No, I Did Not Attend Last Night's Swearing-In Exercise for New Commissioners.

These swearing-in exercises are ceremonial.  The Commissioners being sworn in know they're (now) on the Commission, and so does everyone else who attends.  Anyone who doesn't attend, but who cares who's on the Commission knows who the Commissioners are.  These are feel-good exercises, and there is no substance to them.

In the comment section of a post not long ago in this blog, Gage Hartung and I were discussing the potential problem of having Commissioners who were in some sense "unknowns" in the Village, and who had not been active in any part of Village functioning in any way (apart, presumably, from paying their property taxes).  Swearing-in exercises do nothing to assuage concern about new Commissioners like that.  Two of our new Commissioners, who were sworn in last night, are like that.  They're happy to be there, enough of us voted for them, for whatever were our reasons, to be happy to have them (at least happy to have them instead of the candidates we didn't elect), but we're still left with a problem.  We have traded, as I said in a post some years ago, the devils we knew for the devils we don't know.  Some Village voters feel the devils we know are so bad that we'll take devils we don't know (not one candidate made any identifiable attempt to meet me, or leave campaign materials at my house -- they made themselves as unknown as possible), and Gage was more concerned, for whatever are his reasons, about trading what we know, and we know to be imperfect, flawed, or even possibly in some sense bad, for unknown devils.

Gage seemed to suggest it might always be better to stick with the devils we know.  He didn't respond when I asked him if he thought all incumbents should always be re-elected to any office, no matter what.  How far do you let that theory take you?

A week ago, I sent an e-mail to the two incumbents who will be staying on and to the three new Commissioners.  It was about an upcoming Ordinance proposal regarding "McMansions."  The three new Commissioners didn't receive the e-mail until their Village accounts were activated, which I assume happened yesterday.  I got an e-mail back from one of them today.  The response thanked me for my message, and it expressed appreciation for "the comprehensive background including [my] experience as a [P&Z] Board member."  The new Commissioner went on to say "While I'm working to understand this proposed Ordinance/change, I'm seeking to answer the same questions you are, and it's a good thing that we have time to best understand the proposed changes and evaluate the necessity of same."

This is the problem with new devils.  They don't understand the issues, or even what the issues are, and they have no institutional knowledge regarding the matter in question or Village functioning at all.  And under present circumstances, they're going to have to figure this out while they're being vigorously herded by one Commissioner who has strong feelings and likes to take charge.  All of the devils we know gave up and gave in.  Maybe the devils we don't know will do the same thing.  So we'll have a Commission of basically one voice.  Lots of rules and traditions were broken when that one voice belonged to Ed Burke.  Things were even worse when that one voice belonged to Tracy Truppman.  I've said many times that I like Mac Kennedy, and I consider Mac my friend.  But he has his style, and the BP Commission is not the Mac Kennedy Show.  Art Gonzalez is coasting and contributes nothing.  I don't know if the three new devils will be able to slow Mac down, and find a way to let him know that the fact that he has an opinion and a vision, doesn't make him "right."  Usually, there isn't a "right."

A week or so ago, I was watching a youtube video of Jon Stewart demolishing some woman who is part of the government in Indiana.  The subject was transsexuals.  And I read a bunch of the comments.  Many people are awed by Jon Stewart, and some said essentially that anyone would have to be crazy to get into a debate with him, because he's so well prepared, and his rhetorical style is so effective.  He did demolish this woman.  But he was wrong about the substantive issue.

It remains to be seen whether or not our three new Commissioners can represent us.  But even if they can't -- even if they're not strong enough -- they will most certainly be better than the old devils we succeeded in not re-electing.

Would it Be Easier to Talk About It If We Didn't Call it Critical Race Theory?

Critical race theory is slightly complicated.  You can look it up on Wikipedia.  It was conceptualized by a group of academic lawyers, mostly African-American, and it addresses ways that various parts of society are structured and operated to the disadvantage of African-Americans.  If we look at it slightly differently, we can see the same distortion activated to the disadvantage of other groups.  From Wikipedia, "In 2017, University of Alabama School of Law Professor Richard Delgado, a co-founder of Critical Race Theory, and legal writer Jean Stefancic, define CRT as 'a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.'"  "In his introduction to the comprehensive 1995 publication of critical race theory's key writings, [academician, race activist, and Harvard professor] Cornel West described CRT as 'an intellectual movement that is both particular to our postmodern (and conservative) times and part of a long tradition of human resistance and liberation.'"  "Law professor Roy L Brooks defined critical race theory in 1994 as 'a collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view.'"  And "In 2021, Khiara Bridges, a law professor and author of the textbook Critical Race Theory: A Primer defined critical race theory as 'an intellectual movement,' a 'body of scholarship,' and 'an analytical toolset for interrogating the relationship between law and racial inequality.'"

I'm not a lawyer, but Wikipedia goes on to something about which I know much more.  "Scholars of CRT say that 'race is not biologically grounded and natural,' rather it is a socially constructed category used to exploit and oppress people of color, and that racism is not an aberration, but a normalized feature of American society."  And I disagree.  I don't disagree about CRT.  It's a rock-solid theory, and we have overpowering evidence of the truth of it.  But I disagree that it's just about "race," or that it's "American."  CRT is garden variety anthropology and human-level animal behavior, and it's been around for millennia and all over the world.  Aggressors dominate, and humiliate, the people they beat, they enslave them, and they mistreat them.  If you think there's such a thing as "god," then you might know that "god" told the Jews in the OT to do just that.  History is rife with examples of conquerors subjugating the people they conquer.  To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't Americans who went to Africa to capture people to sell them into slavery.  I think it was the Portuguese.  It's just that the people who lived in what we now call the United States were more than pleased to acquire, own, and treat any way they wanted these Africans.

The thing about race is that it makes the victims easier to identify.  It's easy to differentiate someone who's black from someone who's caucasian.  Likewise, it's easy to identify someone from China or Japan.  I once heard a story, possibly apocryphal, about a psychiatrist named Vamik Volcan (true, he was a famous psychiatrist), and his study of what we now call PTSD (but which used to be called "war neurosis").  He was studying a particular conflict somewhere in eastern Europe, and he couldn't figure out the difference between one warring faction and the other.  He eventually realized the two sides wore different colored sashes.  It's even harder to tell the difference between Irish people who are Catholic, and want Ireland to be separate from England, and Irish people who are Protestant, and want Ireland to be part of England.  Or the US Civil War, or the Spanish Civil War, or the North and South Vietnamese, or...sure...why not...Democrats and Republicans.  But the underlying anthropologic dynamic is the same.  It's group/herd instincts, and uses and thems, and leaders and followers.  And the technique is always to dominate or disadvantage the people who aren't your group.  There are lots of ways to do it, too, and some of them are subtle.

About a year or two ago, I read an article about some African-American woman in Indiannapolis.  She wanted to sell her house.  She called a realtor or appraiser, they came over and took a look, and they told her her house was valued at $110K.  She wanted a second opinion, so to speak, so she called another realtor or appraiser, and they told her her house was valued at $125K.  The article I read didn't make clear why she had doubts, but she tried once more.  But this time, she removed all personal and family photographs, and decorations that might suggest the homeowner was black, and she asked one of her caucasian male friends to pose as the homeowner.  And when she reached out to realtor/appraiser #3, she did not call on the phone, and she created a new and unrevealing e-mail address.  This time, the valuation was $250K.  And I've heard that same story twice more in recent weeks or so.  One was from Baltimore, and the other was from somewhere in NY.  It's a very different person who walks away from a sale with $250K than one who only has $110K.

There are loads of stories about how black American farmers and landowners were treated regarding loans (whether or not they got them, when in the season they got them, what was the interest rate).  The same is true of African-Americans who are not farmers, and just need a loan.

And the voting...  Did you see the movie "Selma?"  But you know about Ron DeSantis' shenanigans about having black people arrested to prevent them from voting.  And Brian Kemp...and gerrymandering.  It's so rampant that it's hard to take a still photograph of this nonsense, and identify it for what it is.

Heather Small, a 57 year old black British woman who's a singer with a group called The Proud, says she been dealing with racism since she was seven, and "there isn't a week goes by..."  (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/heather-small-discusses-the-racism-she-s-faced-since-she-was-seven-there-isn-t-a-week-goes-by-when-something-doesn-t-happen/ar-AA14xK1Y?cvid=8038fa1525ca42419fac0dc564b2d528)

From the other direction, retired federal judge Mary Beth O'Connor says "It Wasn't Luck That Allowed [Her] to Become a Judge After Meth Addiction.  It Was White Privilege."  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/op-ed-it-wasn-t-luck-that-allowed-me-to-become-a-judge-after-meth-addiction-it-was-white-privilege/ar-AA14zHO5?cvid=bda62e6dbccd4c11b9a8f44250d29a6c

I don't know how many times I've heard black people say they "have to work twice as hard to get half as much."  It's been a lot of times.

Yesterday, I saw a patient I haven't seen in several years.  He lived here with his girlfriend, was in college, then became a long distance trucker, got married and moved to Virginia, and is now in a wonderful career.  But he was back down here, and needed, after all this time, to be seen.  He's darker than most, and of Haitian heritage, and he said he hated living in Miami.  He was constantly getting pulled over by the police, for nothing.  Once he was driving a truck, all over the country, that stopped happening.  But it happens again now somewhat, in Virginia, but only when he's driving his Mercedes.  If he drives his wife's car, he doesn't get pulled over.

So, OK, let's not get hung up on "CRT."  Let's call it a fault, or a flaw, in human nature.  But it ought to be our job to civilize ourselves better, and outgrow it.

So Thoughtful (?)

Sam Bankman-Fried pledged to give away 99% of his money.  In that Bankman-Fried, who's only 30, owns cryto company FTX, that was a lot of money.  Until FTX crashed (because, in my opinion, crytocurrency is a baseless and meaningless scam, and operates in many ways like a Ponzi scheme), at which point Bankman-Fried's fortune wasn't so impressive any more.

But it's not just Bankman-Fried.  Bill and ex-wife Melinda Gates have pledged to give away much of their considerable fortune, have formed a trust, and even hire people to help them figure out how to get rid of the money.

Warren Buffett is a donor to the Gates Foundation, and he, too, is devoted to giving away much of his money, which he appears to have no interest in spending, at least on himself and his family.  The story I heard about the Buffett family is that all family members understand clearly that you form your own ambitions, and make your own way, and no one is allowed to ask dad/grandpa for money.

What's also interesting is the ways these people get their money.  Years ago, I got a Mac laptop computer, because everyone I knew said they were the best.  I don't know at what they were supposedly the best, but to me, it was just a laptop computer.  And an unusually expensive one, too.  But I needed certain Microsoft applications to get the computer to do what I needed it to do.  So I had to buy something called "Windows for Mac."  I went to Best Buy, and they had Windows for Mac.  But it came in a package of three "licenses."  I only had one Mac computer, but I had to buy three licenses, two of which I never used.  Why did Bill Gates and Microsoft make me buy three of something when I only needed, or could use, one of them?  Warren Buffett, who charges a high fee to be an investor with Berkshire Hathaway, has famously said his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.  He considers this a problem of the US tax code, which allows people like him (hundreds of billions of dollars) to pay a lower rate than does his secretary.  But even though he complains about it, he doesn't voluntarily pay more, or take fewer deductions.  Anyone who is a member of (Sc)Amazon Prime pays what I think is now about $139 a year (plus the profit on whatever they buy) to one of the richest people on earth.  And the absolute richest person on earth charges too much for Tesla cars.  Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who have no possible use for the huge mountains of money they have, haven't even pledged to give it away.

So, if it is in some way nice that at least some of these people plan to give, or are in the process of giving, back/away the money, the question that's raised is why they bothered to amass it in the first place.  They don't need it, can't use it, and essentially don't want it.  They could leave it with consumers.  Or, since they're all Americans (is Musk an American?), they could pay a proper tax, and support their country.

No one has use for hundreds of billions of dollars, or tens of billions of dollars, or billions of dollars, or hundreds of millions of dollars, or tens of millions of dollars, and few people have meaningful use for more than a couple million dollars, for their normal lifestyles and their retirements.  There are people who insist upon getting large amounts of money, and many of those people (the most notorious ones are athletes and lottery winners) either just blow the money, or they go bankrupt.  They have no use for the money, and they don't know how to handle amounts like that.  Some actors are like that, too.  So, if you can't handle the money, and have no use for it, why take it?  One of the things I always say is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who get money are not counterfeiters.  That is, they don't create their own money.  The money they get they take from someone else.  And they ought to think about that.

Another thing I always say is that we ask the wrong question about "health care."  The question we ask is how to pay for it.  The question we should ask is why it's so expensive (uniquely in this country).  And in the context of the recent discussion of the matter of student loans, I heard someone on the radio say the same thing about the cost of education.

I had an interesting experience this summer.  I was in Massachusetts, and I noticed a small lesion on my scalp.  I'm not a dermatologist, and I generally don't know how to evaluate skin lesions.  Dermatologists love to biopsy everything that crosses their paths, so I mostly stay away from them.  But my daughter sent me to a dermatologist she likes a lot, so I went there.  The dermatologist took one instantaneous peek at the lesion, told me what it was, and declared it nothing to worry about.  But she said she'd drain it for me if I wanted.  If I don't have to worry about it, then I don't need to do anything about it, and I declined.  But she found two other lesions I couldn't see, and she offered to freeze them off.  I told her I didn't care, and she could do whatever she wanted.  So it was two quick spritzes of liquid nitrogen, and we were done.  I later got the bill, which was for my Medicare deductible of $233.  The new patient visit charge was $370, the first quick spritz was $220, and the second quick spritz was $100.  (Apparently, you get a volume discount.)  And this was all for an interaction that took less than five minutes.  So I called.  They tried at first to block me from talking to the dermatologist, but after they decided I was "rude," she called me back.  (I call the office of a doctor who treated me, I ask to speak to the doctor, they run endless interference, and I'm rude?  During one call, I was routed to the voicemail of a nurse practitioner, who never returned my call.  I gave my name and phone number, and said I wanted to talk to Dr So-and-so.  I never even said what it was about.)  The doctor dismissed my recollection that the two spritzes were discretionary, and now, she asserted that they were to address possibly precancerous lesions.  (Now, we're in "hmm, we should biopsy that" territory.)  And as for the (insane and outrageous) charges?  She said her office charges based on what each insurance company authorizes.  (It was as if she was blaming the charge on the insurance company.)  I don't know why so many doctors' offices make you fill out pages of new patient forms, then don't bother to look at them, but I told her what she should already have known: I'm a medical doctor, too.  I told her I doubted she needed me to explain to her that her office does not charge a fee dictated by the insurance company.  They charge as much as the insurance company will pay them.  I pointed out, for example, that if her office had charged $100, I would not have been billed a $233 deductible.  But she had her own way of explaining this to herself, and its unspoken foundation was her office's intention to take a lot of money, from insurance companies, from insured people, or from uninsured people.  A lot of people are like that.  They just want as much as they can get, even though they don't need it, have no use for it, and compromise other people to get it.  And this dermatology office is not planning to give away any of the money it takes.

One of my friends has a very remote history of substance abuse.  She still, 40 years later, attends AA meetings.  She told me the goal of substance abusers is "more."  That seems to be the goal of many people regarding money, too.  And the "more" is an end in itself.  It has no meaning.  And they want credit because at some point, they have to unburden themselves by giving it away?  What else would anyone do with it?  "You can't take it with you."

Melissa's Looking For You.

You busy this coming Friday (November 18) at 8:00?  If you're not, there's something you might not want to miss at the Koubek Center.  Koubek is an auditorium owned by Miami Dade College, it's at 2705 SW 3rd St, I've been there many times (usually for flamenco shows), and they have something you might love on Friday.

The featured performer is German Lopez, who is listed as a "master" of a five-stringed instrument called the timple.  Melissa (the manager of the Koubek) says this instrument is like the four-stringed Colombian cuatro or the Cuban tres.  And Lopez is joined by "his quintet," and Cuban singer Aymee Nuviola and percussionist Sammy Figueroa.  I think a lot of cognoscenti know about Nuviola, and everyone knows about Figueroa.  I've heard and seen him several times, and he's as off the charts as it gets.  I will take the liberty to assume that he would only join musicians who are spectacular like he is.  Figueroa is also unbelievably friendly and informal, and when you meet him, he makes you feel like you and he are old friends.  He's sort of like Nestor Torres that way.  Lopez is playing selections or all of his newest album: "Alma."

I don't know if it's south Florida (except the Arsht), or the results of the coronavirus pandemic, but even magnificent entertainment is dirt cheap.  In this case, advance purchased tickets are $20 each, and tickets purchased at the door at the time of the concert are $25.

If you want to be good to yourself, and to whoever is/are your friend/s, you can go to koubekcenter@mdc.edu, and get tickets.  I would be the first to admit that it's really annoying that the ticket agent is squadup, and to two $20 tickets, they add a ridiculous "fee" of $5.32 ($45.32 total), but it's still cheap.  And you might be able to make it a little more expensive if Lopez has brought "Alma" to sell (and sign?), so you'll have a permanent souvenir.

I hope I see you there.  Melissa hopes I see you there, too.  (I don't actually know Melissa, but I spoke to her on the phone.  Super nice person.)

You Can Do This!

Give Miami Day is Thursday this week, but they've started accepting donations as of today.  I guess that makes it more like Give Miami Week than Give Miami Day.

The web address is givemiamiday.org, and there are over 1000 non-profit organizations that would like donations.  You've never heard of many of them, some you know well, and if you "Learn More," you'll find that the vast majority of them are what you would consider worthy of your help, although you'll also consider some to be of no interest at all.  But like anything else, you can't afford to help everyone whom even you consider worthy.

The minimum donation is $25, and they would be happy to have you agree to pay just a little more to cover the cost of getting the donation, like by paying a commission to your credit card.  The maximum donation is whatever you want it to be.

I will tell you what I tell everyone, at least about the arts organizations: not one of them in the world can keep itself afloat by selling tickets.  (And if they tried, they'd have to charge so much for the tickets that no one could afford to attend.)  Ticket/admission fees generally cover between a quarter and a half of the budget.  And I'm talking about everyone.  The Louvre, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and none -- not one -- of them can do this based on selling tickets or an admission fee.  In many countries, the government funds them.  In this country, they rely on various government grants (federal, state, and local), but also private donations.  I'm talking about you and me.

If you go to a show, and at least in the "old days," you got a paper program, you would likely see a list of donors.  The big dogs donated $100K or $50K or $25K.  A year.  But you'll see people listed because they donated $500, or $250, or $100, or $50.  Some organization will print your name in a program because you donated $50.  That's how much it's worth to them that you did that.  That's how grateful they are.  And Give Miami Day will bother to process and accept a donation of $25.  You pick the organization(s).  It essentially all goes to them, and some of them get a little extra for having earned your devotion.

So go to givemiamiday.org, and do a little shopping.  You'll make the world outside yourself a better place, and you'll make someone else happy, and make their mission easier.  Remember, if you donate to them, then you agree with them.  You value them.  If you frequent them, then you rely on them.  They rely on you, too.  Really they do.

For Want of a Comma, Etc.

I get a Monday through Friday (free) post called NowIKnow.com.  The posts are almost always interesting, and they're about things you didn't know.  (But Now, You Do!)  Today's post was about a case from Maine, where there had been a state law requiring payment of time and a half for overtime, except in some employment situations.  Those situations were listed, and one exception was "packing for shipping or distribution" of various things, including perishables.  One group of employees who were excluded from the required time and a half compensation for overtime were truckers who delivered milk.  They were distributing perishables, so their employer didn't pay them the time and a half for overtime.  But they argued, eventually successfully, that there was no comma separating "packing for shipping" and "distribution," so since they were distributing, but not packing, then their work, and their overtime, should not have been excepted.  It's a very fine point, of course, and it would take lawyers who wanted a large piece of the $10M for which the drivers filed suit to take a case like this, but they did agree to a $5M settlement.  After that, a little more punctuation was added to the law, so people like those drivers would in fact be exempted from the overtime extra pay.  So, why am I telling you this seemingly completely irrelevant story?  Because I just watched and listened to a taping of Ron DeSantis' victory lap, to which FoxNews added commentary.

DeSantis patted himself on the back, of course, and he and the FoxNews people concluded that he had such an overwhelming victory because of things like low taxes in Florida, and the dominance of "science" over "superstition," and the freedom to teach openly in the schools, and other dribble.  Remember that missing comma?

What DeSantis carefully didn't mention was the real cost to real people, and education, and the environment, of underfunding the state.  He was standing on a stage, and confetti was flowing while he crowed, so no one could ask him what he considered science, and what he considered "superstition," and how he decided which was which.  As best I know, DeSantis is not a medical doctor, so when, during a worldwide pandemic, he declares masks silly and unnecessary, it's unclear how he draws this conclusion.  (And let's not forget that when he was pressed to reveal whether or not he was vaccinated, he dodged the question.  And if he did get vaccinated, does that mean he pumps out his chest whining about "superstition," but he doesn't really believe one bit that it's superstition?  Do we add that to the list of Ron DeSantis' dishonesties?)  No one could ask him which things teachers might teach that he would consider wrong indoctrination, and how "Don't Say Gay" is in any way related to teaching openly in the schools.  (Telling schools what they can't talk about is exactly the opposite of teaching openly in the schools, right?)  He has already declared it unacceptable to teach "Critical Race Theory" in the schools, even though CRT is not taught at any level below law school.  And even if he meant law school, who is he to determine acceptable law school curriculum?

Once you get glib about carelessness with things like punctuation, or anything to do with logic, you can say any dumb thing you want.  And if the voters are also dumb enough, they'll believe you, and even be swept off their feet.  Of note, the Maine milk delivery drivers lost their case at first, but they won on appeal.  When the dairies made their case to someone who thought more carefully about it, they didn't have as much success.

I Truly Don't Know Why or How It's Taken Me So Long.

A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to my son about how frankly mystified I am that I have reached the age I am, and been offered a comparatively extensive range of education and experience, and still couldn't fathom fully, until recently, how selfish, self-centered, and frankly cruel so many people are.

I could explain about my background and upbringing, and how they led me not to be that way myself, but it's a great deal of water under the bridge.

I clearly understand that other people are that way, but it's harder to understand, on a broad basis, why they are.  When I encounter it, which is in a given patient, for example, the explanation is personal, not categorical.

Originally in 1987, Robert Heilbroner wrote a book called Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers.  It was just this week that I read an excerpt from that book, and the excerpt was about Scottish-American Adam Smith.  It was Smith who coined the term "invisible hand of capitalism," and he was a proponent of capitalism and what he imagined was its "invisible [self-regulating] hand."  Smith was apparently a very odd sort of person, he didn't live among the lower classes, and he wrote in the mid to late 18th Century.  So, between impossible wages, terrible work conditions, child labor, and the rest, it's unclear how satisfied he should really have been with capitalism's ability to self-regulate, unless he wouldn't have minded if this self-regulation was at the considerable expense of other people.

In any event, Smith wrote a book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments.  It was a small part of that book that was excerpted by Heilbroner.  "Theory... was an inquiry into the origin of moral approbation and disapproval.  How does it happen that man, who is a creature of self-interest, can form moral judgments in which self-interest seems to be held in abeyance or transmuted to a higher plane?  Smith held that the answer lay in our ability to put ourselves in a position of a third person, an impartial observer, and in this way to form a sympathetic notion of the objective (as opposed to the selfish) merits of a case."

Well, clearly, I didn't major in philosophy or economics.  If I had, and if I had had to confront Smith's proposal, I would have had a problem.  There would have been a lot to consider.  Setting aside the obvious faultiness of the adaptively self-regulating "invisible hand of capitalism" -- if capitalism was adaptively self-regulating, no one would have challenged it -- we're left with a conundrum which some people would say was religious: the nature of humans is to be self-interested (that's the tendency that "god" programmed into humans), but that tendency can be held in abeyance, by force and virtue of more civilized traits "god" also programmed into humans, in favor of a "higher plane."  (Helluva sense of humor that boy has.)  And the impetus to seek that higher plane lies in what we could call empathy (I'm reducing the idea of "put[ting] ourselves in a position of a third person...and in this way...form[ing] a sympathetic notion of the objective, as opposed to the selfish" to empathy, or caring about other people instead of just caring about ourselves.)  It becomes even more complicated if we have to consider the idea of recognizing that some people are more disadvantaged than are others, and the ones with greater advantage should perhaps care even more about the disadvantaged ones than they do about themselves.

But I still have to admit that large swaths of humans either can't or won't exchange their "god-given" selfishness for their "god-given" capacity to care about other people.  They don't exist at that "higher plane."

Perhaps another economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, put it best: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."  That's what allows people to quote Smith's "invisible hand" idea, and ignore the "higher plane."

I have a movie called "Brothers."  In one scene, one woman tells another that the man she should want is the one who will leave the last bite of food for her.  He ate it himself.

I still don't know how I made it this far without realizing how fundamentally rapacious people are.  As Brian Tyler Cohen is fond of saying in his youtube posts, "it's not a bug; it's a feature."

Maybe There's a Silver Lining

First of all, we in BP have a new Commission, and the two incumbents running didn't win.  Generally speaking, that's great for the Village.  The only problem is that we know nothing at all about two of the new Commissioners, and not a lot about the one who was on the Foundation.  I hope they get their sea legs.

As for the general elections, this is a midterm year.  In midterm years, the party that is not represented by the president makes gains.  That happened this year, too.  But...

Republicans could have done better than they did.  They shot themselves in the feet badly over overturning Roe, and maybe this will allow them to understand they're working against the interests of most Americans.  Maybe it will allow them to listen to other people, and even compromise (which modern day Reps/cons do not like to do: they act like bulls in china shops).

It's a mixed message about Americans' concern about inflation.  Everyone is concerned about inflation.  Dems, and the Federal Reserve, are trying to reduce it by increasing interest rates.  Reps/cons whine, but have thus far offered nothing.  If they have a majority somewhere now, maybe they'll realize whining isn't sufficient to solve a problem.

Reps/cons could also have done better than they did, except their stance on gun control (they essentially don't want any) cost them support.  Maybe that will give them pause, and allow them to realize they're going against the wishes, and the interests, of Americans.

Reps/cons made a little bit of headway because they have somehow duped voters into thinking they're the only ones who care about crime.

They made much more headway because of their anti-immigration stance.  They have hypnotized Americans into forgetting we're almost all immigrants, and all but the Africans were willing and eager immigrants, who were happy to get here, and have generally made the best of our experience here.  An important thing that has allowed the non-Africans to do as well as they have is that after an initiation phase that all immigrants undergo, we were allowed and welcomed to thrive here.  When African-Americans say they "have to work twice as hard to accomplish half as much," they are absolutely right.

So, we'll see how things develop, unless Reps/cons still can't get over themselves (and their secret humiliation for having supported Donald Trump), and possibly use a majority in the House to waste Americans' time, money, and opportunity by pretending to impeach Joe Biden and anyone connected to him.  I hope Reps/cons grow up, and don't do that.  Last night, someone sent me a clip of part of a Lewis Black routine.  In that clip, Black said it is essential to have two opposing parties, because an overpreponderance (is that redundant?) of one is tyrannical.  Black was right.  But Reps/cons don't understand how and why he was right.  They just want to dominate.  Of interest (maybe it was in the same clip, or maybe somewhere else), I heard someone last night talking about how McConnell couldn't deal with Obama, because Obama just wanted to tell McConnell how right he (Obama) was.  But McConnell could deal with Biden, because Biden knew how to understand and accept other people's points of view.  Even the points of view of people with whom he disagreed.

Pros and...Antis.

It has become commonplace in the past several decades to refer to people either as "pro-choice" or "pro-life."  And "pro-choice" is often misinterpreted to mean pro-abortion.  No one is pro-abortion, any more than anyone is pro-chemotherapy.  Either one has its place, when circumstances unfortunately call for them.  But no one wants the circumstance, whether it's unwanted pregnancy (or faulty fetus) or cancer, any more than anyone wants the intervention to have to deal with the circumstance.  But no one wants there to be unwanted pregnancies, or cancer, so that there can be abortion, or chemotherapy.  And certainly no one would tell someone else they ought to have an abortion, because in the opinion of the advisor, the prospective parent wouldn't be a good one, or it's a financial strain to rear children.  You might think that, but you would never try to impose your judgment onto someone else, even if you think they're making a bad decision.  It's their decision, not your decision, to make.  

As for the people who call themselves "pro-life," they're not.  The vast majority of them are not opposed to capital punishment, and many or most of them are not opposed to civilians' owning guns.  Probably more or less none of them are even vegetarians.  They're not "pro-life" at all.  They're just anti-abortion, really for who knows what reasons.  I don't know if they know.

In 1989, I bought a cartoon that had been printed in the Miami Herald.  The cartoonist was Jim Morin.  There were two figures in the cartoon.  One was an adult, and he had on a tag that said "GOV. BOB" (Martinez).  He was carrying a sign that said "PROTECT THE UNBORN."  The other character was a young black kid holding a piece of paper with a list that included the title "BUDGET CUTS," and then listed "EDUCATION, CHILD CARE, DROPOUT PREVENTION" and "PRENATAL CARE FOR POOR."  The "GOV. BOB" character pointed with his thumb, as if to say "take a hike," and said "GET LOST!! YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN BORN."  So, whatever the people who (wrongly) call themselves "pro-life" think they mean by calling themselves that, it doesn't seem to be intended to do anyone any good.  

But really, they're not pro anything.  They've just got themselves convinced they don't approve of abortion, they don't know why, and they've decided that their sentiments should control other people's lives.  When I was in college, which was a long time ago, you would sometimes see a bumper sticker that said "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one."  Yeah, that pretty much works.

And the anti-abortion people aren't even consistent about it.  Some of them are only anti-abortion after the fetus is X number of weeks old.  Or they make an exception if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or threatens the life of the mother.  The fact is that I don't disagree with them about an age (of fetus) limit.  If a woman gets pregnant, she'll know it in a month.  She'll miss a period.  Chances are that she already didn't want to get pregnant.  But now she is, and maybe that fact makes her think twice.  And whether or not she wanted to get pregnant, she may well want an amniocentesis.  So add another month or two.  But once you're pregnant for a trimester, you've had time to consider if you want to go ahead with something you might not have wanted to happen, and you've had time to discuss this with the other person involved.  And see what the amniocentesis results are.  I don't know the statistics, but I would venture to guess that almost all abortions happen within the first trimester anyway.  Because the woman never wanted to get pregnant, and still doesn't want to be, the father didn't want a pregnancy, and/or the fetus is not healthy.  And this is whose business?

And what's this exception for rape or incest?  What difference does it make how the woman, or, as we recently heard, 10 year old girl, got pregnant?  If you want to claim to be "pro-life," you have to have a coherent theory (none of them do, and they always cite some religious basis), and you can't make exceptions.  For yourself.  You can't have anything to say about people who are not you, and whose beliefs might be very different from yours.  Also, if your objection to abortion is religious, who are you to decide that the mother should live, and "god's" fetus should be sacrificed?  Assuming "god" put that unwanted (by the humans) fetus there, doesn't "god" get to decide who lives and who dies?  Of course, if you think there's such a thing as "god," you might also think there's such a thing as the "devil."  In which case, who put that pregnancy there where no one wanted it?  Does that affect what you think should be done about it (for you)?

Stacey Abrams says abortion is on the ballot (in the vote for governor) in Georgia.  I suspect it is in a lot of places.  I voted today.  I hope you did, too.

For People Who Think This is A Christian Country, Maybe We Should Vote On "God's" Day.

Setting aside that there's no such thing as "god," and setting aside that the Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution, and setting aside that the Constitution promises separation between church and state, and setting aside that different people who think there's such a thing as "god" have different ideas about which day is "god's" special day, maybe we should agree to accommodate those Americans who do think there's such a thing as "god," and honor "god" by voting on "god's" day.  Let's say that for most Americans who think there's such a thing as "god," that means Sunday.  It would make a nice tribute.  It combines thinking there's such a thing as "god" with being patriotic about America.  You know, if you do, and if you are.

The fact is, we have a problem when it comes to voting.  Here's today's article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-are-americans-so-bad-at-voting/ar-AA13Iv6C?cvid=3270cfe90535421fa861e34b17686c06

It's highly questionable whether or not the people who claim to believe there's such a thing as "god" really do believe there's such a thing as "god," but it has become increasingly clear that Americans do not believe in democracy.  The most democratic thing we can do, considering what the Founding Fathers did for us, is vote.  And we don't.  There's a noteworthy contingent of Americans who seem to be devoted to making voting as difficult as possible.  And our poor record shows that they're pretty effective.

They hold voting on a day that's inconvenient for many people, resist making it easy for Americans to vote by mail (when it would be more convenient), challenge or refuse to accept the results of elections, and try to keep people who are perhaps less likely to vote for their agendas from voting at all.  They just don't like voting, and they don't like the democratic process.

Part of the reason for this is that they also don't like Americans, or people in general (except, presumably, themselves).  They pick dumb fights that don't accomplish anything, and, if there's, let's say, an infectious epidemic, they resist the advice of epidemiologists.  If they said they wanted Americans to be miserable, or to get sick and die, it's not clear what they would do different.

Anyway, today is Friday, November 4.  In a few days or so, it will be Tuesday, November 8.  That's voting day, unless and until we decide we like democracy and Americans after all.  So don't forget to vote.  If you already did, good for you.

And for what it's additionally worth, don't forget to change the time tomorrow on the clocks you have to set yourself.  It's still not clear to me what this is about, and it's dumb and disruptive -- oh, yeah, if you dislike Americans, it's probably a good idea to send them on idiotic wild goose chases like this.