3 ms·

Funny, I feel the exact opposite. I'm horrified that people would consider this asserting his rights rather than being a douche. Asserting your rights is not m

Funny, I feel the exact opposite. I'm horrified that people would consider this asserting his rights rather than being a douche. Asserting your rights is not moving to the back of the bus because your skin is the wrong color. Not just telling some customs guy who gets paid $12 an hour to answer questions mandated by Congress the answer to some insignificant questions is just being a douche.

wrs 16y ago
What is the "douche faction's" obsession with the pay of CBP officers? Is that somehow relevant to the discussion? He only dealt with the front-line officer for about two minutes anyway--in the back room he asked for a more-highly-paid superior and got one. So I'm assuming that makes you happier? BTW, do you have a citation for "mandated by Congress," or are you relying on the statement of the $12/hour officer for that?
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  The point of the pay is to illustrate how far removed the person the author is being a douche to is from the people who make the policies. People in low level jobs like that are generally just trying to get through the day. Asserting that "The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power" is douchebaggery in it's highest form, and it illustrates his mindset as that of man vs government. That statement alone, referring to decent people just trying to do their job as goons, qualifies the author as a douchebag. Also, how much power does a guy on a low-level government wage really feel they have? I'd bet anything they're told in their training that what they do is extremely important, that they are on the front lines in the war on terror. And they're also told that when someone refuses to cooperate (which, by the way, no terrorist would do) there's pretty much nothing they can do about it. They have what they feel is responsibility without power, which is a terrible situation for them to be in. I certainly don't know or care if those questions are mandated by Congress. (I don't find it hard to believe that they were though, or at least mandated by a group set up by Congress for that purpose.) It doesn't really matter. What I'm sure of is that they weren't mandated by the any of the people who questioned our author, especially if there are check boxes for them in some software. They probably weren't mandated by anyone who had ever met any of the author's victims, or even heard of them. And the people who mandated them will most likely never even hear of this guy or the handful of nutjobs like him.
  - argv_empty 16y ago
    The point of the pay is to illustrate how far removed the person the author is being a douche to is from the people who make the policies. People in low level jobs like that are generally just trying to get through the day. If it is not a legal requirement that they detain entrants who do not answer questions entrants are not required to answer, then someone who does so anyway does not get to use the "just doing my job" defense. Asserting that "The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power" is douchebaggery in it's highest form Except this is precisely what distinguishes them from CBP non-goons.
    - mattmaroon 16y ago
      This is yet another reason why the pay is important. Low level jobs are process-oriented. They are designed to be carried out by average people. They are trained on what to do in various situations, of which this is probably one. I don't know about legal requirements, but I'd bet anything their training doesn't tell them to just say "have a nice day" when someone refuses to answer simple questions. The customs agents this guy dealt with were just doing what they were trained to do. That's all they can be expected to do, all they should do. It's unreasonable to treat them as goons for simply doing their job. They're real people, most of them probably decent ones (because really, most people are decent people) who have families to feed, mortgages to pay, cars to buy, etc. Assuming that they are not makes the author a douchebag (and one who reads way too much Orwell). There is not a distinction between goons and non-goons that can be made. He'd probably get similar results at any airport he went to because they all go through the same training program.
      - dgordon 16y ago
        I don't think you can read too much Orwell, nor, in nonfiction, too much Solzhenitsyn or Milton Mayer.
        mattmaroon 16y ago
        Any Orwell other than Animal Farm is too much Orwell. Orwell's fundamental problem was that he didn't understand how organizations function, and how the whole differs from the sum of its parts. He saw only the trees and not the forest. He understood what motivated individuals well, and just extrapolated that out, which led to erroneous thinking. Aldous Huxley was quite the opposite, which is why his vision of government and society has in many ways materialized but his vision of the individual has not. There was a great post here a couple weeks back about the two that illustrated it.

wrs 16y ago

What is the "douche faction's" obsession with the pay of CBP officers? Is that somehow relevant to the discussion? He only dealt with the front-line officer for about two minutes anyway--in the back room he asked for a more-highly-paid superior and got one. So I'm assuming that makes you happier? BTW, do you have a citation for "mandated by Congress," or are you relying on the statement of the $12/hour officer for that?

mattmaroon 16y ago
The point of the pay is to illustrate how far removed the person the author is being a douche to is from the people who make the policies. People in low level jobs like that are generally just trying to get through the day. Asserting that "The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power" is douchebaggery in it's highest form, and it illustrates his mindset as that of man vs government. That statement alone, referring to decent people just trying to do their job as goons, qualifies the author as a douchebag. Also, how much power does a guy on a low-level government wage really feel they have? I'd bet anything they're told in their training that what they do is extremely important, that they are on the front lines in the war on terror. And they're also told that when someone refuses to cooperate (which, by the way, no terrorist would do) there's pretty much nothing they can do about it. They have what they feel is responsibility without power, which is a terrible situation for them to be in. I certainly don't know or care if those questions are mandated by Congress. (I don't find it hard to believe that they were though, or at least mandated by a group set up by Congress for that purpose.) It doesn't really matter. What I'm sure of is that they weren't mandated by the any of the people who questioned our author, especially if there are check boxes for them in some software. They probably weren't mandated by anyone who had ever met any of the author's victims, or even heard of them. And the people who mandated them will most likely never even hear of this guy or the handful of nutjobs like him.
- argv_empty 16y ago
  The point of the pay is to illustrate how far removed the person the author is being a douche to is from the people who make the policies. People in low level jobs like that are generally just trying to get through the day. If it is not a legal requirement that they detain entrants who do not answer questions entrants are not required to answer, then someone who does so anyway does not get to use the "just doing my job" defense. Asserting that "The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power" is douchebaggery in it's highest form Except this is precisely what distinguishes them from CBP non-goons.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    This is yet another reason why the pay is important. Low level jobs are process-oriented. They are designed to be carried out by average people. They are trained on what to do in various situations, of which this is probably one. I don't know about legal requirements, but I'd bet anything their training doesn't tell them to just say "have a nice day" when someone refuses to answer simple questions. The customs agents this guy dealt with were just doing what they were trained to do. That's all they can be expected to do, all they should do. It's unreasonable to treat them as goons for simply doing their job. They're real people, most of them probably decent ones (because really, most people are decent people) who have families to feed, mortgages to pay, cars to buy, etc. Assuming that they are not makes the author a douchebag (and one who reads way too much Orwell). There is not a distinction between goons and non-goons that can be made. He'd probably get similar results at any airport he went to because they all go through the same training program.
    - dgordon 16y ago
      I don't think you can read too much Orwell, nor, in nonfiction, too much Solzhenitsyn or Milton Mayer.
      - mattmaroon 16y ago
        Any Orwell other than Animal Farm is too much Orwell. Orwell's fundamental problem was that he didn't understand how organizations function, and how the whole differs from the sum of its parts. He saw only the trees and not the forest. He understood what motivated individuals well, and just extrapolated that out, which led to erroneous thinking. Aldous Huxley was quite the opposite, which is why his vision of government and society has in many ways materialized but his vision of the individual has not. There was a great post here a couple weeks back about the two that illustrated it.