A New President

There’s a new president as of yesterday. 

As I started writing this in the days leading up to the inauguration, I kept saying to myself, “we’re going to have a different president soon.” And I think he’ll be a new president; I don’t think he will be the same chief executive as last time. I am apprehensive, but I want to echo the words of Steve Kerr, whom I respect, in that I hope he does well. I hope he helps this country, because we need help. I have my doubts, but I will not sabotage the wellbeing of our country just because I don’t like our leader. 

I’ve never met Trump and probably never will, but I fear his fatal flaw as a leader: his inability to be wrong. Since 2016 when he entered politics, I’ve never seen him admit to being wrong or making a mistake. I’ve never heard him apologize. And that’s a terrible precedent to set for a country as its leader. Because we are all equal. The President of the United States is no more important a human than the child just born, than the immigrant who just entered the country. We are all human beings living on planet Earth in the year 2025.

We have the knowledge and technology to change, and if we only organize, we can change the world. We can ensure everyone on the planet has a means to eat and live. We can ensure everyone in the United States has opportunity to pursue a fulfilling, prosperous, healthy life. This is possible. We just have to believe it’s possible. If Trump aims to truly pursue this for the American people, then I will join him. But I need to see evidence first. Saying “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong” would be a good start. Maybe he can change.

I didn’t end up watching any of the inauguration or surrounding coverage. It’s not because I was so upset about the change in leadership. It was more… I was just over it. And I don’t like being in that place. I wrote a draft for a blog post back in late November asking, “are you still watching the news now that the election is over?” Well I’ve stopped. We get fatigued. Politics matters. Political action changes lives. But the industry makes everything a crisis. When everything is a crisis, you can only pay attention for so long. 

We’re not in a good place as a nation right now. Many are apathetic. Some are excited. We all own the responsibility of marshaling our thoughts and emotions to make this country better. I hope Trump can lead us to a better place. But along the way, I hope we all remember that we’re all American, we’re all human, and we all want the same things. We’re so much better off than our parents’ parents’ generation. Let’s continue building and making the world better. United in that pursuit, we can change the world.

What if we solve the Internet Problem?

I try my best to consume news that is balanced, or at least containing viewpoints across the political spectrum. It seems to just result in conflicting information. Sometimes it’s hard to know what to believe, to know what’s fake news, to identify mis or disinformation. When both "sides" speak so fervently about their position and vehemently attack each other, how do we determine the truth?

And then I thought: what if the world has always been like this? What if it’s always been difficult to know what to believe, if there's always been uncertainty? Perhaps that's not actually the problem—maybe it's a feature, not a bug. Perhaps the issue is not the divide itself, but the mechanism of information consumption, the consequences resulting from the amount and accessibility of information today. What if we just have a phone problem, an internet problem, not a polarization problem?

Internet cafe in Diqing, China near the Tibetan border - June 2013

The intensity of our rhetoric appears to have increased. It’s common for pundits or elected officials to make bold claims about what’s at stake. This is the most important election in the history of our country. Democracy is on the ballot this year. WE CANNOT LET THE OTHER SIDE WIN! Democrats and Republicans both regularly make such grandiose statements. Everything is a crisis. But this could be less of a sociological problem and more of a phone/internet problem.

I think back to my reading of Truman by David McCullough—there was a lot of mudslinging during the 1948 election between Harry S. Truman and Thomas E. Dewey. Sure, the language was more 'professional' than the language today. Many people blame Trump for that. But language changes. I’ve noticed my family swears more often in casual conversation now, which never happened when I was younger. We even swore in front of my Granny in the last few years of her life, something forbidden growing up. Similarly, there was mudslinging in the elections of the 1800’s too. Criticism of political opponents is not new.

But maybe the abrasiveness has increased, maybe the language has intensified. Are our phones to blame? We are constantly connected to the zeitgeist through our internet-capable mobile devices. Most people check their phones the moment they wake up and look at them throughout the whole day, only putting them down right before going to sleep. Compare that to 1948. Harry Truman ran a ‘whistle stop’ campaign, touring the country on a private train, stopping in tiny towns all across the contiguous United States, speaking to groups of a few hundred. Sometimes there were merely dozens of listeners. The press traveled with him, and the newspapers were the disseminators of information, the campaign updaters. News traveled slowly. Today, most people get alerts anytime anything ‘newsworthy’ happens. Information's travel time is negligible, with incessant updates occurring instantly after things happen, day after day after day.

Examining a red telephone box in Westminster - February 2023

The more recent democratization of news media means competition for your attention is fiercer than ever. Everyone knows the newspapers are dying; their business model can’t keep up with the technology of today. Independent news shows attract hundreds of thousands of daily consumers. There are thousands of podcasts and Youtube channels, Reddit threads and Twitter conversations, all competing for your attention. It’s disorganized, chaotic, and still new. We don’t yet know how to handle it.

But what if we did? Would solving this information overload actually solve our 'democracy crisis?' Would it decrease polarization? In other words, is the technology upstream from these sociological (and thus economic and political) consequences?

Our phones are not the devil. The internet shouldn’t be abolished. But survey after survey show we are increasingly stressed by, and concerned about, our relationship to technology and our obsession with our phones. Whereas information scarcity yields its own perils, the past twenty years show information overload has its own profound consequences. What if it’s as simple as solving the internet problem? What if we change our approach to the internet, and measured public discourse start to return?

Simple and easy are not synonyms. “The internet” is not one single ‘thing.’ But if something is simple, it becomes approachable, and when we can approach something, we can solve it. Maybe the problem isn’t us. Maybe it’s just how we use our phones.

Everyone is Wrong about the Election

Everything you see about the presidential election is wrong. It’s simply too early to call.

This is why the work in the trenches is done. The getting out the vote, the marketing and advertising, the cold calling, the surveys and donation solicitation… it’s all necessary to win an election. Think about it: campaigns wouldn’t spend money if it didn’t yield a return on investment. And spending has skyrocketed.

This is also an unprecedented election:

• Donald Trump, the Republican nominee is convicted of multiple felony charges

• Joe Biden, the (eligible) incumbent drops out of the race (only the 2nd time this has ever happened)

• Kamala Harris secures enough Democratic Party delegates within 2 days

• The former president is shot and survives an assignation attempt

• Both major party candidates select unexpected Vice Presidential picks for their respective tickets

• RFK Jr. (the first major third party candidate since the 2000 election) drops out and endorses Trump

• Highly publicized wars in Ukraine and Gaza rage throughout this whole time

It’s Friday September 6th. There are 60 days until the voting booths close on November 5th. What else will happen until then? Any pundits who prophesize the outcome with confidence are delusional. There’s been nothing like this before, and we can only predict the outcome with heavy uncertainty. 

Your vote, the most important responsibility you have as a free citizen, still matters.

Redding and the Density Divide

As a Bay Area native, Redding is an interesting place. Crossing over the freeway overpasses you see the surrounding mountains, and it’s beautiful. It was my second visit, and while the city has its warts (as all do), it also exudes a rustic, forgotten charm. I understand why my family finds its vicinity to nature appealing. Redding is “out of the way from everything,” and many find that peaceful. Driving home, snowcapped Mount Shasta dominated the rear-view mirror, and we had views of prominent Lassen Peak to the left. Both were splendent; there are no mountains like that in the South Bay.

Sundial Bridge in the heart of Redding

The pace of life is different in Redding. While going to the grocery store and driving around it was clear people move slowly. They worry less about getting somewhere, and overall seem less tense—there’s less association with time. We walked around our Airbnb neighborhood, and it felt different. Every fourth or fifth house had a large Trump sign or banner somewhere in the front yard, something you don’t see in Santa Clara. “We’re not in Kansas anymore,” I thought to myself…

People who live in the city and those who live in the countryside face a large experiential divide. It was the largest demarcation between the original colonies and early states: economies, living conditions, and lifestyle were all different. People in the city enjoy the hustle and bustle. They appreciate the vast number of food choices, all the entertainment options. People in the country enjoy the connection with nature, appreciate the peace in being left alone, and like what’s familiar.

There’s an inherent element of self-reliance among rural people; if you can’t take care of yourself, you fail. In old times, it meant you didn’t survive. They pride themselves on their ability to thrive on their own. City dwellers rely on services more. Traditionally there’s no space to raise animals or crops, to grow your own food. They specialize in something that adds a piece of value to the societal whole. That specialized value converts into currency, which they use to fill out the rest of their lives, outsourcing much that country folk engage in daily. City folk are specialists, rural folk are generalists.

The remains of Whiskeytown in Shasta County

I think this is one of the prime distinctions in American life and thus America politics. The ‘swing states,’ those that actually determine elections, have a mix of both lifestyles. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin have larger, liberal cities, but also many conservatives across large swaths of rural land. These states hold a balance between the specialization and services and the generalism and self reliance. Those two lived experiences differ greatly, and their proponents tend to vote very differently.

This divide seems to directly stem from the density of land, the density of living. When you’re forced to be self reliant due to lack of services, you need many skills just for daily life. That makes you more accustomed to the familiar, because you’re the one that has to solve your problems. The fewer surprises the better. Meanwhile urbanites are constantly affronted with change. They must continuously adapt to novel situations, and this leads to more openness, more acceptance of a variety of experience. They are regularly exposed to what they can’t control, and regularly utilize services that resolve problems. Driving across town in the City is a pain, so San Franciscans take public transit or ride shares.

This difference in density is one of the fundamental causes of liberalism and conservatism. People often cite wealth and the reluctance around taxes, but that’s only one part of the story. The wealthy avoid high taxes whether they live in Atherton or Russian Hill. “Ordinary” people living in cities don’t want to pay taxes any more than those in rural areas, they just value services above solitude.

Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in early Spring, 2021

And yet, these differences are still small compared to the larger picture. We might go about our days differently, but we still live the same days: 24 hours at a time, seeking health, wealth, prosperity and peace for our tribe. We may have varying tolerance for taxes, rely on services to a different degree, but we still all want the same things. Our methods are simply different. Our pursuit of meaning, the means to which we pursue meaning, still resemble one singular human path. Our children still go to school. None of us want cancer or dementia or heart disease. We all want our children to live long, healthy excellent lives. We all want freedom. Are we really any different?

Leaning into the divide between metropolitans and farmers is not the answer. The answer is to recognize the liberal-conservative divide for what it actually is: tiny variation within the woven fabric of humanity.

Redding is not that far from me. I woke up and did my Morning Routine, like always. I went to get bagels. My wife and I sat and had breakfast and coffee. We packed. Then we left to drive up there. Four hours later, we were in a very different, very beautiful place. I felt myself sticking out at the gas stations and grocery stores wearing traditional Silicon Valley garb: dress shorts and a short sleeve button up, complete with Xero Sandals and an Apple Watch with a LGBT rainbow wristband. And yet, nobody cared. The locals in Redding were nothing but nice. Am I that different from them? We’re all trying to make our way in life.

That’s our purpose in our short time here, to figure life out. And in my experience, whether in Redding or Silicon Valley, China or South Africa, it’s much better to do that together.

Food Labels

I see proclamations on food like “no artificial preservatives” or “no hydrogenated oils.” Shouldn’t we assume that all of our foods have “real ingredients?” What if we flipped the current legislation around foods: if the poisonous ingredients are in the food, the company would have to disclaim it in huge bold lettering. Surely that would change our food landscape, and our food choices, quickly? What if we only changed that—how much better would our society run? We are what we eat.

Rhetoric vs. Record

Rhetoric is largely meaningless. Elected officials need to be evaluated based on their voting records. Transparency and accessibility to candidate voting records, not collection of soundbites, helps citizens. How often do we refer to the voting record in our assessment of society’s most powerful people?

Canister Conflict

­­­News about the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Israel has been harrowing. With so much vitriol between online spectators, it’s hard to know what to say or how to react. I wonder:

— What does my ambivalence say about me? What does it say about society?

— How many people have been killed in this conflict compared to those killed in the Ukraine?

— How many people are still dying in the Yemen humanitarian crises?

— Does the United States House Speakership being vacated still matter? (Wasn’t this our most recent alarm bell?)

And I think: we have the technological capability to know what’s happening all around the world, but not the biology. We only have a finite amount of attention. We haven’t raised enough global consciousness to process what happens around the world without reverting to tribalism.

It seems we are constantly bombarded with high-intensity flares of emotional canisters of information. They land at our feet and spew an engulfing, manic cloud that obscures our vision and our reasoning. The particles may dissipate for a while, only to be replaced by more canisters from different events around the world. And so we subsist in a continual fog. We react to the canisters hurled toward us instead of surveying the landscape and finding a better living environment.

I do not know the history of the region nor understand the motivations of any of the groups of people that live there. But I do condemn organized violence, especially against civilians.

I pray for true lasting peace, and for us to find a way, as one species, to raise our global consciousness.  Only then will we be able to unite humanity and inspire change.

Political Action Citizenship

The moment is now to reject our cynicism globally. Despite the corruption of power and greed around the world, the opportunity to course correct as a species is still possible. We have achieved democracy in various parts of the world, and must secure more political representation of common people in many others. We can do this through action, by demanding change from our leaders. In the U.S. we can do it by voting and contacting our congressional representatives at the state and federal level. We can be the change we wish to see in the world. But it takes action.

Babies Attack

Babies are everywhere! It is a dark time for the unparented, as children lurk in every corner. The childless couple tries to navigate this treacherous landscape, but the little cuties won’t let them out of their path of terror. Their only hope is to embrace the chaos and restore a balance to the universe, through child’s play, a sanity check, and an overall embrace of life. Their story continues…

Discussion Organization

Political discussions can be fiery and back-and-forth. They can invoke passionate reactions and walkaways. But they are important. How we organize, on a 330 million person level or an 8 billion person level, determines the future of this planet. We can change the world, but we must first organize, and to do that, we must have the discussion.

Considering the Legislature

I find the legislative body of government is not held accountable enough in our society. In a nation of laws, those who make them hold the most power.

We could write many simple laws that would vastly improve our system by leveraging incentive. What if everyone was provided a one-time stipend to pursue entrepreneurship? We could incentivize taking risks and the creation of value. What if we simplified our tax code to incentivize transparency? What if we conceptualized corporations as companies or entities, rather than people? We could more accurately classify the different actors within our system, and perhaps even significantly curb lobbying.

There involves nuance in law creation of course. Laws should be debated and considered thoroughly. But it’s important for us as citizens to recognize the importance of the legislative branch of government. We must demand it to be high functioning and honest. Doing so is one small but significant step towards changing the world for all.

System and Hustle

In American culture, hard work is valued. To hustle, to take what’s yours, is aspirational to millions of Americans across the country. It’s a positive force among the people. But can we also, while harnessing that energy to the maximum, modify our societal structures so they benefit the masses? Can we rig the system for the betterment of all? That’s the more impactful and sustainable way to create change, and it requires awareness and organization.

Political Public Service

What would be incentivized if politicians were only allowed to work in the public sector after office? Instead of sitting on the boards of defense contractors or telecom giants, they could only serve as a teacher, firefighter, doctor, public defender, etc.? One would hope this would ingrain the notion of public service in politics; once you cross this threshold, you are committing to a life of public service, of bettering humanity for the long haul. There are certainly negative implications for such a rule, but outside-the-box thought experiments can be useful to spur innovation of our political systems, which obviously require reform. We can do this if we keep working at it. We can change the world.

Democratic Participation

It took me well over an hour to vote tonight for the upcoming California primary election next month. There were a lot of positions up for election, and many candidates for each one. I used candidates’ campaign websites, their Twitter accounts if applicable, and third party graders to evaluate them on the issues important to me. But so much of it seems to be determined by perceived conception of someone. Are they honest, do they have integrity? Will they actually do what they say they will do? For those without any political record, it can be especially difficult to gauge their stance on any given issue, as well as hierarchically how important that issue is to them. Yes, democracy is slow and inefficient and has its own myriad share of pitfalls. My participation in it tonight forced me to consider first principles. We certainly have made major strides as a civilization; we are happier, more prosperous, and more peaceful than ever before, despite what the news might tell you. But we still have a long way to go. We are in the driver seat.

Progress will happen

I told my wife today that things will continue to get better. I believe most people are good. Altogether I believe people are reasonable, that we all want the same basic things for the same reasons. It might not always be pretty, and it might feel much too slow, but progress will be made. It requires tremendous effort, some togetherness, and a lot of outreach and organization. It will never be guaranteed and must always be fought for and protected. That’s the nature of the universe. Can we stare it down in the face and accept that it will require our consistent vigilance, but that it will also happen?

One World Politics

In listening to the news about the world’s sanctions on Russia and their repercussions, I keep thinking to myself: we live in one world. I do not condone what’s happening in Ukraine, but the reality is we live within one closed system, planet Earth. The effects of this war will reverberate around the globe, and indeed are already being felt in the global economy. We as a species must recognize the current year and what we’ve learned over the centuries. The injustices we impart on one another hold weight and memories. Let’s be good to each other. 

Organized Ranking System

What if we had a ranking system for our top issues and problems, metered by the amount of life impacted and the depth of implications on the future? This could be applied at the international, regional, and local level.

On the global stage, climate change would receive the attention it deserves, the atrocities in Yemen would be featured just as much if not more than those in Ukraine, and our food and energy problems would generate significantly more discussion and action.

There’s a potential for nuclear conflict and a war between superpowers through the crisis in Ukraine, no doubt. The world should be aware of the events in that country and the possible ramifications. But do we thus ignore any and all of our other serious problems?

Attention is a zero sum game. As a species we must learn how to allocate our focus. Our ability to collectively organize on a planetary level will determine our future. 

Standing Together

We all breathe and we all bleed. We all share this one planet, our only home. We can stand with Ukraine, but it’s important to remember most people do not want war, ordinary Russian citizens included. We also cannot ignore what’s happening in Yemen, or any other number of places. Peace is possible, but it requires a one world view. Let us see. 

International Consideration

I’m not sure if it’s the rise of the internet and speed of communication, but we seem to rush through conclusions now. That’s on display with the cancellation of everything remotely Russian-connected.

What’s happening in Ukraine is a multi-faceted, fluid situation. It’s probably prudent to process all the information and deliberate, instead of rushing to action when emotions are high and facts are limited. Conclusions are only reached through consideration. 

On Tonight’s State of the Union

It’s a different scene tonight during the State of the Union. Few masks are visible. Both people behind the speaking President are women. And the speech starts with commentary of an ongoing war. 

Yes many things are different tonight. But I always begin watching this annual speech with hope in my heart—that we can come together as a nation. 

That has seemed far fetched in recent times, any American could tell you that. But it is not impossible. It can start tonight, if we choose. 

What do we want to be as a country, as a society? Can we withstand hearing differing opinions, while continuing to find solutions together?

We can start tonight, if we choose. The words spoken tonight matter, but not as much as how we process them, and whether we choose to use our own voices in building a better world.