Public Shaming and Tipping

Tipping is one of those issues that brings up more controversy than almost any other, even while it seems relatively minor. Children starving in Africa, women traded as slaves, insane dictators getting nukes--there's not much room for debate there. (At least, I have yet to see the pro-starvation pro-slavery pro-armageddon contingent on Internet message boards--but then, I haven't checked Home and Garden Online lately) Tipping, though, really brings out the emotions.

In one corner we have the "serving is a grueling job and servers are underpaid below even minimum wage usually and they deserve the tips". And in the other corner we have the "tipping is voluntary so I'm only going to tip if you do something special" contingent. And when the two groups cross, we get a mess like this one.

A bartender in Seattle allegedly was stiffed on her tip by some pompous patron who left a "tip" of another sort at the bottom of the receipt, suggesting the bartendress "lose a few pounds". She retaliated by posting the receipt online, finding the patron on Facebook, and (with the help of her friends) publicly shaming him to the point that the mess got picked up on other websites. Justice served, right? Except then of course it turns out they found the wrong guy, and a different "Andrew Meyer" (wasn't that also the name of the "don't tase me, bro!" guy? Why yes it was!) was subjected to this public humiliation. The barlady admitted to "having bad eyesight" and getting the wrong guy, and also when interviewed she claimed that she'd witnessed the offending patron actually emptying out the tip jar into his pockets which now makes me question her entire story because if a patron was caught committing theft then why not call over the manager and have the jerk arrested?

But even if some rude non-tipper did exist, the publicizing of their signed receipt is just the sort of idiotic overkill that crosses the line from "serves the jerk right" to "invasion of privacy that can easily get the bar sued and the barmaid fired as a result". If someone doesn't tip--and you think it's unjustified, I'm looking at you who take smoke breaks while your customers are anxiously waiting a half hour for their bill--then you don't serve that person again, or subject them to the cold shoulder if you encounter them in the future. Making a bad situation worse for you and your employer isn't the key to successmanship.

A Different Flavor of Tea

I find it rather amusing when people get indignant about comparisons that are made about the Tea Partiers and the Occupy Wall Streeters (OWSers). Conservatives are quick to argue that Tea Partiers are regular hard working folks who protest peacefully, while OWSers are unbathed nose-ringed unemployables that destroy property and get into fights with the cops. Liberals are quick to argue that OWSers are legitimately aggrieved progressive types, while Tea Partiers are angry racists with unrealistic goals. But let's consider the following:

1) Both groups have their embarrassing fringe elements present at their rallies. Tea Party rallies do feature nuts with signs referring to Hitler and thinking it's a good idea to bring their legally-owned firearms to a peaceful protest because that's totally a good idea. OWS has its share of dreadlocked professional agitators who are ironically part of organizations with the word "Workers" in their title, despite a lack of ever doing anything that can be called "work". But both rallies also feature a large number of regular folks who are pissed enough to come out in big numbers--the nuts alone aren't enough to fill those rallies.

2) The majority of those protesting are angry for good reason. A serious recession that won't quit, a government that spends far more than it takes in, a tax system that is a complete joke, and political parties in charge that really have no sense of how to fix anything wrong. Tea partiers (who tend to be older) are angry about watching their retirement savings and house values disappear, and OWSers are angry about their massive student loan debt and poor job prospects. It's easy to sympathise with all of them.

3) Both Tea Partiers and OWSers don't really have solutions to their problems that will actually fix the problems that they're protesting about. Platforms involving cutting government spending (except on social security, medicare, and defense) and leaving taxes at current levels will not ever see the light of day, let alone help our economy getting moving, and plans to "soak the rich" by taxing "the top 1%" are just as unlikely to fix our economy (and any wholesale loan forgiveness is only going to wreck the financial sector even more, having a nice ripple effect on the economy).

4) Both groups tend to be largely white and middle class. All stupid accusations of racism aside, there's a good reason for this--through history, the most "revolutionary" classes tend not to be the most downtrodden but rather those who had more to lose and felt in danger of losing it. (Think the urban proletariat instead of the peasantry in 1917 Russia, as an example)

5) Both groups are summarily dismissed by the other side of the political spectrum, which focuses only on the nutjobs and the incoherent political demands, rather than the justifiable anger of the regular folks in those masses.

While some of what the Tea Party and the OWSers call for are at odds (one wanting less taxes, the other wanting more taxes, at least for Americans who aren't them), the degree of overlap for these two groups is significant--anger at the elites, anger at the "crony capitalism" of government being in bed with business, and a failure of the financial system--and one wonders what would happen if the two groups ever joined forces. Perhaps it's best for the powers that be if such a thing never were to happen.

Legal Drams!

Having seen the 1982 Paul Newman film "The Verdict" it makes me realize just how far off Hollywood is when it comes to portraying the legal profession. Sure, no movie is going to focus on the endless nuts and bolts--long depositions, hours of research, endless motions that get batted back and forth--and the movie will stick to the more dramatic aspects of contentious litigation. (And of course no one will ever focus on the non-litigation side of legal work, because a lawyer researching and drafting a legal opinion for a client is hideously boring to watch onscreen, even if the lawyer is drunk at the time. I'm looking at you, Kentucky Bar Association!) But sometimes you see something so unbelievably wrong that you can't believe the screenwriters didn't have a lawyer on hand to tell them to fix the scene.

Namely, I'm talking about the part where Newman's character is offered a sizable settlement for his client, and turns it down. Now, maybe ethics rules were vastly different in 1982, but any lawyer today that does not even communicate the fact of a settlement offer to their client is going to be a good candidate for disbarment. And it is clear that Newman never told his client before turning it down, because the client later encounters him and punches him in the nose for this. Hell, if it hadn't been onscreen, I'd have punched him in the nose myself.

What other unrealistic events occur in legal dramas?

1) Surprise witnesses. Lawyers are always required to get permission of the court and notify the opposing lawyer before introducing a witness. While witnesses can often be added mid-trial, this should never be a surprise to the opposing counsel, let alone the judge.

2) Judges telling a lawyer he should accept a settlement offer. A judge doing something like this in their own case is likely to not be a judge much longer.

3) The opposing lawyers are always both really good at what they do. There are really a lot of bad lawyers out there practicing. And while the bar exams and qualifications do test one's knowledge of the basic tenets of the law, they don't test one's ability to apply it or even understand procedure. Unless you're taken in by an experienced mentor, you're going to enter litigation with what you remember in first year Civ Pro.

4) Judges making rulings on issues that are not put forth in a motion by one of the attorneys. The judge is just that, a judge--and not an independent finder of fact. (The jury makes findings of fact, while the judge rules on issues of the law--without going into the distinction the point is that in all instances this has to be in response to one side's motion)

5) Jurors making their own independent investigations of the facts. The worst example of this was in "12 Angry Men" when Hank Fonda even brought a friggin' switchblade to the jurors' chamber. Can you say "mistrial"???

6) Navy prosecutors who can't handle the truth. I'm pretty sure they have excellent truth-handling ability.

The Remaining GOP Field

The news that Sarah Palin is not running for the presidency does not surprise me--after all, the minute she dropped out of the governorship of Alaska without finishing her only term this signalled that she had no real interest in serving in public office. Keeping speculation going as long as reasonably possible was also a smart move, since it got her plenty of attention for a while and this woman thrives on attention. In fact, actually jumping in the ring might have popped her bubble early--once she sank in the polls as Republicans reject her, as they surely would, that would close the chapter on the Palins and her strongest supporters would lose the ability to speculate that she might have won it all. The decision not to run was the best one for her and ultimately the Republican Party.

Now, as I predict, Mitt Romney is going to go ahead and take the nomination, even while a lot of Republicans arent' thrilled with him. For that, there's a good reason and a bad reason for the GOP to reject the former Massachusetts governor--the good reason being that in his heart of hearts Romney is no hard right winger. He is very much the son of his father George, who was an automotive executive and moderate Michigan governor (and one wonders how history may have been different if he'd run better in the '68 primary and beat Nixon), and looks to have the temperament more of the elder President Bush than that of Bush the Younger. While this makes him more "electable", the Tea Party wing doesn't want "electable". They want red meat! Whether or not it is wise for the right to reject him, it's at least a valid reason.

The bad reason of course is his Mormonism. And if the GOP rejects Romney for that then they frankly deserve another four years of the Democrats holding the White House.

Romney has been playing it safe in the race so far, not making big errors as his opponents seem to be, but he is missing some good opportunities to put them away and set himself up for the general election. While he may be wary to have a "reverse-Sister Souljah moment"--that is, when he rejects his own party's extreme to signal his own stance in the political middle, as Bill Clinton did in the '92 Democratic primary by rebuffing Jesse "Where's My Money?" Jackson--he should be able to do this safely now and still not drive away the party's base. Here are some missed opportunities:

1) Shameful moment in the debates. During the most recent GOP debate, a gay soldier serving overseas asked a question to Rick "Why am I here?" Santorum regarding gays serving in the military, and some clown in the audience booed the servicemember. This would have been a prime moment for Romney--as the "grown up" in the race--to simply point out that whatever one thinks of gays serving in the military, no one who is serving this country and putting their life on the line should be booed, and whoever did that ought to be ashamed. That would have been easy points.

2) Easy put-downs of the other candidates. He could just go down the line: "Mr. Cain--I tried Godfather's Pizza. If I were you, I'd take that off your resume. Gov. Perry--Shouldn't you be electrocuting some innocent people right now? Mr. Santorum--Have you tried googling your name right now? Gingrich--if I promise to buy a copy of your book will you just go home? Bachmann--if you say anymore nonsense about vaccinations I will slap you silly. Or in your case, slap you more silly. Ron Paul--the 1890s called and they want their political platform back." Doing that would end the primary in minutes.

That said, I still think Romney's going to take the nomination, because ultimately the GOP wants one thing over all--to get the White House back, and they don't care which horse they have to ride in on.

Slutwalks

Sometimes, the stupid, it burns! This time, the issue at hand is a serial rapist attacking women in NYC, and the cops issued a warning to women in the area to not wear skirts as such clothing might give the rapist the idea that he had "easy access". Similar warnings in Toronto have given rise to the recent "slutwalk" movement, where self-styled feminists have taken to marching in drag-queen getup to protest against a cop's warning that dressing in a certain way is likely to provoke a sexual attack. Now, a few points have to be made:

1) The indignation among the protesters seems to amount to "how dare you shame the victim here!" While I'm inclined to disagree with the police statements in both cases, this indignant response is just plain stupidity. NO ONE is blaming the victim here, any more than a policeman reminding you to lock your car doors is blaming you when someone steals your car. The cops believe that certain types of clothing will attract attackers, much the same way wearing flashy jewelry will attract a mugger. So drop the cloak of victimhood, sister!

2) I'm not aware of any evidence that rapists are any more likely to attack a woman based on the way she's dressed. Of course, dressing a certain way will draw attention--desired or otherwise--and women who aren't morons will know that this will draw attention even from men (or gay women) who aren't the intended targets. But unwanted attention is a far cry from a criminal act, and unless the link is really there then the advice from the cops serves only to support the baggy sweatpants industry.

3) That said, I can think of more useful advice in terms of how a person is dressed and rape prevention. If the cops were to say "avoid wearing flip flops or open-toed high heels because then you can't run or defend yourself from an attacker" then this argument is hard to dispute. And really, people shouldn't be going out on the town in flip flops anyway.

4) In sum, the protest against the police statements should be boiled down to a far more reasonable "we get what you're saying, but there's no reason to believe dressing slutty will make you more likely to be raped" rather than "damn you for blaming the victim!"

Rough Choices

While there is no shortage of half-baked solutions for our trouble economy out there, I should add a few to the mix:

1) Identify the bad mortgage loans currently on bank books, and offer a deal to the current holders of the loans--the Federal government will pay off a third of each loan, provided that the borrower pay off a third and the lender writes down the final third. Pros: this helps spread the pain among the three parties, and also enables the bad loans to be done away with freeing up the borrower and lender. This would be the least bad of all existing alternatives, allowing the housing recovery to come a bit sooner and helps out down on their luck borrowers and wobbly lenders. Cons: the government is already running massive deficits and paying off a third of the bad mortgages would still be expensive. This also wouldn't make banks more likely to lend down the road, having taken a loss on these loans. There's also the moral hazard of subsidizing banks and borrowers who took these risks that didn't pay off.

2) Tear down unsold inventory in overbuilt areas. Pro: this clears up the glut in supply, allowing natural market forces to reach a higher price floor. Plus, the unsold empty houses will become health hazards and public nuisances if left idle too long. Better to take them down so housing can recover. Con: this still costs a lot of money, and seems like a waste of otherwise useful housing that could be put on the market for renters or bargain hunters.

3) Create a financial regulatory oversight board to regulate every sort of financial transaction and entity involved in the lending or investing of money. Pros: a single regulatory body with a broad mission can identify predatory practices, frauds, and excessively risky ventures and prevent the industry from repeating the mistakes made in recent decades that culminated in the financial collapse. Cons: one thing our financial industry suffers from is not a lack of regulators. There are currently five different agencies that regulate banks at the federal level, and of course every state has a bank regulator. The problem instead was the fact that so much financial leverage was based on a widely-held assumption that real estate could never crash in a big way. This is why everyone--from government regulators, to lenders, to borrowers, to consumer advocates--favored increased lending in this area. This is always the way with bubbles, and you can't regulate away irrational decisionmaking.

4) Completely replace our current tax code with a simpler code with lower rates, few deductions, etc. Pros: this would reduce inefficient or counterproductive behavior by high earners (taking losses, business expenses) and lower earners (taking out a mortgage when rent is cheaper), also making the tax code easier to follow and enforce, and prevent the perverse result of very rich people paying very low percentages of their income in taxes. Cons: the code is complicated for a reason. Income is defined in many different ways, and deductions and exemptions are in place because certain behavior is to be encouraged (investing in capital, buying municipal bonds, paying for a child's education). As for "fairness", the truly wealthy will be able to find a way to legally shield their income from taxation one way or another, as they have done so even during times of much higher tax rates. It's worth it to them to find a way around the code.

5) Big cuts in spending. Pros: a government spending less means reducing the deficit, which is good for the bond market, decreases our government's own borrowing costs, and better prepares us for emergencies down the road. It also prevents the need to raise taxes, which would stifle any economic recovery. Cons: while some government spending is more "important" than others, there's not much that can be cut that won't have a severe impact on the economy. Infrastructure spending enables the free flow of commerce, farm spending helps keep our agricultural sector strong and stable so we can have abundant cheap food, and defense spending keeps our military better than any other. While entitlement spending is enormous, even modest cuts will mean pain for a lot of individuals as well as a reduction in their consumer spending. Any way you cut it, there's going to be a negative effect on the country with these cuts.

So, not a lot of great choices out there. But unfortunately this can't all be reduced to a bumper sticker.

Protesters

My general feelings on protests and rallies are that the people involved in them are generally idiots up to no good. There are exceptions of course--notably the protests sweeping the Middle East earlier this year, and the protests that achieved the passage of Civil Rights laws in the '60s. But by and large, protests fall easily into the trap of giving the most visibility to the crazies and ultimately alienating most observers.

A good example is the anti-Vietnam war protests, which rather than bringing an early end to the war instead resulted in getting Nixon elected (twice) and dragging the war on for long past when the protests were over and the college kids went on to having wife-swapping parties and macrame lessons. The anti-Iraq War protests if anything helped Bush get re-elected, and even our Nobel winner-in-chief still has us fighting over there 8 years later. And the Tea Party protests of the past two years are (I believe) ultimately going to result in far greater economic ruin for this country as people like Michele Bachmann get treated as serious contenders for the presidency, lowering the bar for crazy.

In any of the above cases, I think it would have done the protesters some good to better organize their forces into providing a coherent argument and weed out the nuttier among their followers. Having a sign comparing Bush to Hitler or waving the flag of the Viet Cong or telling people that Obama is a slaveowner and taxpayers are slaves just makes anyone watching TV--who might otherwise agree that a war is a bad idea or government is hopelessly bloated--just say "ok, you lost me" and go back to watching Two and a Half Men.

The latest protest-movement-gone-wrong is the parade of hipsters and freaks camping out on Wall Street. In a world beset by serious financial panic--the Euro looking to collapse, the U.S. economy in a slump and a government in serious need of painful cuts--it's understandable to be angry at those who seem to be taking massive profits while the majority are suffering stagnant wages and high unemployment. But how to fix it is no simple matter--if a certain set of policies could fire up the economy with certainty, those policies would have been pursued, by Bush or Obama already. And what the government has already tried--from spending and tax cut stimulus to pumping cash into the economy via the Federal Reserve--hasn't worked. Stripping down executive compensation from highly profitable financial firms might make a few people happy, but for the life of me I can't see how this is going to help regular folks.

I note that a lot of the protesters are debt-ridden college graduates and current students, many that were interviewed owed upwards of six figures on their school loans and had no job prospects. While I certainly sympathize (having carried a high debt load myself when I graduated) I cannot understand the anger being directed at Wall Street--presumably, as the lenders behind these school loans. It is the colleges that consider it acceptable to charge over $40K a year for tuition, the lenders are just enabling you to pay for it on credit. Shouldn't the protest be taking place at the campus?