London: Expensive but Well-Run, except in Heathrow aka Hell

There isn't much to say about London that hasn't already been said, so I'll keep this short. 

1. Almost all of London's museums are free, though they ask for donations. Everyone knows about the British Museum and the Rosetta Stone, but don't miss the National Portrait Gallery right around the corner from the more famous National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Many people, including me, also overlook the Victoria and Albert Museum. 

Me, hanging out with ol' George.

2. England's "mature" cheeses are delicious. So is Scottish fruit jam. 

3. London's bus system is fantastic, and some buses run 24 hours a day; however, they do not accept cash. You must buy an "Oyster" card (same system as Hong Kong) and put cash on the card for single rides, or purchase a daily or weekly option. The daily or weekly option covers all public transport within London, including the subway (aka the Underground), buses, and trains. I bought an Oyster card from an Underground station and chose the weekly option because I wanted peace of mind when getting from Point A to Point B, which often requires bus, train, and Underground usage. Even though I speak English fluently (most of the time), I needed help buying the pass from the machine, because the interface isn't intuitive. Most tourists will need a card covering Zones 1 and 2. 

Overall, London has excellent public transportation but also one of most complex systems in the world. When people joke about the fascists and "trains running on time," they're providing a valuable history lesson: if day-to-day issues like public infrastructure don't work consistently, the most aggressive politicians tend to get elected--and rarely focus their gaze only on the mundane. In any case, don't hesitate to ask easily-identifiable employees at the stations to assist you--all of them were uniformly helpful and knowledgeable. 

4.  I loved the British Library. It hosted a fantastic Harry Potter exhibit (entrance required a fee), but even without the special exhibit, the library would have been a great experience. Check out the cafe inside.

Visitors to the special exhibition are *not* allowed to take photos.
I have no idea where this photo of Rowling's early drawing of the Potter characters comes from.
No idea whatsoever. 

5.  Speaking of Harry Potter, if you want to see where much of J.K. Rowling's inspiration comes from, visit Oxford and Cambridge. They're only about 2 hours by train from London's city center and well-worth seeing. Though Cambridge is larger than Oxford, a daytrip is all you need for both cities. Try to arrive early--some of Cambridge's attractions are only open between 12 and 2pm. I liked Cambridge's vibe much more than Oxford's, but Oxford had incredible exhibits in a tiny museum inside Weston Library, including a handmade Christmas card by J.R.R. Tolkien. 

Not allowed to take photos in Weston Library.
Once again, I have no clue where this photo of a page from JRR Tolkien's 1936 Christmas card comes from. 

Note that out-of-London trips are not included in the Oyster card weekly or daily pass--you must buy separate tickets. 

6.  Don't miss Harrods, the original "everything store." It's easily accessible by bus. You can spend hours in this massive place and never get bored. You might even get lucky and see a magic show in the toy section. 

Now owned by Qatar, but formerly owned by Princess Diana's almost-father-in-law.

7.  I'll end with two cautions. England is not part of the Schengen zone, so many tourists, including Americans, receive six month visas on arrival. Partly as a result of this longer-than-typical visa provision, Heathrow airport's immigration staff are known to overreach. 

I've had issues with Heathrow airport's immigration staff every single time I've visited. I truly believe most of their immigration employees are incompetent, poorly trained, and/or do not want to be there. Stated another way, Heathrow's immigration officers are the only people in the world who make America's notoriously bad TSA look good. In a city as vibrant as London, perhaps Heathrow is where you apply to work when you give up on your dreams--and your life. Nevertheless, there's no excuse for asking tourists totally irrelevant questions. Accepting irrelevant questions as normal rather than offensive and illegal creates a slippery slope where privacy is nonexistent and employees provoke animosity against all government services. 

In my case, after presenting evidence I had an e-ticket to the Dominican Republic from Heathrow, I was asked where I was going after the Dominican Republic. Last time I checked, despite Sir Francis Drake's remarkable prowess, the Dominican Republic isn't under the United Kingdom's current legal jurisdiction nor was it ever an official British colony.

Let's quickly consider the purposes of immigration control and the laws immigration agents are tasked with enforcing:

a. Are you a criminal or will you be engaging in criminal activity?
b. Are you going to overstay your visa?
c. Do you have enough money or access to money to stay in the country you are visiting without becoming a burden on public welfare or accessing other public services you have not paid into? 
d. Are you here for a legitimate purpose or do you intend on working off the books? 

All the questions above logically relate to the ultimate goal of determining whether a visitor is entering a country for a legitimate reason. If you don't have money, you might engage in criminal activity or work illegally. If you cannot articulate a clear reason for visiting or if you don't have evidence of an outward-bound ticket, you might be intending to overstay your visa. If you have a criminal history, you are less likely to be entering for a legitimate reason. 

Thus, questions like how long you are staying, where you are staying, whether you have credit cards, how much cash you have on you, whether you have evidence of an outward bound ticket, whether you have family members in the country, what your job is, and even whether you are pregnant, all logically relate to the reasons Parliament passed laws empowering immigration and customs agents. In short, the Immigration Control Act of any country, not just Britain's, is designed to eliminate visitors who will pose a burden on the country's services or people. It is not a license to ask visitors stupid questions.

When I deliberately raised a ruckus with the Heathrow employee after she posed questions only a moron would ask a visitor with over 30 stamps in his passport and evidence of an outward bound ticket, she called her manager. The way I play this game is simple: if you screw up, you are either racist or incompetent--pick one. If you, the manager, accept your employee is incompetent, then you must admit you are responsible for poor training and oversight. In other words, you put your own job at risk. In the alternative, if you, the manager, accept your employee might be racist, what exactly do you do when you can't discipline her without the possibility of spending taxpayer monies against an entrenched union? I like this game. I encourage any government employee or contractor to play it with me at any airport. 

After checking my evidence of an outward bound ticket and directing me through the same process a second time, the higher-up who came to see me walked away speechless when I asked whether it was logical to send me back to the same immigration employee I had accused of racism or incompetence. I was let through the second time under the same employee and supervision of another manager. 

Moving on, the second caution about the United Kingdom is its prices. Even with the pound's devaluation post-Brexit, everything in London is probably more expensive than back home, unless you're from San Francisco or Tokyo. Should that discourage you from visiting London? I suppose it depends on whether you are willing to endure Heathrow and its unmerry band of men and women. Good luck. 

Credit and Credibility in America

America Has the Most Complex System of Government Worldwide

I'm keenly interested in how other countries promote stability and confidence in government services. For example, compare London, England (about 8 million residents) to the Bay Area in California (about 7 million residents). The Bay Area has several different FBI offices, Sheriff's offices, and city police departments. Except for the FBI, all the offices have different elected or appointed leaders. Meanwhile, London is served by one Metropolitan Police Department, which employs about 50,000 people. It's true London is subject to jurisdiction by the National Crime Agency, but overlapping jurisdiction is rarer, and we're still discussing two law enforcement agencies rather than ten-plus in the Bay Area (S.F., Cupertino, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Oakland, Alameda County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Marin County, etc.).  Having one police agency reduces administrative overhead as well as the need for different procedures, but it also seems to provide greater trust through greater simplicity.

America, in contrast, has at least three different levels of governance and taxation: federal, state, and local (city and county).  In a typical day, an American parent might pay gas taxes to the state and the city; educational fees to a local school board--which may have independent taxing authority--and a state; and then sales taxes at different rates to yet two other cities. Such fragmentation makes it difficult to determine whom to hold accountable if anything goes wrong; worse, it's harder to improve services even if nothing is wrong because of the need to understand different and overlapping procedures and jurisdiction. (And we haven't even mentioned property taxes or special assessments.)

As one might expect, such complexity increases the potential for corruption exponentially, especially when the goal is to increase annual funding under a system forcing governmental entities to compete against each other for the many of the same dollars. In one instance, a county and city in the same territory sued each other over a dispute about which entity was entitled to millions of dollars of tax revenue already received.

In other countries, the federal/national government might act as a tax collector and then distribute funding to states or territories, thereby creating greater fiscal accountability through separation. When the entity using the money isn't the same entity collecting it, chances of corruption are reduced. Think of it this way: if you apply for a passport at one office but have to pay the fee in another office and bring back a receipt allowing you to pick up your passport, the chances for bribery are almost nil.

On paper, the idea behind America's governmental diversity is to increase checks and balances and to provide opportunities for each city and state to create their own cultures, which might appeal to different persons and therefore increase inclusivity. Don't like too much government?  Go to New Hampshire. Want lots of government? Go to Northern California. Is your local police force not handling your complaints properly or arresting one racial group more than others for no reason? The federal government can step in on your behalf and sue to fix the problem.

In practice, however, attempts at governmental diversity and accountability have failed, causing almost total mistrust of government. Rather than provide true checks and balances, America's political system of local, state, and federal power has led to more "gaming" on each level, creating complexities difficult to unwind. The original system was created by people familiar with only 13 colonies/states with a population of about 2 million residents in 1775 and about 4 to 5 million in 1800 (not including natives). We can't even remark, "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore," because Kansas didn't exist at the time.

Debt Restricts True Freedom of Choice

Despite such a convoluted system, if people were able to move easily, they could take advantage of different cultures and activities nationwide. On paper, if one city or state was corrupt or close-minded, a family could move and start over in another less corrupt place. In practice, it just doesn't work that way. A college graduate lacking parental support would have about 20,000 USD in student loans. If this person was particularly ambitious, s/he might advance to graduate school, which would necessitate more student loans (though many science/engineering degrees provide grants and stipends). In either case, most of the college grad's networking opportunities would be local or at least in the same state, limiting employment mobility. Thus, despite having the technical ability to move 2,800 miles away, freedom of choice is limited by systemic forces, especially college and networking connections, which tend to be local.

In addition to the general need for alumni connections to garner employment, the need to go in debt to receive not only a college degree but a home and perhaps a new car restricts freedom of movement. If one buys a new car--a requirement in most American cities, which lack efficient public transportation--the value of the car immediately depreciates, making it inadvisable to sell quickly.  (An auto lease is possible but a terrible deal because of the lack of ownership and mileage restrictions.) Basically, more debt restricts flexibility, especially when much of the debt creates local rather than cross-border advantages.

What about buying a home, the most "local" purchase one can make? Under the federal tax code, it would be foolish to buy a home and sell it in less than five years due to numerous costs associated with the sale and the tax benefits of waiting at least 2 years--and that's before a possible penalty for early mortgage payments.

Furthermore, most college grads don't buy homes after graduation. They tend not to have practical skills, because most professors lack recent relevant work experience, meaning even after years of paying tuition, graduates still rely on business investment and training to be productive and profitable. In the meantime, since saving for a down payment can take years, renting is the most feasible option.

In short, a successful American reaching the age of 24 might have 22,000 USD in student loans, a car loan of 12,000 USD, and no ownership of anything other than a piece of paper--while being dependent on local connections to maximize employment and debt-repayment options.

People in Debt are Beholden to their Elders and Therefore the Establishment

A person with 34,000 USD in debt isn't likely to rock any boat. In fact, because of the convoluted system we discussed earlier, such a person is better off brown-nosing as many people as possible to increase his or her chances of receiving employment, even exaggerating his or her expertise to compete with other applicants. As you might predict, in such a dynamic, integrity is often the first value to dissipate, as everyone is focused on paying off debt rather than working together to advance long-term goals. A good reputation is a fine virtue, but not one you can eat.

Establishment-Oriented Societies Do Not Favor Dissent

In San Jose, California--one of the largest cities in America--both recent mayoral candidates graduated from the same private Catholic high school. This was not an accident. Why would anyone pay 7,000 to 12,000 USD for their children to attend a private school when MIT puts its content online?

What if the American Establishment is so ensconced in power, you have to buy your way in?  Maybe it doesn't matter how intelligent or honest your daughter is--if she wants to be mayor one day, what really counts is whether her parents put her in the right private high school. As of April 2017, Santa Clara County's Board of Supervisors is majority Catholic. Dave Cortese attended Bellarmine (Catholic) high school. Cindy Chavez graduated from Moreau Catholic High School in Hayward. Mike Wasserman attended Bellarmine (Catholic) high school from 1972 to 1976. Who's the top local cop? Eddie Garcia, who attended St. Francis High School. As of 2017, Bellarmine high school charges over $20,000 annually in tuition.

It's true all alumni tend to look out for each other, but if you need to start in high school to build those connections, your children will get the jobs left over after the elites assign the ones they want to themselves--regardless of integrity. In such a system, loyalty to your own fiefdom matters more than loyalty to country or the public trust. Some entities, including the military, may convince themselves that looking out for each other is the same as being patriotic, but even General Colin Powell was made to look foolish by intelligence agencies with false information when he testified in favor of invading Iraq. In an age soaked with debt and paid-for connections formed as early as high school, integrity doesn't matter as much as maintaining institutional image.

When Donald Trump said during the presidential debates that mitigating taxes was "smart," he was right--the tax code allows him to take a deduction, so why shouldn't he? What obligation does he have to anyone else, especially when he can donate the money he saved to the entities of his choice--just like Warren Buffett, who will evade the estate tax by donating almost all of his billions to a fellow billionaire?

What happens to dissent in such a system, when the elites look out for themselves, their friends, and their particular institution's image more than any long-term view about what is best for the public?

How can the younger generation--which used to raise hell about unjust wars such as Vietnam--muster any sustained dissent when they are in debt as early as 19 years old or dependent on parental funding?

If government spending drives so many well-paying jobs--now with better benefits than the private sector in many states--and maintaining institutional image is more important than integrity, why would any rational college student or graduate speak out against any entity connected with the government, such as police, teachers, or firefighters? (One side is backed by billions of dollars each year, and the other owes thousands of dollars to the same aforementioned people.)

What happens to a society when the only people capable of bucking the Establishment are themselves part of it?

What happens to a society when the incentive for being honest is non-existent while the incentive for supporting the status quo is the greater likelihood to pay off debt one was forced to take to achieve the possibility of a middle class lifestyle?

I'm interested in knowing whether the problems I've mentioned above are the same everywhere, or especially so in the U.S.  Stay tuned... 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017)