Paul Karl Lukacs: Internet Douche

I used to work at Half Price Books. Part of every shift involved purchasing used books from customers. Most customers were courteous. Several left angry (but with money nonetheless) regarding our “too low” offer. On occasion, we’d get a special breed of asshole who would throw a fit when asked to show their driver’s license.

“What? Why?! That’s ridiculous. Just give me the $10.”

“I’m sorry sir. We have to see your ID.”

“No way! Identity theft! I don’t have to do that.”

“Sir, the law requires us to make a record of your driver’s license number if we’re to purchase your used books. I have a copy of the relevant law right here if you’d like to see it.”

At this point the customer would usually capitulate, begrudgingly, but a very small minority would make sure everyone in the store knew that they wouldn’t stand for this and that they’d be DONATING their books to the LIBRARY. Huff, puff, and away.

Good riddance.

1. We probably didn’t want (or need) his bug-infested, moldy ass John Grisham novels anyway. Not even the “but it’s a first edition” paperback with the broken spine. 
2. The library (not that he’s really going to give his books away) will throw them out, just like we were going to do.

I mention this because, apparently, Al Borland Paul Karl Lukacs was recently—as he puts it—detained by the feds for not answering questions. 

Bull. Shit. 

He then takes a principled stand that, in all likelihood, annoyed not only those who were asking the questions, but also every single person waiting in line behind him.

I suspect someone, at some point, said “oh, for the love of god why did this guy have to be in front of me?”

From the top:

The end result is that, after waiting for about half an hour and refusing to answer further questions, I was released – because U.S. citizens who have produced proof of citizenship and a written customs declaration are not obligated to answer questions.

I don’t know if Lukacs is an attorney (UPDATE: He is) or what drove him to seek this information out if he’s not, but never ever ever ever trust a random blogger when they make claims like this. Even assuming he’s correct (and for the sake of this rebuttal, I will make that assumption) there’s a very good chance that he’s leaving a lot of pertinent information on the table.

He goes on:

“Why were you in China?” asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron.

“None of your business,” I said.

Her eyes widened in disbelief.

“Excuse me?” she asked.

“I’m not going to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country,” I said.

We’re getting the Lukacs version, and as Lukacs is a bit of a douche I’m going to go ahead and take his description of the PCO’s appearance with a massive grain of salt. His version of events indicates to me that he was looking for a fight, so it’s not a stretch to assume that he saw what he wanted to see, or that he’s exaggerating. 

So, anyway: We don’t have to answer questions. Fine. I’m not sure why the next obvious step, though, is to be mysterious and dickish with our replies?

How is “none of your business” going to end well? Off the top of my head, I can think of several nicer and less combative ways of making a stand (if one felt compelled for some stupid reason to do so) and given that Lukacs is almost certainly the type of person who spent his entire flight back from China looking forward to the ideological and boorish scene he was going to make at customs—he probably had time to think of a gentler response. 

More likely: He spent time crafting a retort with just the right mix of defiance and snark on a cocktail napkin in between chapters of whatever Ayn Rand novel he was reading to pass the time.

1. Fuck off, bitch. I know my rights!
2. Fuck off. I have rights! I’m a lawyer!
3. None of your goddamn business!
4. None of YOUR goddamn business!
5. None of your business.

At any rate, Lukacs was asked a fairly simple question which he theatrically equates to “being interrogated”.

I’m sure all those who have ever sat through an actual interrogation—our prisoners of war come to mind—would prefer he use the word a little less lightly.

Another thought: These people are in the business of dealing with travelers as they enter the United States. I’d say it’s a bit of a stretch to say that this was none of their business. 

She picked up the phone and told someone I “was refusing to cooperate at all.” This was incorrect. I had presented her with proof of citizenship (a U.S. passport) and had moved the bag when she asked. What I was refusing to do was answer her questions.

A douche and a nitpicker? Her boss tells her to ask the questions. He didn’t want to answer them. I’m sure she was fucking thrilled that Lukacs moved his bag when asked and it’s completely mystifying that she didn’t refer to him as the “nice gentleman who’s been so helpful” when discussing his situation with her superior. 

Eventually he spends 30 or so minutes (the humanity!) of back and forth (they ask questions, he silently refuses to answer) with a couple of superiors and then this:

The junior officer inspected my bags in some detail, found nothing of interest, and told me I could leave.

Bravo sir. You are a true American hero. I sure hope you walked through a clap line on the way out of the airport.

Something to think about: Lukacs says that he had the right to refuse to answer questions but he never bothers to mention whether exercising that right is tantamount to cause for a more detailed inspection. Isn’t that something you’d like to know before you take up his cause? 

Presumably, the PCO also has the right to ask a few simple questions, even if we don’t have to answer them? Is the hassle of sitting around for another half hour worth not saying “I went there to visit friends” or whatever? I’ve come back into the United States twice (once from Mexico, once from Ireland) and in neither instance did they demand a detailed description of my travels. 

If anything, they seemed bored by my answers.

His takeaways:

Cops Really Don’t Like It When You Refuse To Answer Their Questions.

Go figure. With that said—and having read the comments on his blog I’m not alone in this thought—the more likely moral of the story is that cops don’t like snot-nosed lawyer dickheads who pick ideological fights over trivial issues. 

They’re keeping records: A federal, computer-searchable file exists on my refusal to answer questions.

By answering a couple questions which reveal no personal information, I (and 99.9% of the rest of the populace) avoid this issue. On the flip side, those simple questions almost certainly result in some people getting busted while attempting to smuggle in heroin. Seems okay by me.

But that’s a small price to pay to remind these thugs that their powers are limited and restricted.

Ohh. Your life is so fucking horrible Paul Karl Lukacs. Some “thugs” asked you some innocuous questions and your refusal to answer added 30 minutes of waiting (10 of which were spent casually reading a book) to the end of your trip…TO FUCKING CHINA.

ALERT THE MEDIA!

Lukacs likely leads a life of (relative, if not outright) privilege, has probably never suffered any real injustice or hardship and as such has the luxury of thinking that something like this matters, even a little bit.

His ultimate argument seems to be that if he had answered differently than his written statement, that they would use those little differences against him as evidence of wrongdoing or as part of some sort of bullying power-trip. He fails to produce or cite evidence that this ever (let alone often) happens to innocent travelers who are minding their own business or who are otherwise honest with their answers.

Beyond living a life of privilege, Lukacs is a well-traveled white lawyer with an immaculately trimmed beard. I picture him as the mani/pedi type. It’s laughable that he thinks he’s the sort of person who would ever face that sort of trouble. 

Fuck off.