Point of View: Sharing the Wealth

Knowing that my brother-in-law was going to the Kentucky Derby this year, thus forgoing his annual party where he persuades attendees to part with significant sums of money as he, as auctioneer, hypes the virtues of seeming — and, in the end, certifiable — also-rans, I said to Mary, “The good news is we’ll save $300 this week.”

His wife, Linda (ankle), who’s been on the injured reserve list for a while now, invited us to one of our favorite restaurants for dinner on Derby night, her treat, and as far as tables went we copped the post position.

Before the food arrived, we were asked if we wanted to take part in a $10 pool, and after feeling around a bit in the hat, I came up with a small slip of folded yellow paper that had “Nyquist” printed on it.

I had read that morning that many thought Nyquist, the odds-on favorite, could be had at the distance, a mile and a quarter, so it was with a pounding heart that I, standing at attention now, watched the field burst from the gate, thinking that if Nyquist won I’d rake in $2,000 — failing to realize, distracted as I was momentarily by greed, that the decimal point should be moved one zero to the left.

Still, it was great to win. Mary and Linda were elated too. We were all winners, and in the spirit of the evening, I decided to share — something that does not always come naturally to me. Sixty for Linda, 60 for Mary, 60 for me, and 20 for the passer of the hat.

Having redistributed my income, I asked if the Derby’s winner were named for “Grover Nyquist,” an interesting error (it was Grover Norquist I’d been thinking of, I learned later, the anti-taxer) given my expansive, share-the-wealth mood.

And it was interesting too that even as I was preening like a peacock, delighted to be thought of by two beautiful women as a can-do bettor, I was reminded that, as Bernie Sanders says, we can do better.