Dickson Tam

Why Kneeling During the Anthem Is Inappropriate

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:57:00 +0000

I do not know of any country whose citizens kneel in unison during the anthem. Historically, mass kneeling has been closely associated with two types of terrible events : defeat and death. Defeated warriors and populaces have knelt en masse before their conquerors in hopes of mercy. Courtiers have knelt en masse at the deathbed of their kings and emperors.

Because of the negative connotations associated with kneeling, kneeling en masse should never be used in conjunction with the raising of America’s flag or the singing of America’s anthem. For a nation with such powerful representatives, kneeling en masse during the anthem would signify that something very bad has happened to the country.

Flag Kneeling : Why You Should Not Do It

Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:58:00 +0000

In the United States, kneeling during the singing of the national anthem and the presentation of the American flag is an issue of etiquette not of law. A kneeler might get ugly stares from his fellow bystanders, but he will not be jailed. History has shown that social organizations will develop formal rites and rituals. These rites and rituals reinforce their members’ bond to the organization and to one another. Consistent participation has been judged as a profession loyalty.

For many Christian churches, these rites and rituals take center stage. Members are encouraged to attend Mass regularly, during which they perform the church’s own unique rituals around the theme of the Last Supper and Crucifixion. And non-participation would interpreted as abandonment of the church.

Because it has always valued people first, America does not burden its citizens with an excessive amount of pomp. Americans do not have attend churches every Sunday nor do they have to memorized and recite centuries old text. The only thing that seems obligatory is standing during the singing of the national anthem and the presentation of the American flag. And this only seems to happen at large sporting events.

Indeed as an American, you should be thankful that the government does not require you to stand, nor it frequently request you to stand. So standing holds power and meaning only because many choose to do it when requested. And many more others like them, have done it through the years.

Like the Crucifix, the flag represents something greater. The flag is neither Republican nor Democrat. It is neither black nor white. It not only embodies the principles of the Constitution, it also reminds us of times when we have fallen short. It is our past, present, and future. It reminds us of the many we have lost in war, as well as those we will lose.

From this perspective, flag kneeling can be offensive. It is even more so when stars athletes do it, because others will soon copy. Perhaps there will come a time when no one stands or when we have forgotten to stand. Perhaps then, we will no longer be considered a nation.

Such are intricacies of flag kneeling, undoubtedly, of which many Americans are unaware. After all, many Americans, athletes, and young are more noted for their irreverence than etiquette.

Understanding the DACA Punt

Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:46:00 +0000

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration will shutdown Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program by a specific timeframe. Created by the Obama administration, DACA is a loophole, providing aliens who meet certain legal criteria temporary legal status. By refusing to enforce the law across a broad spectrum of people, the executive branch has superseded the legislative branch. Obama has made up the law. He has decided who can remain and who must leave.

This overriding action makes for a dangerous precedent. If we as Americans, allow Obama this authority to unilaterally decide, then why would we not allow another president to review this policy and unilaterally decide otherwise.

Furthermore, loopholes in the legal system beg to be abused, and DACA is no different. For example, if America allows children to stay, then should we also allow their parents to stay also. Sense would seem to indicate that we would also allow the parents to stay also for separating the two will be labeled as too “cruel” and “heartless”. These individual considerations complicate what should be a straightforward task of immigration and border enforcement. It will erode the Trump’s campaign promise of secure borders and strict immigration enforcement.

Conflicting interests like these should be thoroughly debated and measured. They should be resolved through the law making process and not by executive adjudication. By extending DACA for six months, Trump gives Congress adequate time. The ball is now in Congress’s court. If Congress fails to show up, then Americans will know who to blame.

Is Trump Racist?

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:03:00 +0000

Racism is one of many social issues that has resurfaced since Donald J. Trump became president. Many of his detractors accuse him of being a racist. Is Trump one? Did America elect a racist president?

To answer this question, we must first define racism. Merriam-Webster defines racism as:

A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Oxford defines racism as:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

According to both sources, racism requires the belief of inherent racial superiority. Thus, it is much harder for minorities, especially ones who have been subjected to oppression, to be racist. Furthermore, these definitions are much narrower definitions than the ones common flung around in the political shouting ring. One can hate all other races, hold biases against all other races, and still fall short of the racism threshold.

Based on his background, actions, and statements, I am very skeptical that the sitting president would believe Caucasian whites to be inherently superior. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that Trump is a racist, although you can certainly call him one.

Black vs. White Supremacy : The Yin-Yang of American Society

Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:03:00 +0000

In the absence of an external authoritative source, elements of society tend to gravitate towards others with similar characteristics. This pull is natural and powerful. Aligned along a white ethnicity and authoritarian principles, America will produce white nationalists, supremacists, and Nazis. Aligned along black status and communist principles, America will produce black anarchists, communists, and supremacists. These two sides fundamentally oppose, but are joined at the hip. Fueled by the same source, both are convinced that the other is a danger to their well-being.

In this struggle to gain power and relevancy, white supremacists traditionally have held the upper hand. I believe their success is due to several factors:

Superior organizing potential : Traditionally, organizing authoritarians has been much easier than organizing anarchists and communists. Beyond a certain size, anarchists and communists just fall apart.
Integrate better with society : Because they respect authority and follow orders, white supremacists have integrated better into many societal roles, ranging from law enforcement to military service.
Capital : Dominating since the Renaissance, European whites have traditionally owned a larger share of the wealth in the world.

A dramatic surge in white supremacy has often coincided with large external factors that place the collective white male psyche under stress, for example a loss of political and financial power for Southern whites after the Civil War and similarly for Germans after World War I. The belief of superiority of one’s own race and correspondingly, a hatred of those outside, is a natural male response to a loss of status due to external factors. Thus, white supremacy can be seen as arising from a white man’s need to a protect their status quo.

Black supremacy on the other hand is a rejection of the status quo given to them. While whites enjoy the financial and legal privileges of being white in America, many blacks have been handed the less favorable side of the deal. Trapped by a system on the outside looking in, many black men see themselves confined to lifetime of poverty. For them, this is effect of “white supremacy.” Because whites own a larger share of the wealth and have the complicit support of the government, whites are able to more easily maintain their wealth, status, and privilege.

Therefore, we can say black supremacy is a response to white supremacy and understand why black supremacists tend to be radical and anti-governmental. In a sense, black supremacists want to reorder society, without knowing how to get there. There is no clear plan, no capable leadership.

But this is exactly what fuels the fears driving white supremacy movements.

Thus, any attempt to strengthen black supremacists in order to prevent America from falling into Nazism is self-defeating. This problem has solutions but any non-balanced approach will result in further polarization. Such is the yin-yang of American society.

Why Trump Became President

Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:42:00 +0000

Fans of history need to wait no longer. The events unfolding at the christening of the Trump administration would make for a fascinating discussion.

I believe that the election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency of the United States was due in no small part to his overwhelming support from disaffected white men. Globalization and technological innovation has resulted in the loss of many jobs and steady income in large swathes of white electoral. This loss of livelihood has been especially pronounced in manufacturing cities of the Midwest and rural suburbs west of the Rockies. The Trump campaign recognized and capitalized upon this opportunity, and it was enough to propel their unlikely candidate into the White House.

In the process, Trump defeated sixteen other Republican candidates, many of whom were governors or senators, most of whom had more political experience, and all of whom had their sights set on the White House. Many of these candidates had been steeped by the mainstream media in a culture that values political correctness over blunt talk and flowery elocutions over direct action. Oblivious to the discontent, their soliloquies were short-lived.

Media darling Hillary Clinton was also none the wiser. Confident of a win against the GOP nominee, she rested on the laurels of Barack Obama, America’s first black president, and Bill Clinton, her husband. She preached exclusively to the democratic base. Her message was biased towards blacks and women, but alienated the largest part of the electorate that had been displaced by the policies of former.

But history shows well that displaced white men are not to be forgotten. They are a potent political force. In the post-Civil War ravaged South, many politicians rode the wave of disaffected Southern white men to office. Once masters of their plantations, these men now found themselves unable to repay debts or to even feed their families. Trapped in a desperate situation, many would resort to intimidation and vigilantism to gain political power. They became known as the Ku Klux Klan.

Interestingly, half a century later, in another part of the world, in debt-laden post-World War I Germany, another outsider would come to power similarly. He promised jobs and relief to the working class. On the backs of this group, the Nazis, Hitler would wipe out millions of Jews and conquer nearly all of Europe.

Then, the 2016 presidential election arrived. America was deep in debt from several unsuccessful wars. Globalization was bleeding millions of jobs from middle-class families. And the black man was elevated with the election of America’s first black president. Had American politicians examined history as much as they examined their pocketbooks, they perhaps would have seen that 2016 would be another fold in history. Instead, it would be the Washington outsider, whom the media thought was too crude to become president, whose father was arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally and who was rumored to keep a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside, who seized upon the golden opportunity abandoned by others.

History likes to repeat itself. Trump saw this, seized the moment, and the rest is history.

What the Left Does Not Get About Illegal Immigration

Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:27:00 +0000

Diversity has been a popular justification for immigration. And like many, I believe that diversity has made America great. However, diversity is not the sole factor. Unlike many countries, America has had a relatively stable government, ensured by a well codified set of civil and case laws, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. This blessing has produced a stable market system and allowed for the accumulation of wealth.

When doling out credit, the media likes to point out that many of America’s smartest and greatest were immigrants or children of immigrants. They conveniently forget to mention the many failures of immigration. Many immigrants leave America to return to their homeland. Many immigrants fester in an America that is less glamorous than the one they saw on television. These immigrants do not share the American dream. The ones that succeed are the ones that commit. They become Americans. So instead of saying:

Many of America’s smartest and brightest were immigrants or children of immigrants

, perhaps the media should say:

Many of America’s smartest and brightest were first or second generation Americans.

Regardless of what we call them to prove our point, many immigrants are hard-working, decent people. And we were to make decisions solely with our hearts, I believe that many would be accepted, regardless of their entry. However, because we consider ourselves rational men not just beasts, we must reason with our minds, not with our hearts.

America has been a nation of laws. Rational thought and rational principles like “consent of the governed” form the basis for our judicial system. A common respect for the law form the basis for our enforcement system. Our legal system does not have any allowance for immigration that is illegal. In fact, the two are antithetical by definition. We are either a nation of laws or claim to be. We can either follow the law or ignore it. We can either be Americans or claim to be. And if we choose the former over the latter, then sanctioning something illegal and as massive as “undocumented” immigration delegitimizes our system. It challenges our fundamental principles that no one is above the law and that the government’s right to govern is rooted in legitimate sources. It is a legal conundrum, an ideological trap.

America cannot have illegal immigration. The left’s argument is an emotional, legal implausibility. The right’s is rational and wholly justified. Compared to the questionable arguments presented by the left, there are other more concrete arguments supporting the administration’s tougher stance on illegal immigration, none of which media has mentioned.

I find this simple abstract argument to be the most thought-provoking however.

Socialism Is American : Why Jefferson Was A Socialist

Mon, 07 Mar 2016 08:08:00 +0000

To many Americans, socialism may seem like a recent fad among the youth. It may seem to be a impractical ideology borrowed from Europe, that failed in the Soviet Union, was failing in China, and is failing in North Korea. Unlike capitalism, socialism may seem oddly un-American and economically absurd. Let me try to argue otherwise.

Capitalism appeals to the American belief in independence and liberty. Capitalism rules that if I make some money, then it is mine. I get to keep that sum. I am not obligated to provide for anyone else. Nor is anyone else obligated to provide for me. Socialism, on the other hand, is all about inter-dependence. If I make some money, then the entirety of that sum may not be mine. I may be obligated to provide for others, and others may be obligated to provide for me.

However, capitalism and liberty does not occur naturally in society. Without equal rights and protection, the powerful would naturally prey upon and oppress the weak. Most exchanges would be one-sided. Few would gain. Many would lose. Most would lose their liberty, their wealth, and eventually their life.

In order to have capitalism, we must have protection. Private property and individual liberties must be respected. Abuses must be restricted. This enables the accumulation of wealth. To guarantee these conditions, we establish laws and a government to enforce those laws. When Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

he clearly believed in this importance of protecting individual human rights on equal footing. As envisioned by Jefferson, people would contribute taxes to the government. And if the government held up its end of the bargain, then everyone gets equal rights and equal protection. This arrangement of unequal input but equal output is suspiciously socialistic.

However, contrary to this original intent, the government today is becoming more capitalistic. Not every one is equal. Some effectively have more rights than others. For example:

Bankers who get off free for stealing billions of dollars effectively have more rights than kids getting jailed for marijuana possession.
Corporations who have armies of politicians and lawyers effectively have more rights than the middle-class.
Subjected to higher incarceration rates, blacks effectively have less rights than whites.

This is a capitalistic system where some have more rights than others. It is a system where politicians align with the interests of the rich and powerful. This government serves the rich first and the poor later. This government would respect private property and individual liberties only when it is in the interests of the rich and powerful. Capitalism is undermining its own principles through the government.

Capitalism should never dictate government policies. When officials make decisions based on campaign contributions or donations, it comes at the hidden cost of the citizens. The weak and the voiceless suffer. The government should never be in the business of making money at the expense of its citizens. It should never be in the business of protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor. Such a capitalistic system at odds with the original intents of the Constitution. It produces unequal rights and unequal protection. If left unchecked, capitalism will eventually destroy itself and democracy.

From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison to Andrew Jackson, many American presidents were wary of corrosive influence of capitalism. They aligned themselves with the interests of the people and the principles of the Constitution. Seeing the powerful banks as a threat to democracy and the people, they railed against them and sought to end their greedy control. These presidents were not capitalists but socialists.

Throughout American history, socialism has left its touch : the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Social Security, Medicare, taxation, equal rights, and equal protection. So when someone vilifies socialism as un-American and a threat to America, they got it backwards. Socialism has always been a part of America. It is excessive capitalism that is a threat to America, to democracy, to its own foundations, not the other way around.

Fallacy of Economists and Politicians

Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:26:00 +0000

Economists and politicians are very similar. Often times, they use numbers and logic to confuse their audience. For every upside, there is always a downside. For every argument, there is always a counter-argument. Often times, when you talk to a politician, they have no idea on what is they should do. Similarly, when you talk to an economist, they have no idea on what creates jobs, innovation, or entrepreneurship. And everybody knows that jobs and innovation are the largest factors in GDP growth. Yet it is often these important pieces that are missing from their forecasts.

Economists and politicians have a tendency to argue too much over silly, little numbers and details. So when evaluating an economic plan or a politician, I think the most important question to ask is whether the plan or politician does the right thing. If it does the right thing, then growth will automatically follow, and everyone will end better off. If not, then only a few will be better off. The rest will be worst off.

I believe Sanders will do the right thing. I also believe that his plan will do the right thing. It will take money, that works only for Wall Street, and no longer works for Main Street, and invest it into our future. Our future is healthcare and education.

The US cannot have GDP growth without a labor force that is not chronically sick or addicted. It cannot have GDP growth, when future entrepreneurs are paying off their debts at Starbucks or McDonalds. This is slavery, not genius.

How Sanders Can Win the African American Vote

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:45:00 +0000

Heading into Super Tuesday, Sanders might not want to make a play towards the South. And there are a lot of reasons for this. The most important of which is he might not need to. However, if he decides otherwise, he might want to make a play towards African Americans. They make up a large minority portion of the southern states. Nevada showed that he lost the African American vote in that state by a large percentage. So I think he would need to target them better. Here’s how:

Churches

I believe the African Americans suffer from a deficit of trust. They do not trust other races. They do not trust the police. They do not trust each other. They do not trust themselves. It is very hard for Bernie Sanders, who is white, to inject himself, and say that he knows the solution to all the problems affecting black communities.

However, if there is one thing African Americans trust, I think it is their faith. So I would build a campaign around their churches. He needs to be visible and present. That is the most important thing.

Black Leaders & Celebrities

If he cannot be present, then the next best thing would be to have someone, who is black and has a good reputation, speak for him. It is always helpful to hear from another perspective, especially if that person is also black.

Slavery of Wall Street

If there is one issue that affects black communities even today, it is slavery. It affects them psychologically. It affects them socially. It affects them economically. So I would link that with the modern kind of slavery we see today : the unbridled capitalism epitomized by Wall Street. Basically, Wall Street is the plantation owner. And the laborers, many of whom are black, are the slaves. Sanders, himself, would be the abolitionist trying to end slavery. This analogy may seem to be a crude metaphor, but it actually holds a lot of truth. So I would use it and abuse it.

Think Positive

If Sanders does all this, I think he can compete on equal footing with Clinton for the black vote, and give her a run for her money. Then, again he might not need to do this. His message seems to be resonating among many of the other demographics. I think it just needs more time to sink in.