Fort Hood Shootings: a Hostile Work Environment?

As we reflect on the Fort Hood shootings, I hope we remember that a person's religion has nothing to do with his or her acts of violence. Did Christians apologize for Steven Dale Green or Charles Graner? Of course not. 

A solider necessarily places himself or herself in violent situations. Sometimes, soldiers snap (for example, Steven Dale Green), and the consequences are tragic. Numerous Muslim groups have already condemned the Fort Hood shootings. My thoughts and prayers are with the soldiers and their families. 

Here is James Fallow's take on the situation: 

Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre "mean"? A decade later, do we "know" anything about Columbine? There is chaos and evil in life. Some people go crazy. In America, they do so with guns; in many countries, with knives; in Japan, sometimes poison. 

Something is terribly wrong when people shoot strangers or acquaintances. We need to find ways to prevent similar incidents. The NRA's solution--giving everyone a gun--is not the best answer. This shooting shows that even when nearby people are armed, a lone gunman can cause numerous deaths. How can we prevent these types of incidents from happening again? 

Bonus: from The Atlantic's website: 

Michael Moore: "After a shooting like this it's very important that no one jump to conclusions and take out any revenge against doctors or psychiatrists." 

Matthew Yglesias: "Lucky for us Christians never shoot anyone. Otherwise America might have the developed world's highest murder rate." 

Update: I am having a back-and-forth Facebook discussion on The Atlantic's wall with Kim P. See below. 

Me: Violence is not a religious issue--it's an issue of unstable people attaching themselves to a particular ideology. Remember what Charles Graner said: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself." (That quote still makes me shudder, because it's wrong on so many levels.) 

No sane person would say that Graner's Christianity had anything to do with him torturing detainees. If you agree that Graner's religion had nothing to do with violent behavior, then you must also agree that Nidal Hasan's religion had nothing to do with his violent behavior. 

Her: What reality are you living in?? Didn't he shout "Allahu [sic] Akbar!" as he opened fire??? 

Me: to be consistent, you must agree that Christianity influenced Charles Graner when he tortured Abu Ghraib detainees. After all, Graner did mention Christianity, and he is a Christian, correct? So *obviously* Christianity had something to do with Graner's actions, right? (I hope you see the sarcasm and problem with your "logic.") 

To support a link between Islam and the shootings, you mentioned a rumor that the shooter yelled, "God is great." If that's the case, then you must believe "God" had something to do with the killings. If a white Christian American shot somebody and yelled "God is great," would you link Christianity with the shootings? Of course not. You'd be crazy to do such a thing. Yet, you have no problem making the same crazy link when the shooter happens to be from a different religious background. If that's not Islamaphobia, I don't know what is.

Her: Remember 9/11??? Islam is much more dangerous than Christianity. Most people would agree they are just to PC to say so. 

Me: [after picking my jaw off the ground] I can't believe my eyes. First, you fail to respond to any of my actual comments, and then you pull 9/11 out of your arse? Are you seriously comparing the Fort Hood shootings with 9/11? Really? I'll just say this: the 9/11 attacks were carried out primarily by European residents who--as far as we know--did not become radicalized until they lived in a Christian-majority culture. More here. When you get a chance, look up the most populous Muslim country in the world. I bet the answer will surprise you. 

Her: The Fort Hood shootings are a domestic terrorist attack just like 9/11. It doesn't matter where the terrorists resided before the attack, homegrown or not, families are grieving for their loved ones now. [Hallelujah! She finally made a rational statement.] 

Me: I think we've finally found the answer to why Nidal went nuts--imagine him being surrounded 24/7 by mostly white conservative Christians who probably associated him with 9/11 merely b/c of his religious choice. Congratulations, Kim--you may have helped us figure out why all this happened. 

Her: Any religion that promotes blowing oneself up or denying women rights is nuts. The Fort Hood shooter had sympathy for suicide bombers. What a coward. Interesting that you have sympathy for this guy... 

Me: Again, thanks to you bringing up non sequiturs like 9/11 and suicide bombings, we can finally understand that Nidal may have been surrounded by mostly white Christians who blamed him for 9/11 because of his religious choice. We also know Nidal's car was vandalized in an act of anti-Muslim hatred. Obviously, a hostile work environment does not excuse murder. At the same time, everyone is asking, "Why did he do this?" Unfortunately, the answer may be unsatisfying and therefore overlooked; in short, we may be dealing with another case of a hostile work environment leading to workplace violence. That hypothesis is much more rational than believing, as you apparently do, that God caused Nidal to murder numerous people. 

Her: He had Sudden Jihad Syndrome... 

[At this point in the discussion, Kim or someone else deleted all of her comments from the Atlantic's Facebook wall, so I have to start paraphrasing.] 

Me: Is it like Crazy Christian Syndrome, which tolerated lynchings, slavery, and black church bombings? You conveniently forget that many Americans once despised white Christians b/c of their willingness--similar to yours--to advance hatred against minority groups. Guess who said the following? 

"I ain't no Christian. I can't be, when I see all the colored people fighting for forced integration getting blown up. They get hit by stones and chewed by dogs, and they blow up a Negro church and don't find the killers... Followers of Allah are the sweetest people in the world...All they want to do is live in peace." 

I have no doubt that if you were in the South in the 60's, you'd be at Little Rock screaming those kids down and in Alabama cheering on Bull Connor. You've somehow inherited the kind of cultural myopia that went out of style several decades ago. Back then, though, people could blame segregation for their cultural myopia--after all, the law prevented them from interacting with people different from themselves. You, on the other hand, have no excuse for your cultural myopia and anti-Muslim beliefs. My prayers are with the families who lost their loved ones at Fort Hood. May God look over them and the 5000+ American soldiers who have died so far in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

Her: [Again, I am paraphrasing this comment from recent memory.] Almost all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. When an act of terrorism happens, you can be sure that a Muslim is behind it. 

Me: you have access to a list of crimes committed all over the world, broken down by religious affiliation? Or are you just pulling your "facts" based on arbitrary mass media accounts? You have made a statement that is impossible to verify, b/c no reliable evidence exists to support it. 

Let me explain why your comment lacks credence, common sense, and logic. Here are some other lovely "facts" we can agree on if we go by mass media accounts: (WARNING: heavy sarcasm to follow...) 

1. You can be sure whenever a crime is committed against a gay person in America, a white Christian is behind it. Remember Matthew Shepard? Clearly, gay people need to avoid white Christians if they want to feel safe, right? 

2. Whenever there is corporate embezzlement in America, you can be sure a Jew (Madoff) or Christian (Pendergest-Holt) is behind it. Last time I checked, no devout Muslims have committed securities fraud...well, at least that's what the television told me (note the dripping sarcasm) 

3. Whenever an American president lies to the American people, whether it's about WMDs or Watergate, we can be sure he's a white Christian. Obviously, we need to stop electing white Christians as presidents. 

I could go on for days, but just like you, I don't know if any of the above statements are actually true. They might sound true, but only a dimwit would actually believe such statements without reviewing actual statistics...which don't exist for the type of comment you made. Even if they did exist, making any broad statement based on statistics is foolish. 

Let's say, for example, we determine that mostly African-Americans are on death row for committing capital crimes. So what? It doesn't tell us anything about whether black people commit capital crimes at higher rates than the general population, because too many other factors are involved. For example, lack of adequate representation could be involved. Perhaps D.A.s prosecute black persons at higher rates than non-black persons. Perhaps juries tend to give white murderers jail sentences and black murderers the death penalty, etc. 

I could also copy your style of "reasoning" and say, "Almost all white people are not NeoNazis, but almost all NeoNazis are white. Or have you already forgotten about the Holocaust Museum shooting and the anthrax mailings?" (I hope you understand that unlike you, I am being sarcastic.) 

Even a 6th grader ought to be able to understand that broad statements, like the ones you are making, lack value. Anyone can speculate about what they see on TV. But it is shocking that an adult who has presumably graduated high school is unable to understand that mass media isn't a reliable indicator of overall and total criminal activity. To copy your "logic," I hope you understand that while white Christians like yourself aren't necessarily NeoNazis, we need to be careful about people like you because almost all NeoNazis are white Christians. Please contact the FBI and have them monitor you pursuant to the Patriot Act immediately. Thank you for your service to this country. [Again, note sarcasm.]

Berkshire Shares to Split 50 to 1?

According to this article, Berkshire Hathaway shares might split, making them more accessible to the general public. Shareholders still have to approve the stock split, and the final vote tally might be close. Buffett started giving away his shares to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, so it's unclear if any single person or group controls the outcome of the vote.

I bought my BRK.B shares so I could go to the annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. If shareholders approve the split, more people may attend the annual meeting. I'm not sure that's a great idea--when I attended in 2007, the meeting was extremely crowded. At the same time, Buffett is coming along in age, so perhaps he wants to give more people the chance to come see him.

My Most Influential Books

Various books have influenced me throughout my life. Below are the titles of my most influential books:

Middle School: Although I was reading at least one book a week, I can't remember anything in particular that influenced me. I just remember loving to read. My mom would go window-shopping in the mall and leave me in a bookstore. After four hours, I would usually finish one or two books.

I do remember enjoying everything by Roald Dahl, especially Matilda; Sweet Valley Twins (*not* Sweet Valley High), and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe series.

The earliest book I remember loving is Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes' series, which I found, of all places, in an Iranian used bookstore. It was the only book they had in English. Start with A Study in Scarlet (1887): "There's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it."

High school: Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. After reading this WWI book, I became anti-war. I've been that way ever since.

George Breitman's Malcolm X Speaks (1990).

Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution--what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you--you don't know what a revolution is. Because when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way. 

The Russian Revolution--what was it based on? Land; the landless against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed...

As long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people, but when it comes to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls murdered, you haven't got any blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it's true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea?

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country." -- Malcolm X 

John Howard Griffin's Black Like Me (1961) displayed America's racist past from a poignant, unique perspective. Griffin, a white man who darkened his skin so he could pass for a black man, showed the daily slights of Jim Crow's South from a deeply personal voice.

Blind or sighted, Griffin worked on like a metronome. He was always trying to save somebody, himself last... If there is something wrong with Griffin it is that he is a goddamn saint, an insufferable Christian, a soft-spoken, gentle guy who never seems to think ill of anyone; he even prayed for those friends and neighbors who burnt him in effigy on the main street of his home of Mansfield, Texas, when the word reached the local pool hall that he had gone and turned himself into a n*gg*r. -- San Francisco muckraker Warren Hinckle on Griffin, from If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade (1973, 1974, hardcover), pp. 85, 86

Nathan McCall's Makes Me Wanna Holler (1994). 

Honorable Mentions: Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965) and Roots (1976). 

College: Burton Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street. I didn't necessarily agree with Professor Malkiel's conclusions, but I appreciated his rationale.

Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1981). Few writers can rival Professor Gould's vast scientific knowledge. His writing is unique in that it is both dispassionate and engaging. Thus far, no modern equivalent exists to Professor Gould. Only Michio Kaku comes close.

I didn't finish Hunter Thompson's The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman (1997), but I enjoyed it immensely. I forgot to include the book earlier, in part because I assumed people would recognize this blog's title--Quiet Highway: Saga of a Gentleman--was based on it. 

I don't remember the name of the author, but my Introduction to Symbolic Logic textbook had a tremendous impact on my understanding of abstract concepts. Every college student should take a symbolic logic course. I didn't do well in my UC Davis class, but this introductory philosophy course provided the most useful long-term knowledge. It may have even re-wired my brain.

Law school: N/A. I played too much basketball to read anything fun during law school.

Late 20's: Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. See here for more.

[Update on August 6, 2012: after reading Friedman's book, try David Cay Johnston's 2007 book, Free Lunch. Johnston's writing is generally biased, but this specific book provides excellent food for thought.]

Early 30's: Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. It's sickening to see everything Mr. Postman predicted coming true, and yet, no one seems to care.

See also George Soros' Lecture #4, titled "Capitalism vs. Open Society." The lecture is available here.

I will give honorable mentions to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, and Stephen Pollan's Die Broke.

Late 30's: Hernando de Soto's The Mystery of Capital (2000).

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1999) -- many of my own ideas are encompassed in this book. I did not add this title before because it didn't influence me so much as display my own thinking, but with citations. [Update: I stopped reading My Life, Our Times (2017) by PM Gordon Brown when almost every single page included ideas I had envisioned before reading the book. Brown, a Scot, was and is my favorite UK politician.]

Eisenhower, Soldier and President (1983) by Stephen Ambrose.

If This Isn't Nice, What Is? Advice to the Young--The Graduation Speeches (2014) by Kurt Vonnegut. (I thoroughly enjoy reading both George Carlin and Kurt Vonnegut, despite them being complete opposites.  At the end of the day, I'd like to leave this earth with my hand closer to Vonnegut's side of the shelf.)

Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder (2012), by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. [I'm re-considering this selection, realizing its perceived quality was due largely to the dearth of excellent non-fiction generally post-2012. Additionally, Duncan J. Watts has similar findings and has a better writing style. See, for example, Everything is Obvious (2011)]

Future Crimes (2015), by Marc Goodman. Bonus: Adam Segal's The Hacked World Order (2016).

Early 40's: Warren Hinckle's If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade (1990).

Becoming Kareem (2017). I'd recommend first reading Giant Steps (1960) by Jabbar/Knobler.

Bill Moyers: A World of Ideas (1989). Moyer is the best interviewer in the English-speaking world.

Paul Theroux's Deep South (2015). It took Mr. Thorax, er Theroux, 75 years to publish a book I didn't find tedious, but the result is quite possibly the first Great American Novel.

Colegio de Mexico's A New Compact History of Mexico. It's almost impossible to understand Mexico's history without first understanding American and European (primarily French) history, so your personal background will impact this book's reach.

G. Willow Wilson's The Butterfly Mosque (2010). Wilson is a master of the written word, and her status as an insider-outsider delivers numerous insights not found anywhere else.

Alan Beattie's False Economy (2009). A remarkable book and a must-read by anyone interested in economics.

"Painting is literature in colors. Literature is painting in language." -- Pramoedya Ananta Toer, This Earth of Mankind (translated in 1980)

What books influenced you the most? Please feel free to share book suggestions by leaving a comment.

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2009, then updated in subsequent years) 

Update on 10/6/11+: I enjoyed Junot Diaz's book, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao immensely (2007). It is my favorite fiction book. In second place so far is Christina McKenna's The Misremembered Man (2011).

Update on 10/2/12: I enjoyed Raul H. Castro's autobiography, Adversity is My Angel: the Life and Career of Raul H. Castro (TCU Press, paperback, 2009).

In Bemidji, Minnesota, I witnessed ethnic intolerance, though it was a completely alien form to me.  Swedes and Norwegians, I discovered, discriminated against Finns.  As I walked the streets I saw signs that read, "We don't rent to Finns" and "No Finns wanted."  It was hard to believe because the Finns were blonde and blue-eyed--why would anyone be prejudiced towards them?  All of the prejudice that I knew related to the darkness of one's skin.  Raul Castro, don't feel so sorry for yourself, I thought to myself, they are picking on someone else here in Minnesota. In Bemidji, they viewed me through a stereotypical prism; I was a Latin from Manhattan [Mr. Castro is from Arizona], and somehow I must have been a great lover who played the guitar.  The experience there reinforced my view that racial prejudice makes no sense.  (pp. 27-28)

Adversity has been my angel, as I have always seen it as something to overcome, not as a roadblock to my success.  I was never satisfied with the status quo and always wanted to move ahead, to progress to the next level.  If that is "ambition," then it gave me a good life, and I wish it for everyone. (pp. 106)

Update on November 10, 2015: my favorite comedian is Chris Rock. Never Scared (2004) is his most searing standup routine. One indicator of whether I would enjoy someone's company is our mutual like or dislike of comedians. 

Funniest books I've read so far:

1. Me Talk Pretty One Day (2000), by David Sedaris; 
2. The Complete Calvin and Hobbes (2012), by Bill Watterson; 
3. Smile When You're Lying (2007), by Chuck Thompson;

4. Changing Places (1975), by David Lodge; 

5. Bloodsucking Fiends (1995), by Christopher Moore. (You may skip the subsequent two titles in the series--they were not very good.) 

I like Nick Hornby's fiction books as well, but I can't think of a particular one I would recommend. I suggest reading the first 30 pages of one of his books to see if it strikes your fancy. If you enjoy Hornby's writing, try David Nicholls, especially One Day (2009). 

Update: Samuel Cohen's 50 Essays (2006) is fantastic reading. So is Vaclav Havel's Disturbing the Peace (1991). I also recommend Viet Thanh Nguyen's collection of essays by refugees, The Displaced (2018) and David Remnick's King of the World (1998). 

Update on April 2018: I'm starting a new list, one including my most influential or favorite speeches/lectures/articles. In no particular order, I present the following:

1. ee cummings six nonlectures: "I value freedom; and have never expected freedom to be anything less than indecent."

2. MLK's Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence (April 4, 1967) [MLK was murdered exactly one year later on April 4, 1968.]

3. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, The Danger of a Single Story (2009): "I did not know that people like me could exist in literature."

4. Viet Thanh Nguyen, Introduction, The Displaced (2018): "Keeping people in a refugee camp is punishing people who have committed no crime except trying to save their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. The refugee camp belongs to the same inhuman family as the internment camp, the concentration camp, the death camp."

5. James Baldwin, "The Creative Process," from Creative America (1962), Ridge Press.

6. Tommy Koh's "De Tocqueville Revisited" speech given at JFK School of Government, Harvard University, September 5, 1986. It is the best summary of USA's political structure I have ever seen. Sample sentence: "The US system of government, characterized by the separation of powers among the three branches of government and by many checks and balances, is designed to protect the liberty of the individual."

7. Stephanie Ericsson's “The Ways We Lie.” (1992) 

8. Tennessee Williams' "On A Streetcar Named Success" (1947): "Our technology is a God-given chance for adventure and for progress which we are afraid to attempt." 

9. William Deresiewicz’s Solitude and Leadership (Spring 2010): “It’s perfectly natural to have doubts, or questions, or even just difficulties. The question is, what do you do with them? Do you suppress them, do you distract yourself from them, do you pretend they don’t exist?” 

Update on June 2020: I should have included other authors who have influenced me: the United Kingdom's C.S. Lewis, especially The Problem of Pain (1940); USA's Michael Lewis; USA's William O. Douglas, especially The Right of the People (1958); South Africa's J.M. Coetzee; Kwame Anthony Appiah; William Shakespeare, especially Othello; Michelle de Kretser; and England's Zadie Smith. 

Update on July 2020: let's make a list of my favorite poets, in no particular order. 

1. Róisín Kelly (Ireland) 

2. Theodore Roethke (USA) 
3. ee cummings (USA)

4. W.H. Auden (United Kingdom) 

5. Dannie Abse (Wales) 

Update on May 2021: for magazines, short form, and other periodicals, National Geographic stands out. A National Geographic from 20 years ago will, even today, contain the best writing you'll see in short form. If you prefer shorter rather than longer pieces, start with National Geographic; then read all the Nobel Prize Literature speeches; then read interviews in the Paris Review.  

Elna Baker is Awesomely Funny

Scott Burns on Senior Citizens and the AARP

Former Dallas Morning News financial writer Scott Burns tells it like it is:

http://assetbuilder.com/blogs/scott_burns/archive/2009/10/16/comparing-paychecks-workers-and-retirees.aspx

As far as I can tell, the goal of the AARP--- the American Association of Retired People--- is to enslave all those of working age. Once enslaved, workers will support retirees in the style to which the AARP feels they are entitled.

It's lovely to see someone speak the truth. It's really lovely when it comes from someone who stands to benefit from silence.

Awesome Blog about Dating

This woman is a genius. There's something about her writing that hooked me immediately. Here is the blog and two samples:

http://didhereallyjustdothat.blogspot.com/

1. A few days ago, I hated online dating. Now I have officially became an online dating sl*t.

2. If the world were different and a successful New York woman could marry a small-town man with dreams the size of marijuana seeds, then we could be together. But the world doesn't work that way. So in a self-induced Romeo & Juliet tragedy, me and Mr. X share a love that can never be.

Awesome openings, right? I love finding interesting writers--it's like getting a X-Mas present even though it's not X-Mas.

Superfreakonomics

Professor Leavitt's Freakonomics has a sequel, Superfreakonomics. The new book has a chapter on prostitution:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6879237.ece

I don't agree with anything in the chapter, but it is interesting reading.

USA Weekend: "The Iran I Know"

Reyhaneh Fathieh recently wrote a good article about Iran in USA Weekend. See here.

Government Waste

See here for stunning facts about public sector unions:

For every $1-an-hour pay increase, noted Dennis Cauchon in USA Today, public employees have gotten $1.17 in new benefits. Private workers have gotten just .58 cents in benefits for every $1 raise. This gap worries left-liberal labor economist Barry Bluestone. The price of state and local public services increased by 41 percent nationally between 2000 and 2008. Private services only increased by 27 percent. The benefit growth has continued unabated into the Great Recession, and Bluestone says the gap will inevitably produce a backlash.

Like banks, but with even less self-control, state governments make long-term promises in boom times while depending on the short-term flow of revenues. But when the boom ends, the benefits that have been ratcheted up have to be paid for out of a declining private sector economy. Barring a sharp recovery, state and local government tax-funded pension contributions in New York are likely to triple over the next five years in order to pay out the pension benefits guaranteed by the state constitution. (This is equally true in Illinois.) California’s public pension fund liability has already topped $200 billion, and in cities such as Oakland, Vallejo, and Rio Vista bankruptcy looms.

If you want to really scare people on Halloween, dress up as a retired teacher, police officer, county lawyer, or any other public employee eligible for a pension and lifetime medical benefits. (Actually, that's the problem--we're not yet scared of these people, even as California issues IOUs. Maybe we'll pay attention when the sales tax is 20% and the DMV charges $400 to register an old car.)

Tim Donaghy: Sacto Was Jobbed in 2002 Western Conf Finals

I feel like baseball fans did when the steroids allegations came out. At first, I disbelieved the allegations; however, over time, I agreed the MLB had a problem. (Seeing a rookie Oakland A's McGwire card and a St. Louis Cardinals McGwire card helped.) And I am disgusted. I don't care if Tim Donaghy lied on other issues. When someone lies, it means you may--but are not required to--discount his entire testimony. My gut tells me that Donaghy is right. And for the first time in my life, I hate the NBA.

I graduated from UC Davis in 1999. (Davis is only ten minutes away from Sacramento.) I remember the classy but futile Mitch Richmond era, and I loved seeing Jason "White Chocolate" Williams throw up half-court treys that would somehow go in. I loved seeing Vlade's flops, Webber's crisp passes, and stories about Christie's henpecking wife. And even though I felt Sacto got jobbed, I still didn't know they got jobbed. There's a difference.

Now that I agree/believe Sacto got jobbed, I am sad, angry, and miserable. Sad, because I love the NBA. Most Americans come alive in March for the college tourney, but it's too hard for me to keep up with all the different players. With the NBA, you get to see the best players, and (with some exceptions) you get to see them grow up over several years.

I am angry, because I don't understand how Stern or the NBA's front office could have allowed a referee's personal preference to change a game's tempo and/or result. I suddenly have newfound respect for both Allen Iverson and Joe Crawford, which is amazing, b/c I hated Crawford after he called the infamous technical on a bench-sitting Tim Duncan. (Congrats, Stern--your negligent oversight has made me appreciate the hot-headed, bald, and cranky Joe Crawford.)

Finally, I am miserable, because an NBA refereeing scandal is far worse than doping in baseball. In baseball, doping might provide a player an advantage, but umpires cannot consistently collude to give one team a game or a series. Donaghy's allegations of referee favoritism create doubts not just about previous NBA champions, but about the foundation of the game itself. Who wants to watch a sport if they know referees can and have pre-ordained the result? (On a personal note, I am also miserable because I don't really love any other sport. I like hockey, but I don't love it. And if it weren't for fantasy football, I could not care less about Sundays.)

Stern needs to reform the league. Now I think Stern should have continued using replacement refs. By allowing the regular refs to return, Stern may have missed a good opportunity to eliminate the NBA's bad/corrupt refs. (He could have re-hired the good refs a few years later.)

Here's one excerpt from the book, which isn't being published yet because of legal threats from--who else?--the NBA:

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read

The 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings presents a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest. As the teams prepared for Game 6 at the Staples Center, Sacramento had a 3–2 lead in the series...As soon as the referees for the game were chosen, the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a Game 7. A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game. Oh, and one more thing: it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers.

Before Donaghy, I would have just sighed at the disgrace that was Game Six. Now, I am angry. If Stern and the NBA want to keep me as a fan, they'd better do something. Quick.

Bonus: completely random website recommendations:

http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/

http://www.aseaofblue.com/story/2007/6/7/102426/5876

Matthew Hoh: Conscience of a Nation

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine officer, served in Iraq and Afghanistan. After just five months in Afghanistan, failing to see any value in supporting the Afghan government, he resigned.

His letter contains several well-written gems: “Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.”

Later, Mr. Hoh compares the Pashtuns to revolutionary Americans, fighting against “foreign soldiers and taxes.” He also compares the war to “South Vietnam.”

Mr. Hoh also fails to see any real strategy. For example, if the point is to prevent Al-Qaeda from regrouping, then American troops would have to also “invade and occupy Western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc.” [Nice use of “etc.” in the aforementioned sentence, right?]

He also mocks the administration’s current strategy, saying, “to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison [i.e., put troops on duty in] Pakistan, not Afghanistan.” In addition, Mr. Hoh reminds us that the 9/11 attacks were planned in Western Europe, so even stopping Al-Qaeda in the Middle East won’t necessarily make Americans safer.

Mr. Hoh's letter is a must-read for all Americans. Full letter [Warning: PDF file] here.

Congress Passes a Law Promoting Gov Secrecy

Without transparency, citizens cannot keep their government honest. That's why I was surprised at a recent news story: "Photographs documenting US military abuse of detainees overseas will likely remain secret under a new law passed by Congress." See here. 

Congress essentially passed a law to circumvent a federal appellate court decision. That court ordered the government to release the photos to the ACLU (pursuant to the FOIA). 

Basically, our own government is withholding relevant information relating to the war on terrorism. But if we, the taxpayers, paid for it, we deserve to see the consequences of it (Note: common sense tells us these photographs contain no significant security secrets). 

Bottom line: don't sugarcoat something for me--I want to see all the results of my taxpayer contributions, good or bad. Tell me to wear a seatbelt, tell me where I can't smoke, but if you're spending my tax dollars killing other people and getting my fellow citizen-soldiers killed, I want to see the results. Doesn't that sounds fair? 

Update on December 1, 2009: Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the withholding of detainee pictures. See here.

Pete Constant: Another Lying Politician?

Update on November 24, 2009: it's been several weeks since San Jose City Councilmember Pete Constant said he would provide additional information justifying his vote against government transparency. Even after I sent a reminder/email, no one from his office has contacted me. 

Update on October 27, 2009: after speaking with Councilmember Pete Constant, I need to add some comments to this post. 

First, I had complained his office did not return an email, but Mr. Constant indicated I may have used an incorrect email address. (The correct email address is Pete.Constant@sanjoseca.gov) 

Second, before you read my original post, which is below, I should provide some background. Mr. Constant voted against a Sunshine Reform Task Force recommendation that would have made it easier to access police records and statistics. Mr. Constant said he voted against the recommendation because he was concerned about victims' privacy and public safety. He specifically mentioned protecting the results of police investigations. He alleged that if the Council had approved the Task Force's recommendation "as is," then anyone would have been able to access details of police investigations, including personal information in identity theft reports. 

Also, as a former bank robbery detective, Mr. Constant told me he often included trade secrets--such as bank floor plans and vulnerabilities--in his investigative reports. One reason he did not vote to approve the Task Force's recommendation is because he believed the public, including potential criminals, would have been able to access such trade secrets. Mr. Constant also raised the issue of home robbery investigations and accompanying home inventory records, saying he wanted to protect residents from having their valuable assets revealed pursuant to a Public Records request. 

Sounds good, doesn't it? Except it's wrong. As the Task Force itself pointed out, Government Code section 6254(f) already addresses these concerns: 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following: (f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the California Emergency Management Agency, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency...[and] nothing in this division shall require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer. 

When I mentioned this code section to Mr. Constant, he said that it was unclear whether the 6254(f) exemption would apply if the Council approved the recommendation. Mr. Constant defended his vote against improved government transparency by saying, "If I believe there is [even] a [slight] chance under the recommendation that victim rights could be compromised, then I can’t support it [i.e., the recommendation]." 

I was skeptical about Mr. Constant's belief that the existing 6254(f) exemption didn't address his concerns. I responded that if the Task Force's recommendation would have released investigative results, then I would have voted against it, too. However, the Task Force itself cited the 6254(f) exemption, which indicates it was not trying to remove the exemption. 

Also, it is common knowledge that local laws cannot trump state laws, only extend them, and you can't "extend" 6254(f)'s prohibition against disclosing investigatory reports--doing so would destroy the exemption itself. Mr. Constant said I was incorrect that the 6254(f) exemption would continue to apply, because the Task Force's recommendation would be extending rights under the Records Act, and the proposed extension of rights could be interpreted as eliminating the exemption for investigatory reports. 

I continue to disagree, but Mr. Constant said he would send me more information, so I will reserve judgment. [Update: as of November 24, 2009, I have received no further information from Mr. Constant or his office.] Still, once you see the quote I cited from the Task Force's report, which specifically cites Government Code 6254(f), it should be apparent that no reasonable person or judge would rule that the Task Force or Council intended to remove existing state law exemptions relating to police investigations. 

To offer support for his legal interpretation, Mr. Constant told me the Attorney General's(?) office, the Undercover Narcotic Officers' Association, and the D.A.'s office all told him they had issues with compromising investigations if the Council approved the recommendation. 

I asked Mr. Constant a final question: "What was ultimately decided regarding police records?" He said he would email me something that addressed my question soon, and we said our goodbyes. 

I think local law enforcement gave the "party line" to Mr. Constant, and he accepted it. Few government lawyers or police officers want to spend time figuring out how to shield potentially embarrassing information from the public. 

Right now, the police department can easily block information from the public. Under a "balancing test," explained below, the police may reject a request for records if they--in their subjective opinion--believe the request is improper. The police's rejection forces the requesting party to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit, an option few people can afford. If, however, the Task Force's recommendation had passed, the public would be presumptively entitled to police statistics and reports not covered by a specific exemption. Of course, that's more work the police and government lawyers have to do, so they have an interest in telling Councilmembers the most far-fetched legal interpretation possible. It is still disappointing to think that any Councilmember would favor minority union interests over his/her own constituency's right to government transparency. 

By the way, Councilmember Sam Liccardo is a Harvard Law School graduate and a former D.A. He voted to approve the Task Force's recommendation. If there was a real problem with the task force's recommendation, wouldn't Mr. Liccardo have voted against it? 

In the end, government transparency is crucial to maintaining a reputable democratic republic. Therefore, if extending the law creates more work, so be it--the solution isn't to deny transparency, but to become more efficient in handling requests. 

Some color commentary: 

1. Mr. Constant was generous enough to speak to me for about 10 minutes, even though he had a cold and was coughing throughout the conversation. In fact, he told me he would probably be taking a sick day tomorrow. Kudos to him for responding to my emails and telephone call on the same day. 

2. Mr. Constant told me he would send me some information to further explain his rationale on the 6-5 vote. I specifically mentioned wanting some support relating to his belief that Government Code 6254(f) wouldn't apply if the Council passed the recommendation. If I get more information, I will update this post again. [Update: as of January 10, 2010, I have not received any information from Mr. Constant's office.]

SJPD to San Jose: You Want to See Police Records? Go Stick It Where the Sun Don't Shine

I can't believe I missed this--in a narrow 6-5 vote, San Jose City Council rejected greater transparency into police records and stats. The following six council-members voted against government transparency: Chuck Reed, Nancy Pyle, Pete Constant, Pierluigi Oliverio, Judy Chirco, and Rose Herrera. Remember to vote them out come election time.

The council voted 6-5 against the Sunshine Reform Task Force proposal. The vote came after almost an hour of public testimony and an even longer discussion by the council on the issue, proposed one year ago. Mayor Chuck Reed voted against the proposal along with Vice Mayor Judy Chirco and council members Nancy Pyle, Pete Constant, Pierluigi Oliverio and Rose Herrera. [SJ Merc, by Tracy Seipel, 10/21/2009]

While most residents appreciate our city's rank-and-file officers, it is incredible that our city council can't appreciate transparency when it comes to a police department that has cost local taxpayers millions of dollars in legal settlements and that has been accused of using excessive force without due cause.

Speaking of police officers, wouldn't it be nice to know whether SJPD Officers Kenneth Siegel, Steven Payne Jr., Jerome Smith and Gabriel Reyes have attacked unarmed college students before? (These officers were involved in a much-publicized beating of SJSU student Phuong Ho.) Perhaps, but that's nowhere near the level of detail the San Jose Task Force initially recommended--at first, they only wanted general statistics:

A quarterly report on the SJPD's use of force in arrests, including the race and ethnicity of the person arrested, some geographic designation of the location of the arrest, the reason for the use of force by category...whether a warning was given prior to use of force, the type of force used by category (for example, firearms, Taser...), and the injuries sustained by the arrested party and officer, if any.

This recommendation may have been a response to the SJPD arresting numerous drunk persons, many of them Latino, in downtown San Jose. Later, the Task Force recommended that the SJPD and other local government agencies stop using a legal technicality to prevent the release of information:

Below, I am suggesting a new approach to the deliberative process issue. I continue to consider it critical that the city abandon its use of the deliberative process exemption, as Milpitas and San
Francisco have done, because the exemption undermines the very foundation of open government laws: The deliberative processes of government are precisely what citizens have a right and a need -- indeed, a responsibility -- to witness. If there is a vigorous debate among city staffers about the best approach to a controversial issue, that debate needs to be brought into the open so the residents of San Jose can participate in it--not cloaked by a dubious privilege.

The Task Force seems to believe the government is relying on technicalities to prevent full disclosure and is taking small steps to improve transparency. Seems simple enough so far, right? Later on, however, when the Task Force tries to extend transparency to police records, things get interesting. I wish I was a journalist covering the courthouse beat, but I have to tell you upfront I had a hard time figuring out exactly what happened. Although I read through some of these links, I am still a little confused, so take the rest of this post with a grain of salt.

First, let's give readers some basic legal background so they can understand the goals of the "Sunshine" Task Force. Ordinarily, a government agency may reject a citizen's request for information under a "balancing test": the "Balancing Test is a general exemption in the California Public Records Act (CPRA) that allows the City to withhold records only when 'the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.'"

While the language seems clear, it is subject to wide interpretation. At the end of the day, some anonymous government employee gets to decide whether your request "clearly outweighs the public interest," and if s/he is against disclosure, s/he can reject your request under the "balancing test." (Although the balancing test was intended to balance the right to keep personal identifying information private vs. the public's right to a transparent government, in practice, it is often used to arbitrarily deny requests for information.)

It appears the "Sunshine" Task Force recommended only selective or minimal use of the arbitrary, subjective "balancing test" exemption. More specifically, the Task Force recommended replacing the subjective "balancing test" with other specific exemptions. In other words, either a public record fell under a specific exemption designated by the Task Force, or it didn't--and if it didn't, then the records had to be released. Problems arose when the Task Force extended its recommendations to police department records. Here is the specific section relating to police records:

Police records are already the subject of pervasive statutory exemptions (Government Code sections 6254(f) and 6254(k), Penal Code section 827 et seq., Government Code section 1040, etc.). They are also the subject of specific provisions of the proposed Sunshine Ordinance. There is no need for a balancing test.

The Task Force's recommendation is not to apply a balancing test when police records are involved. As I understand it, the recommendation, if implemented, would allow easy access to police records and statistics. For example--assuming the recommendation is accepted--if you request information asking for the number of people the SJPD arrested on September 2, 2009 on Market Street, the police must do its best to provide you with the information. It cannot rely on the "balancing test" and tell you to stick your request where the sun doesn't shine. (At the same time, the request is very broad, so the SJPD might charge you quite a bit of money for the staff research time or require you to be more specific. Most requests are usually very simple, like, "Provide me with all police reports from 2002 to 2009 relating to MY NAME.")

Why did the Task Force decide not to apply the balancing test exemption to police records? The Task Force reasoned that the law already provides plenty of exemptions that protect information relating to police records, so there is no need for additional layers of legal procedure. However, it appears that when the SJPD realized they might have to release records that included names of police officers or other information that would allow the public or a newspaper to verify their data, they probably raised holy hell.

After getting complaints from the police union, the City Council pushed back, saying it wanted to protect crime victims' personal information. This is a sensible concern, if applied to crime victims. After all, if I got mugged, I wouldn't want unfettered access to my name and contact information in a police report. The Task Force apparently agreed and created more restrictive guidelines for releasing information about crime victims; however, that wasn't good enough for the SJPD, who continued to push against open disclosure of records. The Council eventually sided with the police union, allowing them to use the arbitrary "balancing test" to deny access to police records.

Later on, it appears the Task Force tried to placate concerns about crime victims' privacy by emphasizing an additional factor: "the right to privacy afforded to victims by the California Constitution." However, the Council added two words to the Task Force's revised recommendation--"and others"--perhaps to further prevent access to records relating to police officers:

“…including the right of privacy afforded to victims and others by the California Constitution.”

Thus, it appears the Council allowed the SJPD to avoid releasing information relating to police officers (i.e., "and others") instead of addressing the original concern, which was to ask the SJPD to protect crime victims' information.

Thanks to the 6-5 decision rejecting some of the Task Force's recommendations, there's no sliver of sunshine when it comes to police records and statistics. Good night, and good luck.

Bonus I: Earlier this month, a court ordered Santa Clara County to pay a free speech group $500,000 for failing to disclose public records. See here.

Acting Santa Clara County Counsel Miguel Márquez "said that cost of the legal settlement is not expected to hurt programs in a county confronting massive budget shortfalls. 'I don’t think $500,000 in and of itself is going to impact programs.'”

Bonus II: Kudos to Bert Robinson, Assistant Managing Editor, San Jose Mercury News. He seems to be very active on the Task Force.

Update: follow-up with City Councilmember Pete Constant HERE.

Lockyer Calls Out State Legislature

California Legislators Got Drunk on Stock Market Gains

I've been studying California's budget. From 1998 to 2009, California added over 80,000 full time government employees. That means future taxpayers must pay for an additional 80,000+ pensions, lifetime medical benefits, and annual salaries. However, adding 80,000 more government employees is not the major problem, as long as we reform their generous long-term benefits.

The biggest problem is that starting in 1999, California's legislators assumed revenue/tax numbers based on stock market gains/sales and spent accordingly. From 1998 to 2000, spending jumped dramatically, but from 1999 to 2008, expenditures declined only once--right after the tech bubble popped, in 2003/2004. (Note: the tech bubble's peak was in 2000; hit a low in September 2002; and continued in a tight range until 2007.) Basically, it seems our legislators banked on an ever-increasing stock market to finance spending. Oops.

Public sector unions aren't helping. Even though the stock market money isn't there anymore, public sector unions are still acting like it's 2004. Behind closed doors, various unions have negotiated generous benefit packages, such as lifetime medical benefits and pensions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to project the cost of such benefits because no one knows how long a state employee will survive after retiring. As a result, if taxpayers desire consistently balanced budgets, it makes more sense to pay public sector employees higher salaries while reforming their generous benefits. (CalPERS, the state's public pension/health care fund, already has over $200 billion in assets.) Fiscal reform is possible without threatening state workers' job security, because government workers will continue to be unionized--reform would affect only the hard-to-project costs inherent in pensions and lifetime medical benefits.

As far as education is concerned, I am concerned we are spending too much money on it without seeing results. The state's website indicates that approximately 50% of the General Fund is reserved for K-14 education. In addition, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:

"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."

Education spending is probably a sacred cow that needs to be slimmed down before we see any real change in California's fiscal health.

See here for a detailed webpage outlining the major issues, with plenty of stat-porn for the political wonks.

Bonus: Meg Whitman promises to cut 40,000 government jobs--back to 2004 levels--if we elect her Governor; however, I am unclear how she will accomplish that goal without incurring massive litigation and settlement costs. Perhaps the 40,000 positions she wants to cut are non-union or part-time? If so, then it doesn't appear that cutting these positions will reform the problem of generous public sector benefits, which are typically reserved for full-time government workers.

Meg Whitman is probably the most successful female CEO in Silicon's Valley's history, but I wish she'd be more specific about how she plans on accomplishing her goals. If she does well in the Governor's race, expect to see her as the GOP's Vice Presidential candidate in 2012.

Keith Bardwell: What Century is This Again?

Reason #33847 you don't want the government meddling in your private affairs: openly racist judicial officers who don't think they're racist.

More here on Louisiana's Keith Bardwell. Someone should tell him that accepting the repeal of Jim Crow laws doesn't automatically make him non-racist.

My Favorite Part of the Bible

My favorite Bible verse is Psalms 139: 

O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me; Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off; 

If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me; 

If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me"; even the night shall be light about me; For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb; When I awake, I am still with you. 

When I was at UC Davis, a fellow English major shared the above verse with me. I can't remember her name, but I hope she's doing well. 

O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me; Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off; 

If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me; 

If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me"; even the night shall be light about me; For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb; 

When I awake, I am still with you.

See also, the Koran. Islam requires all believers to accept Jesus Christ's and Moses' teachings: 

Say, "We believe in God and what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and what Moses and Jesus were given, and what all the Prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. We are Muslims submitted to Him." (Sura al-Baqara: 136) 

The messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord and so have the believers; each has believed in God, His angels, His scriptures and His messengers. We do not differentiate between any of His messengers. They say, "We heard and we obeyed; we seek your forgiveness, Our Lord, and unto You is our destiny" (Sura al-Baqara: 285) 

By the way, if anyone has insight on Biblical passages mentioning prophets after Jesus, please post a comment. The Bible seems to accept the possibility of future prophets. See Revelation 11:10 (read entire chapter for proper context); Matthew 10:40-41 & especially Matthew 23:34; John 13:20 & 15:20; and Acts 11:25-30, 13:1, and 15:32 (mentioning prophets born after Jesus's birth). More here.

Bonus: "Those who believe [in the Koran], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day [of Judgment], and who work righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." -- Koran, Al-Baqarah, 2:62 

The Simpsons on Unions

The Simpsons show always has the best lines:

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Oh, the tragedy.

Music Video re: Racial Profiling

Bad Arguments: "But What about That?"

Awesome quote from Johann Hari on bad arguments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-a_b_185787.html

There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web. It is known as "what-aboutery."

When you have lost an argument -- when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it -- hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

Or, as my friend Slawek says, "Just 'cause you punched someone in the face, it means you should kick him in the b*lls too?" In other words, mentioning something unrelated to the specific issue cannot make your proposal okay by default. In fact, that kind of discourse is a mere distraction, like, "Sure, California is going bankrupt, but those drug dealers down the street are really terrible." My immediate mental response to this kind of "argument" is, "Sigh...yet another person who needs a symbolic logic course."

Anyway, below is an example of "what-aboutery," from an ordinarily very smart and witty person. I make a comment that government workers, including teachers, should view furlough days as necessary to prevent state employee layoffs. A state employee (and very well-respected former law school classmate) responds:

Teachers are not the culprits during these tough times, nor are government employees – except on the same level that all citizens of this nation are culpable for our years of willful ignorance.

Reflect on how we got into this mess. While you may consider anyone working outside the private sector as suckling at the public teat, your ire is misdirected: the biggest galactophages are those considered 'too big to fail.' How ironic that their peculiar form of 'socialism' is meant not to help the poor, but those who make Croesus appear the pauper. One wonders, how many teachers could have been paid a living wage out of the thinnest slice of that $700 billion wheel of government cheese?

The function of this government is not to drop and gobble when Wall Street snaps its fat fingers; to pay the rich and hope they pass the gristle down in the form of job creation and loans. (And Wall Street has shown it will not share: it has stopped lending, raised interest rates or retracted credit, and rewarded the destroyers for continuing the destruction.)

Properly, the function of this government is to allow its citizens the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education is the singular cornerstone upon which these rights of self-determination are built.

To place this in your terms, think of how many self-propelled and self-augmented small business owners could arise from all that learnin' those teachers would provide – should they be given the proper resources. You should encourage those having an employment that serves the people to do just that: serve the people; as opposed to your stance that some are suffering, ergo, all* must suffer. (*read, excepting Wall Street).

Here's my response:

Listen, I don't like Wall Street's excesses any more than you do--but I am not going to excuse out-of-control gov spending (80% increase in the past 10 yrs!) and unusual public sector benefits just because someone says, "What about Wall Street?"

You say that education is the cornerstone of fundamental rights. But no one is trying to separate children from an adequate education. (This is called a "straw man" argument.) In fact, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:

"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."

Instead, we are questioning why certain workers have guaranteed benefits while others do not. We are questioning why state workers have access to $201.9 billion in pension assets while 12% of the state is unemployed. [And far more people lack any substantial retirement plan beyond Social Security.] We are questioning why state spending has increased 80% in the past ten years without a concomitant increase in liberty, life expectancy, and happiness. We are questioning why state workers--such as yourself--are complaining about furlough days when such days are necessary to prevent layoffs.

We want government workers to be on the same level as the people who pay their salaries and benefits. Is that too much to ask?

His rebuttal:

I question why you think a government worker has no right to express frustration at the present situation. It does not serve the state of California to furlough revenue collecting agency employees: save $60 million, but lose out on $600 million in uncollected revenue.

But this discussion is about a teacher furlough. Yet you shortchange a student by giving him or her only 92% of the days to learn 100% of the curriculum and then send them off to compete on standardized tests against students from other states without the furlough.

My response to his rebuttal:

Finally, someone pulls out the "Think of the children!" rhetoric. You are assuming that children who receive seventeen fewer days of instruction will end up worse off. Quality matters more than quantity. Think about it--17 extra days with a crappy teacher will harm a child, not help him.

Also, parents and their expectations matter far more in establishing academic success than any particular teacher or length of instruction. There are exceptions, of course. For example, see The Hobart Shakespeareans. Note, however, that one reason this program works is b/c it is non-traditional and isolates highly motivated students. Unfortunately, such programs are rare exceptions, in part due to pushback from unions and public school teachers, who fail to advocate innovation and who refuse to accept competition from charter schools.

Bottom line: any gov worker who complains about furlough days either fails to understand basic finance (i.e., if an employer doesn't have money, it can't pay its workers) or prefers state employee layoffs.

I don't question gov workers' right to complain, but I wish gov employees could see the frustration in the private sector now that unemployment benefits are expiring. When 12% of Californians--almost all of them non-gov employees--are in danger of losing their homes and don't know whether they can feed their kids, complaining about an 8% to 14% pay cut seems obscene.

Quite frankly, gov unions should have volunteered for higher pay cuts instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Unfortunately, the Republicans/rich and the Democrats/gov unions put their own interests above the poor, the weak, and the disabled when they passed the budget. So much for public service.

His response:

What do you want? Everybody is frustrated. Should our employment go away, we are all in danger of losing our homes. Government unions did offer concessions, the contract did not pass the governor's desk. So rather than putting all on equal footing, the State has balanced the budget by targeting some state workers, as well as social service programs for the poor and underserved.

You speak of equal footing. How does working for the government place one on unequal footing? Should government workers to be allowed to accept gifts? Should they be allowed to invest, without disclosure, in any company they see fit? Should their salaries be made private and not published in the newspaper? Should they be allowed profit sharing and bonuses in good times? Make partner? Matching fund 401K plans? Should they go away on weekend 'team-building' retreats to Napa?

What do you want?

After ending the discussion by citing a Simpsons quote on unions, I sent him a message addressing his questions. Basically, I want a middle class (and a third viable political party).

Bonus: if you scroll down this post, you will find a discussion on the tragic Fort Hood shootings, where one person compares the shootings to 9/11, and I promptly expose her lack of reasoning.

Furlough Days = No Mass Layoff Days

"Furlough" days would be a lot more popular if we called them by their proper name, i.e. "Thank God We Didn't Lay Off Thousands of Government Employee" Days. The state doesn't have the money to pay all of its bills, including employee salaries. When a business runs into this problem, they lay off workers. California, on the other hand, gives its workers three day weekends and avoids mass layoffs. Somehow, government workers find reasons to complain.

When California discovers a money tree that pays 100% of everyone's salaries regardless of the state's fiscal condition, let me know. Until then, hooray for furlough--I mean, no mass layoff days!

In the meantime, let's keep looking for the special government-salary-and-benefits-tree, where money drops out of out thin air, unrelated to the state's economy and actual tax revenue.

Bay Area Association of Muslim Lawyers: Video

To Be a Muslim is to Be Jewish and Christian Also

Interesting article on European Muslims here.

If you call yourself a Muslim, I believe you must also consider yourself Jewish and Christian. The Prophet Mohammad has said that the three Abrahamic religions are essentially the same:

Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger as saying, "I am the nearest of kin to Jesus, son of Mary, in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers, sons of one father by co-wives. Their mothers are different but their religion is one. There has been no prophet between us."

After the Prophet Mohammad died, non-progressive governments took over the religion and instituted practices inconsistent with the Prophet's vision. The Prophet's battle against non-progressive governments has existed from the day he received his vision. For more, see the 1976 Anthony Quinn film, The Message.

More here.

Bonus: from PBS: "Muhammad once came upon a group of Muslims arguing about which religion had primacy over all others. This was the occasion for one of the Qur'an's most often quoted revelations: 'If God had so willed, He would have made all of you one community, but he has not done so, in order that he may test you according to what he has given you; so compete in goodness. To God shall you all return, and He will tell you the truth about what you have been disputing.'" (Qur'an: 5:48.)

Bonus: "Those who believe [in the Koran], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day [of Judgment], and who work righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." -- Qur'an, Al-Baqarah, 2:62 

Credit Freeze: a Cold Day for Consumer Protection?

A security credit freeze is one way to achieve peace of mind instead of worrying about identity theft. I just tried to extend a credit freeze and replace a lost PIN. I forgot my PIN, so I needed a new one in case I wanted new credit. I contacted all three credit bureaus--Equifax (EFX), Transunion, and Experian--to request new PINs.

I learned in California, a credit freeze is indefinite, so I didn't need to worry about "extending" my freeze. (In less consumer-friendly states, a freeze may be limited to seven years unless extended by the consumer.) If you are a victim of identity theft, you may receive a credit freeze without charge. If you are not a victim of identity theft, you may have to pay a fee to activate a credit freeze and to unfreeze your account later. When you apply, you are given a PIN that allows you to temporarily deactivate the freeze.

It appears each company protects and allows access to consumer information in different ways. I am now convinced Congress and a few good law firms need to extend their influence over credit bureaus to better protect consumers' personal data.

Transunion: I had a good experience with Transunion, which provided me a new PIN over the phone. An agent who spoke perfect English answered my call. She walked me through the process perfectly. I had to give her my SS# and basic information over the phone. She confirmed other personal information also, and I had to provide a credit card limit and the issuing bank to get a replacement PIN. It felt good to see so many different levels of security questions before Transunion would reset my PIN. When I checked to see whether I was listed as an identity theft victim, the representative told me I was not listed as such. After confirming more information, she told me she had fixed the issue. I was pleased with Transunion's professionalism.

Equifax: I had a harder time with Equifax. The agent gave me a different mailing address than the one listed on Equifax's own website, so I got worried. When I asked to talk to a manager, it took several minutes before I was connected to him, and he didn't seem to think there would be a difference between the two PO Box addresses.

In addition, Equifax (EFX) just wanted basic information--full name, SS#, date of birth, and address. This information isn't extremely difficult to get, so I was surprised. Smart identity thieves could probably reset my PIN and potentially open my credit to abuse. I asked if more information was needed (like a copy of my driver's license). The manager said no information beyond the basic information was necessary, and he provided me with a confirmation number to assist the transaction when I sent Equifax the information over snail mail. Overall, I did not get a good feeling about Equifax's commitment to protecting consumer information.

Experian: These guys are geniuses...when it comes to avoiding phone calls. Unless you have a specific code of some sort, you can't get through to a live representative. I tried every trick I could, including hitting zero and random numbers, and the system terminated my call each time.

At the same time, I couldn't help but appreciate Experian's method. Unlike Equifax and Transunion, I didn't see any information on Experian's website specifically about a replacement PIN. Experian's snail-mail process creates one significant upside: the company has more stringent requirements before it allows you to re-set your PIN. Experian requires a copy of your driver's license and recent telephone record before issuing a PIN. I sent the information over the mail. We'll see how quickly Experian responds.

Overall, I am surprised at the differences between the three companies. Laws relating to personal information ought to be more uniform and more stringent. As my experience shows, we have a long way to go in terms of protecting ourselves.

Disclosures: I do not currently own any Equifax (EFX).