing Up

It's absolutely unfair to many of our American youngsters, after having given them an inferior K-12 education, to then add insult to injury by 'encouraging' them to attend college for another several wasted years.

We're all capable of getting A grades at the beginning of our K-12 school years. But that desired payoff down the road for an 'investment in a solid education' will be earned only by those who make the sustained effort and do the required work.

All it takes is a willingness to do hard work on their part accompanied by ongoing support and encouragement by parents, friends, role models and educators.

But when the requisite preparation for success hasn't been done, it makes absolutely no sense to enroll those unprepared kids in college. That only results in failure instead of a lifetime of productive and gainful employment.

Pretending that all kids are college ready when they aren't is doing a great disservice to our unprepared young Americans, regardless of whether it's politically labeled as 'free' tuition or not.

It also makes for a weaker America.

That's my take.

Thanks. Bob.

If I Were a Woman ..... Financial Matters Matter

If I were a woman, I'd be interested in adopting the habit of setting aside sufficient funds to invest for my retirement years.

And I'd definitely set aside the erroneous and harmful idea that women don't know as much about or aren't as interested in financial matters as are their male counterparts.

And even if I were a teacher or other public sector employee with a currently promised pension plan benefit, I'd still act as if that projected amount weren't a 'for sure' thing. See Higher Education in Illinois Is Dying.

The simple fact is that most public sector pension plans are already dramatically underfunded. Everybody knows that. 

But what everybody doesn't know is that these same underfunded plans are almost certainly not going to earn anywhere close to their assumed actuarial rates of return over time (bond returns and interest rates). 

That simply means that that which is currently dramatically underfunded will become even more dramatically underfunded over time. Facts are stubborn things.

But I'm not a woman (or public sector employee) so I can only encourage the better sex (and everybody else as well) to take seriously the changing world and the need to implement a program of 'self help' when it comes to personal financial responsibility and security.

And here's why: more and more the woman is the head of household financially due to one of many reasons: (1) never being married; (2) being married and a 50/50 partner in the family's financial decisions; (3) being divorced; and (4) outliving the husband.

For Many Women, Adequate Pensions Are Still a Far Reach has this to say:

"The majority (of women) over 70 rely on Social Security for most of their income, with an average monthly check of around $1,300.

But those . . . who worked consistently for long periods and enjoyed the benefits of working in fields like health care, education and public administration — where defined-benefit pensions became more prevalent — are in a sweeter spot.

Few people in those groups became rich. But very few fell into poverty, either. And in retirement, workers in those disciplines are more secure than their peers who worked in other industries, according to a report released in March by the National Institute on Retirement Security. Only 4 percent of retired women over 65 who worked in education, for example, are poor, according to the institute’s report, “Shortchanged in Retirement, Continuing Challenges to Women’s Financial Future.”. . .

An important factor is that those fields, in which women are a significant portion of the work force, are more likely to still offer a defined-benefit pension plan. Most public-school teachers, for example, have pensions. Nurses have lagged teachers because fewer hospitals and health care systems have offered traditional pensions, but they are still better protected than those working in most other fields.

For most women reaching retirement age today, however, their situation is still generally worse than that of their male counterparts.

“Women are 80 percent more likely than men to be impoverished at age 65 and older, while women between the ages of 75 and 79 are three times more likely than men to be living in poverty,” said Diane Oakley, the retirement security institute’s executive director.

Much of that can be traced to a persistent gender gap in retirement income. Men in 2014 received $17,856 in median pension income, according to the institute’s study; women had about one-third less, or about $12,000. A similar disparity applies to 401(k) savings, where women accumulated, on average, about two-thirds of what their male counterparts saved.

A large part of the difference between women, who had $25,000 invested, on average, versus $36,875 for men, stemmed, of course, from continuing disparities in wages. . . .

At retirement age, women are likely to be more financially vulnerable since more are single, divorced or widowed, and many are feeling insecure about their finances in retirement. Two-thirds of the women in a 2015 survey, by the consumer marketing research firm GfK, felt unsure or pessimistic about their retirement finances, compared with 40 percent of the men who felt the same way. . . .

Given the evaporation of traditional pensions and the stagnation of wages, the next generation of women to reach retirement age is likely to spend more time working. Increasing numbers of women over 55 are working full or part time, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by the end of this decade, about 20 percent of the women over 65 will be in the labor force."

Summing Up 

Women outlive men. That's a fact with which we're all familiar.

Women often are the only wage earner and adult in the household. That's also a fact with which we're all familiar.

Women need to take charge of their financial lives at an early age and then stay with it throughout their lives. That's a fact with which we all need to become familiar.

That's my 'male' take.

Thanks. Bob.

D-Day's 72d Anniversary ... June 6,1944 ... The Battle of Normandy and Operation Overlord ... American Exceptionalism

The D-Day attack by the Allies on June 6, 1944 was the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany and World War II fighting in Europe.

And when we reference it officially, the Battle of Normandy or Operation Overlord is its proper name.

But whatever we choose to call it, the 72d anniversary of D-Day is June 6, 2016.

In my view, we don't take sufficient time to reflect on American Exceptionalism and celebrate our world leading heritage as free Americans. In fact, sometimes we even neglect to recall the anniversary of historically world changing events.

Thus, let's refresh our memories as we reflect on this momentous 72d anniversary of the Battle of Normandy.

D-Day is worth reading in its entirety and has much to say to all Americans and citizens of the free world:

"What Was D-Day?

In the early morning hours of June 6, 1944, the Allies launched an attack by sea, landing on the beaches of Normandy on the northern coast of Nazi-occupied France.  The first day of this major undertaking was known as D-Day; it was the first day of the Battle of Normandy (code-named Operation Overlord) in World War II.

On D-day, an armada of approximately 5,000 ships secretly crossed the English Channel and unloaded 156,000 Allied soldiers and nearly 30,000 vehicles in a single day on five, well-defended beaches (Omaha, Utah, Pluto, Gold, and Sword). By the end of the day, 2,500 Allied soldiers had been killed and another 6,500 wounded, but the Allies had succeeded, for they had broken through the German defenses and created a second front in World War II.

Dates:  June 6, 1944

Planning a Second Front

By 1944, World War II had already been raging for five years and most of Europe was under Nazi control. The Soviet Union was having some success on the Eastern Front but the other Allies, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom, had not yet made a full-fledged attack on the European mainland.

It was time to create a second front.

The questions of where and when to start this second front were difficult ones. The northern coast of Europe was an obvious choice, since the invasion force would be coming from Great Britain. A location that already had a port would be ideal in order to unload the millions of tons of supplies and soldiers needed. Also required was a location that would be within range of Allied fighter planes taking off from Great Britain.

Unfortunately, the Nazis knew all this as well. To add an element of surprise and to avoid the bloodbath of trying to take a well-defended port, the Allied High Command decided on a location that met the other criteria but that did not have a port -- the beaches of Normandy in northern France.

Once a location had been chosen, deciding upon a date was next. There needed to be enough time to collect the supplies and equipment, gather the planes and vehicles, and train the soldiers. This whole process would take a year. The specific date also depended on the timing of low tide and a full moon. All of this led to a specific day – June 5, 1944.

Rather than continually refer to the actual date, the military used the term “D-Day” for the day of attack.

What the Nazis Expected

The Nazis knew the Allies were planning an invasion. In preparation, they had fortified all northern ports, especially the one at Pas de Calais, which was the shortest distance from southern Britain. But that was not all.

As early as 1942, Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler ordered the creation of an Atlantic Wall to protect the northern coast of Europe from an Allied invasion. This was not literally a wall; instead, it was a collection of defenses, such as barbed wire and minefields, that stretched across 3,000 miles of coastline.

In December 1943, when highly-regarded Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (known as the “Desert Fox”) was put in charge of these defenses, he found them completely inadequate. Rommel immediately ordered the creation of additional “pillboxes” (concrete bunkers fitted with machine guns and artillery), millions of additional mines, and a half million metal obstacles and stakes placed on the beaches that could rip open the bottom of landing craft.

To hinder paratroopers and gliders, Rommel ordered many of the fields behind the beaches to be flooded and covered with protruding wooden poles (known as “Rommel’s asparagus”). Many of these had mines fitted on top.

Rommel knew that these defenses would not be enough to stop an invading army, but he hoped it would slow them down long enough for him to bring reinforcements. He needed to stop the Allied invasion on the beach, before they gained a foothold.

Secrecy

The Allies desperately worried about German reinforcements. An amphibious attack against an entrenched enemy would already be incredibly difficult; however, if the Germans ever found out where and when the invasion was to take place and thus reinforced the area, well, the attack might end disastrously.

That was the exact reason for the need of absolute secrecy. To help keep this secret, the Allies launched Operation Fortitude, an intricate plan to deceive the Germans. This plan included false radio signals, double agents, and fake armies that included life-size balloon tanks. A macabre plan to drop a dead body with false top-secret papers off the coast of Spain was also used.

Anything and everything was used to deceive the Germans, to make them think that the Allied invasion was to occur somewhere else and not Normandy.

A Delay

All was set for D-Day being on June 5, even the equipment and soldiers had already been loaded onto the ships. Then, the weather changed. A massive storm hit, with 45-mile-an-hour wind gusts and lots of rain.

After much contemplation, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, postponed D-Day just one day. Any longer of a postponement and the low tides and full moon wouldn’t be right and they’d have to wait another whole month. Also, it was uncertain they could keep the invasion secret for that much longer. The invasion would begin on June 6, 1944.

Rommel also paid notice to the massive storm and believed that the Allies would never invade in such inclement weather. Thus, he made the fateful decision to go out of town on June 5 to celebrate his wife’s 50th birthday. By the time he was informed of the invasion, it was too late.

In Darkness: Paratroopers Begin D-Day

Although D-Day is famous for being an amphibious operation, it actually started with thousands of brave paratroopers.

Under the cover of darkness, the first wave of 180 paratroopers arrived in Normandy. They rode in six gliders that had been pulled and then released by British bombers.  Upon landing, the paratroopers grabbed their equipment, left their gliders, and worked as a team to take control of two, very important bridges: the one over the Orne River and the other over the Caen Canal. Control of these would both hinder German reinforcements along these paths as well as enable the Allies access to inland France once they were off the beaches.

The second wave of 13,000 paratroopers had a very difficult arrival in Normandy. Flying in approximately 900 C-47 airplanes, the Nazis spotted the planes and started shooting. The planes drifted apart; thus, when the paratroopers jumped, they were scattered far and wide.

Many of these paratroopers were killed before they even hit the ground; others got caught in trees and were shot by German snipers. Still others drowned in Rommel’s flooded plains, weighed down by their heavy packs and tangled in weeds. Only 3,000 were able to join together; however, they did manage to capture the village of St. Mére Eglise, an essential target.

The scattering of the paratroopers had a benefit for the Allies – it confused the Germans. The Germans did not yet realize that a massive invasion was about to get underway.

Loading the Landing Craft

While the paratroopers were fighting their own battles, the Allied armada was making its way to Normandy. Approximately 5,000 ships -- including minesweepers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and others – arrived in the waters off France around 2 a.m. on June 6, 1944.

Most of the soldiers on board these ships were seasick. Not only had they been on board, in extremely cramped quarters, for days, crossing the Channel had been stomach turning because of extremely choppy waters from the storm.

The battle began with a bombardment, both from the armada’s artillery as well as 2,000 Allied aircraft that soared overhead and bombed the beach defenses. The bombardment turned out to be not as successful as had been hoped and a lot of German defenses remained intact.

While this bombardment was under way, the soldiers were tasked with climbing into landing craft, 30 men per boat. This, in itself, was a difficult task as the men climbed down slippery rope ladders and had to drop into landing craft that were bobbing up and down in five-foot waves. A number of soldiers dropped into the water, unable to surface because they were weighted down by 88 pounds of gear.

As each landing craft filled up, they rendezvoused with other landing craft in a designated zone just outside of German artillery range. In this zone, nicknamed “Piccadilly Circus,” the landing craft stayed in a circular holding pattern until it was time to attack.

At 6:30 a.m., the naval gunfire stopped and the landing boats headed toward shore.

The Five Beaches

The Allied landing boats were headed to five beaches spread out over 50 miles of coastline.  These beaches had been code-named, from west to east, as Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. The Americans were to attack at Utah and Omaha, while the British struck at Gold and Sword. The Canadians headed toward Juno.

In some ways, soldiers reaching these beaches had similar experiences. Their landing vehicles would get close to the beach and, if they were not ripped open by obstacles or blown up by mines, then the transport door would open and the soldiers would disembark, waist-deep in the water. Immediately, they faced machine-gun fire from the German pillboxes.

Without cover, many in the first transports were simply mowed down. The beaches quickly became bloody and strewn with body parts. Debris from blown up transport ships floated in the water.  Injured soldiers that fell in the water usually did not survive – their heavy packs weighed them down and they drowned.

Eventually, after wave after wave of transports dropped off soldiers and then even some armored vehicles, the Allies started making headway on the beaches.

Some of these helpful vehicles included tanks, such as the newly designed Duplex Drive tank (DDs). DDs, sometimes called “swimming tanks,” were basically Sherman tanks that had been fitted with a flotation skirt that allowed them to float.

Flails, a tank equipped with metal chains in front, was another helpful vehicle, offering a new way to clear mines ahead of the soldiers. Crocodiles, were tanks equipped with a large flame thrower.

These specialized, armored vehicles greatly helped the soldiers on Gold and Sword beaches. By early afternoon, the soldiers on Gold, Sword, and Utah had succeeded in capturing their beaches and had even met up with some of the paratroopers on the other side. The attacks on Juno and Omaha, however, were not going as well.

Problems at Juno and Omaha Beaches

At Juno, the Canadian soldiers had a bloody landing. Their landing boats had been forced off course by currents and thus had arrived at Juno Beach a half hour late. This meant that the tide had risen and many of the mines and obstacles were thus hidden under water.  An estimated half of the landing boats were damaged, with almost a third completely destroyed. The Canadian troops eventually took control of the beach, but at a cost of more than 1,000 men.

It was even worse at Omaha. Unlike the other beaches, at Omaha, American soldiers faced an enemy that was safely housed in pillboxes located on top of bluffs that soared 100 feet above them. The early-morning bombardment that was supposed to take out some of these pillboxes missed this area; thus, the German defenses were nearly intact.

There were was one particular bluff, called Pointe du Hoc, that stuck out into the ocean between Utah and Omaha Beaches, giving German artillery at the top the ability to shoot at both beaches. This was such an essential target that the Allies sent in a special Ranger unit, led by Lt. Col. James Rudder, to take out the artillery on top. Although arriving a half hour late because of drifting from a strong tide, the Rangers were able to use grappling hooks to scale the sheer cliff. At the top, they discovered that the guns had been temporarily replaced by telephone poles to fool the Allies and to keep the guns safe from the bombardment. Splitting up and searching the countryside behind the cliff, the Rangers found the guns. With a group of German soldiers not far away, Rangers snuck in and detonated thermite grenades in the guns, destroying them.

In addition to the bluffs, the crescent-shape of the beach made Omaha the most defensible of all the beaches. With these advantages, the Germans were able to mow down transports as soon as they arrived; the soldiers had little opportunity to run the 200 yards to the seawall for cover. The bloodbath earned this beach the nickname “Bloody Omaha.”

The soldiers on Omaha were also essentially without armored help. Those in command had only requested DDs to accompany their soldiers, but nearly all of the swimming tanks headed toward Omaha drowned in the choppy waters.

Eventually, with the help of naval artillery, small groups of men were able to make it across the beach and take out the German defenses, but it would cost 4,000 casualties to do so.

The Break Out

Despite a number of things not going to plan, D-Day was a success. The Allies had been able to keep the invasion a surprise and, with Rommel out of town and Hitler believing the landings at Normandy were a ruse for a real landing at Calais, the Germans never reinforced their position. After initial heavy fighting along the beaches, the Allied troops were able to secure their landings and break through German defenses to enter the interior of France.

By June 7, the day after D-Day, the Allies were beginning the placement of two Mulberries, artificial harbors whose components had been pulled by tugboat across the Channel. These harbors would allow millions of tons of supplies to reach the invading Allied troops.

The success of D-Day was the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany. Eleven months after D-Day, the war in Europe would be over."

Summing Up

God Bless America.

We're the best because our predecessors were the best.

That was their gift to us.

May we always remember that simple fact of where our freedom came from and pledge ourselves to do our parts to keep American Exceptionalism at the forefront of all worthwhile human endeavors.

That's my take.

Thanks. Bob.

Memorializing Memorial Day

It is 3 PM on Memorial Day. A time designated by Congress as a moment of silence. Therefore, just for a moment, let’s stop and remember the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that this great nation remains the brightest beacon for hope and opportunity in the world. Despite our political beliefs and differences, today, right now, we can join in appreciation and remembrance.

I am sincerely thankful to be an American. Having traveled to 18 countries on four different continents, I have become convinced of one thing. America remains the greatest country on earth. This is only possible because of the freedom provided by the sacrifice of so many men and women. Men and women who decided to pursue a higher calling, something greater than themselves. Men and women who were willing to sacrifice their lives for not only family and friends, but for people that they have never met, people like me, present and future generations.

My Uncle, LT Robert Miller, was killed in Vietnam while leading his men as an Infantry Officer. He was a member of the 5Th Marine Regiment, which is the most decorated in Marine Corps history. On his memorial at the Marine Corps Museum is a sobering quote, “WHEN YOU GO HOME, TELL THEM OF US AND SAY, FOR YOUR FREEDOM, WE GAVE OUR TODAY.” 

Thus, let's enjoy a break to spend time with family and friends while not losing sight of the true meaning of Memorial Day. The price of freedom is high. Sadly, war often takes our best young men and women. Today, I salute the fallen soldiers and their families, as well as our veterans and those currently serving this great nation. It is our responsibility that their sacrifice is never forgotten.

Along those lines, here is a touching video worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYLr_LfhLo

Thanks. 

MIDN Matthew Miller

United States Merchant Marine Academy

Class of 2017