Mind the Gap: Individualism in Modern America

I recently had a strange dream. I was telling a colleague's child that he was very smart, but he had to pick a group to join to really make an impact. His mission in life, in addition to earning money and staying out of non-dischargeable debt, was to find his "tribe."  

He asked, "Isn't America about individualism?" 

"Not anymore, unless you have access to millions of dollars." 

If that sounds dystopian, you're right. In the old days, when life was simpler--and more harsh, with limited options--if a group of people had an idea, they could go to the town hall or a local event, discuss it, and implement it. Taxes didn't need to be raised--people contributed their time. More often than not, there was nothing to implement. You had a family--a large one--and your life revolved around taking care of them and avoiding disease. 

Today, as more adults in developed countries have delayed having children because of the high cost of homes in good school districts; greater unpredictability in relationships; and the need to go in debt to gain access to decent-paying careers, societies have struggled to replace the family with some other equally meaningful "work." In fact, many modern communities are tasked with filling in the gap that religion and family used to occupy and are learning Facebook, food trucks, specialty coffee, and Netflix don't provide the same ability to bind people together. 

If we have to go and "find" our families instead of creating them organically, we can see attending the "right" middle school, high school, and college counts. We can also see it's easier to exclude people when we or our parents choose private schools, stay within our "found" social networks, and don't take public transportation. 

Once we "choose" our new tribes, especially when we start working full time, it's easier to let social media and television influence how we feel. We've all seen videos of government officials in the 1960s destroying Beatles records. You might not know that even England banned Sesame Street, with the BBC's chief of children's programming calling the show "non-democratic and possibly dangerous for young Britons." Television was a game-changer, even when its programming was innocuous because societies understood that for the first time in history, an element other than family and school was vying for influence over their children's lives. The old conservatives weren't wrong to feel threatened. As the 2016 American presidential election showed, television's and media's influence sometimes overwhelm everything else. 

A few decades ago, if we disagreed with someone not in our social group, we might go and talk with him. We couldn't google a person's name and make assumptions. We might have gossiped about someone different, especially in smaller cities, but having different political or other beliefs didn't seem to impede social lives because so many other factors brought the community together and allowed opportunities to see an individual's integrity or work ethic. Without credit card or other consumer debt being widespread and with lawyers and the law serving local interests, the community could also assume a person in a neighborhood was there on his or her own merit. 

Today, many native-born Americans and Europeans might exclude or denigrate others based on political affiliations, whereas in the past, Jacklyn might see Miguel and grow to like him based on his capacity for hard work--political differences be damned. (True story, by the way--that's how Amazon.com was eventually created.)  Although it's easier to date interracially now than in the past, which increases possibilities on paper, we've managed to make relationships harder by excluding persons who don't share our opinions--even if they have a strong work ethic or character. 

Humanity seems to have a special capacity for shooting itself in the foot with every technological advancement, but the "meaningful relationship" gap isn't just about greater possibilities a la Tinder and Happn. With debt everywhere and laws giving certain groups preferential status, determining a person's character at a young age or combining lives becomes much more difficult. There are too many moving parts. Do you work a dead-end job to help your wife go to medical school, only to see her split up after she starts getting paid well? Do you stay at home, lower expenses by cooking at home, and take care of the kids while your husband moves up the corporate ladder, only to see him run off with the secretary? When we are unable to use information to establish character and instead use it to divide ourselves based on superficial differences while powerful groups form political alliances to protect themselves against change and consequences, why shouldn't things not to fall apart? 

Humans have never been a very tolerant species, but we were intolerant on our own dime in the past, not OPM and certainly not with money we borrowed from our children's yet unborn next generation. If someone bought a new car, we could look at it and assume s/he sacrificed and saved up to buy it. Sure, the car was shiny and had useful new features, but the real attraction--whether we realized it or not--was that we were lucky to know someone who made an effort to convert his time into something tangible and share its unique experience with us. If the car broke down, the neighborhood felt the owner's anguish, and the car manufacturer or dealer would lose his reputation unless the owner--our owner--was made whole. If a police officer was shot or attacked, we all felt the blow because we saw him walking our streets at nighttime. At the same time, if he committed excessive or unnecessary violence against a member of our community, the mayor and police chief answered to the neighborhood, not the union, not an MOU, and not a lawyer authorized to use every procedural trick in the book. 

I was never very good at algebra, but here's a formula you may want to consider: excessive debt + a lack of tolerance + a dearth of ways to show character and integrity - trust = dystopia. In short, the American president is the least of our problems. 

Vaclav Havel, Disturbing the Peace (1991)

10 Reasons to Avoid Cuba (Part 1)

I just returned from three months living in Latin America, including Cuba. So many Spanish curse words to learn, so little time. Pinga. Maricon. Mierda. Puta. Best of all, if you want to double down, you just add a "re" to the beginning of a swear word, and you've got a new way to express yourself.  These words would come in handy in Havana... 

Cuba

Plaza de Revolucion

My first day, I walked past a building that looked like a kid's powder-blue castle. I entered and realized it was a police department. Seeing Fidel Castro's words on various plaques on the walls, I thought I'd take a picture and translate it later. Someone stopped me at and directed me to the front desk, about 30 feet away. I approached and asked if I could take a photo of the plaque. The uniformed woman said I couldn't.  Stunned at her lack of common sense, I walked backwards, sarcastically saying, "No es posible tomar una photo de palabras de Fidel Castro? En Cuba? Viva la revolucion!" 

My month-long experience in Havana did not get better from there. Before I explain exactly why and how Cuba relies on hype to boost its tourism numbers, I'll give you some tips if you--against all reason and decency--still want to visit.

The Good

You can see Havana in three days. Almost all the action is in or near Old Town, or Havana Vieja, and if you want to visit, stay there. An excellent tour bus costing 10 USD per person starts and ends at Plaza de Revolucion--you should take it as soon as possible to see where you'd like to go.

The usual list of places to see includes Capitolio (similar to America's Congress), Ernest Hemingway's house, Playas de Este (a beach), a tobacco factory or shop, Casa de la Musica, the Malecon, Bodeguita del Medio, Callejon de Hamel, Museo del Chocolate (a cafe), Hotel Nacional, Museum of Fine Arts (Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de La Habana), and Fabrica de Arte (a hipster club).  Some people take bus tours via Cubatur or Havanatur to Trinidad, Varadero, Vinales, or Cienfuegos (known for fishing), but I only stayed in Havana.

My favorite spots were Museo del Chocolate, Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, the beach (Playas de Este--wear sunscreen!), and Hotel Nacional (go inside and to the outdoor bar).  

by Mariano Rodriguez

Playas de Este

"Museum" of Chocolate

Cuba is unique because it lacks widespread WiFi (pronounced wee-fee in Cuba). To access WiFi, you must find hotspots throughout the city and input a number from a card.  You can buy a one-hour card from someone in the hotspot area for 3 USD.  If you're frugal like me, go directly to the local phone company's office (I went to the one on 17th and B), wait in line, show ID, and buy one for 1.50 USD. (Cuba's economy is so terrible, buying and re-selling anything to tourists is usually more attractive than working for the government.) 

Make sure the password isn't already scratched off, clear your browser's cache, and you'll get a pop-up ETECSA website prompting you for the two numbers you'll see on the card.  

Some other information:

1.  Cuba's national soda brand is Ciego Montero, and the cola flavor is better than Coke. As you might expect, it uses real sugar. If Cuba adds a small sticker on each can or bottle saying, "Made with Real Cuban Sugar" and exports it to the EU and China, it can watch the money roll in. Unfortunately, there's a U.S. naval blockade, and other countries aren't keen to let foreign companies compete with their own. 

The more you travel, the more you realize there's no such thing as "free trade." Every country protects its own farmers and agricultural sector, and the reason foreign-produced coffee is so widely available in North America is because its soil isn't ideal for growing coffee beans commercially.  In other words, there's no domestic coffee bean industry to protect, so America has few restrictions on foreign coffee beans. You still won't see many Juan Valdez or Cafe Britt cafes in North America, partly because of higher operating and legal compliance costs, which make it harder for countries with weaker currencies to open physical locations in the U.S. without preferences (such as lower tariffs and low insurance costs). Sadly, it's easier for developed countries to whine about trade deficits than actually create long-term incentives for truly effective international competition and cross-border investment. 

Cuba's best products -- not coming to a store near you

2.  When you go to any busy place, there will be a line.  Always ask, "Ultimo?" to determine whom you're behind, and when that person gets in line or moves forward, follow him or her. 

3.  Finally, download maps.me, a free VPN, and an offline Spanish-to-English dictionary on your cell phone before you visit.  Once you're in the country, some apps or webpages might not work, even if you have WiFi. I noticed one Google article on Cuba didn't load when I had WiFi. Next time I accessed WiFi, I tried again with the VPN and downloaded the article--which was not critical of Cuba--seamlessly. If something doesn't work in Cuba, don't automatically assume the government is blocking it--it's more likely Cuba doesn't have the necessary infrastructure to be compatible or to make it work.

The Bad and Ugly

I've visited about 40 countries, including impoverished ones like India, where I saw people living in shacks and sleeping on the ground a few meters from the Baby Taj, and people desperate enough to follow me for half a mile begging for money. I don't mind a lack of first-world amenities. I always try to live like the locals when I travel, partly because it's cheaper, but also because I don't see the point in traveling just to meet other tourists or see yet another beach. (Unless you're in Nice, France, where the beach has a stone surface, how much water and sand can you see in one lifetime?)  

I *uckin' hated Cuba.

1.  Cuba is like America, if the Least Business-Savvy Cotton Plantation Owners Had Won the Civil War

Cuba has all of modern America's worst traits--its jingoism, its excessive patriotism, its inability to handle criticism--and none of its best traits--entrepreneurship, technological infrastructure, and open media. After hearing me criticize Cuba, one waitress became upset and told me, "We have a saying in Cuba: 'If you don't love your country, it's like you don't love your mother.'" (I didn't ask if the phrase still applied if your mother was an abusive kleptocrat.)

Cuba was the penultimate country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1886 (Brasil banned it in 1888, though it banned slave trading earlier). Cuba relies and relied so much on its tobacco, cocoa, and sugar industries--all linked to manual labor--it needed slaves to run its economy, just like Brasil. Today, in Cuba, a clear racial division exists between higher class jobs in medicine and academia and other jobs, even if the pay isn't vastly different.

I try to walk about 7 miles a day and take public transportation when abroad, so I notice patterns others might not see. When I passed by local hospitals or saw doctors in local restaurants getting lunch, almost every doctor had blue or green eyes and light skin. I met a black medical professor and raised my concerns with her. She agreed and said black professionals need to be twice as a good as non-black ones to be accepted in educated Cuban society. (Pop quiz: what other country does that remind you of?)

William Faulkner, on race relations generally and Emmett Till specifically

Property ownership is another way to gauge wealth. My Airbnb property owner had whiter skin than most Scandinavians. The government tries to provide housing for Cubans, but so many people have moved to Havana from smaller cities looking for tourism-related work, it could not keep up with demand. In Havana and elsewhere in Cuba, almost everyone lives in crowded conditions with family unless they have generous remittances or bought property a long time ago. 

Who rides the cramped buses in Havana? Besides me, almost all black-skinned persons, senior citizens, and almost no one with light eyes, indicating they need to commute to work much longer distances or can't afford taxis. Mind you, shared taxis for locals aren't very expensive--about 50 cents--but the bus is even cheaper at about 4 cents a ride. 

One doesn't need to be a keen observer to notice Cuba's oddities. A neighbor in my apartment complex enjoyed blasting music or the television at 12 in the morning. When I complained to my Airbnb landlord's assistant, she warned me against confronting him and pointed to her arm, saying, "Negro"--black.  Except for America, I've never been in a country where it was so openly acceptable to link a lack of manners to one's skin color. (My landlord eventually talked to him, and after some yelling, he stopped playing loud music at 11pm.)

Cuba taught me that it's possible to have racism without segregation. Like Brasil and Costa Rica, Cuba is racially diverse. I was born in the Middle East, and I can pass for a local in all three countries, but only in Cuba did I realize why Southern whites supported Jim Crow in America. If you had to deal with millions of poor people suddenly having the same rights as you, but without an education or way to succeed economically, would you take advantage of an opportunity to keep them away from your neighborhood, at least until they had similar education or financial support as you? 

Most Cubans have someone in Miami sending them money each month, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the darker-skinned Cubans lack such connections because their families live or lived in more rural places where manual labor jobs would be more plentiful and news of refugee and exile programs more difficult to verify. In short, remittances from Miami probably favor educated and/or light-skinned Cubans. With private businesses finally being allowed, but banking loans unavailable to most people, Cuba might end up with major wealth disparities based on race--just like America.  (Some revolution, huh?)  

When you allow chattel slavery, it has long-term consequences. When looking for a place to live, if you can choose, pick a place that banned slavery or slave trading earlier rather than later, allowing more time for economic progress. Such a yardstick might not be useful in isolation, though. For example, Vermont partially banned slavery in 1777, but didn't need slaves to run the comparatively less labor-intensive business of dairy farming. Even today, Vermont is 95% white. 

Contrast Vermont's ban with Cuba's, and you'll see a potential source of Havana's odd culture. Spain banned slavery in 1811, including in colonies like Cuba; however, Cuba rejected the ban. In other words, given a choice, it intentionally decided not to take the more moral option.

Both America and Cuba have sold themselves a revolutionary vision that has no connection with what's actually happening on the ground. If America doesn't make a cultural u-turn, it may resemble Cuba in 200 years--glossy on the outside, rotten on the inside, bolstered by slick propaganda, and divided based on race and wealth.

2.  Smoking is Everywhere

Dunhill cigarettes cost 1.75 USD.  There is no sales tax.  I've never seen so many high school kids smoking in my life.  I even saw middle schoolers smoking. So much for Cuba's great educational system.  

To be fair, the elementary school kids I saw were well-behaved and played well together, and one Canadian-born father told me when the teachers tell the pre-schoolers to sleep, they all sleep without a fuss.

3.  Health Care is Free for Locals but is Decades Behind

I haven't gotten to Cuba's dual currency system, which incentivizes tourist theft, but let me tell you a story: when I needed Immodium, I asked a doctor, who said he needed to write me a prescription (probably for generic loperamide). He'd do it for free if he had a script, but he didn't have one, so he had to borrow one from a co-worker, and he needed 15 USD for it. Unfortunately for him, as he was saying this, he opened his wallet, which had a script. I didn't take him up on the offer. (In case it's not obvious, tourists do not receive free healthcare, and I'm not sure if Cuba still requires incoming airlines to add and collect a small healthcare fee on its behalf.) 

Why did I need a prescription for anti-diarrhea medicine? Because Cuba regulates and controls everything. When I got sick in the Philippines or Thailand, I could go anywhere and get medicines that would require a prescription in the U.S.  (I still remember floating in the air and giggling after taking muscle relaxants in Bangkok that were suggested to help me recover from diarrhea and exhaustion.) Pharmacies, when you can find them, only seem to have Vitamin B and C available, though I did see a Cuban-made anti-cholesterol medicine in one of Old Havana's pharmacies. I couldn't find ibuprofen or antibiotic cream in any pharmacy.

The lack of selection isn't limited to OTC drugs. I've been hearing-impaired since birth and have been lucky to see firsthand technological improvements in hearing aids over three decades. In Cuba, I saw a few people wearing hearing aids. They were the same ones I wore about 20 years ago. 

Don't believe the hype--Cuba lacks technology, including in medicine, though basic care is quite good. The people most fervent about Cuban healthcare are younger Cubans, who have only experienced rudimentary functions like annual checkups or vaccinations. Many people will tell you about someone with cancer who was cured after receiving free treatment, but upon delicate cross-examination, will disclose they don't actually know the person who received cancer treatment; in other words, it's hearsay and unreliable. It's true foreign medical students study in Cuba, but if you look closely at the flag on their sleeves above the Cuban flag, it's almost always an African country even poorer than Cuba. 

4.  Everyone Will Try to Rip You Off if You Don't Speak Spanish or Look Cuban

I expect a certain level of mendacity when I travel to poorer countries, but in Cuba, it's practically a national pastime. 

Cubans are poor, and main sources of wealth include tourism jobs, Miami remittances, or smuggled items (I met a Floridan in the airport who brought 5,000 USD cash to his relatives--he told me Cuba has been going downhill for a while). Because private businesses are new concepts to many Cubans, they haven't learned that creating good relationships can lead to higher income or repeat business. Like some American businesses, they tend to see everything in the short-term--a one-off opportunity to extract as much money from you as possible--a mindset encouraged by most tourists' decisions to stay only three or four days in Cuba. 

It's hard to hold a grudge, though. Doctors, like most government employees, make the equivalent of about 25 USD a month in Cuba, not including bonuses. As I explained above, they will rip you off just like almost everyone else in Cuba if given a chance.

Many restaurants and food stalls "forgot" to give me proper change or substituted the wrong currency. Even a fancy restaurant in Old Havana, when given a 100 CUC bill for a 20 CUC charge, gave me back 60 CUC. (That reminds me--when exchanging currency, get 10 CUC bills--anything larger will be difficult to break. Also, there's a 10% fee for changing U.S. dollars but not any other country's currency. Bring Euros, pounds, or Canadian dollars to avoid the ripoff, er, fee.)

In case you don't know already, Cuba has two currencies. One is called CUP, or moneda nacional. The one used by most tourists is called CUC.  Technically, as a tourist, you're not supposed to have CUP, but you'll get some as change if you pay CUC to an honest street vendor or build a relationship with a local business and ask to do an exchange.

CUCs are equivalent to U.S. dollars, and it takes 24 or 25 CUP to equal a single CUC.  You'll be able to identify the difference after a day or two, but just remember: CUC bills do not have pictures of people on the front, and CUC coins are generally silver-colored, not gold-colored. (By the way, if you're American, you cannot use the ATM machines--sanctions inconvenience you, too--whatever cash you bring in, that's it.) 

Quick--which one's worth more? 

Sometimes, the dual currency system leads to genuine mistakes. For example, a taxi ride in an old American car within Havana is usually 5 CUC for a tourist, but only 40 to 60 cents for a local. (The yellow cabs charge 5 CUC for any number of people if empty, but the price will vary depending on your Spanish.) When I was with a Cuban friend for a day, he told me to keep my mouth shut in taxis so we wouldn't be charged the tourist rate. At the end of our tour, before we went separate ways, he negotiated a ride in a motorized "rickshaw" after confirming in English with me it would be 10 CUP. The driver, however, thought he was being helped by his Cuban colleague and would be paid 10 CUC (double the tourist rate!). At the end of the short trip, after some yelling and threats of physical violence, the driver and I both departed angry. 

Cuba's attitude seems to be, "If you get hustled, you deserved it."  There's no remorse whatsoever. Always remember: you are expected to negotiate in Cuba. Most prices should be cut in half unless you know the going rate. Go with a local Cuban everywhere if you can, and let him or her do the talking. Your experience will be much more pleasant. If renting from Airbnb, stay with a family and negotiate your meals being included. I stayed in an apartment solo, which was a mistake. Most Cuban residential buildings aren't set up to have privacy, so I gained little by having a place to myself.

I'll end Part 1 with a joke:

Q: How do you know when a Cuban is lying to you? 
A: His lips are moving.

I wish I was kidding. 

[To be continued...] 

A Nation of Immigrants? Not Unless the Bondholders Agree.

"If we ever close the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost." -- President Ronald Reagan

America has always claimed it is a nation of immigrants, but we are discovering it is a nation of immigrants when it needs them--especially ones with technical skills--and hostile to them when convenient.  Is America's openness to immigrants based on whether it can exploit their labor? 

Over 150 years ago, America needed immigrants to farm and work in the fields, so it got them--illegally.  Their legal status didn't matter. America needed railroads, too, but when the Chinese proved to be better than the natives, America decided it disliked competition and passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricting immigration.  

Today, America is restricting immigration directly by spending more on immigration enforcement, even against law-abiding residents with American children, and indirectly by restricting H1B and other visas. It's true if one country designs its school system around math and science instead of trying to teach all things to all people, it will have an advantage over a Dewey-designed system that prizes social control above practical skills. Yet, America's response to being outgunned, outmaneuvered, and out-educated has always been the same: do anything but change the status quo unless absolutely necessary, demonize the other side, and pass laws restricting their ability to compete.

Before you get too upset, it's useful to realize America has always used the law to defend the status quo, whether it was Buck Leonard playing baseball too well in the Negro Leagues and being excluded from MLB; Muhammad Ali correctly analyzing the Vietnam War better than the so-called experts and having his title taken away; Jackie Robinson getting court-martialed by the military; Swedes and Norwegians in Minnesota discriminating against immigrant Finns; and so on.

The modern American Establishment uses land-use restrictions to prevent building mosques while allowing churches with political connections an easier process; restricts H1B visas but does little to reform K-12 educational outcomes; sends PhD graduates back to their home country even if their skills are useful and their character good; protects government teachers, mostly native-born, from accountability; attacks charter schools, Uber, and Airbnb because they take revenue away from existing players with political connections; and does not adequately audit tax exempt entities that claim charitable works. (How many students could afford to pay for colleges, which are nonprofits even if public or private, without receiving government-backed student loans? How many churches could show they spend most of their funds on charitable services serving the public rather than their own members?) 

Ironically, Americans able to effectively protest and change existing rules were often protected by the police or the military--the same Establishment upholding those same rules. Muhammad Ali discovered boxing after a white police officer introduced him to the sport, which later put him under the protection of Louisville's most established lawyers. Baseball's #42, Jackie Robinson, was drafted by the Army in 1942.  Malcolm X? Murdered. MLK? Killed.

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed the NSA? Ex-military, from a military family, and ex-intelligence. He's having fun with his girlfriend in Moscow. Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who brought down President Nixon and helped end the Vietnam War? Marine Corps officer (First lieutenant). Still alive and very much an activist.

No matter what, the Establishment prevails, which always favors insiders rather than outsiders such as immigrants. Today, barriers are systemic, and the Establishment prevails through legal loopholes, legal restrictions, and high prices. Resistance to change is a feature, not a bug, of America's debt-soaked system. It prioritizes bondholders getting paid in order to continue to keep taxes lower than otherwise possible and government employment relatively constant or growing. When your economic system depends on ensuring bondholders are paid every three months or every month, openness to outsiders who cannot contribute immediately to the tax base becomes more difficult, long-term thinking be damned.

Let's take a more personal example.  Want to be a politician and help society? First you have to go to law school.  How much is law school? 40,000 USD a year, including room and board? You're going to need lots of loans. Once you're saddled with six figures in student loans, are you going to protest your professor or government official, who may be able to assist you with job placement? Even if you wanted to protest, how would you first gain the relevant experience necessary to determine which ideas weaken accountability and which ones might work? If one day, your professor or government official decides fewer rather than more immigrants are ideal, what can you really do?  You're in debt, and student loans are non-chargeable in bankruptcy. You may want to assist immigrants, but what if that immigrant is going to compete against you for a job or divert revenue that might otherwise help subsidize your loans? Having debt automatically limits options because it forces you to prioritize your own financial interests rather than the public good or long-term outcomes. When your entire society runs on debt, the Establishment will accept outsiders only if it benefits the insiders--and their ability to pay off accumulated debt. 

Slavery was wrong in America even when some slaves were allowed freedom and the ability to migrate. Slave-mastering is wrong today, even if its form and shape have been modified to resemble the smiling faces of a college admissions employee, a bank's mortgage officer, and a retail employee asking to open a credit card account. 

© Matthew Rafat (2017)

Political Posts

See below for older but popular articles if you're interested in American politics:

1.  https://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2017/04/credit-and-credibility-in-america.html (Credit and Credibility in America)

What is debt's impact on the average and even above-average American's mobility?

2. https://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-wont-someone-think-of-children.html (Why Won't Someone Think of the Children?!)

Why have voters lost faith in government, especially K-12 educational employees?

3. http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2017/05/immigration-and-west-backlash-fueled-by.html (Immigration and the West)

4. https://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2017/04/rafats-law-inflation-elasticity.html (Inflation Elasticity)

How do we deal with increasing complexity as size increases, leading to greater reliance on formal norms? 

When at Baidu, Be Sure to Meet the Bear

Baidu (BIDU) is one of China's largest technology companies. Its Bay Area campus is well-designed. I'm saddened by how few international companies get mainstream media attention in America.  Turkey, China, and other countries have major consumer companies but their products don't generally make it to American consumers because of complex trade agreements. Anyone who thinks free trade exists should watch the documentary Black Gold (2006). 

Legal Rights without Economic Access are Worthless

"You can have all the rights in the world, but if you can't enforce them, they're not worth very much." -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Too many people confuse written laws with actual implementation.  If a law is passed saying that men and women must be paid equally, it does not mean men and women will be paid equally.  The person who believes he or she is being paid unequally has to find a lawyer; convince the lawyer to take his or her case; pay the fees to the lawyer and the courthouse; and then wait months or years to get a result, which will--in a best case scenario--most likely be some money minus fees and expenses.  If you're interested in meaningful, lasting change, you should see obvious problems with such a system.

First, if law school tuition is 35,000 USD to 55,000 USD a year, and law graduates have 100,000 USD in student loans, how likely is it that the lawyer can or will help front the costs to the person who believes s/he is suffering illegal discrimination?  Litigation costs even before trial can easily run around 8,000 USD, depending on the number of depositions and motions filed.  In almost all civil cases, the losing party pays the costs of the prevailing party, which may sometimes require payment of the other side's attorneys' fees.  What about nonprofit legal aid centers?  They usually rely on volunteer lawyers, and you're dependent on whether they choose to take your case--which depends a lot on their funding, staffing levels, and random assignment to a particular employee or volunteer of varying skill level. Lesson: at the end of the day, the law needs money to work and even with money, may do little to actually fix underlying problems.

Second, how does the lawyer know whether the plaintiff's belief is objective or subjective? In most cases, the potential plaintiff will not arrive with printouts of everyone else's salaries or benefits, and the lawyer must initially evaluate the plaintiff at his or her word.  Even if the plaintiff is correct, where will the costs and fees come from to file a complaint and get the necessary documents and evidence if the plaintiff has been terminated or does not have enough savings? If the lawyer fronts the costs out of his or her own pocket and realizes the plaintiff is wrong, should the lawyer be able to sue the client for the costs, knowing that doing so will increase the chances of receiving a malpractice or state bar complaint? Lesson: at the end of the day, the law needs money to work and even with money, may do little to actually increase substantive rights.

Third, how does the new lawyer know which judge will be assigned to the case, and whether the judge is inclined to be more open minded or close minded?  Cases are randomly assigned to judges when filed.  The judge may not know the new lawyer, and the new lawyer may be against a lawyer well-known to the court.  Even if the plaintiff is correct, what if the judge doesn't believe the type of evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a jury trial? Lesson: the law is often dependent on randomness.

More examples to ponder:

1.  Many states have the death penalty on the books.  In 2016, however, only 5 states actually executed criminals.  Within those 5 states, 20 people were put to death.  The death penalty in America is now basically a taxpayer-funded lawyer, investigator, and prison guard employment act than a deterrent. The cost to house a death row inmate in California is $90,000 more per year than for other inmates, with much of the cost arising from state legal requirements relating to government-funded lawyers. Lesson: the lawyers always get paid, regardless of results. [Update on June 20, 2017: California has not actually executed anyone since 2006.]

2.  After Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) outlawed segregation, many cities and states passed laws trying to evade the impact of the case. To challenge such laws required more lawyers and more lawsuits.  Now, it appears we're back to square one: a 2016 report released by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office "shows that the number of schools segregated along racial and financial lines more than doubled over a 13-year period ending in the 2013-14 school year." Lesson: the teachers, administrators, and lawyers always get paid, regardless of results.

3.  Abortion is legal in America.  In 2011, 94% of abortion procedures, including both surgical and medication, took place in clinics. As of 2015, there were 517 surgical abortion clinics and 213 medication abortion clinics in the entire country, and some states had no clinics.  The cost of an abortion is about 500 to 600 USD.  You are a teenager who has an unplanned pregnancy and want an abortion.  You do not have 500 to 600 USD.  You can apply for indigent healthcare programs, but your ability to get coverage depends on the random assignment of at least one person to assist you.  Lesson: the law, even when it's funded in your favor, makes you dependent on random government or nonprofit employees.

The overall lesson is not to scrap our legal system, but to realize if given a choice, voters should think of taxes as a way to create a certain society.  For example, would you rather your taxes create a society with predictability and higher welfare payments in the event of a job loss, or one where terminated employees experience more randomness with a larger potential payoff? 

American Tragedy

Most Americans consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but they're really socially judgmental and fiscally ignorant.

How else is America the most conservative developed country on issues like the death penalty and abortion and unable to understand basic issues like debt's impact on inflation?

A country that runs on debt is a country where politicians can pander to every single group's demands--regardless of merit or long-term consequences.  Furthermore, peace based on cheap debt is not peace at all--it is a slumbering giant waiting for collection day.  

OECD Inflation

Here's a worrying chart from Bloomberg, but it's incomplete.  Can you figure out why?

Without knowing how much of the inflation is organic or due to debt, and what kinds of debt (government, small business, consumer, auto, education, etc.), the chart is only useful as a singular snapshot.

So many problems today arise from people being unable to see data in context.  As economic transactions have become globalized and therefore more complex, data gatherers and writers are still too specialized.  There is almost no one who can put data in proper context, and so we stumble along, convinced that resolving x will be the cure when x is only one part of an ecosystem we generally don't understand.  

Immigration and the West: a Backlash Fueled by Debt

I've written before about why racism will always exist and its interplay with immigration and economic sentiments. (See HERE.)  Today, we are in a curious situation: the best lack practicality, while the worst lack tolerance.

We have learned that absent de jure discrimination, more homogeneous communities do better in terms of trust while more diverse societies tend to fracture and segregate in the absence of perpetually rising job growth. Every society's majority attempts to carve out protections and privileges for their own ways of life and thinking. When secure, they feel more open to outsiders; when less secure, they feel less open to outsiders and non-conformity. Some societies enforce their rules through exclusion, whether social or economic; others through individual violence (think lynchings); and others through the law using the state's resources for the threat of violence and order (think jails or costly litigation). Every single society, over time, diminishes if it resorts to exclusion or violence because not only do such tactics cost money, they also scare off potential entrants.

All over the world, voters are rejecting the status quo. America elected Trump; France may have rejected Le Pen, who defended often brutal colonialism, but she still received about 30% of the vote; Nazis are rising in Scandinavia, as chronicled by journalist Stieg Larsson; the Dutch have Geert Wilders; and even the bohemian Czech Republic has its own non-politically-correct president, Miloš Zeman. All of these so-called populist candidates have risen on the tide of anti-illegal-immigration and anti-refugee sentiments, not because of racism per se, but because voters believe 1) Europe is not a nation of immigrants; 2) a generous welfare state cannot support too many outsiders who have not paid into the system; 3) a generous welfare state cannot avoid higher taxes if it imports poor people, especially when existing taxes are already high; 4) outsiders will not assimilate to their way of life; and 5) outsiders will try to impose their values on the majority (whether true, it matters not as long as voters sincerely believe it).  With respect to #3, people are more concerned about rising prices of essential items like housing than taxes, but feel they cannot personally do much about inflation and so focus on taxes.

In reality, Western democratic institutions are in denial about why their systems are declining and, like most people in denial, seek to find scapegoats. At the extreme, such scapegoating leads to the Holocaust; at a slow boil, it leads to a "soft revolution" like electing Donald Trump and attempting to close borders. What has really happened to cause so many voters to lose faith in their governments and immigration?

1.  Post 9/11, military and intelligence agencies disregarded the rule of law and used their influence to divert government funding to their interests and friends.  Such tactics range anywhere from government hiring preferences for veterans to increasing jobs in security and security-related agencies (TSA, DHS, etc.).  In the U.S., because debt has been used to sustain the unsustainable, once a job is created within an agency, it is rarely eliminated.  As economist Milton Friedman once remarked, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

Reducing accountability and relying on perpetual war or fear to prop up government spending and to set priorities will lead to backlash--but not necessarily against the military, especially if it has become the employer of last resort for men. Yet, when the rule of law weakens, all society suffers because the easiest enforcement method is voluntary compliance, and the fewer people who believe the rule of law is efficient and consistent, the harder it is to have voluntary compliance.

A lack of voluntary compliance usually leads to a greater acceptance of evading the law, whether legally (Panama Papers, applying for disability benefits based on hard-to-measure psychological ailments, etc.) or illegally, which then results in dissatisfaction and increased spending on non-productive jobs, such as compliance and navigating an ever-increasing web of laws designed to combat non-compliance.  As society fractures, governments find it harder to increase the tax base, leading to special interest groups protecting their own jobs through political influence rather than long term results.

By the way, I single out the military's extended influence worldwide because:

1) increased military spending that could have been avoided increases debt, leads to higher taxes, or forces cuts to other government programs. Such spending drains resources for more productive expenditures such as practical education, more efficient healthcare, and better infrastructure or causes countries to limit their future spending flexibility while pitting their older generations vs. their younger ones or insiders vs. outsiders; and

2) increased military spending by one country forces more military spending by allies and enemies alike, leading either to more cooperation, best-case (think NATO or sharing military bases in Djibouti by China and America) or less cooperation and more complexity and therefore unpredictability, worst-case (think Russia not being pleased with so many military bases being placed near its country or the current actions in Syria).

Joshua Ramo on the "security dilemma" in The Age of the Unthinkable.

But don't listen to me--President Eisenhower said it better:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people."

So did James "Jamie" Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase (2016 Annual Report): "Over the last 16 years, we have spent trillions of dollars on wars when we could have been investing that money productively. (I’m not saying that money didn’t need to be spent; but every dollar spent on battle is a dollar that can’t be put to use elsewhere.)"

2.  The largest single factor in voter dissatisfaction is a failure to understand that public institutions aren't doing their jobs and may in fact be working against their own people's long term interests.  In Europe, it's no secret countries are having difficulties assimilating recent immigrants.  Few people realize it's not recent immigrants who are causing problems, but their native-born children, who have been fed a lifetime of "liberté, égalité, fraternité," only to realize they were victims of well-intentioned propaganda.  

Indeed, most of Europe is experiencing widespread job discrimination and a lack of social mobility. In response, European voters can believe their public institutions are not working well, in which case they must admit their own culture and ways of life--into which they are demanding assimilation--are not ideal for everyone or are unable to integrate newcomers sufficiently; or, they can blame everything that isn't like them, such as different religions, different beliefs, and different work ethics.  One doesn't need a psychology degree to understand denial and a lack of self-awareness can apply both to individuals as well as entire societies.

Indeed, not blaming one's own institutions is easy if residents sincerely believe they are hard-working or useful. In such cases, someone else's failure to sacrifice will be the focus of discussion rather than existing institutions' failures to be open in substantive rather than abstract ways. Such phenomena is not unique to Europe, of course. An older American law school professor part of a private institution whose job is protected by an MOU--making it almost impossible to fire her--is not likely to believe problems arise from her own failure to make sacrifices in pay, failure to step aside once her practical experience becomes more attenuated, failure to effectively protest constant tuition increases, and failure to do something to mitigate higher debt loads for students.

Yet, an outsider like myself once part of the same school can easily see the college now exists primarily as a conduit for privileged children from K-12 private schools to gain access to an affluent job network and political influence (almost everyone on the local political councils went to private Catholic schools and the last two mayoral candidates attended the same Catholic high school), with the occasional immigrant or outsider thrown in or promoted to a visible position to give the appearance the entity is doing something other than ensconcing a caste system based on the ability to access certain schools at a young age. (I almost balked at attending the law school when tuition was around 21K annually--I and most people in the middle class wouldn't even look at a school charging 55K a year in tuition when we know our parents are unable to assist financially.)  At the end of the day, as tuition rises, colleges with expensive tuition may continue to attract a small percentage of outsiders, but such persons will gain the privileges accorded to everyone else only if they are spectacular in their skills or if government jobs are left over after being given to the insiders.

Ironically, by promoting certain people based on personal traits such as race or background to give the appearance of inclusion, governments and other entities are reducing morale within their own ranks as well as fueling voters' beliefs that elites care more about newcomers/immigrants and arbitrary personal traits rather than merit and accountability. This belief occurs despite the fact that most employees within government agencies tend to reflect connections built over decades and therefore represent jobs unavailable to most immigrants and newcomers.

The lesson? Reducing accountability will lead to backlash, even against deserving persons within an agency or entity.

3.  A society filled with hypocrisy cannot survive--at least not without miserable or angry people.  As fewer elites admitted to themselves that their positions and benefits were unsustainable if applied to the entire population or without cheap debt, they became disconnected from the most important sustainability project of all: economic sustainability. Within a country where physical segregation has been the norm, the combination of growing inequality, higher living costs, and D.C. disconnectedness with non-elites has caused political combustion.

When the elites responded with scorn and name-calling rather than an acceptance they were party to laws and legal agreements favoring them under separate or unequal employment and compensation systems, the powder keg was lit. If Langston Hughes were alive today, he would ask, "When does it explode?"

4.  A country with a "middle class" soaked in debt has a middle class in name only.  Debt makes people expect certain returns and increases expectations.  Someone who buys a taxi medallion--a license that allows him or her to be part of an established cab fleet--isn't going to support Uber, even if Uber increases economic diversity as well as convenience for the disabled and able-bodied. That same person who takes out a loan to buy the medallion/license won't limit defiance to protesting Uber--s/he will do whatever it takes to demonize Uber, regardless of the facts.

Countries and people in debt must prioritize debt payments first, and customer service and the public good second.  Debt causes people not to empathize and therefore not to understand differing points of view to the extent such views are held by persons interfering with plans to pay off their debt and/or expectations of return.

How do so many so-called "poor" nations still manage to have social cohesion despite high levels of wealth inequality?  It's simple--they don't force their poor people to go in debt for the basics, they don't usually tax small businesses (e.g., Cuba doesn't have a sales tax--Dunhill cigarette packs are 1.75 USD), and they don't have as much physical segregation, usually because they have cheaper or better public transportation.

Also, because loans in developing nations aren't available except for the rich, automatic inflation everywhere doesn't occur. and it's possible to live in areas--like Jakarta--where an upscale Starbucks is across the street from delicious street food costing one dollar a plate. In short, segregation exists everywhere, but in most non-American and non-European cities, it's not the kind that makes you despise your neighbor.

In Thailand, I once ate at a sit-down restaurant and saw laborers and suits in the same place. A picture of the award-winning chef hung on the wall of the otherwise unassuming restaurant, located next to a convenience store. How many local award-winning chefs can afford to open their restaurant in a major city in America without a loan?

In the Philippines, poor and rich Filipinos admire President Duterte, a lawyer, while left-leaning American media outlets castigate him whenever possible--even though their own lawyer-politician, Hillary Clinton, is disliked by most Americans. A world soaked in debt becomes hypocritical and epithet-seeking almost by default.  I weep for the future of developed countries. Places where debtors accept their financial slavery and rely even partly on prescription drugs for happiness or health are poor, regardless of GDP.

Debt leads to inflation, and unrestrained debt leads to a political class that can forestall accountability by refusing to make hard choices on behalf of its citizenry. To sum up,

1.  Reducing accountability will lead to backlash.
2.  Reducing accountability for some workers but not others while paying less accountable workers more benefits will lead to more segregation as residents attempt to create or find more accountable entities or loopholes to avoid being ensnared in the general public's inability to avoid reduced accountability.
3.  Reducing accountability while increasing debt and segregation will lead to lower trust among all groups, which will seek to justify their segregation from the goods and services available to the public.
4.  Reducing accountability and trust while increasing debt and segregation will generally fracture society by making it less empathetic, leading residents to search for scapegoats, which tend to be immigrants, outsiders, or minorities.

The future of the political class depends on which systems will provide cost-effective and streamlined healthcare, public safety, and public education for all. If an authoritarian government is able to best deliver results, it will gain more popularity than a democratic government unable to reverse debt-fueled inflation in essential items running higher than wage or job growth. 

"What is your motto here?"

From University of Maryland research.

From Bloomberg. 

About half of American voters have realized their political system isn't working and are willing to do whatever it takes to be heard.  While many Americans, including myself, mention police unions as part of the problem, the entire system has become so convoluted, little accountability or efficiency exists in politics--not in public education, not in public policing, and not in public transportation. (Fun fact: our local "bullet" train was built by Japan in 1986 and takes about an hour and a half on its normal route to go 50 miles. I live in one of the largest, most affluent cities in California.)

Ideological adherence, regardless of results, has destroyed America's ability to think logically or attain an agreed-upon national character.  Lee Kuan Yew once remarked, "The [Singaporean] system works regardless of your race, language or religion because otherwise we'd have divisions. We are pragmatists. We don't stick to any ideology. Does it work? Let's try it and if it does work, fine, let's continue it. If it doesn't work, toss it out, try another one. We are not enamored with any ideology."  In short, Singapore's ideology is not having one. Singaporeans pledge allegiance to practicality: does it work?  Is it sustainable?  Will it improve lives for the majority of our citizens?  Such an approach requires government to be citizenry-facing and pro-efficiency, admittedly much easier to do in smaller countries with only one border, but even with such advantages, "The bigger they are, the more corrupt they must be," shouldn't be an automatic motto.

America's tried-and-true formula has broken down.  With its vast natural resources, mighty Navy, low population density, two oceans protecting it from invasion, and advanced technology, the stage was set for perpetual success--as long as existing residents didn't get too greedy or selfish. Historically, America's expanding economy has relied on immigrants and treating their children--not immigrants themselves--fairly so they assimilate and sustain not only productivity growth but retirement programs.  I wrote about this phenomenon earlier:

To summarize, the natural progression of modern successful societies is as follows: industrialization; women receive equal rights; birthrates decline; unions are eventually formed; taxes are increased to support government union jobs [and tax or other benefits primarily accruing to natives]; native-born citizens refuse to do certain work, requiring the importation of poor people; the new immigrants create cultural tensions; and either society adapts and is able to welcome the new immigrants like the United States has done, or it fails to assimilate the new immigrants and begins a slow, steady decline.  

I should have added that an inefficient or outdated education system also requires the importation of skilled immigrants, not just poor ones. Being a bit naive, I never expected so many American voters to conflate giving more money to K-12 schools--no strings attached--with better education ipso facto.  Setting aside voter gullibility, why is a good, practical, and cost-effective education so important these days?

First, a bachelor's degree is required to get on track to a decent-paying job, even if the skills taught in school confer no practical value.  Yet, in most service-based or knowledge-based careers, people learn on the job--just like they did decades ago, though back then, an apprenticeship might have been just as good as a college degree.  (It's not just K-12 that has issues--I graduated law school not knowing where the courthouse clerk's office was or how to file a complaint in either state or federal court.)

Second, most college-educated people marry other college-educated people.  In fact, the most relevant factors in whether a marriage will last are age (the older, the better, but not after 32) and a bachelor's degree.  What percentage of Americans over the age of 25 do not have bachelor's degrees?  About 68%.

Now check out the second picture at the beginning of this post.  That's $1.2 trillion--yes, trillion with a "t"--in outstanding student loans.  Let's say you're in the lucky 32% with a bachelor's degree.  If you're ambitious and lucky and find a spouse in college and graduate, you could have non-dischargeable debt--debt you can't clear in bankruptcy court--of about $50,000 at the age of 30 and no assets other than a used car.  And still, college degrees are so in demand, my law school now charges $55,000 tuition for a single year.  Whom exactly does this educational set-up help?

It helps the federal government--which receives interest on student loans it issues directly, even ones targeted to lower income students like Perkins Loans; debt collection agencies and lawyers; consumer lawyers to assist against debt collection agencies; banks, which offer private student loans; universities, which are non-profits; and university employees.  It does not help an ambitious child from a hard-working immigrant family who has not had the benefit of asset appreciation during a time when prices for essential items were much lower, and the gap between wages and such prices much narrower.

Cost matters.  For example, a college education costing $5,000 a year with median entry wages at $5/hr is a much different hurdle to jump than one costing $55,000 a year with median entry wages at $15/hr.  At some point, the number of years required to be in debt delays important economic activity, especially the ability to save, which in turn delays the ability to rely on compound interest to build assets and disposable income.

If prices for essential items are increasing faster than wages, and the ticket to getting a higher wage requires $30,000 or more in debt, then without parental, grandparental, and/or scholarship assistance, the virtuous cycle of debt, sacrifice, hard work, and success is no longer available to a broad spectrum of people.  Even for the most well-meaning participants, the process changes from providing valuable solutions or services to getting along with the people in power so you can get into their club--or at least get a scholarship.

When reaching the middle class requires $30,000 to $50,000 in debt--excluding opportunity costs--most people will try to find loopholes and exemptions because "gaming the system" appears moral when the default is financial slavery.  Naturally, people will lobby politicians to help, but because the system is so profitable for almost everyone, no politician will implement fundamental changes.  Over time, the same problems multiply, such as tuition increases, and eventually the only people doing well are the ones who've convinced the government to give them a loophole, or the ones who've benefited from generational asset inflation and transfers, allowing them to keep up.  Moreover, absent predictable paths to success, cities become hubs of short-term thinking, unable to tame nomads, removing yet another potential check and balance on consolidation of power. In short, the Establishment wins every time, and immigrants and outsiders aren't able to shake up the joint in meaningful ways without being connected to the government's pre-existing objectives.

Welcome to America in 2017: "Here's Charlie facing the fire and there's George hiding in Big Daddy's pocket. And what are you [politicians and vested interests] doing? You're gonna reward [connected, listless] George and destroy [hardworking, middle class] Charlie... Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard."  

Hoo ah?

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017) 

Aga Khan Museum in Toronto

Below are a few pictures from the lovely Aga Khan museum in Toronto, Canada.

French frame over Middle Eastern art. 

That's real gold on those pages.

Policing and Walking a Beat

Policing in the old days involved a cop walking a beat.  Why walking?  So he could get to know his community and operate as part of a village raising children to be law-abiding adults.  On his own, the cop was useless and vulnerable; as part of the community, he was one of its respected pillars.

As cities became larger and cars more popular, police adapted and got behind the wheel, too, obviously losing the personal touch.  Without the comfort of knowing who is familiar and unfamiliar, cities with exploding populations--especially L.A.--not only experienced "white flight" but also more aggressive policing methods. (See the documentary, O.J.: Made in America (2016), for details.)  One may argue the 2nd Amendment necessitates harsher methods, but if that was the case, why wasn't the "cop on the beat" decades ago as harsh as the cops in body armor today? 

Crime has always been with us, and policing methods have adapted to changing demographics. If you don't know your own neighborhood, you may decide to treat everyone initially as a potential threat or a potential ally.  Police in America today have decided to go with the former to ensure their own safety.  Such an approach is sure to fail, because treating others with prejudiced suspicion always breeds contempt. Once contempt is created, dialogue becomes more difficult, and eventually things fall apart.  

When schools teach Jim Crow and segregation, they always mention fire hoses and police dogs, but not demographics and policing methods.  What are police--who must generally follow orders--supposed to do when mayors or city councils order them to disperse a crowd, even a peaceful one?  If the mayor is getting his or her ear chewed off by small and large business owners losing sales because streets are blocked off or consumers are hesitant to come inside and shop, what is the mayor supposed to do? These days, American protests don't accomplish much because they're too staged and shut down no real activity.  The pop stars giving speeches never go to jail, so there's no sense of danger.  It's like a sporting event--everyone blows off some steam, then goes home.  

Meanwhile, the real action is done horse-trading political favors behind the scenes, with each government agency trying to get as much money as possible while placating voters. The politician today stands for nothing save the following question: "How much can I give this agency for their collective votes, and how much can I raise taxes or borrow to pay for it before my voters get so frustrated, they vote me out?" 

Students who study Jim Crow and other policing methods in the South should also study the liberal, open, and lovely college town of UC Davis. In 2011, a police officer used pepper spray on undeniably peaceful student protestors.  In the aftermath of worldwide outrage, UC Davis--a public university--used taxpayer dollars to pay consultants at least $175,000 to help its image online.  

As for the cop using the pepper spray?  He applied for worker's compensation and won more than $38,055 for suffering he experienced after the incident. Did anything really change after 2011 in California with respect to police power and its use against residents and voters?  Not at all.  Did police officers become more open to accepting the consequences of following clearly unjust orders? Nope.  If anything, police--and other government entities, such as teachers--became more powerful and cloistered as their unions continued to lobby for greater legal protections.

The modern American political system is rigged in favor of large, coordinated groups against the individual--regardless of merit or principle.  That's how democratic institutions typically work, except it's much harder to root out corruption when it's economic and when debt and paper stock market gains do better cover-up jobs than any "special investigations unit." 

In Brian De Palma's 1987 thriller, The Untouchables, Sean Connery plays a beat cop, Jim Malone, and asks Kevin Costner’s character, Eliot Ness, what he’s prepared to do to nab a notorious mobster. The insinuation is that it's going to take more than aboveboard policing methods to take down Al Capone, who will do anything to ensure he's the most feared and powerful man in Chicago.  What do Americans do now, when the most feared and powerful entities are not the criminals, but the police and other government employees, who are backed by judges they helped elect or appoint? What happened to government employees as pillars of their communities rather than the least accountable persons in them? 

Bonus: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." 

The Fugees: Inaction Killing America's Leadership Potential

This map represents the West's cowardice and lack of humanitarian leadership. Bombing Syria, destabilizing the Middle East, and doing nothing to assist refugees other than paying the U.N. is morally wrong.

I'm sure many Americans made the same cultural assimilation arguments against accepting Jews during WWII--during a time when people weren't 100% sure what was happening. Today, we have satellites. We have no excuse. We know what is happening and do nothing. (Well, except telling Turkey that America is willing to accept their educated refugees only, especially PhDs.)

History will not forget. The Syrians and Iranians have accepted many refugees in their history. America, when given a chance to try to rebuild communities, failed. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017)

A reader responded: "Perhaps a more kind way of saying the same thing is that the U.S. doesn't know what culture it has anymore. No one is really giving a voice or identity to this generation, and we haven't adopted the good ideals of the founding fathers of making the U.S. a haven for the poor and downtrodden. I find it so interesting that people want to "make America great again" by doing the exact opposite of what made it great in the first place: granting poor people property and a chance at a normal life, regardless of their background."

Bonus: Amazon's Jeff Bezos was raised by a Cuban refugee.  Andre Agassi's father was an Armenian refugee raised in Iran.  He represented Iran as a boxer in the 1948 and 1952 Olympics.