A Generational Analysis of the Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates

Several years ago, William Strauss and Neil Howe presented a theory on generational cycles in American history. Without going into that theory in depth, suffice to say I have done an analysis of the current crop of suspected candidates for President of the United States.

Strauss and Howe have identified 15 generational “cohorts” in the history of the US. A cohort is one generation which spans, roughly, 20 years, and is comprised of members who share certain characteristics that either mold the times are or molded by them. Those cohorts are:

Awakening 1701–1723
Liberty 1724–1741
Republican 1742–1766
Compromise 1767–1791
Transcendental 1792–1821
Gilded 1822–1842
Progressive 1843–1859
Missionary 1860–1882
Lost 1883–1900
G.I. 1901–1924
Silent 1925–1942
Boom 1943–1960
Generation X 1961–1981
Millennial 1982–2004
Homeland 2005-Present

By identifying each US President with his cohort, an interesting pattern emerges.













Of 43 individuals who have been President, with the title changing hands 43 times (remember Cleveland’s terms were nonconsecutive), only twice has the new president not been of the same or the succeeding generation. That is to say, presidential succession in the US has been generationally progressive with younger generation taking over from older ones, except twice.

The first was Zachary Taylor, an older Compromise generation member who was elected after James K. Polk, a member of the Transcendental cohort. But Polk was forced to accept an agreement to only serve one term in order to secure nomination and was the country’s first “Dark Horse” presidential candidate. Taylor was not late, Polk was early.

The other also involved the Transcendentals and the Compromise generations. Franklin Pierce, Transcendental, was followed by Compromise member, James Buchanan. Buchanan’s successors were Abraham Lincoln, and the crisis that he did little to prevent.

My thesis then, is that the next President is most likely to be a member of the Generation X cohort. Some chance exists that Barack Obama was “early” like Polk, but as he was elected, I think less likely. Also possible that the next President could be a Millennial, the oldest members of which are just old enough to be eligible, but there are no Millennial in the list of probable candidates, at least not yet.

Looking at all 57 US Presidential elections, there are somethings we need to be clear on.

First, it is not at all certain that a candidate from a younger cohort will beat an older one. The older generational candidate has prevailed in 14 elections or just over 50% of generational challenges and preserved the older Generation’s place in every case but the two mentioned where they managed to push the younger generation out.

The difference has been that the younger generation prevails, except for those one election, Buchanan (Taylor died in office and was replaced by his Transcendental VP, Millard Fillmore, what’s more he ran against another Compromise cohort Candidate, Lewis Cass), once they have had a member attain the Presidency. The younger generation has successfully defended the White House from a bid by the older generation in 13 other generationally contested elections–slightly less than 50%. One of those to restore Transcendentals when Lincoln succeeded Buchanan (he defeated the Compromise cohort member Breckenridge).

In addition, two Presidents defeated challengers that were two generations different than themselves. First the Missionary FDR defeated the G.I. Thomas Dewey in 1944 (same Dewey that lost to Lost President Truman in 1948). And then Barack Obama, the first Gen X President, took office against Silent cohort member John McCain in 2008.

The Silent generation is the only cohort that has not had an occupant of the White House, though they have lost three contests, Reagan v. Mondale (1984) and Bush v. Dukakis (1988) were the other two.PresGen2

The figures:

Number of US Presidential elections to date: 57
Number of US Presidential elections between candidates of the same generation: 30
Number of Presidential elections won by an older generation candidate: 14 *
Number of Presidential elections won by the younger generation candidate: 13 **

Adams v. Jefferson (1796)
Buchanan v. Fremont (1856)
McKinley v. Bryan (1896, 1900) –First Progressive
Taft v. Bryan (1908)
Wilson v. Hughes (1916)
Harding v. Cox (1920)
Roosevelt v. Landon (1936)
Roosevelt v. Willkie (1940)
Roosevelt v. Dewey (1944)
Truman v. Dewey (1948)
Reagan v. Mondale (1984)
Bush v. Dukakis (1988)

Jefferson v. Adams (1800) –First Republican
Jefferson v. Pinckney (1804)
Madison v. Pinckney (1808)
Monroe v. J. Q. Adams (1820)
Polk v. Clay (1844) –First Transcendental
Pierce v. Scott (1852)
Lincoln v. McClellan (1864)
Grant v.Seymour (1868) –First Gilded
Grant v. Greeley (1872) –Greeley died during the election.
Hayes v. Tilden (1876)
Clinton v. Bush (1992) –First Boom
Clinton v. Dole (1996)
Obama v. McCain (2008) –First Gen X
Obama v. Romney (2012)

Extra: Presidents who inherited office and never stood for election:
John Tyler -1841
Andrew Johnson -1865
Chester Arthur -1881
Gerald R. Ford -1974 (was not on the ticket as Vice President–appointed after the resignation of Spiro Agnew)

The list of current possible Democrat candidates:

Bernie Sanders b. 1941
Joe Biden b. 1942
Ed Rendell b. 1944
Jim Webb b. 1946
Hillary Rodham Clinton b. 1947
Jeanne Shaheen b. 1947
Al Franken b. 1951
Luis Gutiérrez b. 1953
Mark Warner b. 1954
Brian Schweitzer b. 1955
Jay Nixon b. 1956
Andrew Cuomo b. 1957
Janet Napolitano b. 1957
Maggie Hassan b. 1958
Tim Kaine b. 1958
Rahm Emanuel b. 1959
Amy Klobuchar b. 1960
George Clooney b. 1961
Tammy Baldwin b. 1962
Martin O’Malley b. 1963
Steve Bullock b. 1966

Eliminating all but the Gen Xers, we get (D):

George Clooney–Actor
Tammy Baldwin–US Senator (WI)
Martin O’Malley–Gov. Maryland
Steve Bullock–Gov Montana

The list of current possible Republican candidates:

Peter King b. 1944
George Pataki b. 1945
Herman Cain b. 1945
Donald Trump b. 1946
John R. Bolton b. 1948
Jim Gilmore b. 1949
Mitch Daniels b. 1949
Rick Perry b. 1950
Ben Carson b. 1951
John Kasich b. 1952
Rick Scott b. 1952
Jeb Bush b. 1953
Carly Fiorina b. 1954
Lindsey Graham b. 1955
Mike Huckabee b. 1955
Michele Bachmann b. 1956
Bob Ehrlich b. 1957
Rick Santorum b. 1958
Rick Snyder b. 1958
Mike Pence b. 1959
Susana Martinez b. 1959
Chris Christie b. 1962
Rand Paul b. 1963
Sarah Palin b. 1964
Scott Walker b. 1967
Ted Cruz b. 1970
Bobby Jindal b. 1971
Marco Rubio b. 1971

The Gen Xers (R):

Chris Christie–Gov. New jersey
Rand Paul–US Senator (KY)
Sarah Palin–Former Gov. Alaska
Scott Walker–Gov. Wisconsin
Ted Cruz–US Senator (TX)
Bobby Jindal–Gov. Louisiana
Marco Rubio–US Senator (FL)

This is not to say that either party would not nominate anyone from the list, but historically speaking, the ones identified are the ones with the best chance.

On not torture…

I think most people have no idea what torture is. Congress is at fault. As Congress has refused to define torture, as a reasonable person I will continue to point out that no one was tortured by the US.

I understand that defining it is a difficult proposition. So a null hypothesis can be used–define what it is not, or more directly, define what proper interrogation is.

As I would define it, proper interrogation would requires proper intent, improper intent, then constituting torture, as well as an analysis of the techniques.

Waterboarding, for example, is not torture in and of itself. If it is used, though in the pursuit of anything but actionable intelligence or it’s confirmation, it could be. It is certainly torture, though, if the intent is to cause pain or discomfort for any other purpose–that’s sadism.

Also, any such technique that is used in the usual Hollywood scenario: I’m going to hurt you until you talk, is torture, and that’s not how interrogations are done. Done right, proper coercive techniques speed up the time it takes for an interrogator to establish a rapport with the subject in a good cop/bad cop routine.

Fully articulated, proper intent, as I see it, requires reason to think that the subject is in possession of the information, reason to think that there is a set of circumstances under which they will divulge it, and that the information be itself actionable or confirmation of other intelligence that lacks that confirmation to be actionable. If any of these elements fail, the interrogator does not have proper intent and their actions may then rise to the level of torture. Those actions also have to be scrutinized before and during, by those authorities conducting the interrogations, and escalating intensity should require higher and higher prior approval. After the fact, all levels of oversight from immediate supervisors, IG, and ultimately Congress, even if that last is the usual lost cause.

Congress did ratify the UN Convention on Torture in 1994. But that’s also no help. It does not meaningfully define torture. The UN is just as negligent in this matter as the Congress.

“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
— Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Just as a starting point, what constitutes “severe”? More broadly, this could be applied in such a way as to prevent all interrogation.

A number of pundits, some who have said so all along, and some emboldened by the recent Senate Democrat report, have been making the assertion that the US tortured detainees. But the fact is, this assertion is completely unsupportable.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, for example, has been steadfast in this assertion. In response to the why both the Bush and Obama administrations have not pursued prosecutions, he claims that this is a political determination. He’s probably not used to the accusation I’m going to level against him, but he has failed to think this all the way through.

Indeed, he is right that both administrations have made political determinations as opposed to legal ones, but he doesn’t address why that should be the case. The reason is that Congress, in writing the legislation that might have applied, crafted the law, deliberately, to leave it a political determination.

The laws of the United States that “outlaw” torture, in fact, do no such thing, because, as discussed, they fail, utterly, to define what constitutes torture. Unconstitutionally vague is an understatement. Prosecution should be impossible in this circumstance and if achieved, would be unjust. The Bush and Obama administrations have made the only just determination that they can–not to try to prosecute. And that presumes, without evidence, that anyone did anything worthy of prosecution.

The US has tortured no one.

(Here is the US Code attempt at a definition: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340)

FOXNEWS: West Point report describes Islamic State threat as crisis 4 years in the making

A new report from the West Point counterterrorism center challenges the notion that the Islamic State only recently became a major terror threat, describing the network’s gains in Iraq as a crisis four years in the making.

Meanwhile, Fox News has learned that top aides to President Obama expect the threat from the organization, also known as ISIS or ISIL, to outlast Obama’s time in office.

The details underscore the challenge facing the U.S. government and its allies as the president and military advisers weigh how — and where — to confront the Islamist militant forces.

“ISIL did not suddenly become effective in early June 2014: it had been steadily strengthening and actively shaping the future operating environment for four years,” the report from the West Point center said.

Sure, 4 years in the making, but the choice, if anyone was thinking about it to make a choice, I think was just which four years.

I’m not sure it wasn’t inevitable, no matter who was President; just a matter of sooner or later. The only solution is to raise our game to a level of ruthlessness that our modern sensibilities will not countenance. We don’t have to go full Mongol and kill them all. We don’t even have to go biblical and kill all the men and take the women and children as our own. But we do have to decide that Total War can be an imperative, that we must engage in it.

As for our sensibilities, the—well “reasons” gives too much credit for thinking it through, but I don’t know a better word—the reasons that we lack the mettle to be ruthless is our cultural sensitivity.  If there is a population out there that is so near the edge, that they can be radicalized by how we fight the war, then by all means, push them past that edge and let them die on our pikes as they charge. Let them become enraged by our actions. Enraged opponents may be fierce, but emotional people make mistakes that we should be happy to seek out and exploit.

And we have to remain unemotional doing it.  We can neither afford to love it or hate it and warriors that find themselves doing either must be sidelined.  We have to be cold and dispassionate about the business even while being energetic and passionate in executing it.

We have to shake off the traditional American lack of fervor in the fourth phase of warfare, which is pursuit.  We must pursue—hunt them down and kill them where we find them with whatever means we have available for doing it.

“Economic Patriotism” — oxymoron.


So the President has been making noises about a few businesses that have decided not to be “American” for tax purposes. Then Mark Cuban steps in and says he won’t do business with those that do that.

And all that’s fine. But both are suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of how all this rally works and their resulting misplaced expectations.

The correct expectation would be that people act in their best interests. For example, if it costs more in taxes to do business here than anywhere else, then yes, we should expect some number to go elsewhere. Patriotism doesn’t enter into the equation.

That said, if enough people, like Cuban, were to decide that they won’t do business with them because of such a decision, that also has to factor into best interest–its unlikely to ever generate enough participation–boycotts are historically ineffective. But if it were, it still has nothing to do with patriotism.

So the only effective coercive measure is law, which is what the President is talking about. Usually only totalitarian governments have to use force to keep their population from leaving the borders. Taking such action would seem to me to reduce patriotic feeling generally. And if force must be employed, then the subjects of that force are still not behaving patriotically.

The entire concept of “economic patriotism,” then, is only a pleasant sounding oxymoron not unlike trying to equate social programs with charity.

Some say that none of this “self interest” should matter. Businesses should be about giving back through paying taxes… Taxes are not “giving back.” Giving back is public service and community involvement–things that most businesses already engage in. Those activities also have the virtue of being voluntary–voluntary being the defining element of “giving back.”

Taxes are not voluntary. They are taken by threat of violence. Some level of taxation is appropriate but every individual decides what that level is for themselves. When it gets higher than they like, they take some action, from ramping up charitable giving, seeking out missed deductions, to refusing promotions or raises, to cheating on their filing or not filing at all. Or even moving somewhere else with a lower tax rate.

Personally, moving to Texas was a great move for me on taxes. Having done so doesn’t make me less Oklahoman. Oklahoma remains the community to whom I “give back” the most by time and talent in the National Guard.

The thing is, legislation has one constant effect–it changes the locus of decision making from the person to the legislature. It is a substitution of judgement–lawmakers know better how things should be then, well, everybody else. Every one of these laws, collectively, reduces the liberty–the ability to make one’s own choices– of the population. In a country like our, predicated on maximum liberty–when that is the foundation of patriotic feeling–how can an abundance of coercive legislation fail to erode patriotic feeling?

The difference between the voluntary “giving back’ and the coerced taking by taxation. If I give $1000 to a guy on a street corner–that’s me being charitable and the act is attributable to me–he had nothing to do with it. If the guy on the street corner takes $1000 from me, that’s theft and the act is attributable to him–I had nothing to do with it. Even if he provides me something in return, say an assurance that no one else will steal from me, its still theft.

ISIS Vulnerable?


ISIS was once an insurgent guerrilla force.  But no longer.  ISIS is a conventional force. They have tanks, APCs, howitzers….  They can’t hide that aspect and remain a conventional force–they can move some small assets around, but not in numbers, and certainly not their heavier elements.

Seems to me that ISIS has left itself vulnerable to the same kinds of attacks that were used on Coalition forces–guerrilla style hit-and-run attacks, roadside ambushes. There is no deep security. Opposition would need only the ability to withdraw to the countryside and blend in, or, if unable to blend in, move far enough away with an ability to navigate the countryside (GPS?).

Look at the map above.  There are a number of choke points that could be used to make a nightmare of their need to support themselves, tactically and logistically.  Especially if a conventional force were to harass those “control zones” by way of distraction and harassment.

Left Behind: Americans in Captivity

“We don’t leave people behind.”
–US President, Barack Obama.

On 31 Mar, Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi was driving with his friends to go to a Mexican restaurant and accidentally missed the last exit before the Mexican border. Without the ability to turn around before he crossed the border, he proceeded to the Mexican customs post, where he explained that he missed the exit before the crossing, and volunteered that he had three US legal guns in the vehicle. After that, Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi was arrested and charged with gun smuggling into Mexico.

Amir Hekmati, a 29-year-old Iranian-American who was born in Arizona and grew up in Michigan, said in a letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that he has been held for more than two years on false charges of being a spy for the CIA. He said a televised “confession” he made in December 2011 was “obtained by force, threats, miserable prison conditions, and prolonged periods of solitary confinement.”

Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent from Coral Springs, Fla., went missing during a business trip to Iran’s Kish Island on March 9, 2007. He was working on behalf of several large corporations as a private investigator researching a cigarette smuggling case. Initially, the U.S. suspected that a terrorist group was behind the kidnapping. U.S. intelligence officials have indicated they now believe Iran is behind Levinson’s captivity.

Saeed Abedini, 33, an American Christian pastor from Boise, Idaho, was arrested during a trip to Iran in the summer of 2012. He was sentenced earlier this year to eight years in prison on charges of attempting to undermine state security. His supporters say his “crime” was attempting to share his Christian faith.

Alan Gross, 64, is a U.S. government contractor serving a 15-year sentence for bringing banned communications equipment to Cuba. He was detained in 2009 while distributing computer equipment as part of a program by the U.S. Agency for International Development to increase Internet access on the island.

Kevin Sutay, a 26-year-old U.S. military veteran and New York native was taken captive on June 20 in Colombia’s volatile southeast by FARC rebels two days after arriving as a tourist. The group said Sutay’s capture was evidence of “the active participation on the ground of American military and mercenaries in counter-insurgency operations in which they appear under the euphemism of contractors.”

Kenneth Bae, a 45-year-old naturalized American citizen with family living in Washington state, was arrested by North Korea in November 2012 while leading a group of tourists in the northeastern port city of Rason. Bae, described by relatives and friends as a devout Christian, was sentenced earlier this year to 15 years of hard labor for unspecified “hostile acts” against the state.

Caitlin Coleman, an American citizen who, along with her Canadian-born husband Josh, disappeared in Afghanistan in October 2012. Coleman was pregnant and would have had a child by the following January; if the infant survived, he or she would be considered an American citizen. The third missing citizen is Warren Weinstein, 72, a government contractor who was doing work in Pakistan when he was kidnapped in August 2011. It was unclear from government officials this week what the status of these Americans was or if active discussions were taking place to secure their release.

Yahia Ibrahim, 27, is a graduate of the school of medicine at Khartoum University and a lifelong Christian. Meriam met and married her naturalized American husband in Khartoum in 2012, and they have a 20-month old toddler son. Currently pregnant with their second child, Meriam was sentenced to death for apostasy and 100 lashes for adultery by the Public Order Court in El Haj Yousif, Khartoum, Sudan on May 11, 2014.

VA Culture–Gamesmanship and Oversight

In the VAs gaming culture, it seems clear that the “secret wait lists” were the result of decisions to expand VAs mandates, the resultant exacerbation of the backlog, and next resulting mandate to address the backlog. Employees faced with a mountain of work, high expectations, and poor management and oversight all converged to present the appearance of progress–possibly additionally motivated by the allure of monetary bonuses for making progress–without regard to the real world consequences.

Institutions are always ‘sociopathic’, that is, lacking in empathy. There is a process to be followed. Empathy in institutions only arises at the person-to-person level. That appears to me to have been incentivized out of the VA culture.

Texas, Pennsylvania, Arkansas to lose a BCT each.

An infantry brigade is about 3400 troops, currently. That said, we are not loosing 3400 troops–while some manpower will be lost, the actual cut here is in organizational structure. For example, an Infantry Brigade these days is composed of 6 battalions. By cutting a Brigade, they allow the Guard to create some number, fewer than or equal 6 battalions, elsewhere. That’s the Army 2020 plan–every brigade will get a new Infantry battalion, but they don’t want to change the overall number of troops in the Guard, so–cut three brigades and you can create up to 18 new battalions across the rest of the organization. (There are 20 Guard Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, if they cut 3, and stand up 17 battalions in each of the remaining, then they also cut overall end strength by one battalion, or about 500.) This also puts an IBCT at about 3900 troops.

Part of what’s going on though is deep cuts in defense spending. The Big Army wants to cut some amount of Guard and Reserve force structure in order to preserve Active Duty force structure. There’s a debate about how much–Governors and Congresscritters don’t like Guard cuts in particular. And the overhead per troop in the Guard (or Reserves) is about 1/3 what it is active duty. (So you could actually save all the money you need to by reducing the Active Component and increasing the Reserve Components and end up with the same size or even larger force overall–but Big Army doesn’t like to talk about that.)

It gets more convoluted with Guard troops, too. Those are State resources. So if Oklahoma lost the 45th Infantry BCT. That IS a 3400 troop loss to Oklahoma, because those freed up battalions would go to other states–say KS, LA, MO, WI, and IA each, get plussed up by one Infantry battalion. With the Army Reserve, those are federal resources and it all comes out in the wash, as it does in the Active Component.

The plan, as I understand it now, is to disband three National Guard IBCTs. One in Pennsylvania (2/28th IBCT), one in Arkansas (39th IBCT), and one in Texas (unsure–either the 56th or the 72nd IBCT). The PA unit choice is a bit cagey. It won’t impact Pennsylvania alone, as it’s units are not all located in that state; one Infantry battalions is in New York, it’s Cavalry Squadron is in Ohio.

But Arkansas and Texas appear to take the full hit. Texas is home to four brigade sized units (2 IBCTS, a Battlefield Surveillance Brigade and a Combat Aviation Brigade, and could reasonably be expected to absorb the hit, especially with one of the battalions staying in the state. Arkansas, on the other hand, is reduced to fewer than 4,000 troops statewide from just over 7,000.

And we still haven’t really addressed what the Army wants to do to meet budget restraints. Looking just at end strength, Big Army wants to cut 20,000 troops from the National Guard (after other cuts have gone into effect already). The same budgetary effect could be achieved by cutting ~6,500 active troops. This is like cutting 5 Guard brigades instead of 2 Active ones.

Even if you aren’t convinced by the numbers, the next consideration with the Guard is where these cuts will come from–which states? The Active Component has a formula for deciding which units are to be deactivated which takes into account lineage and history, combat time, and prestige. None of that is considered with Guard units. They threw us a bone in 1968 with the deactivation of many Divisional headquarters, by transferring lineage, honors and identity to one of the succeeding Brigades in that process. That’s why there is, today, a 45th Infantry Brigade (and, 30th, 27th, 39th, 41st…). The decisions as to where to cut could be extremely painful depending on how that decision is made.

Related> Paging Dr. Abrams: Why we need a commission on the structure of the Army.

Starting a New Job. Things I Failed to Plan For.

I started a new job a couple of weeks ago. Since it’s been almost exactly 13 years since I last had a new job with a new employer, there were some things I’d forgotten about.

One was that I have no idea where my old Social Security Card is. I simply haven’t needed it. I used to carry it in my wallet, but my wife pointed out a few years ago that you really aren’t supposed to do that. So I put it somewhere safe. Very safe, as it turns out.

I found myself at the Social Security Administration office very early in the morning to request a replacement. While I did have to arrive two hours before the doors opened (as I figured) to ensure being at the head of the very long line, I have to hand it to the folks at that office–it was orderly, and quick. The receipt was enough to keep from being dismissed from the new job. Yikes.

Health insurance was another thing. For all the talk around the ACA and such, my wife and I still find ourselves uninsured until the beginning of next month. Yeah, we could have used COBRA to extend the old policy, but the cost is astronomic, and this should only be three weeks. We had to make a few adjustments, regarding existing appointments, but we’ll be okay.

That hasn’t kept some folks from worrying on our behalf about being denied for pre-existing conditions…. Just in case anyone reading this might have a question, it didn’t work that way before the ACA was passed either.

Another factor in turning down COBRA; we wouldn’t have had the money anyway, even if it were affordable. The last pay check was only for one week and it takes some time to get into payroll at the new job. We have reserve cash and we’ll make it just fine, but COBRA would have broke the bank forthwith.

So the lawn is getting tall. It was drill weekend two weeks ago, and this past weekend I got the mower out for the first time this Spring. Second year in a row and the mower won’t start. Damned ethanol. I’ve sent the EPA an e-mail asking who I send the small engine repair bill to since it’s their policy that prevents me getting real gasoline. We’ll see.

So yesterday I mowed. My mower still doesn’t work, and I can’t budget for repairing it at the moment. When we bought the house, I was deploying to Afghanistan for the first time. My wife lived in the house for a year before I did–we closed the day before I reported for mobilization. She bought a reel mower, you know the old fashioned push type that has no engine. Its been hanging in the garage ever since.

Some lessons learned on manual mowing. Rake the yard well before you start. The smallest twig will bind the blades. After you rake, walk the yard and pick out any twigs you can see. Then rake it again, this time with the purpose of raking in the opposite direction you intend to mow. You are still going to have to cover every inch at least twice, and if the grass is long (mine was), you’ll still have lots of whiskers standing up when you are done. The spin trimmer is electric, thank God.

Boost the Signal. Squelch the Noise. Information is Power.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 758 other followers