HOW NOT TO STUDY!

I was listening to the radio the other day, and the subject was the dislocation recently experienced by a lot of students due to the COVID pandemic.  Many had obviously experienced a lot of stress over their educational endeavors, especially in regard to the taking of tests and exams.  That got me to thinking about my own checkered academic career and how “improbable” it all was.  I had NO BUSINESS being in college, much less in law school but, somehow, I wound up with a doctorate in law and practiced law for 38 years!  That is so absurd, it almost cracks me up to say that!  I was a terrible student and spent way more time and effort agonizing over how to get OUT of those chores than just going ahead and doing them.  I was also really focused by the distractions of sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll!

All I ever WANTED to be was an automobile mechanic.  I was car-crazy when I was in high school and, even though I was pretty savvy about math and science, I wanted NOTHING to do with languages, English or history!  Ugh!  Getting my drivers license right after my 16th birthday was about the greatest thing that ever happened to me!  Party on, Garth!

Along the way I muddled through college, not even having a “C” average UNTIL my senior year!  Ironically, I had spent the summer of 1967 in Germany and Austria studying third-year-level German literature!  I managed to become fairly fluent in German that summer and had earned two semester “A”s for my efforts, so that pulled my overall average finally above the “C” level!  I could sight-translate German, so I took fourth-year-level German that next year and breezed through it!  And I was somebody who had otherwise hated “foreign” languages!

After a year of teaching math and science in a private elementary school, I went to law school, but my academic habits had not improved.  I fell out of favor and flunked out (literally) at the end of my first year.  I had no clue what to do.  But, again ironically, the only black student in my class had also flunked out, as well as the president of our class!  So, to keep the school “integrated,” they offered the black student a wonderful deal and, of course, had to extend the same to the other two of us who surely did not deserve it: we could repeat our first year, AT NO CHARGE, and then the two years’ grades would be averaged, and on the basis of that outcome, they would decide whether or not to re-admit us to the school!

So, I managed to matriculate after that,, graduated AND passed the bar exam on my first try, but I always have to admit that it took me four years to complete what most accomplish in three years.  I was “special-ed” in law school!  This spoiled, elitist, utterly undeserving white boy is, truly, the beneficiary of race-based “Affirmative Action”!  It doesn’t get more ironic than that!

Toward the end of law school, I began to get a glimmer of what I had been doing wrong in my study practices, but I still wasn’t paying much attention.  It came home more strongly after graduation in 1973 when I was in an intense two-week “cram” course just prior to the bar exam.  We met in two four-hour periods every day (except Sundays) for 12 days, then took the exam right after.  I was determined to do the best I could do so that I would not have to re-take that fearsome exam!  I really WANTED to pass!  Thankfully, the exam was pretty “cold”; the cram course had done a good job of spotting the likely questions.  But, I had taken a LOT of notes—over two notebooks-full, on both sides of the page, and though I hadn’t really thought about it, I had taken notes  that were my own contemplative SUMMARY of what the lecturer had said, rather than trying to write down everything he said, verbatim.  So when I studied my notes the Sunday prior to the exam, I was reading my own understanding of the material rather than the lecturer’s understanding of the material.  It worked.  I became a lawyer, unleashed upon the unsuspecting world!

I started practicing law in a rural town but still thought about car mechanics.  I acquired a couple of older cars, fixed them up, and enjoyed driving them around.  I would do a lot of my own work, but I realized I really did not know diddly-squat about car mechanics.  So, at age 56 in 2003, I decided to take a couple of auto-mechanics courses at the nearby community college!  I did pretty good—I got an “A” and a “B,” so I decided to take a couple more courses, and I got “A”s in both!  But what was interesting is that I had decided to sit up front, right under the instructor’s nose (for a change), pay attention to his lectures, ask a lot of pesky questions, frequently argue with the instructor and, when he paused to catch a breath, I would write down in my notebook my OWN impressions of what he’d said!  In prior academic endeavors, I had often sat in the back of the classroom and daydreamed.  It was a costly mistake.  This time it was different and, thankfully, I was totally aware of the difference.

  

It began to pay off, so I took more courses over the next couple of years and EVENTUALLY formally matriculated as a student in the program.  I had chosen to follow a “certificate” program instead of the associate degree program.  It required fewer general academic courses (which I didn’t care about) and was more focused.  At age 59 I completed the program and was awarded my certificate in auto mechanics, summa cum laude!  I had a straight-A average but for that one damned “B” my first year, having missed the “A” by just one question on that course’s final exam!  The “honors” designation was almost ludicrous, but I really had earned it.  I wasn’t the best mechanic in the program by far; many of the younger guys were far more facile than I, but I knew what I was doing.

I had also figured out how to take those “standardized” tests that are often horribly misused to evaluate the intellectual fitness of individuals, rather than evaluating the overall status of the group being tested.  Too many people are fixated on how INDIVIDUALS perform on those tests, and that is flat WRONG!  Those tests don’t tell us diddly about particular individuals.  We all have different abilities and aptitudes!

Even though we students had been told (1) answer as many questions as possible, and (2) “wrong” answers don’t count, the “educational” establishment seemed to enjoy keeping the real secrets of those tests from us students, so many of us wandered in the SAT wilderness, never really mastering the fairly straightforward tricks needed to beat those tests, because nobody simply EXPLAINED them to us!  

I managed to go from a middling 87th Percentile on my SAT’s up to the 98th or  99th Percentile (the highest possible) on other tests I later took over the years by simply employing the main strategy that I finally figured out on my own: do NOT spend more than 15 seconds on any one question!  If you can’t answer the question IMMEDIATELY, mark it and move on to the next question!  WHY?  Because, there are also easy questions at the end, and since one’s score depends on the TOTAL number of “correct” answers, one may as well get to those easy answers further on down the road!  It is THAT simple!  If one gets bogged down struggling to conquer a particular question (as I used to do), the clock is ticking, and “TIME” may be called before one can even get to the end the first time!

Besides, an “easy” question addressed later may give a particular insight on how to answer an earlier question that was blocked!  One should just keep rolling over and over the test, from beginning to end, answering as many questions as possible.  SPEED is the key!  No one will care about your earnest, futile struggle along the way!

Anyway, I have been both a teacher (real estate law) in the community-college system and also a student.  (Additionally, I had taken a course in computer machine-code programming some years ago.)  I am sorry I wasted so many years (and student space) in college and law school, undeserving of those opportunities, but I am glad that I FINALLY came to realize that the key (for me, anyway) to learning well is as follows:

FIRST—FORGET the damned grades!  One is in school to LEARN, not to rack up points.  If one LEARNS the material, the grades WILL take care of themselves.  If you don’t care about learning, get the Hell out of the way!  NOW!

SECOND—Sit up front and PAY ATTENTION!   The back of the classroom is the zone of pathetic failure!  One needs to hear EVERY WORD distinctly.  Besides, you may wish to take issue on some point with the instructor/teacher, and you can’t do that while daydreaming and looking out the window.

THIRD—Don’t take notes while the instructor/teacher is talking!  Just sit there and listen!  Pay attention!  And just think about what you are hearing!  Wait until (s)he stops to catch a breath or a thought, then scribble down YOUR OWN THOUGHTS about what you’ve just heard.  You will appreciate that later.

FOURTH—Ask LOTS of questions.  If you don’t understand something, you can’t learn it!  Asking questions also forces one to mentally frame the material in relevant fashion, and that is part of the learning process.  And, don’t give a damn about what the others think of your “stupid” brown-nosing questions.  They won’t be taking the exam for you nor suffering the bad grades you’ll EARN for not bothering to understand the material!

FIFTH—It may be necessary to actually MEMORIZE certain things.  A lot of criticism has been understandably leveled at rote memorization in the public schools, but sometimes memorization is simply necessary.  I was flunking the course in Automatic Transmissions and I knew it, simply because I did not understand the complexities.  The automatic transmission is the single most complicated device on a car.  I was fascinated by them and always wanted to learn how they worked.  But, I was flunking.

Somehow I had realized I had to memorize the operational “logic table” for the planetary gearset, the 400+ year-old core component of most automatic transmissions.  That gearset has three basic elements: (1) the “sun” gear; (2) the ring gear; and (3) the 3 or 4 “planetaries” nestled inbetween with their connecting “carrier.”  Automatic transmissions variously grab, hold and release (via high-pressure hydraulic valves) those individual components to achieve their amazing function.  There is just no other way to understand it but to memorize it.  I did so and got my “A” in the course.

SIXTH—Read the book!  Not because it’s inerrant, but precisely because it may well be WRONG about something, and your developing superior knowledge of the material may allow you to see that error and point it out, to the shock and envy of the whole class, including the teacher/instructor!  If one reads the book, it can also form the foundation for what will likely be heard in the classroom, and the “context” may become clearer.

FINALLY—“All-nighters” may become a thing of the past.  One may actually get some much-needed sleep before the final exams, since a glance through one’s pre-digested notes (see THIRD) only once may be all that is necessary to become re-acquainted with the thoughts one should have ALREADY had about the material at the time it was presented!  That is why one should sit up front in class, pay attention, just listen to the lectures and engage in dialogue with the instructor/teacher, leaving note-taking for later to summarize one’s OWN thoughts about the material.  That should enable learning the material the first time, rather than trying to cram utterly inscrutable stuff into one’s head the night before the exam!

Take it from this academically “challenged” yokel: you may be pleasantly surprised at the results!

______________________________ 

BACKGROUND CHECKS?

Many of those clamoring for “government to just do something” have added their voices to the chorus of those demanding expanded “background checks” for sales of arms and ammo.  They obviously must struggle each election time with the choice of voting for the incumbent(s) (as most seem to do) vs. punishing them for NOT instituting “background checks.”  

The few advocates thereof with whom I have spoken do not, however, have any SPECIFIC suggestions, though some have argued that the federal “no-fly” list should just be incorporated for the sales of arms and ammo.  A very serious problem with the federal “no-fly” list is that one does not learn of being on the list until prohibited at the gate from boarding a plane, LONG AFTER having purchased the ticket!  And, there is absolutely no “due process” honored that allows one to challenge such a listing for arguably wrongful inclusion! 

The “gun control liberals,” nevertheless, don’t care much for such “due process”  concerns.  Their airy dismissals are basically an invocation of the “tough shit” rule.  Most seem quite aggressive in invoking “due process” for disadvantaged ethnic minorities, but if “due process” interferes with their own “bright ideas,” they are vehemently against it.  There is also very little concern expressed for those who might be unfairly inconvenienced by such rules.  Their fearsome belief is that the “saving of just one life” more than offsets any such “minor” misapplications of law.

There have been many innocent people—including too many children, and cops—slaughtered in the past 20 years by deranged malcontents wielding high-capacity firearms.  The call for more “gun control” is really a call for more control of those deranged malcontents who somehow manage to get their hands on those firearms and plenty of ammo.  There seems to be a belief among many that the cosmetic resemblance of certain firearms to military weapons (so-called “assault weapons”) promotes the deranged behaviors that end in tragedy, though there is no empirical evidence to that effect.  

Gun-rights advocates frequently invoke their “Second Amendment rights” whenever further regulation of gun commerce (buying or selling guns) is aired.  However, my interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it only protects the possession (“keeping”) and carrying (“bearing”) of arms already owned.   Historically, to join a “well regulated militia,” one had to already own a firearm since militias did not furnish them.  Congress does have the specific and unlimited constitutional power to regulate all interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8, which I think includes commerce in arms, and there is no exception suggested in the Second Amendment!  That provision says nothing about a “right” to buy or sell arms free of government control.  I think both sides in the debate have ignored that distinction and wind up talking past each other.  I believe that Congress may lawfully regulate or even ban any and all arms sales.  Whether or not a specific proposal makes sense is another matter, but I doubt that can be resolved by constitutional examination.

Most privately-owned guns are “semi-automatic,” which require a separate trigger pull for each round of ammo shot.  Federal law (18 USC §922(b)(4)) already bans the sale and possession of fully automatic “machine guns” without special permits.  However, it was recently reported that a former police chief was apprehended selling machine guns INTENDED only for police use in black-market sales to individuals.

Under federal law, it is already illegal for ANY person to sell OR DISPOSE OF firearms to any felon, to anyone under indictment, to any fugitive, to anyone adjudicated a “mental defective” or having been committed to a mental institution, to anyone addicted to a controlled substance, or even a user,  to any “unlawful” aliens, to anyone subjected to a dishonorable discharge, to anyone who has renounced a US citizenship, to anyone under a court order to refrain from bothering any child or “intimate partner,” to anyone convicted of “domestic abuse,” and it’s unlawful for any of the foregoing to RECEIVE such arms.  It is unlawful to  possess, transmit or receive any arms that are (re)configured to elude security detection.  Federally licensed dealers must also ascertain the bona fides of gun purchasers, too.  In other words, there is ALREADY a lot of “gun control” provided by federal law that has failed to prevent the horrible murders that have occurred.  What can more federal law do?

In addition, there are state and local “red-flag” laws that allow police to intervene and confiscate weapons whenever someone is behaving in such a way as to raise serious safety questions.  Recently, however, the fellow who shot up a FedEx warehouse where he used to work was not thus interdicted, despite family pleas, so he was able to acquire the weapons used in that murderous horror. 

President Biden recently proposed some measures that may accomplish something: (1) he wants to restrict or ban the modification of pistols with rifle stocks; (2) he wants to prevent the trade in so-called “ghost” weapons that are assembled from kits and have no serial numbers; and (3) he is promoting the expansion (under state law) of petitions by family members and law enforcement to remove weapons from the reach of those who are shown liable to hurt themselves or others, the so-called “red flag” laws referenced above.  “Assault weapons” are, however, another matter.

How, exactly, can “assault weapons” be defined with statutory precision?  That would be necessary if one was to be criminally prosecuted for a violation, but many “gun control” types don’t seem to care.  Many want them specifically banned as such because no reasonable person could possibly “need” such a firearm, and “everybody already knows” what they look like.  I agree that what I think of as an “assault weapon” does look “bad,” but what is an “assault weapon” LEGALLY?  Most seem to look like military guns, but relying on what “everybody already knows” is not going to suffice for criminal prosecution.  Personally, I don’t think “assault weapon” can be precisely described for statutory purposes, because its description relies on subjective cosmetics.

I think, instead, the advocates of “gun control” should approach the problems analytically and not emotionally.  I think the issues should be addressed incrementally instead of trying to write some sort of “comprehensive” law that will surely attract opponents from many different angles.  I would start with a federal requirement that limits gun purchases to one gun per month.  I think that is politically possible and certainly reasonable.

Next, I would consider outlawing the sale or purchase of any large-capacity ammo magazine or clip.  HOWEVER, that would surely drive a lot of commerce to a most profitable “black market” which is, by its very definition, UNREGULATED.  So, in order to offset the likelihood of black-market commerce in large-capacity magazines and clips I would, AT THE SAME TIME, activate a VERY generous nationwide “bounty” or buy-back on such large-capacity magazines and clips in order to purchase and destroy same and get them out of circulation.  To be sure, such a bounty would not succeed in removing all such magazines and clips from private hands, but it would likely get many of them IF the money is big enough.  But the prohibition would not work without the bounty, nor vice-versa.  It might even work better if a SMALL-capacity magazine were also offered in trade with the bounty!

In Virginia, one may be declared a “Habitual Offender” for violating three of the major highway offenses, like drunk driving, reckless driving, hit-and-run, or ten lesser offenses in ten years, and such a driver’s license is then revoked for at least five years (or more).  If that person is caught driving during such revocation, that is considered a FELONY under Virginia law.  Many people have been convicted of possession of marijuana or other drugs or distribution of small amounts thereof as FELONIES.  WHY should any of them be prohibited from purchasing any weapon, but one who has been convicted of misdemeanor animal abuse is not so prohibited?  

Why should someone sent to a mental hospital for nonviolent but persistent alcohol intoxication be banned from possessing firearms?  As the former Special Justice for Orange County, I sent a lot of habitual drunks to Western State Hospital because that was the only place to send them!  Yet, almost none of them would have been considered a “community threat.”  They were just a threat to their own well-being.  What about banning single men 25 or older who have never had sex?  (Try getting THAT law passed!)  The laws being vehemently proposed or already on the books seem to have little or nothing to do with addressing the root causes of the deplorable murders of innocent people!  It seems they are aimed at just making the proponents “feel better.”

In my view, “feeling better” doesn’t cut it.  Real “gun control” needs to make sense.  There needs to be an understanding of the difference between “causation” and “coincidence.”  Advocates of gun control need to show a clear causal nexus between the horrors that have happened and what is being proposed.  Whenever I hear about such incidents on NPR, no one ever seems to ask or learn what type of weapon(s) is/are involved, which I think is highly relevant.  I understand that most of the “perps” of those horrible incidents of gun violence had no prior criminal record, so nothing may show up in a “background check.”  They were not using fully automatic weapons, so what they were using was readily available.  Many did use large-capacity magazines and had bought several weapons in close sequence.  All of the weapons used in those horrible incidents were apparently acquired legally.

Yet the meaningless proposals and violence will continue.

UTTERLY “ARTIFICIAL” INTELLIGENCE

 Back when I was in law school in the early 1970’s, I spent a lot of time “expanding my consciousness” by smoking great local weed and listening to the “Firesign Theatre” (FT), a satirical comedy group out of San Francisco (two of the four now dead) whose material fit in perfectly with one’s thus-altered mental state. One of FT’s albums entitled “I Think We’re All Bozos On This Bus” purports to follow a bus-load of Bozo clowns into the future while they are honking their “Clarabelle” bulb horns in response to whatever.  (That happens to be a jarring mixed “metaphor” of sorts, but it does not matter.)  Anyway, they manage to get an audience with the President of the United States, who/which has “evolved” to be a computer with a voice that sounds strangely like Richard Nixon!  To show just how smart he/it is, the “computer President” insists on being asked ANY question which he will, of course, answer, so the protagonist in question, “Clem,” steps up and asks the President if he knows “Why does the porridge bird lay its egg in the air?”

Now, I realize that question makes absolutely no sense at all, but it was perfectly appropriate at the time!  We howled with laughter at such absurdities.  (It helped that we were stoned out of our gourds!)  Then, an unexpected thing happens: the “President” has a meltdown!  One of those present at the audience with the “President” is angrily yelling in the background that “You broke the President, man!”  The Nixonian presidential voice is dragging slower and lower and more garbled, while a voiced-over computerized error message makes it clear that something seriously wrong has happened within the “President.”  My classmate, with whom I have gotten VERY stoned, points out to me that computers cannot answer “why” questions, so that explains the meltdown!  

To this day it is interesting to see who was listening back then.  Way too many of my peers were not doing so, and that is one reason why Donald Trump got so many votes in 2020!  They should have known better than to vote for a busted machine!  But, I digress.

Fast-forward to 2020, and I am struggling to finish The Emperor’s New Mind, written, published and autographed by Sir Roger Penrose, an emeritus professor of math and physics at Oxford, which I bought when I went to hear him speak at “The Smithsonian” back in 1990.  I had tried to read it then, but it is WAY over my head, so I put it on the shelf, where it had stayed ever since.  My guilt, however, kept nagging at me, so I pulled the book back down and ground my way through it last winter.  (Penrose got half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in physics for his work with “black holes” and Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, so his is the only “Nobel” autograph I have.)

The premise of the book is Penrose’s assertion that the operations of the intra-connected human mind must reflect sub-atomic quantum mechanics, so he is (as am I) a skeptic when it comes to whether or not computers, even “quantum” computers, will ever truly mimic human intelligence.  I vainly slogged through his presentation and analysis of mental function and the physics of quantum behavior, but he never raised the issue of a “why” question, or that computers cannot master the human thought processes of “because.”  Computers are very good and very fast at making choices between “Door No. One” and “Door No. Two,” binary decision-making, but they cannot do subjective decision-making.  They do not have a “whim” button!  (“Because I said so, dammit!”)

I have since watched Penrose in a live interview streamed online.  He is famous for fashioning various tiling patterns that are mathematically convoluted (so-called “Penrose Tiles”), and he and his father designed a never-ending “stairway” that was supposedly inspiration for M. C. Escher’s “Waterfall” painting!  He will be 90 years old in August.  I have failed to understand much of his book, but I can appreciate his skepticism about “Artificial Intelligence.”  I’ve been wrong about computers before, such as doubting the eventual reality of digitized voice recognition and dictation but, and notwithstanding the scary memory of “Hal” from the movie 2001, I doubt very seriously that computers will ever manifest true human-level intelligence.

Now, where did I put those FT albums?  Time to burn a doobie and reminisce about Bach’s Also Sprach Zarathustra!

MARKET THEORY & "CHARDONNAY" LIBERALS

 

I listened to most of Meghna Chakrabardi’s (sp?) program, "On Point," December 4, 2020 on WCVE, Richmond, Virginia (88.9 MHz) featuring Washington Post personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary, Rana Foroohar and Jack Beatty.  I listened to it again on repeat the following weekend.

It is disconcerting to listen to yet another bunch of paw-wringing six-figure “chardonnay liberals” emoting about what OUGHT to be done to “fix” the wretched economic conditions that have been building for a very long time for multiple reasons and made worse by the wanton negligence of Donald Trump and his self-dealing pack of thieving swine.  In particular, Michelle Singletary tried to cast the issue as a “moral” issue, which is pure hogwash.  The piety and guilt-tripping practiced by our Fearless Leaders are almost suffocating, especially since no one babbling about the shame all of us should certainly feel by now seemingly has a clue about market theory and why the collective purchasing power of the TRUE “middle class” ought to be higher than it is.  They preach earnestly to the choir about how we should all be morally ashamed of the horrible conditions faced by the less fortunate, but it will mostly fall unheard by those who need to hear it.  Contrary to the assumptions of most of them, market theory is not limited to favoring the privileged few.

I am not defending the inarguable immorality of what has been going on.  I am not defending Mitch McConnell’s tone-deafness for the amoral implications of his preferred policies, but it is well to remember that Donald Trump ALMOST won re-election!  That should sober anyone tempted to piously rant and rave about “morality.”  A lot of god-fearin’ Amurikans who voted for Trump (about 73 Million) simply don’t give a damn, and they really hate being preached to by those who don’t have to worry about the next paycheck already being spent!  Ignoring the “politics” of all of this is really stupid.  It is, precisely, the point!  Sadly, those poor souls pleading to the contrary at the beginning of the program have no clue, either.

The reason why that collective purchasing power should be stronger is not to assuage the guilt we all surely deserve but to put our leaning economic house in order.  Our economy has horribly suffered from a chronic lack of DEMAND in the marketplace which, in turn, is a function of the missing widespread purchasing power that used to drive the world economy.  The Federal Reserve cutting interest rates to near-zero has not fixed a thing!  We are suffering from a FISCAL problem, not a MONETARY problem.  Declining retail sales and declining FICA tax revenues are the proof, not the soaring Dow Jones averages or meager “new job” figures.  Ever since 1980, when Ronald Reagan and his buddy, David Stockman, trotted out their phony “supply-side” economic theories promising “trickle-down” wealth for the unwashed masses in order to justify absurd tax cuts for their “job-creating” rich buddies, the demand side of the market equation has been almost ignored.  That is because for years it was taken for granted that the “demand” would always be there, having cranked up during World War II, curing the Depression, and continuing mostly unabated for about 60 years thence, with us Baby Boomers and our parents spending money like drunk sailors following the peace.  The YOUNGEST Baby Boomers (born 1964) are now over 55; the oldest of us are in our 70’s.  We are mostly old folks now and are NOT spending money like we used to.  Almost ALL old folks don’t spend money like they used to.  Yet nobody has stepped up to take our places in the marketplace.  None of the “experts” (nor any of the current political candidates last year or this year) have been talking about that elephant in the room: that evaporating DEMAND.

Meanwhile, we continue to lie to young people that the best way to get ahead is to get a college (or law school) diploma, so all that cranked-up “demand” for still limited college space PREDICTABLY drives up tuitions (that few can truly afford) much faster than the inflation rate!  And the trades go begging for skilled practitioners, because that college diploma is so much more “respectable” than a remunerative career as a plumber or electrician or auto mechanic.  And the students who borrow those monster loans to pay those nosebleed tuitions are saddled with soul-stripping debt for most of their productive lives, because Republicans have smugly ensured that those hapless borrowers will never be able to discharge those debts in bankruptcy, with the feeble acquiescence of Democrats who should know better but who cringe in fear of being labeled with the dreaded “L-word.”  I am an ASE-tested, school-certified car mechanic as well as a retired lawyer and auctioneer, so I know what I am talking about.

I also KNOW that incomes are horribly skewed and dislocated and “unfair," but I am sick of the pathetic whining because most of those people who should know better seemingly have no clue about market theory.  Probably 65% of ALL American households GROSS less than $100,000 per year!  NOBODY in the true “middle class” will gross over that number!  And, there will NOT be an economic “recovery” enjoyed by most until several things happen:

1—Recognition that the “working stiffs” have to pay not only “income” taxes but also FICA ("Social Security") PAYROLL taxes on just about 100% of their GROSS income.  No deductions!  Wealthier folks do NOT pay any FICA on their earned annual incomes over about $130,000 nor on their rents, dividends or capital gains.  And they shouldn’t, since Social Security benefits are capped.  The “working stiffs” mostly don’t have any dividends or capital gains to worry about.  They don’t have a “dog” in the mostly irrelevant Dow Jones fight!

2—Recognition that the REAL “job creators” are paying customers, not capital investors.  Capital investment is certainly important, and Democrats should be concerned with it but not enslaved to it.  Small businesses owned by ordinary folks and big corporate business do not necessarily share economic objectives, even as they share voting patterns.  Higher incomes have enjoyed three major tax cuts during this century already: one early in George W.  Bush’s presidency, one during Barack Obama’s presidency and the most recent during Donald Trump’s presidency.  All three were ill-advised and have contributed to the horrific income disparities as well as shifting the federal revenue burden disproportionately onto the “working stiffs."

3—Exclusion of ALL income under $20,000 from ANY taxation at all, including a low-income tax credit for such payroll taxes withheld!  Every bit of that money spared will likely be SPENT in the marketplace, mostly with local merchants!

4—Repeal of the “2d home” mortgage interest deduction and a generous increase in the Standard Deduction to put more spending money into the hands of more ordinary people.

5—Adoption of one or two higher percentage brackets on net taxable incomes.  Wealthier folks should be taxed more, not to “punish” them but because they can AFFORD IT!  The money to run government has to come from somewhere, and the "working stiffs” are paying too much in federal taxes as it is.

6—Lowering of exclusions on the federal Estate Tax.  All estates over $1 Million should be subjected to the Estate Tax, arguably at lower initial rates.  That could take some pressure off the income and payroll taxes.

7—Revision of the composition of the National Labor Relations Board to purge anti-union bias therefrom.  That was touched on during the “On Point” program.  However, stagnant union leadership needs to be purged.  Too many current union leaders are still fighting the last war!

8—IMMEDIATE repeal of ALL import tariffs, INCLUDING tariffs on Chinese goods because, contrary to Donald Trump’s trade "wisdom," US tariffs are ultimately paid by Americans on those goods!

9—Recognition that American manufacturers are NOT going to be able to compete head-to-head with Asian manufacturers.  The wage disparities are just too great and will stay that way.

10—“Federalizing” of all health insurance and elimination of patchwork-quilt state regulation of same.  True repair of “Obamacare” is needed, with (unlikely) federal absorption of all healthcare concerns (“socialized medicine”).  People should be free to purchase whatever insurance they wish, but no one should have to rely on same.  Employers should be relieved of the healthcare burden.  It discourages high-wage employment and cuts down on SPENDING MONEY!

11—Replacement of the capital-gains tax break with an up-front individual investment tax credit.  This is a really complex issue.

12—Conversion of all corporations and other business associations to tax-free pass-through entities, with their wealthier owners subjected to higher taxation of ALL such pass-through income at ordinary rates, whether paid out as dividends or not.  US taxation of all "offshore" income should be a given.

13—“Legalization” of possession (not sale) of ALL currently illicit drugs.  Criminalization of lower-income folks for such petty nonsense MUST STOP, as must the absurd “War On Drugs,” which really has been a “war” on the Bill of Rights!

These changes (or something similar) are immediately necessary.  OBVIOUSLY they won’t all get done at once, but that is precisely why the Democrats need to concern themselves as much with control of BOTH houses of Congress as well as the Presidency, and that means developing a killer political strategy and tactics stretched out over the longer term.  Democrats won’t win over most of the substantial number of Trump voters, but they need to focus on those who MIGHT change over if the party abandons the presumptuous, ethnically-obsessed, pigeon-hole tokenism and snotty piety that has warped the thinking of most Dem leaders.  Nor should they have to surrender to racist bigotry to find some common denominators that might appeal to all, regardless of skin color.

BUYER BROKERS

In response to consumer pressures, the real estate brokerage industry has lately tried to develop a system whereby real estate BUYERS may be represented by their own agents or brokers who supposedly will not share any “divided” loyalties with the Sellers.

Yet, the created system that seems rigidly in place continues to compensate those “buyer agents/brokers” with them sharing a percentage (commission) with the listing agent/broker based on how MUCH the Buyer is paying for the property! That is a blatant conflict of interest, yet none with whom I have spoken about that issue is willing to back down from it. If an agent or broker creates a fiduciary relationship with a Buyer, and that agent or broker is going to be compensated with a commission that is a percentage of the selling price, then where is the incentive for the buyer agent to try to push the selling price DOWN?

The Seller of a piece of property intends to get AS MUCH money as possible for the sale. The Buyer, on the other hand, seeks to pay AS LITTLE as possible for the property. Is that not obvious? If so, then why should not a Buyer’s agent or broker be compensated on the basis of how LITTLE the Buyer pays? There is a fairly simple way to do exactly that!

Consider, first, that MOST residential real estate is listed with a broker under a listing agreement, so these provisions ought to be contained therein. A listing agreement is a legally enforceable contract, so prospective Sellers OUGHT to get competent legal advice from a lawyer before they sign ANYTHING! Most listing agreements traditionally provide that a Seller will pay a sales commission of six percent of the SELLING price, even though the listing (“asking”) price might be higher. And, if an “outside” agent or broker is involved, most listing agreements provide that the specified sales commission will be evenly split with the “selling” agent or broker.

I have proposed the following compensation structure instead: that the “buyer” agent or broker be compensated, first, by getting THREE percent (“half”) of the initial LISTING price, so that the “buyer” agent or broker is not penalized at all by how “low” the actual sales price might go. THEN, I would add on top of that a further provision that the buyer agent or broker be paid, ADDITIONALLY, TEN PERCENT of all dollars by which the actual selling price is UNDER the listing price! That would build in a positive incentive for the buyer agent or broker to try to PUSH the actual selling price DOWN!

AND, I would add to that a further provision that the buyer agent or broker be compensated at a fixed rate of $25 per hour (to be credited against the final commission due) for all time spent “searching” for desirable properties and viewing them, so that there is minimal DISincentive for the agent or broker to slight the Buyer’s needs in that regard. And, if the Buyer walks away, his/her agent is still compensated for all the time spent without needing to put any pressure on the Buyer to accept something less desirable.

And, it should be worth it to prospective Buyers to know that the “buyer” agent or broker is totally in one’s corner.

By now, the reader knows that I have spent a lot of my time thinking about ways to avoid Conventional Wisdom. Doing something because it’s always been done that way is absolutely the WRONG reason to do something! In my discussions with most agents and brokers, I get the feeling that they resent my implications and that their “good intentions” should be sufficient to allay such concerns. Yet, the rancid conflict of interest under the conventional system is still present and most agents and brokers just can’t see it. Why tolerate any of that?

TIRE TAX

The increasing use of electric vehicles is certainly beneficial to the environment, especially in urban areas.  The environmental costs of individual 3500+-pound automobiles idling at traffic lights and parking places is staggering, not to mention (but briefly) the FACT that the internal combustion engine is woefully inefficient as a means of transportation.

HOWEVER, those electric vehicles are, arguably, not paying their “fair share” of highway costs, which are funded primarily with taxes on hydrocarbon fuel sales.  This electric vehicles are not consuming hydrocarbons, yet they are using the highways.  To be sure, they are putting a much lower burden on those highways than fueled cars, but that electricity has to be generated somewhere, and if it’s generated with hydrocarbon fuels, then we are back to where we started.

And more and more vehicle types (including heavier trucks) will be converting to electricity as time passes.  Many vehicles are powered by propane, too, which may or may not have highway taxes imposed thereon.  And some Diesel-powered vehicles can run on used cooking oil.  The singer Willie Nelson brags about his Diesel-powered bus running on used cooking oil!  The exhaust supposedly smells like french fries!  What’s not to like about that?

Anyway, I think it’s time to take the highway taxes COMPLETELY off fuels and impose them on TIRES instead, because EVERY vehicle uses tires, even if it runs on electricity or even sea-water, as the “hydrogen” crowd likes to say.  (They don’t ever explain how that “sea-water” might be converted to hydrogen using lots of ELECTRICITY generated somehow!  There is no free lunch!)

And, those tire taxes can be imposed in a graduated fashion based on tire size: heavier vehicles use larger tires, while lightweight vehicles can use smaller tires.  Highway wear and tear is usually a function of vehicle weight.  Heavier vehicles create the need for more highway maintenance.

But, no politician I know of wants to pick up that cudgel and go to war.  Advocating ANY taxation is usually punished by voters.  It does not matter whether or not it makes any sense.  I have written to both my state and federal representatives about this issue, and I have NEVER gotten any reply at all!

Honestly, I cannot find anyone who will even take issue with my thinking.  I have never even seen this issue discussed anywhere.  But, I think I am right.

THE BILLY-GOAT AND THE TROLL

Fear. Real Fear. Five years old and pure terror!

I was five years old and enrolled in Foster Jennings’ kindergarten in Weldon, North Carolina in the fall of 1951. I loved going to that first “gathering” of kids, just like me. Every day. We had a great time coloring with crayons, playing games, singing songs, reciting our ABC’s, and listening to great stories that Miss Jennings would read to us out loud.

One of those great stories was the tale of “Billy-Goats Gruff,” about the troll who lived under a bridge that the three goats central to the story needed to cross. I vaguely recall that the troll wanted to eat the goats! He was really evil and dangerous! It was exciting!

However, one day Miss Jennings announced that THE TROLL was coming to see us! I could not  believe my ears! The fucking TROLL? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? (I didn’t really think “fucking.”  I didn’t know words like that at age 5, but if I had known them, I would have DEFINITELY thought “fucking”!) I was terrified, but I said nothing.

A few days or weeks go by. I can’t remember how much time it was. Then, one day, Miss Jennings says, “The TROLL is coming next week!”  Fear. There is nothing like Real Fear to get one’s attention, especially if five years old and consumed by pure terror!

God-DAMN it! (I didn’t know that word, either!) The abject fear gripped my little five-year-old body like a monster and shook me to my core! But, I said nothing. I really was terrified though, yet no one else seemed at all disturbed by this coming disaster! I never said a word.

Then, the following week, Miss Jennings reminds us that “the TROLL is coming tomorrow!”  

Jesus Christ! (I knew those words, but not in that context.) I went home and brooded about the coming disaster about which NO ONE ELSE seemed to worry! How DARE my parents expose me to such dangers? But, again, I said nothing. I don’t know if I seemed distracted or worried, but my parents did not comment. I was sure that TROLL would eat me alive since there were no billy-goats around. If that bastard (I did not know that word, either!) was hungry, he was surely gonna chew on ME! I dreaded going to kindergarten the next day.

THE NEXT DAY: I am sitting at my little desk. My friends are all around me, seemingly unconcerned about the coming blood-fest! Miss Jennings goes to the window: “Oh, children,” she says, “the TROLL has just arrived!”  Oh, my GOD! I am gonna DIE!

I catch my breath, almost quivering! The door slowly creaks open, and in walks a North Carolina State Highway PaTROLman!

DIALECT

After years of thinking about it, I am now starting to write about “what I know,” as the well-worn injunction to new writers goes.  So, I have lived in the American South my entire life, most of it in rural areas or small towns nestled in rural areas.  I have been surrounded by “bubbas” most of my life, and I can emulate their persistent, shared “dialect” pretty closely, I think.

For example:

“I told you not to come in this house with your muddy shoes!”

Becomes:

“I done tol’ y’all don’ be comin’ in dis heah house wit’ yaw muddy shoes!

However, even though those folks may SOUND like that, they don’t necessarily hear THEMSELVES like that!  None of us do!  What we likely think and hear is the first version, even though we may sound like the second version!  It reminds me of the fatuously persistent question of whether we dream in black-and-white or color!  When I dream, I am not at all conscious of “color” (unless the dream is somehow ABOUT color).  Most dreams are like experiences of reality, which in my opinion has no color!  It is an irrelevant quality of those realities!  I don’t usually even notice color in my day-to-day stroll through reality unless I am specifically looking for it.

Therefore, I think it is pretentious and vain to try to write in dialect.  And, therefore, I am going to avoid doing that.  I decided to try to write in “proper” English and let the reader imagine whatever dialect (s)he wishes!  I watched a lot of TV as a child, and I remember the first time I heard a Southerner being interviewed on TV, and how odd their accent sounded.  I had become inured to the accents of trained TV personnel who sounded “normal,” in contrast to the Southern “rubes” being interviewed!  

Yet, those “rubes” sounded exactly as I do!  I have been told I have a pronounced “Southern” accent, despite having a law doctorate.  I well remember the CBS-TV legal reporter Fred Graham, who had a pronounced “Southern” accent, and how quaint it sounded, though he was very knowledgeable and obviously well-accomplished.  Graham, born in Little Rock, Arkansas and a graduate of Yale, Vanderbilt law school, and Oxford, died at age 88 in December of 2019 from the horrors of Parkinson’s Disease.  He had been very good at his craft, nor did he speak in dialect!

I am not going to start dreaming in Technicolor ® either!

NOTES ON "CLIMATE CHANGE" (NOT "GLOBAL WARMING"!)

 Is mass transit THE “answer”?

The internal combustion engine is one of the single most significant devices contributing to climate change around the world.  Of course, it’s not the only such contributing device, but its use and spread are pervasive.  Climate “activists” and politicians, however, have been almost silent about that widespread usage despite its technical deficiencies, except for some general “bleatings” about “clean energy” and legislatively coerced fuel mileage.  Most want to make operating one’s own internal combustion engine more “friendly” to the climate, not to replace it and thus piss off the driver-voters.

The internal combustion engine is, at most, 20% “efficient.”  That means at least 80% of all the energy contained within a burnt gallon of refined gasoline (or Diesel fuel) is shed through the radiator as heat, or radiates off the engine block and exhaust manifolds as heat, or goes out the tailpipe as heat and incompletely-burned fuel, spewed all over the place, coating windshields, vehicle paint and the inside surfaces of the alveoli in our lungs.  That is absurd!  

(For the sake of full disclosure, I own six gasoline-powered motor vehicles, four of which weigh over 3,900 pounds, three of which have quite thirsty, quite powerful V-8’s and, sadly, five of which are in various states of disrepair.  I am also a certified automobile mechanic, having passed the eight ASE “Master Mechanic” exams twice.  Regrettably, “the cobbler’s children have no shoes.”)

Most personal transportation, at least in the US, is provided by 3,000-plus-pound motor vehicles, powered by arguably more “efficient” internal-combustion engines yet individually operated by the owners, driving alone or occasionally with another passenger.  RARELY are such vehicles occupied by more than one adult person, regardless of the purpose of the journey.  Car-pooling is the exception, not the rule.  Why is that so?

For one, it’s obviously more convenient to jump into one’s own car WHENEVER one wishes and drive to WHEREVER one wishes to go.  And park closer.  And do as little walking as possible.  For another, very few people want to have to rub elbows with the hoi polloi who usually ride whatever public transit is available.  It’s just “nicer” to be able to ride alone in one’s own vehicle.  With gasoline selling (currently) around $2.00 per gallon, the “global“ consequences are utterly irrelevant for most.

BUT—

Driving one’s own motor vehicle, especially at night and on weekends, entails individual risks and consequences.  Going out to a bar or restaurant or live-music venue (absent current COVID concerns) entails a not-insignificant risk of drunk-driving injuries and deaths AND/OR criminal-defense and insurance costs and difficulties!  And, there is the congestion created by other drivers and their vehicles.  And, there is the annoying WASTE of time AND FUEL looking for a parking space, and the costs thereof, and the probable WALKING therefrom to the desired venue.  And, most of those undesirable risks and consequences are present, even without the burdens of dealing with one’s own impaired driving.  There are always the risks presented by the impairments of other drivers, as well as those risks that have NOTHING to do with anyone’s impaired driving.  Many drivers are simply riding around, utterly distracted, not paying attention to what is happening NOW!

CONVENIENT mass transit, especially rail transit, could make most of those serious problems much less annoying and risky.  “Convenient” means operating until late in the evening, frequently, AND on weekends, with transit rail beds going everywhere.  Shouldn’t all divided roads and streets hereafter built or “improved” have rail beds routinely constructed in the medians?

We already know how inefficient individual vehicles are.  They must routinely climb and descend grades that are mostly eliminated with rail transit.  Individual motor vehicles leave brake dust and smog in their wakes.  Rail transit does not.  Rail transit can move more people with less energy consumption and less local pollution.  I don’t know the energy “efficiency” of a rail transit vehicle, measured in person-vehicle-mile costs, but I would guess it is much better than “20%”!

There are also the associated costs of of private vehicle maintenance and storage vs. public transit vehicle maintenance and storage.  The latter are mostly paid by TAX DOLLARS, but the former come out of our individual pockets.  As for tax expenditures, I suspect the costs of street and highway building and maintenance are higher than the costs of rail transit building and maintenance.

I also suspect that the polluting effluent of motor vehicles (including Diesel buses) in a congested urban space is much worse than emissions from electrically-powered rail transit, considering that the electricity may be generated at remote sites away from urban congestion.  TAX-FUNDED public health costs imposed by urban vehicle pollution are significant.

So, what about convenience and tax costs?  Yes, one might have to rub elbows with the hoi polloi on occasion, but most personal vehicle usage might be eliminated with truly convenient rail transit, ESPECIALLY if fuel costs $6 or $7 per gallon, as it does in most other places in the world.  Yet, too many people are dependent on their motor vehicles to earn a living, so they would have no choice about paying more for vehicle fuel first if they want to keep their jobs.  Thus, the availability of reasonable alternatives SHOULD precede a legislatively-imposed fuel-cost increase to avoid a horrible economic crunch that would adversely affect local economies.  Too many “tree-huggers” are advocating a higher fuel tax FIRST!  As the Queen of Hearts said, "first the sentence, then the verdict”!

The typical cost-benefit analysis is rife with exceptions and deviations.  Getting an “honest” rendering thereof is problematic, not necessarily attributable to bad intentions.  The variables are gargantuan in number and many are elusive.  So, it may be cheaper right now to travel by one’s own vehicle than to pay for mass transit, ESPECIALLY if politicians foolishly declare that mass transit will “pay its own way,” as they did with Amtrak.  Unfortunately, mass transit is NOT going to “pay its own way.”  NO such system I know of anywhere in the world accomplishes that, and I have ridden rail transit in a lot of different countries and places.  Postponing the acceptance of that reality carries its own ADDITIONAL costs.  Taxpayers will simply HAVE to subsidize mass transit.  Otherwise, lower-income people won’t be able to afford a ticket to ride!  What’s the point of that?

Unfortunately, the poor ”unwashed masses” just don’t morally DESERVE such subsidies in the minds of many, never mind how much sense it makes!  And many voters will surely take out their ire on the “bleeding-heart” politicians who support them.  Understandably, no politician with half a lick of sense will go out on that limb and press for SUBSIDIZED mass transit!  Most of the “unwashed masses” don’t vote!

So the status quo prevails.

But many taxpayers have not fairly considered the many indirect governmental subsidies of private vehicle usage (and air travel) coming right out of their pockets.  Fuel taxes don’t BEGIN to cover the full costs of highway- and road-building or maintenance, nor do gate fees (substantially passed through to passengers as higher ticket costs) pay the full costs of airport construction and maintenance.  There is no “free lunch”!  Get over it!  IF transit provides substantial benefits not reducible to dollars and cents (like cleaner air and lower climate temperatures), perhaps SUBSIDIZED (dare I say “socialized”?) mass transit is the way to go.  Literally.

Voters must be led to “buy in” to the concept.  Voters must be persuaded that, in the long run, such a system will operate to THEIR advantage, both economically AND health-wise.  It’s not enough to pitch the smarmy altruistic purpose.  People are sick and tired of that crap!  They want to know what’s in it for THEM!  

But, all that will require smart and COURAGEOUS “leadership,” which translates as a willingness to risk political defeat!  Worldwide, but it needs to START in the US, because we already have the financial resources to do it.  We can set the good and smart example.  For a change.

Unless AND UNTIL those realities prevail, all the "tree-hugging" blather about “fixing climate change” is just pecking at the margins.

(10/9/20)