Category: Uncategorized

We are more than halfway through 2021 and it is once again time to review my reading habits. After quarter one, I set the following goal:

In the second quarter, I plan to forward my goals set in December by reading more about Church history, one or two books about food, and something that is philosophically challenging.

Overall, I’d rate myself an B on my overall reading habits for the quarter. I spent too long on a few books I didn’t enjoy (should have quit) and did not read for nearly a full week. In the third quarter, I plan to put down books that do not intrest me.

Here is my, non-exhaustive list, of what I read in the second quarter of this year with a one or two sentence review:

• Murder Up My Sleeve/Case of the Smoking Chimney – Erle Stanley Gardner Gardner remains one of my favorite authors and shockingly modern for pre-war serial fiction. Highly recommend for a summer “beach read.”
• The Grail – Brian Doyle Largely reads as an advertisement for Lange Pinot Noir, and it worked.
• The Drunken Botanist – Amy Stewart Cute. Better to read short intervals rather than cover-to-cover.
• Tulipomania – Mike Dash Interesting throughout. The most socking element to be was how rapidly the Netherlands went from poor to incredibly wealthy, when compared to the rest of the West.
• Nature, Man and Woman – Alan Watts Grating, out of touch.
• Lewis Carroll Selected Poems – Lewis Carroll Interesting look at Carroll’s development as a poet. Otherwise worth skipping.
• Thank You Jeeves – P.G Wodehouse Funny throughout. Written for its time.
• Song of Achilles/Circe- Madeline Miller Both are hauntingly beautiful. Song of Achilles, in particular, adds new focus and perspective to my limited knowledge of the Greek Myths.
• Church History in Plain Language – Bruce Shelly I am still looking for a text that helps outline the differences held by each denomination, and the reason each came into being, this is not that text. It was too clear that Shelly has a protestant bias from the beginning.
• An Arsonists Guide to Writers Homes in New England – Brock Clarke Cute idea, terrible characters. Should have put it down.

Given the weather from July-September calls for vacation, beaches, and outdoor reading, I plan to read a number of light fiction novels, young adult fiction, and whimsical nonfiction. I plan to read nightly, but will commit to putting down any book that does not bring me joy.

At the beginning of the year, I decided to commit to writing a blog through the end of the year. My goal was to publish weekly, at a minimum, and primarily write about education, design, economics, and future predictions.

I fell short of my goal of weekly publishing, and almost lost interest after moving in October. After the move, I spent the time I previously dedicated to blogging in the kitchen, learning to sew (work in progress), or tinkering in the garage.

When blogging regularly, I wrote more about politics and current events than I anticipated I would. The writing quality and amount of preparation for each post varied greatly. Overall, I think the predictions I made were pretty good, I underestimated COVID, but could not have been more correct about Herman Miller.

Based on number of page views, I consider Sad Thoughts from a Happy Achievement my most underrated post, and a Few Dream Interviews as the most overrated.

My average post length was about 700 words, which broadly meets an average newspaper article length, but longer than my ideal. My writing style and grammatical accuracy did not improve throughout the year, but this blog accounted for almost all of my writing outside of my employment.

Overall, I’d give myself a B- for the year. Inconsistency and the number of discarded posts (started but not published) prevent a higher grade.

I haven’t decided if I will set goals to blog in 2021, but I am committed to blogging through January or until I find a more suitable creative outlet.

I started this series by admitting that I am not the right person to discuss the experiences of those who led to the protests for equal justice. I am not equipped to speak to the structural and systemic mistreatment of black people in this country. This post has been the hardest for me to write, because I planned to focus only on the tactical elements of the current civil unrest, now that appears calloused and ignorant. Although I still plan to focus on the tactics and lessons learned from the first two posts in this series (Please read 1 and 2 first), I must start by acknowledging my full support for the current protest and for criminal justice reform in the United States.

Minnesota Goddamn. Although I don’t have the data to support my claim long term, this round feels different. Most Americans support the protests over the killing of George Floyd. That wasn’t true during the Ferguson protests. Hopefully this time brings substantive policy change. For the rest of this post, I won’t spend much time on the background of the protests. Watch the video of his death, it’s more powerful than what I will provide.   

Why would this time be different? 

It seems like the nation protests for equal justice every couple of years to little benefit; is it my optimism or are there valid reasons to be excited this time? 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 saw national protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Often these protests resulted in an offending police officer fired, they did not result in systemic change.  

There are a few reasons that this time is likely different:

• People are dissatisfied with the COVID-19 related lockdown and want to be part of something 
• The US has a mass of unemployed people between 18-35 
• Success in unrelated protests
• General political dissatisfaction
• Fatigue from past offenses 
• Low risks for civil action (e.g loss of job, negative social consequence)
• Proliferation of cameras and social media 

To phrase my list as a story: This time will be different because we have a ton of young adults that have no jobs to prevent them from attending protests, do not need to choose between civil protest and bars/restaurants/sporting events, want to leave their house and do something, have watched a number of atrocities committed by police and have finally internalized the message “Black Lives Matter” and are not worried about the political ramifications of speaking out because they hate the US president and have the lowest trust in government of their lives. 

What could prevent change?

There are two primary risks that may prevent change:

• COVID lockdowns cease and it becomes harder to convince masses to protest at scheduled times
• Footage of looting and rioting reduces popular support for the act of in-person protests enough to weaken the entire “Black Lives Matter” momentum

In both cases the result of the risk realised is that the protests and movement once again become a “black” issue without enough popular support to affect change. Unfortunately these two risks cannot be mitigated by the movement. Protest organizers cannot prevent governments from opening to disincentivize protests and even if 100% of people that protest are peaceful, there will be others who want to capitalize on the mass of people (e.g. agent provocateurs, social media opportunists, and criminals hoping to steal) that will result in riot footage. If the two risks above are avoided, there are others to be aware of:

• Over-willingness to compromise
• Nebulous aims prevent focused change
• Over-politicization of the movement
• Discouragement due to lack of progress
• Hope that things will improve with time

Of the additional risks, the last one is the most subtle and perhaps the most concerning. After a spike in 2015, shootings by police have fallen each year. The Wall Street Journal already published an opinion denying a widespread racial bias in killings by police. For those that are lukewarm allies, finding incremental improvement may serve as a drop-off point for their support.

Lessons to Apply:

The first two posts in the series provide a framework for mitigating the major and minor risks to the justice equality and black lives matter movements. The Hong Kong protests have continued, unwaveringly for a year. They promise to continue unless five goals are met. Malcolm X’s legacy remains a topic of debate for the general public, but there is a reason that he stands out in a movement full of brilliant leaders fighting for positive change. 

What are the lessons from those posts that should be applied to the protests in the US?

• Make the goals of the protest and the movement widely known
• Make clear demands that can be reasonably met
  • Ensure all centrally planned activities relate to the goals and demands of the protests
• Continuously produce content that is easy for the general public to digest and share
• Protest for and not against
• Do not rely on politics alone
• Give society a worse alternative to your demands

The protests in Hong Kong have perfectly adapted to a world of social media. The protesters came to a consensus on five demands and have remained remarkably consistent for over a year. Each week I see new videos of the protesters dealing with tear gas, being held subject to a new law, or sharing new social media posts. These updates keep the protests relevant and digestible. The fact that the protesters only have five demands that all could reasonably be met by China prevents extremists from co-opting their message. The five demands also allow the protests to have a defined exit criteria, preventing burnout from the protestors. 

Although in all protests one expects to see us vs them language, popular support will coalesce behind messages for something. In this case protesting for equal justice and reform will hold more public support than protesting against the police. With a generally accepted message and clear demands the movement can grow without being attached to the worst conduct of a protest. 

To this point in the framework, I’ve focused on making the movement something that will keep and maintain public support, but I don’t want to lose the lessons that we should take from Malcolm X. Be prepared for the protests to get worse and don’t fully distance the movement from the looting and negative outcomes. I am not advocating violence, but it is clear to me that the threat of doing nothing to improve criminal justice outcomes must be greater to society as a whole than allowing the status quo to continue. Block roads, protest in busy areas, make life difficult in targeted ways even if it limits public support for the protests. The demands are reasonable. And if nothing improves by November, but a wave of Democrats are elected, don’t stop.

Unfortunately, “black” issues and concerns generally do not gain political traction after an election. There are many reasons for this and they deserve their own post (urban concentration, low % of voting pop, assumed Democratic, etc.) but elections will not solve police brutality, nor unfortunately will they solve many of the other systemic issues facing black people today. 

But have faith:

“Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.”

This is the second in a three-part series on the current protests. Read What’s Next for Taiwan before this post.

I went to college at a majority-white liberal arts college in small-town Indiana (probably didn’t need to include majority-white). At this majority-white college I was a member of the Malcolm X Institute of Black Studies (virtue-signaling, I know). Malcolm X, not Martin Luther King. 

As a freshman, I didn’t understand why the college would glorify Malcolm X. Now it seems obvious. Early this year, Netflix released a documentary, “Who Killed Malcolm X?” The documentary spiked interest in Malcolm X at the beginning of the year and surfaced the debate about his legacy that has raged for more than 50 years. 

As a freshman in college, I considered Malcolm X as a violent radical. A foil for the saintly Malcolm Luther King. Malcolm X prevented progress. MLK fostered change.

Malcolm X scared white America. Malcolm X scared Christian Americans. The Civil Rights movement coincided with the Vietnam and Algerian Wars abroad. The Vietnam War first saw the integration of white and black troops. The Algerian War proved that black people could fight for, and win, independence and equality from an empire. Black militarization domestically led to a series of gun laws aimed at limiting black gun ownership.  

Malcolm X desired more than integration, he fought for equality. He was willing to fight by any means necessary, violence was a tool–but it was not the only tool. Now we arrive at the thesis for this post: Martin Luther King and the peaceful civil rights movement would not have been successful without organizers such as Malcolm X demanding more and threatening to use any means necessary. 

Martin Luther King strove for equality, but chose tactical battlegrounds (integration of schools, businesses, and police protection). He was willing to work with lawmakers and civic leaders for incremental progress toward a grand vision. Malcolm X was not, Malcolm X rejected the label of a civil rights activist because “if one is a citizen, one should not have to fight for one’s civil rights.” He rejected any movement that strove for incremental change. By challenging integration as a primary goal, Malcolm X threatened to undermine the tenuous support that mainstream civil rights leaders were receiving from the government and white liberals (the Guardian). 

American leaders were presented with two options: work with Martin Luther King and improve the relative position of the black community, or face a community that will fight, unrelenting and by any means necessary, for equality. Not just equal rights, but equality. In Malcolm X’s words, “the people need to listen to Dr. King, or they will have to listen to my alternative.” 

The people heeded that advice. Malcolm X’s legacy remains tarnished because the “people” grew to accept MLK’s path forward. A nonviolent, incremental path. Would the “people” have grown to accept MLK if Malcolm X (and others) did not present a worse alternative?

I recognize the view stated above is reductionist, and fails to recognize the struggles of the black community, the atrocities committed by a ruling party, and the need for incremental change; however, it was not stated to minimize the experience of the black community. The goal of this post is to provide a framework, based on my thesis, to think about social change:

People will always do what is convenient and comfortable. One cannot expect people in power to relinquish that power based on their own virtues if it will lessen their status and their comfort. Change requires stimulus and the threat of worse outcomes given the status quo.

Continued in part 3: How to think about the Twin Cities (Protest Series 3 of 3)

Disclaimer:

I have neither the experience nor vocabulary to write about the experience of people that led to the protests we see in Minnesota and throughout the US. Too many are writing too well on the topic for me to add value or context concerning the needs and desired outcomes for the current protests. 

Instead, I want to offer a three-part review that focuses on the political and societal conditions that encourage, maintain, and resolve civil unrest, in the hope that it helps others, who may also lack the experience to understand the current situations.

In April 2019, the ruling party of China passed an extradition bill that would allow China to extradite Hong Kongese criminal suspects to mainland China. Protest erupted and, as of May 31 2020, have not ceased. Instead, the protestors and mainland China continue to fortify their positions (after the original bill was rescinded); The protestors issued five demands without room for compromise, and China continues to respond with laws that limit the freedom of the Hong Kongese. 

Hong Kong’s governance is unique. Although it is part of China, it has a (mostly) separate rule of law under the  “one country, two systems” model. That model is set to expire in 2047, and no one knows what will come after. The five demands do not include an extension of the current governing model. 

The people of Hong Kong are substantially better off than their Chinese counterparts living elsewhere(based on financial, heath and civil liberties outcomes). Shouldn’t they celebrate their position of relative health, wealth and happiness? They know it will probably end in 2047, right? Better to make the most of the time they have, and how does Taiwan fit into the picture?

The protests are especially resilient because the end or their special administration will end. The outcomes for each subsequent generation are looking worse and inequality is rising. Income inequality in Hong Kong is the highest in any developed city. Millions of poor youths are facing a future without hope. China’s intervention in politics and government represents a tangible representation of their fears. WIth no hope and therefore no repercussions, protests will and should run rampant.

Why should this concern Taiwan? The Taiwanese haven’t seen the level of civil unrest we see in Hong Kong and the government of Taiwan considers itself separate from China. When the people of Hong Kong started to protest, many western outlets shared their sympathies. Many rescinded those sympathies almost immediately. 

This list (worth opening) has a list of companies that apologized to China as of October 25,2019 for myriad reasons. Two reasons are most common: supporting the HK protests, and recognizing Taiwan’s independence. The Chinese market is more appealing to most corporations, than the government’s actions are abhorrent. Most foreign governments do not recognize Taiwan (nor Hong Kong) as separate from China; however, they will deal with Taiwan and Hong Kong separately for trade or travel restrictions. 

On May 27, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially recognized China’s authority over Hong Kong and refused to recognize any special administration. This move, intended or not, removed the legitimacy of the HK protests within the US.

Taiwan should watch closely. The current US administration has positioned itself as “America First” and appears to be unwilling to involve itself in regional foreign affairs. If China is able to assert more control over Hong Kong, Taiwan will be next. It should not expect US aid. The protests will not have brought any improvement, but that does not mean they were incorrect. If China backs off Hong Kong, Taiwan now has the playbook.  

Continued in posts 2 and 3.