The Professor and The Police

As I've made clear on many occasions in this space I'm not overly fond of the police. Just as a general rule if police are talking to you for any length of time something has probably gone wrong in your day. All else equal police are usually quicker to initiate and escalate aggressive action against Black citizens than they are against Caucasian ones whether it it be shooting people only armed with wallets or toy guns, choking people accused of selling loose cigarettes, arresting professors who are entering their own home or writing people tickets for incredibly obscure and vague traffic violations which only ever seem to be enforced against Black people. There is a problem with policing in this country. After saying that though police do have a job to do. They are necessary. I don't want police not to arrest anyone. Humans aren't saints. We never will be. I just want police to stop being needlessly violent, racist, brutal or bullying. When I first saw this story headline I was primed to find fault with the police officers' action. But after reading the story I couldn't see what the police did wrong. And believe me I looked.  A black Princeton professor is protesting her arrest during a traffic stop last week, saying she was mistreated because of her race by two white police officers who searched her and handcuffed her to a table. The police chief in Princeton, N.J., however, said the officers had followed department policy in arresting the professor, Imani Perry. The arrest of Dr. Perry, a professor of African-American studies, and the divergent views of how it was handled have reignited a debate on social media over police tactics and racial profiling. The arrest came after officers stopped Dr. Perry around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday for driving 67 miles per hour in a 45 m.p.h. zone, Capt. Nicholas K. Sutter, the department chief, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday.
While Dr. Perry said in a message posted online that she was arrested over “a single parking ticket,” Captain Sutter said that the officers who stopped her — a man and a woman — learned during a routine check that her driving privileges had been suspended and a warrant had been issued for her arrest over two unpaid parking violations from 2013. “The warrant commands the officer to take the person into custody,” Captain Sutter said. The officers searched, handcuffed and placed Dr. Perry into a squad car, the captain said. At the police station, she was handcuffed to a workstation and booked. After paying outstanding fines totaling $130, he said, she was released. Dr. Perry, who declined to comment via email on Tuesday, wrote about the episode on Twitter and Facebook on Monday, saying it had left her humiliated and frightened.
LINK

So I'm not sure what the good professor expected the police to do in this situation. If you are really doing 67 mph in a 45 mph zone chances are good that the police will notice that and stop you. If you're doing 22 mph above the speed limit, no matter what your race there is a good probability that you will receive a ticket. Once the police have stopped and identified you, if they discover that you're driving on a suspended license and have an outstanding arrest warrant, your travel plans are going to change. It's virtually a sure bet that they will ask you to (and by ask I mean make) accompany them to the nearest local police station or jail to get things sorted out. And being police they will likely use the imperative mood and imperious tones of voice that are guaranteed to rub you the wrong way. 
Now the original underlying parking tickets may well have been issued by racist cops looking to mess with black people for their own amusement or to meet revenue quotas. I wouldn't have been surprised at all. We've seen that sort of thing all over the US, most infamously in Ferguson. The tickets may have been ridiculous. But if you are a victim of such an occurrence your choice is to fight them in court or pay them. Doing neither will simply make matters worse as we saw in this situation. Maybe I'm missing something but from the article it appears that the police did what they were supposed to do. It is a fact that police routinely mistreat black people or other non-black people whom they perceive as being powerless. It is also a fact that in any given individual case you have to show some form of mistreatment. And I just didn't see that in this case, even predisposed as I am to expecting it. Of course maybe the police are lying. Maybe they were already profiling the professor. But if so it's not apparent from anything the professor says. There are very real cases of bias in the world. Mentioning this incident in relation to them trivializes more dangerous police encounters.  Again I understand that the professor did not like her run-in with the police. Most people don't. I certainly haven't.  But in this individual case I think some perspective is of use.

Omarosa and Bra Sizes; Killer Mike and Uteri

In the early days of Donald Trump's reality show The Apprentice, one of the more unpleasant contestants was one Omarosa Manigault. She was combative, sarcastic, dishonest and above all, snide. Of course, being a jerk can make for good television. Omarosa took pains to point out that she was there to win the contest (she didn't win), and that behavior which might otherwise be considered within the normal modes of competition was considered underhanded and nasty when practiced by a woman, especially a black woman. Maybe so. Omarosa has said that the television shows edited depictions to show storylines which producers felt were more entertaining. Probably so. If you're watching reality tv and thinking it is real, you might need help tying your shoes every morning. On the other hand sometimes when there is smoke there is fire. Fast forward 12 years and after a number of other reality shows, Omarosa has resurfaced as a Trump media surrogate. Recently she was on Fox Business Channel defending her preferred candidate against questions about his seriousness from Fox contributor Tamara Holder. But perhaps unintentionally reflecting both the insult happy nature of Donald Trump and the foolishness of all thing Fox related while revealing her own bile, Omarosa decided to engage in some ad hominem (ad feminem?) attacks on Holder. These attacks were centered around Holder's chest size. Okay then. I guess Omarosa felt threatened in some regard? Or maybe she was just saying what she thought Trump might say in a similar position. Or perhaps she really is just an unpleasant individual. I am not seeing what someone's physical attributes have to do with pronouncing their name correctly but such logic is not necessarily shared by everyone on this planet. I was always taught that in a professional environment that you do not comment on anyone's body parts. I'm trying (and failing) to imagine saying something similar to anyone at work. That wouldn't and couldn't happen. But if it did take place I suspect I would need to look for other employment. And I wouldn't even have to wait two weeks to start searching.

But Omarosa wasn't the only campaign surrogate to raise some eyebrows by impassioned defense of her preferred choice for President.

As we discussed earlier Hillary Clinton has suggested, via surrogates and less frequently via her own statements, that people, especially women, should vote for her in part because she is a woman. It is true that in that aspect Mrs. Clinton would be different from all previous Presidents. It's not clear though that just being a woman necessarily means that you would bring about the sort of change that most US voters, even most US women, would find of value. The backlash and resentment against a woman President might be greater than the realistic change in economic, political and social standards that she could create. And of course women differ on all sorts of things just as any other arbitrary group of people would. In the media there have been plenty of recent news and opinion pieces quoting women of various ages and races explaining that for a variety of reasons that Clinton doesn't have or deserve a lock on the women's vote, or their vote. Shared chromosomes don't imply lockstep voting. Bernie Sanders' surrogate, the rapper/activist Killer Mike, who does not share chromosomes with Clinton or any other woman, recently took to a stage at Morehouse to explain that your gender should not determine your vote or your morality. However he was accused by some Clinton surrogates of being sexist. Now Killer Mike was quoting the noted anti-racism activist and feminist Jane Elliot. Perhaps the words sting less coming from a woman than from a man. But no matter what gender speaks those words, I don't see them as being sexist. To be sexist would mean stating that being a woman is all by itself a disqualification for being President of the United States. And that's not what Killer Mike said. While it's inaccurate and unfair to suggest that Clinton or her supporters have said that Clinton's only qualification is being a woman, certainly Clinton is appealing to what she hopes is a desire among women voters to put "one of their own" in the big chair. That's understandable I guess. But there are other candidates who evidently want the job just as badly as Clinton does. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect them to stand down or not try to challenge Clinton's qualifications, intentions or abilities. Compared to the Republican battles so far the Democratic scrum for the nomination has been relatively collegial. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad. There are benefits and costs to each approach. Certainly the more the candidates poke, push, and prod each other the more prepared they will be for what is sure to be a very nasty general election. On the other hand there are some things which once said can't be unsaid. And these statements often are noticed by the opposition party and used in a general election fight. As the race between Sanders and Clinton tightens up look for much less politesse.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies at Age 79

Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the United States Supreme Court's most conservative Justice, was apparently found dead today in Texas:

Per NY Post:

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was found dead Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. MySanAntonio.com said he died of apparent natural causes.

Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people, the website of the San Antonio Express News said. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body

Obviously, this has huge implications not only for the current make up of the Supreme Court (which until Scalia's death was a 5-4 conservative majority), but it also places the issue of appointing a Supreme Court Justice front and center in this 2016 Presidential election at a time when things were already beginning to heat up.

Before we address the impact of Scalia's death on the current Political climate, let us take a brief moment to look back at the man, Antonin Scalia.


Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey in 1936 to Italian immigrant parents.  He attended the prestigious Xavier High School in New York City where he emerged as a brilliant scholar, and later went on to graduate with honors from Georgetown University and Harvard Law School where he earned a position on the Harvard Law Review.   After graduating from law school, he went to work for the Ohio office of the large and prestigious law firm Jones Day for several years before becoming a law professor at the University of Virginia.  A few years after he arrived in Virginia he was appointed by President Nixon to the Office of Telecommunications Policy, which placed him in the spot light of fellow conservatives who respected his intellectual firepower.  Nixon soon appointed him as Assistant Attorney General of the President's Office of Legal Counsel where he helped to defend the Nixon Administration during the infamous Watergate scandal.  Scalia leveraged his political connections from the Nixon administration to catch President Reagan's attention, and Reagan appointed him to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1982.   He held that seat for four years until Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1986.  On September 17, 1986, Scalia, confirmed by the Senate 98-0, became the first Italian-American Justice of the Supreme Court.

Upon being appointed to the Supreme Court, Scalia earned a reputation as the intellectual powerhouse for conservatives.  His opinions often dismantled any liberal opposition with ease.  Towards the latter part of his career, however, Scalia's opinions began to border on conservative rants more appropriate for talk radio than for the Supreme Court.  We have written about him several times here, here, here and here.

As far as what this means for today's political climate, President Obama, in theory, will have the right to appoint another Justice to take his place.  However, any proposed Justice must be confirmed by the Senate, which is currently majority Republican.  This makes getting any Obama pick an uphill battle.  If Obama is able to get a confirmation through the Senate, that will significantly change the ideological make up of the Supreme Court from 5 conservatives, 4 liberals, to 5 liberals, 4 conservatives.  It is also a strong possibility that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 82) would likely take this opportunity to also retire, giving Obama yet another opportunity to place another progressive voice on the bench.

To date, Obama has placed two Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and both have been women: (1) Sonia Sotomayor; and (2) Elena Kagan.  He will have the opportunity to place a third (and possibly fouth) Justice on the bench, which is historic for any President (the record being 11 Justices by President George Washington, and second place going to President FDR with 9 appointments).

Whether Obama is able to appoint Scalia's replacement or not, the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice is guaranteed to rise to the forefront of the 2016 Presidential Election. Look for both sides to use this issue to their advantage on the campaign trail in order to motivate people to vote.

Your thoughts?

Movie Reviews: Misconduct

Misconduct
directed by Shintaro Shomosawa

This is a passably entertaining movie that ultimately doesn't live up to the promise of the cast. I thought that with Anthony Hopkins and Al Pacino I'd be getting something a little more solid but each of these gentlemen turn in graceful but strictly limited performances. They aren't the leads in this film. I wouldn't say they are just there to pick up a check. Even talent that coasts is still talent. But this isn't their film nor do they have many scenes together. This is a noirish legal drama that is less about the law (I don't recall any courtroom scenes though there is a short tense deposition) and more about the pressure to perform that might lead any of us to cut a few ethical corners or look the the other way on semi-legal activity as we try to become more materially successful. Of course there are some people who are claim to be more or less immune to the seduction and allure of more money, greater power and nicer homes so for those folks perhaps this film can serve as an interesting field study into how other people think and live. Misconduct jumps around in time in order to hide some critical narrative information and character motivation. I liked that. I liked that even as the movie concluded you weren't entirely sure who was the bad guy and who was the good guy. I didn't like that about two-thirds of the way thru the movie the writers/director had poorly developed characters doing remarkably stupid things for presumed entertainment value. The tonal clash in the final portion of the movie stunk. It was as if two different movies were grafted together. But the graft didn't take. And the dialogue in the film was nothing to write home about, again, especially near the ending. So your mileage may vary.

Ben (Josh Duhamel) is a hardworking lawyer at a New Orleans law firm. He is somewhat unhappily married to Charlotte (Alice Eve), a beautiful nurse who works just as hard as he does. The couple seems to be disappointed in each other. The primary reason for this is that their work schedules and desire for intimacy rarely coincide. When one wants to get busy the other is late for work. When one has an important personal appointment, the other one has forgotten all about it. And in something of a cliche, Charlotte is still working through her feelings over her recent miscarriage. So the couple has a lot of half-sentences, bitten lips and silent stares. Although Ben is a lawyer who is presumably well paid, he's not making the big bucks like the firm partners such as Hill (Gregory Alan Williams) and Abrams (Pacino). Ben is busting his behind working hundred hour weeks and occasionally cheating to bring in settlements for the firm. But to his bosses he's just an easily replaced drone. When Ben runs across his long lost old flame Emily (Malin Akerman) on social media he's intrigued enough or is it horny enough to arrange to meet her in person. And wouldn't you know it but Emily is the current girlfriend of shady billionaire pharmaceutical company CEO Denning (Hopkins). Emily claims to be very disaffected with her much older paramour. We see her arguing with Denning about something. Emily has a few things she'd like to give to Ben. Her first would be gift is the obvious. But the second is "proof" that Denning initiated, approved and engaged in illegal behavior involving clinical drug trials. This information is gold to a trial attorney. If Ben can use this proof in a court of law he might be able to put himself in a corner office reserved for partners. Ben might even be able to help put Denning behind bars. As Ben didn't go to an Ivy league law school he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. He thinks that he has to go above and beyond to impress his bosses, especially Abrams, who uses pens that cost thousands of dollars.

But Ben has to be careful because apparently it matters a great deal legally just how evidence is attained. I guess you can't stand up in court and say my ex stole this evidence and later gave it to me for services joyously rendered. Who knew. I learn something new every day. But even a man like Ben who will cheat and lie in the course of his business might think twice about cheating on his wife. After all, a spouse knows you better than a boss or jury and is better situated to know when you're lying. Before you can say "And Bob's your uncle!" Ben is involved more deeply in all sorts of morally murky behavior.  He starts to wonder who is pulling his strings. Ben is under pressure because his bosses have told him that either he gets a nine figure settlement or that getting fired will be the least of his worries. There's a dapper East Asian man known only as the Accountant (Byung-hun Lee), who is apparently randomly murdering people who know Ben. Emily is kidnapped. Brusque hostage return expert Jane (Julia Stiles) wonders if Denning really wants Emily returned safe and sound. I'm leaving out the trailers for this film as they are needlessly packed with spoilers. This is not a horrible movie. It is not a great movie.  It's something that with a little more skin/sex would have been in constant rotation on Cinemax back in the day. It's fun but is not super memorable. It would have been better off if it had more courtroom drama. The music is the normal sort of overly dramatic stuff you get for these kinds of films. The film is visually very attractive but the writing is just off. I thought that Eve and Akerman might have been better served switching roles in this movie. The last minute plot contrivances are more irritating the more you think about them so it's best you don't and just go with the flow. This is definitely a lazy weekend afternoon sort of film. Don't think too much and the film is decent.

Random thoughts on 2016 election and New Hampshire Primary

This post was actually supposed to be written on Monday but my supervisor at my Day Job is becoming more unpleasantly demanding and nastily watchful in his later years. I will have to ensure that my pay keeps up with his demands. Lately it doesn't seem like that's the case. No sir, not at all. Anyway this is going to be a short post so I can swiftly return to the virtual salt mines that provide a way for me to earn my daily bread. Since the last time I was able to write on the race to become the next POTUS, also rans and longshots like Mike Huckabee, Martin O'Malley, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul all dropped out of the race. None of that was surprising as either the political time had passed them by (Paul) or there was never any evidence that there was strong voter desire for their services in the first place. Santorum and Huckabee had little to say on issues beyond abortion, grits and gay rights. Paul's movements away from his father's hardcore libertarianism didn't win any voters. And O'Malley had little to say besides "I'm not Hillary Clinton". Yawn. But there were two interesting events in both the Republican and Democratic contests which made news and are worthy of discussion while New Hampshire primary voters make their choices. The first was the remarkable display of emptiness by Florida first term Senator Marco Rubio at the Republican debate Saturday night. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attacked Rubio's relative lack of experience, leadership and tendency to repeat memorized lines regardless of context. Rattled, Rubio tried and failed to think on his feet and swat away Christie's attacks. In fact he retreated to the same talking points 3 times(!!!) even as Christie seized the opportunity to tell everyone to watch Rubio mess up in real time. Both in terms of content and appearance it was a serious body blow to Rubio's debate standing. I don't ever think he quite recovered. It was a man putting a boy in his place. I was reminded of Rocky Balboa in the first fight against Clubber Lang. Rubio wasn't strong enough to keep Big Chris off of him. And he got hurt.

Christie was relaxed, confident and in command of what he was saying. His body language demonstrated aggressiveness and control. His tone was direct and dismissive. Rubio was nervous, sweaty, high pitched and floundering. His body language gave me the impression of someone who is applying for a job without the necessary skill set and who just got called out on it by the interviewing manager. It was an entertaining political display. Rubio has to hope that it doesn't become a defining one. We'll see tonight. The reason that Rubio keeps trying to turn every question back to President Obama's alleged malfeasance is that it's impossible to criticize President Obama for lack of experience when you (Rubio) have the same lack of experience.

The second event that was interesting to me is that Hillary Clinton, faced with a photo finish win in Iowa which may be revisited and an expected loss in New Hampshire, has started to take the possibility of losing to Senator Bernie Sanders seriously. She and her supporters have said some very nasty things about Sanders and his supporters, accusing them of sexism (President Clinton), claiming that Sanders' female supporters are thinking with their reproductive parts (Gloria Steinem) or just stating that female supporters of Sanders will burn in hell for not supporting a woman candidate (Madeleine Albright). Clinton is also banking on a firewall of black voter support once the race for the nomination turns south though as this piece from 3chicspolitico makes clear, there are at least some black people who are not huge Clinton fans. Hillary Clinton, to me, doesn't have a lot of passion or excitement to her campaign. She's a real life Tracy Flick. She may well be the "most qualified" depending on whom you ask but elections are not just a sober assessment of arbitrary and oft ill-defined qualifications. After all none of the people running have done this job before. You have to make people excited to vote for you. You have to provide a vision of how you will govern. Sanders is doing this better than Clinton is now. Clinton has missed the anger in the Democratic base towards the perceived unfairness of the economic structure. I still think at this time that she'll win the nomination but Sanders is going to make things much closer than anyone realized.  If Clinton only wants to be not quite as right-wing as a Republican, that leaves a lot of room to her left. And if Clinton and her deputies don't drop the entitled attitude that she deserves votes by dint of her gender, well, say hello to nominee Sanders.  

Okay. I'm sure my boss has probably noticed my absence from the salt-pit by now so I must depart. I will be very interested to see the primary results this evening. Trump and Sanders should win. But I want to see where Christie and Rubio finish. I also want to see if Carson, who missed his cue to go on stage Saturday night, will recognize that the time has come to take his campaign out to the back yard and bury it.

Music Reviews: Earth, Wind and Fire, Moving in Stereo

I was not the most intense Earth, Wind and Fire fan out there. In general, I preferred their earlier jazzier raw work to the pop-funk they later did. As you probably heard, Maurice White, the group leader, founder, and guiding producer and songwriter behind the band just passed away after a long struggle with Parkinson's Disease. Although he had not toured with the band in quite some time because of health concerns the band would not have existed without him. White combined jazz musicianship (at one time he was the drummer for jazz pianist Ramsey Lewis) with a showman's style to produce music that was quite different from near contemporaries like James Brown or Parliament-Funkadelic. It might not be common knowledge but Maurice White did a lot of session work for Chess Records, better known as a blues label and home of legends like Muddy Waters, Etta James and Howling Wolf. By the early sixties Chess was expanding its footprint from just hardcore Chicago blues to include updated blues rock, jazz, funk and soul. White was involved in a lot of that. White, along with some other jazz musicians, was one of the first people to deliberately reintroduce some African sounds into African-American pop music. This was of course best symbolized by White's use of the mbira or kalimba, a thumb piano, which is found in different forms and with different names throughout the continent. Anyway here are four EWF songs, most of which everyone knows. These songs make me very happy whenever I hear them no matter what sort of mood I might have been in previously.

It is really a blast to have SIRIUS XM in my vehicle. I get to hear all sorts of oldies. I remember this music from Fast Times At Ridgemont High. It is playing when Judge Reinhold's character is watching Phoebe Cates' character leave the swimming pool. It's funny how music gets associated with certain images. I think I will be ordering a collection of The Cars' greatest hits. Good stuff if you are from a certain time and place I think.

Customer Service: Speak English and keep your opinions to yourself

Recently, while driving home, I heard about these two stories on a local radio show. I thought that in different ways they were both interesting. I think the underlying connection between them is customer service. What makes good customer service? What makes you want to be a return customer to a business? Also if you feel that you are mistreated then what is the appropriate response? Do you shrug it off, pay your bill and simply shop elsewhere? Is a quiet word to the manager or a terse letter to the regional vice-president enough to satisfy your need for justice? Some people want to have it out verbally with the offending party right then and there to let them know that no one gets anything over on Mr. or Miss so-n-so. And a small minority of people aren't averse to laying hands on people should they find it necessary. Other people avoid or are downright incapable of direct confrontation. These people tend to go home or pull out their smart phone and start ranting on social media about their horrible experiences. In the first story a Kansas woman and her thirteen year old daughter were shopping for dresses for a school formal. I don't remember having such things at that point in school but it's been a while since I was thirteen. The mother picked out a dress that she thought her daughter might like. As children will do the daughter tried on the dress to please her mother though she told the mother that this dress wasn't her style. The saleswoman apparently thought that the dress was not particularly flattering to the young lady and suggested that the youngster needed to purchase and wear Spanx. I didn't know what Spanx was but apparently Spanx is underwear, primarily though not exclusively for women, designed to slim figures. I don't know if the mother was more upset by the saleswoman's tone or by what she said but either way she was angry enough to write a facebook post criticizing the saleswoman and defending her daughter's weight and shape. Of course every parent thinks their child is beautiful. That's human nature. But I'm not sure the mother's zeal to defend her daughter was best served by putting her daughter's pic in the public sphere. I suppose there are some saleswomen or salesmen who just want to move product and don't care what you look like in their clothing. But I've also bought clothes from people who were honest enough to tell me what looked good and what didn't. If I were buying an expensive suit or shoes or whatever I'd like to know ahead of time if something clashes, accentuates negatives or simply doesn't work. But that's just me. There are polite and yet direct ways to let me know that.

In the second story the reality tv personality/author Bethenny Frankel had her Jules Winnfield English MF do you speak it??!!! moment. Frankel was shopping at a K-Mart and apparently was peeved that not only were there not enough registers open but also that at least some of the workers (unclear if she's referring to floor clerks or those operating the registers) either did not or would not speak English. Today's world being what it is Frankel put this on twitter. People reliably surfaced to call her racist. 

Wow @Kmart has 2 registers open w 5 other employees standing around & two speak no English whatsoever. Shoes are sapatos right?

— Bethenny Frankel (@Bethenny) January 23, 2016

Not even attempting kids' snow boots in spanish.

— Bethenny Frankel (@Bethenny) January 23, 2016

No excuse for being at a retailer & not able to be directed to what u need. 0 to do w race. I'll explain but can't understand it for you.

— Bethenny Frankel (@Bethenny) January 23, 2016

I don't know much about Frankel and am not interested in learning more. She could be the worst bigot out there. She could be a nice person. Don't know. Don't care. But just wanting to speak English in a non-niche business in the United States of America is not in my view enough to mark you as a racist. If you and the person to whom you're speaking do not share a common language communication becomes more difficult. It is not necessarily racist to get upset about this though obviously, racist or xenophobic people by definition probably have a much lower threshold of tolerance for this sort of thing. Although Michigan is not a super diverse state in comparison to say, New York or California, there are still a fair number of people for whom English is not the first language. At least once a month or so I can hear Arabic, Chaldean, Spanish, or Korean being spoken in businesses that serve the wider public. I am really not bothered by this. It would only bother me if the owner or clerks refused or were unable to speak English to me. If I moved to another country it would be presumptuous of me to expect people there to speak English to me. I'd have to learn their language. Similarly, for its stores in the US, K-Mart should hire people who can speak English if they are going to be interacting with the public in any way. Maybe at some future point everyone in the US will be speaking Mandarin, Cantonese or Spanish. I doubt it though. You could make an argument that it's unfair that English has become the common business language or (heh-heh) lingua franca of the world. Perhaps. But it's not going to change anytime soon in this country that English is the common language. If you made the choice to come here then you should also do your best to learn the language. There are times when the ability to communicate clearly could be of critical importance. It's not just about K-mart and reality stars.