The Hong Kong protests are getting out of control.  I thought things went fairly well in June when the government backed down from the extradition law which led to the protests in the first place.  But the protesters were not satisfied.  They demanded the resignation of Carrie Lam, the chief executive.  They also demanded more democracy.  Since then the protests have turned more violent with government buildings and the airport being occupied.  Businesses came to a halt for many days since then. 

Recently a friend of my wife and her husband came to the U.S. from Hong Kong for a visit.  We sat down and talked about the situation in HK.  Now, I must admit we are all in our 60s so our views are quite different from the majority of protesters who are mostly in their teens or early 20s.  One thing that was brought to our attention by one of our friends in America was that some of the protesters were singing the American national anthem in some videos.  We understand that the U.S. is still consider a model of freedom in the world.  But most of the protesters, who were not even born when HK was handed over to China by Britain in 1997, have no idea how things were under colonial rule.

There was no true democracy under British rule in HK until a few years before the handover, when British knew they will not be governing soon.  There were protests and riots during the British rule.  There was never a response from the U.S. in support of HK protesters against the British back then.  It is easy for the U.S. to chide China for undemocratic stance in HK, although Trump seems to give Xi a bye on this so far.  But the U.S. never chided Britain for colonial behaviors in HK,  So for those young people singing the praise of the Britain and the U.S,, remember all countries back their friends and act mostly in their own self interests.

Speaking of those protests against the British, remember the actions of the HK police back in 1966 and 1967 vs the actions of the HK police today.  While the protesters are complaining the brutality of the HK police today, they should go back to history to see that the HK police under British command were much more brutal back then.  Now, to be fair, the 67 riots instigated by the leftists sympathetic to communist China were much more violent.  The majority of HK people wanted the police to stop them toward the end.  But the 66 riots were peaceful and most historians would say that the police acted more brutally than necessary.  Same with the beginning of the 67 riots.  The reaction of the police back then were over the top which contributed to the violence.  The British government, after the 67 riots, commended the police for its fine work putting down the rioters.  The brutality of the police under British command was not discussed openly.

So I think the actions of HK police is rather restrained today.  There is a picture in the LA Times today showing a protester swinging a bat against a cop.  In the U.S. that may have led to a shooting by the police.   But nothing happened.  Sure tear gas  and water cannons were employed.  But that would be the least response from any police force faced with people breaking into government offices and shutting down the airport. 

The future of HK is not bright.  China, of course, may take away all freedom at any time.  At the very least, China is less dependent on HK for its finances and will try to let Shanghai be the financial capital of the country.  Part of the problem that led to these protests by the young people is that their economic condition is much worse than those of their parents.  But with these protests turning violent, it may make HK's financial situation permanently worse.  A nephew of one of my friends who works for a big U.S. investment bank, said that with the instability in HK, his firm is planning on pulling out of its Asian headquarters out of HK and into Singapore.  Losses like that are going to be permanent.  My wife's friend and her husband agree with this assessment and fear for the future of their children.

Just returned from a trip to New York.  It has been many years since I visited the biggest city in America.  A lot has changed since then in my eyes.  The traffic is still horrible.  I had to rent a car to go upstate to attend a wedding.  It took an hour and a half to just get the rental car.  Are there that many people going out of the city?  I don't think that many people want to drive in the city, do they?  Then it took forever to drive out of the city.  The wedding was only 80 miles from JFK but it took about 4 and a half hours to get there, including the delay at the rental office.  It was almost as long as the flight time from LA to NY!

When I got back to the city, I found the transportation with the subways and buses were great.  The subway trains and buses are free of graffitis, unlike the last time I was there.  The subway stations were clean.  I didn't see any rats.  The trains were on time and not as crowded as before.  Interestingly, there were very few beggars and homeless people in the streets.  This is in contrast from what I saw before and what I have seen in LA and SF lately.  It seems to me that NY is doing a better job of getting rid or housing the homeless than the big cities in California.

I also find the people in NY have better manner than before.  I did not run into any rude people the entire week.  Whenever we asked for help, even strangers on the bus or on the subway, they were polite and helpful.  The diversity of NY is amazing, even more than California.  I must have heard about 20 languages spoken in just the short time we were there.  Of course, we did not test the manners of the NY taxi drivers who were mostly rude the last time I was in town.  Now we ride in Uber or Lyft, and those drivers are polite.

The most glaring difference to me, however, was the lack of honking in NY.  Before I would turn around to see what was going on if I DON'T hear cars honking.  Now there is practically no honking at all.  I thought the people couldn't have changed that much, could they?  Then my wife's cousin told us that there is a law that if you honk and is not an emergency, you can be fined $350!  Now, I don't know how they would enforce it.  There are no cops watching to see who is honking, right?  Even if there are cops, how can they know who is honking for sure, given the heavy traffic.  But I guess if you have a law, most people will obey it, even if they know you are not likely to get caught.

There was also a lot of police presence everywhere.  Obviously at Trump Towers there were lots of police.  But subways, Central Park, JFK and ordinary streets are staffed with what seems excessive number of cops.  Well, it did make me feel way more safe than in the past, especially walking at night.

So overall, my impression of NY is that it has made a lot of improvements.  Maybe people are more mellow after 9/11?  I don't know.  But at least on the surface, NY has outdone LA and SF as far as I can see.  LA in particular, with its homeless problems and lack of good public transportation, needs to learn from NY.

Three massive killings in less than a week!  Massive shootings have become so common that we are almost numb to it.  That should never be the case in a civilized society.  But three in a row in such a short time, with all three perpetrated by young white men, makes me wonder if there is going to be even more frequent tragedies in the near future.

Trump and the Republicans are going to point to mental health as the reason for these shootings.  As I said before, if you believe that, you will have to admit that Americans are crazier than everybody else in the world.  Given the percentage of shootings by young white men, you will also have to admit that young white men are crazier than other ethnic groups.  I choose to believe the easy access to guns is the main factor.

But Trump is also a factor given his rhetoric.  The Republicans are going to strongly disagree with this.  But if I turn it around and say, what if Obama used the same rhetoric about white people as Trump did about people of color.  And what if black men started shooting all over the place after posting manifestos against white people.  Would the Republicans blame Obama?  I bet they would.  B

There is a similarity between young Muslim men who join terrorist groups and young white men who join white supremacist groups.  Usually they feel isolated, lonely and that the world is against them.  Both groups are easily convinced by bad people to join a cause.  They feel being part of something greater than they have in their own world.  We need to get to these young men before the bad guys do, otherwise tragedies are bound to happen.  Trump is not like the bad Muslim clerics who call for killings.  But his rhetoric is encouraging white supremacist groups which will lead to more violence.

There is one big difference.  When a Muslim commits any act of terrorism, there are calls by Trump and others to ban Muslims.  When a white man commits an act of terrorism, nobody calls for banning white people.  Do you think this difference makes it easier for Muslim terrorists to recruit?

After watching very little of the first debate on Tuesday and more of the second debate on Wednesday,  I conclude that the winner of Tuesday was Warren and the winner of Wednesday was Warren.   Warren seems to have taken the lead of the left of the party from Sanders and Harris.  Everybody thought she debated well.  The moderates that were on Tuesday were weak and didn't challenge Warren much. 

Then on Wednesday, everybody piles on Biden but he was better prepared this time.  He was still not great but did fight back against his attackers enough to prevent further damage.  Harris, who had done well in the first debate, faded this time with people now attacking her.  It is always harder when you have a target on your back,  just ask Biden.

I think Booker and Gabbard did well on Wednesday.  But I don't think anyone crashed into the top four.  So given that, Warren comes out ahead on both nights as she is the only top candidate getting a boost from Detroit.

I thought that the CNN moderators were not very good.  They started with Harris, gave Biden a chance to rebut, then gave Harris a chance to rebut, then Biden.  This went on for few minutes before anyone else got to speak.  Then it was back to Harris and Biden again.  I think Yang didn't get to answer anything for  the first twenty minutes!  (I might have exaggerated but not by much).  There was also very little foreign policy discussions.  I understand that domestic issues are big, but given the problems we have all over the world today, I think we need to hear the views of the candidates on foreign affairs.

Although Yang seemed to try to solve every problem with his one thousand dollars per month idea, I thought he brought out some interesting thoughts.  The talk about 80% of the manufacturing jobs lost are due to automation, not due to transfer to overseas, is interesting.  He didn't get to talk much during the debate.  But was given the highest mark of anyone by a debate coach who commented for CNN afterward.  Then when interviewed by the CNN panel, he came across as very smart.  Perhaps too smart, as his points seem to go over the heads of the members of the panel.  They were just able to nod in agreement. 

I think with so many people attacking each other, there will be ammunition from the debates for Trump to use in the general election.  But it is important to find out out if Biden or anyone else is going to be able to take the heat.  Because Trump is going to try to bully during the general election debates.