Pages

Wednesday, November 5, 2025

Which god?

People never ask me if I believe in Zeus. It's not really that surprising since no one literally believes in the Greek Pantheon. Clearly the stories of an angry, petty god killing mortals with lightning bolts, turning them into piles of salt, asking them to sacrifice things like their firstborn to prove their faith - those aren't real. What kind of all-powerful being would create natural disasters just to wipe out the humans they don't like? It's not really 'godly' behaviour, is it? It seems more like what a writer with aspirations of power would come up with.

And then there's the children. Ignoring for a second the morality of an omnipotent being impregnating mortal women, somehow the son (it's almost always a son) is the real hero. They're the one to save us pathetic mortals. They use their super powers - strength, imperviousness, walking on water - to help out humanity. It's like the Divine Cinematic Universe. A great show, but we all know it's special effects and not real life.

So the stories are entertaining and many even have a good moral buried in the details; but we don't need to believe they actually happened to learn from them. We don't need to believe there's a gray-haired man sitting up in the clouds on Olympus, fathering magical children who will save us with miracles, in order to learn how to be good people and treat others well. So the Greek myths continue to be told and retold, they continue to entertain and teach, but we can all agree that myths are mythical. No one should believe them to be real.

But people do ask me if I believe in God.

Saturday, August 31, 2024

Who's nice? Who cares!

Most people are 'nice'. At least that's what most people would have you believe. People on both sides of the American political landscape can be nice. People from various religions, ethnicities, and cultures can be friendly and welcoming. Even when neo-nazis clashed with counter-protesters in Charlottesville it was said there were fine people on both sides. So if there are so many perfectly fine and nice people all around, why are we so angry with each other?

A lot of the problem lies in how you define nice. I grew up in Minnesota, where people are famous for being 'Minnesota nice'. To people from elsewhere that means Minnesotans are friendly and welcoming and always have nice things to say. But if you live in Minnesota and are honest about it, it means people are afraid of confrontation. Minnesota nice means you never say anything bad to someone's face - but you certainly talk smack about them behind their back. Minnesota nice means you smile and serve dinner to family and don't interrupt your racist uncle from spewing hatred at the table (maybe his grandparents were from Wisconsin or something). Minnesota nice means you welcome in refugees but later complain about how our 'society' is getting worse - but they make sure not to specify it's the people with dark skin they think are the problem. Minnesota nice reflects the problem and distinction that needs to be made: people are mostly nice in person, face to face, but what they think, how they act, and especially how they vote can be very different.

It's nice if your MAGA-loving neighbor helps you cut up the tree that fell in your yard during a big storm. But are they really 'nice' if they want to ban Muslims from coming into this country? It's nice that your rich uncle helps you get a good summer job during college. But is it nice that he donates to Super PACs which support candidates who want to eliminate our social safety net so we can cut capital gains taxes? It's nice that Dorothy at the super market checkout smiles at everyone and helps organize food drives at church. But is it nice she votes for Congressmen who want to restrict women's bodily autonomy and repeal the right to gay marriage?

If you judge peoples' niceness by how they treat you personally, then most people are pretty nice (especially if you're a white person like most other people are in this country). But if you judge people on their votes and their actions and how those things affect the disadvantaged and minorities in our society, then you get a completely different picture. People can be nice and yet filled with hate. People can be nice, yet still take pleasure in the suffering of others. People can be nice and yet do nothing as evil happens in the world. When it comes to politics, nice and good are very different measures.

So how should we define nice? Maybe we shouldn't worry about it. Maybe we should stop trying to define people and only worry about their actions and how we respond. We don't need to demonize people who are trying to subvert democracy, enshrine bigotry into law, and maintain the systemic racism throughout our institutions and society. But we do need to fight them. And we don't need to be nice about it. We just need to be right.



Friday, November 17, 2023

Team Peace

One of the most pervasive and problematic aspects of American politics is the viewing of everything through the sports lens. From horse-race election coverage to the red team against blue team mentality, Americans think of politics like a sports game when nothing could be further from the truth. Politics, in essence, is a conglomeration of diverse people with diverse opinions working towards consensus built around fundamental equalities. The us vs. them mindset is both structural from our two-party system and evolutionary from our tribal ancestry. But it leads to bizarre, illogical outcomes.

The current Israeli-Palestine conflict is a perfect and sad demonstration. Both Democrats and Republicans have generally sided with Israel quite explicitly. But a significant portion of the far right has long been antisemitic. And the far left is extremely pro-Palestine. So are the raging liberals and neo-nazis on the same team? Are mainstream D's and R's united? Everyone seems angry and certain the other side is wrong even if they don't really know who or what the other side is. And very clearly, there is no rational discussion with consistent logic intended to solve the problem. We just want to beat the other team, even if it's only by yelling louder. 

But if you step away from the two-side fallacy, things become much clearer. If your goal is peace and you want to prevent people from dying, then analysis is easier. Hamas killing 1,500 Israeli civilians is bad - an atrocity. Israel killing 10,000 Palestinian civilians is bad - an atrocity. If it's wrong for Hamas to deny Israel's right to exist, it's wrong for Israel to deny Palestine's actual existence. I believe we should start by acknowledging Palestinians are human beings who deserve a right to live free from violence with political self-determination and autonomy just as much as Israelis are human beings who deserve a right to live free from violence with political self-determination and autonomy. Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. The only thing that matters is how to move forward towards a better future.

And the only path to peace is with a Palestinian state. If Israel deserves to exist, so does Palestine. If Israeli's deserve a representative government and a military to protect their country, then Palestinians do too. It's the only logically consistent solution. And Israel is the team that currently has the power to allow such a solution. They have the ball. The Israeli government is the only democratically elected entity, governed by a constitution and subject to international law, that is preventing such a solution. Instead, Israel operates an apartheid state that denies fundamental rights to a large population living under its control, and such a regime only perpetuates violence on all sides. A two-state solution will not guarantee peace. Nothing will do that. But it's the onlysolution that offers peace as a possibility, and the only thing that is fair.

The alternative is genocide. Israel can simply annex the occupied territories (which it has been doing piecemeal over the last thirty years) and either expel or exterminate the Palestinians. I guess some would call that an Israeli win. While it would end the current two-side debate and fighting, I think we can all agree it would not be a lasting peace and would only create a larger fight between more nation-states. There is no real win for Israel without a win for Palestinians. This is not a game. Don't think about which side wins, but how to prevent all deaths and preserve all life. Peace should be the goal for everyone.




What is a Public School?

 A lot of the political divisions in our country are based around large, national questions: who do you want for President? Should the U.S. support Ukraine? Should our government provide a safety net? Most of these issues are covered by the news media so people can hear about them easily if they wish, and often even if they don't want to. And it doesn't take a lot of effort to weigh in on them - just cast a vote every couple of years. But local issues - issues that really affect people's daily lives and can change the structure of our society - those issues are often invisible in the background and take a lot of sustained effort to understand and affect.

If there is one idea in our liberal democracy that holds true to the purported ideals of our nation's founding - equality and opportunity for all - it is the public education system. There is no better way to level the playing field so naturally distorted in a capitalistic society; no clearer signal that every child deserves a chance at a bright future; no system more geared towards true meritocracy. Providing a good, free education for everyone is the cornerstone of what America thinks it is and has the opportunity to become. But that very notion is under threat.

For the very notion of a public school is dependent on the idea of serving the public, which by definition must include everyone. There is no more insidious threat to the public than the exclusion of some people from the definition. And that is exactly what some groups in this country are attempting to do.

While no one may be trying to ban actual individuals from attending public schools, by restricting what is taught, who it's taught to, and who can be represented and acknowledged on campus, certain identities are being restricted. And if someone knows their identity is not fully accepted, then they are no longer welcome or equal. It's discrimination. It cannot be allowed to continue.

If you tell black children that their history can't be taught, not because it's not true, but because that truth might upset white children, then you are telling black children they are lesser than white children. If you can't allow a teacher to acknowledge they are gay, then you are telling the child with gay parents they come from a lesser home and that their parents are not equal. If you ban books featuring minority characters, even if it's just a purple shadow, you are telling all the students that some colors don't matter - some children don't matter. If you do not explicitly offer dignity, humanity, and equality to all of the members of a community, then you have expressly condoned a hierarchy that says some are better than others. And there are always those who will take advantage of that opportunity to spell out who is who.

A public education has to be for all of the public. It has to teach inclusivity and acceptance, even if that is divisive to some, because the only alternative is discrimination, which is unacceptable to the principles of our society. Public school is for all the public, or else it will once again become an institution of segregation and shame. We've made the mistake before and have corrected it. We can't let a vocal minority drag us back to repeat our own failings. Now is the time to show up and stand up for what's right. 

And doing what's right takes getting involved. Showing up at school board meetings. Telling some of your neighbors they are wrong. Telling all the marginalized kids they are right. It requires bringing politics into your local life because it's already there whether you want to admit it or not. If the greater public doesn't support a truly public education system, then we have failed our future generations and our country will fail because of it.



Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Fair and Equitable

 As a well-educated, upper-middle-class, liberal, white person who knows a lot of other similarly described people, I've noticed a consistent theme in arguments regarding social and economic justice. They push back against any idea of change by pointing out, often quite correctly, how the new laws/regulations/attitudes will result in an unfair situation. Affirmative Action hurts Asian Americans. The MeToo movement results in some innocent men being harmed (financially). We can't decrease racial disparity at the expense of higher overall crime rates. We can't (shouldn't) change the status quo in a way that results in a new type of inequity.

But if you think about it: why not? Those very same liberals will readily admit the status quo is not fair. They decry the racism in our country and want to change. They feel for other marginalized groups and will attend a rally and carry a big sign to prove it. They know things are wrong and should be fixed. But they will fight any change that fixes one problem by creating another - because that new problem might actually affect them.

But if one group has held the advantage in an unfair situation for many generations, isn't it better to switch it up and let the disadvantaged people have power for a while? If your older brother hogged the Nintendo console for a whole weekend, isn't it fair that you get to have it all to yourself the next weekend? Isn't inequity fairer when the victims are rotated instead of locked on the same groups all the time?

I mean, I also would like a world that is perfectly fair and equal to everyone everywhere all the time. And such a world might be possible. But to hold up any change in this world in the name of only moving towards a theoretical perfection (which cannot be universally agreed upon) ends up looking like a bunch of privileged folks not willing to give up their privilege. I get it. I, too, would rather not live in a world where I am accosted for my skin color; where I face heavier policing of my public interactions as well as my personal life. I'd rather not be poorer than my neighbors and given less chance to improve my situation. I don't want to be discriminated against, prejudged, or needlessly killed by the state and society. But if that's the price I (we) must pay to create a better world for those who are currently suffering under the yolk of my privilege, I  have to admit it would be only fair.

Friday, March 25, 2022

The Transgender Athlete Question

 I’ve seen a lot of folks say they accept and support transgender people but they still don’t feel it’s right to allow them to compete in athletics. A lot of these people are kind and considerate folks who genuinely want to be accepting and compassionate, and I think their position comes from ignorance and not malice. I think their logic is unsound and if they'd be open to deliberate and thoughtful discussion of the topic they might well realize their mistake. It’s easy to rely on our feelings or the words of someone else when we don’t really have the background or desire to dig deeper into an issue. But the only compassionate route is to take the time to think a little deeper about an issue that affects the basic humanity of a group of people, even if that group represents a small percentage of the population.

The argument normally comes down to this: men clearly have a biological advantage in sports, so it’s unfair for transgender women to compete against cis women. Sounds reasonable but it fails on measured reflection. First, we let people with biological advantages compete all the time. We let tall people play basketball. We admire swimmers with abnormally long arm spans. We let people who grew up at high elevation run against those born at sea level. Some men and women have naturally higher testosterone levels. Sports is never a biologically level playing field so why is it an automatic disqualifier in this one instance?

And whether or not transgender women have a biological advantage is much in dispute. Transgender women only compete in sports after they have transitioned. And while the definition and rules vary by sport, it’s very clear transgender women athletes are no longer biologically the same as male athletes. All the evidence I’ve been able to find, including all the anecdotes put forward, show that transgender women lose most, if not all, of their biological advantages in the transition. (If you don't believe this, do the research yourself instead of assuming you know it already.) So how is it right to exclude a group - a very small group - of people on the basis that they might possibly have some (probably) small degree of biological advantage? 

On the other side of the coin, we have a ton of evidence that excluding transgender people from parts of our society does great harm to them. They face much higher rates of violence and abuse. They are discriminated against in jobs and schools. They are far more likely to have suicidal thoughts and actions. We have direct evidence these harms come from societal perceptions and treatment and when transgender people are met with acceptance and opportunity they fair better. We also have a ton of evidence that participation in sports provides such acceptance and support and leads to better mental health among all populations.

As I said, it’s okay to be uncertain. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism and not know where to draw what line. It’s okay to ask questions and to try to learn more. But it seems like a clear choice that if we are to err due to our ignorance and uncertainty on the issue of allowing transgender women to compete, it should be to err on the side of compassion, the side which does less significant harm. More women will lose competitions to women who are naturally taller or stronger than them, more women will lose scholarships to women who can afford private coaching and better training than them, more women will lose out to women who try harder than them than will ever lose any of those things to the very, very tiny percentage of transgender women who take huge personal risk to transition and compete in sports. Let transgender women be women. Let them compete even if they might win. That’s what sports is about.

Finally, and perhaps I should have said this part first, no people deserve to have their existence questioned. Transgender people have existed throughout history throughout the world. They are real. They are human and thus deserving of all the rights and dignity we all share. They themselves are not up for debate. This is where I’ll lose some people, but any question of such a basic tenet of humanity is not to be tolerated. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism. You can always learn. But any question of their fundamental right to exist is based on ignorance and born of bigotry. It’s the same bigotry that says being gay is immoral. It’s the same bigotry that says Black people are inferior to white. It's the fear of the Other and the reflex to hurt and hate those who are different in a vain attempt to protect and uplift one's own group. Such a view leads to dehumanization and discrimination and does not deserve to be respected or entertained in the discussion of the topic. Transgender women are women.


Friday, December 10, 2021

Unfair is Fair


Life is not fair. In other words: in the complex system that is our world, good is not always rewarded and bad is not always punished. You can eat healthy and exercise and still get cancer. You can be faithful and loving and still get your heart broken. There is a degree of randomness which inevitably creates unfairness. But that very randomness is what makes such unfairness acceptable.


But some of the unfairness in the world is anything but random. Specific groups or classes of people face systemic unfairness due to the structures of society which we have created and have control over. When life is not fair in a directed way, the ideal solution is to create fairness. But true fairness is an imperfect concept and impossible goal. Instead we should aim for balance


Imagine you have a workgroup at your company with a lunch meeting once a week. Bob, the head engineer, always picks the food and always picks pizza. You’re a sales rep and you point out that is not fair. Maybe let sales pick lunch this week. That’s when engineer Jim, who loves pizza, chimes in: if someone else chooses it will be just as unfair. We should come up with a system that’s fair to everyone every single week. Sounds reasonable. But there is no fair system. Different groups are different sizes, so do you do proportional turns? Suzy in accounting is vegan, so should we have to accommodate her? Maybe everyone orders their own food - but that would create too many deliveries and be too hard to coordinate times. It would cost more and be less productive. It’s all too hard and since we can’t make it fair we should just leave it as it is. Right?


The problem should be clear: we are left with a situation that explicitly favors Bob and the engineers. Giving someone else a turn would be unfair only in the most limited view, and spreading the unfairness around is actually more fair than leaving it static. We might not be able to find a perfect solution, but we can reduce the systemic unfairness by increasing the randomness of the unfairness.


When you hear people say affirmative action gives an unfair advantage to Black people, or Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs discriminate against whites, or the #metoo movement will result in men suffering from false allegations, there’s a bit of truth in all of them. But that little bit of truth is being used to hide a much larger truth. If change brings less unfairness to the perpetually disadvantaged at a cost to those who’ve enjoyed relative advantage for generations, it’s a worthwhile transaction and better for society overall. A more random distribution of who gets punished and rewarded is actually a step in the right direction. Life is not fair, but it should be unfair equally for all.


Sunday, October 31, 2021

The Proper Response to Uncertain Risk is Overreaction

 At almost two years into a pandemic, it's only natural that we are seeing more and more takes on the policy choices (and even some personal choices) made in response to the threat of a deadly contagion. Also as expected, most of these takes are using the clarity of hindsight to criticize specific choices which were made in the face of uncertainty. While analyzing what worked, what didn't, and what we should do the next time is necessary and valuable, it can only be done properly if we accept the timeliness of the unknown vs. known.

I think the simplest way to demonstrate this concept is to quantify things, even if only an arbitrary manner. These are all actually fuzzy and complicated subjects, but the premise is the same. When faced with a new risk, even if it's just a variation on known risks, the uncertainty that comes along with it needs to be factored into any response.

So let's say we're at the start of a new, deadly virus spreading around the globe. How bad is it going to be? Some people might say it's only a 5 - about the same as a bad flu season. Others might say it's a 50 - approaching an extinction-level event. Even the level-headed experts will disagree, but if you follow the science and listen to a consensus, you can get an approximate level to use as your basis. Let's say the weighted average comes out to a 15. Great, we have a number to work with. 

But you really shouldn't base your response on a 15. If 15 is the average, then there's around a 50% chance it will be worse than that. If you react as if it's going to be a 15, there's a very strong likelihood you will end up underreacting and face grave consequences. If you wait for more certainty you will respond too late and suffer because of it, especially when facing a risk known to grow exponentially. Instead, you factor in the uncertainty by assuming it's going to be a 20 (with 90% confidence it will be less than that), react at that level knowing you will likely overreact a little bit, which generally has much lower costs than any level of underreaction. So you deliberately overreact compared to the consensus expectation.

And yes, when it ends up being a 17, some people will criticize your overreaction. Some will even say foolish things like: I predicted it would be a 17 and you should have listened to me. Of course, my cousin Jimmy predicted Tampa Bay would win the Superbowl before last season. The fact that he was right doesn't change the more important fact that he predicts that every year, so to have listened to him last season (and not all the seasons before and since) would have been foolish even though he turned out to be right.

Hindsight is valuable, and we have made a lot of improvements on our reactions and we've learned from experience and analysis. With more certainty comes better reactions. We don't worry about masking outside as much. We aren't obsessing over wiping down every surface every fifteen minutes. We know we have to take more care with the elderly, especially in group home situations. We even can keep kids in the classroom as long as we take precautions proven effective: universal masking, vaccines for those eligible, improved ventilation, and frequent testing. But it was absolutely the right call to close down schools when all those things were uncertain because we've also found out that when schools are open without proper precautions things go bad really fast. Our overreactions were good, and with the clarity of hindsight I see a lot of places, a lot of policy, and a lot of people who underreacted based on wishful thinking of assuming a level 10 just because someone, somewhere said so. With a million people dead in the U.S., tens of millions more with long-term health damages (we still don't know the extent of), those who look back and speak with certainty are not the voices to listen to. Cousin Jimmy speaks with confidence and certainty, but at the end of the day, he's from Florida. Do you really want to listen to him?

Monday, July 5, 2021

It's Not Racist If It's True

When a friend of mine made disparaging comments on social media about a quote from James Baldwin and the ideas behind the Black Lives Matter movement, claiming he couldn't see any evidence that Black Americans are disadvantaged or discriminated against, I challenged him. I asked him how he explained Black people having 1/10th the wealth of whites, receiving less pay for the same jobs with the same education, paying more in mortgage rates for homes that appraise for less. I asked why is it that Black men are locked up at three times the rates of white men for drugs (even though they use and sell them at the same rate), that they face tougher plea deals and are more likely to get convicted by juries and then serve more time for the same crimes. What leads Black women to suffer more deaths in childbirth, Black men to die younger, and all of them to be less likely to receive necessary healthcare even with the same insurance? After some bobbing and weaving, he finally said bad things happen to people who make bad choices.

It became clear to me that he really believed that all the discrepancies in outcomes for Black Americans were somehow the fault of Black people. In his mind Black people just make more bad choices. It was their own fault in some way he couldn't really describe and didn't feel comfortable stating directly (he said he was worried people would take it the wrong way). When I pointed out this was a negative generalization based on race, he ignored the implication. When I asked why someone would choose to pay higher interest rates or get arrested more often, he didn't have an answer. When I asked how personal choice explained redlining or where our highways ended up he simply didn't understand what I was talking about. When I asked if he'd look at some more evidence and consider a different conclusion he remained silent. When I suggested he needed to be willing to confront his own racism if he wanted to understand the state of our world he took great offense and walked away.

To be perfectly clear here: my friend is a white guy. A rich and successful white guy. Well educated, quite smart and reasonable. Very nice guy. Works with and for a number of Black people. I think his understanding of racsim is typical of his group and shared among a surprising (to me) number of my friends. And what it comes down to is this: it isn't racism if it's true. He looks at the outcomes for Black people and uses that to justify his belief that Black people are inferior. And he doesn't feel the least bit racist for believing it. His opinion isn't based on any real reading of the evidence but simply his life experience. So as far as he knows, as far as he wants to know, he's right and therefor cannot be wrong (racist).

I think a lot of it stems from the fact he believes he accomplished everything he did because of his own merit, so anyone who does not succeed the same way must be lesser than him. And anything that threatens that view of his own self-worth is to be denied with all haste never to be discussed or evaluated. If Black people are disadvantaged, he realizes it  means he was advantaged - but that is not how he sees himself. If many other people (like him) feel the same way, then it must be valid and also true. If you treat individuals fairly and equally, then you cannot be racist because being racist is bad. He knows in his heart of hearts he is a good person (and society certainly affirms this). He's simply honest about race and honest is good. He  cannot be racist so racism cannot be a real problem.

Mind you, he believes racsim exists. But if believing Black people are inferior doesn't count as racism, what does? Well, using the n-word. But only if you use it seriously - it's okay to use it in a song, or as long as no Black people are around. It's wrong to deny a Black person a job based on their race, but it's fine to only grant interviews to those who seem like they would fit in. Trust your gut. It's racist to be impolite to a Black colleague, but completely natural to admit Black communities are strife with crime and drugs. Racism is blatant and mean, not subtle and pervasive. We used to have a problem with it but all that went away after the Civil Rights movement (which worked because it was completely peaceful). So yes, there are still some racist people around, but they are few, they are generally poor and uncouth, they exist somewhere else and they don't have any real power or affect society at large. Racism writ large is a thing of the past.

After all, that's what the white guy reading the news tells him. That's what his white friends tell him. That's what his politicians tell him - at least the white guy politicians he listens to and agrees with. The people saying otherwise are Black, and how much can we really trust them on the issue? They're just complaining because they can't succeed like he did. Further proof that something is wrong with them. And the white people (like me) who try to point out the evidence of systemic racism are merely deluded, self-hating liberals who got duped by those (inferior) Black people or are being manipulated by white politicians who are fighting racism solely to gain power. No need to engage with such people (or their evidence) because he already knows he's right.

And against such certainty, motivated by self-protection, I have come up against a brick wall. I don't know how to reach people like him. I suppose I ought to keep trying, that we could still be friends because of our other shared interests and ability to discuss trivial matters in a inconsequential way. If he'd never shown me what he believes I probably would have never asked and our friendship would be fine. But once that window to the soul is opened it cannot be closed. I cannot ask how his 401k is doing without wondering how much of his wealth comes at the expense of others. I cannot hear him praise his Black boss at work without wondering if he voted in favor of increasing our carceral state that disproportionately targets Black youths. I don't really want to be friends with anyone who is willingly doing harm to others, even it's just through willful ignorance. Maybe that's my failing. Or maybe too many of us white folk are willing to keep letting things slide on the unrealistic hope that ignoring the problem will lead to incremental progress which will ultimately reach the goal. But we know that isn't true. We know that ignoring a problem, denying evidence, and resisting change is never the way to improvement. Maybe those of us who desire change need to continue to make ourselves and our friends uncomfortable. Maybe we all need to face a little loss, be it losing friends or losing face. Maybe the truth is what we all need, because racism is true.

Sunday, January 10, 2021

The Fight for Democracy: False Equivalencies

I’ve seen a lot of people deflecting any real discussion of the seriousness of the incidents at the Capitol this week by comparing them to the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer, and I think it’s necessary to point out some truths to address it.

Many people start with: ‘all violence is wrong’. But that’s not true, at least not for Americans. We are a country literally established by a violent overthrow of an existing government. Some of our proudest moments as a nation come from violence, whether collaborative action of the state (winning WWII) or actions of individuals (churchgoer kills gunman). We lionize our military and the trope of the plucky underdog defeating the oppressive authorities through violence is core to our national identity. The most popular movie franchise in history (MCU) is built around the joy of seeing the good guy beat up the bad guy. Americans love violence - as long as they feel it’s justified.

The next step in the comparison is to decry ALL crime. Surely you liberals will agree breaking the law is definitely bad? No, not really. Look up that American Revolution and you’ll see it was illegal. Slavery was legal; Harriett Tubman was a criminal. Martin Luther King, Jr., the very model of proper protesting BLM is asked to follow, was arrested dozens of times. McCarthyism was legal. The shooting of Tamir Rice was deemed legal. Legal does not equal moral or just. Once again, we Americans know this, we just don’t like to admit it because it leads to the next point.

What makes right or wrong is subjective, which requires nuance and examination, and us Americans (especially on social media) don’t like nuance.  If the ‘reasonable middle’ crowd make it this far, they will simply say that since it’s subjective, both sides must be equally right (or equally wrong). But that’s not true either. There is such a thing as objective reality and we, as a society, constantly define what is considered right. The earth is not flat. We did land on the moon. Climate Change is driven by human actions and the Theory of Evolution has been proven true even if it has theory in its name. And just because someone believes they are right does not make their actions just. Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof thought they were right, but we know they were wrong.

These generalizations lead us back to the specifics of this week and this summer. The cries of hypocrisy when liberals won’t denounce BLM. The deflection from the Right to minimize the failed coup because a bunch of other people protested over something else. It’s all to avoid examining what has really happened and where blame really lies. So let’s examine.

The BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. Thousands of protests with less than 5% leading to any violence. Millions of protestors with less than 1% being violent. And of that violence, the part directed at people came from the State - police shooting rubbing bullets and teargas at peaceful crowds; physically assaulting citizens for standing still and asking for justice. The violence from the protestors was directed at property. The rioting and looting people decry only harmed things; it only served to disrupt commerce.

And what is the BLM movement’s justification for their actions? What is their goal? They seek to end racial bias in our criminal justice system. A bias that is objectively true - you can argue its causes or importance, but the data overwhelmingly proves bias exists. Their protests seek to draw attention to a wrong that society admits is a wrong; they seek to drive us into action to rectify that wrong by encouraging political change through the ballot box and legislature - exactly how our society approves such change. It’s the only way America has been forced to improve since its founding.

The storming of our Capitol, on the other hand, was based on blatant lies. Its justification is the claim that Trump won the election which he demonstrably lost by a wide margin. It’s based on claims of mass voter fraud which have been investigated by all levels of law enforcement and scrutinized by all levels of our courts and found to be baseless. The political right is built on the lies of their leaders who do so for their own political machinations. Justification cannot be built off of deliberate misrepresentations of reality.

The violence of the right is also of a different nature. Whether it’s the storming of the Capitol or the plot to kidnap a governor, the violence is directed at people and institutions of democracy. The violent mobs killed a police officer on Wednesday and posed a very clear threat to the lives of our elected officials, going so far as to erect a gallows on the Capitol steps. Its goal is to interrupt the functioning of our government and the peaceful transfer of power to the legitimate winners of elections. By its very nature, right-wing violence seeks to impose the will of a minority government over the voice of the people. It’s as anti-American as you can get.

There is no equivalency between the protests for racial justice and the insurrection at our Capitol, and any argument otherwise is fundamentally dishonest, even if those who make it are lying to themselves. Either way, we do not need to entertain it and should dismiss it out of hand.

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

That's Not the Choice You Think It Is

 A common argument I hear about inequalities in the US is that it's all a matter of choice. If you make good choices, you will be successful in life. If you make bad choices, you won't. There's even a lot of data used to back this up: if you finish high school, don't use drugs, and don't have children young and out of wedlock, your chances of succeeding are really good. It seems like an obvious answer - personal choice determines outcomes - since it's true for most of the people making the argument, and they use it as an argument against programs that help out the poor. Their solution is people should just choose to be successful like they did. But choice is not what you think it is.

First, it ignores the many cases where choice clearly isn't the main determinant of outcome. Even the data shows that a significant portion of people who make all the right choices still end up in bad situations. People who are poor because a cancer diagnosis wiped out their savings. People who can't work because a car accident left them with a traumatic brain injury. Even if these things represent a small percentage, that's still millions of people who need support even if they made good choices. And if you try to set up a program to help those in need, but tie that help to sorting out who is 'deserving' vs. who is not, then you inevitably open a can of worms that leads to less efficiency and less help overall. Helping people without judgment is not only a better moral position but a more effective policy.

But let's get back to those personal choices. People make choices in specific environments under specific circumstances and those are not all equal. For a kid growing up in a white suburb, with a decent school system and middle-class parents, the decision to finish high school is a no-brainer. It's what's expected of them, all their friends are doing it, and it's the path of least resistance. But to a poor kid in a neighborhood filled with gangs, a poorly funded school, a single-parent who never finished high school, and a bunch of older neighborhood kids who don't graduate, finishing high school must seem like an impossible challenge that no one expects them to accomplish. Their choice is simply much different, much more difficult and they shouldn't be judged for it the same way the middle-class kid is.

And it's also very true that the consequences for bad choices are not the same for everyone. Avoiding drugs is a pretty big indicator for success, but I know a ton of successful white guys who smoked a lot of pot in high school and college (and still do to this day). They never faced any consequences for their bad choice. They never even feared consequences. But Black Americans are three times more likely to get arrested for using marijuana. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine (used more often by Black Americans) are seven times stiffer than those for powdered cocaine (used more often by white Americans). If the consequences for making bad choices fall unequally on a certain group then using choice as your criteria for judging outcomes is biased.

Making good choices is the best way to find success, but blaming people's failures on their personal choices is not at all an accurate or fair way to pass judgment. And since that is the case, using such judgments to restrict programs meant to help those in need is simply an exercise in bias and an excuse to be cruel. We can pat ourselves on the back for getting where we are without using our other hand to beat down those less fortunate than us.

Monday, September 14, 2020

The Fight for Democracy 2020: Why Should You Care?

Look, I get it. Politics sucks. Especially on social media. We’re all tired of the stupid memes, the clickbait stories, the anger and invective. Talking politics pisses everyone off and it doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Both sides are awful and none of it matters. We are all struggling with our own problems and working our butts off to keep our heads above water and maybe, just maybe, have a little fun and see what our friends and family are up to. When we talk politics it kills the buzz and puts everyone on edge. And there aren’t nearly as many cool kayaking videos as there used to be. I hear you.

I used to tune out politics too. Used to not bother to vote. Which side controlled which part of the government didn’t affect my life to any large degree so why should I bother? It certainly made life simpler and more pleasant for me. And it didn’t seem to hurt me in any way I noticed. Just ignore it and leave the details to all those ‘activists’. Live my life, be kind to my neighbors, and let the world take care of itself.

Then I started to pay more attention to what those ‘activists’ were saying. I started to listen to the stories from the people who couldn’t afford to ignore politics because it puts their very existence at risk. I studied the facts and figures showing how many people are suffering under conservative policies, and how effective government intervention can be for the most marginalized. And even if I didn’t know those people personally, it became very clear that politics does matter to the material lives of many of my fellow citizens. It can be a force to improve their health and happiness, to recognize their humanity and struggle, and to make our world better; or it can dehumanize people, leave them to suffer or die, and destroy our culture and environment for generations to come. It might not have immediate and obvious costs for me, but politics really does matter and my role in it, however small, is important and necessary. Because to turn away and willfully ignore those who are suffering - that is a political choice in and of itself.

You should care that 200,000 Americans, disproportionately People of Color, have died unnecessarily from a virus our current Administration has done little to prevent or remedy. You should care that Black Americans are twice as likely to be killed by police and face racial bias in every aspect of our criminal justice system (not to mention in healthcare, housing, employment, etc).  You should care that 84 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured and our current administration is actively fighting to make it worse, including a legal battle to let insurers ban people for pre-existing conditions. You should care that gay couples only recently got the right to marry and one of our political parties wants to rescind that right. That same party wants to ban Transgender Americans from military service, they support banning people of certain religions from entering our country, and they have no moral qualms locking up brown-skinned kids in cages and permanently separating them from their parents. You should care that the world is hotter, storms are bigger, and our climate is changing in dangerous ways which we CAN stop if our government takes a lead and makes changes. Maybe none of these things affect you directly and immediately, but they will affect us all sooner or later. If you don’t care for yourself you should still care for the others, for those who suffer now and future generations who will suffer later. And you can do something simple to help. Vote. Vote for Democrats. Vote for an imperfect party that won’t solve all the problems but will help many of those in need. It takes so little of you to do that but it means so much to many. Show you care because you can. Because I believe you do.

Saturday, June 13, 2020

My Journey on Race

[1970’s] I grew up a white boy in a white farm town in Minnesota. There was literally one Black kid in school. The only other Black people I saw were on TV. Race wasn’t an issue because it didn’t seem to exist. Racism was an abstract concept, like an alligator, or monsoon. I was happy in a selfish way like all children should be. That isn’t to say it was ideal. Far from it. My lack of personal interactions with People of Color made them something foreign. Not to be feared or looked down upon - my parents made it clear everyone was inherently worthy of my respect and friendship regardless of their skin color - but simply something unknown. And if you don’t know something it’s hard to care about it. [1980’s] When I got to a larger high school which was slightly more diverse, I was still surrounded by whiteness. I took AP classes and played on the tennis team - no People of Color so no racism to be found (I’ve later learned how absence can be the best proof of existence). By this point I realized some people were racist, but it seemed like an isolated, individual thing. Not my concern. My social studies and history classes taught us the evils of slavery and segregation, but they were clearly THINGS IN THE PAST. So much real history and current events which would have revealed a darker, less flattering picture of my country and peers was left out without comment. I’m not sure how much the lack of color in the student body directly related to the slant of the curriculum. I’m sure some, but I also think the historical failings of America are always taught as someone else’s fault - for us we were the good northern whites, for others they were the noble southerners who opposed slavery but revered states’ rights. Whatever the excuse, nothing and no one ever really opened me up to the perspective of the marginalized and oppressed. All my education came from white people and was geared to assuage White Guilt. At the time it seemed simple truth. Only a sheltered high school kid would think truth was simple. [1990’s] After growing up in a small town, I moved to the big city of St. Paul for college. A liberal school with a large international population nestled in among old mansions and a growing Hmong community. Much more diverse than where I grew up, but not in a representative way. My dorm neighbor freshman year was a Black guy from Chicago. He was also wealthy, came from an elite private academy, a hell of a sharp dresser and made the ladies swoon. He seemed better off than me. I studied physics and continued playing tennis and was mostly surrounded by white people much like myself. The one Black kid on the tennis team had grown up around the world with diplomat parents. He had attended famous tennis academies, had private coaches, and was the #1 player on the team whereas I was a scrub on the bench. He wasn’t my equal - he was my better. Racism didn’t seem to have had much effect on those around me. Of course, this wasn’t true. I never really bothered to learn the whole stories of those two gentlemen, or any of the other People of Color at my school, but in retrospect I’m sure they faced all kinds of challenges which would have stopped me cold. I failed to grasp that perhaps the reason why those Black students seemed so exceptional was because it took exceptional circumstances and character for them to make it to the same place where my generic, middle-class, white-ass education had brought me. A same result isn’t proof of similar ability if the testing conditions aren’t equal. Graduate school brought me to Los Angeles, a more diverse city overall but not necessarily where I landed. My physics program had no Black students or instructors and campus was across the street from Bel Air. While the neighborhood had many more shades of brown, it didn’t have much Black. For the most part everyone I knew seemed colorblind and accepting of others and there just wasn’t any pressing need for me to look beyond my own experience. After graduate school I eventually landed in middle management in a private education company in the same neighborhood. I was in charge of hiring instructors and part time staff and I never once considered race when interviewing. I made decisions based on experience and credentials - and gut instinct. Let’s not forget that every hiring manager knows they have to trust their gut when considering candidates. I didn’t really consider how my ‘gut’ always seemed to favor people who looked like me and came from similar circumstances. Those with a shared community and vocabulary. But I wasn’t racist, so that was fine, right? Implicit bias is a hell of a drug. Looking back I think my track record on dealing with the people who showed up for jobs was fine. But I never really questioned exactly how those people made it in the door and why so few Black people even applied. I certainly never did anything to expand our pool of applicants. I never did any outreach to the Black community or sought to make our company’s services more readily available to the disadvantaged. We helped people get into schools, but only if they could afford us. That’s capitalism and I was there to make money for the company. I never looked at how centuries of systemic racism, redlining, school segregation, and just plain racist people have greatly limited wealth and economic opportunity in the Black community. I looked at what was in front of me and tried to treat everyone equally without stepping back to see the inequality which starts at the beginning of every Black life and which I perpetuated. Making society better, more fair, was extra work and no one paid me to do it so I didn’t even think of the option. It’s so easy to be a good guy in a bad system as long as you aren’t the one being harmed. [2000’s] Nearing my thirties, working in middle management for a company focused on helping mostly the privileged, and with lots of opportunities for advancement - I bailed on my career. Capitalism wasn’t my thing so I pursued my new sport: kayaking. If anything, kayaking is whiter than the tennis I had played in high school and college. Kayaking became my job (instructor), my hobby, and my source of friends and acquaintances. All white. My holdover connections from the past were overly educated white people or tenuous connections to my childhood white farming community. I didn’t have any personal connections to the Black community or any compelling reason to learn about it. A solid decade of pursuing my self interest led to very little interest in the rest of society. But it’s not like I wasn’t aware. The internet really changed how information came in, and even before our current overload of social media it was impossible for me not to soak up what was happening in the rest of the world. It was impossible to live in society, interacting with others, catching snippets of the news, having small talk with random people, and not see the truth. In politics, social justice, economic welfare, racial equality - they were all a hot mess where those with advantage used it to take more advantage. Inequality, discrimination, and injustice were everywhere and obvious and I no longer wanted to be a part of such a stupid and cruel system. I bailed on society. Of course, that’s perhaps the greatest example of privilege there is. I had the resources to do nothing but eke by a meager living and spend only on myself. The freedom to ignore the evils of society because they weren’t visited upon me. Some years I technically lived in poverty, but I never felt poor. I was a well-educated white guy and if I wanted to make money I could always get a job. If I really needed something I had family and friends who would help me (and could afford to). It wasn’t that I had done anything special to have such resources available. Just by who I was born to and how my skin color had smoothed my way through life, flowing around obstacles and intermingling with other like-colored individuals, I accumulated a vast wealth of social capital that allowed me to step away from any responsibility to anyone outside my insular bubble. I could afford to be selfish. The world doesn’t give that same opportunity to everyone and eventually I’d have to confront that fact. [2010’s] My life changed in many ways when I hit my forties and decided to turn my hobby of writing into a new career. I studied the craft of writing, and that included reading widely and listening to different voices. In the past, the stories I read were often centered on straight, white, male heroes. People like me. And the authors who wrote those stories were usually the same. As I branched out, I discovered so many new stories and perspectives. So much wonderful talent and humanity. And if I wanted to write more than self-insert hero fantasies, I needed to understand and appreciate the full diversity of real-world people in order to bring it to my characters and books. But what started as an effort to improve my work became a chance to improve myself. Fiction tends to hold the truth up in a way that makes it clearer than reality. It also led me to many great people who happened to be authors of color. I became aware of marginalized communities as individual people, and once you start to see people it’s hard not to listen to them. And I heard the same stories of discrimination and prejudice over and over again. Black kids who had no access to decent textbooks, much less AP courses. Black authors who continually get praised for speaking so well, as if it’s a surprise someone with their skin color can be eloquent. Black physicists who still get mistaken for waiters when they show up at a fancy dinner in a tuxedo. In a myriad of ways, in every aspect of life, the experience of being Black in America was so much different from my own, with so many more obstacles that no one should have to overcome. But those were just stories. Still a scientist at heart, I wanted data. I read articles and books, both scholarly and journalistic. I followed modern Black activists and learned more about their predecessors. I paid attention to the details. What I found didn’t just confirm the stories but expanded on the injustice in deeper ways. From the implicit bias which makes white educators look at Black children as more responsible for their actions compared to white kids, and white doctors believe Black patients are more pain tolerant so they under-prescribe painkillers. To the explicit bias of racial profiling in everything from traffic stops to mortgage loans. I learned about redlining and how our capitalistic system allowed the white people with money to force segregation upon Blacks while making a profit from it (segregation which is actually getting worse today). I learned about the Tulsa massacre, the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, and the Jon Burge scandal in the Chicago PD. I learned how the Black Panthers started the idea of free breakfasts for school children while the FBI worked hard to get them killed. Through it all I found statistic after statistic that showed Black Americans were behind in nearly every measure of success, from wealth to health, from crime to education, and even in simple human respect. And if Black Americans are behind, the obvious question is why? What could explain such discrepancies? I could only come up with two general answers: 1. Systemic racism. If our society has a racial bias that exists in the majority group, the ones who currently hold, and have always held, wealth, power, and influence, then it would create an uneven playing field which would result in unequal results. 2. Black people are somehow inferior. Whether it’s genetics or culture, it would take some across-the-board fundamental deficiency in Black people to explain why they are behind in so many areas of life. When looking for an answer, my training has taught me to go for the simplest theory which explains all the data. That led me to number one. Because there are all kinds of problems and deficiencies with number two. Aside from being the basic definition of racism, blaming Black people for their problems doesn’t really explain a lot of the data. It doesn’t explain why police arrest Blacks at three times the rate of whites for marijuana possession even though they both use it at the same rate. It doesn’t explain why Black women with the same education and experience get paid less for doing the same job as white women, even if the Black women score better on every job metric. It doesn’t explain why so many people believed a Harvard educated American Christian was a Kenyan Muslim simply because he became President (and had brown skin). But racism explains it all. Subtle racism like we see in our everyday lives and on social media. Overt racism like we saw in Charlottesville. Institutional racism like we see our criminal justice and healthcare systems. The truth is we all know racism was prevalent in the founding of our country. We all know it existed in law and practice well after the Civil War. We certainly didn’t end it in a generation - most of today’s political leaders were born before the Civil Rights Act was passed. In America, racism is the default and it should be assumed until someone can present a ton of evidence showing it no longer exists. I’ve never seen that evidence. Racism is the inescapable truth at the end of the road. I’m still not done with my journey. I’m not perfect. I don’t know it all and I don’t do enough to help fight injustice. I have racist thoughts and say racist things without knowing it. But I’m trying to be better. I try to fight my implicit biases and listen to others when I’m called out. I try to be anti-racist instead of silently complicit. I try to be an ally and raise up voices from the Black community. I think less of myself than I used to but I’m more at peace with who I am, flaws and all. And that is what I’d like people to take away from my journey. Not so much about me and where I’m at, but that it’s worthwhile to do the work. It’s worth it to admit ignorance and be uncomfortable around a topic. It’s time well spent listening to others, especially those who are different from you, and offering them the basic kindness of understanding. It’s worth it to enrich ourselves but more importantly it’s necessary for the well-being of our Black brothers and sisters. We owe it to them because Black Lives Matter. Always. We can’t change where we started but we don’t have to be stuck where we are. We all have a journey and it starts with one step. Be brave. Listen.

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

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.

Monday, April 27, 2020

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.



Friday, March 27, 2020

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.

Monday, March 9, 2020

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?

Monday, March 2, 2020

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.



Sunday, November 17, 2019

Analogies: Ultralight Philosophy

I used to do a fair bit of backpacking, starting when I was a kid when we had these large, metal frames that you just tied everything to and it all hung off your back. When I got older the packs got better and the gear got smaller and you could fit most of your stuff inside (though the whole thing was still just nylon covering up a big metal frame). At some point I discovered the ultralight backpacking movement and the simple idea made so much sense: make everything lighter and it will be easy to carry and the experience will be better. Who could argue with that?

At first it was easy to do: replace my 7 pound heavy-duty backpack with a 3 pound midsize model. Replace my 5 pound solo tent with a 2 pound bivy sack. Lighter sleeping bag, sleeping pad, cook stove; fewer clothes and no luxury items (no books!). It didn't take much to cut my base weight in half. Backpacking became easier. I could go farther into the backcountry with less effort and enjoy myself more. But could I do even better?

I started visiting lightweight backpacking forums and reading about cutting weight as a philosophy (or religion, the way some folks talked about it). It became clear that if you really wanted to minimize your load you needed to obsess over every ounce. People talked about making their own stoves out of recycled soda cans to save a couple ounces. Cutting the handle off their toothbrushes to save half an ounce. Even removing tags from clothing which saved so little weight it couldn't be measured. I started down the path and cut a couple more pounds off my base weight in a quest for the ultimate goal: an under-10-poung base weight.

But then I realized something. I didn't actually notice much difference between a 10-pound base weight and a 12-pound base weight. If I cut the handle off my toothbrush it made brushing my teeth messy and annoying. If I cut the tags off my clothing I would save less weight than the dirt that gathered on my shoes during a day's hiking. And most importantly, if I spent all my time obsessing about weight I didn't spend my time planning and enjoying my trips.

So I started adding weight. Not much, but just the things that were important to me and made my experience more pleasurable. A real toothbrush. A stove that was easy to use and required no maintenance. A book - maybe two! I was still a lightweight backpacker but I wasn't a zealot. By making the changes that saved the most weight - the big-ticket items - I made a significant difference without too much inconvenience, but at some point the changes had very minor effects on my goal (less weight) but greatly diminished my enjoyment of the activity.

This idea can be applied in many ways but I see it as most important when discussing climate change and what we, as individuals, can do to help fight it. A lot of people obsess over small details (plastic straws and food wrappers) without considering the big-ticket items. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, start by finding out how much carbon you create in various aspects of your life - a good place to start is the UN carbon footprint calculator: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. If you're composting your food, that's great, but if you fly to Europe for a vacation you've burned through more carbon than a thousand years of composting will save. Start by reducing the largest sources of emissions: drive less (or electric), fly less, eat less meat and more local foods. Sure, shop with reusable bags and buy bulk if it works for you, but don't inconvenience yourself over ounces before you cut down on the pounds.

It's okay to release some carbon into the environment - your personal actions aren't going to destroy the world, neither are they going to save it. Do what you can, do the big things first, and realize the only effective solutions to the problem writ large need to come from large organizations (nation-states, corporations, societies), so maybe spend a little more time and effort to put people into power who will make the necessary changes there. Voting Democratic and encouraging others to do the same is a more significant contribution in the fight to stop climate change than any individual action you can take.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Has Feminism Gone Too Far?

To make this simple: the answer is yes. Yes, feminism has gone too far. So has diversity. And so has religious freedom, free speech, and even M&M colors. Every movement, idea, and cause goes too far for the simple reason that people are human and plentiful. Complex ideas (and even some simple ones) exists on a spectrum and in a large group there will be a range of understandings and acceptances of such ideas, so there is no single, coherent idea to measure, and even if there were there would be no perfect level that pleased everyone. Everything ends up going too far by someone's measure.

That's why most of those 'too far' articles or discussions are problematic. They're not meant to fairly evaluate or consider whether something is a good idea and useful to society - the concept of 'too far' is simply a way to discredit something you do not like. Afraid of feminism? Just throw out the most extreme example you can find and use it to smear everyone and everything associated with the term. Some random self-proclaimed feminist said she wants to kill all men - feminism has gone too far!. Don't like the Black Lives Matter movement but afraid to admit that Black lives don't matter to you? Well then, point out that some people at a BLM protest said something inappropriate and pretend that it represents the true cause and viewpoint of everyone involved. 'Too far' is a simple rhetorical trick to get people to agree with you on one thing and then make the logical jump (which actually is not reasonable at all) to your larger point.

The real question that should be asked is whether or not something is, by and large, helpful and correct, or if it is morally dubious and damaging. But that's harder. Feminism is the idea that women deserve equal rights and treatment - how do you dispute that? Diversity movements simply want a world free of racism and discrimination, but that's a good thing so how can I find a way to complain it's no longer so advantageous to be a straight, white, male? The fact that people have to resort to extreme examples in an attempt to smear a broad concept shows the weakness in their position.

So the way to answer when a headline asks if something has gone too far is to reframe their question: what are they trying to sell? Stop making simplistic assumptions and don't accept motivated reasoning as a valid logical construct. Don't impose ideological purity tests on opposing viewpoints that you can't pass with your own. There will always be someone or some application of an idea that goes beyond where it should and what we agree with, but that does not invalidate the idea itself or all the people who espouse it. Feminism is good. Diversity is good. Blue M&M's are too far!