"Your body can't tell the difference"

"Your body can't tell the difference."  Most people in the U.S. have probably heard this phrase at least once.  It is a phrase from commercials funded by the Corn Refiners Association with reference to sucrose and high fructose corn syrup.  Sucrose is table sugar.  It is the most commonly used kind of sugar for baking and for sweetening hot beverages.  High fructose corn syrup is a form of corn syrup that has been altered to have around 55% fructose and 45% glucose.  It is most commonly used in soft drinks, but it is also commonly used in commercial baked goods and some types of sweet snacks.  The above phrase is a response to claims that high fructose corn syrup is extremely unhealthy.  The Corn Refiners Association claims that the human body "can't tell the difference" between high fructose corn syrup and table sugar.  Is this claim true?

The first thing we need to know is how the two sweeteners are similar and how they are different.  Table sugar is solid and dissolves to be fairly liquid in water.  Without considerable heating, a table sugar solution in water will not become thick or syrupy.  Corn syrup is thick and viscous and will not dry out into a solid form of sugar (in a dry enough environment with the right amount of heat it might be possible).  The physical differences make it clear that they are not identical.  Chemically though, they are very similar.  Both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are composed of fructose and glucose.  Sucrose is 50% of each, and high fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose and 45% glucose.  So chemically there is little difference.  There is one other chemical difference.  Sucrose is exactly 50/50 because sucrose is composed of molecules that are fructose molecules bound to glucose molecules.  In high fructose corn syrup the glucose and fructose molecules are not bound together.  Clearly the two sweeteners are very similar.  The differences seem very minor.  If we want to figure this out, we are going to also have to look at how sugars are processed in the body.

The primary fuel for the body is glucose.  Cells can turn glucose into energy very easily.  Most other chemicals that the body can use for fuel (fats, proteins, and other sugars) must be converted to glucose before they can be used to produce energy.  When blood sugar is measured, the measurement is the amount of glucose in the blood.  The body regulates blood sugar by producing insulin, which tells cells to absorb glucose from the bloodstream.  If too much insulin is produced, cells will absorb a lot of glucose, reducing blood sugar to potentially unsafe levels.  If too little insulin is produced, cells will not be able to get enough energy and blood sugar will elevate to unsafe levels.  Insulin is produced in response to elevation in blood sugar, and the magnitude of the response is proportional to the magnitude of the increase in blood sugar.  An important factor in insulin response is how quickly sugars are converted into glucose and put into the bloodstream.  A small amount of sugar that gets into the bloodstream very quickly can cause an insulin response that will reduce blood sugar to unsafe levels.  If the blood sugar rises very quickly, the body expects that a lot of carbohydrates were consumed.  It responds by producing a lot of insulin.  If only a small amount of carbohydrates were consumed, they will quickly be absorbed, reducing blood sugar, but there will still be a lot of insulin telling cells to absorb more sugar.  This leads to low blood sugar.  Also, frequent high volume insulin production can stress the cells that produce insulin, eventually killing them.  This eventually leads to type 2 diabetes.  A metric has been developed to measure how various foods affect blood sugar.  This is called the glycemic index.  Foods with a high glycemic index cause rapid increases in blood sugar, while foods with a low glycemic index cause little or no increase in blood sugar.  A good diet will cause a small increase in blood sugar that lasts for a long time.  A diet that causes frequent or sustained large increases in blood sugar will ultimately lead to type 2 diabetes and potentially heart disease and other circulatory problems.  Now, how does this relate to sucrose and high fructose corn syrup?

The glycemic index of glucose is 100 (it is the reference).  The glycemic index of fructose is 19.  Fructose has the lowest glycemic index of all known sugars.  It would make sense that the higher ratio of fructose in high fructose corn syrup might give it a lower glycemic index than sucrose.  Unfortunately that is not how it works.  High fructose corn syrup does have a lower glycemic index than lower fructose corn syrups, but it is still much higher than sucrose.  High fructose corn syrup has been measured to have a glycemic index in the high 80s, which is considered fairly high.  Sucrose has a glycemic index in the high 60s, which is considered medium.  High fructose corn syrup has a significantly higher glycemic index than sucrose.  Why is this?  It is most likely because of how the molecules arranged.  In high fructose corn syrup, the glucose can be absorbed into the bloodstream almost immediately.  The fructose does still have to be processed by the liver, but this does not make much of a difference.  The fructose only slightly slows the absorption of the glucose (otherwise the glycemic index would be 100).  Because the glucose and fructose are bound in pairs in sucrose, an extra step must be taken before the glucose can be absorbed into the bloodstream.  The pairs must be broken.  This takes enough extra time to significantly reduce the glycemic index of sucrose.  Once this is done, the glucose and fructose are treated no differently from the same molecules in high fructose corn syrup, but the extra processing time makes sucrose a slower, steadier form of energy than high fructose corn syrup.

The implications of this should be clear.  Frequent consumption of high fructose corn syrup is very likely to eventually cause type 2 diabetes and may lead to heart disease.  Frequent consumption of sucrose is less likely to cause these problems, or at least will take longer to cause them.  Note that these are not short term complications.  Drinking a cup of straight corn syrup every day for a month will probably not cause type 2 diabetes or heart disease.  Drinking a liter of soda a day for 20 years will dramatically increase the risk of these diseases though (even a few cups a day may be enough).  Because different people react differently to elevated blood sugar (some may regulate insulin better than others), it is not entirely predictable how long it will take.  On average, a person who starts a high sugar diet around 10 years old will probably start showing symptoms of pre-diabetes in their early 30s and may have full on type 2 diabetes by 40, but again, each person is different.  Because it has a more dramatic effect on blood sugar, frequent consumption of high fructose corn syrup is more likely to cause these diseases, and sooner, than high sucrose consumption.

Clearly, the body can "tell the difference" between the two sweeteners.  In fact, the body can almost always tell the difference between two chemicals that have any difference, regardless of how similar they are.  Just because they are composed of similar compounds, or just because we cannot taste the difference, does not mean that the body cannot tell the difference.  It may take two or three decades before we will feel the full effects, but the body can definitely tell the difference between sucrose and high fructose corn syrup.

There is another myth that the Corn Refiners Association's lie was designed to counter.  Many people have been convinced that high fructose corn syrup contains harmful chemicals.  This is false.  While sugars may be harmful in excess, this is true of any sugar, not just high fructose corn syrup (extremely high consumption of sucrose will still eventually cause diabetes, and some links have even been found between excessive consumption of fructose and liver disease).  The point is, consuming high fructose corn syrup is not going to immediately make you sick unless you are allergic to corn.  (If drinking large amounts of soda makes you feel sick, it is probably because of the caffeine.  Of course, it could be a corn allergy, but those are fairly rare.)  In small amounts with other foods, high fructose corn syrup is entirely safe.  In general, a high sugar diet should be avoided anyway.  The best sources of sugar are fruits and vegetables.  Refined sugars are almost always easier to metabolize (read, higher glycemic index) than sugars in their original sources.  Also, refined sugars do not have significant nutritional value, which makes them "empty calories."  So, don't eliminate high fructose corn syrup from your diet because someone told you it is inherently unhealthy.  Reduce your intake because too much may eventually lead to having to stab yourself multiple time a day to avoid an early, miserable death (or, if you get hearth disease, even stabbing yourself will not prevent an early, miserable death).

Patentable Genetics

The U.S. government will allow you to patent almost anything, with very few exceptions.  You cannot patent food recipes.  You cannot patent mathematical algorithms, unless of course, you call them computer programs (which are nothing more than mathematical algorithms).  You cannot patent things that have already been patented.  You can patent things that have been done before, so long as no one catches you, and even if they do, there is no accountability.  Someone even patented the act of "exercising" a cat using a laser pointer to entertain it.  There are some pretty absurd things you can patent.  Genetics happens to be one of them.

Genetics should not be patentable.  First, genetic material is little more than a mathematical algorithm using a different form of math than traditional arithmetic.  Second, genetic material used to grow food (vegetables or animals) is nothing more than a recipe for creating food.  Neither of these things are legally patentable.  So, why are genetically engineered or even just selectively bread seeds patentable?  Personally, I think it is because our government is run by uneducated politicians (by uneducated I mean, they have almost no education in anything relevant to their job; an education in politics is little more than learning how to get into office; it does not teach anything about the real world problems you will have to deal with once you get there).  Really though, I do not care why.  I want to discuss why genetics should not be patentable.

For a patent to be enforceable, there are some requirements.  The first requirement is that the patented thing be easily distinguishable from similar things.  If someone invents a flint lock made from tool steel, and someone else makes one from spring steel, they cannot both patent their inventions, because they are almost impossible to distinguish from each other.  Any case of patent violation could claim that the stolen design was the one from the other guy, and while it is possible to test the metals, the cost would be very high.  Genetics has an even worse problem.  Compared to testing genes, testing metals is trivial.  It can cost hundreds or millions of dollars to check a sample of genetic material to see if it matches a specific sequence.  The problem is aggravated by the fact that most people do not have the ability to do this.  This brings me to the biggest problem with not being easily distinguishable.  What happens if someone gives me a bag of seeds, where they may be patented genetic material in some of the seeds?  If those patented seeds were not obtained directly from the patent owner (for instance, a friend gives me a bag of popcorn kernels where some of the seeds are from special Monsanto corn he grew), then it would be illegal for me to plant and grow those seeds.  Here is the problem: I now want to grow my own popcorn.  I could go to the store and buy seeds, or I could use the bag of seeds my friend gave me.  If I choose the later, I am legally obligated to pick through the seeds, removing the Monsanto seeds from my planting stock.  The cost of the genetic profiling required to separate the seeds is absurd.  Even most very rich people would not be able to afford it.  Because the patented material is not easily distinguishable from similar things, it is absurd to expect anyone to honor it.  Worse, if my friend neglected to tell me about the Monsanto corn, I could be breaking the law without any way of knowing.  So that sounds pretty bad, but it keeps going.  Let's say the bag did not actually have any Monsanto corn.  My friend grew some heirloom variety of corn that is so old it is not patentable.  So, I grow some of the seeds in my backyard.  From my harvest, I set aside some of the seeds to grow the next batch and so on.  It may sound like I am safe, but I am not.  What if my neighbor bought some Monsanto corn and grew it in their backyard?  Now, some of my corn is probably going get pollinated from the Monsanto corn.  The resulting seeds are now a cross between my heirloom variety and the Monsanto stuff.  At least half of the seeds pollinated with the Monsanto pollen probably have the patented Monsanto genes.  It is now illegal for me to plant those seeds, even though I may not have a clue that they contain patented material, and there is no reasonable way for me to tell that they have patented material in them.  And, the government still expects me to honor Monsanto's patent.  Thankfully, it is going to be extremely difficult for Monsanto to catch and prosecute me, because the cost for them to discover my patent infringement is very high.  Still, using law to define ethics is a rather tyrannical practice (in fact, it is exactly how tyrants work).

The second problem is obviousness.  This requirement is that things that are either obvious or common knowledge cannot be patented.  This one gets really hairy.  This is also a part of patent law.  Legally, a thing that is obvious or common knowledge cannot be patented (it still happens all the time though).  If something is common knowledge, it is subject something called "prior art."  Prior art is anything that has already been done.  If you sue me for infringing your patent, I can get your patent invalidated by showing that you were not the first person to come up with the idea.  Note that it does not have to be me that invented it first.  If I can show that anyone came up with the idea before you, your patent is invalid.  The idea with these is that if someone else could easily come up with the same idea, then you should not be able to have a monopoly on it.  Now, applied to genetics, this can be used to show how absurd it is to patent genes.  First, all genetics were created by one of two things.  The first is God.  If God created all genetics, then it is pretty much all prior art.  Nothing built on these genetics would be patentable because it has pretty much all been done (Monsanto looks for useful sequences in existing organisms and puts them into other organisms; no original genetic code is created).  The second is random chance.  If random chance created genetics, then I would argue that it must be obvious.  If it is obvious, it is legally unpatentable.  In this case, it is still also all prior art.  So, this argument may seem weak.  It is in some ways, but it still has the law behind it.  Prior art is legally acceptable evidence that a patent is invalid.  So, legally if I can find each genetic sequence used in a Monsanto seed in something else that has existed since before Monsanto created the genetics for the seed, I should be absolved of any wrong doing.  The problem is that Monsanto has the means to prove that I have used their seeds, but I do not have the means to show prior art, entirely because I cannot afford the massive genetic profiling that would be required to do this.  In other words, I am automatically guilty of patent infringement unless I can afford to prove innocence.  Further, Monsanto has no accountability.  If I do manage to prove the existence of prior art, they do not have to pay my research costs or even pay damages for the costs of the law suit.  They also do not have to compensate their customers who paid premium prices because Monsanto's invalid patent protected the company from competition.  They loose their patent, but they should never have had it in the first place, and they still did benefit from it.  Note that this does not only apply to genetics.  This lack of accountability applies to all types of patents.  In genetics, however, the high cost of proving innocence makes it far worse.

Now, let's take this one step further, into the absurd.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, a device to make the arduous task of separating cotton fibers from the seeds much easier and faster.  Now, who would he have sued if nature had randomly created a cotton gin?  Let's say that a combination of a lightning strike, a falling tree, and the perfect position of iron ore and water managed to create a cotton gin without any human intervention.  Who would he sue?  We do not have to worry about this because it will never occur.  If the combination of random natural events could create a cotton gin, it would not be patentable, because it would be obvious.  Ideas like dams, which have been built by beavers for millenia or burning wood for heat, which has been done by lightning for even longer, are not patentable because they are obvious.  One consequence of this is that humans have learned from nature to do these things, as soon as we developed sufficient technology to do it.  Now, some might say that genetics is different, because it is so difficult.  I would argue that at one time, building a dam was an insurmountable task for humans.  We had to develop the appropriate tools before we could build dams.  Genetics is not any different.  Unlike the cotton gin, nature routinely combines and alters genes to create new varieties of organisms.  In fact, nature can alter individual genes and even small parts of genes.  We do not have a clue how small parts of genes interact to develop different life forms.  Even Monsanto can do nothing more than search of gene sequences that do things and hope that inserting them in the right place will add the desired traits to their plants.  Essentially, modern genetic engineering is nothing more that reverse engineering things nature has created, and trying to combine the "code" differently to get desired results.  There is no invention going on here.  It is all prior art.  As with the dam, we are just adapting things nature has created to do what we want.  Just because the tools for doing this were invented recently does not change the fact that we are doing nothing more than combining prior art in rather obvious ways. For instance, is it something novel to make a crop resistant to herbicides so that higher doses can be used to destroy weeds, given that the technology to do so exists?  Is it novel to use genetic engineering to improve the taste, texture, or nutrition of food, given that the technology to do so exists?  How many people have wished that some healthy food was better tasting?  How many people have wished the junk food was healthier?  If these are not obvious things to do with new tools capable of doing them, I do not know what is.  So, now for the hundred dollar question: If nature manages to randomly produce something that Monsanto has patented, who does Monsanto sue?  Nature will never randomly create a cotton gin, because it is too complex for natural processes to produce.  Genes are not too complex for nature to produce (right, a seed is, evidently, less complex than a cotton gin; take that, opponents to natural selection).  In fact, it is extremely probable that nature has produced "Roundup Ready" varieties of many plants throughout the millions of years it has been playing with genetics.  Evidence has even been found that ancient ancestors of wheat, corn, and many other grains were much more nutritious than modern varieties (in fact, some evidence support the theory that the "grain" classification of food plants contains exclusively human created plant varieties; otherwise stated, all plants classified as grains are man made, thus the entire classification itself may have been created through human intervention).

Anyhow, allowing genetics to be patented is absurd.  There are at least two legal reasons genes should not be patentable.  There are multiple ethical reasons they should not be patentable, including the fact that it is impossible for most people to distinguish the difference between patented genetic material and public domain genetic material.  It is like making laws against certain types of speech but not telling the people exactly what it is that is illegal to say (throughout history, tyrants have done this and similar things).  Also, the transfer of genetic material is such an easy process that it is almost impossible to tell whether or not it has even occurred.  Making arbitrary laws that are impossible to determine if they have actually been broken or not is the hallmark of an oppressive government.  While this is not criminal law (which would allow the government to punish people on charges that are impossible to verify), it is still wrong.  Technically speaking, if I used traditional plant breeding techniques to create an herbicide resistant variety of corn or rice, and if the random combinations of genetic material created in the process managed to match the genetic code of Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety of the same plant, I could be sued for patent infringement, even though I used a completely different technique without any means of comparing the two products.  This is ethically wrong!  This is actually not just a problem with genetic patents.  It is not horribly uncommon for two people to invent the same thing around the same time.  When this happens, the person that gets the patent papers in first wins.  This is extremely unfair to the other person, especially when the cost of inventing is high.  With genetics though, this is aggravated by the fact that most people do not have the means to tell when they are violating patents or not.  Plant husbandry can take years to create what genetic engineering can do in months.  The cost for both is ultimately very high.  It is also uncommon for either to be used in a way that is really novel.  Probably the most novel use of plants is using tobacco to produce cancer cells used to illicit an immune response.  Nothing Monsanto, or any other plant producer, does with genetic engineering or even selective breeding is novel.  Outside the realm of food, flowers are often bread for specific colors or scents.  This is not novel.  People like pretty and good smelling flowers.  Within the realm of food, plants are engineered or bread for size, texture, nutrient content, flavor, and even aesthetic (colors, size, etc...).  These things are also not even remotely novel.  People have been successfully breeding food plants to favor one or more of these traits for thousands of years.  It is neither new nor novel.  Novelty is a legal requirement of patents.  There may be some things that can be done with genetics that nature has not done and that has some novel unique use.  Until at least one of these things is discovered, genetics should not be patentable at all.

Ultimately, gene patents are unethical.  They amount to little more than a way for companies to sue people without much risk of those people being able to prove their innocence.  Gene patents give great power to large corporations with a lot of resources at the cost of small businesses and individuals.  It is a manifestation of a common form of government oppression and tyranny.  Gene patents should be abolished.

Basic Income

It turns out there is supporting evidence for a lot of the claims I have made in the past.  I write based on a number of things.  One big part of my writing is extensive research.  Another part is observations.  A third part is math and logic.  I have made claims about where our economy is headed, if we keep automating everything.  This claim is based part on observation and part in math and logic.  It is completely illogical to assume that our economy will never change.  It is also illogical to assume that increasing automation will not decrease necessary work.  Thus, we can assume that our economy will change, and we can further assume that as a vast majority of trivial work is automated, that work will no longer be necessary for humans to do.  We can also assume that unless we create as much new work as is automated, that cannot be automated, human labor will become less and less useful and valuable.  Observation has shown this to be true.  Currently, many businesses are dramatically underpaying their employees, and still we have a shortage of work (jobs).  Businesses can automate many processes cheaper than they can hire humans to do the work, so less human labor is necessary.  This results in a surplus of human labor, which drives labor prices (wages) down.  I have argued that the logical progression of this will end where most Americans are forced to live off welfare, and very few will actually work for a living (mostly engineers and other creative workers).  All of this is based strongly in logic, math, and observation.  Now, this is not the case I plan on discussing today, but it is related.

Recently I have argued that we need to improve welfare enough that it will keep people out of poverty.  I showed how the U.S. government's definition of poverty is almost half the actual poverty level, and I showed how the current welfare system seems to take advantage of this to trap people in poverty.  I argued that we need to fix the legal definition of poverty, and I argued that we need to then fix the welfare programs to take the new definition into account.  I also argued that we need to raise minimum wage to reflect the actual poverty level.  I may have also argued that Congress needs to regularly reassess the defined poverty level and change the definition if necessary.  My take on the current situation changed today, and I find that some of my arguments may be obsolete.  I would like to discuss why this is.

Today, I read two things (brought to my attention by a friend).  The first is a letter by a guy who quit his job and started writing for a living (found here).  This man, Chuck Bukowski, compared the current state of the U.S. economy to slavery, and he once said, “Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors.”  If you have read my previous articles, you know that I have the same opinion.  The second is an article by Rutger Bregman, a guy from the Netherlands, who discusses a bunch of research that opened my eyes to another system of welfare (found here).  The first was interesting.  The second was an epiphany.

This idea of a "basic income" has been around for a while.  The idea is that the government pays everyone a small wage that is enough to survive on.  Note that I said, "everyone."  This means rich and poor alike.  Now, I can hear a lot of people asking, "why the rich?"  This is a valid question, with a very good explanation.  The answer is "privacy."  Another answer is cost.  It turns out that running a welfare system that has a lot of restrictions and requirements costs a lot of money.  In May 2009, London did an experiment where the city gave thirteen homeless men 3,000 pounds (around $4,500 in U.S. dollars at the time), with no strings attached.  Now the biggest argument against a government provided basic income in that it will cause a lot of people to quit their jobs and freeload off the state.  Out of these thirteen guys, eleven of them dramatically improved their lives.  They got housing, some took classes to learn useful skills, some got treatment for drug abuse (one quit heroin), and they made plans for the future.  Eleven of thirteen is pretty good odds.  The best part is that the 50,000 pound expense of giving these guys the money (a bit was spent on administrative and research costs) actually saved the city around 350,000 pounds that would have been spent by law enforcement dealing with these guys.  It turns out that this argument that a basic wage will reduce incentive to work is wrong.

This London experiment is neither the only, nor the most recent experiment of this type.  Manitoba, Canada funded an experiment dubbed "Mincome" where an entire town was placed under something like a basic income for four years.  The requirement of the experiment was that it would ensure no one would live below the poverty level.  This resulted in around 1,000 families getting some kind of government pay check.  Evidently the results of the experiment were hidden by the provincial government until 2009.  The research showed that very few people decided to quit working.  Further, it showed that a number of the residents started their own businesses, because the basic income reduced the risk substantially.  Ultimately, it turns out that the experiment was an awesome success.

There are plenty of other instances showing the same results.  In Kenya, a guy was randomly given a year's pay, and used it to buy a taxi motorcycle, so he could increase his income from $2 a day to $6 to $9 a day.  There is also evidence that he used some of the money to help neighbors start their own businesses and fix their houses.  Uganda once gave $400 each to 12,000 youths, which dramatically improved their chances of getting education and a good job.  Uganda also gave $150 each to 1,800 poor women, which ultimately resulted in permanent income increases.  In the last case, it was discovered that while the women who accepted support from aid workers turned out better, the difference would have been even more had the salaries from the aid workers been given to the women, instead of the support.

Another argument against a basic income is that without restrictions, many people would spend the money on things that are not necessities and would still live in poverty conditions.  The London case disproved that pretty effectively.  It turns out that homeless people buy alcohol because they cannot afford anything else.  Give them a large amount of money, and they have a very high probability of spending it wisely (most of the London guys spent only 800 pounds of the money in the first year, saving the rest).  Evidently poor people are poor because they do not have enough money, not because they are too stupid to use it wisely.  If you give them enough money, they will use it to get out of poverty long term.

The last serious argument against a basic income is the massive cost.  One estimation of the U.S. is that a basic income system would cost around $175 billion a year.  Contrast this with our $700 billion a year military, and it does not seem like so much.  It gets better though.  The Mincome experiment showed crime reductions.  This means reduced law enforcement costs and reduced crime recovery costs.  The London experiment showed a dramatic reduction in costs from getting homeless people off the street, to the point where the savings was seven times the cost of the program.  There are also clear economic advantages to providing enough money to everyone.  Economic condition tends to be based on how much money flow there is.  An economy where a large portion of the money goes to CEOs, which then save or invest the money, is weaker than an economy where most of the money continues to circulate back into the economy (and do not try to tell me that investing is the same thing; investing is taking the money at the top, and transferring it one level down, so it can sift back up one level).  Basic income systems have been shown to dramatically improve economies.  The last financial benefit of a basic income system is the cost savings.  A welfare system that has many restrictions and regulations requires a great deal of administration.  This administration is expensive.  Instead of paying a large number of employees well over the poverty level (government employees), get rid of the administration, and just send out checks to everyone.  No more paper work, no more employees doing hours of work to decide who is allowed to have welfare and who is not, no more rent or maintenance costs for government office buildings for the welfare workers, no more expensive forensics to identify welfare fraud, and no more lawyer fees to handle cases that have been identified.  That is a lot of savings.  Getting rid of the huge amount of infrastructure for administering welfare would save a huge amount of money.  Admittedly, the cost will still be a lot, but nothing like opponents claim.

So, here is how this works:  You give a basic income to everyone.  The money comes from businesses and those who have extremely high income (for those with huge incomes, it is more like an extra tax deduction).  The businesses do not suffer from it though, because minimum wage is abolished.  Ok, so here I identify a major conservative upside.  Most conservatives oppose minimum wage, or at least oppose a fair minimum wage.  A basic income makes minimum wage obsolete.  With a basic income, everyone gets enough to survive, without working, so even at $1 a day, they can survive.  This also reduces the need for other workplace regulation.  If I can walk out whenever I want with low risk, my employer had darn well better make sure the workplace is safe.  Also, if my employer makes unwanted advances (ok, I am a guy, so this is far less likely, but the point still stands), I can just quit.  Instead of expensive legal fees, for a case that I may or may not win (and I am almost guaranteed to loose my job despite anti-retribution laws), I can just leave (if I like the job that much, I can still press charges, but if I do still manage to get fired, at least I do not starve).  One of the biggest benefits observed in experiments is the creation of small businesses.  The risk with starting a business is that if it fails, I starve.  A basic income eliminates that risk.  Now, maybe I will have to move to a smaller house, but there is still very low risk.  As I mentioned, this has been observed.  Now, small businesses create jobs (in fact, a majority of U.S. jobs are provided by small businesses).  A basic income even creates more jobs!  Yes, it is true.  A basic income increases the number of small businesses and improves the economy, which ultimately creates more jobs.  Also, a very small percentage of people will quit their jobs if given enough to stay out of poverty.  This will open up a few more jobs.  So yes, there will be more up front costs, but a better economy means more tax revenue.  A basic income could also simplify the tax system, because by not taxing the basic income, people are ensured enough to get by.  Anything over that could be taxed with few deductions, because the government no longer has to worry about anyone getting enough.  Things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit could be eliminated (along with the expensive infrastructure necessary to support them) without hurting anyone.  The basic income does not need to be reported, because the government already knows, and the IRS can ignore it, because it does not make any difference.  The benefits appear to severely outweigh the costs.

Now let us look at privacy.  I may have mentioned this already, but one concern is that a basic income would violate privacy.  First, you already report all of your income to the IRS, where is the privacy right now?  Now, a well implemented basic income system would actually improve privacy.  The requirement is that the basic income is unconditional.  A murderer, child molester, a thief, a gang leader, or anything else, all get the basic income.  The reason is that it would be a very bad idea to give the government the power to control people by restricting their basic income benefits.  Now, here is the privacy: If you are currently on welfare, you will sometimes be asked if there are guns in the home.  This is a way that the government can violate privacy, and it could allow the government to compile a list of poor people that are armed.  A basic income that is unconditional will not do this.  In fact, because it replaces welfare, a basic income removes requirements for government welfare agencies to know your financial state (the IRS still knows).  No one is going to ask how much assets you have that are not in the bank (Food Stamps and Medicaid interviewers are required to record this information).  No government office is going to record how much money you made in the last six months as a qualification for welfare.  An unconditional basic income will dramatically improve personal privacy.

Evidently the U.S. actually almost implemented this idea several decades ago.  Around 80% of U.S. citizens supported it.  The House of Representatives actually passed the bill.  The Senate did not though.  It went back and forth, and as Reagan commented, "In the sixties we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won."  What killed it?  The divorce rate in Seattle allegedly went up by 50%.  The great thing is, years later it was discovered that the numbers were reported wrong, and the divorce rate had not changed at all.  So, what killed it?  Poor reporting.  The U.S. was almost the first large scale experiment with the basic income, an experiment which has never failed on small scales.  Where would we be now, with all of the benefits of this system?

What should we do about this?  Dump the horrible mess that is Obamacare (which still has not born good fruit).  Abolish our current broken welfare system that effectively traps people in poverty.  Lay off the huge number of people employed in rewarding poor people for trying to get jobs that do not exist.  Tear down the unstable infrastructure that is helping businesses keep the American people in bondage.  Finally, once and for all, establish what poverty really is, and define a poverty level that will be regularly reassessed and that is accurate.  Then, take all of the money currently going to welfare, and apply it to the basic income.  According to this, that would covers almost half of it (it covers about $80 billion, of around $170 billion; this does not include administrative costs of Obamacare).  The other half could come from the military (it would be about one eighth of the military budget), until the government reduces the tax exemptions for large businesses.  In fact, even a slight reduction in tax exemptions for large businesses would cover the entire basic income.

We can afford this.  In fact, it is possible that we cannot afford not to do this.  It would eliminate a lot of the problems with our current system.  It would raise our so called civilization to an actual civilization where we do not let anyone starve.  It would give people the opportunity to do the work they want to do, instead of work at a job they hate, but that they are stuck at.  The moral increase would improve productivity.  It would eliminate the huge overhead of our current welfare system, and it would increase our privacy from the government.  (Worried about "big government?"  This will make so much of our current government welfare infrastructure obsolete that it will significantly reduce the size of our government.)  It would improve our economy by a huge amount.  It could even end slavery in the U.S., once and for all.  And, it would not increase the divorce rate by 50% (I hope I am not wrong; I would hate to feel stupid).  A basic income is really the answer to most of our financial and economical problems in the U.S.  And this time, my claim is not just  based on logic and observation, it is also based on a good body of strong evidence.

The problem with [your political ideology]

Let's talk about the problem with your political ideology.  I can cover far over half of the people in the U.S. (and probably most of the world) with these two: The problem with liberals is they believe that the government can solve all of their problems.  The problem with conservatives is that they believe the government is the source of all of their problems.  The third, and maybe the best, is moderates.  The problem with moderates is that they believe that there is a perfect balance where the government can solve just enough of their problems without causing them too many problems.  All three of these are wrong, and pretty much every political ideology believes that the government does or can do something that it cannot.  No government can solve all of our problems, and no government can be the cause of all of our problems.  Especially no government can strike a perfect balance, because there is no perfect balance.

So, starting with the liberal ideology: Government cannot solve problems.  I expect the initial reaction of nearly anyone (the exception being some anarchists) is to reject this statement.  Governments appear to solve all sorts of problems.  In reality though, governments only cover up problems or create them.  A government might make laws that ultimately prevent murder.  So, have they solved the problem of murder?  No, because murder is not the problem.  Anger or hatred is the problem, murder is merely one of the many symptoms of the problem.  Government might be able to prevent the symptoms, but the problem persists, and it will continue to persist, because anger and hatred are human problems that no government has or can have control over.  Welfare does not solve the problem of poverty.  It covers up the problem of greed.  Tariffs do not solve the problem of poor economic decisions, like welfare, they cover up the problem of greed.  The best governments can only protect people from the poor choices that are the symptoms of problems that cannot be solved.  If governments could solve problems, then they would solve all of the world's problems and then go extinct because there would be no problems left for them to solve.  Government cannot solve all of our problems.  They can only cover them up, and really they can only cover up a limited subset of our problems, not all of them.

Unlike solving problems, governments can cause problems.  In fact, their track record suggests that this is the only thing governments can do consistently.  Thankfully, governments can only cause a limited subset of our problems, not all of them.  Even a tyrannical dictator cannot cause all of the problems his subjects have.  If a dictator has enough subjects to actually be considered a legitimate dictator, he has too many subjects to completely control their lives.  Subjects that are not ruled with a perfect iron fist will cause each other problems that are not the fault of the government.  In fact, a typical dictator has minions who do most of the harm.  Without the minions, the government would have little power to cause problems.  While governments can cause problems, all problems governments cause are indirect.  The problems are caused directly by other people, not by the governments.  Thus, governments cannot be the cause of all of our problems.  They can only cause a limited subset of our problems, and only if people act as their tools.

The balance problem is hairy.  First, because few people agree on what a perfect balance is, it is impossible for a government with enough subjects to be considered a legitimate government to strike a perfect balance.  There is no balance that a consensus will establish as official.  This is why democratic forms of government only require a majority vote, not a unanimous vote.  In fact, it is extremely unlikely that any government will even completely satisfy a majority of its subjects.  There is no perfect balance for government.  The only really noble goal of governments with respect to balance is to minimize the number of people that are completely dissatisfied.

The above three cover pretty much every political ideology, except maybe one.  The problem with anarchy is that humans are idiots and refuse to cooperate in the effort to solve all problems.  Without government, there is no protection from the symptoms of the problems that people create.  If everyone would be civil without law or social pressure breathing down their necks, anarchy would be great.  The problem is that civilizations require enforcement of civility to remain civilized, because humans are inherently uncivilized barbarians (yep, it turns out it is the truth; if you doubt it, look at any country where the government has failed and there was no protection from greed and stupidity for any length of time).

The problem of government comes down to two axioms.  The first is, all solvable problems are caused by people.  The second is, solvable problems can only be solved by people.  These two axioms contain the secret knowledge to eliminating the need for government.  This is the secret: If all solvable problems are caused by people, and all solvable problems can be solved by people, then if all people will stop causing problems and start solving them, there will be no problems that can be avoided and all problems that are unavoidable will be solved.

The reason we need governments is that many people refuse to stop causing problems, and many people refuse to solve problems.  It only takes one person to break the solution to all problems.  Governments suck.  They cause problems.  They do not solve problems.  Instead they hide problems.  Unfortunately, so long as even one person will not cooperate in eliminating all problems, governments are necessary to protect everyone else from those who will not cooperate.  The existence of governments, however, does not give anyone the right to refuse to cooperate.  Cooperating in the elimination of problems is the responsibility of every person capable of such cooperation.

There is no perfect, or even entirely correct, political ideology.  I am fine with it if you choose to keep your political ideology after reading this.  Please help with the task of eliminating all problems though.  Quit causing problems, and start solving them instead.  It is your responsibility to do this, no matter how rich, poor, weak, or powerful you are.

Mexican Slavery

I don't think I have ever brought up this topic before.  It is one of the most controversial topics today.  It also turns out that a vast majority of people, on both sides, have no clue what it really entails.  Today, I am going to discuss illegal immigration.

The other day, I was reading about illegal immigration, for a class I was taking.  I forget what the article was about, but I started reading through some of the comments left by readers.  One lady said that she was against illegal immigration, because it takes jobs away from legal American citizens.  She then showed her complete ignorance by stating that she has a friend who would gladly take one of the construction jobs currently held by an illegal Mexican immigrant.  The construction industry in the U.S. is fairly well regulated.  Certifications are required for many types of construction work, and most locales have at least three levels of construction code requirements (Federal, state, city, and/or county).  Even for construction jobs that do not have Federal requirements, many states require that anyone with less than journeyman status work under a journeyman as an apprentice (I did this on a few occasions doing insulating work with a friend).  On average, more than half of construction workers are skilled workers.  If they are Mexican, they are very much legal.  Maybe some shady backwoods construction jobs hire illegal immigrants, but reputable construction companies don't.

So, the question then is, if there are so many illegal immigrants here, what are the jobs that they are taking?  Many are working for small businesses that are not willing to pay minimum wage.  It is pretty hard for an illegal immigrant to complain that they are getting ripped off, when they will certainly be thrown out of the country if they do.  I wonder if this lady's friend is willing to work as a bagger or cashier at a small grocery store, for $2.50 an hour.  That is not where most of the jobs are though.  My research found that a vast majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are working in one of two industries.  In Washington state, many work in the logging industry.  In general though, a vast majority work in agriculture.  Now, keep in mind that in the U.S., minimum wage does not apply to most agricultural work.  The vast majority of illegal workers (including those who return to Mexico after harvest season is over) in the U.S. are doing agricultural work, which pays $2 to $4 an hour and does not violate minimum wage.

Now we can say that Mexican immigrants are taking thousands of agricultural jobs from legal U.S. citizens right?  This is actually false.  It also turns out that most Americans will not do agricultural work, even if they cannot find any other work.  One farm workers organization listed jobs for agricultural work with some very large unemployment organizations, and out of tens to hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans notified of the openings, a grand total of three responded.  These are not jobs that Americans would have if the Mexicans did not do them for cheaper than minimum wage.  These are jobs that Americans refuse to do.  The evidence shows that most unemployed Americans would rather go on welfare than work in agriculture.  The immigrants are not stealing jobs.  They are filling a need for labor that no one else is willing to do.

It gets worse though.  It also turns out that the reason the above mentioned organization of farm workers started posting job openings is that many Mexicans won't do farm work anymore either.  Many of the jobs were filled by Mexicans who live in Mexico and come to the U.S. seasonally to do farm work.  The economy in Mexico has improved somewhat, and now many Mexican farm workers have found that they can get higher quality and better paying work staying in Mexico, than working on farms in the U.S.  One farmer complained that the lack of workers was going to cause part of his berry harvest to go bad before they could be picked.  Similar worries have been heard from other farmers as well.  As the economy in Mexico has improved, jobs on U.S. farms have opened up.  Unfortunately, few Americans (three, specifically) are willing to do that kind of work.  As the Mexican economy continues to improve, we can expect to loose more and more farm workers.  Here is the catch: Farm workers are essential to our ability to produce food.  Now, last time I checked, 60% of the food produced in the U.S. is exported.  So, decreasing production by 60% would not cause us to starve, but it would cause other countries to have food difficulties, and it would force a lot of farms to close, which would eliminate all of the administrative jobs that are held by legal American workers.  Obviously, if food production dropped more than that, people in the U.S. would start to starve.  In short, without Mexican farm workers, we would loose a large number of jobs that Americans are willing to do, we would loose a major export, we would probably have to start rationing food, and some people would starve because they would not be able to afford the new prices for food.

All of this brings up a lot of questions.  The obvious one is, how can we cut down on illegal immigration without destroying our ability to produce enough food for everyone?  The solution is even more obvious: Illegal immigration is only illegal because it is illegal.  Since it is defined by the fact that it is illegal, making it legal would eliminate the problem entirely.  Now, I am not necessarily for opening the borders and walking away.  We could, however, make it much easier for honest Mexicans to immigrate.  We could even just make it easier to get short term work visas for farm workers.

A second, less obvious question this brings up is, why is minimum wage different for agricultural work?  Also, farm workers don't get overtime pay either.  Why?  The idea with minimum wage is that it is designed to make sure that workers get enough wages for their work to pay for living expenses.  The idea with overtime is that more than 8 hours of work a day (or 40 hours a week) is excessive labor, and the employee deserves extra pay for the difficulties caused.  Do farm workers somehow have a lower cost of living, such that lower pay is justified?  Is farm work so easy that overtime should not apply?  The answer is very obviously "no."  If we limit farm workers to legal workers (whom the law is designed for), they have the same cost of living as anyone else.  Working in agriculture does not magically decrease cost of living.  The overtime thing is worse.  The reason Americans won't do farm work is that it is grueling labor.  Farm work is some of the hardest physical labor available in the U.S.  If anyone deserves extra pay for excessive work, it is farm workers.  So, the question "why" still stands.  The answer is, farming is not as profitable as many other businesses (or, it was not, back when this particular part of labor law was designed; modern industrial farming techniques have dramatically increased profitability of farming).  The justification is, this type of business needs the lower minimum wage, and farm workers work 12 to 16 hours a day, almost every day they work.  As such, the cost to pay workers fair wages is supposedly too much for farms to handle.  Does this really justify blatantly ripping them off though?

This reveals an ethical dilemma.  We need food.  In fact, food is one place where normal market profit maximization techniques are obviously wrong.  Profit maximization math balances demand with price.  The problem with doing this for food is that when demand decreases, it means that people are not buying the product, often because they cannot afford it.  For food this means that people starve.  So, if profit is maximized, around 25% of people will not be able to afford food (this be based on common trends with other products; in the U.S., given that a vast majority of people are in the lower class, it might be closer to 50% or more).  Maximizing profit for food forces people to starve.  So, the dilemma is this: Allow the food industry to be entirely capitalistic, require farms to pay fair wages, and have a significant percentage of the population starve, or allow farms to pay wages worth far less than the average compensation given to slaves in the Old South (they at least got room and board), to keep food costs low enough that everyone can afford it?

What this really comes down to is, when is the U.S. really going to outlaw slavery?  Americans recognize that farm work, at current legal wages, is not much different from slavery.  This is part of the reason Americans will not take farm jobs.  Many Mexicans are used to conditions worse than slavery, so seasonal slavery on a farm, that actually pays, is better than what they are used to.  That still does not make it right though.  (Note, if you are sitting there thinking, "It's only slavery if they are forced to work," look up "chattel slavery."  That is what you are comparing it to.  Chattel slavery is not the only kind of slavery.  Voluntary slavery is still slavery.)  We managed to outlaw blatant chattel slavery long ago.  Now we are battling a different kind of slavery that is much more insidious.  Until we recognize it as slavery, the American Dream will be a false hope available only to those who already have it.  Let's free the Mexican slaves!

Poverty and Minimum Wage

I read a study recently about poverty.  It claimed that the legal definition of "poverty level" does not match the legal definition of "poverty" in the U.S.  Specifically, for the government to consider a U.S. citizen or family to be under the poverty level, the household must be making less than somewhere around $20,000 a year (I think the actual figure is within a thousand of $23,000).  The study looked at cost of living all around the U.S.  Because cost of living is different in different places, the poverty level should also be different.  Using the legal definition of "poverty," the study found that the actual poverty rate averages over $30,000 a year.  There were a few places where it was as low as $25,000 a year, but there were many places where it was very close to $40,000 a year.  Given the legal definition of "poverty rate," which is used by many government welfare agencies, there as almost a $20,000 gap where people who  need government welfare cannot get it.  Imagine the dilemma of the guy who is making $19,000 a year, gets all of the food for his family through food stamps, and is paying only half the normal rent in subsidized housing.  What happens when his boss offers him a promotion that adds $5,000 a year to his salary?  If he accepts, he will make $24,000 a year.  Unfortunately, this will not cover his $30,000 a year expenses.  Further, loosing the food stamps takes out $3,000 a year from his income, and loosing qualification for subsidized housing takes out another $5,000 a year.  If he does not take the promotion, he stays at $19,000 a year, but food stamps give him $3,000 for food, and the housing subsidy gives him $5,000 for his family's apartment.  Before the raise, his gross income is actually $27,000, only $3,000 short.  After the raise, his gross income is $24,000.  He would be $6,000 short this way.  The only way he can take a promotion is if his salary is increased by more than $8,000 a year (plus the additional taxes, which he will now have to pay with his increased income).  What are the chances that he will eventually be offered a raise big enough to justify accepting it?  Approximately nothing.  Most employers do not even offer a $3,000 raise for a single promotion.  This guy will probably be stuck barely in poverty ($3,000 short) for the rest of his life, because any raise that would help him progress out of poverty will disqualify him for welfare and cause him and his family to starve and be thrown out on the street.  I guess the American Dream only exists for those who are already rich or the lucky few geniuses who can pull off a massively successful invention and manage to keep the rights long enough to get paid.

This gap between the legal definitions of "poverty" and "poverty level" is not the only gap that causes a major problem.  There is a similar gap between Federal Minimum Wage and the legal definition of "poverty level."  Current Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25 an hour.  Now, the legal work week is only 40 hours, according to Federal Labor Law.  There are only four professions which can legally be required to work more than this (other businesses can ask their employees to work more hours, but if the employees refuse, they cannot do anything that could be construed as punishment or retaliation).  There are also only 52 weeks in a year.  Doing the math, we find that Federal Minimum Wage enforces a yearly wage of only $15,080, for a full, legal work week.  This is only 75% of the Federal definition of "poverty level."  The Federal government itself is practically encouraging entry level businesses to keep their employees in poverty.  Worse, the actual poverty level is closer to $30,000 a year, which means that in reality, the government is allowing businesses to pay only half what a person needs to survive.  This is encouraging an 80 hour work week, with the additional overhead of working for more than one employer.  Further, most minimum wage jobs only schedule employees half time, to avoid paying benefits.  This means that the government is actually encouraging an 80 work week, split between four jobs.  Note that each job has extra overhead for taxes, administration of the businesses, and often extra travel time.  This is absurd.  How stupid do law makers have to be to miss this problem?

So, there are a few possible solutions.  The worst is to increase the legal work week to 80 hours and remove laws requiring benefits.  This would solve all of the problems for the businesses (besides extra hiring costs to replace dead employees).  This also happens to be 16 hours a day, 5 days a week.  The 40 hour Federal limit was placed to solve this problem, and it would be inhuman to change it back.  Also, if benefits are removed, the poverty level should be raised another $5,000.  The second solution is to fix the government definition of "poverty level."  This will allow more people to get on welfare, which will help to mitigate the problem.  Unfortunately, this will cost a lot of money, and if the government cannot get up the nerve to tax large businesses more, it will result in economic disaster.  Note that this solution should be used, but it will not fix the problem by itself.  The third solution is to raise minimum wage such that working full-time in any job will pay enough to stay out of poverty.  This will still not help people that cannot find jobs or that cannot find 40 hours of work each week, but it will take a huge number of people out of poverty.  The ideal solution would be both of the last two.  Fixing the definitions problem will make welfare work for everyone who needs it.  Fixing minimum wage will get a huge number of people off of welfare, which will balance the effect of fixing the definitions.  In this system, the guy above will already be out of poverty, if he is working full-time.  If he is not, he will be able to remain on welfare until he is entirely out of poverty.  This will allow him to accept the promotion without endangering himself and his family.

Now, there will certainly be some negative repercussions to this.  Businesses that base their profit margin on underpaying employees will probably fail (we will loose a lot of fast food places; is that really a bad thing?).  Initially unemployment will increase, which will increase the burden on welfare.  Ultimately though, this problem must be addressed.  If we do not start taking welfare money from the businesses that are causing it to be required, our government will eventually default on its debts, which will destroy its ability to borrow money.  This will force a massive lightening of government, which will probably result in a depression like the world has never seen before.  We might as well start now, where it will actually fix some major problems, instead of waiting until we are on the verge of government collapse.

Because I am black

Just to be clear, I am not black.  The phrase I reference in the title, "It's because I am black" is a phrase that should never be uttered by any black person trying to gain fair treatment.  This particular post was prompted by at least one incident mentioned by Oprah Winfrey.  Evidently on two occasions, when she was in Europe, she was refused service.  She claims that both of these incidents were examples of racism.  The first was in France, where she entered a store several minutes after it had closed, and the store clerk told her he could not serve her because the store was closed.  The second, in Switzerland, was in a store that sold handbags.  When she displayed interest in a 35,000 Franc (about $38,000US) handbag, the clerk suggested some less expensive options.  Oprah claims that both of these were cases of blatant racism.

The first case was clearly not racist.  No matter how racist the store clerk might have been, I find it extremely unlikely that he (or she...) would have acted any differently for a white person, or even a French white person (the French are notorious for being less than polite to foreigners).   The clerk might have been racist (there is no evidence of this), but his actions certainly were not.

The second case is not quite so clearly not racist, but if you consider the facts, there is a plethora of more reasonable explanations.  The first is that the clerk might do this for all customers.  It is possible that shoppers have left the store without looking back when they discovered the prices of the more expensive items.  Offering lower priced alternatives could be a good marketing strategy for retaining less wealthy customers.  While this is probably more likely than racism, it is still not that likely.  A more reasonable explanation is that Oprah was probably wearing a rather out of date style, and the clerk assumed that this meant she could not afford something more recent.  I can suddenly hear a lot of people becoming indignant, maybe saying, "Oprah would never wear something out of style."  Maybe that is true, but it is essential to consider how fashion evolves.  On average, Europe is about 20 years ahead of the U.S. in fashion (much like Japan is about 20 years behind the U.S.).  Oprah could have been wearing the latest U.S. fashion, and she still would have been 20 years behind in Europe.  If the clerk were not used to serving rich Americans, the she would probably have mistaken Oprah's clothing for thrift store clothing donated by some rich person making closet space.  Now, while I think shopping at thrift stores is wise, even for the rich, I could easily see the clerk take this as a sign of being less than very wealthy.  If she was getting a commission, I could easily see why she would suggest something cheaper to someone wearing apparently cheap clothing.  There are several other possible, non-racist, reasons that the clerk might have offered cheaper alternatives, but racism is about the least likely reason.  (Note that the shop owner claims that the event never happened.  It is possible that Oprah was just making up a story for the occasion.  Rich people seem to do that a lot.)

So, now for the point of this article: Crying racism makes black people (or people of any race) look bad.  Oprah is enforcing a stereotype that black people will cry racism whenever they think it will help them get their way.  Sadly, this bad habit of prominent black people has made it cliché to "play the race card" even when legitimate racism is taking place.  What they don't seem to understand is, this encourages racism.  Many employers are afraid to hire black people, because they fear law suits over racism where none exists.  It sometimes seems to be a lower liability to choose not to hire black people than it is to hire qualified black people at the risk of unfounded racism law suits.  Further, it is rather hypocritical to constantly cry racism when you are trying to get equal rights with everyone else.  Maybe these people think that if they constantly point out their race, everyone will magically forget about race.  A strategy that has seemed to work far more consistently is to forget about race entirely and act like you belong.  I have worked with people of different races before, and the most respected are the ones who act insulted at the insult when people are rude, instead of pretending like every little comment is racist.  These people respect others and first assume that rudeness is unintentional, and when that is not possible, they assume the rudeness is directed at them and not their race.  One benefit of this is that even when someone is being racist, it takes race out of the equation.  This makes rudeness more personal, which is not what racist people typically want.  When people are racist, they are directing their rudeness at a group instead of an individual.  This feels less wrong than directing rudeness at an individual.  When the target of the rudeness ignores any racial element, it makes the rudeness personal, which makes racist people uncomfortable.  In other words, acknowledging racist behavior, whether intentional or not, actually encourages racism, while refusing to acknowledge the racial element discourages it.  (Note that this is true of modern society, but it was not in early America.  This is because targeting rudeness at specific racial groups was more socially acceptable then.  When a large number of people support racist behavior, racist people are less likely to feel guilt when the insult is made more personal.  Now, racist behavior is not as socially acceptable, so turning an insult personal is a far more effective way of discouraging racism.)

This is just one way that many American blacks separate themselves from everyone else (not just whites).  Another one (which I hope Oprah is intelligent enough not to be involved with) is gangs.  Black ghetto kids are taught young that blacks are oppressed.  They are taught that they will never be treated as well as whites.  They learn that they can have "families" that will help them, by joining a gang.  They are essentially making their own culture, and they are rejecting American culture.  The problem is first, they are wrong.  Plenty of black people have gotten out of poverty and even slavery.  Some of the most famous black Americans in history started out as slaves (look up George Washington Carver, who invented peanut-butter and was involved in setting up one of the first learning institutions for black people in the U.S.).  Gangs generate crime, and this crime makes black people look bad.  Yes, it is a stereotype, and stereotypes are not always accurate.  If you think you can convince the majority of people to discard stereotypes though, you are delusional.  The single most effective way to destroy racism is to become a functioning part of society, and to prove the stereotypes wrong (actually, this is more of changing the stereotypes).  For ghetto black kids, this means staying out of crime, graduating from high school, and finding a way to go to college (even if it means scholarships and loans; just make sure to pick a profession that will pay off the loans quickly; consider engineering, we need more engineers anyhow).  For Oprah and other prominent black people this means stop pointing out race every time you feel insulted.  If someone insults you, take it personally, do not blame your race (or better yet, blow the insult off; if blacks were stereotyped as extremely difficult to offend, employers would feel more comfortable hiring black people than white people).  If you want to be treated like everyone else, quit pointing out all of the differences.  There are times when discussions about race are appropriate.  When you have just been insulted in a totally non-racial way is not one of those times.

One other thing: The employees at the stores Oprah mentioned have more right to be insulted than she does.  Racism is a serious thing.  Accusing people of racism without substantial evidence is extremely rude.  Imagine if you refused to do something for someone and they accused you of being a pedophile, a porn addict, or a drug addict.  Racism is somewhere among those in seriousness.  Oprah very seriously insulted these two people, and she is lucky she did not cause an international incident.  Famous people have a responsibility to represent their home country in a good light.  Oprah's rather heinous behavior has reinforced another stereotype, that Americans are rude, unfeeling, egotistical jerks.  Thanks Oprah for making both black people and Americans look bad, all in one shot.