Relationships: Exquisitely Complex

Most people expect to settle down when they're older and use youth to explore as many avenues as they can, not minding cul de sacs. People say dating gets easier with age because we know ourselves better, but anyone single and over 30 knows the conventional wisdom is wrong. By the time we are 30 or 35, we respond in different ways to different people based on what happened to us at 7, 14, and 21. Partners having a fuller history of each other are better equipped to deal with conflicts than new occupiers. 

In the past two years, I've searched the globe for answers only for my heart to return to a place I visited sixteen years ago. Realizing my choice couldn't have been a coincidence, I'll share my thoughts so we can both be a little less clueless about love. 

A person meeting a potential partner at 34 will notice certain tics and file them in his memory bank, but he won't know their origin or how to work around them until years later because of incomplete data. At some point, he'll tell himself "Women are crazy," excluding the part about men being stupid. In contrast, a man dating a 19 or 25 years old woman will have an easier time molding himself to her and may even have the exact details necessary to understand her. The earlier man, Australopithecus Agápi, has an advantage: younger women, like younger men, are less sure of themselves and have fewer reservations about opening up to either gender. The advantage of youth is assumed mutual ignorance, which acts as its own truth serum. Meanwhile, a man who stays with a partner from 28 or 35 will know almost nothing about her history, thus having a much worse chance at accomplishing the one thing we all want: to be understood. 

I used to wonder why baby pictures are so captivating. We are viewing a tabula rasa, but we look anyway, trying to glean the history we've missed. A part of us must know each passing year in a person's life is a year of personal knowledge we lack to solve the mystery that is him or her. Strangely, we give children, but not adults, the benefit of the doubt when meeting for the first time, despite our lesser knowledge. And yet, adults in new relationships are forging boundaries just like children who seek independence within protective frameworks. 

Perhaps we've forgotten one of humanity's guidelines: explorers seeking to settle in mature places should enter knowing others have trampled there before, leaving footprints of uncertain providence. Surely we've forgotten because otherwise, we'd be more forgiving and far more frightened when exploring new avenues in adulthood that were so effortless in youth. 

I met a woman when she and I were 22 and 21 years old. When we re-acquainted in our late thirties, little had changed. Of course that cannot be true, but it feels so because I captured three months' of youth's unguarded moments, time that allowed me to upload some of her source code. Every smile, every twitch, and every tear created a Rosetta Stone that still translates input flawlessly decades later. Now consider how few modern couples have three months of continuous, unguarded time together and then research marital happiness rates. For this reason, parental love is often stronger than romantic love because a unique zero-day foundation holds up the relationship, and all parties know it can be repaired but not replaced. The breaking of the parental bond is the worst psychic wound possible because it robs us of the ability to keep a zero-day historian in our lives, someone who can provide an undamaged Rosetta Stone. 

Rossetta Stone in London's British Museum.

I met another woman in her thirties recently, and we felt an instant bond. I can't tell you why we felt a bond so quickly, but it surprised us both. I saw through her hard armor instantly, and she knew she could clang her metal swords and flail around me without judgment. We trusted each other because our subconscious played matchmaker, knowing our hearts were damaged but willing to play to the right beat. Nevertheless, my absence during her unguarded years means she will remain an exquisite mystery. Thankfully, I don't need her source code to know her toughness is matched only by her tenderness, and when she lashes out, it is not to hurt me, but to scare away the tinkerers trying to hollow out her armor. And so it goes between us, many miles apart, she clanging her swords and me shielded by the knowledge her unpredictable curtness and too-polite texts are fear no one will ever be able to write her Rosetta Stone. 

When older people date today, they are too busy trying to impress each other when all they really ought to do is listen for the sound of armored plates. It is through those sounds you'll discover the level of effort you'll need to complete your journey. The trick, since you'll probably lack a Rosetta Stone, is to find someone whose heart is willing to play with yours. Whom will you ask to dance? 

The Internet and North America, Summarized in One Tweet

If a picture is worth a thousand words, allow me fewer to explain the following photo. The problem with modern society is not the internet or technology, but the lack of humility omnipresent in North American culture. Such a culture will provide fantastic entertainment but not much in the way of substance. Are you ready for the most North American comment ever? 

"I'm not a lawyer but this seems quite illegal." It's a Canadian speaking, so one might chalk it up to a desire to politely agree with the principle of equality, except for one thing: the ProPublica article referenced is fantastic. Even if you glean nothing else from it, a high schooler would, after three paragraphs, understand the ADEA is complex. Really, really complex. 

Unfortunately, most North American voters haven't realized they've outsourced justice to hordes of lawyers who continue to add complexity to protect their jobs and fees. Even if conservatives manage to cut laws, civil procedure and evidentiary rules will maintain a bulwark against common sense and the common citizen. It's not surprising democracy is reeling when the model isn't justice for all but deterrence through selective prosecution. 

In 2002, when I studied law in Singapore, also a common law country, I was struck by the humility of the educated class. None of my questions were deemed odd, and the one or two borderline insulting ones (about population control) were answered substantively. Working class citizens were social and content, and the worst a person could say about them was that their warmth exceeded their ambition. Despite lacking urgent reasons to worry about social harmony, Singapore's mostly Chinese elites, not to be accused of a lack of effort, were busy trying different programs to reduce income inequality. I'm not a Singaporean, but this seems quite lovely. 

Would the last intellectual out of North America please remember to turn off the lights? 

Conversation May 3, 2018: 

Me: "Do you know you have no privacy in America?" 

Very Nice 18 Years Old Cashier: "Yes." 

Me: "Does it bother you?" 

Her: [frowns, then shrugs] 

Me: "Do you trust your gov?" 

Her: [shakes head] 

Me: "I guess the problem is there's nothing we can do about it." 

Her: "Yes."

Frank Church on the NSA and Surveillance in 1975

Frank Church, on the NSA in 1975: https://youtu.be/YAG1N4a84Dk 

Without proper oversight of the NSA, "no American will have any privacy left... there would be no way to fight back ... the capacity is there to make tyranny total." 

Fast forward to 2017: https://youtu.be/dkoi7sZvWiU 

The technology in the video is at least one year old. Without the independent ability to determine whether information is true, independent media cannot exist. In an age of "deepfakes," reporters and editors must be part-journalists, part-tech-forensics, but only a few will have the resources to do forensics well. 

Furthermore, if journalists need security-level clearance to ascertain the difference between real and fake, what happens to well-intentioned whistleblower and citizen-produced tips? Numerous problems exist with the aforementioned scenario, not least of all the ability to disrupt honest, diligent journalism as well as any investigation. 

From Robert Scheer's They Know Everything about You (2015)

Journalists wouldn't be the only ones dependent on the government to vet information--so would local police departments lacking military-grade technology. In such a world, the only reliable sources would be high-level government-affiliated with no independent checks and balances. In short, independent journalism could be easily disrupted while lesser funded local governments couldn't realistically decouple themselves from federal corruption or mismanagement. 

The capacity to make tyranny total existed in 1975. Have checks and balances increased or decreased since then? 

Robert Scheer's They Know Everything about You (Book Review)

Edward Snowden started the transparency but Robert Scheer provides it in context. The inefficacy and profligacy of America's national security apparatus are worse than you imagine. Obama's presidency expanded the security state far more than anyone knew until whistleblowers emerged. A few quick points: 

1. American taxpayers have spent 500 billion USD for intelligence since 9/11. Scheer explains how almost all the programs didn't work or had to be scrapped. The main problem wasn't data gathering but connecting the dots to gain useful information. (Update: Such profligate spending is deemed acceptable because much, if not most, of the revenue is funding native-born American citizens, including military veterans, or allied military R&D. The calculus of government spending means if it costs the CIA 100,000 analyst jobs for native-born citizens to equal the same insights as one politically-disconnected immigrant Iranian, politicians are willing to look the other way.)

2. America's expenditures were useless because the government attacked the wrong problem (and the wrong country, but that's another book). When you realize most law enforcement employees are men, it's not surprising communication is the issue. 

Imagine analyzing a relationship between a husband and wife. Whom would you trust more to predict substantive behavior if the couple knew they were being watched? A person with all online data on both persons or a close friend who communicates well with one of them? 

3. Much of the government's post-9/11 approach to combating terrorism is being used for psychological ops, i.e., how to engineer consent, potentially even against America's own citizens. Also, if legal "rebellions" or dissent can be predicted through software and algorithms, why wouldn't such algorithms be used one day to block the spread of "dangerous" or dissenting ideas? Why not use it to predict and catch whistleblowers, preventing another Snowden? (By the way, do you see the connection between Facebook and facial recognition technology; Alexa/Siri and voice recognition technology; and genealogical profiles and criminal investigations?) 

4. One example: let's say you're critical of a defense contractor or the president online. Software exists that will scoop up your comment and save it in a database--forever. The question is whether the software can differentiate between peaceful libertarians and potentially dangerous anti-government persons (McVeigh, Kaczynski, etc.). What is the assurance, with black-box government funding and military contracting/outsourcing, of avoiding actions that will chill speech? What is the assurance an algorithm won't be fooled by deepfakes or digital spoofing?

5. We jail journalists in America. See Barrett Brown. 

6. The worst part about all the money we've spent is that these trillion-dollar systems can be gamed with millions of dollars. For instance, overwhelming spying software with useless or false info/code is a common intelligence tactic. Note, however, such tactics can be used by ordinary citizens against these same programs. If all of us began discussing bombs--as part of our goal to write interesting screenplays, of course--we could render useless much of the surveillance software in existence. (Foreign governments and hacker outfits have already discovered this flaw, leading us into a new era of diplomacy where no one knows the rules for a proportionate response to ever-escalating online attacks.) There's even a simpler approach: if everyone just shut off their phones for one week, so-called anti-terrorism surveillance programs (but not advertising programs) would be ineffective. 

Snowden tells an anecdote about this issue: one terrorist stool pigeon receives a phone call directing him to a location. On the way there, he's killed by a drone. Another terrorist receives a text with instructions on how to make a bomb. Upon ordering fertilizer, he's killed by a drone. A third terrorist delivers a handwritten note by bicycle with instructions on where to find explosives. He succeeds. 

 7. Every mid-sized American city in 2001 could have looked like Tokyo today if taxpayer dollars had been spent on infrastructure. Instead, we decided to spend our money on propaganda and surveillance software that can be made useless through simple cooperation, an analog approach, or foreign hackers. If that sounds fine, try a different thought experiment: imagine a country with police officers on every street corner who can peer into your home if a judge the police union helped elect gives them permission. Incorporate factors such as anonymous or well-meaning but incorrect crime tips. What are the substantive differences between such a scenario and current reality? 

© Matthew Rafat (2018)

A Land without a Crucible: How to Appropriate Cultural Collapse

In Trump's America, liberals have been reduced to 1) begging for money from the government, blind to the military-industrial complex's willingness to give them as much or as little money to keep them occupied as long as defense expenditures grow (one dollar for you, ten dollars for me); and 2) antagonizing every different-minded man, woman, and child on their quest to save the country. 

Warren Hinckle's characterization of American liberals has never been more apt: in 1973, he called them "horror[s]" because of their tendencies towards "self-righteousness and self-importance." (Another Hinckle gem: asked why he worked in conservative bars frequented by police officers, he responded if anyone could find a good liberal bar, he'd visit one.) 

Today's liberals can tell you about the Gulf of Tonkin but not why such an incident would be allowed to occur, or why otherwise intelligent people would feel compelled to engage in such maneuvers. Some might know about "domino theory" but not why it--and laying down dead body after dead body--would be considered reasonable in light of all available intelligence. I've heard the best minds of my generation rail against biased media (aka propaganda) using the terms "collateral damage" and "cultural misappropriation" without irony, captaining the English language to advance misunderstandings down empty harbors. Modern-day radicals are more likely to go apoplectic over a friend's recycling habits than wedding diamonds that, even if not bloody, destroy the earth while tilting local economies into de facto slavery. (Yes, Australia has done well with mining--it's the lack of economic diversification without proper safeguards that's the issue.)

Banally, America's intellectual malaise isn't intentional, making it harder to identify villains and vanquish them. I recently attended a Berkeley, California event celebrating books and, one might assume, critical thinking. Yet, every interview was the equivalent of a slow pitch softball game (no offense to softball players, some of the toughest athletes out there), as if organizers believed their primary job was to ensure audience members wouldn't face foul balls of complexity. Lesson: never choose interviewers who are friends or colleagues of the speaker. There's a reason journalism exists (existed?) as a profession--to create independence and therefore more freedom to ask difficult questions. Perhaps sponsors believed if they weren't nice, speakers wouldn't return, but anyone incapable of discussing potential deficiencies in his or her ideas isn't worth inviting back. 

Another lesson: whether intentional or unintentional, the result is the same. (Bonus, on war: "What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?") None of the book festival's inanity was by design, or rather, everything was done to maximize happiness and to promote ideas. (At least they didn't require people to submit questions on index cards or limit themselves to two minutes.) 

At one booth, I discovered a book selling for 17.95 USD available for 9.99 USD online and asked for a discount. The vendor said he couldn't compete with Amazon because "we can't lose money on every book we sell." I responded that after building the online infrastructure, including the delivery infrastructure (initially subsidized by consumers paying for shipping), Amazon and publishers were both making money pursuant to an agreed-upon price split. It's true Amazon's R&D expenditures and forays into new areas (e.g., a mobile phone) cause it to report losses, but Amazon is no longer losing money on most book sales, especially not on the Kindle. (It does take a loss on some books like Harry Potter but gains brand loyalty as a result of its discounts and events.) Hoping to engage on a difficult question, I wondered out loud how brick and mortar bookstores could compete in a modern capitalist economy. Devoid of ideas, the vendor shrugged his shoulders and gave me a curt goodbye as his final rebuttal. At no point did he reveal any shame in opening the conversation with a misrepresentation. If we are living in a post-truth society, the cause is our post-humility culture. 

Former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg in National Geographic.

At another event, cultural appropriation was mentioned negatively, inspiring a well-meaning African-American audience member to explain the issue was rooted in economics. Meanwhile, none of London's black or brown residents would think to complain about their city's most popular food, the colorful chicken tikka masala. (It's as if the British have bigger fish and chips to fry.) Unbeknownst to most Americans and Europeans surrounded by dozens of foreign restaurants is a real-life government conspiracy: stealing the best people and ideas from other countries by any means necessary. Such a plot has existed since humans realized it was easier to steal than to invent, to build, or even to maintain the infrastructure--both physical and abstract--necessary to accept change gracefully. 

Stealing and appropriation occur because they allow Country A to gain the benefits of Country B's inventions with as little displacement or sacrifice as possible--at least for Country A. Immigration, something I've heard liberals support, is literally cultural appropriation personified. Unless the goal is to build walls or ghettos--something I've heard liberals oppose--the main reason different people should enter your hamlet or megapolis is so you can discover the best they have to offer until you're the lovely country of Indonesia but without the pollution, traffic congestion, and banking crises. 

Any other philosophy means you support using people for labor without any meaningful exchange of ideas, something Immanuel Kant warned us about in 1781: "So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." (I remember when liberals told us melting pots and mixing were good for society, then they told us they meant we should be like salad bowls (healthy, with distinct colors), and now I think they're saying we shouldn't mix at all unless everyone pays for every idea they stole. I can't predict the next iteration, but I suspect lasagna will be involved.) 

Why we are discussing imposing informal or formal rules on what people should do or say rather than a more equitable process to capture or spur innovation, I don't know. Such discourse would require complex knowledge of different disciplines, along with sustainable funding mechanisms for new ideas that protect the displaced. To this end, I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Philosophy. There's a great future in it. Will you think about it?

© Matthew Rafat (2018)

"Our drones will never be called terrorists, and our guns will never defeat nationalism. We change the world by how we look at it." -- Pico Iyer 

Robert Scheer, Muckraker, on Ramparts' Warren Hinckle

I was privileged to meet Robert Scheer from USC Annenberg's School of Communications and Journalism in Berkeley, California on April 29, 2018. 

Scheer, along with William Hinckle, was one of America's original muckrakers. Some of his work influenced MLK's opposition to the Vietnam War, which eventually led to Daniel Ellsberg's whistleblowing. At Berkeley's Book Fest, Scheer discussed working with Warren Hinckle, lesser known than Hunter S. Thompson but arguably a much better writer.

On motivation: "What drove Warren [Hinckle] was journalism." "His success was a rebuke of mainstream journalism... [he was] forging a connection with the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. We were the start of whistleblower journalism."

On mainstream media: Even the New York Times condemned Martin Luther King. Every single mainstream newspaper has [initially] supported every one of America's wars. In fact, "Martin Luther King's condemnation of the Vietnam War was [itself] condemned by the New York Times."

On whether Warren would have been more famous among New York's hoi polloi: "If we'd been on the East Coast, we'd have been unpublished!" [i.e., too much competition and too many existing outlets and power players]

On David Horowitz's criticism of Ramparts: "Fred Mitchell saved Ramparts... [you can criticize how we spent money but] we didn't pay most or our bills because we declared Chapter 11 [bankruptcy]... [In all seriousness] we lost money [not because of mismanagement] but because of the positions we took. We reported on the Six Day War [and then had pro-Israel Martin Peretz and Dick Russell, two of the magazine's shareholders, withdraw their money, 1 million USD, from Ramparts]. We reported on Malcolm X [when no one else was doing so]." 

Bonus: Steve Wasserman on Warren Hinckle: "Every story he told was true, even the unbelievable ones." "Warren was on the side of the little people... He couldn't bear hypocrisy." 

Technology Credit Union (Tech CU) Annual Meeting (2018)

All of us suspect financial institution executives are SOBs, but most of them have the decency to act dignified in public. Not San Jose, California-based Tech CU. The annual meeting on April 25, 2018 was a doozy, with Mical Atz Brenzel, the Chairman of the Board, getting angry while flubbing questions and President and CEO Todd M. Harris making comments that unknowingly contradicted his colleague. 

The spread for members, which will be noteworthy later.

I might have crossed a line by saying a "monkey" could have run a bank in the last four years because of record-low interest rates, but financial institutions, as stewards of our assets, are supposed to be conservative creatures able to withstand criticism, especially from their members. If you're part of an institution that refuses to stress-test its culture, you're going to have problems eventually. If you're part of a financial company so tone-deaf it decided to convert its member-based structure into a corporate banking entity without adequately vetting the move with its own members, humility ought to be your motto thereafter. Well, not if you're Tech CU. 

Regarding the failed conversion: "'Our members have voted and overwhelmingly indicated their preference to remain a credit union' ... there are no plans for executive departures as a result of the vote..." [Emphasis added.] In a nutshell, the same failed managers at the helm of a debacle so bad it will be part of an MBA textbook someday are still guiding the ship. They also seem convinced cultural cracks in their hull concealed by consecutive years of ultra-low interest rates are evidence of their own deft maneuvering. 

At least one of their own slides at the annual meeting indicates otherwise. One showed a loan-to-deposit ratio of 60% in 2013 that jumped to 87.79% in 2017. In other words, Tech CU, right after botching its conversion, might have taken a too-conservative approach with its loans, only to right its sails through low interest rates to a more balanced portfolio. 

In another example of hubris gone wild, Todd Harris said he was pleased with Tech CU's solar loan program, which has "12% national market share." I'm not an expert on solar power, but I know many solar companies and consumers rely on direct or indirect subsidies, and those subsidies can change overnight. In other words, the loan portfolio CEO Harris highlighted as part of his successful management might be its most risky. 

Update: seen in Singapore business newspaper, December 17, 2018

I was the only person at the meeting who asked questions or made comments. I mentioned being locked out of my ATM account while traveling internationally and being asked to call an American-based number, which anyone with travel experience knows is problematic. I suggested a simple solution involving secure email or secure messaging on the app. (How this team will screw up such a simple suggestion is an event I eagerly await.) 

I also asked why publicly available quarterly reports aren't available on the credit union's own website. Here's where it got really interesting, and by interesting, I mean shameless. Todd Harris told me Tech CU wasn't a public company and follows laws applicable to credit unions, which don't require making reports more accessible to members by putting them on its own website. 

No results found on gov website. It's a lil' clunky.

Let's back up a minute. No one is disputing these quarterly financial reports are available on some strange government agency's website. 

Found it!

No one is disputing these documents are harder to find if not disclosed directly on Tech CU's own website. No one is disputing greater transparency helps build trust, or that trust is important when competing for customers giving you money for safekeeping. Everyone agrees complying with a minimum standard in ways that reduce transparency isn't helpful to gaining clients or confidence. And yet, here we are, with Tech CU's management fighting to do as little as possible when it comes to transparency and simple convenience for their members. 

It gets even worse, especially if you, like me, believe banking culture is one factor in evaluating a country's ascent or descent. Most companies have rules relating to shareholder meetings that limit cranks, but they're written tastefully or at least in ways circumventing an accusation involving East German artillery. Here, Tech CU, blind to its cultural deficiencies, managed to outdo itself once again. Its rules for the meeting are so subjective and overbroad, they provide total control over any kind of direct questioning deemed unpleasant. From number 6 in "Rules of Procedure and Conduct of the Annual Meeting":

The Chancellor, er, Chair or the CEO will stop discussions that are: 

* irrelevant to the business of the Credit Union or the conduct of the operations;
* derogatory references that are not in good taste; 
* unduly prolonged (longer than two minutes); 
* substantially repetitious of statements made by other members; or 
* related to personal grievances. 

Remember: we are discussing a client-facing institution. If a member had an issue with an employee at a specific branch and wanted to alert the board in person at the annual meeting--the one and only time a year any member may do so publicly--the board doesn't have to listen. It could deem the comment a "personal grievance." Or perhaps it's derogatory or not in good taste. Who knows? Anything goes, comrade. 

After my final "monkey" and "low interest rates" comment, plus the fact the Bay Area had seen large inflows of private and public investment in the past four years, making it virtually impossible for Bay Area banks to fail, Mical Atz Brenzel launched into some angry gibberish. Still trying to temper her arrogance, I slipped in a question about whether any banks in the Bay Area had gone bankrupt in the last four years, to which she initially stood, jaw agape. After avoiding my question, she tried arguing banks don't really fail any more, they're absorbed into larger banks, which of course had nothing to do with my actual question. (I don't know of any Bay Area banks or credit unions requiring government intervention in the last four years to prevent bankruptcy, but if you do, please enlighten me.) 

Not satisfied with looking like a loon, Brenzel then argued lower interest rates made it more difficult for Tech CU to do well. I asked, "Are you denying lower interest rates encourage banks [and CUs] to make more loans [and therefore higher profits]?" It took her a few seconds to accept this Economics 101 fact, after which she advanced a spiel about Tech CU having to compete with numerous financial institutions in the Bay Area and still doing well. I let her have the last word, saying, "We'll agree to disagree." 

As I got up to exit the meeting room, a belligerent Todd Harris, a bowling ball of a man, approached and told me I was "frustrated." He continued trying to score points by telling me I mistakenly used the term "bank" instead of "credit union" in my comments. Pleased I'd gotten a Tech CU executive to mention a term relating to its largest management debacle without a sense of irony, I explained I wasn't frustrated, but we'd get to see how good he and the team really is over the next four years as interest rates rise. In addition, I told him his colleague can't argue that Tech CU's management did well because it successfully competed with numerous banking institutions, including public ones, while he favors a transparency standard far below all the public banks against which he's allegedly competing. As I left, I noticed employees bringing juices and mineral water into the meeting room, giving themselves a much better selection than offered to their own members. 

Tech CU's management didn't listen to their members in 2012, and they're still not listening. Worse, they're getting upset at a member trying to remind them to do exactly what a bank or credit union ought to do in an era of rising interest rates: be humble.

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018)

Bonus: Gloomy Sunday (1999) is Netflix CEO's Reed Hasting's favorite movie. Consider the conversation below in light of Tech CU's Rules of Procedures and Conduct of the Annual Meeting: 

Schnefke: "But we must be careful not to stray too far outside the law." 

Hans: "Of course. But the beauty and vibrancy of the law lies in its flexible boundaries." 

[Two Nazis in Hungary around 1939 discussing their future.]