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.

The Democratic debates are in Detroit this week.  This brings up the question:  Will Trump win again in Michigan in 2020?  I read that during this coming week, a GM plant in Warren will close.  This will be one of 5 GM plants scheduled to close in 2019.  There is also one in Detroit-Hamtramck on the list.  Given that Trump campaigned in 2016 of bringing auto work back to the U.S., shouldn't the voters in Michigan vote against him in 2020?

Besides hammering at each other this week, the Democratic candidates should point this out in Michigan:  Obama and the Democrats saved GM and now GM is closing factories under Trump's watch.  I always say the president have limited ability to control the economy.  But the idea that Trump and the GOP are on the side of the auto workers is absurd.  I ask the people in Macomb county:  Would the GOP have bailed out GM for sure?  Has Trump done anything for the auto industry since he took office?   You may not care about the Mueller probe or Trump's racist comments.  But what about you pocketbook?

"Love it or leave it", that is what Trump is telling people whom he says are criticizing America.  Never mind that Trump criticized everything about America when he was running.  He even called the FBI acting like Nazis.  But of course, this type of rhetoric occurred during the anti-communists era.  Conservatives also used this phrase against antiwar protesters in the 60s.  But isn't the ability to criticize the country fundamental to democracy?  So it is Trump and his supporters who are against what this country stands for.  That maybe why Trump likes Putin so much!

After watching all 8 hours of the Mueller testimony in Congress.  Just kidding, I only watched small parts of it.  Who would sit through all that?  I did watch the analyzes afterward on CNN.  So I know that not very many minds were changed.  See, nobody on either side or the middle would sit through the hearings.  If they follow it at all, it would be to watch the news channels afterwards.  I watch CNN, the leftists would watch MSNBC and the rightists would watch Fox News.  So everybody would have listened to the same preacher as before.  So the opinions of the nation will change little.

Mueller pretty much did not deviate from what he said in the report.  I think there are some points from the testimony that the Democrats can use if they seek impeachment.  But impeachment is a bad idea anyway as I mentioned before.  Basically, Mueller punted to Congress and the people.  The Congress will not do anything as the GOP controls the Senate.  So it is up to the people to do something.  The people can return the punt for a TD if they resoundingly vote out Trump in 2020.

Mueller did give the opinion that after Trump leaves office, he can be prosecuted.  So if we get a Democratic president in office in 2021, will we hear the chant of "Lock him up"?

So the Trump is telling four Congresswomen to go back to their own country.  And incredibly, most GOP politicians are backing him or are silent on the matter.  What happened to you, Lindsey Graham?  John McCain, your great late friend, is turning over in his grave.  There are some conservatives who are speaking out.  George Will said that Trump is worse for the country than Nixon.  No kidding, Watergate was stupid but Russian interference is extreme danger for our democracy.  Nixon never kissed up to dictators like Trump is doing.

Comedian Joe Wong joked that he was told that America is a country of immigrants.  So he wants Americans to get out of his country!  Since Trump is telling the Congresswomen, who are all American citizens, to get out of the country, Trump is basically copying Joe Wong!  Except Trump himself is not an immigrant, at least not that we know of.  So we should tell him to leave the country!

Many in the Republican party are mad at Paul Ryan because he had unflattering things to say about Trump.  He was just saying the things all Republicans were thinking about but were afraid to say in public.  I am thinking, why is the GOP following Trump but pushing Ryan away?  After Ryan took over the Speaker position, the GOP won big in 2016.  His only sin was to not flatter Trump.  The big loss in 2018 was the fault of Trump, not of Ryan.  Shouldn't they be wanting Ryan to come back and getting rid of Trump?  It seems to me, the Republicans are like a bunch of school children who are afraid of the bully and are not interested in following the smart kid in the class.

Been having computer problems lately so have not been writing.  The two Democratic debates looked more like shouting matches.  There were just too many people yelling at the same time.  Joe Biden was attacked as expected, being the front runner.  Kamala Harris landed the best blows against Biden.   And Biden's lead decreased significantly after the debate while Harris moved up.  The question is:  Will the trend continue.

Biden is known for gaffes.  That is partially why he had failed to win the nomination in the past when he ran.  I expected trouble water for Biden.  He has been in politics for a long time so there were a lots of votes and speeches that people can pick out to use against him.  But civil rights should not be one the areas that people can attack him on.  If his record on civil rights was less than excellent, Obama would not have pick him to be vp.  The whole busing debate is nonsense.  I always felt that busing was a poor way to achieve desegregation.  Even a large majority of blacks believe that also.  So I think to paint Biden as against busing should not serve anyone well in the long run.  People care about healthcare, the economy and climate change way more than the old busing story.

But Biden was shooting himself in the foot by talking about his working with racists when he was in the Senate.  It may well be that he needed to do so to advance important agenda.  But talking about that now is hurting him with today's electorate.  At least he has apologized.  But it is amazing to me that someone who has been around so long still makes unforced errors like that.

We were 10 minutes away from bombing Iran.  We were less than 24 hours from arresting and deporting a million undocumented immigrants.  Then Trump changed his mind.  Is Trump the voice of reason in his administration against the hardliners on immigration and Iran?  I don't think so.  He is the president.  There is no need to announce the policies of the hardliners and then stopped them just before they go into effect.  If he is the voice of reason, he would not have given the go ahead in the first place.  The excuses for pulling back are just unbelievable.  He didn't realize 150 people would be killed in the bombing?  Did he think that our bombs and missiles only hit buildings and weapons?  And he listened to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to postpone the ICE raids?   Come On!

The truth is that Trump has no strategy on anything.  He just wings it or announce something that will rally his base.  Once he realizes that what he wants to do will backfire, he changes course.  His dealings with North Korea and China bears this out.  The problem is, his threats may lead to escalations that will be bad for the country and the world.  The trade war with China can still spiral out of control.  Miscalculations between Iran and the U.S. still can lead to war and more chaos in the Middle East.  

The Iran situation is typical example of an unforced error.  The Iran deal was going well.  All other countries involved were pleased with the situation.  Trump blew it up to satisfy his base and Saudi Arabia and some factions of Israel.  There was no backup plan.  Sure it hurt Iran but if you push someone into a corner, he is sure to fight back.  Trump has repeatedly complained about the quagmire that Bush got us into in Iraq.  So I don't think he wants to send troops.  But bombing by itself will not stop Iran or cause regime change.  Iran will cause damage to us and the world if we attack.  Terrorism will increase.  All this because Trump blew up the nuclear deal without any well-thought out strategy. 

Surprise, surprise!   The Hong Kong government actually backed down and suspended an extradition bill.  Chief Executive Carrie Lam actually apologized to the public for her mishandling of the bill.  This was after two massive protests in the past two weeks.  I did not see the government backing down as they did not back down during the Umbrella Movement of 2014.

I am also surprised that the protests this year is much bigger than in 2014.  The protesters estimate 1.9 million showed up on Sunday while the government estimated about 338,000 showed up.  Either one side is using Donald Trump to do the counting or the real number is somewhere in between.  I think the government did lower the true estimate but 1,9 million is also unrealistic.  That would mean a quarter of all the people in Hong Kong showed up.  I don't think the average person in Hong Kong is big on politics.  Making money is the goal, especially for the older people who knew about the time Hong Kong was not that prosperous.  But there maybe a change this time.

As in most democratic protests, this one is led by young people.  So was the Umbrella Movement.  But this one was more successful because more older people are involved.  In 2014 there was a generation divide where the older folks did not want to rock the boat.  Perhaps the older people now realize that the autonomy of the former British colony is being slowly eroded.  Maybe they don't want their children become second class citizens like they were under British rule.  There is more solidarity between the generations this time and the government has taken notice.

But of course the government is backed by China and that means things can go in reverse very quickly.  Beijing could have tell the Hong Kong government to use force to shut down the protest.  They did not seem to have done so.  One reason is that Beijing is in a trade war with the U.S. and it did not want negative publicity that would give Trump the upper hand.  China may want the world to see that Hong Kong has freedom as China had promised.  It wants to tell the world: See we are for freedom and by extension, free trade.

Whatever the reason, it is good for now that the government has backed down.  What will happen next time is anyone's guess.