When Fairness isn't Fair

Life isn't fair. That's a sentiment we've all heard a lot lately and probably one most agree with. But it leads to the obvious question: what do we do about it? For far too many people the answer is situational, and fairness sometimes is no fairness at all.

When life isn't fair it means that some people are at a disadvantage, which also means some people are at a relative advantage. To make things fair would require leveling the playing field. If you pay attention, you'll notice that most people argue for such equal footing only when they are the ones disadvantaged, but when life is unfair to their advantage it becomes an unalterable truth that the disadvantaged have to learn to live with.

It's not just personal stakes, but mostly in-group vs. out-group.The heterosexual white guy arguing affirmative action isn't fair. The comfortably middle-class arguing welfare only hurts the poor because it takes away their self-initiative. The middle-aged guy who's all upset that trans women can compete in athletics because that 'isn't fair' to the girls. None of those people can step outside their own world view long enough to see that the 'unfairness' in each specific case is merely a redress to a much larger unfairness in the world as a whole.

While it is true that life isn't fair, it also is unfair in an unfair way. The unfairness of it does not hit everyone or every group equally. If you're sincerely interested in making life more fair, then you need to look at the big picture and focus on the most significant and systemic instances of unfairness and seek to redress those first. If you're in a class that has more privilege than most, it's certainly true that you can still experience some unfairness, but if you only seek to make things fair in those instances and don't consider all the other instances where things are unfair in your favor, you are not actually advocating for fairness but are instead fighting to maintain your undeserved privilege. That's not fair.

Righteous Anger

In all this talk about 'reopening' the economy, I feel it's important to point out some hard truths and face the realities of our situation. First, our economy isn't closed. It isn't shut down or locked down. It's reduced. We all still go buy our groceries. We can order pretty much anything we want off the internet - most of us still have our jobs and income. This isn't to minimize the serious economic collapse that is happening, but words matter. We can't reopen something that isn't closed, but we could ease up the restrictions that are limiting our economy.

But easing up restrictions wouldn't magically return our economy to normal. It's a false choice when people say we have to decide between a few people dying and the economy crashing. First, even without the severe social distancing restrictions imposed by the government, many (most?) people would still choose to restrict their consumption. Restaurants, sporting events, concerts, airlines - anything that groups lots of people in tight spaces will not see a return to normal. They will not have enough business to be profitable and they will fail. Many people will still be out of a job. Most people with jobs will cut back their spending due to uncertainty. The economy will still be crashing, just maybe not so quickly. And that's just the short term.

Second, it isn't just a few more deaths. People look at our current fatality numbers and think 'it's not too bad'; 'it's only the sick and elderly who are dying'. Regardless of the inhumanity of those comments, there is a truth that we make economy vs. life decisions all the time. We could save thousands of lives a year with stricter environmental laws, but it would cost money. Thousands die in car accidents - we could reduce that if we put another $10k in safety features on every car, but we, as a society, feel it's more important that people can afford cheap cars. So yes, we accept fatalities for the sake of the economy all the time. But we aren't really talking about just a few old, sick people dying.

No one knows for sure what will happen if we just stop social distancing, but what evidence we do have is pretty clear. This virus spreads and kills exponentially. You can't have a 'little' exponential growth. We either clamp down and stop it like we are currently doing, or it takes off and our death rate skyrockets. Millions will die (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf). And not just the sick and elderly. At those numbers, thousands of working age, healthy people will die. And when they do it will cost the economy money. It will result in more people choosing to shelter in place and more governments to reimpose the same restrictions (and worse) that people are complaining about now. If we just 'reopen' things a lot more people will die and our economy will be one of them.

But it is true that our economy and society can't continue like it is indefinitely. No one is saying it should. All the experts, including most state and the federal government, are saying we can and should loosen restrictions, but we should do so in a tentative way based on the best science and information we have (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-coronavirus-reopening-Gov-Gavin-15200205.php). We need to be able to test better to track the disease and we need to trace contacts better to stop the spread and exponential growth. That's the current plan - the real question is why is that taking so long. The answer is the federal government.

Now testing is a complicated issue, but it mostly boils down to money and material. In the U.S. the testing is primarily being done by commercial companies and they don't have the monetary incentive to invest in greatly expanding testing when the need will be for a relatively short time. It doesn't make sense to invest in training extra testers if they'll have to fire them in a year. It doesn't make sense for companies to increase making the materials needed if their demand will crash in a year. The market is failing us. But the federal government can get around that. It can order companies to expand testing capabilities. It can pay them to do so. It can coordinate all this. It's simply choosing not to.

The federal government also has many tools to fight a crashing economy that state and local governments simply don't have. It can give people money (borrowing money is basically free with our current interest rates and every reputable economist knows that government spending in a recession/depression is the best way out). If you don't want to give people money, it can create a massive jobs program (we already have a small one). We need people trained to do testing - let's hire and pay people to learn how. We need people to do tracing. We need people to support the sick and elderly. Heck, we need a ton of infrastructure work that will greatly help everyone and our economy - let's hire people to do what needs to be done.

Most states are constrained by balanced budget amendments (this is why they are a stupid idea). Many states, especially those red ones, simply aren't rich enough to spend this kind of money. And even if some states could do it, their resources would be taxed and failed when all the people from the other states either come to take advantage of them or come to bring more virus into them. We need to handle this on a national level because we are all in this together.

People are angry. I get it. It sucks that so many are losing their jobs or facing financial uncertainty. It sucks that our kids aren't in school and many of them are now going hungry. It sucks that our economy is crashing and we are suffering even though we didn't do anything wrong. It's not fair. Your anger is justified. But the response still needs to be appropriate. 'Reopening' the economy now isn't going to work. The economy will still crash; more people will die. We face nothing but bad choices but the current path we're on is a bad choice that involves fewer people dying and our economy ultimately recovering better. So go ahead and be angry, but learn to live with it. And maybe learn to direct your anger where it can do more good - by changing the people in power who are making our choices worse than they have to be.

Systemic Racism =/= Personally Racist

It is entirely possible for a system to have racial bias without it meaning every individual involved is racist.

Imagine a politician who runs on a 'tough on crime' platform. That could easily come from a sense of justice, a desire to protect citizens and do what is right. No aspect of race is necessarily involved. And in the spirit of neutral justice, maybe such a politician would advocate for computer-driven policing. Maybe even a robotic police officer who could roam the streets and dispense even-handed justice to all the wrong-doers.

But this robot officer, or robocop, would have to use facial-recognition software to identify criminals. And it's pretty well established at this point that such software is less accurate with darker skin tones. And when robocop makes a mistake, it has a tendency to just gun down anyone who isn't complying with its orders. Nobody intended it, no racists were involved, but we end up with a criminal justice system with a greater likelihood of killing black people (not dissimilar to our current state of affairs).

Now, if you're a black person in this society and robocop comes around the corner as you're out for a stroll, you don't really care what anyone's intention or motivation was. You just know that you are more likely to get hurt because the color of your skin and it isn't fair. That's systemic racism.

Once this is known, the politician, and those who support him, have a decision to make. Do they continue to advocate for measures that have been shown to lead to systemic racism, or do they denounce the unfairness and look for solutions that truly are race-neutral? Systemic racism can come from something other than racism, but however it got there, supporting it is an act of personal racism. That's the difference.

It's entirely possible we have a problem with systemic racism, and the many people who support it, those who don't think of themselves as personally racist, are actually racist.

The Other Side of the Coin

There are many incidents over the course of my life that I think about now and then, with my thoughts now being quite different from what they were then. Things I've learned, experiences I've had - they've changed my perception of what happened in the past, even if only through interpreting the meaning behind the actions. I'd like to share a couple incidents, minor things that seemed of no import at the time, in the hopes that other people might learn from them as well. I'm quite aware that some people will be amused it would take me years to really appreciate what these incidents meant, but I can be a slow learner and I think there are others out there who have yet to learn these lessons.

It will be helpful to know a little bit about me from a physical standpoint. I'm a white guy. I'm tall and lean, clean-cut and deferential. You could easily find my wardrobe in an L.L. Bean catalog. I've been an athlete all my life but I'm also a big geek. All those things factor into my stories.

When I was in grad school at UCLA a bunch of us would get together for homework sessions on campus. We'd often work until midnight and then head into town (next to campus) for a beer (or more likely some ice cream). One night, as our group was leaving the physics building, still discussing Maxwell's Equations and force vectors, a young woman approached us and asked if we were headed to town and if she could walk with us. We said sure, no problem. I didn't immediately understand why she wanted to tag along. But we continued as a group, crossing the dark and empty campus. When we reached the city streets which were well lit and full of people the young woman thanked us and went her own way. Only then did I realize she wanted the protection of a group. She didn't know us, didn't know if we were really safe, but she must have decided the risk of approaching us was less than walking alone.

A few years later, still in Los Angeles but no longer in school, I was walking home alone from my local Mexican taqueria in the dark. A few blocks from home in my relatively safe neighborhood, I spotted a woman walking towards me by herself. I noticed as she looked up, saw me, then quickly crossed to the other side of the street. I didn't think much of it but after she passed I glanced back and noticed she had crossed back over to the my side again. She had avoided me on purpose. How silly, I thought. I'm about as non-threatening as they come, and if she had stayed her course the worst I would have done would have been a short hello and a friendly smile. Her loss.

But both of those women made a calculation. Both had to quickly assess the situation, take what they saw and make a judgment about what was going to be the safest course of action. They chose what they thought would minimize their risk. Were they right?

It doesn't matter. The point isn't about the accuracy of their assessment but the fact that they had to make it. I almost never make that judgment. Never really think about it. There was that one time I was in a foreign country, walking around some ruins in the dark by myself when I wondered if I should be thinking about such things. Then I decided I was being silly and continued on my way. Those women, and all women, think about it all the time. They have to. They should.

There have been situations where I get anxious and feel the need to make judgments to minimize my risk - mostly social situations since I'm an introvert (and still a geek). I think most of us know this behavior, but what we don't often appreciate is how often other people have to engage in it. How often those who are more disadvantaged than us, especially physically, must make such calculations simply to go about their normal lives. It must be exhausting.

So now, when a woman crosses the street to avoid me, or doesn't make eye contact on the bus, or sees me out with my wife and approaches to talk, I understand. I don't take offense no matter what way the interaction goes. I don't even try to go out of my way to convince them I'm safe. I do my best to simply let them make their own judgment and trust that they are doing what they need to in order to make it through their day.

To those who constantly have to make such decisions and hope they guessed correctly - I see you. To all of the others, like me, who are much more likely to be seen as a threat than to feel threatened, take some time to really think about what the other side of the coin is like. Don't just cut them some slack, but do whatever you can to make the world a place where such risk analysis is unnecessary. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was as carefree as you and I?

Fight for Democracy: 2020 Primary

The 2020 U.S. election cycle is well underway and this Tuesday, March 3, 2020 is Primary day for many states, including California. So I'm going to talk a little about the Presidential Primary race and separately about why you should vote (spoiler: they are two different topics), though not specifically who you should vote for. This is aimed at my fellow Californians, but much of it also applies to voters across the country.

You should vote for a Presidential candidate because you might as well, not that it really matters much. Maybe that doesn't sound like the most motivating of reasons, but bear with me. More importantly, you should vote on Tuesday for the many other positions and ballot measures to be decided. In California we have a state-wide bond measure (13) which is important and deserves input from everyone. There are also Congressional seats on everyone's ballots, and while some of them might be foregone conclusions, many districts have important primary choices that will ultimately make a big difference in the general election. And there are even more local issues: in my city and county we have school bond measures and local supervisor choices that will make a noticeable difference in my life for the next several years. Voting matters and local politics often impact your life more than national - and your vote (proportionally) counts for more! If you want to do something in a political environment that increasingly feels distant and removed from our personal realities, voting in local elections is one of the best ways to get involved.

And since you're voting, you might as well vote for whoever you want in the Presidential Primary. And that's the key thing - vote for who you want. Don't worry about 'electability' or who's leading in the polls or who does the best in hypothetical matchups. Definitely don't listen to the pundits who tell you who you should vote for. And it's best if you don't base your decision off your gut. Don't worry about who you'd rather have a beer with. Don't listen to political ads or even give much weight to debate performances or official endorsements. You should vote for whoever you want and you should base your decision on the policies the candidate supports (check their websites and do some reading) and their likelihood of accomplishing the things you think are important. Too many people try to play three-dimensional chess and come up with the best strategy for their vote. If history tells us anything, it's that these rationalizations and guesstimates are totally inaccurate at predicting the future. Sure, sometimes they're right because every possible outcome is predicted by someone, somewhere, but that isn't a reason to believe in them ahead of time. Just vote on policy, actual written and articulated policy.

Policy is ultimately the reason why it isn't that important who you vote for in the Primary. Because it's going to come down to whoever the Democrats select versus Trump and the Republicans in the General Election in November. While there are significant and important differences between the policies of the Democratic candidates, those differences pale compared to the abhorrent policies of the Republicans. All Democrats want to expand health care coverage; all Republicans have been fighting for years to limit and repeal coverage. All Democrats agree on instituting some measure of reasonable gun control (like requiring background checks). All Republicans have fought for years to prevent such measures. All Democrats agree on passing (bipartisan) immigration reform. This one's tricky because a lot of individual Republicans support reform but as a unit they have blocked every attempt at passing actual legislation. Republicans are fighting for additional tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. Democrats are fighting to increase minimum wage. Republicans have proposed cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Democrats want to preserve those time-tested institutions. Republicans want to allow and encourage discrimination (as long as it's for religious reasons). Democrats want a fairer world with less bigotry (for any reason). Republicans had the chance to follow the Constitution and remove a President who has obviously and routinely violated his oath of office, broken many laws in the past and the present, lies repeatedly about everything and everything, assaults the norms of decency and fair play that hold our government together, and disgraced our country on the world stage. The Democrats did everything they could to stop him.

The differences between parties are a wide gulf and whoever wins the Democratic nomination will deserve and require the full support and enthusiasm of every decent American who wants to return democracy and rule of law to our country. If you're tired of politics being a gutter war fought waged through tweets and a never-ending news cycle of embarrassment, then electing a Democratic President (and Democratic Congress) is the only hope. So go ahead and choose your favorite candidate in the primary, but never lose focus that the real fight is much larger and more important, and all of us must come together to win back our society and our sanity.