Generalizations, Prejudgment, and Bias

Back on or around October 1991, I was a student at Lansing Community College. I was friends with a black female student named Valencia. One day Valencia showed up to class looking miserable. I asked her what was wrong. She said, "Michael, I feel so bad about something I just did. I was walking across the bridge to come to class and there was only one other person walking on the bridge. It was a black male walking towards me on the same side of the street. I got nervous so I clutched my purse and crossed to the other side of the street. Mike, we get mad at white people when they prejudge and are fearful of minorities and then look I just did the same thing we get mad about."

I told her "Don't you dare feel bad about you looking out for yourself. You don't know that guy and have no idea whether he's good or bad. You have no responsibility to put yourself in a possibly dangerous situation just to prove how non judgmental you are. In fact, in this case, non judgment would be the wrong answer. We can't just presume everybody out there is good."

In this society, at least since the Civil Rights Movement, we have been raised to believe that prejudging and generalizing about people are moral wrongs but in fact these are mental shortcuts that help humans optimize their choices in situations where our knowledge is limited. Compare 100 people who arrive to a job interview dressed professionally with nice shoes, a tie, and a neat haircut versus 100 people who arrive in jeans, a hoodie, gym shoes, and unwieldy hair. While I acknowledge that there would be some in that second group who would make good employees, the first group would have a higher percentage of good candidates because the way they dress speaks the qualities of conscientiousness and professionalism that set them apart from that second group. You don't have to bother with going through 200 applications in this situation. Restricting your search to that first group will provide optimal results.

This isn't an easy concept for people to understand because their belief in the immorality of generalizing makes them try to think of objections. Think about it this way. As a group men are taller than women. But if you say that (which should be a purely obvious and banal fact), someone is going to respond "That's not true. There is a 6 foot tall women at my job and the guys there are like 5'5". Of course the proper responses to this is are:

• The exception does not disprove the rule and;
• A woman in the top 2% of women's height should be compared to a man in that same percentile, not to a man in a low percentile

I was once in a bar with three members of my pool team and we got on the subject of generalizations. I said "Not all generalizations are bad. Some things just are. For example, black smokers are more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes than white smokers."

On of my teammates took immediate umbrage at this and said "That's not true! I know plenty of black people who smoke non-menthol!"

Note first, he ignored the fact that I did not say no black smokers smoke non menthols. Also, my point is not that he was unaware of the fact that what I said was correct (and to clarify, it has been well documented that cigarette companies historically marketed menthol cigarettes much more actively in the black community and that menthol cigarettes are actually more deadly than non menthol but I digress). My point is that denying obvious truths in situations like these are examples of virtue signaling. Look at me, since I am the one arguing against generalizing and you are the one generalizing, I am the good guy and you are the bad guy. Never mind that acknowledging the discrepancy in these rates would actually be the first step in addressing health disparities between the two groups but that is entirely beside the point. For the person doing the virtue signaling, their point never was actually helping the people they are ostensibly advocating for. Their main and possibly only point was ever to paint themselves as good and their opponents as bad.

My final point is that generalizing is only appropriate when you lack specific knowledge of the situation you need to judge. If you have candidates of different races before you and you say to yourself oh Asians are more academically successful that other races, then you look at their transcripts and you find that the Asian is only in the median range and you hire that person anyway because "Asians are smarter", that is not appropriate and is evidence that one, you are a racist and two, you should not be doing the hiring.

If you have read this far, that is hilarious to me.

My LSJ Editorial

 

Martial arts and film star Bruce Lee once said, “Knowledge is fixed in time, whereas knowing is continual.”  To on knowledge is to retrieve a memory from yesterday which may or may not still be relevant today.      It is our reliance on accumulated knowledge that hinders our present knowing, our struggle to arrive at the truth.

With ancient generations, it was their “knowledge” that the universe was geocentric that prevented them from knowing that the Earth revolved around the sun.  New and better systems cannot come into being if incorrect systems that prevent them that prevent them are not first identified and removed.  The best way to accomplish this is to question everything, especially the conventional wisdom.

 Bruce Lee also said that every system is a cage and that to embrace a particular style is to exclude all others.  This can be true in fighting, such as when a person holds that a particular style of karate is the best, and refuses to learn useful techniques of kung fu, wrestling, and boxing.  The style that does not adapt becomes ossified and is limited, not by the opponent, but by the self.  The worst enemy is that which comes from within.

 Something similar happens in politics when people say that a person of color who identifies as a Republican must be a sellout, and another person chooses to believe it.      This tactic was used against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  But when you really stop and think about it, what could be more limiting and racist that you must vote such and such a way because of the color of your skin? Who in their right mind would trade shackles for a straight jacket? This is not critical thinking.  It is not thinking at all.  It is following with the blind devotion of a pig being led to the slaughter.

We must stop being led by the politics of the past and begin to question the conventional wisdom.  Instead of asking why other countries hate us so much, we should ask why we are choosing sides in bitter disputes overseas, spending billions of dollars to arm Israel, inviting the wrath of other nations in the region.

 To those who might think this position is unpatriotic, I ask you what is so patriotic about propping up a modern day apartheid on the other side of the world, instead of applying that money right here at home? What is so patriotic about helping to deprive the Palestinians of their homeland by supplying the very weapons that are used to gun them down? What is so patriotic about involving ourselves in faraway disputes when every time you turn around another nation in those areas either has or is suspected of having nuclear weapons?

And to those who say we should nuke those nations and be done with it all, that kind of logic is like throwing a grenade at a mouse in your living room.  Sure, it’ll do the job, but consider what you’ve done to your own home.

 Every problem in the world today can be traced to an action that preceded it.  Rather than follow the conventional wisdom of meeting violence with more violence, perhaps it would be wise to acknowledge that the United States has about as much business making policy in the Middle East as Iran has making policy right here in the United States.

 The United States has a Monroe Doctrine so that other nations do not interfere in this part of the world.  Is it that hard to understand that the Islamic nations of the world might want the same?

 This is not a question of military might.  One can accumulate all the fighting skill in the world, but sometimes the smartest fight is the one not fought.

The Evolution and De-evolution of American Politics

 When I was in grade school in the 1970s, we learned about the Civil Rights Movement, not as something in the distant past, but as something that had really taken hold with Brown v. Board of Education and had culminated in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King around 10 years earlier. Despite the fact that at that time we were only one generation removed from de jure segregation in the Jim Crow South, things were looking up as racial bigotry, while still alive and well, had begun to fall into disrepute and the idea of America as truly being one nation was beginning to take hold. Race relations weren't great but there was a general optimism that they were beginning to move in the right direction. Yes, we had Archie Bunker on television, but we also had The Jeffersons. Women were also making progress both socially and professionally in a movement that had largely begun to free them via the pill and reproductive autonomy. Also, America was beginning to experience a nascent gay rights movement.

In the 80s, Americans of all stripes participated in politics via the vote and Democrats and Republicans, while not agreeing with each other, tended to believe that their political opponents genuinely had America's best interests at heart. Disagreement stemmed mainly from debating which party had the better ideas to accomplish their shared ends. For example, liberals wanted to address poverty through the creation of social programs which would be paid for by taxing the rich whereas conservatives argued that lower taxes would encourage job creation which was desperately needed in order to combat the chronically high unemployment numbers and argued that jobs were more effective at combating poverty than handouts.  My point in bringing this up is not to debate which party was right, it is simply to point out that both sides were able to disagree without demonizing the other side as incorrigibly evil or presuming that their differences were based on malicious intent.

Further proof that Americans were able to tolerate and even engage with their political opponents back then comes from the fact that in 1983 Ronald Reagan won his second term by a landslide helped by the existence of many people who self-identified as Reagan Democrats. These were people who, while retaining their Democratic allegience, were able to say I like how the economy is doing under this President and I feel confident with him as commander in chief. I am therefore willing to vote for the other side. Similarly, while Bill Clinton won his first term largely due to the fact that third party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off support from George H. Walker Bush, he won his 2nd term by taking 49.2% of the popular vote versus 40.7% for Bob Dole. These results are a far cry from the razor-thin margins that exemplified the results of both the Bush/Gore and later the Clinton/Trump and later Trump/Biden results which basically were decided along party lines.

Political discourse generally continued in this vane all the way into the late 90s when the internet really began to take hold and I (now in my late 20s) joined an online personality group list where, among other things we debated ideas in religion, politics, social issues, and the like. The group's rules were generally permissive except in regard to civility. We were not allowed to verbally attack our opponents with ad hominem attacks. Attacking our opponents' ideas was of course expected. List members would point out when someone made an argument using logical fallacies such as appeal to authority, red herring arguments, non sequiturs, and poisoning the well. We vigorously debated while never hating. The list was regarded as a dojo of political ideas. Around that time, I started a political blog and strove to maintain those ideals of open political discussion while avoiding personal attacks.

Somewhere along the line America became more divided and people began to truly believe that their political opponents were either incredibly stupid or guided by venal motivations. Post 9/11, when the left began to criticize the war in Iraq the right said it was because they hated America. When America found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the left skipped straight to "Bush lied people died", ignoring the more likely possibilities which were 1) rather than lying, Bush genuinely believed the information he received from the intelligence community which turned out to be wrong, or; 2) the illegal weapons programs did in fact exist but that all evidence thereof was successfully removed/destroyed by Sadaam's operatives. Neither party could consider that their opponents might be inept or mistaken, the presumption went directly to evil.

If an outsider were to listen to the criticisms both parties regarding their opponents, they would have concluded that American politics was choosing between the America haters on the one side and the soulless supporters of war for the sake of oil and the enrichment of the military industrial complex on the other. The left was never able to consider that their opponents might genuinely be motivated by their belief that toppling Sadaam and creating a more stable Iraq would be in the best interests of the US and of the world, and the right was never able to consider that the left might oppose the war because it was ill-conceived, horribly expensive both in money and lives, and was unwinnable. 

Predictably, as America has regressed into two separate camps which are equally hateful and intolerant of each other, there no longer seems to be any role for political discourse between the parties. One cannot be seen to compromise and politically horse trade with evil incarnate and as such the days of rapprochement between the two sides and working together across party lines appear to be over. Whereas President Lincoln once warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand, America is now a virtual duplex where both parties don't interact with each other, much less get along. Americans don't even watch the same news and the result is we seem to be living in two competing realities. It is for that reason that I don't enjoy writing political essays anymore because what is the point of writing a persuasive argument when neither side is willing to be persuaded?

Indian Curry Chicken

 1.5 lb chicken breast diced small as possible 

2 medium onions diced small

2 small/medium tomato diced

Small piece of fresh ginger about 2 tbsp diced

4 - 6 cloves of garlic diced

2 tbsp indian chili powder hot

2 tbsp regular chili powder

1 tbsp turmeric 

1 tbsp cumin 

2 tbsp salt

6 tbsp plain yogurt

2 tsp cinnamon 

small amount of fresh cilantro chopped (optional)

4 tbsp oil 

Sautee onions, ginger, and garlic in oil on low/medium heat for about 4 minutes til onions become translucent 

Add both chili powders, cumin, turmeric, and salt for about 60 seconds so the hot oil brings out the flavor of the spices

Add diced tomato and cook for about 25 minutes stirring often til the tomatoes lose their shape resulting in a pasty glob (add water if needed)

Add yogurt and cinnamon stir it well

Add chicken and raise heat to medium high and cook for 30 minutes or so until chicken is tender

When finished sprinkle in fresh cilantro and serve over rice

Oh yeah. Boil like 2 cups of rice with little salt and pepper. Basmati or jasmine are the best. If not whatever you got. 

Back Right

 I'm in my third week of having returned to my old job at Sultan's Express in downtown Lansing. This is my 20th day of not drinking alcohol, having recovered from the depths of depression, the nadir that I reached when my return to work was uncertain, when my daughter was complaining of the financial crush of having to pay the entirety of the rent since the time of my accident. The mental health rebound for me in that short period of time been amazing as has been my outward return to normalcy.

In my first full week back at work I returned to the job as if I hadn't missed a beat. I insinuated myself in with the staff flawlessly (it   a new crew none of whom I had ever worked with before). Abu Amira, the dishwasher, was particularly appreciative of me as he's only been in country for one year and speaks next to no English. He does manage to ask very basic questions in broken English and I tend to respond in Arabic. He asks me the names of things in English and I respond by enunciating clearly and slowly as I'm aware of the difficulty in hearing the sounds in a language that is not your own. The other guy, Abood, who divides his time between cook and cashier since we're short staffed, is fluent both in Arabic and English. He's a bit standoffish but we work together well.

Two weeks ago in my first full week back I was down to one egg in my refrigerator and one package of Ramen noodles. I made it through that week by loading up on my free take home meals at the end of my shift. After getting the week's tips and going grocery shopping, I bought the basics such as sugar, flour, beans, etc. and subsisted the next week mostly on tostadas and spaghetti with my homemade sauce in addition to my take-home work meals. Now into my third week I've moved up to stir fry, tacos, and hamburgers. Of course I'm stocked up on Starbucks for my coffee pot.

In my short time having returned to work I've accepted every opportunity to pick up extra hours here and there because we are short staffed. I do this, not just for the money, but also to make myself invaluable and also because the time off since my accident was excruciating. Staying home, writhing in agony from my injury, and watching Netflix all day is not something I ever care to repeat. At this point in my life work is my identity more than anything else. If someone were to offer me the same amount of money to just stay home, I would not accept it. As much as I dislike intense socializing, complete isolation is destructive to me. That is not an exaggeration. My period of non work since my accident totaled just over two months. If I didn't know that from the calendar and had been asked to estimate my time away from work I would have said it was nearly five months. It was the slowest passage of time in my experience other than jail.

In addition to work I've also been donating blood plasma for money which has given me the opportunity to catch up on some exigencies such as paying the quarterly bill for the trash service and sending some money for my child support arrears so those people don't summon me. I also have some money set aside to repair a lawn mower my friend Bernard scavenged from one of his jobs clearing out a property some people had moved out of leaving a lot of belongings behind. My daughter and I are responsible for the lawn maintenance here at the new place which is a fair trade off. The old place we didn't have to do the lawn but we didn't have a washer and dryer either. This place we do have that and it's just us here so we don't have to contend with weed smoking downstairs neighbors making our lives miserable with the stench their smoking produced.

Lastly, I will mention that when we first moved here my only association with this house was physical pain, unemployment, and depression. Now that I'm working again I'm making new memories and associations. Leaving in the morning riding the bike to work (for exercise, I have a bus pass but I need to get my resting pulse rate down, a problem that had manifested due to my inactivity). I'm making good memories now such as good meals here with my daughter and my mother who I have come over on the weekends. Life is good and I can honestly say I'm truly happy. Perhaps when they take the hardware out of my shoulder this summer and the discomfort is gone I will get a second job working weekends and nights but for right now all is well with me. Thanks again to all who have helped me during this ordeal.

Culture and the Covid

My Afghani coworker was talking to me yesterday and mentioned the extremely high rate of Covid infection in Afghanistan. I took the opportunity to mention that in Islamic communities which place a high value on communal activities, some practices that might be considered utterly unremarkable from a health standpoint in normal times could now become super facilitators for the virus. For example, many Islamic cultures have carried over the Arab practice of having several people eating from the same plate, each using bread to pick up food from the section of the plate nearest them. I am not from that culture but I've worked with enough middle eastern people to where I'm familiar with and have engaged in this practice myself.

"This is the kind of thing we need to get away from because what is the point of wearing a mask if we all eat from the same plate?" I said. "If one of us gets the virus there is no need for all of us to get it. We should stop eating like this. After the Coronavirus thing is over we can get back to normal."

While the Muslim world deals with cultural issues that influence the impact of the pandemic, we here in the west must remind ourselves not to be smug. In the US we are  also dealing with a cultural issue that goes a long way to explaining why we are dead last in regard to our response to the Coronavirus. The issue is this. A significant portion of our population is under the impression that among the various liberties enshrined in the US Constitution there exists the freedom to put the lives of other people at risk during a raging pandemic (spoiler alert, no such right exists). These people are guilty of a perverse sort of individuality and are so short-sighted in their worldview that they fail to see that their actions are self defeating regarding their own cause. They call vociferously for a reopening of the US economy but sabotage those very efforts by failing to perform the most basic act that would help reign in the virus allowing the economy to reopen, to wit, wearing a mask. In fact, when you look at nations that successfully quelled their once rampant Covid numbers, you will find that mask wearing was virtually universal and was never politicized. Here in the US, however, the motto can be said to be give me liberty and give me death.

Predictably, the reddest states which happen to be the ones most hostile to mask wearing and social distancing lead the way in returning to alarming levels of new Covid infections and deaths. Other states which have reacted more responsibly have fared better but are likely to ultimately be negatively impacted by contagion crossing over from states where the virus is flourishing. Amid all this, you still find people who continue to insist that the decision on whether or not to wear a mask is a personal decision, which makes about as much sense as saying that the decision on whether or not to stop at a red light is a personal decision. The problem is not that you put your own stupid life at risk, it is that you also risk the lives of innocent people who might actually be thoughtful, intelligent, and valuable. There are various rights and freedoms enumerated in the Constitution that make our nation great but among them there is no right to put the lives of other people at risk because of your own intransigence and stupidity.

Unfortunately, I don't see a solution to our cultural backwardness in the foreseeable future. It is my opinion that, even presuming a further skyrocketing of statistics that is sure to come roughly three weeks from today when those newly infected from the 4th of July celebrations start hitting the ICUs, I don't think another lockdown will do any good. In all likelihood , the anti-maskers will simply continue to defy recommendations and continue having social gatherings which will result in the Covid stats remaining static for the duration of the lockdown rather than decreasing. This would be a waste of time. I believe we should put off any further lockdowns until the death rate hits perhaps 750,000. Only then will enough people begin to take this virus seriously enough to get past their own political and cultural obstacles so that we can actually have a lockdown that will actually bring this virus to bay. Until then good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.

Two Jobs

I was at my day job on Monday when I looked at my phone and realized I had missed a call from my boss from the night job I quit last summer. I called him back and he picked up almost immediately. "I called you on accident", he said.  "Sorry."

"Oh, no problem."

He paused a moment, then asked "You wanna work?"

I answered in the affirmative.

"You can work nights?"

Again, immediate yes.

"Ok, come in at five today."

So I came in and my old coworkers were surprised and really glad to see me. Apparently, they had a few people quit in a short amount of time. I worked two days in a row but I have tonight off from the night job which will give me some time to either go to the gym or to clean the kitchen up really well, I haven't decided on which yet. I'm in good spirits though because, even though I've never been short on paying my bills, the money has been getting tighter as of late. I want to get back to how it was last year when I was paying my bills and I still had multiple uncashed checks on hand at any given time. It's nice to have extra in case something comes up so I can break it off without even having to think about it. That is peace of mind.

The other nice thing is that, since I was so tired from working two jobs yesterday, I went to sleep early so then I woke up early and made coffee and breakfast and have been reading John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" since 5:00 this morning. That makes for a nice beginning of my day.

Flour Tortillas and Salsa

I got up at 6:00 in the morning to make homemade flour tortillas because I didn't have anything to make for breakfast. I had no eggs, no bread, no tortillas of any kind and thus there was nothing to do with my cheese or peanut butter unless I made tortillas so I did that and they came out perfect for the first time in my life. Along with that I made some salsa using jalapeno, onion, garlic, tomato, a dash of lemon juice along with salt and pepper. That came out perfect as well so after breakfast (quesadilla with salsa) I took a portion of what I had made to work with the intention of giving some to Safa who I keep promising Mexican food to but I had to take enough for my other coworkers as well so that it wouldn't look weird.

Then the Palestinian line cook didn't show up yet again so, in having to make up for his absence, we were busy as hell. In short, I never got the chance to invite all my coworkers to partake of the food at once but I made sure to offer some to Safa at the end of her shift when she typically makes her falafel wrap to go. Instead of using a pita bread for the wrap, she threw a flour tortilla on the grill to get it nice and hot. Then she made her typical falafel wrap but added the salsa in with the usual ingredients. She took a bite and said this is good. I smiled and said thanks. She took another bite and her eyes got big and she said "This is REALLY good!!" Nothing else about my day before or after that mattered, that made my day. Teh end!

The Heavyweight Champion

When I was younger, as a goal oriented workout motivator, I used to imagine how I would respond if I were given three months or so to physically prepare for a professional boxing match. Never mind that I'm not actually a boxer and that in reality any such endeavor would be horribly irresponsible and self-destructive, as a hypothetical it was good because it caused me to analyze my physical self critically. Goal #1 would be to decrease body fat as much as possible so as to avoid having to fight someone at a higher weight category.  Two would be to increase muscle mass so as to have the proper strength to fight at that weight.  Three would be to train for endurance since three minute rounds would be incredibly grueling, more so than most people would imagine. I would take a good look in the mirror and say to myself there is no way I could fight effectively carrying this extra weight.

Enter the current heavyweight champion Andy Ruiz weighing in and looking every bit of his 260 lbs when he won the title. Take nothing away from him, his fight skills are impressive and his power is fearsome. But if you saw him on the street, there is no way you would ever guess him to be a professional athlete. And while his success in the ring does not disprove the idea that one should be in tiptop shape when facing elite level competition, one wonders if he fought that well at that weight, how much better could he be if he were in shape?

Back to my exercise motivation and my mirror. The reason I like the fact that Andy Ruiz is champion is because he makes me look sleek by comparison. Truth be known, I don't even know my current actual weight but my mirror shows added muscle in my chest, shoulders, and arms and although I've lost a little body fat my belly stubbornly remains. The rest of me looks very athletic, even youthful for 49. Only my stomach looks out of place. I think it's time to add some cardio days.

As far as Andy Ruiz is concerned, it should be pointed out that the reason he came into the championship fight so overweight was because he wasn't even supposed to be fighting in the first place. He was tossed in to replace the scheduled challenger who was removed after repeated failed drug tests. In preparing for the December championship rematch however, Ruiz vows to come back in better fighting shape. I think that's a good idea. If I were him, I would ditch the between-round Snickers (I'm not making that up) and add some cardio days.

Content

I think this is it. I think this is the happiest I've ever been and the best it will ever be. Being in a relationship has bigger highs but they also have the concomitant lows which I cannot stand. This is better. I work, have a weight training regimen that has me looking and feeling better than I have in years, and my kitchen lends itself to cooking the precise things I need support this physically active lifestyle. Then, as far as my need for social interaction goes, as an introvert I don't need a lot. I have my daughter here with me and that's enough.

At the moment I am making lentil soup in preparation for working out triceps and legs later on. Why bother with protein powder for building muscle mass when I can get the same effect with red lentils, steak, ground beef, fish, and beans, plus I love to eat anyway. And I am building muscle mass. To be honest, I exercise primarily for looks but my increase in strength and stamina is a positive side benefit as well as having the ability to eat large meals without worrying about weight gain.

noon

Went to Meijer and bought $40 worth of stuff, came out ahead because I saved $3 using MPerks. Baking cornbread and chicken thighs seasoned with coriander, chili powder (hot & regular), turmeric, and paprika. Have leftover rice to go with it. It's the perfect preworkout meal. My appetite has returned with a vengeance since I started working out.

8:48 p.m.

Had successful workout, increased weight on tricep and leg exercises. Came home and ate chicken and cornbread again, watched an episode of "the End of the F***ing World" on Netflix with daughter. Life is good

Fitness Regimine

I quit drinking and started weight training regularly about three weeks ago. I wish I would have weighed myself because I can feel the change already. On the one hand, I've staved off the post Ramadan weight gain that would have happened, especially since my appetite has returned. On the other hand I know I've gained muscle mass in my back, arms, and chest. Since I eat more for the sake of muscle building protein, I've offset that by completely eliminating soda pop and sweets. I feel and look better than I have in a long time.

The Devil with Small Hands

In the days after the of the Election of Donald Trump I felt a fear that I had not felt since the immediate aftermath of 9-11. It was a fear of the unthinking, uncritical hatred of the masses, the idea that due to circumstances completely out of our control, the innocent would now be at the mercy of the majority, stoked on by the malevolence of the few. My biggest fear is that Donald Trump would emerge to be the Machiavellian genius people were saying he was. I was afraid that, as President, he would gain popularity and win over skeptics with astute political maneuverings and consolidate those victories into support for his persecution of this nation's people of color. The idea being that, amid such victories and fervent support, even those well-meaning whites who did not harbor racist sentiments would remain quiet. In truth, events played out quite differently.

Donald Trump is not a political genius, Machiavellian or otherwise. In fact, although I often use the term mediocrity as an insult, the term cannot apply to Donald Trump in the political sense because the term would denote that he is middle of the pack, and this is simply not the case. Donald Trump has proven (to my great relief) to be almost comically inept, seemingly incapable to listening to his advisors, unable to stay out of his own way, utterly clueless when it comes to prudence in communicating with the American people, and a hopeless political neophyte.

Rather than playing political give and take and currying favor with Congress in order to achieve his main objectives, he has squandered whatever political clout he may have had and is wrapping up year one on the verge of accomplishing only his first major political objective while in office despite the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress. Much like a paper tiger, this small handed devil has proven to be much weaker and less fearsome than advertised, principally because the political plurality that is his base is no match for the rest of America who remain decent people dedicated to the ideals of justice and fairness, who uphold diversity without prejudice, and who do this nation proud despite the soulless beast that occupies the Oval Office who only represents the monsters of yesteryear.

Make no mistake, his inability to achieve his political ends does not mitigate his intent. If he had his way, he would close the border, deport Latinos and Arab refugees (most likely citizens included if he could get away with it), and return America to the race-based injustices that earned praise from Adolf Hitler before his own rise to power nearly a century ago. Donald Trump is a small-handed, miniature version of the larger devil that is perhaps to come if this nation cannot come to grips with the current tribalism that permeates throughout. This fear-based and antiquated idea that that is only one way to looks, act, and be American that has existed throughout my lifetime, a silent hatred that has always been brewing just under the surface, awaiting an imprimatur that will begin the unraveling of this experiment in political liberty that is America.

I say that Donald Trump is incompetent, not out of malice, but out of an immense sense of relief, a sense that, barring some self-induced calamity with North Korea, this nation will be able to survive this term without any permanent damage despite all the efforts of the executive branch. Currently the right is a shambles. Their own party is testament to the fact that they aren't concerned with sexual assault except inasmuch as it can be used to score political points when committed by Democrats or minorities. Their own candidates, however, can be readily forgiven when they commit such acts because, after all, boys will be boys and the last thing we need is another Democrat in office. The current situation is thus that the evil that Trump and company would visit upon this nation is not attainable at this time but we cannot be complacent in light of this fact. We must organize politically and do everything in our power ensure that a situation like this is not allowed to happen again. The next devil might have bigger hands.

Rigged for Disaster

Perhaps rigged is too loaded a term to use regarding the last Democratic National Convention but let us entertain the possibility that the DNC was weighted in Hillary's favor. Why would they do this? I offer here a list of reasons they might have chosen to favor Hillary to the detriment of Bernie Sanders, a comparison to what happened on the Republican side, and some editorial comment over the entire thing.

The first, and most obvious reason, was that Hillary was an establishment Democrat. The party would have obviously preferred a candidate who would put the party first and play politics as usual, campaign rhetoric be damned. As a political outsider, Bernie Sanders would have been more willing to take actions which would have run counter to what the establishment Democrats wanted if that was what it took to fulfill his campaign promises. Hillary, like Bill Clinton before her, would have been willing to sacrifice those campaign promises if that was what it took to wheel and deal with her fellow democrats and avoid arousing the wrath of Congress and the nation as a whole (see Bill Clinton's reversal on gay rights and socialized health care during his terms as President). Hillary Clinton is, first and foremost a politician whereas Bernie Sanders is more of an ideologue. That makes him less predictable and dangerous in the eyes of establishment Democrats.

Second, in some sense the DNC might have preferred to hand the mantle of leadership to Hillary as a reward for her years of loyalty and on the idea that it was her time. There are some who say that although Bill Clinton had the people skills and charisma, it was Hillary who was actually the brains behind the Clinton political machine. In a sense the election of Hillary Clinton would have in effect been her third term in office, not her first. Perhaps it is with this in mind that President Obama declared that there had never been another candidate as qualified for the office as Hillary Clinton. That, coupled with the fact that her age made her political viability doubtful for future races, would have been reason for the DNC to anoint her over Bernie Sanders.

Lastly, the DNC's underestimation of the Deplorables' political power fooled them into thinking they could disregard the desires of their own voters. They thought with Trump at the helm on the Republican side that a Democratic victory was a foregone conclusion and that they could force an unlikeable Hillary on the Democratic side against the will of Democratic voters (especially the young) who were energized and came out in droves to vote for Bernie. And remember, a zero charisma Hillary was the only thing that made a zero charisma Donald Trump viable in the first place.  Amazingly, this was the course the DNC chose and it came into play on election day when many of those young would-be Democratic voters stayed home and when many of the undecideds who had favored Bernie actually cast their ballots for the political outsider on the other side.

Keep in mind that, as much as establishment Republicans hated Donald Trump, they did not weight the scales against his candidacy and chose rather to let the political desires of their voters play itself out which is why they won the election. History has yet to weigh in on the ultimate implications of this development but in the short term they won the election and the Democrats lost. Again, let us entertain the idea for a moment that the DNC weighted the scales in favor of their preferred candidate over the wishes of their own voters. If this is indeed the case, the results of last year's elections are exactly what the party deserved and has given this nation a result we neither deserved nor desired.

The Perils of Imputing Motives

I was working at a Middle Eastern restaurant a few years back when we caught a break in the action. The main front line cook (a young Iraqi refugee with a tenuous grasp of English) was out back smoking.  As the prep guy, my work was caught up so I went out back to join him.  The new guy, a Syrian refugee who was being trained to work the line, was on break and he wandered over towards us leaving the restaurant effectively without anyone to plate an order.  Predictably, some customers came in.

The main cook told the trainee to go see about the order.  The latter replied that he was on break and that he wasn't yet familiar with all the orders so he said the main cook should go see about the order.  For my part, I was ashamed at my co-workers for not getting up to do their jobs.  In the restaurant business, as with most business, the customer should be catered to.  When they place an order they should see hustle, professionalism, and friendliness.  I thought to say something but eventually one of them (I can't remember which) got up to take the order.  The moment passed and would have been something we all forgot until we got the phone call.

My co-worker Malak (a Palestinian-American) took a call from a woman who demanded to know if we had a problem serving mixed race couples.  She said that she had been in earlier and that the staff had been slow to serve her and her boyfriend and said that if we had a problem serving mixed-race couples maybe we were in the wrong business.  Malak apologized profusely for the slow service but stated that we were inclusive an had nothing against people of any race or religion. 

For my part, I wanted to grab the phone and tell the lady that our cooks aren't racist, they're lazy but I honestly didn't think it would make a difference.  From my experience, when people impute motives onto the actions of others, it can be next to impossible to detach them from these views.  Never mind the fact that it boggles the mind to try to think of a reason why anyone would think Arab refugees would be emotionally invested in the black/white American racial dynamic. This lady received poor service and made a snap judgment about the reason behind it.

In relating this story to one of my friends as a caveat against knee-jerk reactions regarding race in America, I was accused of being a racial apologist and covering for racists.  That is not the case at all.  Rather, I think that if we, as ethnic minorities, want our concerns to be taken seriously we must call out the genuine demonstrable cases of racism and avoid imputing race as the factor in cases where we might be honestly mistaken.  We must not serve up the potentially innocent along with the guilty for condemnation or we run the risk of condemning our own cause with frivolous and potentially damaging claims.  If our rallying cry is for justice, we must hold ourselves accountable to that same standard.  In the continuing battle against racism, we have enough actual enemies to stand up against.  It is not to our advantage to weaken the cause by fighting the wrong fight.

Irreconcialable Differences

The recent schisms in American society, the raging debates about extra-judicial police killings of unarmed black males, the demonization of immigrants, especially Latinos and Arabs, and the contempt a large percentage of the population displays against diversity in America regarding religion and sexual orientation, leads me to believe that there will be no rapprochement between the two sides in the near future.  We are currently experiencing a clash of cultures that can best be described as a clash of civilizations, the old which upholds a mythological ideal of white Christian hegemony lorded over all other groups to their detriment and the new that is inclusive, diverse, and which extends in-group recognition to all factions of humanity regardless of race or creed.  In short, the clash is between old time America which hypocritically failed to live up to its declared values and the new America that ardently seeks to uphold them.

Job Search

My prospects look good. Everyone seems to be hiring. I also have tons of experience and I interview well :D

My blog

My blog is at http://mexigogue.donotremove.net/ Go there, I command it!!!