On the returns of jihadi brides...

I have considered myself one of those independent voters who are in general fiscally conservative but socially liberal. But there are times when issues can still irk me immensely, the latest lawsuit to have a jihadi bride returned home is one of those.

With the imminent defeat of ISIS, all its remnants are scattering about like rats rushing to escape a sinking ship. In a natural order of things, these rats should sink (and die) with the sinking ship, and a chapter is rightly closed. In our modern, civilized society, everyone demands their rights, even if they had been brutally suppressing others when they were in power. In times like this, I do wish they all just die and rid this world of extremists that bring so much hatred and destruction.

Just a few years ago when ISIS was all the rage, extremist groups like Talibans and ISIS terrorized large swath in society, destroying cities and villages, imposing their religious and social orders, maiming and killings those who dare to oppose them. Suddenly, women became invisible, hidden behind niqab, banished from daylight, effectively reduced to providing only domestic functions like being a vassel for procreation and domestic chores. It is a radical new world order that Islamic extremists want to impose on the rest of the infidel world. You're either for or against them, in latter case, you die. From my vantage point, it's not unlike the Aryan nation propositioned by the Nazis.

While I understand that every religion harbor extremist views, and there might be a peaceful side of Islam, the fact that the silent majority of Muslims around the world did nothing to counter the extremist views from the likes of ISIS and Talibans feel almost like a tacit endorsement of their way of imposing the Muslim world view to the rest of the world. Would there come a day when Sharia law becomes a reality? I sure hope not. For that alone, I would say, one must close ranks and fight the spread of Islam, lest Sharia law would take hold.

In reality, there is always many shades of grey. Even among all the Muslims in the Middle East, I doubt if they have one true definition of what Muslim should be, hence allowing anyone to claim the mantle, and confusing the rest of the world about what Islam really is. No matter. Prior to the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Syria, accompanied by the collapse of a number of functioning (some barely) governments in countries like Yemen, the rest of the world saw only strongmen in Middle East. There was Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there is Bashar al-Assad, there is the House of Saud, plus the many "royalties" in the region, all of whom are imposing rules not unlike the authoritarian rule in China.

There was never any radicalization of Muslims from these strongmen and rule, which obviously point to the fact that they are not really that appealing. But, they were able to keep peace, which was more than enough for the rest of the world. It also allows the world to continue using Iran as the straw man, the ultimate bad guy. In hindsight, Iran looks almost like an adult in a room full of trigger-happy extremists like ISIS. At least Iran tries to run and govern a nation. ISIS? They just want misery for everybody.

The plight of Palestinians as a result of suppression from Israel has become a rally cry. It was almost fashionable in the academic and bohemian circles to talk against Israel. But that never spreads far beyond the circle to the mainstream and metastasize into radicalization of general public. There used to be gatekeepers in how the news is packaged and presented. News have to be investigated, presented in a measured and even-keel way that reminiscent of Walter Cronkite.

What's changed, is the perfect storm of the rise of social media and the subsequent wars in Iraq (and then Syria). Suddenly, everyone is a citizen reporter, everyone who has access to the web can broadcast what they see. Wars are always brutal, and suddenly everyone can tell the world  that people are dying in Iraq or Syria or wherever. Whether the cause is just or not, has almost become a moot point. No longer is anyone aspired to be calm and measured like Cronkite, you now need to be loud, bold, and your reports need to be extreme in order to get eyeballs. Beheading, stoning, burning a live human, it's all become commonplace.

One has to ask, how could anyone EVER want to aspire to an extremist like that? How could anyone become brainwashed and indoctrinated to consider that kind of extreme measures can EVER be good? How could anyone EVER consider that being condoned by a supposedly peace-loving religion, as some Muslims advocate Islam to be? How could anyone EVER think that such extreme measures is a utopia, particularly those grew up in the western civil society? In one word, idiots.

All of which brings us back to these jihadi brides. Young, impressionable, naive, stupid stupid idiotic teenagers who believe that all those extreme measures can bring about their ideal society. I do not believe for a second that they did not know better, or that they were "blinded" by indoctrination. These are not 5-6yo, these are 15-16yo. They were tech savvy. I have no doubt that they were aware of the news and brutalities of what ISIS did. How could they have ever justified the ISIS brutality against the Yazidis while talking about suppression of Muslims? I'd say, in their half-developed frontal lobe, all they dreamt of, was adventures.

In the cases of the jihadi brides who were from US and Britain, and who now want to come home, I don't have any sympathy to them at all. They left their families and countries behind, burnt their passports, actively advocated violence against their countries. Apparently, all it takes is a few years of hardship, after a few husbands and babies, they are "ready to come home," as if their adventures to Disneyland is done. Where are the consequences? What of the people who died, thanks to their complicity (even if it's hard to get exact proof)? There are things that cannot be undone, particularly those who have died. Actions, have consequences.

For those who want to atone to their sins, I'm at least willing to hear them out (though human emotions are so easily manipulated, and all these women need to do, is to tell a few sob stories, shed a few tears in front of a camera, and all is forgiven). For those who don't even express remorse? I'd say, fuck you very much, you can rot in the place that you chose to go to in the first place, and die like those whose lives have perished as a result of your complicity.

Citizenship comes with rights, as well as responsibility. For this US jihadi bride's family to sue to have her repatriated, it totally rubs me the wrong way. The liberal side of me says, give them a second chance. But the world-wary side of me says, not everyone has a second chance and not everyone deserves a second chance. Yes, there is complication with young children involved, but the issue becomes even  more fraught when the child comes of age, and turns out to be another radicalized or idiotic, like their parents once was. Somehow, I'm not inclined to give them the benefits of the doubts. On rare occasions like this, I do agree with Trump.

On the bashing of billionaires...

There's been much talk about income and wealth inequality in US, and indeed the rest of the world, for the past few years. Arguably those are part of the reasons millennials tag further to the left, opting for Bernie Sanders (the self-proclaimed socialist) than the middle-of-the-road, keep-the-current-system-going Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries for the Democrats. That election came and went. HRC lost, and we have an alleged billionaire (Trump) in the White House now.

The fact that Trump won the 2016 election has been an interesting phenomenon. The supposedly little guys (read: white, working-class voters) ditched the unions and Dems in droves. Instead of embracing the do-nothing agenda (except maybe to the LGBTQ community and refugees) propositioned by HRC, they flocked to the rip-'em-up-and-burn agenda of Trump. Trump, being so unfit as president both intellectually and temperamentally, it's become vogue to bash the wealth, given Trump the self-proclaimed Exhibit A of billionaire with ostentatious wealth.

If one could say GOP has lost its soul by tacitly endorsing (or by overtly staying silent on) Trump and his policy agenda, one can also say that Dems are also desperately in search of its lost soul.

The era under Bill Clinton has seen much success economically, but he has also shifted so much to the center (even right of center) by embracing so much of GOP policy agenda. The economy loves it. The two main parties have become almost indistinguishable when it comes to embracing big businesses and trade deals that everyone was eager to move ahead, so much so that, if it means leaving the little guys behind, so be it. Those were the years when offshoring of operations started. By the turn of the century, it has basically completed in gutting the manufacturing sector in US, either near-shoring to Mexico (thanks to NAFTA) or offshoring to China/India (thanks to championing on China's behalf into WTO).

It's little wonder why the little guys have become so bitter. The more interesting twist since 2000s is that, the little guys now include all those younger generations who largely couldn't get ahead.

This is all while the concentration of wealth (never mind income inequality) continues to accelerate. That inverted funnel, in which an increasing amount of wealth goes increasingly to a very small group of elites. This is happening not just in US, Europe, Middle East, Africa, but in China, Latin America, and certainly in Russia as well.

No one seems to be able to stop that trend (of wealth consolidation into fewer hands). In autocratic and authoritarian countries, this will not stop, for the most obvious reasons. Even in supposedly democratic countries like US, the worship of money (arguably started since the go-go, junk bond days in the 1980s) makes it hard to anyone to even think that being able to earn an obscene amount of money is a bad thing. Trump, for one, touts that fact, and he does it on steroid.

It's worth the time to take a step back, to dissect the notion of a billionaire. Yes, we all know that we don't need a billion dollars to live a comfortable, meaningful (alas!) life. But before we jump to the morals of using one's wealth responsibly (alas!), one should ask, how do these individuals get to accumulate this much wealth in the first place.

There are cases like the oil oligarch in Russia, state-owned enterprises in China, even in other countries where getting the right connections (eg. those who benefited from the close alliances with the Soharto and military in Indonesia) would guarantee them access to business opportunities that in turn would guarantee them instant wealth. This is corruption, benefiting from corrupt systems, through and through. For these billionaires, confiscation of their wealth should suffix, no question. But whether their respective (corrupted) government will do anything about these protected individuals is a totally different questions - of course the government should, but will they?

And then there are cases where entrepreneurs spend years, decades even, in building a business through hard work. (I don't use the word legally since money can indeed sway, even buy, a system they want, to make something looks legal. This is what happens with two-tier systems, one set of rules for the rich, and one for the poor. Cases in point: carried interest, Ultra-low corporate tax rate versus the far higher income tax.) No doubt that these entrepreneurs have the dreams of being successful, but I much rather doubt that their first dream/goal is "to be a billionaire." These are the individuals that we should encourage, their businesses are what drive an economy, create jobs. They should not be penalize for being successful in the end.

There is however the notion that everyone should pay their fair share, contributing back to the society. Billionaires do not make money just by bootstrapping and sheer will (though these are part of the apparatus), they become successful because the society, the system, provides the infrastructure and stable for their businesses to flourish. If these individuals self-congratulate themselves that it's just because of themselves, and them alone, that billions can be made, that's simply BS. It is thus that there's an argument to be made, that billionaires have a social responsibility too, to give back, and contribute back to the society, and the world at large, in which their businesses have benefited so much from, albeit invisibly. For those socially responsible billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, it's a perfect example.

A third category of billionaires - probably more likely broken into numerous millionaires and multi-millionaires - are those who inherit wealth from their predecessors. These are individuals who are simply there out of sheer luck (alas!) of being born into the right families with billionaire parents. While there's a question of fairness, since it's their inherited money by right. Their parents have worked hard for it, afterall (assuming their parents are the ones who worked to build the businesses). Here of course, the heirs could veer toward the socially responsible side (eg. the Waltons), or they could veer toward the ostentatious, self-absorbed side with total entitlement mentality (hello, Trump indeed). Although I don't have anything against inheritance, I don't think it's a healthy situation anyways. I'm thus not against heavy taxes on inheritance. These are cases that are perfect for giving back to society.

Now that we dispense with the notion that not all "billionaires" are created equal, let's see what they - and we as a society - can or should do about their billions of dollars in wealth.

But rather, the question is, can we as a society regulate how someone use their wealth (be it responsibly or ostentatiously)? The question is likely that, if we are to adhere to our principle of being an open society, that individuals are indeed the king of his own castle, then we can't - and shouldn't - be regulating how others use their wealth. Afterall if you can regulate someone's billions, what's there to stop you from regulating someone's millions, or even down to their pennies in pocket? This, in a few words, is a matter of fairness.

As society and from a public policy standpoint, it is thus better and easier and fairer to regulate it when the billions are being made, not after it's been made. Once it's someone's own property, it becomes much harder to extract, or even be justified whether the extraction is fair.

And so, when I look at all the Dems' proposal to tax the billionaires, even to the notion of abolishing billionaires, I'd say, it's a wrong-headed approach. Rather than grabbing news headlines to demonize billionaires (and it's so easy to do, given Trump's notoriety) - as shiny new objects like AOC and Elizabeth Warren have proposed to do - they could and should have looked harder into beefing up the current tax codes to plug loopholes that allows the rich and corporates to play with one set of rules while the rest 99% of people have to abide by another set of rules. But of course, that kind of news headlines ("let's fix the tax codes" is far less sexy than "tax the billionaires out of existence"). In a megaphone-hyped society, whoever sounds the more outrageous gets the attention and buzz. These young Dems have learnt well from Trump.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime, with our globalized world, these billionaires have all the ways and means to move their domicile and wealth around the globe. If US becomes less receptive - and worships the money less - in all likelihood they would just pack up and leave to other tax havens. Many a country would bend over backwards to take them in. There's no doubt of that.

On the WeWork culture, and rise-and-grinder...

This NYTimes article on the WeWork culture, and rise-and-grind culture is interesting. The writer is absolutely negative about it, essentially dismissing it as propaganda and exploitative to young workers, at the mercy of employers, management, and investors.

Yet I can't help feeling something is totally amiss in its one-sided criticism.

To start, where is the agency of the millennials, arguably the target audience in this dawn-of-the-century cult where startups promote the constant need to hustle? Has the article tried to interview anyone working at Google anonymously, perhaps, to at least get a feel for whether these googlers truly love their work or not? According to the writer of the article, workers cannot possibly love their job, so she posits that they must have been so brainwashed by such "high priest" as Elon Musk who openly talks about long work week because, hey, he loves his work (well, he says he loves his work, and maybe he truly does, who in any case has been rewarded mighty handsomely).

The other argument was that, wages have been stagnant while workers are told to up their game and hustle some more. Here, the writer slips easily into the generalized conclusion based on stagnant wage level of the economy as a whole, while conveniently ignoring the fact that some of those young-and-ambitious workers who work long hours might very well have been rewarded quite handsomely. That would likely ease the pain of having to toll excruciatingly long hours at get the work done.

And then there is the ethos of "follow your passion," or what about the "find the job you love and follow your dream." Has it remotely occurred to the NYT writer that these small groups of IT workers might indeed be following their dreams, and doing the things they love? If one truly loves or enjoy their work, I very much doubt they think of their long hours as something to "increase productivity." Maybe the investors would think in terms of ROI, but the workers? I highly doubt it.

While I despise those words from Marissa Mayer touting their own long week as something for others to model on, I do find some truth in what Elon has said about the pain.

I said all these, because I've been there.

When I was fresh out of college, I was young, ambitious and full of energy. My colleagues were likewise. We worked long hours, but it was fun. (I don't say this sarcastically; I truly mean, fun.) Getting your codes to work the way you want it, can be a satisfying experience. I did have a few colleagues of mine who slept under their desks on occasions. We did this with a shared mission for the company because, yes, we had stock options, hence the vested interests to see the company (its products and services) to be successful. So, no, we didn't need some high priest or permission to do what we do, as if we don't have any agency. To say otherwise, is simply ridiculous.

I do want to say a few words about the constant need to hustle though.

When you are young, you're healthy, you can afford to thrash your body as if you can live forever. The high stress, protracted lack of sleep (and rest for your body), coupled with tons of caffeine, can be detrimental; in some cases, even lethal. Looking back, I would say, no matter how much the rewards might be, it's not worth one's health. When you get sick, when you die, no one will give a rat.

You love what you do? Excellent. But why do you need to work extreme long hours? If you are truly very good at what you do, you probably shouldn't need that much time to get stuffs done. And if you're a manager and you still have to work that much hours? Well well, that means you're just not very good at management since you can't even delegate and manage a team to produce the level of work that you need.

And then there is also the issue of sustainability. You might not feel the toll on your body and health in your 20s. As you age, you'll feel it. Do we really want to get age out of workplace by the time we reach 35 because you are so burnt out, you don't have much to offer anymore? I'm sure no one will say yes.

More importantly, life with just work only is just monotonous and boring. You don't have outside interest. You don't have any outside life. In fact, oftentimes it's when you're away from work that solutions come to you. That's what happens to me, time and again, when you walk away from some blockers in codes, that solutions would come to me when I seemingly am not thinking about it. Arguably that's because my subconsciousness is still thinking of my codes, but the point is, solutions can come to you when you're relaxed, not when your eyes are blurry from looking at the damn codes for 36 hours straight, with so much caffeine in your system that all you can feel, is heart palpitation and jittery nerve.

And so, while this NYT article almost sounds like sour-grapes type of annoying, there is an ounce of truth in it, but not by much.