The Value, and the Burden, of a Professional Degree

Not everyone goes to graduate school to get a professional degree.  Not everyone goes to college.  Not everyone finishes high school.  Not everyone has to.  There are plenty of creditable and valuable things people can do without those levels of education.

But lots of people do finish high school, and go to college, and earn post-graduate degrees.  It's a lot of time, money, and work.  And plenty of people take a different, and shorter, route, and attend trade schools.  Then, they apprentice.

In a less formal, and more general, way, it is often said that to develop expertise, someone has to spend 10K hours doing something.

If you take the longest possible route, and finish high school, finish college, and complete a post-graduate program in something, you have a very clear sense of what you knew at the end that you didn't know at the beginning.  And it's clear to you how you got to know what you finally know.  As I said, it's a lot of time and work, and even once you get to the part where you start making money, instead of spending it on your education, most professionals call what they do "practice."  You're always learning.  And the people who depend on your professional ability count on you to know a lot, and to continue to learn more.

All of that is the value of a professional education, and a professional degree.  There are two burdens of a professional education.  One is that since you never stop learning, you always have to learn more.  Real professional learning is not made easy.  You're living your life, carrying out your profession, and trying to figure out which "learning" offerings are legitimate, and which are not.  Lots of them are not.  It's part of your job to figure out which are the scams, and what's just vogue, but not really true.  It never gets easy.

The other burden of a professional education is that as you have realized (it's not hard to realize) how much you know at the end, even of the formal academic part, that you didn't know at the beginning, you also realize how limited you are with respect to the professional educational opportunities you didn't pursue.  It's humbling to know, and appreciate, how much other professionals know that you don't know.  You chose profession A, and they chose profession B.  Or, in my case, specialty A versus specialty B.  Each of you chose to know a lot about this or that, and little or nothing about that or this.

But people who don't have professional educations and degrees don't necessarily understand what it takes, and what it means, to have a professional education.  If they don't assume that a professional knows more about the area in question than they do, then they're out to sea without a paddle.

The common daily example I deal with of that, in this computer age, where everything and anything seems so accessible, is people who either self-diagnose or develop a preference for a certain approach to treatment, because they've been online.  I am very straightforward with people who do this (there are loads of people who do this).  I tell them that I will beg them, on my knees if necessary, not to look stuff up online.  They have no idea from where it comes, who put it there, how truly qualified the sources are, what's their motivation, and frankly, if what they find is even remotely true.  I tell them that's what they have me for.  And if they're afraid to trust me, then either they have trust issues, or they should find someone they feel they can trust better.  I spend way too much of my time disabusing patients of wrong "information" they've gotten for themselves online, and to which they become attached.

Less personal to me as a professional is the group of people who form completely unsupported, and flagrantly wrong, conclusions about things like the coronavirus, or vaccines against it, or Tony Fauci.  We're talking about people who are not epidemiologists, or medical doctors at all, or have had professional training of any kind.

What's curious is someone like Ron DeSantis.  DeSantis does have a professional degree.  He's a lawyer.  It should be clear to him (or Ted Cruz, or Josh Hawley, or others) how little they knew about the law before they got their professional educations, and how much they know about it now, after they got educated.  They should understand how complicated and difficult is a professional education, and they should be capable of recognizing how little they know about professions in which they were not educated.  Yes, of course I realize -- I've said it a million times -- that no one can adhere to the Rep/con agenda without being a hypocrite, dishonest, or both, but you would think that at the very least, people like them would recognize the value of their own educations, and be able to make the same assumptions about the value of other people's educations.  I don't think it's a good enough excuse to say they only went to law school for three years, while a doctor goes to medical school for four years, then internship for a year, then residency for anywhere from three to six years, and maybe a fellowship to follow, and they just didn't realize.  They should have humility enough to realize how much they learned in their three years, and to assume, even if they thought doctors only learn formally for three years, that a doctor must know vastly more about medicine than they do.  They don't mind the value of their training and degrees, and they should gracefully accept the burden, or limitation, of them.

DeSantis has lurched like a pinball about what he spouts about management of the coronavirus, about which he knows nothing, and should realize he knows nothing.  He'll say vaccination (he's one of the ones who refuses to reveal if he and his family were vaccinated) is very effective, and at the same time, he'll say all this worry about the coronavirus, and wearing masks, is childish nonsense.  And he thinks his big accomplishment is that he found some crackpot doctor in California who claims to agree with him.  (The rest of us don't.)  But if DeSantis was an honorable and honest, and appropriately aware and humble, professional, he would realize and appreciate that he knows much more about the law than does someone who never went to law school, and that any epidemiologist, or doctor of any specialty, that he can pluck from his own state, knows much more about medicine than he does.  He just wants the value, but he doesn't want to have to deal with the burden, of a professional education and degree.

I wonder if politics, especially being a Rep/con, is like extreme intoxication, and it totally prevents clear thinking.  Or maybe Reps/cons are -- I don't know -- hypocrites, dishonest, or both.

The Interesting Question About George Santos

In case this is not known to you, George Santos is a 34 year old man who was elected to the federal House of Representatives from some district in NY.

It turns out that more or less nothing Santos said about himself when he was running was true.  He did not graduate from any college (nor attend them, and he claimed degrees from two), he was not an employee of either company he named, he did not have employees who were killed in the Pulse nightclub as he alleged, he did not own several residences (he lived with his sister), he is not Jewish (nor were his close ancestors) -- he tried to clean that up by some other collection of lies about his close ancestors, and say he meant "Jew-ish" -- and the "truth" of him is frankly entirely unknown.  He had some sort of business of some kind, but it did not pay him remotely what he claimed to have made.  (He seems to have loaned himself money from his campaign accounts, and claimed it as income.)  Those were the lies of commission.  The lies of omission were the multiple evictions and debt defaults in NY, and the criminal fraud conviction in Brazil.  It's hard to know how to categorize the claim of having been divorced from a woman, and being homosexual and married to a man, when no marriage to a man has been found on record.  The New York Times investigated him for some reason, and turned up this astonishing list of frank lies Santos told.  Santos had refused to talk to Times reporters and investigative staff, but he lashed out at them after they published their column about him, essentially accusing them of picking on him.  But he also admitted to every one of the lies, claiming, as a junior high school or high school student, caught with his pants down, might, that lots of people "embellish" their resumes.  He portrayed it as a sort of essentially harmless white lie.  The only problem with this dodge is that he used these lies to appeal to voters when he was running (he won!) for Congress.  And he's to be sworn in next week, despite calls for his resignation first.

There's a video in this story -- Another one of George Santos's claims has unraveled in less than 24 hours (msn.com) -- and one of the presenters poses a question at the end of the clip: "did he have to lie?"

Santos was running for office.  He told an astonishing list of lies about himself, to make himself more appealing (somehow better qualified; more deserving of sympathy) than he really was.  One way to interpret the presenter's question -- did he need to lie? -- is would he have been less likely to get elected if he had not lied.  No one can know that.  Even if anyone could go back to every citizen who cast a vote, and ask them if they would vote for him now, or even if they would still have voted for him then, if he had not lied, they now know two things about him they didn't know before.  One is his real resume, and the other is that he is an inveterate liar.  It might be hard for them accurately to reconsider whether or not they would have voted for him if they known his resume was in fact very thin, now that they also know how shockingly dishonest he is.  It might be hard for them to factor out what they now know about his ethical sense, or lack of one.

But perhaps the more important answer to the "did he have to lie" question is that he apparently thought he had to lie.  Lying was his choice.  He had less confidence in his chances if he didn't lie.

So, maybe that's the answer: yes, he had to lie.  He thought he did, he lied, and he got elected.  He calculated that he needed the lies in order to get votes.  (He ran in '20, and didn't get elected, and ran in '22, and did get elected.  I have not seen any reports as to whether he told the same lies in '20 that he did in '22.  I don't know if telling these lies was a new strategy, and it worked, or if the approach to the voters was the same both times, but for some reason, the outcome was different this time.)  But, he doesn't deserve the votes, and he should step down.  He's a kid, but he's not a child, and it's unlikely he'll have learned a lesson from this.  That needs to be his problem.

I'm Just Sayin'.

Now I Know: The Town in Alabama That Has Huge, Random Sculptures - fredjonasmd@gmail.com - Gmail (google.com)

There are things municipalities do to distinguish themselves, and to enhance the lives of the people who live there.  What these municipalities do is different depending on the styles, resources, and other factors of the municipalities.  Not one of these things is the "right" thing to do.  They're just possibilities, depending, as I say.

Our glaring, blindingly conspicuous possibility, which many other municipalities couldn't do (because they don't have them), is improve our medians.  For who knows what reasons, we have persistently chosen not to do that.  We keep them looking terrible, and make them available for people to park on and drive over.

We have, however, begun to create a program of public art in the Village.  We have acquired three sculptures and one mural.  The sculptures were paid for by a limited number of our neighbors, and donated to the Village, and the mural was paid for out of Village funds.  We could do more.  A suggestion was made, and not adopted, to charge each household as little as $6-$10 (that's $7200-$12K) per year to create a public art fund.  That minuscule amount of money would allow the Village to buy one nice sculpture every year or so, or less expensive displays more often.  Or, we could save up for a few years or so at a time, and get something really impressive.

The linked article above talks about an Alabama town that established a program like that, and it was fully funded by one resident of the town.  There are other municipalities in various places (two in the upper midwest, one in NY, San Francisco, and San Diego, that I know about), that have used public money to buy public art.  Kansas City, Missouri, also has a well-developed collection of public sculptures, paid for mostly by the Blochs of H and R Block.

We could do this, and it would be cheap, on a per house basis.  As various people and organizations like to say, we could do it for the price of two cups of Starbucks coffee per year.

Our problem has consistently been a lack of ambition, enthusiasm, vision, creativity, and motivation to improve our lives.  And, as I say, for next to nothing.

I never read the book, but have you ever seen the movie of "The Time Machine?"  Do you remember the essentially mindless Eloi, who would march to their deaths when the Morlocks blasted a tone over speakers, or who would sit inert while one of their own was caught in a river flow, and likely to drown?  That's sort of how we are about improving our lives here.

After many decades, we finally erected a Public Works building, then we acquired our three sculptures, then our mural.  But other than that, we can't do a thing to help ourselves.  We don't even do the most minimal thing any more, which is enforcing our own Codes.  The current fanfare is about establishing some new Codes, but if we don't enforce any of them, then what's the point?  I'm told we're working on enforcing Codes, or that it's one of the allegedly many things on the manager's desk.  But I don't think the check is in the mail, either.

PS: The source of the linked story -- NowIKnow.com -- is free.  They publish posts five days a week.  I have found almost all of them interesting.  If we're still as inert as the Eloi, at least we can amuse ourselves reading interesting posts five days a week.

I Hope I Won't Hate Myself For This.

I'm old enough.  And I have known, without any doubt, for my whole life, that there's no such thing as "god."  But tonight, I started to have uneasy thoughts.

I saw a show put on by Dance Now! Miami (DNM), and two of the four pieces were choreographed and danced by their Italian visiting company, Compagnia Opus Ballet (COB).  A third piece was choreographed by a revered local choreographer, Daniel Lewis, and the last piece was choreographed by DNM's founders and artistic directors, Diego Salterini (OK, he's Italian, too) and Hannah Baumgarten.

The two pieces created and danced by COB were way off the charts.  They were the cause of my uneasy thoughts.  The Lewis piece was wonderful.  The music for all three was delightful.  The range included The Beatles, Mancini, Gershwin, Pachelbel, Berlioz, Monteverdi, Pergolesi, and others.  It was a pretty wide range of music.  My companion tonight, who's 83 and Cuban, was singing the Beatles song along with me.  Totally captivating.

And I know what you'll say to me.  You'll say to me what I'd say to you: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"  (That was Douglas Adams' question, and I agree.)  But how good can something be before you start wondering if there are, in fact, fairies at the bottom of it?  Or "god?"  This was that good.

The fourth piece provided a little bit of cold water, which was a relief.  I can't stand Christmas and Christmas music, and the fourth piece had an extensive array of music which most assuredly included Christmas music.  And some Tchaikovsky.  And it was too long, and not as coherent as the other pieces.  "'Clara' [that was the name of this piece, which was a world premiere] charts the journey of a young woman, on Christmas eve, who is puzzled by the contradictions in her seemingly ordinary life.  She begins seeking new truths, embarking on a journey where she experiences the exotic, the unknown, the frightening and the forbidden, ultimately finding love, identity and self-determination for herself and her community."  I guess that's what Salterini and Baumgarten intended to try to illustrate, but I lost a meaningful sense of the story.  The dancing sure was top shelf, though.

So, I won't have any trouble reassuring myself that there's no such thing as "god," or fairies at the bottoms of beautiful gardens, and I won't think I've overlooked anything all my life.  I won't hate myself for that.

But I might hate myself for harping.  Miami is overflowing with great art and culture.  It really, really is.  Just today, I bought all the tickets I wanted for shows of interest at South Miami-Dade Cultural Arts Center.  It was a lot of shows, as it is every year.  And SMDCAC is not close to here.  It's at SW 211th St and 109th Ave.  That's about 28 miles from here, as the crow flies (I-95, then US 1).  Sometimes, I'll be there days in a row.  Scheduling was unclear for one show, and it's possible I'll see two shows in the same day on one day.  And that's just SMDCAC.  One of the shows I chose will be presented on a day I already have something else.  But I can move the something else at GableStage.  There are some things I can't move.  Then, I just have a choice to make.

The DNM show was presented at the Miami Theater Center on NE 2nd Ave at about 98th St.  If you felt like it, you could walk there.  Do you want to know if anything like that will happen again?  Saturday, March 4.  They have a show on Miami Beach on Sunday, April 9, and one in Coral Gables on Saturday, April 22.  You can check them out at dancenowmiami.org.

And they're not the only spectacular modern dance/ballet organization in town.  There's Dimensions Dance Theater of Miami, too, and I try never to miss their shows, either.  Not to mention Miami City Ballet, if you like pure ballet.  And tons of other presentations of many kinds.  If you like flamenco, you can keep yourself busy attending those shows, too.  And orchestral music (Orchestra Miami and Miami Symphony Orchestra), and jazz, and an endless range of culture.

But I'm not going to hate myself for pointing out what's around, and urging you to patronize.  I'm going to hate myself, maybe, for reminding you that bizarrely enough, these magnificent, often top flight, performers, and the organizations that present these shows, not uncommonly do it on a shoestring.  Or less.  And nobody -- nobody in the world (except groups like the Rolling Stones or someone) -- can keep up with their expenses by selling tickets to performances.  So...if you like them, you have to patronize them, subscribe to series, and... donate.  We just talked about this regarding Give Miami Day, but it's true all the time.

I promise you you'll like these presentations, and they'll enrich your life, and they're worth a little extra ($) effort from you.  And you don't have to wait until DNM's 3/4/23 show to find out if you agree with me.  There's stuff really all the time, and in a lot of places.  If you're willing to drive to SMDCAC, the next show for which I just today bought tickets is 1/14/23.  It's someone's rendition of Pink Floyd songs.  I'll be back there the next day for the L'viv Philharmonic Orchestra from the Ukraine.  That one, for who knows what insane reason, is free.  I was going to go back on 1/18/23 for someone's rendition of Seger, but I thought it was Pete Seeger.  It's Bob Seger, who's of less interest (mercifully).  So I won't have to go back down there until 1/20/23.  That's how it gets.  And the great news about SMDCAC, and Sandrell Rivers Theater at NW 62nd St and 7th Ave, is that they're the county, they're super easy to negotiate, ticket prices are very low for most things, parking is free, and you couldn't donate if you wanted to.

So I hope these words to the wise will be sufficient.  As best I know, we all have only one life.  We might as well get the most we can out of it.

You're Underestimating.

The beginning of that sentence is: If you think you know how bad racism in this country is... you're underestimating.

Around two years ago, I got shingles.  I didn't know it was shingles.  It started with a weird pain in one of my teeth.  I've never had a cavity, but I imagined that maybe I had one then.  So I went to a dentist.  By the time I got there, which was maybe a day or so after the tooth pain started, I also had a small rash on one side of my face.  The dentist took a look, couldn't find a cavity, or any other dental problem, noted the rash, and told me he thought I had trigeminal neuralgia.  It could have been that (although less likely with the rash), and he said I should see an oral surgeon he knew.  I didn't know what the oral surgeon was supposed to do, but the tooth pain, and the rash, were getting worse, and I got a quick appointment with the oral surgeon.  The surgeon walked into the exam room, took one look at me with my mask off, and told me immediately that 1) I had shingles, and 2) he didn't treat shingles.  The oral surgeon's office happened to be on the extended grounds of Aventura Hospital, and I know a neurologist there, so I called that office.  It would be a couple of weeks before I could get an appointment, and I felt as if I couldn't wait.  So I called an internist I know.  I told him someone else had diagnosed shingles, and asked him what to do.  He told me over the phone what antiviral I needed, what the dose was, how long to take it, and when to expect results.  So I got myself a prescription for the antiviral, took it as directed by my internist friend, and got precisely the desired result, right on time.  End of shingles in less than two weeks.

When my then wife, and our two very young children, moved to Miami Beach in 1983, we hired a woman, I think from Trinidad (you know -- black), to take care of the kids and do errands, so we could work.  I've very loosely kept up with her over the years, and even saw her once a few years ago.  She's elderly and generally not doing well, but she calls me every once in a very long while.  The last time was yesterday.  She's doing worse than before, but the most prominent problem is great pain and a rash from one of her hips extending down the lower extremity on that side.  She saw some doctor in Broward, possibly even at Memorial Medical Center, which generally has a good reputation, and they diagnosed shingles, and told her to... do nothing.  Just wait for it to get better, (if it was going to).  Which it hasn't at all.

Well, I've been there myself, and I even have some pills left over.  It was possible that the woman's adult daughter, who I think lives with her, might come to my house, and take the pills I'll never use, but it turned out easier just for me to call in a prescription, which I did.  And I told her she needed a better doctor, and recommended my friend who told me about the treatment for shingles.  I sort of apologized for the extent of racism in this country, but she told me it's world-wide.  I know she's right.

There are loads of stories like this.  Loads.  Some are very dramatic, like civilians and even police who assassinate black people for being black, and some are less dramatic, like Americans making the lives of black people more difficult than there's any reason they should be.  (These are people who were kidnapped from Africa, forced to come here, sold into miserable slavery, and persistently mistreated even after we outlawed slavery.  And we still want to make their lives difficult.  If you wonder when we'll have had enough of this, I have no idea.)

There are even medical manifestations of mistreating black people.  There's the woman I've known for 40 years, and the tendency to undertreat pain in black people (documented).  One study was of matched black women and Caucasian women who gave birth.  Even among the black women who were professionals, various kinds of outcomes were worse in the black women.  The stress of racism takes a subtle and pervasive toll.

Studies have shown that patterns of psychiatric diagnosing are different depending on the race of the patient.

Every facet of life, certainly in this country, is corrupted by racism.  We seem unable to stop ourselves.  Examinations of laws passed and penalties applied show evidence that where behavior is considered more common in black populations, laws and the penalties for breaking them are harsher than for the same behavior in populations that are more likely Caucasian.  One then famous example from 20-30 years ago was the application of harsher sentencing for use of "crack" cocaine than for use of powdered cocaine, because it was thought blacks more commonly used "crack" cocaine.

But I was more surprised by my old employee and friend, and her experience with shingles.  When I had shingles, I got prompt and effective attention.  When she developed shingles, even the people supposedly treating her didn't care.  Couldn't be bothered.  Were content to let her suffer, even though there is very effective treatment available.  I heard from her and her daughter today, and she's taken her first pill.  I hope I get a happy report by the end of next week.

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.

Elaine Rinaldi's Got a Great Afternoon Planned For You! If You Think You Have Something Better to Do This Coming Sunday, November 6, Let Me Suggest You Don't.

 

Orchestra Miami celebrates a Miami Musical Legend

Discover Miami Through Music: The Miami Woman’s Club

As the only major metropolitan city founded by a woman, Miami is not lacking for strong female figures. Orchestra Miami’s next concert will honor an important female-run organization which laid the groundwork for many of the City’s important civic and social development, as well as a pioneering musician who composed hundreds of pieces, including operas, ballets, vocal works, chamber music and piano pieces. Discover Miami Through Music brings a special concert to the newly-renovated Miami Woman’s Club on Biscayne Bay, where we will celebrate and discover the music of one of Miami’s musical pioneers, composer Mana-Zucca.

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4 PM, Orchestra Miami will celebrate the legacy of Mana-Zucca, a legend in Miami’s music circles and a pioneering composer. Prior to moving to Miami, Mana-Zucca was a celebrated concert pianist and singer who performed leading roles in musical comedies. After her move to Miami, she became a prolific composer, composing over 400 works, and holding weekly musicales in her home "Mazica Hall”. She was also the teacher of Miami born concert pianist and pioneer Ruth Greenfield, whom Orchestra Miami will honor at the concert.

The Miami Woman’s Club was founded as The Married Ladies' Afternoon Club in 1900, just four years after Miami was incorporated. With help from oil-and-railroad magnate Henry Flagler, it quickly became "the intellectual powerhouse behind Miami," says historian Paul George. It has been indispensable in the social and educational development of our city, and has maintained an impressive record of service to South Florida. The Miami Woman’s Club established the City’s first library and is credited with founding the present public library system. The Miami Woman’s Club also founded the Travelers Aid Society, organized the Dade County Blood Bank and began the City Curb Market. Members pushed for public parks when developers threatened to devour the city and advocated for schools when education was a low priority. Their newly renovated home was designed in 1925 by August Geiger, one of the most prominent American architects in South Florida at the time, and had its grand opening in 1926 as the Flagler Memorial Library and Women’s Club. The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1974.

Born Gizella Zuccamanof (later Zuccaman) on Christmas Day, 1891 to Polish immigrants, Mana-Zucca changed her name to simplify her stage life. She was a piano prodigy, composer, actress, and one of the most recognizable faces from numerous ad campaigns. According to Florida International University, which is the holder of her archives, Mana-Zucca was one of the most photographed women of her time. When she was eight, Mana-Zucca made her debut with the New York Symphony Orchestra (the former rival to the New York Philharmonic), playing Beethoven’s first piano concerto. In 1914, she made her stage debut with a soprano role in Franz Lehár’s The Count of Luxembourg. She studied piano under Ferruccio Busoni, Leopold Godowsky, and Alexander Lambert, and composition under Hermann Spielter.

When she was a teenager, she and her sister Beatrice sailed across the Atlantic and eventually settled in Berlin, where her performances were very popular. She teamed up with Spanish violinist Juan Manon, eventually signing a contract to play sixty concerts with him over a three-year period in Germany and Russia. After her stint in Europe, Mana-Zucca returned to the United States, eloping with Irwin M. Cassel. The couple split time between her home in New York City and his in Miami, Florida. After the birth of their first and only child in 1926, they put down permanent roots in Miami. In the 1930s and '40s, Mana-Zucca reigned as Miami's grand dame of music. She and her husband hosted musical luminaries at Saturday Musicales in Mazica Hall, their stately stucco home on 17th Street near Biscayne Bay.

“I remember going to her house as a child to perform for Mana-Zucca” said Orchestra Miami’s Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi. “We were assigned several of her piano pieces to perform in the annual Guild music exams. It was a real honor to be asked to go to her house to perform.” Rinaldi said that she also remembers taking her Guild auditions at the Miami Woman’s Club. She added, “Bringing Mana-Zucca’s rarely performed music to the Miami Woman’s Club really feels like coming home”.

The November 6^th program includes many rarely-performed gems, including the Tocccata for Vioin & Piano, Sonata for Cello & Piano, Op. 223, Hakinoh for Violin & Piano, Op. 186, Ballade et Caprice for Cello & Piano, Op. 28, Fisherman's Wharf for Violin & Piano, Op 228, Trio for Violin, Cello & Piano, Op.40, Rachem for Voice & Piano and her most famous composition, I Love Life, which was widely recorded.

The performers include Orchestra Miami principal Cellist Aaron Merritt, Violinist Karen Lord-Powell, baritone Philip Kalmanovitch, and Orchestra Miami's Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi on the piano. Tickets are priced at just $30 General Admission for Adults, $25 for Seniors over 65 and $5 for Students with ID. The Miami Woman's Club has valet parking only available for $20; metered street parking may be found along Bayshore Drive, or park in the Omni Garage on NE 15 Street. For more information, please visit www.OrchestraMiami.org or call (305) 274-2103.

What: Discover Miami Through Music: The Music of Mana-Zucca at the Miami Woman’s Club  

When: Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:00 PM

Where: The Miami Woman’s Club, 1737 North Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33128

How Much: Tickets are $30, $25 for Seniors (65 & up) and $5 for Students with ID, General Admission Seating

 

#####

About Orchestra Miami

Founded in 2006 by Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi, Orchestra Miami is celebrating 16 seasons of bringing affordable concerts of quality symphonic music to all people in Miami-Dade County. Orchestra Miami’s mission is to provide people with opportunities to experience art, build community and educate through music. Orchestra Miami’s signature programs include its “Beethoven on the Beach” free outdoor concerts, its “Discover Miami Through Music” series, its many collaborations with the Miami Dade County Public Schools and its Family Fun Concert Series. Orchestra Miami consists of a select group of professional musicians, all permanent residents of South Florida, whose collective body is unparalleled in terms of excellence and experience. Led by Founder and Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi, Orchestra Miami continues to exceed expectations in terms of programming and artistic quality. Please support our mission by making your donation today at www.OrchestraMiami.org.

 

Maybe It's an Occupational Hazard. I Really Don't Want to Have to Change My Mind.

As a frame of reference, I went to college.  And medical school.  And spent six years studying psychiatry.  And have been in practice for about 40 years.  I think of things as being exacting, and taking a long time to learn correctly.  There's a lot of distraction, and chaff you have to learn to separate from the wheat.  You have to know that, and you have to know how to do it.  It's not easy.

Even the innovators, like, in the case of my specialty, Freud, don't just wake up one day with unexpected insights.  Freud was a medical doctor, he specialized in neurology, he learned hypnosis, and his clinical experiences led him to understand things in the way we came to call psychoanalysis.  No one today would say Freud was right, or that they agree with him, about every insight he eventually developed.  But he did the best he could, given a considerable foundation of learning and experience.

It might always have been somewhat true, but it became caricaturish with Donald Trump: all anyone needed was an opinion, and it could, and in Trump's case, generally was, based on nothing.  Well, nothing but self-interest.  And Trump hasn't protected that very well, either.  With the bankruptcies, the failed marriages, the offspring you wouldn't be proud to call your own, and the current legal troubles...  Frankly, it's amazing he gets any reaction at all except people laughing at him.  But this is what can happen when you try to function based on nothing.  And there's an audience, and sycophants, for it.

At the same time, we had a version of the same thing here in BP: people who ran for office, didn't know anything, and didn't want anything, except their own X number of minutes of fame (to paraphrase Andy Warhol).  And their tiny burg version of power.  Then, we were so desperate to escape the destruction that we elected someone we would not normally have elected: Dan Samaria.  Because he wasn't one of "them."  Later than that, we elected someone who should never have run, nor been elected: Ginny O'Halpin.  And later that that, we elected someone we already escaped electing in the past: Judi Hamelburg.  We elected Art Gonzalez, because he's a nice guy, and he talks the right game, even though he never showed us anything, and didn't even campaign.  We were just so relieved to be rid of "them," that we elected anyone at all in their place.  And even if today we tell ourselves that Commissioners like these are better than "they" were, they're still pretty bad.

So we've now lowered our standards, and we've decided to settle for anyone who's not too provocative.  We don't care what they know (if anything), what they've accomplished for the Village (if anything), and we don't even ask them what their vision is.  (The only one whose vision we know is Dan Samaria, whose vision is to cripple the Village more than it already is, by lowering the millage.  Please say we've awakened from the stupor of electing Dan Samaria.)

As I said previously, I watched the Meet the Candidates event (since they've given me no other opportunity to meet them).  Jonathan Groth comes the closest, given our choice, and the others are distant.  Since I think it would be tragic to re-elect the incumbents, and there are four other choices, my task was to find a way to eliminate one.  I can only vote for three of the four, so I had to choose one who was an even worse bet than the other three.  I chose Veronica Olivera, because she's only been here three years, and has not participated in anything.  I have friends, so I don't value her as what she calls a "community friend."

But I've been thinking about it, since I really don't know anything worth knowing about any of the other three.  Mac Kennedy says he prefers Jonathan Groth and "the two Veronicas."  I was out walking with Mac yesterday, and I have to admit there were very few signs (even) for Mario Carozzi.  At least Veronica Olivera is bothering to put out signs advertising her candidacy.

So since I have no reason to vote for any of them, except, by comparison, Jonathan, I was thinking maybe I should change my mind, and take Mac's advice.  It's not because I think Veronica O would make a better Commissioner than would any of the rest.  I have no idea how any of them would function on the Commission.  (From what I saw in the Meet the Candidates event, all of them would talk a lot, and say as little as possible, which has become de rigueur for BP Commissioners, ever since the end of the Commissions of which John Hornbuckle was the mayor.)  It's because I'm starting to think that maybe Veronica O has a better chance to displace the incumbents than does Mario, and displacing them is my primary interest.

Dan Samaria has a lot of signs out, but they tend to be on the property lines, essentially between properties, as if Dan just put them there, and didn't ask anyone.  And Judi has disturbingly more signs than I would have expected, but I'm hoping the people who hosted her signs just didn't want to say no to her, but certainly wouldn't actually vote for her, having seen what their last vote for her wrought.

We shall see.

Michael Moore's Question Remains Unanswered.

If you haven't seen Moore's now somewhat old movie "Bowling for Columbine," you should.  In many respects, it's a fairly typical Michael Moore movie, with way too much of Michael Moore narrating -- it's his way of telling the story, he probably likes to hear himself talk, and maybe he'd rather get the narrator's fee than pay it to someone else -- and it's typically left wing, if you like or don't like that kind of slant.  It starts out focusing on the mass murder at Columbine High School in Colorado.  Gun violence is the central theme of this documentary.  And Moore as usual takes his time dragging his viewers through this vile massacre.

But at the end, Moore interviews Charlton Heston, who was at the time either the president of the NRA or its celebrity spokesperson.  Heston was a gun enthusiast, who famously, in that movie, said that someone would have to "pry [his] guns out of [his] cold, dead hands."  But Moore wasn't trying to portray Heston as an unconcerned idiot.  Heston simply was one.  Rather, Moore had a question he wanted to explore with Heston.  He noted that the rate of gun ownership in Canada is about the same as the rate of gun ownership in this country, but the rate of gun violence in this country is far higher than it is in Canada.  He wanted any insights Heston had as to why that would be.  Heston had no answer, and the question was left hanging.

Now, there's this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-bans-all-handgun-sales-in-latest-gun-control-move/ar-AA13eVbg?cvid=24456c2ea0c845c0b92bd1d52632fbcb.   When Canadians have a gun murder rate of 0.73 people per 100K, they think they have a very big problem.  First, they ban assault weapons, and later, when the murder rate gets higher, they ban handgun sales.  In this country, when at the same time, we have a gun murder rate of 5.9 people per 100K, we act like there's no problem.  Or that we must need more guns.

So the question remains.  To put it in a certain way, what on earth is wrong with us?  That was essentially Michael Moore's question.  If anyone has an answer, this would be a good time to share it.

THAT'S Interesting!

This blog, like any blogpost blog, has "followers."  For quite some time, I've had 38 followers.

I don't actually know what it means to follow this blog.  One "follower" asked me many months ago to remove her from the new post circulation.  She must have disagreed with me or been mad at me about something.  But she's still one of the followers.  Maybe she forgot that she chose to follow this blog, and she also forgot to remove herself  when she got mad at me.  Since she asked me to remove her from the new post announcement circulation, and I did, and she hasn't written to me to complain about continuing to get announcements, I guess "followers" don't automatically get these announcements.  I had an old friend with whom I don't speak any more, and in happier days, she listed herself as a "follower."  I used to inform her of new posts, too.  But I haven't spoken to her for a year, she knows I'm furious with her and want nothing further to do with her, but she's still listed as a "follower," too.  Presumably as a gesture of support, my daughter is a follower.  She never reads this blog.  I have one "follower" who moved away from the Village several years ago.  He probably didn't remember he's a "follower," and he's still there.  I don't even know who some of the "followers," like "BA," are.  I'd be surprised if it was Bob Anderson.  Maybe I was just padding the followership, but I'm a "follower" of this blog.

But I just noticed today that I now have 39 "followers."  I was curious who's the new "follower."  It turns out it's Veronica Olivera.

I don't know Veronica Olivera.  I've never met nor spoken to her.  (I've now been home for about 20 days, and still, not one candidate has knocked on my door, nor left a flyer.)  I have no idea how Veronica Olivera even knew this blog exists.

I have nothing bad to say about Veronica Olivera, although I gave my reasons why given a choice, and a limit, I wouldn't vote for her to be a Commissioner at this point.  If she's truly interested in the Village, I'd love to see her get herself on a board.  She's sort of like Rafael Ciordia that way, except that when he ran, he'd been a Village resident considerably longer than Veronica has.

When candidates were more mainstream in the Village, or even, frankly, accessible, I used to ask them to accept guest authorship, so they could use this blog to tell us whatever they thought we should know about them.  I even did that when I was running, and they were my competition.  It was rare any of them accepted my offer, but I made it.  I'd make that offer to the current crew, but I don't know how to reach half of them.  Veronica Olivera is one of the candidates I don't know how to reach.

So, it's an interesting curiosity that she somehow found this blog, in which I suggested we elect candidates other than her, and she still chose to follow it.  But she hasn't chosen to campaign, even as limitedly as introducing herself to me.

People not infrequently get a little freaked out when I tell them I'm a psychiatrist.  They think I'm analyzing them, or can read their minds.  I'm not, and I can't.  As I always say, I don't know what people think or feel.  I only know what they say and do.  Or, in a case like this, what they don't say and don't do.

So, Veronica's out there somewhere, presumably being someone's spouse, taking care of her children, being a "community friend," and running for Commission.  And now, she's following this blog.  What that's all about beats me.  She ought to come by and meet me.  Maybe I can tell her things she doesn't know.  For all I know, she might wind up with a seat on the BP Commission.  What's she going to do then, unless she just follows whatever is Mac Kennedy's lead?  And if that's all she's going to do, then we don't need her on the Commission.  We have incumbents who won't do any more than that.

Student Loans

So you borrow money to buy something for which you can't afford to pay when you want it.  It's your house, a car, or maybe college tuition and expenses.  (You're a late teenager or early 20-something, you're not working, or not making a lot of money, and you just can't afford all the costs.)  And for whatever it's worth, you get accepted at, and want to attend, a university that's not state funded, or you're not an in-state student, so you have to pay the higher rate.  The deal is that you borrow the money from someone -- the government, a private lender, or someone -- and you agree to pay it back, with interest.

In general, this is a very normal transaction: you borrowed money, you knew how much you borrowed, you knew what was the interest rate, and you agreed to repay the loan.  There's a kind of relief valve, too.  If you borrowed money you eventually found you couldn't repay, you can declare bankruptcy, so your debts are cleared.  And you suffer the consequences of having declared bankruptcy.  There are consequences.  No one will give you a loan, or even issue to you a credit card, for X number of years.

There is a movement now to excuse college loans, at least the ones that have not already been repaid.  In a very superficial way, it sounds noble and accommodating, but this movement has problems.  (And in full disclosure, let me reveal that I never had college loans.  My parents were able to pay for me and my siblings to attend college and graduate schools.  But I'm most certainly not unaware of the issue, and the problem.  As a frame of reference, I attended Tufts University, which is a private university, from 1968 to 1972.  For at least one of those years, Tufts had the highest tuition in the country!  It was $3000 per year.  I know that was over 50 years ago, but today, you'd be hard pressed to find a state university or college that wasn't more expensive than that.)

Here are the problems:  For one thing, if it's a problem, some loans have already been fully repaid, at whatever stress to the borrower.  For another, many loans have been partially repaid, and no one is talking about reimbursing anyone for payments they made in full or in part.  And some graduates have had success in their careers and in life, and don't need to have their loans excused.   They can afford to repay the loans, and they will, and they should.  But the debt relief scheme, as I've read about it, is not intended to be means-tested.    There's also this problem: in this country, a college education is considered so advantageous that it almost separates one class from another to have gone to college, or not to have gone.  So there's pressure to attend college, even for people who technically don't need to have done so.  And perhaps partially in that connection, one report I heard is that a great deal of unrepaid college debt is owed by people who never finished college.  There was no clarification as to why they didn't finish, or if, in reality, they really perhaps shouldn't even have gone, except they felt pressure to do something that maybe they weren't fit to do, or maybe they didn't have to do.  (All the more reason to take a loan, if attending college isn't frankly of value or meaning to you, so you're really perhaps not that motivated anyway, except you just feel pressed to do it.)

But the biggest problem with excusing college loans is that, just as with American "health care," it offers an answer to the wrong question.  The question we ask about either education or "health care" is how, or who's going, to pay for it.  The question we ought to ask about either, which some expert I heard on the radio acknowledged about education, is why it's so expensive.  That's precisely the problem about American "health care," and it's the question almost no one tries to answer, and certainly not to confront.  To make matters worse, we don't get our exorbitant money's worth out of either education or "health care" in this country.  The reasons are the same regarding both failed efforts.

The government is failing to recognize and address what creates proper education and valuable health care.  (It's most certainly also true that way too many people are simply focused on money, and how much -- of other people's money -- they can get.)  We can talk about American "health care" some other time.  But regarding education, we don't foster families and early childhood in a way that will produce receptive and successful students.  Instead of concentrating on early childhood, preschool, ABCs, and STEM, some state governments corrupt education by trying to rewrite American history, and fighting against what they imagine they understand "Critical Race Theory" to be, or, in our state for example, proscribing the saying of "gay."  These kinds of faulty and corrupting government influences are not what anyone needs education systems to do.  Education is supposed to provide certain facts, teach creative thinking, advocate for team work, and foster other interests and talents (band/orchestra, sports, drama, languages, debate, leadership opportunities, etc).  In the old, old days, the boys took shop, and the girls took home economics.  That's anachronistic and sexist now, but it did provide other areas of proficiency some people valued.

We still overspend on education, and we spend the least where we ought to spend the most: on the teachers.  The highest paid person on many college campuses is the head football coach.  And that coach coaches students who are there on academic scholarships (you and I pay for them to be there), take fluff courses, and frankly, don't need to be in college to achieve their ambitions (most of whom won't achieve their ambitions anyway, so they'll have attended college for no reason, and gotten a scholarship they won't have to repay to do it).  The current president of the U of F is resigning/retiring, and he'll be replaced by Sen Ben Sasse (R) of Nebraska, who thinks the U of F needs to be "more conservative."  So college education in this state, like other education here, needs to be politicized?

Once we make a critical examination of where all the money goes, and stop the meaningless excesses (of education or "health care"), we can lower costs, and either the government can pay, as they do with earlier education here, or is done in most or all civilized countries, since all education is in the public interest, or costs can be low enough not to be such an ongoing burden to students, and graduates.