Well, first, I was reading along and thinking, “gosh, that’s funny” — each item, one after another, actually did reflect things that I liked or that I recognized that most people I know [and most of them are white, I might add] liked. It’s amusingly written as a guide to non-white people on how to assimilate into white culture — a sort of field-guide or cultural travelogue. Christina mentioned it because it’s as if white culture were invisible — assumed by default — so there aren’t really anthropological studies of it … at least that either of us could recall.

But then about page two, and 35 or so entries in, I started to panic. Was there anything unique about myself at all? I mean, here it was: a definitive list of all things I was, with only a 10% miss-rate. At least “White people like to claim understanding of what it’s like to be a minority by reading ‘Stuff White People Like’” was not (yet) on the list — despite tangentially-related topics like “#20 Being an expert on YOUR culture” and “#62 Knowing What’s Best for Poor People“.

I’ll have to contact the author.

At one point, one of the guys involved in the show asked for people’s opinions of things around town and around the nation. Although the new police cameras brought loud jeering, I heard a lot of quiet support for them. In a later discussion with Ali and her friend, I tried arguing it logically, but I was frustrated: without any factual information, I was unable to do anything but an emotional appeal.

Although I said I choose freedom over safety, I think it’s more that I choose freedom over inaccurate accounts of safety. I guess the working theory is that the cameras prevent criminal activity. The first flaw in that statement is that no police action prevents crime: police can only catch criminals after a crime has been committed.

But if I give credence at all to the crime-prevention theory, it’s that criminals do not want to get caught so they will not commit crime where they will get caught. As such, the cameras cause crime to move away from the cameras. In other words, if it were possible to locate crimes before and after the cameras, my theory is that the crime rate would stay relatively steady but that fewer crimes would be committed in range of the cameras.

So in the end, I argue that it doesn’t reduce crime at all.

On the other side of the coin, the cameras can be used to break up protests. For instance, if an anti-war protest were held (or even a Critical Mass Bike Ride or any group of different-enough looking people for that matter), the cameras can be used to record the identities of the attendees and round them up later. Although protesting is not a crime, protesters I’ve met in this jingoistic, militarized country tend to be quite paranoid. As such, they behave like the criminals and would want to move protests away from the cameras. Unfortunately, protests are necessarily in those areas, as the cameras were placed where people tend to congregate — a protest is worthless if nobody is there to see it.

Thus, in my mind, the cameras prevent no crime and disrupt freedom and are therefore a bad thing.

Everyone who supports the camera believes that they do prevent crime and that they are overall a benefit — and why should they not?, for I can offer no hard evidence. So I think that what I should do is to test their theory. I’ll go hang out in front of the cameras with, say, a laptop computer. If the cameras do prevent crime, then I’ll go home after a couple hours. If they don’t, then there’s a chance I’d be robbed.

I suspect that wouldn’t be sufficient — for if I were robbed, I might witness a demand for more cameras — after all, if one camera failed to prevent a crime, then perhaps two will work better, and I really don’t want to see that. So I’ll just fight the robber and hopefully get killed in the process. Then, either I’ll be a martyr to the cause of freedom, or things will get worse but I won’t have to deal with it.

I’ll probably do it after Burning Man though because I kind of want to go to that first.

Anyhow, back to Saturday night …

Ali and I headed to The Tap and Mallet (381 Gregory St.) for a beer. She got her head set that we’d get Mark’s plates at the end of the evening, and that would require some serious drinking. We had some wine at Solera Wine Bar (647 South Ave.) then headed across to Lux Lounge (666 South Ave.) where we ran into some friends. We spent the bulk of the evening and four of us went to Mark’s Texas Hots (487 Monroe Ave.) I discovered what may be the most awesome plate ever: rather than burgers or hots, I got two over-easy eggs. Damn that was a great plate. I think that it might be improved with the addition of brown gravy (or “gravies” as the kids say) … and just possibly — and I say this only as an experiment to try, not to blaspheme — without the meat sauce, onions, and mustard.

Perhaps next time, then …

The only thing I didn’t really like was that the support staff tended to act too formal — it was like going to Geva except that the structure wasn’t backed up with any foundation. For instance, we were instructed to sit toward the front when it really didn’t matter as there weren’t really any stragglers. And as for the improv, there were a couple times when some ego-based and fear-based “no’s” tripped up the performers’ stride.

But if you’re going to take risks, you’re going to sometimes fall big and other times win big.  In this case, it’s worth it.

What a fucking scam.

I just said, “no thanks, then.”

Matt Rohr did a fine job opening and emceeing. He had set up the show as a benefit for The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) and (checking his blog later) collected several hundred dollars at the show.