An Introduction To Racial Tensions In Los Angeles

 So I hear there was yet another racial fight at Jefferson High School in LA recently. I always find it surprising how very few people know about the significant amount of racial tension that exists in LA. I guess after having lived there most of my life and knowing that everybody around me is aware of it, you just assume other people know as well. So, since I am finding out that very few people know what is going on, I thought I'd blog about it and give the readers of my blog a leg up on the status of LA. However, given that I am Mexican/American, I will primarily give the Mexican perspective on things, since that is primarily the side that I was most privy too.

First, some background. Gangs in Los Angeles (and by Los Angeles, I mean pretty much all of the LA area, like Compton, Watts, Harbor Area and valley) are 'segregated' along racial lines: the Crips and the Bloods (and there's also Piru, but they are considered bloods by most standards) are overall Black gangs, and the '13' are overall Latino (predominantly Mexican) gangs; all Latino gangs in Los Angeles are 13s, whether or not they get along. It basically refers to "Sur 13", meaning the 'south' of California, so all Latino gangs, south of say, Bakersfield, are considered 13s. Latino gangs in the broader California are further broken up between the 14s that control most of northern California and the 13s that control all of southern California. This split between the Latinos started a long, long time ago in prison, and since every Latino gangster in Los Angeles (except for one Latino gang, but they are by far the exception) belongs to the 13s, the 13s vs. 14s fights are usually handled in the prisons, when Latinos are mixed from the northern and southern parts of the state together.

Before the mid-90s, there was the occasional Black person that belonged to a Latino gang and there was the occasional Latino that belonged to a Black gang. Some gangs, or so I've heard, even started out united as Black and Latino. Now, don't jump to the conclusion that I am saying that racial tension did not exist between Blacks and Latinos before the mid-90s, there was definitely racial tension, and a significant amount at that. It's just that it escalated after the early 90s.

Up until the mid 90s, gangs tended to kill ‘their own,’ meaning that Latino gangs fought amongst themselves and the same went for Black gangs. Yes, there was the occasional fighting that crossed racial lines, but that was more the exception than the rule. Black gangs were the same way, they were composed of Crips and Bloods/Pirus, blue and red, and tended to primarily fight each other. All Bloods and Pirus tend to get along with each other and unite to fight the Crips. Crips, on the other hand, fight against Bloods, Pirus and other Crips. So, even though there was a lot of fighting between Black gangs, they all tended to kill each other and there was limited fighting with Latino gangs.

In areas where the two groups are highly represented, such as South Central LA, Compton and Watts, the territory claimed by the two groups of gangs greatly overlapped, with each identifying almost the same particular area as their own, and both respecting each other. In several areas, the Latino and Black gangs intermingled a lot, with several Black and Mexicans speaking with the same accent and doing several of the same activities together (cock fighting, pit bull fighting, etc). Everybody just understood that each territory was their own with respect to their specific race. It was a weird system, but overall it worked and allowed the two races, usually neighbors to each other, to live together.

Also, prisons in California are extremely racial. In other words, all Latino gangsters hang out together, even if they were rival gangsters in the streets, and all Black gangsters hang out together, even if they too were rival gangsters in the streets. The Latino group is referred to as "La Eme," also known as the Mexican Mafia and 'Sur 13', and is composed of Latino gangsters from the streets, this is where the 13 comes from. To elaborate further, all Latino gangs in California are composed of two parts. The first, and some would say primary, is the fact that they are all 13s (the ones in southern California at least, the ones up north would be 14s), the second is their unique gang. So say you had Latino gang A and Latino gang B fighting each other on the streets, absolutely hating each other. When the members of these gangs go to prison, they are no longer gang A and gang B, they all become what they have in common, the 13 part of their gang. Their enemy now is not other rival gangsters, but other races. So say, for example, that you were Mexican and had a really close Black friend growing up, if you two were to meet in prison, you could not eat together, work out together, or associate with one another at all. Why? Because of your races, it's that simple.

However, in the early to mid 90s, La Eme started dictating orders from the inside. They would send representatives to hold meetings with the heads of the Latino gangs and order them to stop killing ‘their own’ and direct their anger to those of other races, namely Black people. Those who violated these rules and were sent to prison would be killed. And since La Eme controls the Latino side of the prisons, and all Latino gangsters that enter prison would by default become part of their ranks, thereby needing their protection and association, this was a threat taken very seriously.

Many people thought (myself included) that it would never work. How could two gangs that had hated each other for generations, that had spilled so much blood, all of the sudden act as if nothing has happened, simply because of racial ‘unity’ and ‘fear’. Sure, they've been doing it in prison, but in prison everything is more compact, more orderly, but not so on the streets. More importantly, some thought, how could Black and Latino gangs that had grown up together in overall peace now all of the sudden become arch enemies, just out of a call for unity and threats from Latinos in prison? At the time, I thought it extremely unlikely to take effect.

Well, with time, I realized that I was wrong. Soon after, the Latino gangs that for the past generations had been rivals, started communicating and socializing. It was an odd thing to see. On the other hand, racial tension between Blacks and Latinos started to mount. First, you would hear of a Latino gang that had already been fighting with a Black gang make the fight more racial, escalating the anger between the two. Then you would hear a different Latino gang start a new fight with a Crip or Blood gang, and other gangs do the same. The ones who bore most of the brunt of this change were those few Blacks that were in Latino gangs, and those few Latinos in Black gangs. If they entered prison, they would be killed for sure. For example, I knew a Black guy from a Latino gang that told me that when he entered prison, he would say that he was Puerto Rican, because the Blacks wouldn't take him, and without the Latinos to back him up, he would be defenseless.

Killings between the two races escalated so much that there was a point where just being Mexican, or just being Black, was reason enough to get killed by the other group.

In Compton, my hometown, Black vs. Latino type atmosphere created several killings between the two, where as the two had lived overall somewhat peacefully before - did drive by’s together, overall lived in the same neighborhoods with a live and let live philosophy - Blacks in Crips and Bloods, Mexicans in 13 gangs, the escalation afterwards was huge. I'm not saying that all Latino gangs started to fight all Black gangs. There were certain areas where the friendships remained, but it is undeniable that what La Eme did escalated the racial tensions to very high levels.

Some areas, especially the Latino areas that have fewer Black people, have prided themselves of riding as many Blacks as possible. It's almost an unspoken test of what Latino gang is tougher, the one that rids more Blacks being the tougher gang. Also, after a few couple years, Latino gangs started to fight each other again, with La Eme unable to control the hatred they always had towards one another, but the racial tensions between Blacks and Latinos remained, never returning to the previous levels. In addition to this, this racial tension has spread into general areas of life and is not restricted to gangsters. If you were to go to Jefferson High school, for example, and witness the fighting, you would definitely see Latino/Black gangsters being the primary fighters, but you would also see a significant number of non-gangster Latino/Black people fighting. It has become an overall strong dislike between the two at the fundamental level.

Moreover, everything I have said here is all pretty much common knowledge in LA, you don't have to be a gangster, or in many cases, even a teenager to know this. From the kids in middle school to the adults, everybody knows a good portion of what I have said here.

With that said, I don't want to give the impression that all Latinos or all Blacks in LA dislike each other. Certainly there are many many Latinos/Blacks that are perfectly fine with one another. In fact, things are actually better now than they were in the mid to late 90s, but I would attribute most of that improvement connected with the overall fall in gang activity. Nor do I want to give the impression that all Black gangs hate all Latino gangs, or that all gangsters are like this. This is just to give a general overview of the way gangs are, and how this has affected the culture at large.

Before I end, I want to give a few words on what I am always asked after I explain the LA situation, how do you go about solving the problem? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know. There are too many historical and cultural factors at play here for any one solution to solve the problem. I could give you a stronger list of things that I believe make the problem worse, than a list that will make the problem better. And, as one of the things on the list that makes the problem worse, I would put the media's inability to classify the situation as it is. This was not a fight between 'some students and other students', or between 'one gang and another,' this was a race riot, pure and simple. It is proof of the larger race-related problem that LA has, both historically and culturally, and to deny the obvious and hide it under the rug as if it's not, does nobody any good. (Originally Published: 05/04/2005)

I LOVE Diversity

 I absolutely love it. Here is a recount of my day today...

I arrived at work to find my Indian/Canadian office mate in the office, we chatted a little about martial arts and what not, than I immediately went to the lab to do some work. As soon as I arrived in the lab, I started talking to an Iraqi friend, this friend is from northern Iraq, and overall supports the war in Iraq. He is always up to date on all the news, and fills me in on what it's like to be in Iraq. Today's topic of choice was the movie I let him borrow, Voices of Iraq, he hadn't watched it yet, as I was interested in his perspective on the movie.

Soon after that, I bumped into another friend at work, a native of Canada. This is a friend that I have long economic conversations with. He grew up amongst anarchists (damn Chomsky!!) and has leanings towards communism (yikes!!!). Needless to say, I immediately proceeded to talk about the wonders of Capitalism. Today's topic was some books I had recommended him (Friedman, Sowell, and Hazlitt). He is a smart cat, with a huge heart, it won't be long before he connects the dots.

Later, I chatted with a different Indian friend, not my old house mate, but a friend that is part of my group at work. We chatted about work stuff here and there, but overall touched on the topic of colonization (Queen Elizabeth, give them their Diamond back!!!) and what it does to a country. Nothing too long, just simple conversations.

I than headed to class (UCSD) with my other office mate (it's a big office, ok!!), who I have known since I started college, and who happens to be a Vietnamese refugee. His father, after the USA withdrew from Vietnam, was imprisoned for 10+ years for fighting with the USA for South Vietnam. President Reagan (may he rest in peace) went to Vietnam, and gave every family that had a family member imprisoned for a certain number of years (can't remember the exact number, I think it was 2 or 3 years) for fighting with the USA, free passage to the United States. My friend came, worked for a few years, saved saved and saved. Eventually enrolled into college, while still waking up at 4 amish to deliver newspapers, and graduated top of his class (I was second :-( ). He is now one of the top Engineers at our company. Imagine, with no help but his own will and dedication, in fact, there were many times where he had to go out of his way to support him and his father. Yet he did it, with no complaints and nothing but love and joy for this country. He never stops telling me how absolutely horrible it is to live under a communists regime, and always reminds me how lucky I am to be in the United States (God Bless America!!).

Upon arriving at school, I got the updates from our (school) lab partners. There are five of us, myself, my Vietnamese work mate, two foreign exchange students from Iran, and one Sikh from India (btw, Turbans in the USA pretty much means Sikh NOT Muslim). We chatted a bit, and than headed back to work.

When I got back to work, another friend of mine was in the (work) lab. This is another Mexican/American friend who, like myself, speaks fluent Spanish. When I was younger my dad used to give me a 'coscoron' everytime I spoke English to someone who you could clearly tell spoke Spanish better, and it's no different with this friend. I don't care how many people are around that don't know Spanish, when me and him communicate it is always in Spanish (Remember the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, before giving me an English Only lecture ;) ). Sometimes we talk about his kids, who btw, were raised by him and his wife of SEVERAL years (they were married very early, both are natives of Mexico). His oldest son just completed, at age 25ish, his Masters in Electrical Engineering from UCSD and now works for Nokia (making BIG bucks), and his eldest daughter is a public school teacher, his second oldest daughter is getting her bachelors degree at UCSD in Physics. Yeah, you heard that right, I am very proud (on a side note, my 13 year old sister is very good at math, I have high hopes for her, more news in a few years)!!!

While walking down the hall, I chatted with a white friend, about another Chinese friend who had been in a bicycle accident. Everything is ok, he will be back to work on Monday.

After this, I came home and chatted with my white roommate about this upcoming weekend. You see, I have friends coming over this weekend, mostly old college friends, but some friends I knew outside of college. As a matter of fact, I have a very close college white friend of mine driving from San Jose as we speak, he is due to get here at 3am in the morning. Who is coming you say, well if everything works as planned, it should be possibly two black guys, two white guys, four Mexican guys, two Cubans, and a guy from Peru. And those are just the ones staying over my place. I invited some friends from work, friends from school, and just friends that live in San Diego (Oso and Derek, you guys are invited too).

All in one day. I haven't even started talking about how my meetings at work are...It's almost a mini United Nations (except we get things done, and don't steal from the poor).

For all the crap some people give to California, this is certainly not part of it. This is the America I've known, the America I love, and the America that makes this country great. Sometimes I think it is even better than all the hot women here (ok, you're right, the hot women are better, but it's a close second). And it is very enriching.

With that out of my system, see you all on Monday, I got some partying to attend too.

PS: I also got A LOT of work done in the blank spots above...don't want anybody getting the impression... (Originally published: 1/21/2005)

More Hispanics Needed In The Sciences

 Caution, rant to follow...

[rant]I am taking two upper division courses at UC San Diego, Device Physics and Active Circuit Design. I know a lot of the material already from my undergrad, but I am planning on getting my masters in EE from there, so I figured a refresher would be good.

These are typical undergrad courses, ones that have to be taken by all engineers. The classrooms are big, holding 100+ students in an auditorium type setting. So you get to see what the average Engineering/Science class looks like. One of the first things I noticed when I started the class was how few Hispanics there are. Out of all the students in the classroom, I have not found one who looks Hispanic. Granted, not all Hispanics look alike, and there may be Hispanics who aren’t easily recognized as Hispanic. But it’s a clear fact that the majority in the classroom are Asian and White. I think I saw one black person.

I truly have a love for the sciences, and no disrespect to the liberal arts majors, but I am always bothered when I hear about a Hispanic who did well in high school and has the potential to succeed and yet decided to major in Chicano Studies or some degree like that. I always think its such a waste (especially since those majors are heavily biased towards the liberal philosophy, but that’s another topic). Why not enter a field where Hispanics are underrepresented, a field that has the most real world application, and a field that encourages math and science? Ok, I grant you that knowing where you came from is also good, but I think Chicano Studies and the like should be hobbies, or maybe minors at most, but definitely not your primary area of study.

I have three younger brothers and sisters still living at home. My two youngest brothers are only five and seven so I am just getting started with them. But my sister, she is thirteen now and is already showing a very strong understanding of math. She is top of her class despite having parents that don’t speak English very well. My dad doesn’t even have an elementary level education. I’ve taken it upon myself to encourage this side of her and to foster her love for math and the sciences. I am also doing the same for my little brothers.

I encourage all my fellow Hispanics out there to do the same. Encourage your kids to study the sciences. To study majors that heavily deal with math. Majors like all forms of Engineering, Economics, Chemistry, and Biology. Read up on important people in the sciences and talk positively about their accomplishments. Find local science functions going on around the neighborhood. If you can’t find one near your neighborhood, drive out of your way to go to one. You’d be surprised how much that affects a child’s view. For example, when I was younger, I was going down the wrong path in life and I remember seeing my dad up late studying. He came to this country from Mexico with no education whatsoever, but he is such a hard worker that his company offered him the chance to go to school and learn diesel mechanic stuff, therefore giving him the opportunity to get a job that would pay him almost double his salary. He jumped at the chance, and when he first tried to register at City College they turned him down. Arguing that with his lack of education, and bad English, he wouldn’t survive. My dad protested until they agreed to let him have a chance. So for the next six months my dad would start work at 6am, go to work until 4pm, than go to school until 10pm, come home and study until 12 or 1 in the morning, continuously, day after day. He would translate each line with his Spanish/English translator, or would have me translate it for him. To make a long story short, he got C’s his first semester, B’s his second, and straight A’s since then. He spent the next two years in City College, with all but the first two semesters getting straight A’s. Granted he didn’t take any GE course, all the courses he took were related to diesel mechanic, but with what he had to work with, it is still amazing what he was able to accomplish. To get back to my point, seeing my dad do that had a huge impact on my life. It taught me the value of education and gave me the will to do it. When I was going through a rough time in my life I registered in college and soon rose to the top of my class, not because I am the smartest kid in the class (I wasn’t), but because I had a desire to study and a willingness to give it my all. Looking back I don’t think I would have done it without my dad’s experience. So even though it can be hard and you may know very little about math, it is still very possible. What makes a kid get good grades is more dependent on the values and ethics you teach your son/daughter, than on actual help you give him in class.

So I plead with all Hispanics reading this blog. Push your kids into the sciences, start at a young age, and encourage them to continue. We need more Hispanics in the sciences.

Ok, rant over. [/rant] Time to get back to studying... (Originally posted: 10/09/2004)

The Leftist View Of The World

Readers of my blog, especially those who comment frequently, know my good friend Jon. He's a recent convert to the left and believes in it passionately. A common theme of his world view, and those on the left in general, is the tug of war between the rich and the poor. The powerful and the non-powerful. The politically connected and the those with no political power. Basically the heart of leftist's worldview revolves around this paradigm.

Every political fight, every economic decision and every current event is filtered through this prism.  Since I consider Jon a smart, honest and sincere person, I have been trying to understand how he could be so enthralled by such a political philosophy. I try to read, watch and listen to everything he asks me to. And a big part of that is Chomsky and his writings. So I go over to Chomsky's site and this is the latest article of his, on the Winsconsin union political fight:

As working people won basic rights in the 1930s, business leaders warned of "the hazard facing industrialists in the rising political power of the masses," and called for urgent measures to beat back the threat, according to scholar Alex Carey in "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy." They understood as well as Mubarak did that unions are a leading force in advancing rights and democracy. In the U.S., unions are the primary counterforce to corporate tyranny.

By now, U.S. private-sector unions have been severely weakened. Public-sector unions have recently come under sharp attack from right-wing opponents who cynically exploit the economic crisis caused primarily by the finance industry and its associates in government.

Popular anger must be diverted from the agents of the financial crisis, who are profiting from it; for example, Goldman Sachs, "on track to pay out $17.5 billion in compensation for last year," the business press reports, with CEO Lloyd Blankfein receiving a $12.6 million bonus while his base salary more than triples to $2 million.

Instead, propaganda must blame teachers and other public-sector workers with their fat salaries and exorbitant pensions -- all a fabrication, on a model that is all too familiar. To Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker, to other Republicans and many Democrats, the slogan is that austerity must be shared -- with some notable exceptions.

The propaganda has been fairly effective. Walker can count on at least a large minority to support his brazen effort to destroy the unions. Invoking the deficit as an excuse is pure farce.

In different ways, the fate of democracy is at stake in Madison, Wis., no less than it is in Tahrir Square.

Lost on Chomsky, and which bears no mention in this article or other writings, is an investigation into whether or not the claims of opponents of teachers unions are actually true. This is typical Chomsky. He doesn't care about declared motives. There has to be other reasons, and those reasons have to fit into a powerful vs nonpower paradigm. Anything else is not even worth investigating.

Ignored by Chomsky then is the long trail of writings and arguments that opponents of teachers unions have been making. Opponents of teachers unions make the claim (among others) that the teachers union stifles reform and entrenches a low quality public education system. One that ultimately harms the poor most, especially minorities.

The proof of this is so one sided that even traditional supporters of unions have a hard time making a compelling case in their defense and instead resort to distortions and misleading claims (see here for an example). But where is Chomsky on this issue? Nowhere. He is so blinded by his worldview, that anything contrary to union power is ipso facto a power grab against the 'poor and powerless' in favor of the 'rich and powerful'.

I bet you can read all of Chomsky's material, all of his writings, videos and historical accounts and you will not find anything on say, the unions role in entrenching racism (pdf), or vast corruption throughout history, or more currently, the teachers unions negative affect on public education - his is a simple storyline, unions and 'workers' are good, rich people are evil.

This is typical of Chomsky and leftist in general. Their simplistic paradigm is so ingrained in them that they often cannot see the forest for the trees, and miss the fact that it is the students and poor minorities in particular, who are the powerless in need of defending, and it is the teachers unions and their political allies that are the powerful. (Originally published: 5/7/2011)

Liberal Vs Conservative: Approach To Minority Problems

Friday's example of the ugly side of liberalism reminded me of why I am a conservative and not a liberal.

There are two necessary parts to succeed in anything. There is the internal element and the external element. The internal element involves the personality traits necessary to succeed. The personality traits that help you stay up late at night when necessary to pass a certain test, the personality traits that teach you a good work ethic necessary to survive and move ahead in any field, and the side that pushes you to keep going and overcome obstacles when they arise. But than there is also the external element. One could work as hard as one can, and have all the personality traits necessary to succeed, but if there are no opportunities because of your race, or if your financial circumstances limits your options, you are also limited in how far you can go economically.

In my opinion, liberals seem to focus on the external forces involved in getting minorities out of the ghetto. They will push for affirmative action, they will push to get more government money for student loans, they will fight to make college cheaper, they will create minority business networks to help promote minority-based businesses. They will put a strong emphasis on the racial barriers to minorities prosperity.

Liberals will also push for social programs that they think will help minorities and depend on the government to implement those programs. They also tend to promote increased government funding of those social programs as the way to solve minority problems.

In other words, liberals' focus is on the external factors and using the government to implement solutions.

Conservatives, on the other hand, will address the internal factors more. They will stress hard work and dedication, personal responsibility and the need to learn the tools necessary to succeed in life. Conservatives will advocate for crime laws that remove criminals off the streets; they will encourage and assist faith based initiatives that give inner city Churches the tools necessary to solve the economic and cultural problems from the inside. They promote solutions that encourage couples to stay married and help reduce out of wedlock births.

Conservatives will also push for programs that don't compromise the above beliefs. Conservatives will emphasize free market solutions to the problem of minorities, and tend to shy away from government solutions. They will push for the privatization of social security, thereby giving those who choose to use them the opportunity to take control of their own economic destiny. They will push for non-race specific solutions that will help minority businesses succeed. Things like tax breaks for small business, a reduction in regulations that hamper business growth. Last, but certainly not least, conservatives will push for a free-market solution to tackle the failing problems of our public schools. They will push for vouchers, a solution that gives parents of children in failing schools the economic choice necessary to send their kids to the school of their choice, this in turn indirectly puts much needed pressure on schools to succeed.

In other words, conservatives focus on internal forces and tend to rely on free-market, non-government methods to implement their solutions.

I am not saying that these are mutually exclusive lines, or that supporting one political philosophy implies you don't support the solutions of the other political philosophy. My point here is to show the difference in emphasis, not in specific applications.

After reading this, one will naturally ask the obvious question, which side is better? If one's ultimate goal is to get minorities out of the ghetto and towards a prosperous living, which side is better at doing it? I would answer that it depends more on the circumstances of the time than anything else.

To succeed you need both elements. You need the internal and the external. If any one is lacking, you will not be able to succeed.

So both the conservative and the liberal emphasis are necessary. However, I think that depending on the circumstances of the time, one should be emphasized over the other. I agree that there was a time when combating racism was necessary and perhaps affirmative action was needed back then. The country certainly needed to be made aware of the fact that many minorities were not succeeding because of the external limitations imposed on them. But I believe that a lot has changed since then. Racism and the external limitations on minorities are, for the most part, a thing of the past. I am not saying that racism has ceased to exist, only that it doesn't have the power that it did before. There isn't enough racism to stop you from succeeding in life. In addition, there is more than enough college funding going around than most people are aware of. Nowadays, there are so many options available to poor people wanting to go to college and there aren't enough people taking advantage of that. I know a Hispanic female friend of mine that grew up living in a trailer, when she finished high school she won a grant from the Bill Gates foundation that completely paid for her education at USC. The grant paid for her books, education tuition, and gave her money for rent, a computer and transportation. Could you have imagined anything close to that 30 years ago?

I am not arguing that more progress shouldn't be made with regards to external factors (although I'd disagree with how liberals go about it), but rather that the focus needs to be on internal factors.

Today, the primary problems limiting minorities from getting out of the ghetto are not racial, they are not financial, they are cultural. When you have a high percentage of minorities growing up in single family homes, or a high crime area that hampers economic innovation, or a culture that frowns on academic success, or a public school system that doesn't give minorities the resources necessary to succeed, the primary problems have ceased to be external, and are now internal.

In other words, minorities now need to hear more Bill Cosby and less Jesse Jackson.

So not only do I believe that the emphasis should be on the internal, but I believe liberals have drifted so far to the external that they have started to hurt minorities.

Liberals' overemphasis on race leads them to be over sensitive on that issue. I have a very liberal Hispanic friend that I was discussing the problem concerning the lack of Hispanics in the sciences, something that is of particular concern to me. And it was like pulling teeth to get her to even admit there is a problem, as if my bringing it up was the result of some racism on my part. I could only imagine what her response would have been if I had been a white person, as opposed to Hispanic. Many times, if you talk to a liberal minority and you happen to be white, many of them will not even listen to what you have to say, simply because you are white or don't have the same poverty upbringing that they have. In addition, liberals have become so sensitive on racial issues that it becomes very difficult to even talk about cultural problems without the fear of being branded a racist.

In addition, liberals' overemphasis on race issues leads them to be very divisive - emphasizing the difference among Americans instead of the similarities. For example, Mexican-American minorities will quibble endlessly about the proper term that defines us, is it Latino? Is it Hispanic? Or, is it even Chicano? Some take this argument so seriously that they have publicly stated that they will not even view or address my solution to failing public schools (vouchers) because I have decided to call myself Hispanic. When your ideology drives you to stress the importance of whether to call yourself a Hispanic over the problem of failing schools, I think it's fair to say you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

Furthermore, contrary to common belief among liberals, social programs don't have the wonderful track record that liberals seem to think they do. Some argue that using the government to promote social programs only divides and actually makes matters worse.

Than there is the belief that social programs when done through government do not come free. They have trade offs like everything else in economics. The bigger you make government, the more you tax citizens, the less efficient the economy runs, and the less economic mobility is available to those at the bottom.

Maybe I am lucky to have entered politics at such a young age. To have entered politics without experiencing the civil rights era of the 1960's and 70's. To have only read about the great Martin Luther King Jr, the great civil rights fighters of that time instead of going through the struggles with them. Maybe the lack of personal experience in that area has allowed me to enter politics with no historical bias, only judging what I see now.


To the liberals out there reading this, I only have one thing to say. You can disagree with my conclusion, you can critique my beliefs, and you can certainly offer differing solutions. All of that is open to and should be debated. But do not question my sincerity or my devotion to my fellow minorities in the ghetto. Simply because someone doesn't agree with your solutions, doesn't mean they don't care for minorities and don't wish them the best as well. It is time we move past all the rhetoric and start talking about what does or doesn't work. (Published: 11/22/2004)

Beverly Hills As The USA

Imagine that you lived in Beverly Hills, among the richest people in the United States. Some of your friends were the kids of executives at Fortune 500 companies. Others were the kids of famous Doctors, Lawyers, and some were the kids of hedge fund managers. While all relatively rich, assume there was quite a range of wealth from really rich, to filthy rich.

Further assume, that one day, a bleeding heart liberal starts feeling bad for the really rich. Her complaints are along the lines of: "The really rich can't eat out at the $500/plate restaurants, they have to settle for the $100/plate restaurants, or, god forbid, make sandwiches at home". Her complaints continue: "The really rich can't afford the Lamborghini's or Ferrari's, they have to get by with the - GASP! - BMW's and Mercedes Benz's". Worst yet, "the really rich actually have to live in mansions with no ocean view, or golf courses". Most heartbreaking of all, "the really rich have to actually prioritize their lifestyle and set a budget. They can't go to Europe on a moments notice, they can't eat out everyday".

Now further assume that said bleeding heart liberal decided to set up an "alleviate suffering" fund that took away from the filthy rich to give to the really rich. Such a fund would help equalize Beverly Hills and "bring people together". But instead of making this fund voluntary, the bleeding heart liberal wanted to enforce this through the city. She wanted to make it a city tax that merely takes from the filthy rich and gives to the really rich. Her arguments, again, are to "alleviate suffering".

What would your reaction be if you were suddenly transplanted to that society and debate? Would you support the "Beverly Hills tax"? I am not one of those that believes there are absolutely no circumstances that justify forcibly taking the wages of one to give to another. But such circumstances have to be met with atleast reasonable justification. Yet simply moving money around amongst the worlds richest people does not seem to me like an acceptable justification.


Such is the image that comes to mind whenever I have a discussion with a liberal about increasing redistribution via taxes to help the USA "poor".  It's the image my dad and uncles, who immigrated to the United States in their twenties from ranch life in the poorest parts of Mexico, gave me. It is certainly how they viewed me and my cousins growing up - no matter what our circumstances, be it growing up in Compton (as I did), living off of the income of mechanics, gardeners, or window tinters - we were all blessed beyond their wildest dreams. Where they had to eat tortillas off the dirt floor, work in fields in the scorching heat where there were no "sick days" or "vacation time", even the McDonalds cashier can seem privileged. And this view isn't far from reality. Even the "poor" in the United States are among the richest in the world (see here and here).

Poverty In The United States

My longest friendship was with Edgar, a friend I met in the 6th grade. He was, like me, a child of immigrant parents and he spoke primarily Spanish. He loved to joke, tell stories, and that favorite of past times, sit around with your closest friends and make fun of each other.

Unfortunately, he was also one who tended toward the criminal side of life. Since we first met, he was always getting into trouble for something, be it ditching class, smoking weed, fighting, stealing stereos, stealing cars and other things - but nothing that would make him a bad friend. He wouldn't steal from his friends, I have never in my life seen him lose his temper, he was a friend who would watch your back and who you could trust.

I remember riding my bike from Compton to his parents apartment in Gardena and later to their new spot in South Los Angeles. He introduced me to a lot of new people. Everywhere he moved, within months, he would know many people in the neighborhood. Like me, he was someone who couldn't stay in the house and met new people easily. We both would ride our bikes anywhere, on a whim. To swapmeets, malls, hang outs, anywhere our bikes would take us. Also, as crazy luck would have it, he had two cousins that were from the Mexican gang that claimed my neighborhood in Compton. Eventually, he too would join that gang and become one of its lifetime members.

Like my mom, he had a family that would give him almost free reign to do as he pleased. There were no restrictions, even at an early age, we had no curfew, no limits on where or what city we can ride our bikes to, and little supervision outside of the home. His step dad, who had spent some time in prison and I knew only casually, would sometimes pick us up if we needed it. One time, I think I was about 13 years old at the time, his step dad picked us up and instead of taking us immediately home, drove deeper into LA to a place I had never been before. He left us in the car reassuring us he would be back shortly. Hours passed, well into the night, and we were still parked. He had an old Monte Carlo with really wide back seats, so Edgar and I fell asleep in the car, waiting for him to get back. Then out of nowhere, he comes back to the car, asks Edgar to get in the back seat with me, and brings with him a, what looked like, neighborhood cluck head. A cluck head is someone who is so addicted to drugs, primarily crack cocaine and has done so much of it, that they are visually drug addicts. The people you meet in high crime neighborhoods late at night with really red eyes, dry lips, missing teeth and always begging you for change, those are cluck heads. As soon as they got into the car, he drives a few blocks more and she gets out only to return a few minutes later. Edgar and I are both still in the back seat but I don't say a word and Edgar looks like he went right back to sleep. A few minutes go by and I hear them smoking something, I hear the burning of foil paper, the sight of a lighter, and eventually realize that they are smoking crack cocaine together. After doing this for some time, he eventually leaves the area and takes us home. Years later, the same step dad would be hospitalized after jumping out of his second story window while high on PCP, he believed he could fly and nobody could convince him otherwise.

The longest friendship from Compton I had was with (lil) Sid, he lived a few houses from my house. Though he was a few years younger than me, we hung out alot. He would come to my house and we would play nintendo, baseball, and craps in the front of my house. Thinking back to those early years, I remember most his temper, whenever he would lose big he would have to go back home because he would get so frustrated with himself, sometimes in tears of anger. As the years passed Sid got older (and bigger, grew up to be one big guy) and, sadly, ended up joining the neighborhood crip gang. Though he was black, a member of a crip gang, and had a circle of friends different than mine, we continued to stay really close friends.

Sid didn't know his father and his mother was a neighborhood walker, at all hours of the day and night she would be walking all around the neighborhood, to peoples houses, to the liquor store, to the adjacent streets, all over. Sids mom was also, though not at the level of a crack head, a crack cocaine user. Though I knew before, I remember hanging out with a local drug dealer when she showed up to buy crack. She looked at me straight in the eyes and told me never to mention this to her son. I promised her that I would not, and never did - though I am sure he already knew.

My neighbors in Compton were local crips. The mom was as addicted to crack cocaine as you can get. She had missing teeth, a temper like no other, a clumsy walk, always had a cigaratte or beer in her hand and if you met her elsewhere you could easily confuse her for homeless (nonetheless, I grew up with her as a friend and neighbor, and to this day when I see her we hug and respect each other). She has three sons, the older one of which was getting into trouble since I first moved into Compton (he is now serving life in prison).

These friends and family upbringings I write about are not that rare in Compton. Almost all of my friends families I had while living in Compton have something in common with these families. Very few of them, especially my black friends, have married parents, the ones that did had a dad that beats their mom, others one that is a drug and/or alcoholic, others a dad that is currently in prison or an ex-con former gangmember (like Edgars step dad) - some have prostitute moms, some have parents that sell drugs and push them to sell drugs. I remember walking into a friends house and seeing his mom sniffing cocaine right off the living room table. It didn't bother her either, we just walked right passed her into my friends room. She was a neighborhood drug dealer and her son would later follow in her footsteps, all with his moms approval and backing. In fact, all drug dealers I knew in Compton had atleast tacit approval from their parents - several had outright encouragement.

Poverty in the United States is not primarily material, it is not primarily nutritional, it is not even primarily a lack of opportunity, though some of that still remains - poverty in the United States is primarily with the family. As the must read political scientist James Q. Wilson wrote, "There are many families with competent single moms, but they are outnumbered by the families that are harmed by the absence of a husband. From the ranks of the latter come high rates of crime and imprisonment, heavy rates of drug use, poor school performance, and a willingness to loot unguarded stores....In my opinion, the condition of the black family is the key to the persistence of a large and criminal lower class."

It is not money, or nutrition, or greater opportunity that the poor in the United States primarily need, it is a family structure that is conducive to learning, to upward mobility, and to a crime free life. When you have a large amount of friends and family - dads, brothers, uncles, and neighbors either in gangs or intimately tied to the gang culture, and a world filled with drugs, and crime, it is hard to see a way out and it is hard to learn the virtues necessary to get out. Virtues like hard work, discipline, self control, and responsibility are hard if not impossible to learn in these environments and much of government assistant is wasted or counterproductive in these situations.

As far as Edgar and Sid go, Edgar was in jail the last couple of years I lived in Compton, and the last time I saw him was when I was in my last year of college, I picked him up from jail and took him to his parents house. At this point his parents had had enough with him and refused to let him in. He promised he is a changed man and begged them to give him one last chance but they wouldn't budge. I dropped him off with some of his homies, and that is the last I saw of him. Shortly after, he would land in prison again, this time his last and he is not set to come out for a very long time. Sid, on the other hand, started to do good. After I moved out of Compton I would occasionally come back to visit and last I heard he said he was finally leaving Compton in search of a better life in Long Beach. Unfortunately, that was the last I saw of him. In another Compton visit I spotted his mom and eagerly asked her about Sid, with the impression that he is doing well in Long Beach. She informed me that he had been shot and killed in LA, and with tears already in her eyes, I asked no further questions and expressed my condolences. May he Rest In Peace. (Originally published 2/13/2007)

The Invisible Hand vs Charity

One of the major problems I have with Chicano Studies is its overemphasis on altruistic ventures as opposed to "personal gain". Becoming a community organizer, for example, is more encouraged than becoming an engineer. This was particularly important to me last year when my sister, being in her junior year of high school, was applying to colleges. Though she had already decided on engineering as her intended major, she was having doubts and was considering a profession that "makes a difference".

I explained to her that engineering can also be used to make a difference, the two are not mutually exclusive. I also said that when you compare engineering to the highly inefficient means of "making a difference" common among chicano studies students, like community organization, one can make a very strong argument that engineering makes more of a difference - and in the process, you can make a good living doing it.  She didn't seem convinced and I could tell that I needed to explain my point better. Unable to do so at the time I resorted to reminding her that there is a field in engineering that may allow her to design better prosthesis, and being that my dad lost his leg from the knee down in a work accident, she could possibly make his life and people like him better.

That satisfied her but I still thought I needed a better way to explain my point. The blog post I did later on the topic, titled "In Praise Of Personal Interest" did a better job, I wrote:

...if charity is your goal, with extra money [you would make by being an engineer] you can provide valuable resources, fund efficient charities, be a stronger role model to the next generation (three people in my family want to be engineers now, just because of my experience), provide a better future for your children, assist your family out, or, just as importantly, be a testament to those around you that hard work and dedication pay off, that there is a way out of the ghetto.

Lastly, unlike nonprofits, even if altruism is not your goal, capitalism works in such a way that when pursuing personal interest “you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others”.

Still though, I felt like I could have explained myself better. My point does not come across as clearly as I'd like it to. Well to my surprise, while riding my bicycle to work yesterday, I was listening to a bloggingheads podcast with Philosopher Peter Singer and economist Tyler Cowen about alleviating poverty when Cowen asks Peter Singer a question that I would have asked him if I was doing the podcast, namely: what advice would you give to an 18 year old in college who has read Peter Singers book, is convinced that making a difference matters, and is considering a career as an engineer in the cell phone industry because she sees what a difference cell phones are making to the poor in Africa? Would that career choice, from an altruistic perspective, make more of a difference than, say, a person who makes 40k/year and gives 15% to the poor in India? What if the engineer never gives a dime to charity?

What answer do you think Peter Singer gave? Click below to see the exchange (full video, which is highly recommended, can be found here). It is a good answer, and in the end, it moves me a step closer to finally explaining my point better.  Maybe I should forward this to my sister? (Originally published 05/22/2009)

In Praise Of Personal Interest

One of the many things I dislike about Chicano Studies as a major is its over emphasis on "nonprofit activism" vs "personal interest". In the status circles of Chicano Studies students, you are admired more for your desire to 'build a community outreach center for disadvantaged children' than for say, getting an engineering degree and 'making the big bucks'. Obama's recent graduation speech at Wesleyan University reminded me of that. My strong dislike stems from the belief, based on three reasons, that the emphasis is counterproductive and winds up harming more than helping.

First, it is the wrong message to give to the poorest members of society who have very little to fall back on. If an upper middle class white kid decides to go into nonprofits that kid is accepting a lower standard of living than the one she grew up with but it is far different than a kid from a low income background. Even without financial assistance from the parents, the upper-middle class kid knows that if some financial disaster results, her parents can step in and help. Then there is inheritance, vacation assistance, and other perks that come with having upper middle class parents.

On the other hand, a kid from the ghetto is taking an enormous risk by accepting a low salary. They are, in effect, "putting all their eggs in one basket". And unless they are the lucky ones, they are doomed to rear their next generation of children in the very same environment they were raised in (I was shocked to hear of a Phd in Chicano Studies buying a house in Compton...you have to have a Phd in Chicano Studies to consider that progress). As I tell my family and friends who are entering the college age, "Leave the charity to the rich kids".

Second, it is inefficient. Minorities in education, in community outreach, and in most other nonprofits are literally "a dime a dozen". Another minority, because of diminishing returns, is not likely to make much of a difference. Factor in the effectivity of community outreach (very low) and the contributions that minorities in education add, and you are looking at near insignificant levels of added value.

Contrast that to the number of minorities in the for profit fields like engineering, chemistry, and technology. They are a scarcity and companies are thirsty for more. In short, you are likely to do more good for yourself and for the community as one additional engineer than as one additional member of a community outreach program.

Third, and most importantly, the two are not mutually exclusive. Making more money gives you more choices. If charity is your goal, you are likely to do more good by making alot of money than being just another 'worker bee'. When I explain this to my friends I use the analogy of Warren Buffet. I ask my friends, imagine if someone had convinced Warren Buffet to abandon what his talents are especially good at and pursue a career in nonprofits, or teaching, or politics? Now, billions later, he can do much more for charity organizations by funding the most efficient ones then by simply being another 'worker bee'.

In other words, again if charity is your goal, with extra money you can provide valuable resources, fund efficient charities, be a stronger role model to the next generation (three people in my family want to be engineers now, just because of my experience), provide a better future for your children, assist your family out, or, just as importantly, be a testament to those around you that hard work and dedication pay off, that there is a way out of the ghetto.


Lastly, unlike nonprofits, even if altruism is not your goal, capitalism works in such a way that when pursuing personal interest "you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others". So I say to the next generation of students, please, ignore your Chicano Studies peers, ignore Obama, and ignore anybody who tells you that making money is somehow less respectable. Your children, your family, and maybe even some charity organizations will thank you. (7/22/2008)

In Defense Of For-Profit Colleges

One of the biggest blind spots of policymakers and pundits is the inability to take target market into account. For example, you can't just compare the wages of employees at Hilton Hotels vs Motel 6's and conclude that Hilton Hotels are superior because the employees are paid more. You have to take the companies vastly different target market into account. Motel 6's target a much poorer and cost sensitive segment of the economy, and so it's understandable that they pay their employees less. In addition, Motel 6's also hire from a lower socioeconomic level than does Hilton Hotels, so again you'd expect their pay to be lower (in exchange for lower productivity, ie education, ability to speak English, etc). What seemed like a bad wrap for the poor without taking target market into account, turns out to be an overall net gain when it's included (who doubts that from the poor's perspective, Motel 6's are better than Hilton hotels?).

The same blind spot is apparent in the Wal-Mart vs union run grocery stores debate. Wal-Mart caters to a lower socioeconomic class, by hiring and providing cheaper products to those at the lower end of the income distribution. So it makes sense that their employees are paid less than their union run grocery stores counterparts, who cater to a higher socioeconomic class. Seen in that aspect, Wal-Mart is no different than the Motel 6. And since it's our ghettos and poor areas that are plagued by unemployment, empty lots and general lack of opportunities, the Wal-Mart model is a superior model for the ghettos and poor areas.

The same blind spot resurfaces when talking about for-profit colleges. When comparing for-profit colleges to non-profits, critics will primarily focus on graduation rates and default rates, taking nothing else into account. But what happens when you take target market into account?
For-profit colleges tend to cater primarily to the marginalized segments of society: working mothers, high school drop outs, older people trying to change careers, and people who are in a rush to graduate. In other words, the riskier segment of society. The very same people that the non-profit education system often ignores.

Seen from this perspective, it's expected that for-profit schools will be worse than non-profits when it comes to student debt. It's expected because they cater to riskier students, so they are going to have a larger variance of outcome - whether that is graduation rates, or student loan repayment. But catering to a riskier segment of the population is not something that should be punished, it should be encouraged. Lets remember, for-profits are actually doing what we berate businesses to do – serve those at the bottom, often forgotten by others. They are a lot better at helping students who may have messed up through high school and want to change their lives around.

And this is without even mentioning all of the other benefits that come from for-profit colleges vs traditional colleges. For example, a significantly shorter time to graduation (averaging 3 years, when non-profits are getting closer to 6 years - a huge gain in opportunity cost), more income oriented majors (even the worst of the for-profit colleges will never have such time wasted majors like Chicano Studies, for example) and a clear path towards graduation. All benefits that primarily help the marginalized segments of society.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I graduated from a for-profit institution. I got my BS in 3 years. Before that I was a high school drop out (in 10th grade) with about a 2.0 GPA. I had only a GED and no community college credits. I was also the child of a poor single mother, living in Compton, Ca. The group of friends I currently run with all have similar stories – all of us grew up poor, are minorities and graduated from the same for-profit college. None of us received any grants (my mom refused to fill out the FAFSA – she always hated anybody knowing how much she made and was convinced I would find out). More importantly, in the for-profit college I went to there were others – not a majority, but certainly a strong minority – in the same situation I grew up in. It's the privileged kids that were the exception at the for-profit college, not the the poor minorities.

All of us, also, are currently successful engineers. We all make around 6 figures a year or more. All of us with just the bachelors degree from the for-profit college (I have some undergraduate and graduate work at UCSD, but never completed a full degree there). Without a doubt, graduating from that for-profit college was the single best thing I could have done for my life. Without it, my life would have been very different. (Originally posted 11/30/2010)

The Scamming Beggar

I have a long standing rule to NEVER EVER give money to bums. No matter what the circumstances. I even look down on people who do. They rub me as purely emotional acts with not even one second of real thought. I do this for two reasons: one experience, the other logical. Growing up in Compton, I was approached by what we called cluck-heads daily. Crack addicts who would do anything, and I mean anything, for a $1. They would give you the most extravagant reason why that dollar was absolutely necessary. Then, after a moment of weakness, you would see them smoking that dollar - digging themselves further into the crack addiction. After years and years of this, I have developed quite a thick skin from beggars.

The logical reason has to do with the fact that it is very difficult to separate the true needy beggar from the scammer.  When confronted for a donation, with such limited information, there really is no statistically significant way to know if the bum is going to use the donation for something useful, or simply another hit of drugs. Much more beneficial is to save the donation and send it to a charity devoted to helping the truly needy. They have the means of separating the sincere bum ready to change their life, from the one who just wants another hit. With such noisy information, it's much more logical to withhold your money and choose an efficient charity of your choice.

With that said, I was touched by the news article showing a New York Police officer giving a pair of winter boots to a shoeless bum. I thought, maybe in that situation that is the best thing to do, as the bum currently needs shoes, else his feet will freeze. It's an immediate, obvious need that should be fulfilled. Sending money to a charity is not going to cut it, as by then the bum could have lost his feet to frost bite. Anyway, I didn't think much more of it until later when I saw the story on CNN.

While reading the article, still torn between feelings of admiration and disapproval, I came across this interesting section:

There were some who considered the officer a victim, taken in by another scam.
"This guy is only barefoot as a begging strategy," wrote David Levy. "I've been seeing him around midtown for years. I've even witnessed someone buy him slippers in a freezing day which he promptly put in his shopping cart."
"Clever stunt! The (man) is 'parked' at the entrance of a shoe shop. He got like 10 pairs that day," commented Louis Zehmke.

Which cured my short lapse of judgement. (Originally published 11/30/2012)