Blognigger's Common Sense with Cops

What White People Say Behind Blacks' Backs may become a regular feature of this blog. If you haven't already, check out My Race Essay.

Blognigger has written an excellent piece on the Henry Louis Gates story and how to handle police, here.

His common sense advice:

ALWAYS SUCK THE POLICE’S BALLS AS HARD AS YOU CAN.

Use yes sir, no sir, thank you sir because the police can do whatever they want at all times.

This approach has served me well in a number of different run-ins with the police – whether I was writing graffiti which was illegal, or Driving While Black which wasn’t.

This is so simple it's ridiculous that he has to say it, and it's even worse that there's a huge debate in his commentage.

One night I was driving my friend Tez home after playing basketball. Tez is black and lived in an all-black part of St. Louis. We got pulled over for what I call Driving While White (DWW).

While Driving While Black (DWB) is illegal in more parts of the country and a more serious offense in most cops' eyes, DWW is also a crime in some parts of the country - black cities. I'll explain. Driving While White Male may be a better term because police often give white girls a pass if they assume the girl has a boyfriend in the neighborhood. But if police see a white guy driving through an all-black part of town, they'll often pull him over on the assumption he's there to buy drugs. Or to tell him to get out of there. I've lived in lower-middle-class black neighborhoods where DWW wasn't a crime, but it's a crime in most bad black neighborhoods.

Tez lived in a bad neighborhood and we got pulled over. After I slipped a few 'sirs' into the conversation, I politely asked why we were pulled over. The officer answered that the car wasn't registered to an address in the neighborhood. I nodded in complete understanding.

Now, this wasn't the first time I'd been cornered with a black person by police, and it certainly wasn't the first time I'd seen some black ghetto attitude, but it was the first time I saw the two meet. Tez started arguing that driving in a different neighborhood wasn't a crime and this wasn't necessary. He kept telling the cops to do "only what's necessary." That word "necessary" over and over again.

I thought the only thing necessary was for Tez to SHUT THE FUCK UP! These are COPS you dumb-ass! Tez took the hint, or maybe dropped the battle because he had absolutely no backup from me.

We were wearing basketball clothes and stankin'. It wasn't too late at night and, besides my tattoo, I didn't have any douchebaggy red flags like a pencil-line beard or a big, heavy chain. After searching my car, the cops let us go. But I still believe that if I hadn't been in Blognigger's common-sense camp, Tez (and maybe me too) would have gone to jail.

My excellent "ball-sucking" saved the day by appeasing the cops and discouraging Tez.

I've been locked up for no reason (in fascist South Carolina). I know just as well as the next guy that some cops are insufferable assholes. But I've also had a lot of cop friends and most of them are relatively normal.

There's one thing that cops are not: pensive, open-minded liberals. You're not going to win an argument with one and you sure as shit aren't going to intimidate one or shout him down. If you try, you may get your ass kicked or locked up, or both.

We have Blognigger's testimony that sucking balls works. I've heard my good buddy Carlos' testimony as well. Carlos is an exchange student from Jamaica. Now, you dumb-asses thinking of weed and rastas should know that the majority of Jamaicans don't smoke weed or have long hair. Carlos is clean-cut and he barely drinks.

We talked about DWB once and he admitted that he gets pulled over a lot. But he added that almost as soon as the cop hears him talk, they let him go. He's been in St. Louis six years and he's never been to jail! Carlos is a good-natured guy with an ear-to-ear grin. And having grown up in Kingston, he has none of the black ghetto attitude common in Americans.

I am no apologist for racism in America, and I don't deny it. I don't deny the racism deep inside me. I know racism and I know racists. But still, when confronted with a guy like Carlos, even the biggest asshole of cops will let him go. I can see 'em thinking, "This is just a good kid; I'd be a monster to take him in."

Black people, white people, all people: that is the effect you want to induce in cops.

I agree with Obama's original statement that the cop in the Gates case "acted stupidly." However, I also identify with the sentiment of most white people according to opinion polls.

Black readers, this is what white people thought about the case: Well, what did Gates do? What did he say? Oh, he was yelling and calling the cop racist? Well, that's stupid.

We white people aren't thinking about the societal injustice context of every news story. We think about what sensible people should do in the situation. OK, so a neighbor saw a couple guys forcing their way in the back door of the house. The neighbor called the police, as most white people feel they should have. To the contrary of rampant speculation, the neighbor did not mention race in the 911 call.

We white people think of the officer on duty responding to the call as merely doing his job. We feel sorry for him that he got yelled at and insulted while merely doing his job. Couldn't Gates be reasonable and understand that the police had been called for a burglary to his address? Couldn't he just show his ID without the big production?

Now, I think the officer acted stupidly but many white people don't go that far because of how stupidly Gates acted. If you have two assholes being assholes to each other, the one with more power is going to win. Plain and simple.

It's really not surprising that a Harvard professor should need a lesson in common sense. Thanks, Blognigger!

Let's break down some stupid comments from BN's readers.

The first is from "Learn Your Rights (or be a lazy ball-sucker)":

If you are NOT breaking any laws, sucking dick is only giving the cops and their horrible system positive reinforcement. You should stop being so lazy and learn YOUR RIGHTS so that you can handle police officers tactfully and legally. You don’t have to become a lawyer to avoid sucking cop dick. They want to keep their jobs and not look like an idiot to their boss when they bring you in for nothing (even though they can and still might). There are simple scripts to follow that will get you out of most encounters. The last thing that cop wants to do is show up in front of a judge when you take them to court!!!

You people just want to take the easy way out because it takes work and sacrifice to fight the system. FUCK YOU! If you pay taxes, cops are your employees. You’re making it worse for everyone by being lazy and uneducated cock-suckers. People died for your rights, now “We gotta take the power back!”

Here are 3 obvious assumptions about this dumb-ass:

1. He is white
2. He has never been to jail
3. He is from a low-crime city

If those three assumptions don't apply to you, don't take his advice. I heard this line of shit once and tried it when I was about 18. I tried to tell a cop he couldn't search my car. Then I was handcuffed for "acting suspicious" while he searched my car. If I hadn't tried that shit, he probably wouldn't have given me the minor-in-possession ticket for the bottle of gin I had under the driver's seat.

Here's "Ty":

Good for him for NOT BEING A FUCKING PUSSY anymore. He didn’t do shit wrong and everybody knows it else charges would not have been dropped. Period ... Fuck it. I’m going to be Skip Gates. I’m already ready for the beating ... “Why do you need to see my ID, officer? In fact, what brings YOU to MY neighborhood? May I please have your name and badge number?”

OK, this isn't assumption. This is fact: Ty will spend time in jail again. If he is black and if he acts like that, he will spend a night in jail in the future. You just can't beat those odds. If he were white and acted like that he'd see the inside of a cell, but being black simply increases the number of opportunities / run-ins with police he'll have. Can't beat those odds.

I don't know what Ty does for a living or how much his time is worth to him. But apparently it isn't worth more than "NOT BEING A FUCKING PUSSY" to cops. Real smart.

We white people don't want open-minded liberals for cops. They wouldn't work out. The job is inherently violent. We white people have a deep respect for cops, which isn't reciprocated in the black community.

Are you going to change the system or make a difference on your own? No. But you can make a difference whether you go to jail or not. Don't be stupid. Suck balls.

My Race Essay: What Whites Say Behind Blacks' Backs

US Attorney General Eric Holder recently said that Americans are “cowards” in respect to race relations.

“Holder Calls U.S. a ‘Nation of Cowards’ on Racial Discussion”

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3AqLScZj7_U&refer=home

Holder's right. But he's not talking about black people being the cowards in talking about race (ever seen Kings of Comedy?). He’s talking about us, confrontation-averse white people. So this is my essay on race. In not being cowardly, I’m not going to subject it to a market test among my black friends. This is going straight to publish.

I am from St. Louis, MO – a city with a significant black population – and I’ve had black friends all my life. I've had black roommates.  Growing up, I was often called a "wigger." Somewhere in college, I lost my "wigger" tendencies in speech, mannerisms, and clothes. Still, black people have often told me that I am not "a typical white boy" or that I am "black on the inside" – this always makes white guys feel cool. I share stereotypical black tastes in three areas: women, cars, and music. I participated in two black-dominated sports: basketball and boxing. I guess I say these things in an attempt to establish credibility that I am not racist. I want to tell a few stories concerning race in America and one of its most segregated cities – St. Louis, MO.

The first story goes back to my first day of 2nd grade. My class was in the bathroom after recess. I don't remember the reason, but I was going to fight another student named Marlon Stone, who is black. I had just seen The Karate Kid and I put my hands up with my fingers curled in just like Daniel-san did. I knew nothing about karate and, in hindsight, I had no idea at all what I was doing. Marlon said "Oh, you wanna do karate?" and proceeded to kick me and punch me and beat me up in front of the whole class. When we left the bathroom, he asked me if I wanted to race getting a drink of water. I was a little resentful and not wanting to be friends. After getting water, he asked me if I wanted to race from the water fountains back to the classroom. From that day on, Marlon and I were best friends. We were also the primary troublemakers in our classroom and the entire 2nd grade.

I was always singled out by teachers as being exceptionally smart (before drugs anyway). So it didn't make sense to Mrs. Schlafly that I would be the class clown. It also didn't make sense that I would be best friends with Marlon Stone. This is 1986, an entire generation back in our cultural progress. During some parent-teacher conference, the fact that I was friends with Marlon Stone became a big controversy to my parents, teachers, and others. Marlon was almost the focal point of my behavioral problems. I have no idea what ever happened of Marlon Stone. He might not even remember me today. I only remember his name because of how big of a deal it was that I was friends with Marlon Stone. Time would later tell that I didn't need any help from black people in being a troublemaker. I was very capable of being a despicable piece of shit all by myself. But that story should illustrate to skeptical white people that there is covert racism that exists in the back of our minds. Marlon was expected to be a bad guy. I wasn’t.

In 2nd grade, I could be best friends with someone like Marlon Stone. All the students played and sat together back then. But somewhere along the line, 5th or 6th grade, the white and black students started to segregate themselves. Lunch tables became all-black or all-white. Maybe the years of cultural differences added up and kids seek out similar kids. Or maybe something about puberty changes things. With few exceptions of people like me and the kind who end up hanging out in diverse neighborhoods, this self-segregation trend never reversed.

Back to what Eric Holder said (which is 100% true by the way). Many white people – including myself – are too polite, intimidated, guilty, or indifferent to communicate as strongly as they feel about race. Obama's race speech following the Jeremiah Wright controversy was hailed by media pundits, but it did not gain him any ground among rank and file white people, especially working class whites. One such uncle of mine noted that the speech was “bullshit” and America is generally an "equal opportunity country." I wouldn’t go that far, but this is how most white people feel and I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

In my school, there was no systematic exclusion of the black students from excelling in academics. Most of the black students excluded themselves. Whether they chose to make beats on the table, roll dice and play pencil-break, draw pictures of the perfect box (popular haircut of the early 90s), claim gangs and act tough, or whatever, studying hard was not a widespread activity. Two white friends of mine attended Hazelwood East, which was 90% black. However, their senior calculus class didn't have one black student in it. Also hailing from St. Louis is the R&B singer Fantasia, who revealed to the world that she was illiterate despite having graduated high school.

This is how white people and myself see Fantasia’s situation: her school probably sucked but her illiteracy is not the system's fault. If you can't read, that is your problem. You must be trying not to learn. She must have gone out of her way for years to avoid learning this basic skill. Blame her or her parents, but don't blame society for a lack of common sense and responsibility. As a slave in the 19th century, Frederick Douglass learned to read despite it being illegal for him to learn or for anyone to teach him. We’re supposed to feel sorry for Fantasia? She didn’t even try! Obama stated in his 2004 DNC keynote address that black youth need to stop thinking that reading and studying is "acting white." Getting good jobs and access to upper society doesn’t come without hard work and study. I would love to be working at a top tier consulting firm in New York or Boston, but I did drugs in high school instead of studying hard. I don’t complain about the lack of opportunity. I fucked it up myself.

I have a theory to explain why blacks often suffer discriminatory treatment in society. From my experience in the restaurant service industry, servers and bartenders will tell you that black people don’t tip. This is bullshit. I used to argue that the average gratuity percentage of all black customers, while certainly lower, is not much lower than the average percentage from all white customers. The difference is negligible given low gratuities from rural white people and elderly white people. But those ghetto white people aren’t such a pain in the ass. They’re in and out. Servers don’t remember them. Nor do servers remember the nice black family that was easy to take care of and left 20%. They remember the ghetto black table that sent back their food for trivial reasons, asked for free samples, complained to a manager, or were a major pain in the ass in some other way while not leaving a tip. The treatment I have gotten from ghetto black tables is simply unconscionable. You don’t get that from any other kind of people. Only black ghetto. Even black servers don’t want to wait on black tables. I was the guy that used to argue that waiting on blacks is not as bad as people make it out to be. And even I would get a feeling in my stomach when I saw a black table sit down in my section. Just the chance that this black table could be a black ghetto table could completely ruin my night. That feeling is uncontrollable. You can’t teach someone not to feel what has been conditioned into their system through experience, like a dog getting its face rubbed in shit after pooping in the house.

Whether it’s different treatment in restaurant service, car rental offices, hiring practices, or most notably by the police, my theory attempts to explain this phenomenon. A significant percentage of black people are ghetto. “Ghetto” is the term I will use, but I want to use “triflin’.” When I say “ghetto,” I don’t mean poor. I mean triflin’. This significant percentage is actually a minority (I estimate about one third), but significant enough and triflin’ enough to fuck it up for all black people. My theory is that discriminatory treatment stems from those practitioners trying to thwart or discourage the triflin’ behavior of the ghetto segment. Imagine how police officers, whose exposure to black ghetto must be much higher, could come to treat all black people. Unfortunately, non-ghetto black people are often subject to the backlash against ghetto black people when they are not to blame. They are being treated unfairly. In my view, one third of the black population is fucking it up for everybody.

I can’t think of how normal, mainstream black people can disassociate themselves with the ghetto segment in order to receive normal treatment. The black ghetto segment is so triflin’ that the mere presence of a black person can cause worry in worrisome types. The black ghetto segment simply has to change if race relations are ever going to normalize. Mainstream black people have to cut off and discourage this ghetto segment. I know this goes against what seems right, siding with “the man” against their people. It was a cultural necessity for all black people to be united to fight for civil rights or they never would have won. However, that time has past. The gains sought aren’t hard, tangible, political gains anymore. They are soft gains. The time for unity has past because the whole of black people no longer wants to be treated like ghetto black people. Unconditional unity is why the ghetto segment is allowed to be so triflin’. And that triflin’ behavior is why non-ghetto black people suffer discrimination. Remember when Jesse Jackson said “I want to cut [Obama’s] nuts off” for “talking down to black people,” referring to Obama’s speech urging black men to be better fathers? Jesse Jackson = part of the problem. Obama = part of the solution. Al Sharpton = part of the problem. Bill Cosby = part of the solution.

Any discussion of race relations in the US would not be complete without mentioning the physical differences between blacks and whites. On average, black people are stronger and more athletic than white people. That is not to say that there aren't exceptionally athletic white people and exceptionally un-athletic black people. It's just to say the average. Some white racism is definitely attributable to the average difference in power, speed, strength, height, vertical jump, penis size, etc. However, this is not a lasting dynamic or insurmountable obstacle to improving race relations.

One night I was wasted in Delmar Lounge and started dancing with a hot black girl. We were doing more grinding than dancing. Despite her black friends trying to get her away from me, she kept coming back to me for virtual sex on the dance floor. Two of the guys stood on either side of us and just stared at us humping each other. One of them said to me, “You love that black pussy, don’t you? Get that shit, black man.” I think when those roles can be reversed – when a couple white guys can watch a black guy and white girl and say, “Get that shit, white man” – when that happens and nobody gets mad, race relations will be normalized. That is where we need to be. There is still a long way to go.

Cheers to Eric Holder!

Gringo Business Culture for Latinos

This is an essay I wrote for an assignment to get certified to teach English. This open-ended assignment allows me to analyze any subject from the textbook. I chose a subject (culture) not related to language because it's less boring. Essay below:

In this essay, I want to address what I view as the part of the Business English text that is most relevant to doing business in America. American professionals will overlook minor errors in written or spoken English from an international. However, cultural missteps can damage relationships or otherwise communicate unintended messages. These cultural factors are those that present the greatest discrepancies between US and Latin American business cultures.

Time – American culture follows a monochronic time orientation, as opposed to the polychronic orientation in Latin American countries. Americans say things like “time is money” and “don’t waste time.” This particularly applies to deadlines. In America, deadlines are literally how they sound. Think about what “dead” and “line” mean. Those words don’t suggest that an agreed-upon time or date is adjustable with changing circumstances. If a project or payment isn’t made by the deadline, Americans will expect an explanation why it’s late. Deadlines are much more important in monochronic cultures. Keep in mind when conducting business in monochronic cultures, Americans value time and are not as tolerant of delays.

Punctuality – Punctuality goes along with time-orientation. Look at meeting times as deadlines. Don’t be late. If you are late to a meeting, Americans expect an apology.

Status – Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” This is a cornerstone of the American psyche – that no citizens are inherently better or of higher standing than others. In the English language, there is no translation for the word “usted.” It was difficult for me at first, in my Spanish-speaking company, to address certain superiors as “usted” (instead of “tu”) with the agreeing verb form. In English, there is only “you.” There is no special pronoun for people of higher status. Executives and other ranking professionals need not be offended in America if they are not treated with extra respect. Cab drivers or restaurant servers will treat professionals with the same amount of respect as individuals from lower social classes. And customers will likewise treat servers with respect. Executives from Latin America should keep in mind that they are not being insulted. But rather, all people are generally treated with the same respect in America.

Interpersonal Relationships – Americans don’t place as high a value on relationships. While there is certainly a place for building rapport, remember that they believe “time is money.” American professionals can use blunt and direct language. This is normal. Do not take offense. After acclimating to Peruvian culture, I attended a sales show in the States and was a little surprised at how blunt some buyers were. Some meetings lasted less than two minutes. Saving time and moving on can take precedence over building relationships.

Greetings – Gender roles are different in America. In business, gender roles are even subject to law. Men: do not kiss women when greeting them. Women: do not kiss men when greeting them.

Gratuities – In America, many workers earn their living through gratuities as opposed to wages. Not leaving a sufficient gratuity can be insulting and make a bad impression with business colleages. Most important are restaurant servers / bartenders and taxi drivers. Servers and bartenders earn 15 – 20% of the bill’s total. Taxi drivers earn 15% of the fare.

The Legacy of George W. Bush

I want to look back and take stock of George W. Bush’s impact and future legacy. I disclose that I was on the Obama train but I supported Bush in both of his elections. I guess this essay may assert to the majority out there that, historically, Bush wasn’t as bad as it seems now. And to the tiny minority of you who still support the man, I want to demonstrate that he certainly wasn’t all good. As our country is currently engaged in two wars and the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, a liberal Democrat won a landslide victory to lead his party to an even greater majority in the executive and legislative branches for a different direction in leadership.

Drew emailed me this pic to illustrate his joy over the change in governance. He represents the historic 80% approval Obama enjoys upon entering office.

Legacies

George W. Bush’s approval ratings fell to as low as the high 20s before rising to the mid 30s recently – the standard bump a president gets before leaving office. There has been much talk about Bush’s sour legacy. Bush himself has attempted to mediate this image in recent weeks. It would be hard to make the argument that his legacy will be as bad as current public opinion despite the statement from noted historian, Ludacris, that Bush was “the worst of all 43 presidents.” However, the Bush review will not be all-positive despite his wildest ambitions.

Presidential legacies, by nature of being determined by the masses, are subjective and irrational. Many presidents aren’t credited for their substantive effects. JFK’s and LBJ’s legacies illustrate this perfectly. JFK enjoys iconic stature, a liberal champion and inspirational hero. LBJ suffers the blame for the Vietnam War. JFK was the ideological spearhead for civil rights and is remembered as such, but LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress and signed it. He took advantageof the political climate after JFK’s assassination and pressured his fellow Southerners into supporting the legislation. LBJ gets little credit for civil rights yet he bears responsibility for the Vietnam War, which ironically was a stage where JFK and his administration planted the seeds and made the early commitments. There were over 10,000 US military personnel in Vietnam before LBJ was ever sworn in. I once saw an episode of Dave Chapelle’s show, another noted historian, where he implied that the blame for Vietnam rest with Richard Nixon, the president who appointed a peace negotiator before actually being inaugurated in 1969 and ultimately ended the war. So we can see that public legacies are not always based on thorough research or objective opinion.

Bush achieved approval ratings as high as the low 90s and as low as the high 20s. Presidents who achieved such high approval as Bush are an elite club, almost as elite as the presidents who achieved such low approval. Harry Truman experienced similar extremes, his highest after ending World War II by using nuclear weapons and his lowest during the Korean War. Over fifty years later, Truman is regarded as having been a good president. Will Bush enjoy the same fate? Only time will tell.

George W. Bush will be remembered for September 11 and the Iraq War, which represent his high and low points in public approval. Everything Bush did in between, his “War on Terror,” will also be a part of his legacy. September 11 was a circumstance of chance and Bush's leadership went over well with the country. He probably enjoyed a rally-round-the-flag effect but, nevertheless, approval that high will not be forgotten. A big part of Jimmy Carter’s legacy was also a circumstance of chance, the Iran Hostage Crisis. The Iraq War was not a result of chance and Bush's ensuing dismal support will not be forgotten either. Parallels to the Vietnam War have been drawn since the outset and are best illustrated by the public perception’s separating the Iraq War from the War on Terror just as the Vietnam War is barely associated with the Cold War.

Bush’s War on Terror and everything it entailed – the Department of Homeland Security, Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, etc. – is how he chose to define himself and that is how he will be remembered. What happens in Iraq determines much of his fate. While violence has calmed since the troop surge, it may spike as soon as US forces leave. If this happens and Iraq descends into sectarian violence and ethnic slaughter, or aligns itself with Iran and other antagonistic Islamic Law countries, Bush will suffer the blame. If Iraq thrives as a beacon of democracy and future ally, Bush will enjoy the credit. The smart money is not on the latter but we'll see.

Historic Impact

Historians will judge Bush based on more than what they remember off the top of their heads. Three main aspects of his presidency will be the focus, all of which played a big role in his War on Terror.

Preemptive Doctrine – The most debated Bush policy will be his doctrine of preemption. Bush Doctrine, as it is sometimes called, asserts that preemptive strikes are justified to prevent future aggression. In other words, the United States can invade and even overthrow foreign governments which had committed no acts of aggression against the US, but are perceived to pose a threat in the future. With the exception of tacit support for hushed coups, this is new ground for America.

The Taliban in Afghanistan had not committed any crimes against the United States but they refused to turn over someone who did: Osama Bin Laden. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, a preemptive war to overthrow this Islamic Law regime was not a difficult sell to the public. It didn’t seem preemptive since America was simply reacting to being attacked. The Taliban wasn’t complying with justice so they had to go. Iraq, however, was a tougher sell. Saddam Hussein’s government had no ties to Islamic terrorism and was on the verge of bankruptcy. The Bush administration made a shaky case that the Iraqi government had “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) and that a preemptive strike was necessary to ensure the future safety of the United States by creating a democracy in the Middle East. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has proven divisive and increasingly unpopular. Both wars of preemptive doctrine were justified with the intention to prevent problems. Future American attitudes and international law will determine whether this doctrine - war with the intent to prevent - will persevere.

Expansion of Presidential Powers – In what seems to have been priorities of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and under the justification of fighting the War on Terror, Bush has expanded the powers of the executive branch beyond their reach in previous administrations. The Patriot Act allowed for warrant-less wiretapping, rendition, and unprecedented executive privilege. Bush has utilized the signing of statements to clarify how he interprets new legislation passed by Congress. Critics assert he uses his signed statements as a way to enforce only what he wants. Members in Congress are calling for this power to be rolled back and a restoration of checks and balances. How Obama handles his transition in that office will have a great influence on the future of the executive branch.

Enemy Combatants Policy – In order to justify an aggressive war against Islamic extremism, Justice Department lawyer John Yoo developed the legal framework for the handling of enemy combatants. This handling has included rendition, lack of due process and detention at Guantanamo Bay, and torture including water-boarding. I am not a legal expert but I believe the cornerstone of that legal opinion is that, because the enemy combatants in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere who plan war crimes against the US do not represent a recognized state and do not wear uniforms clearly identifying themselves, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This opinion seems to have stood up in the courts to an extent, but only with the help of the previously-mentioned expansion of presidential powers and executive privilege. Obama has already committed to closing Guantanamo Bay and, given his background in law, we can expect he will roll back the secretive and questionable tactics of the Bush administration. Still, those tactics have set a precedent and will be examined and debated for generations to come.

What Bush Won’t Be Remembered For (by the public):

*Feel free to disagree with me in the comments section.

Patriot Act – I almost included this under the impact section, but decided his real impact was the overall theme of expanding presidential power. I don’t think the Patriot Act alone will be memorable in the future because (A) it was renewed in relatively uncontentious fashion and (B) while some provisions have been discarded, most of it has held up in court.

Hurricane Katrina Response – as much outrage as it caused at the time, I don’t see this event earning much space in the history books (if it’s mentioned at all).

Department of Homeland Security – after all, Richard Nixon isn’t remembered for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Administration Scandals (Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales) – not sexy enough like Monica-gate and not incriminating enough like Watergate to stand the test of time.

Opposition to Gay Marriage and Stem-Cell Research – these wedge issues can inflame now but nobody will remember who supported which side in fifty years.

Prescription Drug Benefit in Medicare – the largest increase in federal spending in modern times didn’t meet much opposition when it was passed.

AIDS in Africa – AIDS. And Africa. Bush gave a lot. How many people care?

No Child Left Behind – the most controversial education legislation that nobody really cares about enough to see how their own Congressmen voted, much less pressure them to repeal it.

Tax Cuts – capital gains, estate tax, stimulus checks, and refunds. When's my next one?

Other Developments of the Last 8 Years:

Sarbanes-Oxley Act – in the wake of the Enron scandal, Bush signed this legislation which mandates the toughest financial reporting of publicly traded companies in the history of the industrialized world. The cost of compliance has been cited as a major reason corporations are increasingly listing on stock exchanges in other countries.

Do-Not-Call Implementation Act – everybody should remember the do-not-call list you could have opted in for to be off-limits to telemarketers.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban – “partial-birth abortion” in politics but it’s known as “intact dilation and extraction” in medicine.

CAN-SPAM Act – this disclosure-mandating legislation put out of business one successful spammer that I knew personally. Somehow, not all spam got canned.

Bankruptcy Reform – sounded like a good idea at the time to the kinds of people who don’t declare bankruptcy. It may make weathering the current financial crisis much more difficult for individuals and companies.

Secure Fence Act – this legislation mandated we build a big, long fence between us and our neighbors. Well, one of our neighbors anyway.

Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito – the reason(s) why the religious base elected him.

Feedback

I would love for you to agree or disagree with me in the comments below. I have surely left something out. Please include it. I assume most of the feedback will claim that I am being too generous with Bush. Regardless, I hope you enjoyed my brief recap of the last eight years.

Don’t Vote: Just in Time for November

Most of this material was developed for a presentation in my Managerial Communications course last winter. The assignment was to deliver a presentation asking the audience to take some kind of action. I promised the audience and I promise you that, if you do as I say, you will save time, save money, and enrich your life. In fact, taking my advice is easier than not taking it because the action I am asking you to take is actually inaction. I am asking you to not vote.

Because it was a speech as opposed to an essay, I had attention-grabbing fun stuff to start the show. I told them a famous Boss Tweed quote: "The people can elect whoever they like as long as I get to choose the candidates." (Boss Tweed was the infamous boss of the 19th century political machine in New York). Then I showed them a bumper sticker which reads, "Don't Vote – it only encourages them". I wrapped up the fun stuff with a classic economists' joke.

Two economists run into each other at the polls.
Economist A: "What are you doing here?"
Economist B: "My wife made me come. What are you doing here?"
Economist A: "My wife made me come."

This joke tied in nicely with my two-pronged argument against voting and illustrates how economists, the world's experts in maximizing benefit and utility with limited resources, regard it silly to waste one's time voting.

The two-pronged argument against voting: (1) your vote will not affect the outcome of the election and (2) your candidate will not change your quality of life.

The first part of the argument is based on statistics and economics. I explained the economic theory, the Paradox of Voting. This theory states that "for a rational, self-interested voter, the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising a decisive vote (i.e. the chance of a tied election) is tiny compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

Economics hinges on rational behavior, and how rational people should behave in order to maximize their utility. According to this theory, voting is not rational behavior.

To further drive this point home, I developed a methodology to calculate one's chances of changing the outcome of an election. The truly random method would be 1 / n where n = total voters. However, elections are never random since we have opinion polls that seem to come out hourly which add predictability. In some states like California or Texas, your chances will actually be much lower because the election will not be close. In small, politically divided states like Iowa, your chances may be higher than with that methodology. So I scrapped that method for one that I arbitrarily made up which isn't accurate at all but is the most generous in yielding the highest probabilities of casting a deciding vote. 1 / n where n = the margin by which the winning candidate won in past elections. This completely ridiculous methodology doesn't even take into account the size of the state, but nobody can fault me for padding the numbers because I am padding them in the voters' favor. Using this methodology, I computed probabilities of changing the result for some recent elections in the St. Louis area.

2006 Missouri Senate (McCaskill by 48,314)
p = .000021

2004 Missouri President (Bush by 196,542)
p = .000005

2004 Illinois Senate (Obama by 2,206,766)
p = .0000005

2004 Illinois President (Kerry by 545,604)
p = .0000018

I emphasized that any Illinois residents were really wasting their time by voting because they don't have a chance in hell of making a difference (chance in hell = 0.00019%). Then I threw out some of the closest elections in history and their p-values.

2000 Florida President (Bush by 541)
p = .0019
* Statistically closest election ever

1876 South Carolina (Hayes by 889)
p = .0011
* 8.4 million votes cast in the whole country
* Women couldn't vote
* p-value inflated past any realistic comparison to present times

1916 California President (Wilson by ~4000)
p = .00025

1976 Ohio President (Carter by 11,116)
p = .00009

2006 Virginia Senate (Webb by ~10,000)
p = .0001

I pointed out that for all of the closest elections in US history, using my ridiculously generous methodology, the voter's chance of changing the outcome, when rounded to the closest percentage point, equals 0%.

Then I started the second prong of my argument against voting. Your candidate will not change your life. Because this is the business school and students are typically laissez-faire, free market conservatives, I picked on the Republicans first. Before I dug in, I emphasized that I was not trying to talk about or debate politics (especially Iraq), but to illustrate how the parties don't necessarily practice what they preach.

I showed statistics that showed how George W. Bush and a Republican Congress have presided over the largest inflation-adjusted federal spending increase since LBJ. Total spending grew by 33%. The federal budget, as a percentage of GDP, grew from 18.5% to 20.3%. Discounting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Bush non-defense spending grew 4.8%, second to only Richard Nixon (another Republican!). On the other hand, the federal budget as a percentage of GDP shrank the most in recent decades under Bill Clinton and a Democrat Congress. So, as far as your economic politics are concerned, does it really matter who wins?

Then I picked on the Democrats. Just a year before my presentation, a national Congressional election gave the Democrats control of the House and the Senate for the first time in fourteen years. Discontent with the war in Iraq was the widely-accepted reason for the change in power. In January 2007, the Democrats took office as a national poll showed that 70% of Americans opposed sending more troops to Iraq. I explained to the international students and the Americans who don't read newspapers that, while Bush can send troops to Iraq, he can't spend money. He can not fight a war if Congress doesn't give him money for "beans and bullets". In March, the newly-elected Democrat Congress passed a spending bill for the war with a timetable for US troop withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. In May, newly-elected Democrat Congress passed a spending bill without timetables. So among all the discontent with the war, and all the Americans who went to the polls to end the war or change how it was being handled, the newly-elected Democrat Congress gave their voters a fully-funded troop surge with no timetables for a withdrawal of our forces. Good job, voters.

In summary, I addressed one of the most common pleas from pro-vote types. "But what if everybody says that?" This argument is insignificant because everybody doesn't say that. We are discussing rational behavior here. Assuming everybody will abstain is irrational because many people vote. 150 million people will vote in November. I told the class that I have never said that their vote won't count. Their vote will count. However, their vote will not matter. And I reminded them that their candidate isn't going to change their lives at all. I left them with a final thought. I appealed to them to enrich their lives as I had promised they could. I told them to see the opportunity for extra time. Take the hours you will spend at the polls and spend that newfound time with your kids. Play ball with them. Or spend some quality time with your spouse. Do something that really enriches your life. Don't waste your time voting.

I am a news junkie and I have strong opinions. I am cheering for Obama to win, but I won't vote because there's not much of a point. I don't see any situation short of a terrorist attack on US soil ending in a McCain victory. I still feel the same and I hope some of my classmates take my advice. To be completely fair, there is one argument for voting that may bear credit with me. This would be an emotional appeal based on American soldiers who have fought and died for our country and to preserve our democracy. However, I think they also fought for my freedom to not vote. Compulsory voting scares me almost as much as compulsory military service. Plus, this is an emotional appeal and I, on the other hand, am a rational person.

Immigration and Protectionism in America

I haven't delved into political subjects in my blogs because (A) the American political system incorporates checks and balances which complement a huge population of diverse opinions so that progress occurs at the same slow rate it always has, and (B) I don't have any grand illusions that I will change anybody's mind. The national trend of toughening immigration laws has made headlines, but has never affected me until recently. Concerning my most important issue, I am prompted to speak out by the recent deportation of one friend plus another friend's boyfriend of five years.

"It's as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand ... and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well as sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in. As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,' people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country." – NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg

I would rather not supply our country's labor needs with illegal labor. I would prefer a policy of bringing in immigrants by the tens of thousands – legally, regulated, and documented. However, given key special interests in the two political parties, nothing has or will be done legislatively to facilitate this so we have gotten along for the last half century with our current system of using illegal labor.

There is, and has been for a long time, a demand for cheap labor in our country. There is a huge supply next door in Mexico. Economics will trump legislation seven days a week. Critics of immigration may say things like "they're taking our jobs" and other such nonsense. The US unemployment rate is 4.9% (January 2008). For those who didn't take economics classes, 4.9% unemployment can be interpreted as full employment. 0% unemployment is not attainable because there are always people temporarily in between jobs for various reasons. Full employment by definition can range from 2 – 7%, depending on the politics of the economist. The highest annual unemployment rate since the Great Depression was 9.7% in 1982 (keep in mind that double-digit unemployment is the norm in many countries). The US does not have an unemployment problem. Considering that many people have two jobs and there are an estimated 13 million aliens who don't figure into those stats, we have a labor shortage.

Critics may also argue that immigration drives down wages. This can be true, but it is exaggerated. A couple years ago, I heard a report on NPR about a study on the illegal labor industry. It focused on 'labor sites' common in Texas and California. In the Los Angeles area, labor sites are Home Depot parking lots. In every Home Depot parking lot out there, you can find a handful or dozen illegal aliens waiting to contract illegal labor. It's a bona fide labor market. Professional contractors, small business owners, or even homeowners who have just bought a bunch of stuff at Home Depot need help with the work. Where else are they going to find manual labor if they don't have sons (like my dad did)? The only labor site I saw in Houston was in the parking lot of an abandoned gas station. Anyway, the study included various findings but what I remember most was that the average wage for this labor was $8 / hour. $8 / hour is over 50% higher than the $5.15 minimum wage at the time of the study! Illegal workers are not competing with Americans on price, undercutting them and driving down quality of life. They are satisfying a need at the equilibrium price set by supply and demand. It just happens that demand for labor is so high that the equilibrium price is higher than the legally mandated price floor of $5.15 – and higher than any of the current proposed minimum wage hikes in Congress.

America has a long history of bringing in cheap labor, starting with indentured servitude as well as, unfortunately, slavery. In the 19th century, boatloads of Irish and German workers arrived at Ellis Island in New York every day. Often, they would be greeted with citizenship immediately – just because they made it here. Someone from Boss Tweed's political machine would give them a bowl of soup and tell them who to vote for. Or an Army recruiter may offer three square meals a day to enlist and fight in the Civil War to preserve the Union – 'give back to your new country!' Italy, Poland, Lithuania, and later Russia supplied much of our cheap laborers in the 20th century. This is how our country has always worked. A passage from 'The New Colossus' (1883) by Emma Lazarus:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Give us your poorest, sorriest, missingest-teeth motherfuckers you got! We want 'em! And they'll work their ass off for a better life. And their kids will bust their ass right into middle class. And those kids' kids will go to college and add to the competitiveness of our country. That is America. In fact, one current, American success story was Russian-born - Sergey Brin, cofounder of Google. I just don't understand how protectionism will help our country.

I can speculate a root cause of anti-immigration. I don't want to accuse anybody of being racist or ethno-centrist. Everyone, including me, has some racial biases. But I have to suspect that a big reason for this anti-immigration is that the current poor-as-shit country sending us labor is sending us brown people. Unfortunately for those who care about what the traditional American should look like, there are no more white countries sending us hundreds of thousands of poor people. Ireland is the economic envy of the EU. They are experiencing staggering immigration! The Soviet Union fell in 1991 and those countries' economies are beginning to develop opportunities. My friend Martynas explained to me that all the Eastern European immigration to the US was over and exemplified this with his own return to Lithuania. If we are to stay on track of being the most dynamic economy in the history of the world, we need to keep infusing the country with hungry, fresh blood. And it's going to come from non-white countries from now on.

"IRISH NEED NOT APPLY." This was a common sign in the 19th century. 'Traditional' Americans did not consider Irish to be white. This is particularly ridiculous. My skin, for example, simply does not tan. 'Traditional' Americans didn't think the Irish would ever assimilate. Many of the complaints about Mexican-American communities are the exact same as the 19th century complaints about the Irish and Italians. Those complaints proved wrong, as those communities have completely assimilated. A majority of white Americans claim some Irish heritage, or at least on St. Patrick's Day. Companies like Pizza Hut and Domino's have made pizza an American endeavor in the world. When I was a kid, nobody knew what a quesadilla was. Now they're on almost every menu in every town. And isn't the margarita basically an American cocktail by now? I realize I may sound corny and overly optimistic about our melting pot and great experiment. But fuck you! This is what I believe and history supports me. The average complexion of America is going to get a little tanner.

I realize that ethnocentrism / xenophobia is not the only reason people are opposed to immigration. Unlike the European countries across the Atlantic Ocean, we are land-locked with Mexico, so the sheer volume is unprecedented. Also, research shows that illegal populations put a drain on certain public resources – schools, hospitals, etc. The new immigration may need a mandate for English proficiency. Realities of terrorism require greater scrutiny than ever before of who is coming in. Regardless, all of these issues can be addressed and resolved. But we have to start with the understanding that, for the good of our country and economy, we need to constantly bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants.

The US does not only need immigrants at the bottom of the economic totem pole. Last year, consulting firm McKinsey released a report detailing the reasons for a decline in initial public offerings on Wall Street. New York is facing tough competition from other cities with major stock exchanges. Some predict that NYC will lose its place as the world's leading financial center within a decade. McKinsey cited two main reasons for companies' decisions to list IPO's in other countries: the expensive financial reporting needed to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley (post-Enron legislation) and tough immigration policies which restrict companies from bringing in high-skilled professionals. Because we make it so hard to come into our country these days, financial services firms and great companies are going to cities like London, Dubai, and Hong Kong. If we don't make it easier to bring in Chinese, Indian, or other foreign professionals to comprise the strongest banks and financial services, the strongest banks and financial services will be in other countries. I don't care where the best talent is from; I want the biggest banks and best companies with the most money to be in America.

I find it ironic that many of the typical anti-immigration types are the same ones to feel so threatened by China. China has 1.3 billion people. India has 1.1 billion people. The US has 300 million people. If you really feel threatened economically, wouldn't you want to close that gap a little? If not, go sit in your beach chair.

An Open Letter to the Panhandler

I know this is your most profitable season, but NO! How many times do I have to tell you? Probably 4-5 times per week, yet you still ask. Call me crazy, but I don't work so I can give my money away to strangers in the street. I was ingrained with a strong work ethic before puberty, but you wouldn't know anything about that. Furthermore, I have a college education. In Psychology 101, the first concept you learn is Skinner's operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior. For example, I will illustrate positive and negative reinforcement briefly using an example of a rat in a cage with a food tube and two buttons. When the rat uses its nose to push one button, cheese comes through the tube for the rat to eat. This positive reinforcement encourages the rat to hit that same button again. When the rat hits the second button, it gets shocked. This is negative reinforcement, a negative consequence of the rat's action. It doesn't take long for the rat to figure out which button to hit when it wants food and which button to never hit.

What's the point? If I ever gave you a dollar (which I won't), that positive reinforcement would encourage you to keep doing what you're doing. I would be paying you to ask people for free handouts, instead of getting a job and providing for yourself. This is why I would rather flush a dollar down the toilet than give it to you. Unfortunately, morons in this world pay you because they are intimidated by you or they actually think that giving you money is helping you out of your situation. Ideally, nobody would give you anything, ever. Then, two possible outcomes would occur: (1) you get a job and provide for yourself or (2) you starve and die. I'm OK with either one. Really, I'm cool with it.

This brings me to another point: the fact that I don't (nor shouldn't) give a fuck about you. In this era of George W. Bush as Americans, we live with compassionate conservatism. Do you know what that means? It means "Fuck you! Pay me!" I'm getting mine, fuck yours. Stranded on Delmar w/ no money for the bus? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK! Slept in an alley last night? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK! Haven't gotten high since yesterday and you're gonna get sick if you don't cop soon? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK! Why would I? Seriously? Do you really think I should care? About you? If I start caring about other people besides myself, I'll start with kids born into third world poverty. Or Africans with AIDS. Or Tsunami victims. Or those suffering genocide in Sudan. But you? You're a fucking miracle. You have to go out of your way to be in your situation in America, the strongest economy in the world. Down on your luck, can't get a job? Bullshit, nobody buys that shit anymore. Latest estimates claim there are 12 million illegal immigrants in America now. Unlike you, just about all of them are uneducated, non-US citizens who don't speak English. If they can find work, you should be able to. But you don't want to. You are the reason I am pro-immigration. As long as there are bums like you as well as work that needs to be done, I say "Bring on the Mexicans!"

Aside from all this, I think you owe me money. Indirectly, you take dollars out of my pocket. The Loop Special Business District understands how you hurt business. By creating an undesirable environment that intimidates suburbanites, you shrink the potential market that would come to Delmar for dining, shopping, etc. Consumers subconsciously choose to go to the Galleria or other markets where they don't have to deal with urban problems like you. A decreased Loop market leads to less business in my restaurant, which leads to less tips for me. So fuck you, asshole. And next time I refuse to pay you and you say "God bless you" or "Have a good day," I want you to know that it's a good day when I don't get asked for money. Today is lost, but maybe there's hope for tomorrow. Merry fucking Christmas.