You're Not Supposed to Think That!

Just because others march in lock-step to some leader, doesn't mean you have to (unless you are in the Army).

One comment I got from some angry folks was that I was in error for not thinking in a certain way.  They felt that I should buy one brand of political soap - and buy all the accessory brands as well.   Apparently they read my postings about self-determination and being responsible for your own choices, and assumed I was a Libertarian or something.  Others would read the same posts and assume I was Republican.   Still others would read my posts supporting President Obama over some lying sack of shit, and assume I was a Democrat or a Liberal.

And these people get pissed off, because my opinions here are not like a matched set of luggage.   You are not supposed to think that!  If you are a fiscal conservative, they reason, you must also be against abortions, gay marriage, the "war on Christmas" and the whole Fox News opinion package.   You can't pick and choose, cafeteria style, like some Catholic!  It is all or nothing!  If you aren't three shades shy of fascist, then you are just a RINO - Republican in Name Only!  Right?

And of course, if you are not "Right Wing" then you must assume the caricature of liberalism and be in support of all sorts of wacky things that far-out people on the left advocate.   After all, if you can't be a punching bag and straw-man, what the hell good are you?

The lefties are no better.  For them, Chis Matthews is a God, and if you are a Democrat or support a Democratic candidate, then by definition, you support the welfare state, "occupy" protesters and the legalization of marijuana.  And by God, if you don't support their agenda, then you are one of those Republi-pukes who wants to throw us all into death camps and turn American into a Fundamentalist Christian Nation!

"You've got to pick a side!" the both shout from the sidelines, "You can't simply have your own opinions on things!"   And this really pisses them off.  Like the title character in the book Life of Pi, you can't just sample from multiple religions - you have to pick one - or so the imam, priest, or pandit will say.

Like most Americans, I am "none of the above" and the major political parties don't seem to get that.  The majority of people in this country like to think for themselves, and resent the idea that you have to "follow" one party or one politician or take "tax pledges" or whatever load of crap they want you to sign up for, in order to control your thoughts and actions.

In fact, this is why most people identify themselves as "independents" and why the crackpots at both ends of the political spectrum want to close primaries to all but the party faithful.

Most Americans are kind and considerate people.  No one wants to see anyone starve or Granny denied medical care.  On the other hand, we don't appreciate otherwise healthy people going on "disability" at age 40 for "carpal tunnel syndrome" when they have never worked a day in their lives.  We want a safety net - but one that is managed properly.   We don't just want to abolish government because it doesn't always work perfectly.

But then again, we also realize that the people scraping by on Social Security are doing just that - scraping by.  They are not making $22 million a year by loading up companies with debt and then bankrupting them or taking them public and dumping worthless stock on the unsuspecting.   Most Americans favor "free enterprise" - but we don't consider that deception, fraud, trickery, insider trading, and other scams are "free enterprise" at all, but rather "criminal enterprise".

We don't have any problem with someone becoming wildly successful in this country, provided it is based on honest work, creating wealth, and based on their own merits.   Most of us do not look upon inherited wealth with awe, but rather as some sort of sickly perversion.   And no, we don't think a smarmy guy who makes a million bucks running a string of check-cashing stores is a national hero or a "jobs creator".

I think most Americans are mystified as to the media's fascination with people like Donald Trump or Sarah Palin - and quite frankly are sick of both.

But what we are really sick of is this pressure - from idiots at both ends of the political spectrum - to try to push us into their corner.   And they do this often by lying about stuff, which is never helpful.

For example, in my posting about 50 Million Americans on Welfare, I pointed out that the number of people on traditional "welfare" has stayed pretty flat over the last four years.   The GOP, in trying to incite race-war, has taken the number of people on all government programs except Social Security can dubbed them "Welfare" - often double- or triple-counting the same people who are on multiple programs.

Unemployment benefits are just that - not "welfare".   And when you tell someone who is unemployed that 50 million people are on "welfare" and that is why he can't find a job - you are lying, plain and simple.   And you are neglecting to tell him that you consider him to be one of those 50 million.

As I pointed out in that post (the second most popular on this blog) the issue of welfare reform is an important one.  But we can't have a reasonable discussion based on lying and misrepresentation of the facts.

And I think most Americans would agree with this.  We are sick and tired of misrepresentations of basic facts.  Things like "50 million Americans on Welfare!" and "Romney Created Jobs in the Private Sector!" and "If you raise taxes on the wealthy, they will not hire people!" are all basically lies and easily disproven by even a moment's thought.

And most Americans pretty much saw through these lies, which is why Romney lost.  Granted a lot of people repeated these mantras, but most of them were not very bright people - people who did not think for themselves, but rather were all-too-willing to try on opinions like a set of clothes.

And the response to that posting was interesting.   Those on the far Left thought I was "one of them" and favored expanding the welfare state.  Those on the far right thought I was a "traitor to the cause" and was providing ammunition to the "opposition".

Please.

The point is, truth is what matters in these sort of philosophical debates.  And both sides are often far-too-willing to bend the truth in order to gain political advantage.

But what was disturbing about the responses to that post was the idea that you can't think like that.   That someone one's opinions are something bought "off the shelf" as a package deal from one party or the other, and that by taking one point of view, one must buy a whole host of odious accessory views that go with it.

And heaven forbid, if you try to see both sides of an issue!

But again, I think Americans are indeed smarter than that.   One reason Americans often elect one party to the Presidency and an opposing party to the House or Senate, is that we are not all of one voice on any issue, and that we prefer stasis in our government, no matter how many dire "crises" are predicted or called out.

And we are allowed to do that.   Most Americans don't see these manufactured crises in Washington as the big deal, but rather for the political gamesmanship that they are.

"Crises" are often use - historically - to push people into ideological corners.  And often these crises are manufactured or enhanced in order to get people to vote for a particular politician.   Whether it is the hyper-inflation of the Wiemar Republic, the threat of Communism in the 1950's, riots in the 1960's,  recession in 1979 or 2009 - or the "war on terror" -  a candidate will use such "crises" to get elected and push public opinion his way.

Eventually, though, people fatigue of such perpetual "crises" and it is hard to get the public riled up about Communists in the State Department or Mosques at Ground Zero.

It's OK to think for yourself - and in fact, it really is the only way to get ahead in the world, by perceiving it as you perceive it, not as you are told to perceive it.

Your Brother's Keeper

Give a man a pair of shoes, he has crack money for the night.  Teach a man to be a cobbler, and, well, he'll likely still be unemployed and homeless.  Particularly if he has mental health and drug problems.

A recent viral video (which are as evil as forwarded e-mails) shows a NYC Cop giving a homeless man a pair of $100 shoes.  It was a touching gesture, but if you have ever dealt with the homeless, you knew in advance how it would play out.

The media dutifully reported that the next week, the man's shoes were nowhere to be seen.  And people speculated whether he traded them for drugs, took them back to the store for a refund, or merely hid them because begging on the street is more effective if you are barefoot (hey, people will stop and buy you shoes, right?  It works).

The man's family was contacted, and they said they haven't had much to do with him, and that he chooses to be homeless.

That was the cue for the self-rightious to chime in.

"How dare they!" one bombastic columnist opines, "They have an obligation to help their Father!"

And as I have noted before, such comments are less than helpful, on a number of grounds.  We don't know the backstory on this, but I suspect these kids did not have a jolly childhood filled with picnics in the park and bedtime stories.   In fact, it may have been a horror show.  Growing up with a mentally ill parent is no Swiss picnic, let me tell you!

So, we are all-too-ready to stand in judgement of the children, but of course, the homeless guy gets a "free pass" as we all know that the poor are saintly and blessed and in fact, often have supernatural powers.  And the homeless are like superheros, compared to regular poor.  They are Mother Theresa on steroids!

Not exactly.  The statistics are pretty grim.  Most homeless people, as I have written about before, are mentally ill, have drug problems, or both - particularly the "chronically" homeless.  These are folks who become homeless and stay that way, until they die.  And often, they confess they prefer the freedom of living on the street, compared to the struggle of living in a shelter, working at a job, and trying to pay their own way.

You can make a staggering amount of money, panhandling - enough to keep you in cheap beer and crack, if you are astute enough to target tourists, and have a pathetic sign or no shoes.

But the bombastic blow-hards will have none of this.  Homeless people are victims, even as they victimize others, by stealing from your car and harassing ordinary citizens.   We need to feel sorry for the homeless!  And people need to care for their homeless relatives!

Well, with regard to the former, I have to agree.  But in terms of "taking care" of homeless people, we need to discipline them.  When you apply for welfare or other assistance, or a free meal, or a place to stay, you are basically saying, "I can't even run my own life."   Arguing that we need to provide the homeless with "dignity" or "control over their own lives" is nonsense - these are people with no dignity and when given control of their own lives, make horrifically bad decisions.

Many in the GOP support drug-testing for welfare recipients.  Good Idea.   If you want to do drugs, well, get a job to pay for them.  The idea that we should support (enable) people on drugs is just a bad idea.   And if someone is mentally ill and refuses to take their medication and wants to sit in the subway all day long and piss on the floor and scream at people, this is not a first amendment right.   We need to institutionalize such folks, involuntarily.  They need help, and they need someone to tell them what to do - because left to their own devices, they do not do well.  Often they hurt themselves - or others.

If they can demonstrate they can support themselves, fine.  Welcome to civilization, like the rest of us.  But I don't think that throwing money at the homeless and just letting them do "whatever" is a good idea.  Because "whatever" ends up being a detriment to the rest of society.  And if you don't believe me, ask anyone who works with the homeless.

You could debate me on that, if you want to.   But I am not convinced that handouts that enable street living and drug use are a good thing - and not much you can say will convince me otherwise.

But the idea that family members have to sacrifice their own lives to "help" an insane or drug-addicted family member?

Are you fucking crazy?

If you have a mentally ill sibling, parent, or child, or one who has addicted to drugs, I feel for you.  Because I have been through this - with mentally ill parents and siblings, as well as siblings and other relatives who are addicted to drugs.  And I have had a number of friends who were mentally ill or drug abusers - girlfriends, boyfriends, roomates, and the like.

It ain't easy.  In fact, it's damn near impossible.  Why is this?  Simply because most of us are not equipped to deal with mentally ill or drug-addicted people.  You cannot cope with someone who is irrational, who steals from you, abuses you mentally, physically, sexually, emotionally, financially, or all of the above.

The best thing you can do, in most cases, is just leave.  Move on with your life, and make your own life.  It is like those horror movies where they call the babysitter and say, "We've traced the call!  Get out of the house!  NOW!"   There is nothing to be gained by sticking around and being someone's punching bag - and that is what you get when you try to "help" a drug-addicted daughter or a mentally ill sibling.

As I recounted in another posting, I went to a counselor once, when a relationship with a mentally ill person was not going well.  I was not aware how mentally ill they were!  But the counselor basically said to me, "Get out of this relationship - it is toxic!"  I had neither the resources or faculties to cope with someone with major psychological or drug problems.  Few, if any people do.

And how did I end up in such relationships (plural)?  Simple.  I was raised with crazy people, and assumed that mental illness and drug abuse were "norms".  They are not.  And often, for family members of the mentally ill or drug-addicted, it is a major life accomplishment to break free of the cycle of co-dependency and addiction.  And as a reward, some blowhard columnist who hasn't had to deal with such things, takes a piss all over them.  Some fun.

So I understand completely why the children of this homeless man appear to the uninformed, ignorant, and casual observer to be callous and cold-hearted.   They are smart enough to realize that they can't "fix" Dad and make him better -that handing him money is not going to "help" him, at least for very long.  And that the best thing they can do, for society, is not to help one homeless man, but try to salvage their own lives - and that of their children - to minimize the impact of what surely was a horrific childhood.

Self-preservation is not always "selfish" - you have your own responsibilities to society at large, and one of those is taking care of and supporting yourself.  Trying to "rescue" someone else is a sure-fire recipe for destroying your own life.

Many folks have pointed to one passage in the Bible as saying that we are obligated to help out others in this way.  However, I am not sure the passage hasn't been misinterpreted - in a big way.

"And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?"  Genesis 4:9 King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

The key to understanding this quote, is to understand the context.  Cain had just murdered Abel, and God was saying, "Hey Cain, wassup?  Where's your bro?" knowing full well what had transpired (God sees all, right?).  He was just messing with Cain.  Playing him.

For some reason, Christians take this out of context (a murder scene) and make it into a parable about how we are all suppose to help one another.  And I guess not murdering people is probably a good start, at least for Cain.

The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is fully of fucked-up stories like this.  God commands Abraham to kill his son, and then says, "Just kidding!  I was testing ya!  Ha-ha!  Oh, wait, you didn't actually go and do it, did you?"

It amazes me that people look to this nonsense for "guidance" on anything.

Yes, we should all be kind to one another.  And we should offer people who are "less fortunate" a path upward, even if their lack of fortune is due to their own malfeasance, poor choices, or intentional self-destruction - which it often is.

But being "kind" is just that - being kind, not evil.  And when we are altruistic for selfish reasons (so we can proclaim our good deeds to others and enhance our own self-worth) we are not being kind at all.  And bombastic columnists, who declare their own self-righteousness and decry the acts of others, fall into this category.  "Look at me!" they cry, "I care about the less-fortunate!   I wrote a column condemning those who don't care as I do!"  They do so much, yet we don't appreciate them.

And if our "kindness" allows a drug addict to remain a drug addict, is it really kindness?  If you hand $20 to a "homeless" person, chances are, they are going to buy alcohol or drugs with it, not food and shoes.  Are you really being kind, or just handing him a loaded handgun?

A better approach is to donate your time or money to a homeless shelter or other agency that helps people move from poverty - not enables them to remain in it.   Most homeless shelters provide resources for the homeless to pull themselves up from the gutter.  But they also have rules - strict rules - on behavior.  And that is one reason many homeless people prefer the streets, unless it gets really, really cold.  No one will tell them they can't do drugs on the street, or stop them from stealing from one another, or shouting obscenities at passers-by.

And sometimes, that is the ultimate kindness - being firm, setting boundaries, enforcing rules.   It is a kindness sorely lacking in our culture today.

UPDATE:  It is now reported that this "homeless" man has an apartment in the Bronx, paid for by the VA.  And likely he qualifies for food stamps, an "ObamaPhone", medicaid, and a host of other benefits.

But of course, we cannot "afford" to institutionalize the mentally ill, right?

And of course, income from begging is not reported income, so it does not affect your qualification for other benefits.

I hate to say it, but we are enabling a lifestyle here - making it easy for people to make bad choices.

Online Loan Scams & Fake Debt Collectors

Online Loans are usually just a scam to harvest data.

OK, this is a pretty dumb scam, and you'd have to be pretty dumb to fall for it.  But you know, even smart people fall for scams - Chelsea Clinton's Father-in-Law spent millions of his client's money on a Nigerian Scam and went to jail over it.

You probably have seen a lot of ads on the Internet for online loans.   Now, if you've been reading this blog, you understand that borrowing money is not a good idea, nor is it a "privilege".  And borrowing money is not a way out of financial problems - it is  just throwing gasoline on your financial fire.

And many people think they can "borrow some money to tide me over" and then think they can pay it back.  But if they are short of cash already, how is borrowing more going to fix that problem?

And sadly, many folks do this to "hang on" to houses, cars, boats, motorcycles, and the like - convinced they cannot "give up" on owning a "thing" and that borrowing more money is the way out.  Selling crap or even declaring bankruptcy is a better option.

Many of these online loan sites are just a flat-out data harvesting scam.   Granted, even the "legitimate" ones are a scam, in that they offer trivial loans for staggering interest rates.   But many more simply want your Social Security Number, place of employment, home address and phone number, full name, and of course,  your Bank Account number (so they can "deposit" your "loan" to your bank account).

Of course, you are declined the "loan" which likely never existed.  But now that have more than enough data to perform high-level identity theft, unless your credit history is locked.

Your data will be sold and re-sold to a number of people - mostly in foreign countries.   And you may start getting odd phone calls.

One of these is the phony debt-collector scam.   These folks target the poor and dumb (which are often the same thing).   People desperate enough to try to borrow money online are desperate enough to do anything.

The typical call, usually at night, will be from someone with a foreign accent.  They will claim to be from a loan company and may even use the name of a legitimate loan company.  Or they say they are from "Legal Services" or even "Law Enforcement".

They will tell you that you have defaulted on a loan that you never made - for $497.35 or some such number.   And if you don't pay this right NOW, you will be arrested, as you have failed to appear in court in response to their lawsuit.   And if you don't pay this NOW, the court costs and fines can be over $4000!

And if they don't pay up, their credit rating will be DESTROYED!  And they will be fired from their job!  They will never work again!

The idea, of course, is to throw you in a panic - to be worried about being arrested or being liable for huge sums of money.  And for many folks, they don't even bother to think whether they took out such a loan.   Maybe they did borrow that money?  Or did they?   Either way, best to pay it off and avoid trouble!

And the scammer will offer to accept a credit card over the phone, or instruct you to wire money by Western Union.    Both are bad ideas and hallmarks of a con artist.

These scammers are preying upon the ignorance of the poor as well as their fear of courts and police.  With immigrants who barely speak English, they have easy prey.

Even legitimate debt collectors can be very aggressive, as I found out recently when I was accused of owning DirectTV some money - that turned out, of course, to be the debt of a different person with a similar name.

How do you avoid these problems or solve them?

Well, for starters, don't hand out information like that online.  Forget online loans, payday loans, and other odious deals.  Get out of that mindset entirely.

And if a debt collector calls or writes, don't panic.  Ask for full documentation of the debt, in writing.  Get the address of the debt collector, the name of the agency, and the name of the person calling.  If they tell you they can't give you their name, then tell them "so sorry!"

Con artists will claim not to have an address to write to, or not be able to send you the documentation.  And in most cases, they will hang up and not call back.

But never pay a debt you don't owe.  And never let a debt collector intimidate you.

Suspension Work

The suspension on your car is ironically, largely made of rubber.  A Macpherson strut (blue) on a 1995 Ford Taurus.  The spring (black) is mounted above the strut.  Control arms tie the bottom of the strut to the car.  The whole thing is attached to the car through rubber bushings.

I just completed another suspension overhaul, this time on the X5.  Automotive suspensions haven't changed much in the last 40 years, but cars are lasting longer and longer.   And often, when your suspension wears out, it makes the car difficult, if not unsafe to drive.

And repairing your suspension can be expensive and difficult.   If you don't have the right tools, such as a spring compressor, well, you really can't take apart a MacPherson strut, at least not safely.

But what does your suspension comprise? And why does it wear out?   Well, you may not believe this, but a lot of it is rubber - and what causes it to wear out is your driving style.

Most cars today use MacPherson struts up front, and then a control arm arrangement in the back with coil springs and shocks.  This sort of design became popular in the 1970's, and pretty much started to dominate the market by the 1980's.

Prior to that time, most cars used a dual-control-arm setup to provide independent front suspension.  Your old Chevy Caprice had this, and many sporting cars (e.g., Corvette) continue to use it today.

Most postwar cars adopted independent front suspension which used dual control arms (black), a coil spring (red) and a hydraulic shock absorber (yellow) such as shown in this 1981 Fiat.

Prior to that, of course, cars had solid front axles.  Unless you drive around in a Model A Ford, that really isn't relevant to the discussion.  And your old '68 Caprice had a live axle in the back - a solid once-piece design that soldiers on in pickup trucks today.  Most modern rear-wheel-drive cars today have an independent suspension, with axle-shafts and CV joints, much like the front suspension of a front-wheel-drive car.

Modern independent front suspensions have a number of wear points.  First are the ball joints, which connect the control arms to the wheel spindle assembly.  These joints are necessary as the spindle assembly has to move up and down and also rotate, so the car can steer.  So a joint than can move in three dimensions is required.

Ball Joints - Ball joints are present in both types of designs, with the dual-control-arm designs having both upper and lower joints, while MacPherson struts generally have only one per side.   These wear over time, and eventually get a little loose, making the steering and handling seem more vague.   Originally, these were greased every 15,000 miles with a grease gun.  But in the early 1960's, manufacturers would dispense with the "zerk" fittings and offer "sealed for life" ball joints.   This meant that "chassis lube" jobs were no longer necessary.  However, it also meant that ball joints needed to be replaced at about 70,000 to 100,000 miles, particularly in early cars.

Two things can damage a ball joint and cause it to fail prematurely.  First is the rubber boot tearing, allowing dirt to get in.  This can occur if you run over some road debris, such as sharp metal or the like.  The second is to strike a curb - hard.   Ball joints are usually bolted to the control arm or spindle on  one side, usually with two bolts, and then the other side pressed into the spindle (or forged control arm, on a MacPherson strut arrangement).  On some cars, such as Mercedes, the ball joint is pressed in on both sides.

Although there is a large nut on the ball joint, this is used merely to snug the tapered shaft into its mating tapered hole at the mounting point.  It is the mating of these tapered surfaces that holds the ball joint in place, not the nut.  In fact, the nut would not have enough strength to hold the ball joint in, should the taper joint fail.

And when you hit a curb, often what happens is that this tapered hole in the spindle or control arm becomes egg-shaped.  As such, the tapered shaft no longer seats, and the ball joint works loose.  Eventually, this pulls out the nut and the suspension will come apart, likely while you are driving, often with catastrophic results.

The only solution is to replace both the ball joint and the spindle assembly.  Usually the latter can be had from a junkyard.  On more modern cars, the tapered hole may be on a forged steel control arm, and these can be bought from a parts source.

Merely replacing the ball joint will not work, as the egg-shaped hole will ruin the new ball joint in short order.

Ball joints are cheap enough (about $30) but the labor to install them is pretty steep.  The entire suspension needs to be disassembled, in many cases, and this is time-consuming.

Ball joint wear, of course, can be accelerated by hard cornering, sudden stops, hitting speed bumps and curbs, and the like.

Rubber Bushings - But what holds the other end of the control arms to the car?  On both MacPherson Strut and dual-control-arm designs, usually a bushing is used to allow the control arm to move up and down in two dimensions.  These bushings are often made of rubber, and thus absorb shocks from road bumps.   A friend of mine once decided to replace the bushings in his car with bronze ones that he machined on a lathe.  His thought was, it would provide better handling.  When he was done, the car was basically undrivable, as you could feel every tiny bump in the road and the noise was deafening.

The problem with suspension bushings is multifold.   First, they are a pain in the ass to replace, as you have to take apart the entire front end to get at them.  Often they have to be pressed in to the control arms, which is not easy to do.  Second, they are made of rubber, and after a decade, they rot out and fall apart.  Usually, you notice sloppy handling and perhaps vibration at highway speeds, as the failing rubber allows the front-end alignment to wander all over the place.  Aggressive driving, hard stops, hard cornering and the like, really wear on these bushings as well.

Under normal usage, the bushings in a modern car can last 150,000 miles or so, without too much trouble.  But as the car gets older, these may start to be problematic, and combined with wear in other suspension components, result in a car that handles oddly or feels "loose" and harder to drive.

Many manufacturers sell the entire control arm, with the bushing already pressed in, which saves a lot of time and doesn't cost a lot more than just buying the bushing by itself.   But it still is not an easy job, and installing them requires some careful thought, as they need to be torqued in place when the car is sitting on the ground, not airborne.  The bushings are directional, and have to be installed and tightened in a certain orientation, or the handling will be weird, to say the least.

A new and old tied rod end for a 1997 BMW 328iC, removed from the car.  On the right side is the outer end, which attaches to the spindle and has a tapered shaft.  The inner end screws into the rack and pinion unit, and is covered by an accordion bellows.

Tie Rod Ends - Tie rod ends, or tie rods, as some people call them, are just ball joints that attach your rack-and-pinion steering (or recirculating ball-gear, if you have a really old car) to the front spindle.  These also wear and can be damaged in the same manner as ball joints.  And like ball joints, if they fail, the results can be catastrophic - one wheel will become detached from the steering and decide to go its own way.  Again, back in the 1960's and before, these were lubricated with a zerk fitting, as part of a "chassis lube".  Today, they are sealed for life, and by life, I don't mean yours.   They start to wear and get loose by 70,000 miles.   They can last the life of the car, but the steering will feel looser and looser as they wear.

And like ball joints, sudden impacts with a curb or the like can egg-shape the tapered hole in the spindle, resulting in the tie rod end coming loose.  The threaded nut on the tie rod end is not sufficient to hold it in place.  When it separates, catastrophe can occur.

Upper Strut Bearings:   I used to make these, as well as integrated spindle assemblies, for GM.   The top of the strut assembly attaches to the bodywork of the car though a bearing that is set in - you guessed it - a rubber bushing.  These bearings allow the strut to rotate, so the spindle can turn and your car can steer.  They are remarkably thin bearings, often with steel races inserted into plastic housings.   Yes, the entire weight of the front end of your car rests on a couple of plastic rings and a rubber doughnut.

A strut bearing for a 1995 Ford Taurus, disassembled.  The bearing has a plastic housing with thin metal races in it.  The rubber bushing is shown at the upper right.  It bolts to the strut tower with three bolts, and the strut shaft bolts through the center.

Strut bearing rarely wear out, but if they do, you would notice the steering getting difficult or feeling grinding noises from the front when you steer.  The rubber bushing in the strut bearing might wear out over time (crack, degrade).  Many mechanics recommend replacing these when replacing the strut cartridge, but often it is not necessary.


MacPherson Strut:  A MacPherson strut is a combination of spring, shock absorber, and suspension link component.  By making three components into one, assembly is made easier and overall cost is less.  So of course, it was invented by a Scotsman.   While these are ubiquitous today in most cars, MacPherson struts do cause some camber change as the car suspension moves up and down.   A dual control arm setup, like in the Fiat photo above, keeps the wheel perpendicular to the ground as it moves up and down.   A MacPherson strut setup, is more like a tripod, and as the strut expands and contracts, the camber (the amount a tire leans in toward the car) changes.

To some degree, this is not a problem, as sometimes you want camber changes when the car is, for example, cornering.  This can actually improve handling.  And many manufacturers tweak how the strut changes camber to work this to handling advantage.

One problem with MacPherson struts is that on most cars, you can't adjust the location of the strut, and thus cannot adjust camber.  In fact, on most cars today, the only thing you can adjust, in terms of a front-end alignment, is the toe-in, which is adjusted by rotating the tie rod ends in and out.

Strut tower on a Ford Taurus SHO.  The mounting plate for the strut is tack-welded in place, but can be moved, as in this picture, to alter the camber adjustment.   Camber adjustments may be needed if you are using sport springs or different sized tires.  Most cars do not provide for this adjustment, unless you go to aftermarket camber plates or strut bearings.

The problem with a MacPherson strut, of course, is that if the shock absorber part wears out, you have to remove the strut, disassemble the strut, and then install a new shock absorber part (which is either a cartridge, or comprises the entire strut body) and then reassemble and re-install.  In a dual-control arm setup, such as the Fiat shown above, the shock absorber can be removed with a couple of bolts, and a new one installed - in a manner of minutes.

So, changing a MacPherson strut can be a pain-in-the-ass.  How much of a pain-in-the-ass?  This link shows how much.   And while changing shocks is something a shade-tree mechanic can do in an afternoon with just a Sears socket set, rebuilding strut assemblies requires a lot more tools (such as a spring compressor) and a lot more risk.

Some backyard mechanics attempt this without the right tools, sometimes with tragic consequences.  They try to take apart the strut using the weight of the car as a compression tool, and if the spring lets loose, well, it can take your head off.  There is a lot of energy stored in a compressed car spring.

The good news is, the shock cartridges in MacPherson struts can outlast the car.  Many last 150,000 to 200,000 miles or more.  This is pretty amazing as 40years ago, a set of shocks might last only 30,000 miles, if that.  Better seal technology is one reason they last longer.  But again, how long they last depends a lot on how you drive.  Hit the speed bumps at 50, and no, they won't last long (and your bushings will be shot as well).

The odd thing about modern cars is that in the past, shocks would wear out, but springs seemed to last forever.   Today, we do hear about car springs "wearing out" - usually by sagging excessively to the point where the car has weird camber angles and handles funny.  It doesn't happen often, but it can occur.  If your car is taking on that "low rider" look, worn springs may be the reason why.

A rack and pinion unit from a 1997 BMW 318iC.  Note the "trombone" tubing for the power steering fluid - this acts as a cooler for the fluid.  Old unit is in the back and was removed because the shaft seal started leaking.  Note sway bar in the back.

Rack and Pinion:  Not really a suspension component, but a primary part of the steering gear, the rack and pinion unit steers the front end via those tie rod ends mentioned above.   Rack and pinion units don't wear out and get loose like old recirculating ball gear or worm-gear steering "boxes" of days gone by.  But they can start to leak over time, as the shaft seals wear.  And usually, the only thing to do is replace them, which is expensive and time-consuming.

I replaced one rack on a car I owned, and I suspect that the reason the shaft seal started to leak was that one tire was getting old and hard, and started to vibrate when we drove.  It is possible that this vibration worked on the shaft seal over time.  It was not that hard a job to replace, but I am in no hurry to do it again.

Most folks never change their power steering fluid.  It is hydraulic fluid (usually ATF, Dextron III or the like) and it does not "wear" out per se.   However, heat does break down hydraulic fluid over time, and I notice that on my BMWs, the fluid does turn from bright red to black after 30,000 miles or so.  I change the fluid at about that interval, usually by removing some fluid from the reservoir and then refilling it, making sure not to get air in the lines.


Sway Bars & Sway Bar Bushings:  Independent suspensions allow each wheel to "do their own thing".   A sway bar is the step back in the other direction.   Essentially a giant torsion bar, it ties the two wheels of the car together so that if the car is swaying in a corner, some of this energy is transmitted to the other side, resulting in flatter cornering.  Sway bars rarely wear out, but they attach to the suspension using small ball joints and are tied to the car with (wait for it) rubber bushings.  Over time, if you horse the car around, these components can wear as well.


Wheel Bearings:  These bear mention in that while not part of the suspension per se they a critical part of the car - they are what makes your car roll. In the olden days, repacking your front wheel bearings was something every boy learned to do in High School.   Most cars had tapered Timkin roller bearings up front, and you could take apart the hub from the spindle with little more than a screwdriver and a pair of channel-lock pliers.  Pay $1 for a tub of grease, and you could have the whole thing taken apart, cleaned and regreased in about an hour.  If a bearing actually failed, it was a simple matter to put a new one in, and the cost was only a few dollars.

Today, only trailers have such wheel bearings.  Most modern cars have integrated spindle assemblies or cartridge bearings that have to be pressed in at a machine shop.  To reduce rolling resistance, most manufacturers have moved to ball bearings.  They are sealed-for-life, and that life is not yours.  And these bearings can be easy to damage if you attempt a "DIY" repair.

Hard cornering and overloading can damage wheel bearings over time.  You will notice a "roaring" noise from the bearings when they start to fail.   Usually they give you plenty of warning when they are about to let go.  For most folks, the only choice is to take the car to a shop to have a new bearing pressed-in.


Tires: I saved the best for last.  Tires are part of your suspension - in fact, most of it.  Tires make the car - providing the handling, ride, braking, traction, and acceleration. How a car handles and feels is 90% the province of the tires.  Buy crappy tires, you will have a crappy car.  And yet, a lot of people try to go cheap on tires.  And given the staggering cost of tires today, it is not hard to figure out why.  But while shopping around on price and comparing treadwear ratings is a good idea, buying used tires or recaps is probably a bad bed for a passenger car.   And I say this with firsthand experience, as dry-rotted used tires can ride like a steamroller and often be unsafe.

And how long your tires wear is a direct function of how you drive.  Hard cornering, hard braking, peeling out, and the like can shorten tire life considerably.   Keeping tires inflated to proper pressures is also essential, as low pressures can increase tire temperatures, causing excess wear (at best) and a blowout at speed (at worst).

* * * 

Modern cars rarely need serious suspension work until they hit the 150,000 mile mark or so - perhaps later.  You may never replace a strut on a modern car, during your period of stewardship.   However, as a car creeps up to the 150,000 mile mark and beyond, replacing these and other expensive suspension components may be necessary.   And oftentimes, the cost of such replacement can exceed the resale value of the car - or comprise a significant chunk of it.

Throwing $2000 to $3000 at a used car worth only $5000 or so is often not a good idea.  Yet a used car needing new struts, brakes, tires, and a few other things (CV joints) can run up such a bill in a real hurry.  This is why it pays to have a used car inspected before you buy it.   And this is why it pays to think hard before you throw money at a used car on the premise that you are going to get into the Subaru 300,000 mile club.

And it also points out why hot-dogging your car can really wear it out.   And yet most people do this on a daily basis, without thinking about it.  When you slam on your brakes at a stop sign (as opposed to anticipating your stops ahead of time) you are throwing 4,000lbs of car onto some thin rubber bushings - and multiplying that weight by the rate of deceleration.   This type of treatment can shorten the life of your suspension - easily in half.

It is, your choice.

Cash in 401(k) to Pay Off Student Loans?

I need to cash in on this book thing.

Pay off your debts, and write a book about it. 

How cool is that?

An opportunistic fellow has put up a website to document his "struggle" to pay off his student loans from Harvard, which total, or totaled, $90,000.

Graduates from Harvard are rarely in danger of defaulting on Student Loans, particularly those making $74,000 a year, which is a lot of money for a young man out of college to be making.   The general "rule of thumb" of student loans is that you should not borrow more than the first year's salary in the job you expect to get after graduation.  And with a $90,000/$74,000 ratio, this fellow was not far off the mark, and hardly "stressed" with student loan debt.

Others are not so lucky.

Should you make heroic efforts to pay off student loan debt?  It depends on a number of factors, including the loan types and interest rates.  When you are in your 20's, having tens of thousands of dollars in debt may seem like an onerous burden that will never be paid off.   And we see this all the time with these idiotic "Wall Street Protesters" complaining they have $25,000 in debt and will "never pay it off" - while most Americans pay that for a car and pay it off in four years or less.

Clearly, the perspective of youth is skewed.

One intrepid reader set out to reduce or pay off his student loan debts right out of college, by finding a high paying job and applying all his resources to retiring that debt.   Good for him!   But is it always a good idea?  Again, this depends on a number of factors.

As I have noted before, paying off a debt is like a 100% sure-thing investment.   The principal paid off is a debt retired, never to be paid again, and thus represents a "sure thing" in terms of increasing your net worth (usually from negative to positive).   The interest not paid is also a "sure thing" in terms of a return on your dollar.   If you retire a debt early, you may save hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars in interest charges.

And of course, one ancillary effect of paying off debts is that it reduces your cash-flow requirements, effectively making you wealthier in terms of how much disposable income you now have, how long you can live on your savings, and how soon you can retire.

But "sure thing" safe investments are really more the province of older people.  At least traditionally, old folks were the ones who invested all their money in government bonds and had their mortgages and cars paid off.   At age 65, Granny can't afford to be risking her livelihood on risky stocks and be burdened by debt.  And traditionally, this is why people used to be able to afford to retire on modest pensions that were a fraction of their working salary.  With their house paid for, no debts, and lower expenses, they could get by on hardly anything.

Of course, today, this has all changed.  Old people, like my neighbors, are retiring with debt, including mortgage debt - and taking on new debts in the form of auto loans and the like.   Recent generations have retired with pensions equal to 2/3 to 3/4 of their final salary, particularly if they worked for government.  Our generation - the 401(k) generation - may have a different paradigm to wrestle with.  We will have to retire on our savings and with no pension, this could be a much different - and harsher - scenario to deal with.

And that is why I am debt-free at 53 and my neighbor is refinancing his house at 73.  He has a pension, and looks at life as a series of payments.  I have a 401(k) plan, and look at life in terms of net worth.   This was the goal of the GOP in pushing for elimination of defined-benefit pensions, and it seems to be working.   Our generation has to be more fiscally responsible - or else.

But what about our 20-something friends?  Should they be paying off debts early in life?   It is an interesting question, with a lot of angles to consider.  My thought is this:   Try to avoid taking on debt in the first place, when you can.   As for paying it off, take a balanced approach.

One of the conflicts that occurs with the young is that, having debt, they are also encouraged to save.   These two goals conflict, and often can result in a person leveraging themselves into oblivion.   Before the Real Estate Meltdown of 2008, many folks thought they were "rich" because they had a fancy house that on paper was worth more than they owed on it.  And their 401(k) plan had a hefty balance on it, which was more than the balance on their mortgage.  On Paper, they were wealthy.

But in 2008, the value of the house plummeted, and suddenly they were "upside down" on their home, and their 401(k) plan dropped in value as well, and it no longer exceeded their debt load.   People went from wealthy to insolvent, literally overnight.  And they realized, for the first time, how heavily leveraged they were.

Trying to save money while in debt has this effect - you are in effect leveraging your debts, particularly if you put money in to a tax-deferred account, such as an IRA or 401(k) where the taxes and tax penalties would be brutal, if you decided to withdraw the money to pay off debts.  And many folks have asked, "Can I use my 401(k) to pay off my mortgage?" and my conclusion was, it was a bad idea.

Getting back to our topic (background is everything), one of this fellow's ideas on how to retire this debt is to cash in an IRA plan.   Was this a good idea, or just a stunt?  Well, in my mind, just a stunt.  Actually, the whole website is just an attempt to garner some fame for the author (he is selling a book on the subject).   His debt load was hardly onerous on a salary of $74,000 a year, and his real problem was not student loan debt, but his $1300 a month "entertainment" budget.  Once he cut back on spending, not surprisingly, he was able to cut back on debt, rather quickly.

And the reality of his situation was that he cashed in a paltry $8000 IRA (probably set up by his parents while he was in college) while still contributing 10% of his income to his 401(k).  He was hardly robbing Peter to pay Paul, or sacrificing savings to pay off debts.   The headlines in the popular media that he "cashed in his 401(k)" were misleading and exaggerated.

But lets look at this.  Does it make sense to contribute to a tax-deferred savings plan while still servicing debt?  This analysis would depend on a number of factors - the loan interest rates, the rate of return on savings, and the tax advantages of the tax-deferred savings plan.


Let's assume a 4% loan interest on the student loans.  From what I am reading online, this is not an atypical rate.  From a recent Forbes article, this seems to be about right:

"Undergraduates are eligible to receive two types of Stafford loans: subsidized and unsubsidized. With the former, the government pays the interest while students are enrolled at least half time, and the rate is set at 3.4 percent. In the latter case, students accumulate interest while in school, at a current rate of 6.8 percent."

However, private loans can be even higher.   And one trap young graduates often fall into, is the offer to "refinance" guaranteed student loans (which have low rates and short terms) into variable-rate notes over 30 years.  I would not recommend this.

For purposes of illustration, let's assume his IRA (or 401(k)) had an even $10,000 and let's compare this to $10,000 in student loan debt.   Let's also assume that the IRA is making 7.5% per annum, over time, which is not an unreasonable rate of return on the stock market, over time, even for a fairly conservative portfolio.

You start to see how many variables there are here.  Let's throw another one in - tax rates.  At $74,500 a year, he is firmly in the 25% bracket.   Again, for the purposes of illustration, we will assume his marginal bracket stays the same - 25% at both ends of the transaction.

Which leads to a first fallacy.  That $8000 IRA he had was likely set up at a time when his income was in the 15% bracket, if that.   As a result, he is paying taxes at the rate of 25% on money that he took a tax deduction at the 15% rate.  But let's let that go, for now.

On the $10,000 cashed in, he would have to pay 25% in taxes, or $2500, leaving $7500 applied toward his debt.  In addition, there is a 10% tax penalty, or another $250 in taxes, leaving $7250 to apply toward debt.

Now, if the term of the loan is set at 10 years (yet another variable - we are up to what, six already?) let's crank some numbers.

$10,000 in student loan debt, at 4% interest, would amount to $14,802.44 in ten years.  In other words, if he paid off $10,000 in debt at year zero, he saves $4802.44 in interest (I am not calculating this as a "pay down" situation over ten years, as this is an additional $10,000 in principle he is knocking off.

$10,000 invested in the IRA/401(k), over 10 years, at 7.5% interest, yields $20,610.32 - potentially, more than doubling his money.

Right off the bat, you can see that cashing in the IRA/401(k) doesn't seem like such a swell idea - based on a lot of assumptions I am making.  Student loan interest rates, for private loans, could be higher.  And the rate of return on the stock market is anything but guaranteed, of course.

But let's plug in the tax consequences.   Using our assumptions, the IRA money could double in value over ten years.  However, the real $7250 in paydown from the IRA would really only eliminate $10,731.77 in principle and interest over a decade - a savings of  $3481.77 in interest not paid.

In other words, he comes out at least $7128.55 behind - nearly the amount realized from the 401(k)/IRA by cashing it in, as opposed to leaving the money in the bank and making payments on that $10,000 over time - assuming our assumptions about rate of return and loan interest rates are true.

But what if his IRA doesn't earn 7.5% (which it easily could have, in the post-2009 stock market boom of the last three years)?   Suppose the rate of return on his IRA was a paltry 3% - along the lines of a 10-year treasury bill and one full point lower than his student loan interest rate?

The IRA is now worth only $13,439.16 after three years, or a gain of $3439.16.   What is interesting is that this almost exactly the same amount ($3481.77) in interest not paid on the student loan.

In other words, even if the rate of return on the IRA is a paltry 3%, you break even, even if the loan rate is 4%.    You can still come out ahead even if your loan rate is higher than your rate of return in the market, in some cases.

This is not to say this is always the case.  I am making a lot of assumptions here.   It certainly makes no sense to use this argument to extend the loans to 30 years, pay the minimum amount, and then contribute as much as you can to tax-deferred savings.

No, that would be extremist.  And I hate extremists.

I think a better balanced approach is as follows:

1.  Take on as little debt as you can:   This fellow admitted he had a huge "partying" budget, and I'm guessing that it started in his college years.  It is tempting to "live large" as a student, as they throw student loan money at you.  But if you can do without, borrow a dollar less, it pays off, over time.  Bear in mind that interest on student loans accrues while you are in college, so a dollar borrowed is often $1.25 by the time you graduate - and will cost you $2 to pay off, over time.

2.  Don't Extend Loans:   You will be pummeled with offers to refinance your student loans over 30 years, which could drop the monthly payments in half - but sign you up for perpetual debt, often on onerous terms.  Bite the bullet and pay them down in 10 years or whatever the original term was.

3.  Don't Try to Accelerate:  It may be tempting to "pay down" this debt early on, but don't sweat too much about paying them off sooner than that.  Money is scarce early in your career, and you should think about building up a "safety net" of personal savings, as well as starting funding for retirement.

4.  Contribute to Tax-Deferred Accounts:  Not saving because you have debt makes no sense at all.  While paying off debt is a "sure thing" in terms of rate of return, as a young person, you have time on your side and can cash-in on long-term gains.  To avoid saving merely because you have debt is to not save.   Again, balance savings with debt service.   Too much of one and not enough of another is never a good thing.

5.  Avoid Taking on More Debt:  This was the big mistake I made.   While I had ten years of student loans to pay off, I took on more debt in the form of credit cards, car loans, and a home mortgage.  The latter, like student loan debt, might have been unavoidable (if you want a place to live and plan on living somewhere for 10-20 years) I did not "need" auto loans or credit card debt.

6.  Realize that You Will Outgrow Debt:   While $38,000 seemed like a lot of money when I borrowed it, by the time I paid it off, it seemed a pretty trivial amount.  Today, people pay that much for cars (although they shouldn't) without batting an eye.  By the time I made the last payment on my student loans (my last SLS graduate loan was paid off in 2007!) this did not seem like such an onerous amount.

While I never accelerated (by much) the payoff on my student loans, at least I never made the mistake of extending them out to 30 years with a refinancing.  My mistake was in taking on additional, unnecessary debts when I could have been saving more.   I still ended up doing OK, but I could have done much better, had I learned that "doing without" wasn't all that bad, and in fact, probably better than "doing with".   My $1700 Mercedes was five times as much car as my $25,000 Taurus.  And I drove both about the same amount of miles before selling them.  One cost five times as much to own, and was 1/5 as enjoyable.

While I have to congratulate the fellow for paying off his $90,000 debt from Harvard, I am not sure it was such a great accomplishment on a $74,000-a-year salary.   And while I hope he learned a lot from the experience (how to live on less and accumulate more wealth) from reading his website, I am not sure he learned much.   As he paid down debt and as his income increased, it seemed like he went back to a lot of his "old habits" in short order.

Any guy who pays $600 for a brake job on a Honda, needs to have his head examined.

Choices We Make

 Is your life path predestined by your socioeconomic status at birth?  Or are you more directly affected by the choices you make?

Why are some people rich and others poor?  Why do some people become Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, and others become fast-food chefs or cashiers at Wal-Mart?  Is it destiny, our personal choices, connections, a fix - or a combination of these things?

The answer is probably the latter.  To get ahead in the United States, you need some luck.   It helps to come from money, wealth, and connections, too.  But fundamentally, your personal choices make all the difference in the world.  You can come from a wealthy family, go to all the right schools, and have all the best opportunities handed to you, and still end up working at minimum-wage jobs.

How do I know this?  Well, I grew up in fairly affluent neighborhoods - Old Greenwich, Connecticut, Lake Forest, Illinois, and such.  Most of the kids I knew went to private schools.  Many came from old money.  Their parents owned vacation homes.  They were upper-middle-class or upper class families.  And their children had all the opportunities in the world - prep school, college, business connections, inheritances, etc.

And yet, many of these children-of-the-wealthy ended up on the skids - working at slacker jobs and living at a near-subsistence level.  Often, they lived on handouts from their wealthy parents.  And in fact, it was such a common occurrence, that many parents of that era became alarmed about their "boomerang" or "bounce back"children (just as many parents are equally as alarmed today).

While having "all the advantages in the world" might give you a head start on life, these advantages can be quickly negated by making poor choices.  It turns out that personal choices are far more powerful than inherent advantages, in most instances.

This is not to say that utter slackers, like George W. Bush, can't get ahead in spite of their poor life choices.  With enough money, even an utter idiot who does nothing but drink beer and snort cocaine, can end up as President of the United States.  However, to be fair, one has to note that at some time along that path, he did have to make some better choices - to give up the booze and drugs and decide to run for office.  There was at least some modicum of effort involved - and a choice to make that effort.

A lot of us make poor choices in life - perhaps most of us do.  And unfortunately, it is very easy to blame your poor choices on others - to externalize your problems.  And part and parcel of this is to criticize those of us who made better choices, were lucky, or had better options - or usually a collection of all three.  Those "rich folks" don't deserve their wealth, right?  After all, they didn't have to work very hard for it!

And in a minority of cases, such as inherited wealth, perhaps this is true.  A person who inherits $100 Million at age 21 certainly didn't do much to deserve that.  On the other hand, what that person does with the $100 Million is a matter of choices - and whether they parlay that into a Billion, or squander it all within a generation or two, is usually a matter of choices, not predestination.

And the beautiful thing about this country is that in most cases, heirs opt for the squander route - as they had no training in how to make money, only in how to spend it.  And within a generation or two, dynastic wealth is dissipated and room is made at the top for the next hungry entrepreneur.  Old money, in this country, is rarely more than a generation or two old.  Anything older than that is often old, but usually not a lot of money.

When I was a young slacker, my opinions on the matter were pretty much the same as other young slackers.  Those "rich folks" didn't deserve their wealth, I thought, since I didn't have any myself.  Doctors, Lawyers, and Bankers were all overpaid, in my opinion.  But of course, I had not chosen to go to medical school, law school, or business school.

And funny thing, it is just that - a matter of choice.  And one day, I woke up and realized I was making a lot of poor choices.  I was not getting good grades. I was not saving money.  I was living at a level of subsistence, rather than trying to get ahead.  And of course, my choices to consume drugs and alcohol, as well as who I chose to hang out with, had a lot to do with this.  And in that mindset, success and wealth were something that "other people" did.

So I took time off from work, went back to school, got good grades, and graduated.  Was it easy?  No.  Was it impossible?  Hardly.  And then I chose to go to law school.   Funny thing, it turns out they let just about anyone in, who has a halfway decent grade average, a good LSAT score, and the cash money to pay for the tuition.  It was just a matter of deciding to try.

And law school turned out not to be that hard.  But people who never bother to even try it will tell you that it is "hard" and not worth it, or that they don't want to be lawyers.  But they will grouse about how rotten it is that others are - or that they make money at it.

Of course, my legal career is hardly that of a Harvard grad.  A friend of Mark's did a similar thing - going back to law school.  But he went to Harvard, graduated in the top 10% of his class, in Law Review, and got one of those high-paying jobs at a big city law firm.  Now, he is partner in that firm, living in London, and no doubt making a quarter-million a year or more.  Probably more.

Am I jealous?  Perhaps.  But on the other hand, he made different choices that I did, and the choices he made, allowed him to pursue better opportunities.  And he did that, as a kid from rural Maine, whose parents ran a dairy farm.  It is not like he had big connections with New York law firms through his Dad or anything.  It was a matter of his choices.  More power to him.

Now granted, there are others who might reach that level of success aided more by connections than by choices.  Perhaps they get into Harvard as a "legacy" - having a parent who went there.   And perhaps they get that first job through a family connection.  But often, in the business world, keeping that job and advancing still requires a modicum of talent.  Not always, but usually.

The slacker will seize upon the undeserving who achieve success and cite that as the only model.  In their mind, anyone who succeeds in this country is along the lines of George Bush - a coddled Momma's boy who got ahead through family connections and the old school tie.  But for every one of those sorts, there are 100 who get ahead by their own merits.  It is possible to do, and in fact, happens more often than not.

Your choices are the major predictor of your success.  And yet, statisticians are willing to say just the opposite.  In the book Freakonomics (which is now a website, television show, magazine, radio programme, and a soon-to-be-opened theme park) the authors posit that your parent's economic status is the greatest predictor of your success.  And of course the Freakonomics people fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation - while railing it is others that don't.

If you come from a prosperous family, chances are, they will provide you with positive normative cues - to study hard, attend college, to get a job.  If you come from poverty, chances are, these values will not be as strongly stressed.

But ultimately, it is your personal choices that make all the difference in the world.  The spoiled rich kid who decides to do drugs and drop out (about half my friends in high school) will not advance despite all the advantages of his birthright.   And the girl raised in the ghetto who decides to eschew drugs and teenage pregnancy, can end up as a lawyer with the Navy's elite JAG corps.  And yes, I've met her - I went to law school with her.

No, these are not probabilistic outcomes, but they are predictable outcomes, once the right choices are made.   Never let someone pigeon-hole you into an ethnic or socioeconomic box - and tell you that it is OK to just give up on trying, as you won't succeed anyway.   You do have choices, at all economic levels.  Some have better and more choices than others, it is true.  And yes, that isn't "fair" but that's life.  Make the best of the choices you have.

What is sad to me - and the reason for this posting - is that so many middle-class and upper-middle-class kids negate the advantages of their birthright by making poor choices.   And this is the reason why our middle class is "shrinking".   Middle-class parents have stay-at-home 30-year-olds working slacker jobs and doing nothing with their lives - poor choices.   And drugs and alcohol are often the cause of this.

I don't realistically expect all the kids from the ghetto to suddenly become Billionaires by making better choices - although they can improve their lot in life by doing so.   What is sad, to me, is that we have lost an entire generation of middle-class people, and I am not sure it is due to external forces or tax rates or the decline of unionism.   I think it has more to do with personal choices.

Sacrificing Your Life?

Come down from the cross, we need the wood.

People love to nail themselves to the cross, it seems.  And in this regard, one of the biggest problems I see with folks is in their relationships with their parents.  Even here on retirement island, there are folks in their 70's who whine and bitch about their controlling parents who are in their 90's.  Mom is in the nursing home, weak as a kitten, and yet their aging children are still afraid of her.   It makes no sense to me.

(Thankfully, my parents had the courtesy to do the right thing and take a dirt-dive in the churchyard at a relatively young age, leaving me in peace.  It is good to be youngest).

Sadder still are people who sacrifice their lives either trying to please their parents, or "get even" with them.   They will turn to drugs and crime, as young adults, either to punish their parents, or get attention, or whatever.  It is such a waste.

The thing to remember about parents is that they are schmucks like yourself.  They have no special skills, or even maturity.   It takes no diploma or certificate to become a parent.   Ten awkward minutes in the back of a Camaro and that's it.

And yet, some folks like to think that being a parent has endowed them with special wisdom and knowledge.   I saw this, yet again, in Wal-Mart the other day.  The fat trailer-park girls, pushing around their strollers and acting as though being a "Mom" was some higher calling.  They act as if they split the atom, as opposed to spreading their legs.

And parents such as that are often quite immature, and often damage their children.   Let's take aside for the moment, the horrific parents who beat their kids and emotionally torture them.  I'm just talking about average people, here.    A young mother sees her daughter, full of hope and promise, so young and beautiful with perfect skin, and well, she hates her.  Not in a direct sort of way, but the child represents the promise the parent no longer has.    So you see this, for example yesterday at Wal-Mart, a parent running down their children and calling them "stupid".   Yes, it is fun to lord over small humans.  Fun, but disgusting.

And yet most parents are this way.   My Mother was very immature, up until the day she died.  She was prone to teenage fits of jealousy and envy.  She was an alcoholic, bi-polar, and a closeted Lesbian.  And a funny thing, when you are a kid, no one says, "Oh, by the way, your Mom is crazy, don't pay attention to all the bizarre shit she says!" 

As a child, you tend to think your parents are Gods who know-all and see-all.   And if you don't believe this, they will spank or beat you.   And as you grow up, you may hang on to this sense of their superiority.  It is hard to shake.  But shake it you must, lest you end up a shadow of their accomplishments in life.


I was fortunate in that, being youngest, I saw my parents at the end of their careers and end of story arc of their lives.  They were not so intimidating to me as they were to my elder siblings.  I felt sorry for them more than anything.  And parents really don't like that, let me tell you. 


But I was able to break free of the cycle of parental dependency.  I stopped seeking their acceptance and validation - which is never likely to come from any parent.   And I stopped engaging in self-destructive behavior as a means of retaliation.

What do I mean by the latter?   Well, I have used two examples in the past of this:

Suzie was beaten by her abusive Father, and when she got pregnant at age 16, he paid for an abortion, but not before calling her a "slut" and a "whore" for weeks on end.   Suzie turned to drugs and petty theft, and pretty soon became a full-blown drug addict.   And I suspect part of this was the low-self-esteem induced by the treatment by her Father, but also an act of revenge.   She would embarrass her Dad and his Country-Club pals by lowering herself into the gutter.

Francine is another example.  Her parents groomed her for life as the wife of a young executive.  She was sent to a girls' boarding school, and then to a women's liberal arts college.   This was back in the 1960's when careers for women were largely unheard of.  You got a job as a secretary, until you met some handsome young executive and then you married him, had four kids and a station wagon, and hoped he didn't beat you - too much.

Francine rebelled against this grooming.   She would live her own life and show them!   Unfortunately, she really didn't think it out very well, and married the first guy that she knew would piss off her parents.  And she lived pretty much in poverty for the rest of her short life, ironically asking her parents for money, nearly every month.   She thought about divorcing her alcoholic underemployed husband, but she didn't want to do this, as it would be admitting "defeat" to her Father.  In trying to break free of the parental bonds, she bound herself even more tightly to them.   And for most of her short life, whenever we talked, the conversation inevitably turned to her Parents.  She was obsessed with them!    How Sad.

We all have our crosses to bear, it is said.   But before you drag yours another foot, ask yourself why you are doing it.   Are you nailing yourself to this cross and sacrificing your life for purely emotional reasons?   Can you in fact, just drop the cross and move on with life?

It is possible to view your own life as an independent person, not as a victim in some distorted perpetual parent-child relationship.   And yet few people have the wherewithal to break free of this childhood grip.

My late Sister once went to a "free" seminar that turned out to be put on by some cult.  They had her hold two coffee-cans connected to a galvanometer and then asked her questions like "How do you feel about your Mother?"  The galvanometer would then measure conductivity, which is often a function of how much you sweat.  And asking most people about their parents is one sure way to get most people to sweat.  Profusely.

And what do these cults do?  One of the hallmarks of the cult is that they separate the initiate from his family.  He is surrounded by a "new" accepting family, and for the first time in their lives, they feel happy.  Perhaps pimps use this same technique.   But of course, over time, the cult initiate starts to realize they have traded one dysfunctional family for another, and eventually wants to get out.   But of course, they can't, as that would be admitting defeat to go back to their family - just as Francine stayed married to a jerk she couldn't stand, rather than admit defeat to her Dad.

A better idea, I think, than being beholden to your family as an adult - or joining a cult (is there much difference?) is to be your own person.   This does not necessarily mean having to give up on your family (but if they are self-destructive, drug users, abusive, or all of the above, perhaps) but rather making your own life and your own family (your spouse and your children) the centerpiece of your life.

It is very sad, but I run into a lot of people in their 50's, 60's, 70's and even beyond, who are waiting for their parents to die so that they can be "free" - financially, emotionally, or both.   And that is sad, in so many ways.  To begin with, if they predecease their parents they may never find peace and freedom.   Second, the best years of their lives may evaporate while they are waiting for Mom to kick the bucket.   And finally, even after they are dead in the ground, folks who obsess about their parents never seem to find that final peace and freedom.  Even from the grave, they feel controlled.

Being your own person is never easy.  It requires that you have some idea of who you want to be - and not some stereotype your are acting out or some parental expectation you are fulfilling.   Very few people are able to do this.  And this is why very few people are wealthy in this country, I believe.   The vast majority of Americans are so weighted down with emotional issues as to be suffocating, slowly.  They have neither the time nor the energy to devote to their personal economics, as they feel that emotional "issues" are more compelling and important.

They sacrifice their lives.  And for what?   Nothing.