Non-Selective Legalization of "Sin"

Below is an interesting discussion from Facebook re: legalizing sex work.

Legalization involves two primary questions: 1) do you want the government to generate taxes from in-demand activities and use those taxes to battle unregulated activities; or 2) do you want the middle class to fund an ever-expanding war against mafias who have no competition outside of themselves, a matter easily resolved by cartels and territory carveouts?

CK: [Posts link to National Human Trafficking Day]

MM: One solution is to legalize solicitation, use police resources to protect sex workers, and tax the activity. Am I the only person who thinks it's counterintuitive to make x illegal when x has always had high demand, then raise taxes to fight x while criminal elements profit from x, requiring taxes to be raised continuously to combat illegal demand? What is more preferable? A continuously expanding police state that's almost always at a disadvantage against more profitable criminal forces, or legalized solicitation as a taxable activity and lower profits and influence for criminal groups (who now have competition)?

CK: What about the girls who didn't have a choice in the matter? It's why it's called human trafficking. [And] Making it legal is going to somehow make the pimps less greedy and take less girls because more women will voluntarily be sex workers because it's legal? I don't think so.

MM: If legalized and taxed, wouldn't such women have more choices and places to get help in the "formal" economy rather than being completely trapped in the informal/underground economy? Remember: by taxing the activity, more funds would be available for social services as well as police. Right now, taxpayers are revolting against government programs that do not directly benefit themselves because they see higher taxes but not better quality of life.

Playing cops and robbers in the modern era by raising taxes on law-abiding residents is backfiring by creating more debt and/or unchecked police expansion. The police simply cannot keep up against better funded, better equipped criminal groups, requiring them to demand higher taxes to expand capabilities; and to partner with federal agencies, losing some independence. By taxing an activity that already occurs due to high demand--and assuming political corruption is kept to a minimum--an independent revenue source would make it easier to fund social programs that help the very people you intend to help, but without the spectre of a continually expanding police state.

The police and federal LE agencies would still combat human trafficking, but they wouldn't be at such a disadvantage in doing so, and they wouldn't be in a position where their interests diverged from local taxpayers.

MM: You wrote, "Making it legal is going to somehow make the pimps less greedy..."?

In a way, yes. When the government competes wth criminals, they can put the criminals out of business. No pimps means better recourse for women who are in this industry. Whom would you rather regulate sex workers? Someone like you, subject to specific legal procedures, or an unregulated pimp who can use violence?

Remember: women who are trapped are still going to be helped, but with greater tax revenue, more middle-class taxpayer support, and less shame, because their activity will be somewhat "normalized" via gov fiat and will be under a more sustainable tax funding system.

You're also missing a key benefit--under legalization, police resources cannot be used against sex workers under any scenario. In fact, the reverse occurs--sex workers would be able to trust police, knowing that no court could possibly fine or jail them.

GL: According to countless studies, the vast majority of women who "volunteered" to be sex workers were sexually abused in the past. Healthy people don't do things like that for money. It's degrading, disgusting, and harmful to everyone who participates in it, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

MM: So what's your plan on eliminating sexual abuse? It's as if you're saying that the vast number of car accidents are caused by drunk drivers, so obviously we need to ban alcohol. It didn't work in Prohibition because the demand was still there. As long as demand for something [nonviolent] exists, we can either cede its business (and profits) to underground forces, or we can try to eliminate or weaken them through direct competition.

GL: Thank you for your question, and especially for writing respectfully about an issue on which we disagree. Here are my thoughts: "Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono."

This is the state motto of Hawaii. It can be translated as "The life (or sovereignty) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness." Only by doing what is right can our communities, our nations, and our civilizations be preserved.

Demand for something evil is not a legitimate argument for its legalization. For example, there is a demand for hit men (murder for hire), and has been since time immemorial. While enacting and enforcing laws against this evil may not eliminate it completely, this course of action is infinitely favorable to the alternative of making our government by the people implicit in murder.

I respectfully refuse to concede that the best way to eliminate evil is to compete with it on its own terms. As Dr. King so eloquently stated, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that."

To your question on how to stop sexual abuse, I would highly encourage you to read the fightthenewdrug.org website. The movement is modeled after the anti-smoking movement, which reduced demand for tobacco from roughly 42% of the U.S. population to just 15% today, all by promoting awareness. Fight the New Drug has tons of great examples, success stories, and research-based ideas for combatting the abuse that is the foundation of sex for money.

MM: Thank you for your response. I've amended my comment above to specify that I meant demand for nonviolent products or services.

Once upon a time, Americans believed alcohol was evil. Who gets to decide what is evil? IMHO, the issue is whether the service or product is unduly coercive, which eliminates any violent products or services from the legalization discussion.

Your argument is more nuanced. You are essentially arguing that sexual services are the result of violence and are therefore a product of coercion. Such an argument fails because it is too broad and gives unchecked discretion to gov officials. For example, a paternalistic gov could ban violent video games because they are inspired by violence. Yet, something is not evil merely because it is connected to violence or evil--otherwise, all militaries would be banned.

To truly achieve a viable solution against coercive services and products, we must focus on services that directly compete with them and that seek to remedy the direct violence or evil that creates the services and products you dislike.

Legalization of drugs and sex is one path that creates direct competition and in doing so, weakens the underground entities' ability to use violence (pimps, etc.) to support their businesses. Using the new tax revenue from such legalization would also allow the greater social services you support, and in a much more consistent manner. Over time, if the social services are done properly, and if your premise is correct about the reasons some people participate in sex work or use drugs, then the evil you seek to destroy would be destroyed.

If such an endgame is achieved, however, it won't be done through ever-expanding cops-and-robbers battles between gov and mafias, where cutting the head of the current mafia or cartel boss merely results in another leader entering the void. It will be done through better economic opportunities for all persons and through more sustainable and politically viable ways of funding social services, such as increased tax revenue from legalization.

Bonus: more here on the specifics of legalizing prostitution.

Bonus: I just watched a documentary on human trafficking. The problem is that once taken away from their parents, teenagers or younger women are isolated and under threat of constant violence because the pimps don't leave their side and confiscate their phones. They are too ashamed to call their parents, and do not trust the police.

One solution would be to designate all hospitals as "safe spots" for trafficked persons. If a person shows up and says she's a trafficked person, the hospital staff must immediately assign a guard to her and alert a social worker. The social worker would open a case file, work with the police, and provide shelter until the woman could be reunited with family.  If the person has no family or doesn't want to return to her family, then she would be given access to the same social services as others and/or a woman's shelter. It is surprising that as of now, there are no universally accepted places where trafficked victims may seek safe shelter without threat of prosecution or forced interaction with police.

Bonus: watch Bigger, Stronger, Faster (2008) for an eye-opening view on steroid regulation. 5/5 stars.

Does Mill Valley's Mayor Jessica Jackson Understand Economics?

Today, I spoke with Jessica Jackson Sloan, mayor of Mill Valley, California. After listening to an hour of her speech at Santa Clara University--basically lifted from the Netflix documentary, 13th, with some personal anecdotes about Van Jones thrown in--I approached her afterwards to get more information.

She is against mass incarceration but supports police unions: "Police unions are not the problem."

She is pro-legalization of drugs but admitted she focused on the effects of criminalization rather than the cause: a failure to legalize some drugs, which would take power away from overzealous judges, D.A.s, and police officers.

When pushed further on the topic, she said her constituents don’t support legalization. In her one hour speech against mass incarceration, she failed to mention "legalization" once. Claiming to be anti-mass incarceration but not focusing on anything that will remove excessive government discretion in making arrests creates a cycle of well-intentioned failure. Drug criminalization, after all, has been increasing incarceration rates since the 1970s as part of a deliberate government strategy. Now it appears even if some drugs are legalized, anti-immigration government actions might replace the "lost bodies"--and reasons to continue diverting tax revenue to public safety jobs rather than lower tax rates or other services, such as parks and recreation or social welfare.

It's time for politicians to understand drugs are a business and partly a response to certain groups being excluded from the "traditional" job market due to factions and vested interests, especially within the government. As long as public safety unions take 50 to 70% of most cities' tax revenue, it's almost impossible to be against their growth and also benefit from the tax largess they control. Now that some taxpayer money is going to outside contractors and non-governmental employees in an attempt to reduce incarceration costs, some politicians suddenly feel more comfortable being anti-incarceration. Interesting coincidence, that. What's the motto in California government? That we, the government, can make all the money we want and give ourselves pensions at 7 to 8% guaranteed rates on the backs of taxpayers, but God forbid the private sector try to do our jobs more efficiently?

I found out later that Jessica "Government is not the Problem" Sloan, a former government lawyer, is married to a unionized firefighter.  

Bonus: I thought it would be useful to add a quick finance lesson. The 7 to 8% guaranteed return necessitates an unholy alliance between government unions, banks, and Wall Street. Why? Any guaranteed return requires stocks and dividends to rise perpetually to provide the gains necessary to keep pensions afloat, or both government employee contributions and taxes must rise to levels that will create discontent. (Notice how your sales taxes keep going up?)

Government unions can't openly admit to such an alliance, so they spend money on PR to trick voters into channeling their anger towards Wall Street when government unions--as well as the rest of us--rely on bankers because the modern American economy is heavily debt-dependent post 9/11.  The difference is that private sector employees--unlike government union employees--don't get to raise taxes or demand their employer issue debt on everyone else in their community to resolve any gap in the expected rate of return and the actual rate of return.

In a world where government unions can lobby to impose investment benchmarks enshrined in law and unrelated to any real investment return, the individual isn't effective in the democratic process--even when lobbyists' demands are unsustainable in the absence of the government's ability to issue more debt or increase taxes.

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017) 

Update in April 2017: "Approximately 150 million people workin the United States; 130 million work in private enterprise. We hold in high regard the 20 million people who work in government--teachers, policemen, firemen and others. But we could not pay for those jobs if the other 130 million were not actively producing the GDP of America." -- James Dimon, J.P. Morgan Chase 2016 Annual Report 

We Are All Bricks in the Wall Now

I just got off the phone with the registrar's office at my law school, and the assistant told me I had a 5% chance of adding one line to a verification letter about what should be an undisputed fact.  It has taken 14 emails and a phone call to get to this point.  

Let me start at the beginning.  I'm applying for a graduate law program overseas.  Foreign institutions are enamored with the word, "apostille," which is basically a notarized verification, but potentially more complicated because a government agency may need to verify the notarized copy of an issued document.  Luckily, the European law school realized the U.S. doesn't really do apostilles and told me I could use a notarized copy of my diploma with the application.  So far, so good, right? 

I head out and make two color copies of my undergrad and law school diplomas--about 8 USD to get usable copies with the right copy size--and write my American law school, asking them to notarize my diplomas. I find out they can only notarize my law school diploma, and I'm fine with that, but I want to get a letter on university letterhead verifying I graduated in 2002 and the process of graduating from my law school required, at some point, a check with my undergrad institution to verify graduation there.  With both a notarized copy of my law school diploma and this letter, I'll be covered both ways.  The cost of the notary is 35 USD, plus 10 USD for each notary stamp, which comes to be 55 USD (one stamp on the verification letter and one for the law school diploma).  

I asked to include a statement on official letterhead as follows: 

"I am a notary authorized by AGENCY NAME and employed by UNIVERSITY's Registrar's Office.  I have checked the databases available to me and confirmed that STUDENT NAME graduated LAW SCHOOL in 2002. As part of attending LAW SCHOOL, STUDENT NAME was required to receive an undergraduate diploma, which he received from University of California at Davis.  I have reviewed both diplomas and have confirmed STUDENT NAME's identity and his possession of UC Davis and LAW SCHOOL diplomas."  

After being told the registrar wouldn't have anything to do with the undergrad diploma and that receiving an official letter was a separate process costing another 10 USD, I asked if its databases link or linked with my undergraduate institution to verify my undergraduate graduation. (I would hope so, because otherwise, any competent forger could apply to any grad school nationwide with the aid of free software and a printer.)  I didn't get a direct response to my question, and if there really was no communication between my law school and undergrad institution, then all this is moot, but it makes sense that at some point in the application process, my law school confirmed I graduated from UC Davis.  So I said, "All right, I'll pay for the additional letter, but let's modify it and just add the following to the existing template: 

"I am a notary authorized by the California Secretary of State and employed by LAW SCHOOL's Registrar's Office.  I have checked the databases available to me and confirmed that STUDENT NAME attended from DATE TO DATE and graduated LAW SCHOOL in 2002 with a GPA of X. As part of our process, LAW SCHOOL verified at some point that STUDENT NAME was listed as a graduate of UC Davis."  [An alternate version could say, "I saw STUDENT'S UC Davis diploma, checked the information on it, and am verifying the person bringing it to me is in fact STUDENT," but that idea was shot down.]  

Only the last line above is in dispute, and apparently I have a 5% chance of having it added to my letter.  If I don't get the additional sentence, I'll have a potentially harder time convincing other institutions to accept my applications without driving over to UC Davis and going through the same process again, which will cost me more money.  Mind you, I paid my law school about 100,000 USD.  The only reason I--and other graduates--and in this situation is because American colleges, despite increasing tuition far higher than inflation every single year, have yet to create databases where graduates and students can consent to having their attendance dates and graduation statuses publicized online. Because of this inaction, we live in a country where an entire industry of notaries is partially supported by inefficiency.  

This is the modern American economy--it is driven by inaction and failure to use technology in consumer-facing ways, necessitating administrative jobs that consume time and energy and pit common sense against established procedures. It's not technology that is ruining our lives--it's decisions made by people in agencies and governments that fail to utilize technology properly and instead support existing professions, regardless of actual utility. Sure, it would cost some money to set up a database and get consent to publicize student graduation and attendance data, but once completed, the consent process would be included along with the regular graduation form.  Thereafter, no reasonable person would need a notarized diploma, and each individual applicant would save about 50 USD forevermore. (By the way, California's State Bar website lists both undergrad and law school institutions for lawyers, indicating such a database wouldn't be that complex.) Yet, taking this common sense approach is problematic not because of the money--colleges have plenty of it via government-guaranteed loans--but because any legislator that tries to insert efficiency and common sense antagonizes an established body of notaries who have paid hundreds in fees themselves to get a special stamp and notebook, and of course organized into their own interest groups.  

The services-based economy in America is creating social rebellion as more people become fed up with inefficiency for inefficiency's sake, even when jobs wouldn't necessarily be lost with greater efficiency.  If the database I've proposed goes down, someone still needs to maintain it--a process that wouldn't need a technical degree with today's available templates and hosting services from Amazon or Intuit.  An IT department might even need to hire more people to increase security against hacking, though such services would presumably already be part of its bailiwick.  

Someone still needs to take calls if a student's or graduate's information isn't listed correctly.  Someone still needs to take the initiative and make sure the list of graduates every year is submitted in a format compatible with the database and easily uploadable.  Yet, in a world where jobs are given to people not based on character and ability to learn on the job, but by a piece of paper that seems to confirm nothing other than obedience, here we are.  Let's see if I can convince the university tomorrow to add the one line to a letter costing me 10 USD. If I can't, why shouldn't machines take over American jobs when American employees in universities that cost 47,000 USD in tuition each year can't think independently or provide decent customer service?

Bonus: my friend tells me, "The notary is likely someone who works in an adjacent office and not the registrar herself. She literally cannot sign as you've written it--California law prohibits it. The registrar is the document custodian, and all the notary does is certify that the document custodian is who he/she says they are.  A notarization is solely a confirmation of identity (in this case the registrar's)."

Bonus: "All progress depends on the unreasonable person."

Update: I received a notarized copy of my diploma.  Basically, it's a copy of your diploma with a piece of paper attached to it signed by the registrar indicating as follows: "I am the University Registrar at UNIVERSITY NAME.  I hereby verify that the attached diploma is a copy of the original." A notary reviews the diploma copy to make sure it's an accurate copy of the original.  The registrar recites a short statement and the notary stamps a piece of paper and makes a notation in her book.  That's it.

The registrar--a delightful, smart woman--said she had nothing to do with the law school application process, so she wouldn't certify or write anything other than what her databases showed.  She referred me to the law school's assistant dean of student services for the letter I requested.  Luckily, I knew the assistant dean from my time at the law school, and she is an amazing person.  I got the letter.

The registrar told me national databases do in fact exist that collect student data.  See HERE (NSLDS) and HERE (National Student Loan Clearinghouse).  However, from my research, such databases are not publicly accessible like the State Bar's website, leading to this ridiculous business of notarizing diplomas and transcripts, which transfers money and time from regular people to institutions and their employees.

Why my law school diploma had to be verified by the undergraduate registrar rather than the graduate institution itself, I don't know.  For a smaller private school, I suppose it saves overhead to consolidate graduate program information into a single central database that includes undergraduates.  I lament once again the American predilection not to be consumer-facing in terms of saving time from the perspective of the consumer, but to organize affairs in order to save costs from the perspective of the entity. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017)

A final note: apparently, some law schools, during their application processes, don't actually check any database to see if an applicant graduated from the listed undergraduate institution.  They just request a verified official transcript. 

Brocade Communications Special Meeting (2017)

Brocade Communications (BRCD) held a special meeting at the Santa Clara Hyatt on January 26, 2017 to approve a merger.  The hotel offered pastries, a fruit platter, and beverages, including mineral and flat water.  After the formal portion of the meeting, Brocade didn't bother opening the floor to any shareholders until I asked why they weren't soliciting feedback or questions.  Apparently, Brocade believes that special meetings aren't appropriate venues for shareholder questions, but deigned to include them after my request. You may be wondering, "Why bother having shareholders attend if you won't answer questions from them?"  Such a question assumes a minimum IQ and an ability to understand logic, two items we'll see might not actually exist in Brocade's corporate repertoire.

My question was about privacy and security vulnerabilities in Brocade's technology.  With the NSA's activities becoming well-known post-Snowden (see Citizenfour for more details), I asked whether Brocade allowed backdoors in its products or had been solicited by the NSA to do so.  Brocade appeared startled by the question and told me they couldn't answer it.  I replied, "So you can neither deny nor confirm the existence of backdoors in any of your products?"  Brocade, smart enough to realize the trap I'd laid, still wasn't courageous enough to answer the question, gave a convoluted answer and basically said it wasn't the type of question appropriate at the special meeting.  (Because something like privacy vulnerabilities couldn't possibly be relevant to a merger or its price, right?)  I walked out, saying, "There's no leadership here."

Two men affiliated with the company approached me after the meeting and asked if I really expected the company to answer questions that might jeopardize the merger.  "Today is precisely the time that such questions are relevant, because shareholders and lawyers on both sides deserve to have full information before approving or voting on the merger," I said.  Meanwhile, I was thinking, "Why is it my problem if the teams' lawyers didn't do their due diligence properly?  Why am I bound by their limited scope?"

I repeated my insistence that corporate America as well as the country at large was diminishing because of a lack of leadership and integrity.  I'm willing to bet each of the directors or executives silently sitting at the table during my questions had undergraduate or graduate degrees from schools that advertise they're creating leaders.  I recalled one of my favorite scenes from Scent of a Woman: "'Cradle of leadership.'  Well, when the bow breaks, the cradle will fall. And it has fallen here, it has fallen!"

Brocade's refusal to answer my questions was steeped in no law--only cowardice.  Once the formal portion of the meeting concludes, the informal part isn't necessarily regulated by specific laws other than what the company decides or what is presented in the notice.  The company should of course be consistent from year to year to avoid being accused of discrimination or other issues, but with respect to the informal portion of the meeting, I know of no "Brown Act" equivalent that limits questions.  At other shareholder meetings, I've seen people ask questions about CEO's personal lives and even sing "Happy birthday" to one.  And yet, here I was, being told by Brocade that they couldn't answer my questions, because questions about the company's technology weren't within the scope of the special meeting's purpose.

Let me repeat that--from what I understand, Brocade refused to answer shareholder questions on its own technology's vulnerabilities because it didn't believe that such information was relevant to the merger price or merger agreement.

The first page of Brocade's December, 20, 2016 "Notice of Special Meeting of Stockholders" states, "We are holding the meeting for the following purposes... To transact any other business that may properly come before the special meeting, or any adjournment or postponement of the special meeting, by or at the direction of the board of directors of the Company."  [Emphasis added.]  Who signed the statement? Ellen A. O'Donnell, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary.

Who refused to answer my questions because she felt they weren't appropriate for the special meeting?  It appeared to be Ellen A. O' Donnell, Esq., graduate of Stanford University and Loyola Law School.

That's not even the best part.  Brocade's own 10K from 2015 states, "Customers have become increasingly sensitive to government-sponsored surveillance and may believe that, as a U.S.-based manufacturer, Brocade’s equipment contains 'backdoor' code that would allow customer data to be compromised by either governmental bodies or other third parties. As a result, customers may choose not to deploy Brocade networking products, which could negatively impact Brocade’s business and financial results."  Note the language above doesn't admit or deny the existence of backdoors--it just states that customers might believe they exist.

I now have two further questions: 1) What is Brocade trying to hide about its cooperation with government surveillance requests?

2) Should you, as a consumer, use the services of any company that buys Brocade products when you might be giving your network information or data to the U.S. or foreign governments?

(c) Matthew Rafat

Disclosures: I own a non-substantial number of shares of Brocade (BRCD).

Blue Devils

A few days after criticizing Duke basketball, I visited my alma mater, UC Davis and a local museum.  Unbeknownst to me, the local high school's mascot are the Blue Devils.

One of the docents was kind enough to print me a history of the mascot's origin, which relates to a WWI French Allied military unit.

The most interesting memorabilia were WWI items, such as Liberty Bond advertisements.  From the Federal Reserve website: "World War I began in Europe in 1914, the same year the Federal Reserve System was established."   Yet, the Federal Reserve at that time disfavored money printing to fund wars.  The Secretary of the Treasury "opposed printing money because it would hide the costs of war rather than keeping the public engaged and committed. 'Any great war must necessarily be a popular movement.'"

I love UC Davis and going back made me wonder if I should have found some way to stay after graduation.  Unfortunately, the law school put me on its wait list, and I never heard from them after that.  If you have a chance to attend UC Davis, go for it.  It was a wonderful school when I attended, and it is still a wonderful place.

Bonus: more from Duke University HERE on the Blue Devils.

North Carolina State Basketball

From Seth Davis's Wooden: A Coach's Life (2015, paperback)

North Carolina State beat Duke this week in basketball.  Even more satisfying was Abu's non-flagrant foul against Grayson "Most Punchable Face in the World" Allen towards the end of the game.  As the lily-white audience cheered a failed comeback attempt, I wondered why anyone would support Duke when so many other Carolina basketball options exist.

First, it was UNC's Dean Smith who truly integrated Carolina basketball, not Duke, by accepting Charlie Scott on a varsity athletic scholarship.  It's true that Maryland's Bill Jones, in the 1965-66 season, was the ACC's first African-American scholarship player.  Of course, Maryland isn't North or South Carolina.

It is true that Wake Forest's Norwood Todman became the first black scholarship player on the Demon Deacons's freshman team, but that was non-varsity.

It is also true that C.B. Claiborne played Duke basketball in the 1965-66 season, but he was on an academic scholarship, not an athletic one; only eight African-American students preceded him in graduating in 1969; and he, like Norwood Todman, played freshman ball, not varsity.

That's not all.

Every sports fan knows about NCSU Jim Valvano's 1983 championship victory against a Houston team led by future NBA Hall of Famers Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler.  Fewer people remember it was the NCSU Wolfpack that ended UCLA's streak of seven consecutive national titles when it beat Coach John Wooden's Bruins and Bill Walton 80-77 in double overtime in the NCAA's 1974 national semi-final game.

The year before, David Thompson led North Carolina State University to an undefeated season (27-0), then followed it up with a 30-1 season and the anti-climactic 1974 national championship.

Ok, ok, that was a long time ago.  "What about now?" you might ask. Fair enough.

The only major college I've personally seen play a basketball player wearing hearing aids was NCSU.  His participation was so under the radar, a Google search of "hearing aids North Carolina State basketball player" yields zero relevant results as of today.

Remember Deah Barakat? His favorite team was NCSU.

NC State's amazing 2015 March Madness run was heaven on earth for any basketball fan.  The only recent college basketball experience rivaling it would be UNI's Ali Farokhmanesh taking down #1 seed Kansas.

Finally, watching Abdul-Malik Abu this week, it's clear he'll make the NBA [someday] and provide basketball fans with even more excitement and hopefully a long career.

What else do you need to stop supporting Duke and switch over to NCSU?  A lynching?

(c) Matthew Rafat

Bonus: One redeeming aspect about Duke is that Bobby Knight is responsible for its success.  Coach Knight took Coach K under his wing by coaching him on the Army's basketball team, being his mentor, and helping him find employment as a coach.  No Bobby Knight, no Coach K, no Duke success.

Why do I like Bobby Knight so much?  He was perhaps the last honest "Power 5 conference" coach in the NCAA, now that even UNC has admitted academic violations.  Here's one of my favorite Coach Knight quotes: "We've gotten into this situation where integrity is really lacking...we've got a coach at Kentucky who put two schools on probation, and he's still coaching. I really don't understand that."

Update: ESPN's 30 for 30 "The Last Days of Knight" documentary shattered Coach Knight's public image. From the director: "I was a fan of Bob Knight. I read the book A Season on the Brink in 1987 and loved it. I thought Bob Knight was a great coach, my kind of coach. Someone who doesn't cheat, is not politically correct and a man who does a great job of turning young boys into men. I had no idea that 13 years later I would be asked by my boss at CNN to find out why good players were leaving Knight's program. When I was assigned the story, I had no idea what I would uncover..." 

Update: on January 29, 2017, a few days after my post, it appears Duke's History department page no longer accepts my original link to "lynching," so search for "Duke noose tree 2015" if further links don't work.

Update: I checked again on January 30, 2017, and the original link works again, but I've kept the new link in the main article.  

The Ideal Algorithm for a Single Person considering Worldwide Options

I've stumbled upon the perfect algorithm for choosing a new city (of at least 50,000 residents) if you're single and over 30 years old:

(Percentage of inter-racial marriages and inter-racial relationships of at least six months) + 

(Percentage of inter-religious marriages, including deists and atheists, and inter-religious relationships of at least three months) - 

(Suicide rate per 100,000, averaged over most recent four years) - 

(Pollution levels).

I call this the "Rafat Relationship Index," or RRI. The blue criteria are mandatory, while the violet ones are optional but necessary for more complete data.  The suicide rate would only apply in cities of over 100,000, though I'd be very pleased if any non-resort city smaller than that ranked highly on the first two criteria.  An ambitious researcher might try a formula with both percentages and hard numbers, which would still favor larger cities but provide better conclusions. You only need to find one person, after all, so the more people, the higher your chances.

Upon hearing my idea, my friend's wife burst into fits of laughter, while he said it worked--"It's the tolerance + happiness formula."  When his wife stopped laughing, she posited that countries with public healthcare systems like Canada would rank the highest.

I disagree--from what I've seen in Scandinavian Facebook and other online profiles, it seems rare there to marry outside your race, even though Scandinavia has great public health care and relatively high levels of immigration (when considering its size).  I suppose many of the non-blondes are probably recent immigrants who may not speak the native languages, making it harder to evaluate true tolerance and segregation levels, but the growing presence of Scandinavian Neo-Nazi groups--an issue touched upon in Stieg Larsson's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series--indicates growing societal problems. In any case, as you can see, this kind of exercise can be quite interesting, even if you're married or in a relationship.

To determine what city to visit to meet a potential lifetime partner, I had been evaluating economic numbers such as levels of private debt.  From a statistical analysis, however, such efforts are futile because it's almost impossible in developed countries to link private debt or lack thereof to fiscal responsibility, lack of materialism, lack of greed, or moderation.  A person living in a more affluent area could be justified in taking out more debt than someone living in a smaller but equally nice area.  Another person could be able to buy a larger property because of parental assistance, while another might not have such options, while still another might have such options and forgo them, indicating higher levels of character than all others. We don't even need to further parse our analysis by considering student loans or their repayment rates to understand that levels of debt are great starting points for character analysis, but so in need of individual tailoring as to be non-optimal for relationship formulas.

At the same time, at least with private debt (or even something more subjective like educational quality), you can easily ascertain objective data if you have the right access.  In contrast, with the first two criteria in my formula, it's not possible today to do a objective analysis because most cities don't keep or even try to find such personal data, and even if they did, many of them experience substantial inflows and outflows year-to-year, making any data gathered unreliable.  Fortunately, the last two criteria can, for the most part, be found using online databases, so we won't discuss them further except to say they provide completely objective markers that would eliminate places with tolerance and open-mindedness but not quality of life. (You might argue I should include GDP growth because most people need a job, but the reality of our modern world is that capital is mobile but labor is not; therefore, a GDP criterion would be inferior to an additional criterion relating to immigration rules and policies, such as ease of student visas and visa extensions.)

If someone was brave enough to attempt to complete my formula, the first step would be deciding which relationships to classify as interracial, an act requiring an in-person check subject to individual preferences.  Does an American woman with light skin but olive eyes who is half-Chinese and half-Caucasian qualify as inter-racial if she marries a white American? What if the male is a white immigrant from Germany or Norway who speaks English less than perfectly? (Are you able to see the vast possibilities and variations yet?)

Taking the potential analysis further, does President Barack Obama's relationship with Michelle Obama qualify as inter-racial?  (He's half-white and half-African, while she's full African-American.)  Or do their respective educational pedigrees render their race and backgrounds less relevant and therefore outliers that should be excluded from the formula's input?

For the religious factor, does someone who goes to church once a year for Christmas qualify as "inter-religious" if married to someone who goes every week? Take Homer and Marge Simpson. If Homer was Chinese, most people would classify his relationship with Marge as both inter-racial and inter-religious, but since they're both the same color with similar facial features, most people would classify them as neither. (By now, I'm almost tempted to return to debt levels as a more reliable factor in finding a suitable relationship, but I'm too enamored with my formula's potential.)

Although it's very, very difficult to parse racial and religious differences without in-depth interviews, sociologists can still get adequate data by going to popular cafes and restaurants at lunchtime and in the evening within different cities and doing an eye-check of inter-racial couples.  In San Jose, California, they could, on at least one weekday and one weekend, visit Westfield Mall's food court, Santana Row, a Starbucks on the East Side, a Starbucks far away from Santana Row, and a few independent coffeeshops using Yelp's ratings.

Researchers may then go to religious services in multiple locations and do a similar eye-check to ascertain further data on interracial marriages.  For example, does the local Catholic Church have separate masses for Latinos and non-Latinos?  If so, what percentage of married couples are interracial? How many African-Americans and Africans does the local mosque have attending on Friday, or is it all Pakistani-American and Arab-American?

The disheartening part about such a study in America is that even a casual observer will notice that religious entities are about as racially and ethnically segregated as you can get.  Near my hometown, Persian Christians have their own church rather than being incorporated into an existing one.  In other words, one can legitimately argue that religious entities, even established ones in America, don't do much to integrate people who look different from their existing congregations or who have different customs--in which case, what's the point of religion anyway?  To increase segregation and provide a tax benefit for doing so?

In any case, research would not take more than two weeks in each city, although the timing must be right--no holidays, no college towns (too young), no one-off days (like April 15 in the U.S.), and no fiscal quarter close time periods.

As for data on inter-religious marriage and coupling rates, the data must include relationships of at least three months to be valid.  I'm at a loss on how to proceed in a creative way.  The regular route of a paid study with voluntary participants would be one way to go, though I'd name the study something else and use it as a conduit to get background information (doing it this way increases the likelihood of accurate information).

In some ways, my formula, like debt levels, is subject to individual perception and therefore bias, but if done over a period of years, one can actually create the framework for a useful metric when it comes to solving this problem we call love.  If any sociology or psychology students end up using my idea, please give me credit.  I think it would make a fantastic idea for a dissertation or end-of-year paper.  You'd need at least three observers and of different genders and ethnic backgrounds to follow the procedure above in cafes, restaurants, and religious entities and majority agreement before marking a couple as "interracial," but it would be a great start.  If cities were judged under my formula, they'd no doubt do a better job reversing centuries of voluntary and involuntary segregation, leading to better outcomes for everyone.

(c) Matthew Rafat (2017) 

Bonus: "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." -- fictional quote attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche by Simpsons creator Matt Groening