Cultural Appropriation is Awesome!

Well, it’s that time again. It’s the end of October and America has this cultural practice of dressing up as something you’re not and eating a shit ton of candy.  Lately it’s become a perfect opportunity for racists to be fucks. Racism is my least favorite form of stupidity so I’m going to have to say something.

Some people feel that if you’re born into a certain set of fashion choices or traditions it’s somehow wrong to participate in other fashion choices or traditions. They’re calling it “cultural appropriation” and it’s apparently the new worst thing you can do.  For example, (the biggest contention seems to be) when white women braid their hair in cornrows, or when someone who’s not a native american dresses up like a native american for Halloween. The idea that these are racist activities, or, even bad is a completely illogical stance.

First, I want to just say that in no way am I defending the motivation of offense. If you’re doing something with the sole purpose of offending someone, you’re being a fuck, period. You have a right to do it, everyone has a right to their own motivations, and what I AM  here to defend technically covers that right, because fascism is just as bad, but… you know,  you’re an asshole. 

Now I know this is a big issue, and there’s a lot to say. There’s a loooong conversation to be had about why feeling are being hurt. I’m going to skip most of it, and just go straight for the underlying assumptions that are being made within the arguments.  

Let’s take halloween as an example. It seems to me that in order to feel insulted that someone is dressing up as your culture, present or historic, you have to assume that they are being insulting.  Your personal reaction to what someone does isn’t the deciding factor in their personal motivation. That’s backward. Saying that it’s racist to dress up as another race assumes that the motive of EVERY person who does it is to insult an entire race or culture.  I see the example of blackface being used a lot. Blackface has been in the past a mean spirited and shitty way for white people to insult and belittle black people.  Thing is, a person's motivations can make ANYTHING an act of intolerance. EATING CHICKEN at a certain place, at a certain time can be an expression of intolerance. Gay intolerance at chick fil-a, to be specific. That doesn't mean that anyone who eats chicken is guilty of being intolerant, or that anyone who eats there, even THAT DAY intended to be that way. Maybe someone went to chick fil-a that day, and they didn’t know that a bunch of bigots were supporting a bunch of other bigots, maybe they didn't care, or didn't have another option for lunch.  Just because some racist douchebags painted their face in order to express their racism doesn’t mean that EVERYONE who expresses themselves by painting their face is doing so to be a racist douche. Thinking that you can know that they are based on the race of the person doing it is racism. 

Imagine a man dresses as a woman for Halloween because he wants to show others that a totally straight guy can be comfortable in a dress and make up because people should be able to do what they want, and he's supporting the idea that it's not shameful to be a woman, or shameful to be trans or that he wants gender fluidity to be normal ...... or, maybe a douche thinks it's funny to dress like a woman and he sluts it up because his costume is "slutty bitch" and he has fake blood on his thighs because in his douchey mind girls that dress slutty and get drunk deserve to be raped.  Can you know the motives of all men that dress as women on halloween? Can you safely throw a blanket over all of them, and say "you're being a douche because you dressed as -whatever”?  Fact is you can’t know why someone is dong something, so if it isn’t directly violating someone’s rights, you can’t say that they are wrong or shouldn’t do it. 

A big part of this issue is the history of tragic disappearance of indigenous and oppressed culture. I get that history is full of a lot of shit. People have been, and still are shitty to each other based on race. Whole peoples have been wiped out. Over and over again, not just in the US. Cultures have disappeared entirely by force, and that’s a horrible thing.  But we can’t pretend that doing something is the same as preventing someone from doing something, because it’s not.  One person’s wearing of a cheap costume does not prevent someone else from wearing something meaningful.  Getting something not quite the same as it’s original manifestation doesn’t change the way others do things.  Personal expression is not a threat to the existence of other people’s personal expression, nor is it a violation of anyone’s rights. 

If you can't draw a logical line around a rule you want to make that applies fairly to everyone, it isn't a good rule. That’s what having equality means: that the rules apply to everyone the same. Failing to be able to do so means it’s not about doing what’s right but rather, doing what you want based on your own perspective and personal motives.  That’s fascism, by the way.  So the question we need to ask when we look at this social judgment is WHERE IS THE LINE? HOW do you decide when wearing something is wrong for one person, but not another?

Culture is still in large part directly related to our genes. It’s silly to use words like “black culture”, because it implies that all black people behave in specific ways, and of course, they don’t always. They are just as capable and free to look around, and decide for themselves what they like best, and how they want to be as anyone else. But unfortunately, our language doesn’t yet have words for separating that fine connection between what we do, and the people who do it with us happening to share a lot of our genes and looks.  Since a line can’t actually be drawn around culture using ethnicity it’s technically incorrect when we do it. It’s also exactly racism to use race as your line when making rules. The whole point to being free of racism is that our race doesn’t decide what we can and cannot do.  

Deciding how someone can and can’t express themselves based on history is a horrible, stupid, and dangerous thing to do.  History is shit, and the last thing we should do is tie ourselves and our concept of fairness to it.  When the historic subjugation of a culture is used to draw a line around who is allowed to participate in its traditions, you’re attempting to blame living people for the crimes of people long dead. When guilty people die, that’s a perfect opportunity to let go of what they did, and start fresh. Trying to hang on to that guilt and place it in the hands of someone else (like, the children of their relatives) by using it to tell them what they are allowed to do or how they should feel is keeping alive racial and social strife.  It’s not just counterproductive to peace, it’s racism.

WE ARE NOT THE PAST. I am not a slave owner because I’m white.  I didn’t shoot any buffalo, I didn’t attempt to deprive anyone of their native language or force religion on any children. Nor would I.  For me to be told I am not allowed to do something I like that is or was done by people I’m not related to by habitual history or my genome is shitty racism and oppression against me. To go ‘poor white tears’ when I point it out is shitty racism against me. 

A complaint I hear when people talk about racial appropriation is the perceived unfair standards held for different races in pop culture. For example Miley Cyrus is considered cool when she has certain hair, or dances or dresses in ways that were invented by people that are/were black; yet people who are black are insulted for those very expressions. It’s hard to address this complaint with a straight face because it’s so full of simplistic erroneous assumptions. People don’t share opinions because they share genes. Every white person out there doesn’t share the same opinion about Miley Cyrus or Katy Perry’s style. They are NOT the same people as the people who are being shitty to black popular figures, or the people who don’t care about racial injustice. There’s no such thing as white perspective. There are only statistics and commonalities.  Even if there are some douchey assholes out there who DO like everything white performers do, and DO simultaneously hate everything black performers do, even when those things are the same; that’s is a specific instance, and just because it might happen, doesn’t make ALL white people guilty of it. duh. 

  

When we want to introduce a rule, we have to be able to apply it with integrity.  Testing that integrity is a good way to know if what you’re trying to impose is crap - I mean:  sustainable.  Intent, history, race, experience, birth placement. We can’t apply these requisites to our behavior with any integrity.  Let’s try:

Let’s suppose the rule is ‘dressing like a native american for Halloween is wrong’ because “heritage”. We’re talking about real people with living descendants. So, only their descendants can dress like they did in the past? Does that mean that dressing like a viking, or a witch, or a mummy is wrong? They are real people. In fact the one you are most likely to think is fictitious is actually the ONLY real example of deliberate religious/cultural slander. Witches are actual people. They are practicers of the Wican religion who have been murdered by christians and slandered for centuries. They burned REAL PEOPLE at the stake. The idea of a crooked nosed evil spell caster with warts and a pointy hat IS THE EPITOME of racist slander that was so successful most people today don’t realize they were real people.  

Sorry I digress, is it wrong to dress like a german bar maid or a renaissance princess? Knights? Ninjas! Can you dress as a ninja if you’re not Asian? They’re Japanese actually, so do you have to BE Japanese? In fact, how close would your genes or cultural history have to be to make it ok?  What about adopted children? What if you’re Japanese, but your specific family history leads back to people who were samurai, not ninja, or neither? Having integrity in a heritage rule would mean knowing that someone in your direct lineage dressed the way you want to dress. It’s absurd. You can’t do it. 

Or does the rule only need to apply for existing cultural practices? It’s ok to dress like a viking, but not a Buddhist monk? Is heritage more about experience than it is direct relation? What about people with direct blood relation who weren’t raised to appreciate the historic culture still being practiced? Are they allowed to try? How many generations of non participation can pass, how much interbreeding can occur before we lose the right to do what people before us did?

If heritage is the rule, what does October 31st even have to do with it? What about the next day? If dressing up is wrong, what about participation in cultural activities? Is taking your non asian kid to martial arts class a racist thing to do? Why should traditional habits and clothes be the only thing a people can own? If you can own the clothes, and hairstyles, and say it’s offensive when others wear them, can you own the food? The architecture? The inventions? 

There's NO WAY to draw a line around a rule like "don't dress like or act like another culture”.  Nevermind that the whole world has been in a constant state of cultural overlapping flux since style and activities began. The fact is, genes don't give you a right to certain clothing or decoration or habits, nor do they prohibit it. Neither does your life experience. Neither does your grandfather's life experience. Thinking it does is RACIST. I want to be clear: YOU ARE A SELFISH RACIST IF YOU THINK YOUR RACE HAS OWNERSHIP OVER ANYTHING SPECIFIC.  You don't have the right to other people expressing themselves according to YOUR preference. Just like no one else has the right to you expressing yourself according to their preference. 

Dressing up like people of a different time period or culture than your own is a GOOD thing, Halloween or not.  It’s a good cultural habit for kids to do it. It teaches children that it’s OK to try new things, it teaches them that difference is fun and acceptable. Think about it. Teaching children that it’s wrong will only make them wary of differences. It will make them judge against a rule with no integrity whatsoever, and that is bad for their developing intelligence.  It’s lacking in critical thinking. It causes tension where there needn't be any. It stifles creativity and the sense of freedom of personal expression. 

If you’re still just falling back down into “it’s offensive” think about having integrity in a rule of that magnitude. If you can say that we shouldn't do something because it offends someone, then how can you draw any kind of line at all? Almost ALL activity offends SOMEONE. Not saying specific words before eating offends some people.  Having your face uncovered while owning a vagina offends some people.  Not believing the same thing they do offends a lot of people.  There’s no integrity there, you need to think more critically. 

OMG I almost forgot about the candy. America is an obese and sick nation. Our children are getting sicker and sicker, check the statistics. From October to April we do nothing but shove one of the most dangerous things in our faces in the name of celebration.  SUGAR. If you don’t know how horrible sugar is for health, please do some research. Focus on exploring the awesome that is cultural appropriation and acceptance, and lay off the candy. 

On Mandatory Vaccinations

Of course we all want to be free from illness.  It's part of the innate desires necessary for life to prevail on the battlefield.  If we didn't have the drive to avoid death, well, we wouldn't be here.  Now, I'm not about to start trying to rationalize people out of their desire not to die or see their children die, so don’t hear me doing that.  But I think that once we start to succeed SO fantastically at stomping out various predators: weather, large meat eating animals, hunger, disease, etc. that we actually become a threat to the ENTIRE eco system, well, we should re-evaluate our automatic submission at all costs to this urge.  Not just that, but what cheating ourselves out of the evolutionary process actually means to the humans of the future (if we’re even going to have a future).  We are thinking beings, so evaluations of this sort are our responsibility.  One we've sadly failed at. 

Now, I have yet to do research on vaccines (I’m not planning children) so I continue to float in the middle of a decision of whether or not I think they are effective, or whether or not I think they have serious risks.  My position doesn't have anything to do with either factor.  I don’t assume that the big business of vaccines is a giant lie for profit, and I don’t assume that anti-vaxers just hate anything too sci-fi.  But what vaccines are if they ARE effective, is unnecessary cheating in a battle we are already winning to the detriment of ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET, and what they are if they ARE risky, is a purposeful violation to someone who didn't choose them (instead of a faultless natural risk).  If they are not effective and not risky, they're a waste of time, money, and resources.  So... either way... I don't really like them.  

What I REALLY don’t like is the idea that it’s ok to force people to force them on their children.  I've gone through the process before of painstaking research into a medical practice that everyone assumes is the best and MUST be good or it wouldn't be happening, only to find a giant steaming pile of lies, profit, and defensive perpetuation of harm on children; so I have no delusions about ethics in the business of medicine.  We should never force people to accept a treatment or intervention they believe could harm themselves or their child, especially if the child is healthy.  There are too many factors at play, and too much money involved to just forfeit choice in favor of the opinion of the people currently in power.  If the “greater good” can usurp a person’s right to refuse, then HOW LONG before doctors you have never met can decide on YOUR healthcare for you?  Let's not go there.
\ /,,

Someone's Cousin's Neighbor's Grandpa

We’ve all heard stories about how someone’s cousin had to be circumcised at 6 for “problems,” and how terrible it was, and how someone’s ex had to be circumcised at 19 for “medical reasons,” and how terrible it was, or how someone’s grandpa had to be circumcised when he was 40 because his foreskin kept getting infected, and how terrible it was. It can make someone who doesn’t have the bigger picture wonder if the foreskin really is bound to go bad, so, it’s important to understand why these anecdotal stories keep popping up. 

When we are confused about how to clean a boy’s penis we CAUSE problems. Retracting and cleaning under a prepubescent's foreskin (especially with soap) would be like douching a little girl. You can imagine what trouble you’d bring doing that, right? Genitals of young people are NOT the genitals of mature people.   Retraction of the male foreskin is part of its sexual function.  In young boys, the foreskin is meant to stay forward. It’s there to protect the glans, and keep contaminants away from the urethra. Start yanking on it, and you can tear his “hymen” (actually named preputial lamina or synechia) a membrane that bonds the foreskin to the glans, and releases slowly over time.  You also introduce bacteria which can cause a UTI.  Use soap, and you upset the delicate PH balance, which can cause inflammation, a UTI, or a yeast infection, FUN!  So leave a young foreskin alone, the way you would leave a young vagina alone. 

When we have confused expectations for a young or teen foreskin we see a problem where there isn't one.  It's normal for the foreskin to do weird things during its development.  Strange white bumps, which are the cells of the aforementioned synechia membrane releasing and collecting under the foreskin, will work their way out the end; ballooning of the foreskin with urine, or a stream of pee that sprays at an angle; or a foreskin that was retractile becoming non-retractile later are all things that, if you don’t know to expect them, can seem like a “problem” but are actually just normal development.  It’s even normal for the foreskin to remain snug into the early 20's. If your expectations say that the foreskin freely comes back by age 5 (like the AAP erroneously states) then at 20 when it’s still a little snug, you might falsely believe there’s an issue. 

When our doctors know nothing about foreskin but how to cut it off, we end up with stories of circumcision instead of less invasive treatment. In places where foreskins are normal, men rarely need medical circumcisions.  They are empowered by knowledge of their body, and they know that their issues can be corrected without surgery.  Their doctors also, are familiar with more than just amputation for treatment, so they don’t offer it first, like they do in the US.  The problem with our doctors’ foreskin ignorance isn’t limited to knowing only one solution to issues, it’s also the mindset that issues must be the FAULT of the foreskin.  In the US, a problem causing a foreskin issue is ignored in favor of treating only the symptom.  If a man has recurrent yeast infections, for example, a doctor in a ‘foreskin friendly’ medical community might check for problematic blood sugar.   A man in the US is denied an opportunity to find a legitimate cause of his issue, because doctors instantly assume that his foreskin is the problem, and offer amputation.  And it’s terrible.  And people find out and tell others. 

In places where foreskin is not vilified at every age and cut off at every opportunity, you have healthy men unwilling to allow amputation of the best part of their penis.  But don’t take my word for it.  YOU can check this by comparing health statistics of places that do and don’t routinely circumcise, and by conversing with intact men from intact cultures.

We need to keep an objective perspective when we hear stories.  Imagine for a moment circumcised women from circumcising cultures hearing about a little intact girl with adherent labia, or a teen or young woman with tearing from intercourse, or an older woman with recurrent yeast infections and thinking that the solution was amputation every time.  I've personally known women with each of those problems.  Imagine if those women HAD been circumcised to fix those issues.  I might start believing that circumcision is the only solution, and that it is always eventually needed.  I would be especially susceptible to believing in labia amputation if I were raised in an environment that constantly blamed problems on the labia.  It would take looking at a population of women that do not do that to see that it's not necessary to cut them off.

Also keep in mind that people have a tendency to share impressive stories as IF they were experienced fact, and the reports of “problems” can multiply beyond reality.  Someone’s friend can become 6 other someones’ friend when people share stories that aren’t actually their own.  Suddenly it seems like it’s the same story 10 times, when it was really just once. 

If you applied the logic of “I’ve seen it needed, therefore it’s ok to do it before it’s needed” to other issues that need surgery to correct, then it would be ok to remove breast buds from infant girls, because we ALL know someone who had to have a legitimate medical mastectomy.  And that would just be absurd.  The bottom line is that even if the story about the circumcision at 8, 18, or 38 IS true, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t avoidable, and it doesn’t mean that a healthy baby doesn’t deserve to have HIS healthy foreskin left alone.  

Regulating Religious Circumcision - Who's Oppressing Who?

There is always a lot of turmoil around religious issues when they overlap with governmental regulation.  It always seems that religious people (or at least their spokesmen in conflict) have the idea that freedom of religion means free to ACT in any way if the motivation for that action comes from their religious belief system.  If the law of the land lies (or is trying to, but doesn't yet) over their activities, they cry foul and claim unfair treatment.  They don’t see that non religious people are also restrained under the rules.  They seem to intentionally avoid the realization that freedom of religion is not carte blanche to DO whatever you want to do, or whatever people have been doing.  Freedom of Religion is freedom of thought, and freedom of expression within the law, not an excuse to break the law or violate others.

Circumcision is barely regulated by the fraudulent medical communities that claim to have children's health as their first priority.  But for religious circumcision: ANYTHING GOES.  There's a step that a small number of Orthodox Jews take after a circumcision where the mohel (circumciser) actually SUCKS with his MOUTH on the baby's wounded penis.  It's called metzitzah b'peh.  As you might predict, this can, and sometimes does lead to the infant being infected with herpes.  It's not that bad of a disease for an adult, but herpes in an 8 day old is extremely dangerous and painful. It can cause brain damage, blindness, and death; and it has.  

In New York, where this is going down, you might expect the government to simply say 'sorry, you can't risk a child's life and well being like that (the way they might if ANYONE cut a kid's healthy penis and then sucked on it risking deadly disease WITHOUT god on their mind) so, you have to A. use a glass tube, or B. don't suck on the penis.'  But NO.  For some reason, ideas about not allowing it to happen gave way to simply having the parents sign a form that says they know that this oral suction will occur, and what the risks are.  Can't imagine having a problem with that regulation, can you?  Well, there is a problem.  If press coverage is the voice, there is SCREAMING from the rooftops about "religious oppression" over simply educating people about risks.  This is after the (apparently immense) resistance to the idea of any other form of restriction of the practice occurred within the government.

It takes extreme active bias to twist your mind around to a position of 'educating people of deadly risk = religious oppression by haters'.

If a doctor is performing circumcision (no doctor worth their oath {Primum Non Nocere - First Do No Harm - meaning: if it ain't broke, don't fix it} amputates healthy tissue from a non-assenting patient) he has to get informed consent.  There's no exception to this.  This isn't because the government just wants to control people, but because people have RIGHTS.  For every governmental "oppression" there's a right being protected (unless it's a true oppression, then there's a pocket being lined).  In the case of informed consent, a patient's right to be fully informed of the situation they are entering is what is being protected.  It's not the government going "Gee, what trouble can we cause today? Oh, I know, let's make people read and write."  SO ABUSIVE!  If a person went to a doctor, and the doctor's plan was to expose their baby to a potentially deadly, lifelong disease: it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it were, you know someone would be required to read and write.  Demanding the same of people engaging in the same activity, but with religious motivations, is simply equality.  So the question is: why would you actively pursue keeping a parent from KNOWING the risks of a diseased person sucking on their child's freshly wounded penis?  Afraid they won't?

Now that's the outer layer to this absurdity.  Let's go deeper.  Religious freedom is really, really important.  Not just because religion has value, but because freedom from religious oppression is key to a free society, and is one of the main reasons a lot of people have come to live here.  Your religious freedom is important, but that's not actually where it stops. EVERYONE'S religious freedom is important!  It's not just freedom to practice, it's freedom not to have to practice too.  In order to secure religious freedom for one person, you have to prevent others from violating it with prevention OR force.  Infants and children cannot decide what they think about esoteric adult philosophies on questions that have no proof: they have no religion.  Permanently marking them with yours, violates their freedom to decide whether they WANT to be marked.  The idea of consent is not one designed to take someone's religious freedom away, but to grant it.  So the question is: why would you actively pursue keeping a person from being able to CONSENT to a religious sacrifice?  Afraid they won't?

The fact is, educated people make better decisions.  That's why grassroots activism is so effective: it involves a lot of education.  It doesn't take governmental regulation to end a bad habit (unless someone's making money) if you have educated people; it will just end.  

Another fact is that consent prevents oppression.  Resistance to education, and resistance to consent are OPPRESSOR'S TOOLS.  So who's really restricting religious freedom here?

ON minimum wage

FACT - our habits and social structure REQUIRES that menial tasks be done. Flipping burgers, cleaning toilets, and ringing up your purchase is not a result of someone being lazy, or a naturally undeserving person, it's a result of the life and habits the humans of the past have built for us to be born into. Life makes trash, someone HAS to deal with it.  It's an imperative, not a choice.  There is no reason people who end up doing these things FOR OTHER PEOPLE should have to give more than the standard 8 hours {a third of their day} (they should make enough on a 40 hour week), worry about how horrible their life is going to be when their bodies can't do it anymore, (they should make enough for later), or be deprived of enjoying meaningful life when they aren't doing the job (they should make more than it takes just to keep living).   I'm not anxious to tell other people what to do, or make more laws. I simply care about being part of a fair system, that treats people with respect. I care about the integrity of that system's structure and sustainability. If we're going to do this, let's do it right, so that people can be happy and healthy with meaning and freedom in their lives. Why would we defend a system that creates massive poverty while a very few are flying in their own jets? We know from history that it doesn't end well.

Went to med school to talk about ethics

I got to see the raging bias that interferes with the logic of doctors in regard to male circumcision first hand this weekend when I attended the annual Pitts Lectureship in Medical Ethics at the Medical University of South Carolina.  Among other debates, there was a debate on infant circumcision between Attorney for the Rights of the Child's Steven Svoboda, JD, and the AAP’s circumcision task force member Dr. Michael Brady.  Audience participation was encouraged after each debate, and at the all inclusive seminar that wrapped the conference.  Also present, Dr. Diekema of the same AAP task force fame (who, interestingly enough, gave a great talk on not turning away children/families who have not been vaccinated).  Eye opening in some regards, frightening and sad in others, the discussion made it clear that these people (the most argumentative pro-circers there) are incapable of accepting 4 things:

1.   The foreskin has function. Even when a few of the many functions were described in detail by someone who HAD one, their response was “you don’t know that”, and back to the beginning again with insisting there are no functions (or none that matter since we wear clothes). 

2.  Men WANT their foreskins.  A lot of emphasis was put on various surveys of newly circumcised men showing satisfaction, or anecdotes of men wanting circumcisions while serving in the armed forces.   Even though 99% of circumcisions are forced, and 99% or better of men in the world left intact from childhood die that way, or that thousands of men are going to the trouble of restoring their foreskins, it was still stated “men do not value their foreskin”.  No logic got through.  When it was pondered that breast bud removal could provide a gross benefit to society’s health, the objection was (of course) that women wouldn’t appreciate that when they got older, so, best to leave it for then.

3.   Boys have a right to their healthy bodies.  When the bad habit of assuming that the risk vs benefit analysis can apply to healthy body parts, even though it is clearly meant to guide a physician through evaluating NEEDED treatment, was challenged, the conversation ended up back at “it’s better”, an opinion.  Thanks Doc., that’s very respectful of you.  

4.  This culture (and they themselves) are biased in favor of circumcision.  It was said in several ways by more than one person that if you don't have a foreskin, and live in a culture that disregards its value, perhaps your vision might be skewed, preventing you from acknowledging points 1 - 3.  Interestingly enough, this wasn't denied, challenged, or defended in ANY way. It was almost like they were pretending they didn't hear it.

Disappointing, but all in all, not a shock.  God was only mentioned once, but validity of ritual, validity of culture, validity of tradition, validity of sheer numbers performed, and validity of proxy consent were all mentioned, even though those things have nothing to do with the ethical requirement in medicine to not interfere where interference is not needed.  

I do think that some people present actually “got it”.   The points were made and made well, biases were challenged with no logical or meaningful retort (other than continuing to argue in favor of circumcision) and I think it was pretty obvious to the people listening that the points and challenges were valid, which makes it all a success!

Screw what your boss tells you to do

Dear all big business employees that have to work with customers:

            Don't you hate when customers get all belligerant and give you shit about things you can't change?  Don't you wish you could DO something about it?  Great news!  YOU CAN!  The key to not having pissed off customers isn’t giving them what they think is fair, that changes daily, and from person to person.  It's also not having the power to fix a problem after the fact, cause well, most employees have little control of the deal being made anyway.  The key is, in fact, managing their expectations. 

            The corporation that you are a slave to wants to give people high expectations in order to lure business, but has its true interests in the bottom line (profiting as much as possible).  It's called Bait and Switch, and it's pretty damn common.  Basically, this creates a set up for you getting to deal with a bunch of disgruntled patrons who expected to get more than they did (or to pay less than they get billed for, or.... etc.).  Corporations don’t care that this practice produces pissed off customers, because all the other big dogs do it too, and because YOU are the one who has to deal with their righteous indignation.  (Oh, they might read a couple letters here and there from people who take the time, but YOU get the snot and insults to the face.)

            The answer is FUCK CORPORATE and their bullshit policies. BE HONEST with your customers about what they can expect.  Think they might get caught in an "extra charge" trap?  TELL THEM!  They clearly want more than the deal they think they are buying?  SAY SOMETHING!  Don't just stand there while they sign off on 6 pages of fine print no one takes the time to read telling yourself that the surprise will be their fault.  Put in a little effort, and let them know what's up. They will be happier, and you will be the good guy. 

Thanks.