On the Tragedy in Christchurch

Do you know what immediately disqualifies you from having your opinion cared about by anyone? Killing a bunch of innocent, unarmed people! Very disturbed to read about the events in Christchurch this morning. The report I saw quoted the shooter as saying he perpetrated the act to gain maximum publicity for his pile of trash "manifesto". ... What better indication is there that your ideology is utter nonsense than killing innocent people? There is literally no better way to convince me not to give a crap about your worldview. But sadly this craving for attention seems to be a recurring theme for these terrorists. They all have something to say, and are convinced mass murder is the best way to get people to listen. Please don't give this guy what he wants. Don't read about him, don't read his manifesto. Give him the attention his behavior warrants, and let his identity meld back into anonymity where it belongs.

Instead, find inspiration from tragedies like this to defend victims of discrimination and intolerance. This heinous act is the ultimate manifestation of those behaviors. Moments like this are a reminder that the stakes couldn't be higher.

On Maximizing Profits, and Continued Commentary of Andrew Yang’s Version of UBI

America’s government is run like a Fortune 500 company – in other words, it functions as a plutocratic oligarchy with a sole focus on profit. The parallels exist at every level of the system, from the lowest-skilled employees to the boards of directors.  

At the lowest level, you have the uneducated and unemployed who don’t participate in the political system or make a dent in GDP. This group survives on some combination of government welfare and corporate charity. Next you have immigrant workers. According to the NYT, 8 million people are working illegally in the U.S.. This group contributes to GDP but has no voting power in our political system. These workers are like the lowest-skilled workers at a Fortune 500 company, who have no influence over how the company operates or who is in charge.

Moving up the ladder you reach the undereducated citizens of the blue-collar class who often perform manual labor or work in the service industry for Fortune 500 companies. Voter turnout directly correlates with education level, which indicates that this group has the ability to vote but often abstains. Just like at work, they contribute to GDP but have no influence over the political system or who is in charge. They are cogs in a wheel that churns irrespective of their individual perspective.

Then comes the middle class, which includes the majority of Americans. Members of the middle class typically have achieved higher level degrees and often assume management positions within their companies. They participated in the 2016 presidential election at a rate of 70%, so they take an active role in the political sphere. Still, a recent Princeton study showed that the probability of policy change remains at 30% regardless of public support from median-income voters. In contrast, Americans in the 90th income percentile achieve their policy goals with significantly more effectiveness. As of April 2016, nearly 80% of the middle class were shareholders of public companies. In the political sphere as in their professional life, the middle class seems to have a greater influence over decisions. And yet, the NYT reports that large institutions own 70% of public company stock, compared to 30% by small investors. And in terms of turnout, 91% of institutionally held shares were voted, compared to 29% held by individuals. Point in fact, the middle class still has very little influence over the governance of our country or our companies.

Finally you reach the governing bodies of both corporate and political administrations. CFOs, cabinet leaders, etc... This elite group is managed by a single figurehead, the President or CEO. And yet both individuals answer to a higher body – corporate interest groups and the boards of directors, where there is typically significant overlap in representation. In terms of GDP and corporate earnings, this faction manipulates both our political system and economy to a singular goal – increasing profits.

From a corporate perspective, this mechanism works exactly as it should in a capitalist system. Profits should take priority, and management will be handled by the wealthy few who have proven their ability to maximize net income. Moreover, political cooperation facilitates profit maximization, and therefore should be a priority for any board of directors. In other words, even as statistical analysis affirms this dynamic, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is a natural consequence of our economic design.

However, I’m just not sure that maximizing profits should be the goal of a democratic government, even in a capitalist society. According to the Constitution, the basic functions of the United States government are: 'To form a more perfect Union'; 'To establish Justice'; 'To insure domestic Tranquility'; 'To provide for the common defense'; 'To promote the general Welfare'; and 'To secure the Blessings of Liberty.' Nowhere on this list does it say, “to maximize economic profits.” And in fact, there are many good arguments to be made, and that have been made, that a government that maximizes profits actually is counterproductive the essential functions it was established to provide. I’m not saying one way or the other is correct, but I am saying to be a Capitalist and Constitutionalist is fundamentally hypocritical.

This conversation should be politically mainstream, considering the facts of our circumstance. This topic explains much of the frustration with our political system. I hope it becomes a key talking point of the next presidential election.

Which brings me to Andrew Yang, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. He has tangentially latched on to this issue with his proposal of UBI. His goal is to make every American citizen a shareholder in our economic profit. From that perspective, maximizing GDP would be valuable to every citizen, not just the privileged elite. The idea is a romantic one. It brings to mind images of lower-class laborers cheering on the boards of directors and cabinet members as they work to boost margins. When everybody gets a slice, the bottom-line is everyone’s priority. Still, I think the challenge becomes fairly dividing the pie. I don’t mean equally, I mean relative to the value of each participant or faction. Yang’s initial pitch is a $1000 check for every American, every month. To me this number and allocation seems arbitrary. If this allocation and amount is not adequate, it will be difficult to make any significant changes that favor the lower end of the income spectrum. Why? Because control over our political system is in the hands of the elite. I imagine Yang’s hope is that this initial step will yield net positive results for our GDP, and thereby appeal the profit-focused mindset of the plutocracy. TBD.

Three Critiques of Andrew Yang’s Version of UBI, and how to Negate Them

2020 Presidential hopeful Andrew Yang’s proposal for UBI is rapidly gaining traction amongst Americans, and it’s no surprise as to why. His data driven methodology speaks to the fact-starved thinkers who have been craving adult level conversations around policy. In short, his vision is to institute a monthly “dividend” of $1,000 per month to all American citizens who opt in to receive it. Still, his creative approach falls prey to several traditional impediments to addressing inequality in America. 

It’s not enough – Relative benefit v. absolute benefit, inflation, and the expensive aftermath - especially considering the bureaucracy behind the program. $1000 per month is not enough, especially as the market adjusts and inflation takes its toll. Once we have to raise the monthly dividend, how high will it go? There will be the same fight against increasing it as there has been around minimum wage.

Unamerican – it’s involuntary for taxpayers. Even if you do believe the program will reap the universal rewards it promises, somebody is paying for it without their approval. It’s not a zero sum game – for everyone to receive $1000, some people must be paying in significantly more. Marginal taxation is not new, so the response to it is no mystery. People despise paying taxes and will seek creative methods to reduce their tax bill. That will not change. 

Inefficient – with no vetting process and a check for everyone, a) some people are getting checks that don’t need it (Yes you can opt out, but why would you? Look at how many wealthy people still get social security. It’s not like they give it away because they don’t need it.) b) once the inefficiency is observed, it will be incredibly difficult for the government to effectively and accurately weed out those who are undeserving of the income supplement. Again, just look at the selectivity of social welfare programs and our thinning middle class.

Solutions – replace government-sanctioned dividend with citizen-supported donations

It’s not enough – so let the market decide. Give the program participants flexibility with respect to donations and recipients, and accountability for the results. With more selective donations, there wouldn’t be as much of an inflationary impact since some people still wouldn’t qualify. The recipients who do pass the vetting process would really benefit, and those who don’t would be motivated to get involved.

Unamerican – so make it voluntary. Critics might think that affluent citizens would opt out or be cheapskates...but now they have accountability over the success of the system. If they opt out or don’t give enough, the consequence will be protests, disgruntled citizens, backlash, and an explanation. While donation amount could be kept private, donors who give heavily would be motivated to share their statistics to garner the approval of the people. (A recent example is Matt Kuchar, who recently won a golf tournament and stiffed his caddie. After public outcry, Kuchar realized the error of this ways, apologized and paid the caddie a more reasonable compensation.) The success of the program would be measured in statistics, which would appeal to wealthy donors to whom demonstrable results are paramount. The program could fail because the money is not used effectively after receipt. Poor investment, hoarding cash, or vice spending could cripple the system and render it ineffective. This evidence would enable wealthy donors to point towards these failures as a rationale against increasing donations, or against the program. The onus falls on both sides of the transaction, and both parties are properly incentivized to see the system succeed.

Inefficient – rather than perpetuating the inefficiency of other methods for addressing poverty and job erosion, a vetting system would ensure that only those who need/deserve the dividend would receive it. Through a data driven approach, this group of qualifying cases would evolve over time as different industries are disrupted by AI, or different demographics become at-risk for economic disparity. Membership in these groups would be automatic based on inherent factors, but continued good standing would be based on lifestyle indicators such as criminal record. This is not to say certain groups would be totally excluded. Instead, the groupings would just enable selectivity on the part of donors, and better data analysis and attribution as the program progresses.

This program would be operated as a for-profit entity, and launched as a direct alternative to a government administered UBI. Based on the several points made above, wealthy donors and prospective recipients, alike, would prefer a private methodology over Yang’s pitch. Once operational, a competitor could be launched that operates more efficiently or effectively than the initial entity. Privacy, user interface, vetting system, administrative fees, transparency, data analysis and ultimate results would all be the independent variables controlled by companies operating in this space. In true, American form – may the best team win!

Delayed Apprehension

Sensible opinions swirl, but could use some flesh. Funny word, flesh. Especially since the subject of this post is whether or not it matters. Not just any flesh, but the human kind cocooned underneath a dark outer layer. The wrapping doesn't change the composition. It's just flesh. Flesh gives the impression of life, though. Once the heart stops beating, flesh becomes only matter. Inconsequential in function, but powerful in legacy and impression.

Black lives matter. They matter to anyone who believes life matters, other than their own. You know what else is important? Solutions. Ideas. Compromise. And yet, officials do not listen with intent to improve. They listen with intent to soothe. The citizens state their case in eloquent and passionate terms, but don't propose a remedy. They plead for one. Authority figures should be receptive to the complaints and search for a solution; devote resources to finding a course of action. That's what they're paid to do. Not to coldly hash out known truths of individual circumstances and issue a verdict, sidestepping any responsibility or suggestions for improvements. So here's an idea.

A culprit is a culprit. But you don't have to stand behind a pulpit to believe that everyone is capable of making mistakes. That's experience talking. Protect and serve. From whom? It's not as simple as them vs. us, since each one of us has been them. And we have all benefitted from mercy, at least once. So who are we to say "there's a price to pay because of the way you behave, you monster." How cold. You think it's necessary? Why. Because mercy wasn't always levied on us. And so on. Screw right and wrong, it's history. Said no one ever. I would hope. 

Police officers are instructed to obey protocol for the safety of themselves and the communities they serve. They are also taught to immediately address situations where a crime is believed to have been committed in order to detain the perpetrators. I think we've reached a point, though, where solving non-vicious crimes may motivate officers to approach situations in an overly aggressive manner. In other words, winning the case and detaining the perpetrators now takes priority over the safety and well-being of the potentially innocent. Of course, this approach is especially prevalent in poorer neighborhoods and communities predominated by minorities. Defense of the law is absolutely crucial, but not if it jeopardizes the lives of those it is intended to protect. Or is the system not designed to protect some?

I'll cut to the chase. Delayed Apprehension should become integrated into police training as the encouraged response to select situations. In the case of some suspected, non-violent offenses, it should be optional, if not discouraged, for police officers to immediately engage individuals who may be the perpetrators. In other words, it may be prudent for police officers to avoid attempting to apprehend a suspect, for the sake of the safety of the potentially innocent human-being.

The current framework too often puts police in the position of judge & jury, when they should instead operate like detectives: gather information and detain, when appropriate. If an officer believes they may have trouble safely arresting an alleged criminal, then they should abstain from trying. This may mean retreat, if the danger becomes apparent after the initial interaction. Most offenders in low-level crimes are not flight risks, so the opportunity to achieve justice does not vaporize with the disappearance of the suspect. Prioritize life over a conviction. Win the war, not the battle. Doing so is the only way to rebuild trust in communities where police-citizen relations are strained. 

I don't know Michael Brown, but as an adolescent male I'm sure I shared many traits in common with him, both good and bad. Speaking for myself, I could be rebellious towards authority figures, I stole from convenience stores, I've been in fights, and I dabbled in drugs. In other words, I'm far from perfect so I don't expect anyone else to be. We could go into the reasons for these behaviors, like peer pressure or attempted masculinity, but that's a topic for a different discussion. The point is no young man is totally immune to these forces and urges.

I also know many young black males who I respect and admire very much who can identify with Michael Brown in terms of the individual challenges of being African-American in America, and especially the south. As a white guy, the only glimpse I can get of that perspective is walking around New York City with my friends of color. All I can say is, day-to-day degradation and harassment is not dead, on the part of citizens or the authorities. 

As someone who knows how the young male mind works and who acknowledges the existence of racism, I'm not surprised at the grand jury findings related to Michael Brown's behavior after being confronted by the police officer. Especially since we do not know for a fact what words were exchanged prior to the tussle at the car window. Still, I believe the fact that he ended up dead at the hands of a police officer is ludicrous. If you are a police officer with a super-hero complex that believes you can run down a suspected shoplifter with an acknowledged size advantage, but then you realize you have no choice but to shoot the guy once he turns towards you and advances, YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB WRONG. You don't deserve a police badge, and you should not be in the line of duty as a preserver of the peace. If you want to help people, go become an EMT who doesn't carry a firearm. The burden of responsibility falls on the sworn officer of the law to achieve a peaceful outcome, not the misguided adolescent.  

Officer Wilson should not have pursued Michael Brown in the manner in which he did, with no back-up and the admitted recourse of lethal force being his only tool. Based on the information at his disposal, he believed Michael Brown may have perpetrated an unarmed robbery. Whatever transpired after he attempted to detain the young man is a separate issue, since the punishment for lifting some cigarillos is not death.

If he wants to argue that a young man suddenly snapped after he was simply instructed to "get out of the street," I'd tell Officer Wilson to stop insulting my intelligence. Officer Wilson fucked up. He may have been following protocol, but in that case protocol needs to be changed. Officer Wilson should not have attempted to detain Michael Brown at that point in time. His training should include a caveat that would allow, encourage, or require him to refrain from engaging with the suspect. That exception would be called the "Delayed Apprehension" clause, and it would be designed to protect the names of young black males from becoming headlines and headstones.

I'll admit I'm not intimately familiar with law enforcement training, and something of the like may very well already exist. If so, it should be emphasized and prioritized. I understand that police officers' lives matter too, and I am incredibly grateful for the role that law enforcements plays in protecting and serving citizens. The Delayed Apprehension clause would only help ensure their safety, as well, by avoiding potentially deadly confrontations for both parties. 

The Case of the LA Skipper

“It’s like talking to an enemy” he says. “It’s disrespecting the world before you,” he chides. These comments are about far more than one man’s pitiful perspective. They reflect a mindset that has been ingrained into some people’s brains; a worldview characterized by fear, distrust and guilt. This outlook exists for numerous reasons, and is not exclusive to any one ethnicity. To most Americans, and especially younger generations, it should evoke a revolting reaction. Regardless, it prevails and pervades the minds of some.

To those who abide by this creed, I say you’re wrong, as was the world before us. I choose not to adopt prejudice simply because my forefathers felt it. I choose not to blindly follow any mode of thought, especially one that preaches suspicion and segregation, simply because my predecessors possessed it. That’s the takeaway from the scandal involving LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Or at least it should be.

Many of the racially charged discussions in the media revolve around criminal cases where violence is committed. A man with light skin kills or assaults a man with dark skin. In the most widely publicized instances, the actual events leading up to the deed are considered contentious. So the “facts” are twisted and concocted based on stance. Tragedy becomes a tool. The loudest voices receive the most attention and exposure, and the divisive debate rages and spreads across news outlets and the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the majority of the population sits by and silently observes. They may try and formulate opinions, but are stymied while trying to sort out the myriad of conflicting “truths” they read and hear. The lack of valid information leads individuals to acquiesce and support the side that seems to best represent their interests. There is no coordinated, unified reaction, for what can be done? The narrative may go, “We are all aware that prejudice is still prevalent, but how can we verify that it played a role? You can’t prove what is in a man’s head anymore than you can change it. Let the jury decide. That’s what they’re there for… After all, we aren’t all racists, and things have gotten a lot better in this country.” Brief surmises sprout up on social media sites, but eventually the chatter subsides and life goes on as before. Fear, distrust and guilt persist, laying dormant until the next divisive event brings them bubbling back to the surface. In the meantime, self-esteem is soothed with thoughts like, “If something happened that was clearly racist, something that blatantly promoted the perpetuation of prejudice, I would be the first to rebuke and condemn the action.”

Cue Donald Sterling, owner of the LA Clippers. Curtain up on a wealthy, powerful member of society sharing his inner dialogue and making comments like, “Associating with minorities is like talking to an enemy and disrespecting the world before you.” Here we go. This backlash will be of a different sort. This isn’t about one race fighting for justice. This is about all citizens of this nation standing up for our identity!

I said, this is about all citizens of this nation standing up for what is right! For our identity!

Hm… I expected something more. Cymbals, even. But to no avail. Instead I behold the same, tired media frenzy. Networks compete to seek out as many quotable black Americans as possible to weigh in on this one man’s hateful remarks. Videos pop up from artists like Lil Wayne and Snoop Dogg, who post expletive-laced tirades directed at Mr. Sterling. I encounter articles where passionate authors demand that the NBA strips Mr. Sterling of his ownership rights. I scan supposedly profound comments from writers attempting to leverage this situation into a political platform to push their subjective policy agenda.

That this type of reaction occurs is not the problem. I just don’t believe it is adequate or productive. While hurling insults at someone isn’t an effective response or a good example, Mr. Sterling should face the consequences of his contemptible convictions. Still, anger at the man and obsession with his punishment may obscure a crucial chance to capitalize on his insolent comments and fortify our national identity as a proponent of diversity and a defender of freedom and equal opportunity. And to think it wouldn’t be based on a violent offense!  

America needs a unified, nationwide response decrying the specific opinions that Sterling uttered. This country is home to many different ethnicities, races, religions, sexual orientations, etc… We are tasked and challenged with demonstrating to the world that such a society can COEXIST peacefully and prosperously. America was not intended to be a microcosm of the world: where different people would gather but then segregate based on inherent qualities, where the only unifying force would be the democratic system that we share. That would require individual governments for each group to ensure that respective needs are met while maintaining the boundaries! That is not the America I know.

In my America, colors, cultures, and etc. compose one community. We compromise to achieve progress and promote our national interests. We stand against intolerance. We do not perceive our neighbors as enemies. We refuse to blindly adopt the mindset of our forefathers, and we do not see it as “disrespectful” to eliminate prejudice from our society. We choose reason, logic and sensibility over a tradition of hatred and suspicion. We acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes, and so we do not rush to rash judgments. We are realistic, but hopeful. We know we aren’t perfect, but we take pride in our national identity. And we will always strive to be better.

This demonstration is not just for the benefit of our global neighbors. It also bolsters hope here at home, and gives conviction to beliefs that people already possess. Improving this clarity enables us to chip away at the sentiments of fear, distrust and guilt that inhibit progress and precipitate conflict. It doesn’t have to be grandiose and voluminous, either. The sound of millions of resolute voices making the declaration amongst and alongside their peers is plenty loud enough. Then we move forward.