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.

Print Publishing vs. E-Publishing

Many writers and industry analysts are debating if e-publishing will conquer print publishing (various article links below). If is not debatable. When and how are. In other words, think about when print will be conquered and, especially for aspiring writers with no backup plan, how to make money in the future of publishing.

Keep in mind that, simply by being active in this online forum, you are statistically among the earlier adopters of digital technology. History has yet to run its course and digital habits have yet to go fully mainstream (consider the computer literacy of the 2008 Republican presidential candidate).

Historically, the automobile was an economic game-changer (an industry disrupter, if you will) for transportation just as digital technology is for reading. The method is irrelevant to the purpose. Transportation involves going from Point A to Point B. While people had grown up with and were accustomed to the horse fulfilling this need, horses aren't actually critical to the basic need of transportation just as paper is no longer critical to the basic need of reading. Aside from the paper milling industry, there are other unnecessary middlemen operations (lumber, shipping and storage, printing, binding, brick and mortar retailing via Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc.) that make the economics of print publishing unviable in the long-term when competing with e-publishing.

The resistance to abandoning paper is like the resistance to abandoning horses. Arguments to preserve paper – the feel of the book, the durability, less risk of reading in the tub – will seem as ridiculous in 100 years as arguments to preserve horses for transportation seem now. There were surely people who felt horses would never be replaced. After all, the automobile can't go everywhere a horse can go. Not everybody liked cars. Horses were the standard everybody grew up on. They used to call common sense "horse sense." There surely are virtues to printed copies of text just as there surely were virtues to keeping horses. On a different note and more personal level, I hold great affinity for the cassette tape. I still own dozens of mixtapes and can make strong arguments in favor of the cassette over the compact disc (although those don't hold water against digital music). Unfortunately for the tape, economics trump virtue. In other words: money talks, bullshit walks.

While we internet-savvy consumers from industrialized countries are early adopters, we are also fossils historically in that we even have some attachment to printed reading. How strong is that attachment among the youth in South Korea, the country which boasts the best broadband penetration in the world and whose citizenry performs most daily tasks and live their lives on smart-phones? If you're in the US, you may receive printed coupon advertising in the mail. In South Korea, they receive text message offers from restaurants and retailers as they pass the place. Paper is unnecessary.

To better understand where print is going, watch the newspaper industry. 50 years ago, every bumfuck town needed a hard copy paper to publish the same world news and a few local stories. But in the 21^st century and beyond, how many letters of record are needed past the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and niche pubs like The Guardian and The Economist? Do people really need a hard copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch? People are already going online for news while the industry scrambles for revenue. Who needs the local classified section when there are superior digital sources like craigslist and eBay? Printed book publishers will eventually run into financial woes as well.

Determining when print will die is difficult. America won't match super-urban South Korea's broadband penetration any time soon because of its geography – suburban Americans live spread out in big houses with yards. This will inhibit the already slow digital adoption rate in America (don't forget about the presidential candidate who doesn't use the Internet). You may live most of your life before the inevitable death of print. In most of the world, the masses living in emerging markets don't yet have the means for digital technology. However, they may be able to leapfrog outdated technology like printing as they leapfrogged landline phones.

Determining how to make money is also difficult. I'm not going to pretend to have an idea how this angle will play out, but I'm confident that capitalism and the profit motive will find a way. I whole-heartedly disagree that the quality of literature will suffer. I imagine that argument was made by musicians complaining about the emergence of the phonograph record in the early 20^th century. If people can buy our music once and listen to it forever, they won't pay to see us perform. How will we make money? All the good musicians will quit making music. Present day musicians revived that fear when downloading technology came in the picture, but society has managed to monetize that as well. While the kinds of art found in museums may need a government subsidy, music and reading have always demanded a high premium. There will always be a market. Does anybody honestly foresee a shortage of writers someday?

Then again, published content will certainly change. I converted from the Times hard copy to the Internet about a year ago and there is a clear difference in what I choose to read. With a hard copy, you are almost compelled to read all the articles. While I thoroughly enjoyed a 3000 word article about the growing exports from Brazil of HPC products featuring exotic ingredients from the Amazon rainforest, I probably wouldn't have clicked on it if I were getting my news online. On the other hand, should the mainstream public be subsidizing that article if nobody cares about it? Or should it be featured in a niche publication? Nicholas Carr in The Atlantic on how reading online may change what we read and how we think: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

What's my point? Don't think if. Think when and how.

Marketing guru Seth Godin on the future of publishing

Samir Husni on the power of print

Bob Sacks says "It's a Digital World Now"

Alcohol and Writing: Essays Under the Influence

A new writing exercise to investigate the effects of alcohol on writing, which must have a positive effect. Otherwise, why would all the best writers be raging alcoholics? Hemingway, Thompson, Burroughs, Kerouac, etc.

The exercise: write 3 - 5 essays, each 100 - 500 words. 90 minute limit. Choose essay topics from Chuck Klosterman's 23 Questions in Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs. The first essay must be written before consuming alcohol. The second essay can't be started until alcohol has been consumed. Note how much alcohol (and what alcohol) has been consumed for each essay.
* the 23 questions are so cool that I am going to try to answer all of them in later blogs

We are not looking at general quality, but relative quality. We want to see the effects writing under the influence relative to writing without alcohol.

Love and Music

Started: 5:58pm.
Finished: 7:04pm.
Drinks: 0.

Question:

You meet your soul mate. However, there is a catch: Every three years, someone will break both of your soul mate's collarbones with a Crescent wrench, and there is only one thing you can do to stop this from happening: You must swallow a pill that will make every song you hear--for the rest of your life--sound as if its being performed by the band Alice in Chains. When you hear Creedence Clearwater Revival on the radio, it will sound (to your ears) like it's being played by Alice in Chains. If you see Radiohead live, every one of their tunes will sound like it's being covered by Alice in Chains. When you hear a commercial jingle on TV, it will sound like Alice in Chains; if you sing to yourself in the shower, your voice will sound like deceased Alice vocalist Layne Stanley performing a capella (but it will only sound that way to YOU).

Would you swallow the pill?

Answer:

I would NOT take the pill and my "soulmate" would spend a good amount of her life in a wheelchair. Sorry love. It was a sweet love. But I must be traveling on now because I'm as free as a bird now.

Klosterman is asking which life would be preferred: a life without love or a life without music. However, his premise is flawed because there is no such thing as one "soulmate." I had a girl I loved very much and considered a "soulmate." We lived together and she left me and I almost cried for the bitch. We didn't completely stop seeing each other for almost a year after she moved out. I still love her but she is not my only "soulmate." I would estimate there are a dozen or so "soulmates" for any given person in any given city. The number of soulmates in different cities probably fluctuates among global regions depending on how well your personality fits within a certain culture (e.g. my number plunges in European cities while it spikes in Latin America).

Love is more about maturity than it is about the perfect match. There are several compatible matches out there if each partner is emotionally ready for such a commitment. If both partners are confident (not desperate), if both partners are mature enough (finished fucking different people), and if both partners share a genuine affection and trust, then they're "soulmates." That's all it takes. We humans skew toward the monogamous end of the spectrum. Despite our urges to breed with many, it is in our blood to settle down.

Now that we have established that there is no such thing as a "soulmate," we can focus on the apocalyptic nightmare of only hearing one music group forever. This is a life not worth living. I realize others may not be music fanatics like me but everybody has a little bit of soul. I need male and female singers. Alice in Chains can't pull off all genres. I need all kinds of music. Blues, jazz, reggae, hip hop, reggaeton, cumbia, punk. Even emo sometimes. A particularly sweet "soulmate" may be worth one or two genres, but not all of them.

As it's phrased, Klosterman's question is easy to answer but his idea of a tradeoff is not – monogamy in both love and music, or in neither. As much as I believe there are thousands of women out there suitable to marry, procreate and cohabitate with, not having one of them in my endgame is pretty damn scary. So is a life without music. If I couldn't shoot holes in his question and I had to choose love or music, I would choose love. The thought of getting old without a wife and a shitload of family around scares me more than hearing Alice in Chains cover Nina Simone's "Sinnerman".

P.S. I dig Alice in Chains and if that makes me a redneck then FUCK CHUCK KLOSTERMAN.

Clydesdales and Political Prisoners

Start time: 10:30
End time: 11:39
Drinks: About 3 beers: Arequipeña (Peruvian beer similar to American shit), and one shot: anisado (Peruvian anise-flavored spirit, 45% alcohol).

Question:

Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with thick rope. He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile. And let us assume that--for some reason--every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes. You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.

Would you attempt to do this?

Answer:

Disclosure: I worked for Anheuser-Busch for two years. Budweiser is my favorite American macrobrew.

I would gladly kill the horse. Why only twenty minutes? To scare off the weak of heart? A quick killing seems more humane. Plus, the athletic challenge is inspiring. My hamstrings don't have great flexibility so I can't kick that high, especially wearing steel-toe boots. I hope a tall stepladder would be available so I could football-punt the horse's brain from above. Otherwise, my strategy would be to break its front legs before stomping its skull into bloody hair and bone fragments.

I won't discuss the animal rights angle with too many words. I eat chicken, beef, duck, fish and more. Like most humans, I support slaughter of animals in my behavior and in principle. Killing a horse is no more immoral than eating turkey at Thanksgiving. I'd pay for the opportunity to kill the horse and free the world's political prisoners. This person could potentially affect change on a scale unseen in my lifetime.

The only reservation I'd have pertains to the net effect of releasing all the world's political prisoners. Amnesty International doesn't have a comprehensive list but would probably designate some undesirables as political prisoners. Specifically, detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Cases have surfaced in which innocents were held for years. History will probably judge the Bush administration harshly in this respect. However, many of the detainees are Islamic fundamentalists who don't need to be freed. Would they be considered political prisoners?

At most, there are a few hundred detainees being held in Guantanamo (I'm not researching now). The total number of terrorists held around the world pales in comparison to the number of political reformists held in repressive states like North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. If every one of them were released into their home countries at the same time, a human rights revolution for the history books would be underway overnight. Those prisoners have balls unseen in the US since George Washington and company but their governments retain more control than 18^th century England did. These people's resistance would create a synergy to truly change the world as did the American Revolution.

I am biased toward democracy. The "state capitalism" models of China and Russia may eventually prove to triumph over traditional liberal governments like the US, UK and Japan. Unlike China and Russia, most repressive states holding political prisoners not only fail to create thriving economies, they fail to effectively feed their people. Some of the most unfortunate people in the world are those who were born into the countries listed. The altruistic decision in this scenario is to kill the fucking horse. Anybody who cares more about the Clydesdale than those countries' reformers should have their current passport revoked and deported. Let them be PETA members in those countries.

Attractive Magicians

Start time: 12:57am
End time: 1:52am
Drinks: 4 – 5 shots anisado, 6 - 8 beers (I'm drunk)

Question:

You meet a wizard in downtown Chicago. The wizard tells you he can make you more attractive if you pay him money. When you ask how this process works, the wizard points to a random person on the street. You look at this random stranger. The wizard says, "I will now make them a dollar more attractive." He waves his magic wand. Ostensibly, this person does not change at all; as far as you can tell, nothing is different. But--somehow--this person is suddenly a little more appealing. The tangible difference is invisible to the naked eye, but you can't deny that this person is vaguely sexier. This wizard has a weird rule, though--you can only pay him once. You can't keep giving him money until he's satisfied. You can only pay him one lump sum upfront.

How much cash do you give the wizard?

Answer:

How much cash would I give the wizard to make me more attractive? Everything in my pockets. Maybe if I were actually in this situation – if it weren't hypothetical – then maybe I would go to an ATM or break out the plastic in another way. But my first impression in this hypothetical exercise is to pay the magician everything in my pockets and not a penny more.

I am an attractive guy. But I have no game. I have no idea about the seduction process. My sex life survives almost solely on my physical attractiveness. The only way I get laid is if women throw it at me or if a girl wants me for a boyfriend so badly that she ignores the unromantic and idiotic shit I say. I would surely do better, with better-looking women, if I were more attractive.

There are many men more attractive than me. There are even more with better game. Everybody wants to be the sexiest person in the room. I do too. I want to be better than those guys. I would pay for it. Everything in my pockets.

Beauty is worth a premium without a Chi-town magician. Breast implants, nose jobs, lip implants, butt implants, liposuction, braces. Many men and women spend countless hours in the gym solely for cosmetic reasons.

There is a fine line between striving for self-improvement and being vain. There is a point where the pursuit of beauty sacrifices self-esteem. I am conscious enough to realize that I was dealt a good hand. I'm quite satisfied with what I was given in the DNA lottery. I don't need to run up my credit cards to look like a model. It's not that important. I'm good where I'm at.

I can understand people who would pay more than I would. I wasn't always fine. I was fat as a kid. Then I was scrawny and baby-faced in high school. I was ignored by girls for most of my life. I remember the mentality of someone who isn't attractive. It sucks. If I was still on that level, I would probably pay the magician more than what I had on me and then some. And I wouldn't judge anybody who would do that now. But I would caution them to not cross that line into self-loathing. Extreme beauty with no confidence or self-esteem isn't hot.

Lock & Sock: Based on a True Story

In my creative writing group, I completed a "flash fiction" exercise meant to hone word efficiency skills. The exercise is to write a story in 500 words. As opposed to a vignette, flash fiction is an entire story. There is a conflict, a climax, and resolution. Something changes. You first write the story and then cut it to 500 words. The exercise teaches you to aggressively cut unnecessary parts and keep only what is important. Mine came in at exactly 500.

Lock & Sock

Ian sunk his head in despair. He was supposed to get probation, but the judge handed him a two-year prison sentence. He almost shook with fear on the ride home. His dad said nothing.

Ian was terrified of prison. He didn't want to be a punk. He started doing pushups that night. He boxed in his teens, until he discovered drugs. He wasn't in shape like he was back then. He vowed to improve in the two months before he began his sentence.

Ian quit drinking and doing drugs. He started to lift weights and train at his old boxing gym. Coach warmly welcomed him back. Ian went right to work shadowboxing, hitting the bag, jumping rope, etc.

After a week, Ian asked to spar.

"You been here a week," Coach argued. "You not in shape."

Ian persisted. Coach agreed to two rounds. Ian did well exchanging jabs during the first minute. He slowed down in the second minute. By the third minute, he could barely keep his hands up. His partner knocked him dizzy with a right hand on the chin. Ian wobbled and almost lost his legs. Coach stopped them, refusing a second round.

Ian was frustrated. He needed to improve quicker. The next day at the gym, he asked to spar again.

"What are you trying to prove?" Coach asked.

"I just want to jump back in fast," Ian lied. Ian tried to spar every single day the gym was open, even if the only potential partners were heavyweights. He improved. Coach could not understand what had gotten into Ian. Then one day he never saw him again.

After turning himself in, Ian was being transferred to a medium-security facility in an orange jumpsuit and leg irons. Did the jumpsuit make him look skinny? On the bus, a fat redneck named Frank started a conversation. Ian didn't want to make friends and stared out the window in nervous anticipation. After a few hours, the bus entered his new home inside a hundred-foot fence topped with three layers of razor wire.

Ian and Frank were led to a gymnasium-sized dorm room that housed over seventy inmates. They slept in iron bunks spaced ten feet from each other. Sizing up the proximity of the inmates and the vibe of the crowd, Ian realized this may be more violent than he anticipated. Ian and Frank were shown their bunk; Ian took the bottom.

In the middle of the first night, Ian was unpleasantly woken up by four visitors swinging socks filled with combination locks on Frank. As soon as he heard the violence, Ian jumped out of his bed, ready to fight. The attackers barely glanced at Ian and continued. They were smiling. Almost as soon as it had started, it finished as each member of the war party slipped back into their bunks. Frank received mostly body shots and there was no visible blood.

Ian went back to bed. Ian thought to himself, smiling, "I'm going to be fine."

Fuck Detroit

Earlier this month, General Motors startled financial analysts by admitting that it was burning through $2 billion per month. It has lost $70 billion since 2004 while consistently losing market share for decades. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are currently launching an effort to gain access to the $700 billion TARP fund to prop up their companies in the midst of the historic financial crisis the world is in.

The companies were recently approved for $25 billion to retool factories in order to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles – a measure taken when oil was in the $160 / barrel range. Now the companies say that they will need more after a collapse in vehicle sales and credit markets. I am predicting that they, and specifically the most beleaguered GM, will not receive the bailout funds they are seeking as currently proposed.

There are many different takes on how the American automakers have come to their current situation. Popular culprits include union labor costs, poor management, and the current economic crisis. All of these play a part.

Denying the negative effect of the UAW on the American auto industry is ignoring the obvious. In researching a case study I did in 2007, I found there was a $30 / hour average difference in labor costs between American manufacturers and Japanese manufacturers.

Average cost of labor, Detroit Big Three = $75 / hour
Average cost of labor, Japanese Big Three = $45 / hour

The $75 figure for Detroit includes retiree pension and health benefits. It doesn't take an MBA to understand that you can't compete with variable costs 67% higher than the competition's and market a similar product (the word "similar" is arguable given perception towards American auto quality). It's plain to see that labor costs are a major contributing factor to American auto manufacturers' lack of competitiveness and financial woes. If labor costs didn't play a part, then why are all of the American companies in trouble while none of the foreign companies need help? *the 2008 Newsweek article below puts the figures at $71 and $47

The American companies reportedly gained sweeping concessions from the UAW negotiations in 2007, but savings aren't expected to be realized until 2010. Plus, those concessions still don't come close to bringing them in line with the competition.

The greatest failure in these companies' management was that they bet too heavily on light trucks and SUVs since the late nineties. Because the American companies made the best trucks and SUVs, they were able to command high prices and reap big profits. Their truck business subsidized the rest of the companies' operations. And since each American company had relatively the same deal from the UAW (from pattern bargaining), there was no competition between each other in labor costs. There was no competition from foreign companies in this category because Toyota trucks weren't in demand like the F-150, the Dodge Caravan, the Chevy Blazer, the Ford Explorer, and so on. In a particularly despicable chapter of business working with politics, the companies lobbied heavily and defeated legislation to increase fuel-efficiency standards so they could continue to sell these vehicles. Before the Japanese could develop better trucks at lower prices, the price of oil soared and the bottom dropped out on the truck market. This wiped out the little profitability the American firms had.

The price of oil has since plunged as the credit crisis gripped the world. While expensive gas will not prevent consumers from buying trucks in the near future, the inability to borrow will. As all the banks are tightening their belts due to their own mismanagement, millions of ordinary consumers who might have bought cars can't get the financing they would need in order to buy them.

That is the very short story of how GM and Detroit went from, as little as six months ago, touting their turnaround strategies as making progress to currently begging for billions from the federal government to stay alive. Would their turnaround strategies have worked if the economy hadn't tanked? Who knows?

The argument for the bailout is made in the name of preventing economic catastrophe. Not only does GM employ hundreds of thousands, but parts suppliers also employ hundreds of thousands. These companies are dependent on the manufacturers and they could also go under if GM did. In addition, there are over 10,000 dealerships around the country which depend on the Big Three for their livelihoods as well. Between the dealerships, the suppliers, and the manufacturers themselves, the Center for Automotive Research estimates that up to 3 million jobs could be lost (it should be noted that the Center for Automotive Research is heavily funded by the Big Three and that this figure is disputed). The argument's idea is that a government loan will keep GM and the others liquid for enough time to fully realize their turnaround strategies, therefore saving millions of jobs and preserving the primary component of the American manufacturing sector.

The argument against the bailout is winning. I first noticed yesterday that a vast majority of the users in newspaper comment forums opposed a deal. I can find articles detailing the arguments for and against a bailout, and I can find editorials against (especially in business and economics publications), but I could hardly find a strong editorial in favor of the bailout. To give an illusion of balance below, I had to go to the Detroit Free Press to cite an editorial in favor. There is a Newsweek article that is mildly in favor. Of all places, I found two of the more convincing arguments against a bailout from the New York Times.

Besides being a generally center-right country committed to free-market principles, most people just don't think the money will save the companies. It seems the more the public researches the industry and the companies, the more it believes that the bailout wouldn't solve their problems. The money would be burnt up and the companies would be in the exact same situation as before. Thirty years ago, the federal government bailed out Chrysler. What was it worth? Below is a link to an article detailing the British government's bailout of British Leyland, a case study with striking similarities to General Motors.

Bailout opponents contend that only under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection will General Motors be able to make the drastic changes needed to become a viable company. GM would be able to rewrite union contracts. Laws throughout the country that protect redundant dealerships (preventing GM from shedding brands) would be voided. These changes won't happen with a simple cash infusion. Free-market champions contend that, even if General Motors were to suffer Chapter 7 liquidation - the worst-case scenario - other manufacturers would buy the factories, employ the experienced workers, buy parts from suppliers, and open more dealerships. After all, Americans will still buy cars.

It is probably obvious that I oppose any government aid to the Big Three that does not include Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. But moving past the arguments for and against, these are the reasons why I deem the bailout (as is) as 'not-gonna-happen':

1. As stated before, there is considerable opposition to a bailout among the public.
2. There is considerable opposition on the editorial pages of all the major newspapers (except the Detroit Free Press).
3. In the face of demands to overhaul executive management, General Motors CEO Richard Wagoner has stated that he doesn't feel the company would need a change in leadership if it were to receive government money. Current management would stay in place.
4. Under mounting criticism of the labor unions' role, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has said that his workers would not make any more concessions past the 2007 negotiations. They have given up enough.
5. As the Big Three mounted their offensive on Washington, a coalition of parts suppliers was formed and joined the beggars' party. They feel they are also entitled to TARP funds.
6. While the Democrats - who mostly favor a bailout deal - just won a landslide victory in November, Obama and the new Congress don't take office until late January. General Motors probably can't last that long. The Bush administration opposes using TARP funds for the auto companies and the current Senate probably does not have the votes to pass the legislation in the face of stiff opposition. And by the time the Democrats take office with their larger majority, the public will have had two more months to look into the matter. And, as I stated earlier, the more people learn about the companies and the industry, the more they realize that a bailout is futile.
7. Democrat Representative Barney Frank is drafting the bailout legislation with stipulations for the companies receiving aid. His bill includes pointless symbolism like a no-golden-parachutes clause and also a clause that would, in my opinion, completely tie the companies' hands in making sweeping change. There would be a government oversight on company operations (an auto czar, if you will) with veto power of any ventures(!).

"A Bridge Loan? U.S. Should Guide G.M. in a Chapter 11" (New York Times)

"A British Lesson on Auto Bailouts" (New York Times)

"How to Bail Out General Motors" (Newsweek)

"Saving Detroit" (The Economist)

"Time runs short to save an industry" (Detroit Free Press)

"Why Bankruptcy is the Best Option for G.M." (Wall Street Journal)

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.

No Conclusion on the EU

Ten leading European economists wrote an open letter to European leaders urging a coordinated rescue plan for the world financial crisis, specifically as it implicates European banks. (As ten economists drafted the letter, over 300 more have since signed it as of this writing, see this article).

The letter made the argument that the “piecemeal” actions being taken in Europe will never amount to a solution for the crisis. “The current approach of rescuing one institution after another with national funds will lead to Balkanization of the European banking sector.” The letter went on to say that the US has already learned that bailing out a few giants did virtually nothing to stop the bleeding. Due to the credit-default swap industry, or banks insuring each other’s bad debt, the banks are all tied together as if with rope while trying to stay afloat in deep waters. When one or two go under, they will take others with them.

Those economists are not alone in their assessment. According to a recent Bloomberg article about Europe’s challenges, European Commission President Jose Barroso called on Europe to remove the “mismatch between a continental-scale market and national systems of supervision,” (see this article). The European Union, while comprising 27 different nations with 27 national governments, acts as one financial market with one currency (one currency for 15 member states, anyway). Banks across national borders are deeply intertwined with each other and their relationships affect smaller countries where neither bank is located. So a “systemic crisis demands a systemic response.” Coming up with an aid package that successfully navigates all the multinational bureaucratic red tape involved will prove extremely difficult if not impossible.

Adding to what seems like a perfect storm in Europe is the extreme diversity within the continent. Besides having 27 different governments, 27 different heads of state, and 27 different constituencies to independently please, there are extreme cultural issues to overcome. There are 23 official languages within the EU. Whether generalizing Europe in terms of East vs. West, North vs. South, or Christian vs. Muslim, there is really nothing in common among all states besides soccer. Imagine the possibilities for disagreement over a solution between the Greeks and the Swedes, or the Spanish and the Polish. One doesn’t even have to cross the continent to find such contrasts. England and France, neighbors, are well-known rivals who loathe each other, and my Swiss roommate often has less than kind words to say about the Austrians. Besides the fact that Switzerland has been involved in fewer wars, how many people can detail the cultural differences between those two? I can’t. As the Bloomberg article notes in its lead sentence, “It took the European Union almost three decades to agree on what could legitimately be called chocolate.”

While America is the most diverse country in the world, she has centuries’ experience of dealing with its ethnic, geographic, and economic diversity. America also has the benefit of only one federal government in control. So the US is at an advantage over the EU in executing its comprehensive public bailout of the financial services industry. The House of Representatives voted against the first bailout plan and showed how difficult drafting such a plan will be even in the States. I just can’t grasp how pain-staking of a process it will be for Europe.

In my International Banking class of my graduate program, the professor explained how the European Union was relatively young historically, and that there was no real conclusion on how it will turn out. It has yet to pass the test of time to call it a success. This directly contradicts what almost came to be considered common sense in the media – the US dollar was in the toilet and it would never come out. Some day the Euro would be the reserve currency of choice. I also heard this incessantly from my European friends.

While never arguing with my friends native to the other side of the big pond, I always viewed the fall of the dollar as a normalization of what was long overdue. I thought that the dollar was probably overvalued for the generations that Europe was economically splintered (what I wouldn’t give to be an American in the 80s vacationing in Europe!). Europe finally united and quickly grew its buying power. Imagine how much waste was saved by creating a common financial groundwork and establishing an ease of crossing borders. Imagine the waste, before the economic unity, of all the financial professionals dedicating their time, labor and resources to currency arbitrage alone. The EU became a much more productive, cohesive continent despite its inherent diversity and government fiefdoms.

The EU normalized economic standards and collectively grew faster than ever. The Euro increased in value to somewhere around $1.50. However, most of the economic reforms were planned in 1993 and executed in 1999. Being so young, the EU has yet to pass a significant test such as the global financial crisis we are in today. This is a historic time, especially for the EU. How quickly it can produce a continent-wide solution, and how effective that solution is, will help determine its historical success. As the Bloomberg article explains, the unanimity requirement for changes makes decision-making terribly slow. In trying to solve this problem, it has tried to change rules in favor of a stronger governing body twice. The French and Dutch rejected a constitution in 2004 and the Irish rejected the 2007 Lisbon Treaty (which the Polish were expected to do if the Irish hadn’t). As the crisis deepens and pressure mounts, the financial bloc may hastily push through a plan that satisfies everybody but is ineffective or not ideal.

As the US dollar was artificially over-valued while Europe was an economic mosaic similar to America in the 18th century under the Articles of Confederation, the Euro may prove to be overvalued after it overshadowed the dollar, never having proved itself in the absence of the EU’s ever seeing a crisis. The dollar has already started to gain on the Euro (currently $1.34 / 1 Euro). Only time will tell what will happen. Being one who earns US dollars, I am cheering for a 1:1 ratio someday. But if the EU can successfully come together and take swift, effective action, it will bind the countries even more. This may set the stage for, and I will be dead long before this happens, the conversion from 27 nations in alliance to 27 states in one country: The United States of Europe. In 150 – 200 years, who knows? It could happen.

The Unsolicited InBev Bid For Anheuser-Busch

Last week, InBev offered $65 / share to acquire Anheuser-Busch. The combination would make the largest beer company by sales revenue in the world. Anheuser-Busch used to hold the title, until Interbrew of Belgium merged with AmBev of Brazil, creating InBev. And then South African Breweries' acquisition of Miller Brewing and other companies dethroned InBev and currently holds the spot. InBev is primarily interested in Anheuser-Busch to gain a foothold in the US market (AB keeps about a 50-share compared to InBev's 2%), but also to add the "iconic" Budweiser brand to its world market-penetrating portfolio.

Before the offer went public, Anheuser-Busch CEO (and fifth-generation family member at the helm) August Busch IV was quoted as saying that the company "won't be sold on my watch." Being from St. Louis and having worked for Anheuser-Busch for two years, I knew he wouldn't be the only one staunchly opposed to the sale. There is a mentality ingrained in the company culture and the city of St. Louis - a strong culture that I never really fit into. Recent news of regional politicians taking preventive actions against a sale also validates the widespread opinion that Budweiser, the world's best-selling beer, should remain American-owned in St. Louis, MO. Missouri governor Matt Blunt has asked the Federal Trade Commission to review the potential deal for potential anti-trust issues - a desperate and futile move given InBev's 2% market share. Similarly, Republican Congressman Kit Bond and Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill have lobbied the Department of Justice in an attempt to block the deal. Several websites have sprung up with names like "www.savebudweiser.com" and "www.saveab.com" to rally support for the company staying in St. Louis. Who do they plan to petition, I don't know. I had heard hints from St. Louis that "The Fourth" had a nuclear option up his sleeve to thwart a deal. Given that the family owns a tiny minority of shares which do not have super-voting privileges, and given the board of directors is up for election in any given year, what could that nuclear option be? It turned out the nuclear option was to buy the remaining 50% of Mexico City's Grupo Modelo (brewer of Corona) that AB does not already own. Such an acquisition would raise AB's price tag $10 billion or so, which would be difficult for InBev to secure financing for in today's tight credit market. The Mexican families which control Modelo have about as good of a relationship with the Busch family as does the InBev management, so a deal isn't likely.

Unfortunately for Anheuser-Busch upper-management, protectionist politicians, and sentimental consumers, $65 / share is a price difficult to refuse. Due to consumer preferences shifting away from macrobrews toward craft brews and imports, spirits, and wine, AB has seen sluggish growth at best. AB's stock price has hovered around $50 for almost a decade. The main reason $65 is difficult to refuse is that there doesn't seem to be an exciting new strategy for growing the business. The most impactful new product of the last five years was Bud Select, a cannibalizing brand which I can't discern in taste from Bud Light. AB secured distribution rights for Monster energy drinks and, ironically, InBev beers in the US - both moves are hardly on the scale needed to significantly boost growth for the nation's leading brewer in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. AB briefly flirted with Brazil in the nineties, only to pull out and never return. AB does own 27% in China's #2 brewer, but margins in China are razor-thin and that asset won't bear significant financial results for a long time. On the other hand, InBev out-maneuvered Anheuser-Busch by dominating Latin America while consolidating a significant chunk of Europe. Soaring food prices (rice, corn, barley and hops) and a weak US dollar combined to create a perfect storm in which InBev is in the position to acquire AB outright, as opposed to the two companies' merger talks of yester-years.

The only rational reason the deal wouldn't happen lies in the cultural differences between the companies. InBev is known as a hyper-effective cost-cutter. They have closed centuries-old breweries in Europe and become a super-efficient holding company that just happens to sell beer. InBev management has been rumored to believe there is a potential $1.4 billion to cut from Anheuser-Busch operations. To the contrary, Anheuser-Busch is a benevolent employer known for generous employee compensation and spending top dollar on marketing initiatives - a contributing factor to its powerful brands. Brand management is Anheuser-Busch's business, core competence and passion. In my first year of employment in Contemporary Marketing, I had a $300 / week expense account for the bars. After a few months, I learned the $300 was more of a minimum than a maximum. One week I spent $1500 and didn't even receive a phone call about it. And every St. Louisan has heard the stories of AB employment perks including free beer, first-class flights, generous pay, tickets to various entertainment, etc. InBev would certainly find cuts, but would these two cultures blend? A private-equity-firm-esque, holding-company mentality and a tradition-rich, patriotic, proud character? The inevitable culture clash presents the only rational reason the two shouldn't join.

It has been reported this week that the world's richest man Warren Buffet, whose Berkshire Hathaway is AB's second-largest shareholder owning 5% of the company, supports a deal. Other large shareholders - the majority of which do not live in the St. Louis area - have been reported to support a deal as well. Aside from political reasons, there is no compelling financial or strategic reason for the deal to not happen. Anheuser-Busch has been almost exclusively focused on US market share in an age of globalization. In my time with the company, every strategic move seemed to be aimed at Miller, Coors, or boosting sales in the mature US market. Meanwhile, I can't order a Budweiser anywhere in South America. (However, I should be able to as soon as Budweiser is in the InBev portfolio.) Without considering how much imaginary value lies in the temporary economic worries of protectionist Americans or sentimentality for an "American company" (regardless how competitive it would not be in the future), the best value for the Anheuser-Busch shareholders and the best opportunity for the Budweiser brand lies in the deal with InBev.

Insightful article by a St. Louis native and financial analyst in favor of a deal:
Sobering Thought: Anheuser-Busch sale makes sense (by David Weidner)

Anticipation of Expatriation

This was my first entry in my AIESEC-mandated blog (The Expatriate Chronicles) about my job and experiences in Arequipa, Peru. I am not there yet, but I want to detail my motivations, expectations, etc. before actually experiencing "the big experience."

Why do I want to leave home? My home is St. Louis, MO. It is a medium-sized, mostly suburban city in the heart of the midwest. I have moved away before (within the States) but always seem to come back. However, I didn't really want to come back last time so much as my circumstances dictated that I come back. It is no secret to anyone that knows me well that my distaste for St. Louis borders on hatred and that it's a foregone conclusion that I would leave as soon as I finished my MBA.

My life here feels so boring that I seem to have gotten back into the habit of getting in trouble. I know this sounds really corny and clichè, but I feel as if I'll be dead or in jail if I don't get out of here. Let me explain. At the downtown St. Patrick's Day Parade a few weeks ago, I punched three guys consecutively in a crowded bar. My cousin told me he thought one had a broken nose because of how much blood there was. I was so drunk I wouldn't have recognized them if I saw them later that night. Two days later at the Dogtown parade, my primary partner-in-crime, George, shot me with a BB gun. I hit him with a full beer. We almost traded blows. Then his Hennessy-drinking friend and I almost traded blows. Then George beat up his Hennessy-drinking friend while I held back the other Hennessy-drinkers so it would be "fair." And at Delmar Lounge after my going-away party, George punched somebody and my brother kicked him in the head. He and his friends waited for us outside but nothing happened because a cop was parked right there. I am not sharing this to be macho or because I think I'm cool. To the contrary, I hate my pathetic life here. I could think of the other interesting nights but they are the same immature, dickhead kind of stories. One time when talking about why we do what we do, George and I agreed that "at least we weren't bored." I hate waking up hung over virtually every day. Lately, it's a miracle if I can get some exercise in before I start drinking again. I love my friends but I don't see them enough to stay. This town is so average, boring, and conservative. There aren't enough interesting attitudes or ideas here to keep my mind occupied. As they say, "an idle mind is the devil's playground." I have a wild side and St. Louis just doesn't offer enough to fulfill my needs in a positive way. When I started grad school, I assumed that I would get a job in New York, Chicago, or some other big business hub.

Well, plans have changed. In August 2006, I left the country for the first time and got absolutely cracked-out addicted to it. The next summer I took two more international trips. Altogether, I spent five weeks in London, Amsterdam, Lithuania, and Brazil. I went to grad school at UMSL, which was ranked eighth in the nation for International Business (tied with Georgetown). I became very active in the International Business Club and AIESEC. I have friends all over most continents. Given the developments, a market research position in New York doesn't seem like it would take advantage of the international focus of my graduate school education. Furthermore, it wouldn't be as exciting as it would have two years ago. So, I have accepted a job outside the US to (A) fully leverage my education and pursue my interest in other countries and cultures, and (B) satisfy my need for adventure.

But why Peru? First of all, everyone has heard of globalization. The world economy of my lifetime will look much different than it did for generations before me. The traditionally "rich" countries' economies will be rivaled by traditionally third world countries. The fall on the Berlin Wall and the phenomenon of the Internet have allowed for an incredible dynamism in human potential. Three specific regions are projected to (and already do) experience explosive growth: Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Given the state of the world, I want to ride the wave of this economically historic period in an emerging market. But where? Answer: I speak Spanish.

Living and working in any of those three regions would obviously fulfill my need for excitement and adventure. But I would not be telling the whole story if I implied that my fluency in Spanish was the only reason that I was only looking for work in South America and Mexico. I loved Europe but I fell in love with Brazil. Latin culture felt so right for me. The people, the food, the music, the passion! This is usually where someone makes a comment about the women. Yes, I have a track record of dating Latina women. It didn't hurt the case for South America but I am going for the whole package. The excitement is there! I loved Europe but never got the feeling that I wanted to live there. I did get that feeling in Brazil. I am probably very different from other AIESECers in that I don't intend to come back. I bought a one-way ticket. I don't know if I will be in Peru, but I hope to make a new life in Latin America. I even have a backup plan. In case I can't find work in business and need money, I have been certified to teach English. TESOL-certified English teachers are in high demand in every city of every non-English speaking country in the world.

Moving is hard. I do not underestimate the tough challenges and culture shock which lie ahead. There will be things I miss about America. I can guess what kinds of things they will be, but I don't know for sure. I am not forgetting that I had it pretty easy in Brazil with two Brazilian friends to cart me around. Each one had a car. Each one had a ton of educated, English-speaking friends. I didn't have to learn streets, take public transportation, communicate in Portuguese, make my own friends, find an apartment, or any of the difficulties of moving to a new city. I am not ignoring this. I am not unrealistic. And I am not afraid. I have a dream - an abstract dream of becoming a marketing professional who can facilitate international business in Latin America.

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.

Memoirs of a Frat Boy: Organizational Culture and Personal Growth

An artistic, intellectual-type friend of mine once asked me of my fraternity experience, "Is that really all you do in a fraternity – get drunk and try to sleep with girls?" I replied without hesitation, "Yeah, pretty much." I didn't see it that way when I was in the fraternity, but they say hindsight is 20-20. We use to talk about scholastics or community service or principles. But as more time passed since college, it became more and more obvious that that was all lip service to justify what we really wanted to be doing – getting drunk and trying to sleep with girls. Seriously, is scholastic achievement really a priority of a fraternity that sees only about half of its members graduate? Or do you really think we enjoyed serving the community of Bel-Ridge? Do I do community service now? Do I do anything to help anybody beside myself? Of course not.

So for a long time after college I began to view the Greek life as nothing more than an efficient way for large groups of college-aged men and women to get wasted and hook up. That is probably still the case, but I've recently realized something else about the whole deal. The realization stemmed from a couple nights with the old crowd – a bachelor party and a wedding. I rarely see my fraternity brothers anymore. The guy I've seen the most in the last year is a guy who has just finished six months in Europe. I don't know how it got that way, but it did. I actually didn't even want to go to this bachelor party despite the fact that the groom was my pledge brother and roommate for a year. Another pledge brother who was throwing the party guilt-tripped me into going. To understand why I didn't want to go, imagine that situation where everybody at the party used to be your best friends that you hung out with every day. But now, five years later, you don't have their phone numbers. And at the end of the night they're not going to ask you for yours. There's just something awkward in the air.

And that something was in the air when I first got there. But that something went away and I had a great time. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. I haven't laughed that hard all night long in an even longer time. I don't even remember what was funny. I do remember when Craig passed out and Miller laid his balls on Craig's forehead while everybody took pictures for the Internet. And I only remember that because there are pictures. The night of the wedding was the same. Ponce was catcalling and howling in the church. Jimmy did 'the kick' while escorting his bridesmaid into the reception. Craig and Henderson took it down to wife-beaters on the dance floor (is this '98 or '08?). I used to be a member of the wife-beater-on-the-dance-floor club, but I didn't have one on. I don't even own one anymore. How did those get phased out of my closet? What the hell happened? Did I sell out? I think my ex-girlfriend probably threw them all out some day when I wasn't home. I really wished I had one on at that moment!

At times over the years, this crowd annoyed me with the catcalling, the whistling, the constant joking, and the complete inability to be quiet for any length of time no matter where we were. I did three years in Corporate America after college. I tried to 'grow up', get serious, be an adult, etc. I used to think 'Why were they so immature and obnoxious'? In order to drive home my upcoming point, I'm going to have to illustrate our chapter's culture. If you weren't in a fraternity, you probably think they are all the same, which is probably true from the big picture. But in the micro-details, the cultures are very different. Keep in mind that our fraternity was far from typical, as was our school. Most Greek systems thrive at huge universities in small towns (Mizzou in Columbia) as opposed to commuter schools in relatively big cities (UMSL in St. Louis). Our situation isn't typical of the vast majority of schools. The house down the street was comprised of the laid-back, pretty boys. If you were nerdy or not good-looking, you didn't have a chance of getting in to that house. The average member of that house probably got laid more often and with hotter women than the average member of our house. The house across the street had more introverted guys. While maybe a little socially awkward, they probably put out the most graduates and achieved students who got, on average, better jobs after college. Our house, I may have implied, was the animal house of obnoxious hoosiers ('hoosier' is STL terminology for white trash). If we have any claim to fame, it would be that we won all the sports and threw the biggest parties. If (when) our house wins Greek Week next year – an annual Olympics between frats – it will be the tenth consecutive title. Concerning parties, the other two houses competed for Saturday night while we monopolized Friday night. I always assumed it was established years ago that, if either house tried to compete with us for turnout on Friday, they knew they would suffer more than if they competed with each other. So the rational decision for them was to share Saturday.

We had a diverse house. Nerds got in. But at the same time, someone with natural charisma wasn't guaranteed a leadership spot. One thing probably unique to our house was the relentless joking, clowning, and teasing. If you were fat, if you were a hoosier who wore jean shorts, if you had a speech impediment, if you wore a Figaro chain, if you were pussy-whipped by your girlfriend, if you acted like a hard ass when drunk, if you were caught reading Harry Potter, or whatever your problem was, you would be made fun of as much as possible for it. Any weakness whatsoever was exploited to the max. Every opportunity was taken advantage of to have a laugh at your expense. No one was spared. Not everybody can do that. Some got in the fraternity but later went their own way because they couldn't hang. If you were insecure or took yourself too seriously, life with this crowd was hell.

I think this is why I had so much fun this time around. Now that I'm NOT trying to grow up and get serious. Now that I'm not employed by a name-brand, blue chip company. Now that I'm a broke-ass server / bartender with no health insurance. Now that I haven't been laid in some months and I get dumped a lot. Now that I drive a '89 Pontiac with over 200K miles and I have to keep jumper cables in the trunk. Now that I have moved back into my parents' house and I turn 29 in March. And most importantly, now that I don't give a fuck what you think about it, bitch.

I come around the old guys with this mentality and they're not just funny. They're real fucking funny. I mean who can resist Ponce or Jimmy? Or Miller when he's in dickhead-mode in a conversation with someone he has just met. He has identified the kryptonite in their self-esteem and has gone for the throat with insults. She'll be crying herself to sleep that night. How can you resist Berra doing party-boy? I don't care what you think is funny. You haven't seen funny until you see a really hairy, fat guy in nothing but a jock strap and bow tie doing bodybuilder poses in the middle of Natural Bridge. And you just can't resist Henderson being Henderson – whatever attention-craving stunt it is that night which will end in hilarity. Whether you're laughing with him or at him, you will be laughing.

Do I even have a realization here? I don't know. I made a lot of great friends and had a lot of fun after my days in college and the fraternity. And I'll still make more friends and have more fun. However, I'm starting to wonder whether I'll ever laugh as hard as I did with those guys. It's a dismal realization for sure. I gotta go. I'm headed to Wal-Mart to pick up a pack of A-shirts (AKA, wifebeaters).