9.29.2025

Long-Form Content

 



 

Today’s content builds on one I posted eight years ago, entitled “Walk a Mile in Someone Else’s Shoes.” Then, I lamented most people’s willingness to consider other people’s opinions from other people’s perspectives, choosing instead to assume the worst of others or be shut off from others. 

Alas, our society seems to have only gotten more divisive. Not coincidentally, social media has ascended in cultural importance. And given its emphasis on optics and sound bites, it’s only natural that we’ve gotten more segregated, more aggrieved, and more helpless to find connection with others who think different from us. 

It is healthy to take a break from doom-scrolling at times. But it is also important to lean into ways to harness social media for good too. Because these platforms can be quite harmful, truly, but they can also be a positive force. 

I have found long-form podcasts to be a good way to counteract the quick-hitting nature of the most destructive forms of social media, where we find a particularly inartful or seemingly evil statement, isolate it from its broader context, put it out as red meat for those who will be similarly outraged as we are, and watch the anger go viral. 

Podcaster Lex Fridman is sometimes a little bit too accommodating of his guests than I’d like him to be – in the spirit of being welcoming and open, he oftentimes devolves into fanboy status and seldom pushes back on positions that deserve to be further explained if not recanted – but what I do like is his willingness to give famous people very long amounts of time to hold court, not only on their subject matter expertise but on many other topics important to a functioning society. 

I will confess a preference for the science and technology guests, so I can geek out with them on things like AI and space travel and neuroscience. I also enjoy when the topic du jour is business or sports or entertainment. But culture and politics are where this long-form content really shines, because you’re able to hear directly and at length from people who have otherwise been rendered in small bites on social. Consider some of the following guests whose Fridman podcasts I’ve recently listened to, and make a snap judgment as you review the names as to a few things you immediately think about them: 

Bill Ackman 

Tulsi Gabbard

Andrew Huberman

Vivek Ramaswamy 

Ivanka Trump

Mark Zuckerberg

Some may say some of these people (and others like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump) hold beliefs so vile that they do not deserve to have a platform for their opinions because they are inherently inflammatory and dehumanizing. I will not argue with that position. But I will say, why not listen to them for an hour or two? You may or may not change your mind, but you will likely leave with a broader understanding of that person and his or her views. After all, over a 4 hour long conversation, a person will end up showing their true colors and cannot hide behind good editing, filters, and prepared notes. I consider myself someone who works really hard to not get sucked in by sound bites, but I can say that many of Fridman’s podcasts have been profoundly helpful in understanding someone beyond the clearly shallow view of them I previously had. 

We will likely never go back to the time of Lincoln and Douglas, when presidential debate statements lasted hours rather than seconds. But that doesn’t mean that long-form content isn’t available and accessible. Kudos to Fridman for having all kinds of guests on his show, and being earnest and honest in drawing out their views on issues key to our human race.

9.24.2025

Can We Get Along? Will We?

 


New York Times columnist and liberal thought leader Ezra Klein recently penned a second impassioned reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder, and appended to that content a recent podcast with right-wing influencer Ben Shapiro. There’s a lot here I don’t like. Klein doesn’t go nearly far enough to empathize with the utter plight of people who do not look like him and therefore do not have the inherent privileges he has. “We can agree to disagree” is far easier for some to say than others, and when faced with no easy way out of oppression, rage is a natural and understandable reaction that Klein seems to dismiss toe easily. 

Shapiro, on the other hand, has clearly not engaged in good faith with people who have differing opinions like Klein and Kirk have, so his demeanor feels like “let me say what I just said but louder” when pushed back against, rather than seeking to explain better or even giving room to listen to others and reconsider his positions. Particularly egregious is his calling certain comments by President Obama about race to be race-baiting, when most Americans would consider them to be an honest and fair opining of how race works in America from the perspective of someone who is himself affected by how race works in America. 

All that said, I resonate with the central premise of the post, which is that no matter how divided we are and how aggrieved we feel, we do have to get along somehow. We simply cannot, in a pluralistic democracy, do things like retreat to our echo chambers and wish ill of the other side and celebrate when our opponents are targeted and harmed. That doesn’t mean that cordial discourse is sufficient (although I personally would stop short of “burn the whole thing down” revolution). It does mean that there has to be a realistic end game that isn’t “all my opponents should concede they are wrong and change their minds” or “all my opponents should leave the country” or “all my opponents should be threatened into silence” and definitely not “all my opponents should be lined up and shot.” 

I don’t know what the solution is that allows us to co-exist. A tragedy of Kirk’s murder is that a big part of that solution is probably some version of what he did every day, which was try to engage on hot topics in spaces in opposition or even hostile to his positions, in a way that allowed people to hear and speak differing viewpoints and be respected for it. I say “a version” because his methods for expressing his positions were not above reproach, to say nothing of your take on how reasonable or reprehensible his positions were. 

I will close by saying that I acknowledge that my temperament is perhaps uniquely suited to rationally contemplate a wide range of opinions and data points. Where most people’s impulse is to respond to an outrageous statement by an opponent with, well, immediate outrage, my impulse is a bunch of other things, such as: 

1. Is this article even real (increasingly there is so much misreporting and outright deceptive new stories) 

2. Is the sound bite in the article being interpreted correctly, or is there a broader context that needs to be consumed in order to understand what someone is saying

3. What is the broader worldview that leads to a particular position that I may vehemently disagree with, if not to agree with it then to better understand it 

4. Is there any reason I shouldn’t extend humanity to the person holding the position and those who support them 

You may argue that I am speaking from a place of privilege to litigate media content in this way. You may be right. But I would say in response that none of us have the privilege to immediately rage at the latest sound bites sent our way. That sound bite might be completely unrepresentative of people’s positions. And even if it isn’t, it’s usually a position held by a lot of Americans, who we have to share this country with, if not peacefully and constructively then moving ourselves dangerously close to a collective ruin.

9.23.2025

The Slippery Slope from Disagreement to Dehumanization

 



What makes America great is its diversity. Which is why it’s so troubling that incidents like Charlie Kirk’s murder have engendered such an unwillingness to engage in good faith with those who have differing beliefs. As I wrote earlier this week, as a sound bite nation, we are looking for snippets of content that harden rather than challenge our existing views, and then to cocoon with those who share those views rather than welcome and learn from those different from us. 

In a healthy society, community, and campus, there ought to be a lot of disagreement. Where there is lack of disagreement, there is far less room to grow and improve. Which is bad enough. But things feel worse than that now. Consider this sequence of statements: 

1. I disagree w/someone’s views

2. I deeply disagree w/their views

3. I despise their views

4. I so despise their views that I despise them

5. I so despise them that I wish them ill

6. I so wish them ill that I'm happy when bad things happen to them

7. I would be so happy when bad things happen to them that I'll directly do it 

Note the shift from #3 to #4, and the slippery slope that follows. There’s a reason for this. When disagreement devolves into dehumanization, it becomes easier to disagree and distance further, which is bad enough, but it also becomes easier to wish ill and do ill to others. 

Consider also this sequence of statements:

1. There has been a long history of injustice and dehumanization in this country.

2. That history has been baked into a lot of today's structures, norms, and beliefs.

3a. One side acknowledges these first two statements and seeks acknowledgement and action in response, and feels aggrieved and even threatened when acknowledgement is not made and action is opposed...

3b. ...with things getting to such a boiling point that violence against the other side is undertaken and celebrated.

4a. Another side downplays or denies these first two statements and is incredulous that acknowledgement and action would be needed for a problem that either doesn't exist or isn't as bad as they think...

4b. ...and as a result there is continued inequality and oppression and violence, and no recognition or empathy in response.

Once again we see the slippery slope, from 3a to 3b and from 4a to 4b, where we go from coexisting with different viewpoints to denying the humanity of the other side. The former is a healthy characteristic of a pluralistic democracy. The latter is an environment in which we are no longer willing to extend basic human existence to others different than us. Denying that people need to say "Black lives matter" is denying an assertion of the right to exist as a human being; so is calling for violence against right-wing leaders and followers and celebrating when that violence is actualized. It is no surprise, in that climate, that the cold-blooded murder of a fellow human being is no longer cause for horror but a platform for grievance and rage.

We’ve seen our share of echo chambers and segregated news sources and tribal behavior. But lately people are acting in a more base manner than intellectual disagreement and social sorting. One side is so aggrieved by the other side’s positions that they feel physically threatened and in some cases are physically threatened. Another side is so incredulous that murder is not being condemned or is even being celebrated, refusing to give space for conflicted if not angry feelings towards someone whose words have been used to sow division and hatred. This is not a good sign for a functioning pluralistic society. 

As it relates to Charlie Kirk, one side laments that he was committed to the sort of discourse that engaged young people and built bridges. Another side counters that his words and techniques were inflammatory to the point of hate-mongering. His death will not be the last flashpoint incident that stirs the pot. Is there hope that people will be able to live side by side while disagreeing, or are we destined to either full-blown separation or outright conflagaration?

9.22.2025

Sound Bite Nation

 


 

My one and only time being quoted in the New York Times was just days into the first Trump presidency over 8 years agoA colleague of mine had just been interviewed about Trump’s anti-city rhetoric, and told the reporter I would be a good source of data on cities. I spoke with the reporter for about 20 minutes and spent another 10 minutes sending them some links to publicly available data. 

Alas, out of all of that, they took a few words I said out of context, because they were looking for a reputable source to say that Trump wasn’t wrong to go after cities. Being very pro-city, my horror at being misquoted was compounded by multiple people close to me being furious that I would dare say what I said. 

This was an extreme example – an atrocious breach by the journalist, on the hottest of hot topics, in the most respected newspaper in the country – but it is indicative of a care that I as a consultant must take to not only get the facts right but also to make sure that the expression of those facts can’t be spun for nefarious purposes. While I wish that the way the news is reported by outlets and consumed by citizens is more in-depth and nuanced, I know that everyone involved is motivated to boil things down to sound bites, litmus tests, and black-and-white judgments. That’s the world we live in, so somehow we have to work within those realities, and take care accordingly. 

It is from this perspective that I have processed this month’s news about Charlie Kirk’s murder and the national conversation it has engendered. His life mission was to convert young people to the conservative movement, one public conversation at a time, with unflinching interrogation of the left-leaning beliefs held by many young people today. Supporters mourned his death, while others asked for respect for his work and sympathy for his grieving family. Opponents found it hard to stomach the accolades sent his way, calling out his own words as dangerously stoking racism, misogyny, and callousness to the destructiveness of gun violence in this country. 

Very little of the resulting discourse has heartened me. On the one hand, I have seen many times over quotes taken out of context used to prove Kirk’s bad intentions, in some cases egregiously so. Speaking of the New York Times again, this itemization of Kirk’s position on hot topics ends with the most unacceptable retraction I’ve ever read, to the effect of “We attributed an antisemitic quote to Kirk; it turns out he was quoting the quote in order to condemn it.” How's that for lazy reporting?

Many such cases, where simply watching more than the 5-second clip would soften, dispel, or completely reverse the sentiments ascribed to Kirk. I am particularly disappointed in my friends who are journalists who chose to post the sound bites and render their condemnation, rather than spend the extra time to understand that the sound bites did not reflect the sentiment being expressed and in some cases expressed the opposite. Given their lifelong training in getting the whole story, it's deflating to see them abandon that for the sake of piling on.

Nevertheless, I am incredibly sympathetic to those who felt Kirk was a hate-monger who made life more difficult for them and for those who they love. For one, while I tend to react favorably to much of his long-form content, I find some of his statements more difficult to explain even allowing for the broader context. I may be more right-leaning than most of my friends, but I accept that there's a difference between saying something contrary to what many others think, vs. saying something that comes across as ignorant and inflammatory and even dehumanizing.

I also cringe at Kirk supporters who reject every negative comment as either incorrect or insensitive. People in this country are hurting, including those who have differing perspectives than Kirk and his followers, and Kirk himself often gave them room to express themselves and empathy once they did. I wish I'd seen more of that lately, rather than statements and postures that negate people's pain.

I could say more on that, but I want to pivot to the main point of my post today, and the reason why I think back to my own experience with the national media. Kirk was himself an expert in modern communication and a prominent public figure. So he had to have known better when he put his own sound bites out with intention or at least a lack of care that they would be interpreted in ways that stoked bigotry. 

The fact of the matter is, even if Kirk is not himself racist or sexist, there are many people in this country who are, and who are emboldened by any sliver of justification and validation of their hateful beliefs. I think that, in this day and age of sound bites and outrage, and with so much hate out there, public figures like Kirk bear some responsibility to ensure that any content put out there cannot take people’s hearts in a hateful direction. And while I’m aware he often offered condemnations towards hateful ideology, he also left the door open too often. 

Perhaps this is an unnecessarily harsh standard, and as hard as I am on myself including ruing that I was sloppy when talking with the New York Times reporter so many years ago, I also extend myself grace that sometimes people have bad intentions and there’s little you can do to avoid people twisting your words for their hateful agendas. But, another part of me weighs that the stakes are extraordinarily high here: we have seen that hate can harm and even kill, so any possibility that words can be used to support hate must be rendered with extreme care. So I think it's fair to say that "I'm not racist" and "I didn't mean it" are not good enough; if we have a public megaphone, we must be extremely careful to not give any red meat to those who do mean harm.

To his credit, many times Kirk did condemn hateful ideology. And, almost all the time, Kirk engaged with people in good faith, even those who disagree wildly with him and hated him, and did so with tenderness and concern and empathy. I continue to be disappointed that so many people who should know better, especially journalists whose job it is to get the story right, have jumped on the sound bite bandwagon and are willing to condemn a person based on a few words uttered out of context. 

But I am also disappointed that folks who may, like me, be more predisposed to Kirk’s positions and methods, are willing to assert that he is completely innocent in his words and actions, and that any criticism of him is off-limits. I wish I could say that the world worked through good faith, long form, nuanced discussion, and since Kirk worked hard to do just that it was always constructive for these heated arguments. The reality is that we are a sound bite nation, and we must be aware of the great good and hard we can do with our content, even and especially when we are public figures trying to do good. It’s a mean world out there and an unforgiving public discourse, so we must take extra care not to give room for hateful energy to be supported. 

I am reminded of something I posted about Ron DeSantis a few years back. People jumped all over him for something that was misinterpreted as justifying slavery in Florida public school curriculum, which I thought was proven to be incorrect if you were willing to spend more than three seconds interrogating the actual actions. But I was also disappointed that the governor didn’t seem to care about these people’s accusations to set the record straight, seeming to be defiant and uncaring that people would jump to the wrong conclusions and get riled up unnecessarily, as if he welcomed the fact that his opponents were getting riled up rather than taking care to set the record straight so as not to give room for evildoers to run with the sentiments. 

That Charlie Kirk held reprehensible beliefs is, to me, not totally correct, since most of his seemingly most egregious statements were taken out of context, intentionally and repeatedly so. And yet, thought leaders hold responsibility to ensure that statements aren’t weaponized, even if taken out of context, and like DeSantis I didn’t see nearly enough concern to avoid such misinterpretation. Instead, there has been plenty, whether fairly or unfairly presented, for hateful people to glom onto to justify their beliefs and, unfortunately, their violent actions. Too much jumping to conclusions, hardening positions, and vilifying the other side; not nearly enough willingness to suspend past assumptions, learn a little, and sympathize with those different than those (especially those who have felt marginalized and assailed for too long). All in all, a lot here that makes me sad and scared.

9.17.2025

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 493

 



Here are a few excerpts from a book I recently read, "Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela," by Nelson Mandela.



The schoolhouse consisted of a single room, with a Western-style roof, on the other side of the hill from Qunu. I was seven years old, and on the day before I was to begin, my father took me aside and told me that I must be dressed properly for school. Until that time, I, like all the other boys in Qunu, had worn only a blanket, which was wrapped around one shoulder and pinned at the waist. My father took a pair of his trousers and cut them at the knee. He told me to put them on, which I did, and they were roughly the correct length, although the waist was far too large. My father then took a piece of string and cinched the trousers at the waist. I must have been a comical sight, but I have never owned a suit I was prouder to wear than my father’s cut-off pants. 

On the first day of school, my teacher, Miss Mdingane, gave each of us an English name and said that from thenceforth that was the name we would answer to in school. This was the custom among Africans in those days and was undoubtedly due to the British bias of our education. The education I received was a British education, in which British ideas, British culture, British institutions, were automatically assumed to be superior. There was no such thing as African culture. 

Africans of my generation—and even today—generally have both an English and an African name. Whites were either unable or unwilling to pronounce an African name, and considered it uncivilized to have one. That day, Miss Mdingane told me that my new name was Nelson. Why she bestowed this particular name upon me I have no idea. Perhaps it had something to do with the great British sea captain Lord Nelson, but that would be only a guess. 



As a leader, I have always followed the principles I first saw demonstrated by the regent at the Great Place. I have always endeavored to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion. Oftentimes, my own opinion will simply represent a consensus of what I heard in the discussion. I always remember the regent’s axiom: a leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.



Suddenly, the door opened and out walked not Dr. Wellington, but a black man dressed in a leopard-skin kaross and matching hat, who was carrying a spear in either hand. Dr. Wellington followed a moment later, but the sight of a black man in tribal dress coming through that door was electrifying. It is hard to explain the impact it had on us. It seemed to turn the universe upside down. As Mqhayi sat on the stage next to Dr. Wellington, we were barely able to contain our excitement. 

But when Mqhayi rose to speak, I confess to being disappointed. I had formed a picture of him in my mind, and in my youthful imagination, I expected a Xhosa hero like Mqhayi to be tall, fierce, and intelligent-looking. But he was not terribly distinguished and, except for his clothing, seemed entirely ordinary. When he spoke in Xhosa, he did so slowly and haltingly, frequently pausing to search for the right word and then stumbling over it when he found it. 

At one point, he raised his assegai into the air for emphasis and accidentally hit the curtain wire above him, which made a sharp noise and caused the curtain to sway. The poet looked at the point of his spear and then the curtain wire and, deep in thought, walked back and forth across the stage. After a minute, he stopped walking, faced us, and, newly energized, exclaimed that this incident—the assegai striking the wire—symbolized the clash between the culture of Africa and that of Europe. His voice rose and he said, “The assegai stands for what is glorious and true in African history; it is a symbol of the African as warrior and the African as artist. This metal wire,” he said, pointing above, “is an example of Western manufacturing, which is skillful but cold, clever but soulless. 

“What I am talking about,” he continued, “is not a piece of bone touching a piece of metal, or even the overlapping of one culture and another; what I am talking to you about is the brutal clash between what is indigenous and good, and what is foreign and bad. We cannot allow these foreigners who do not care for our culture to take over our nation. I predict that one day, the forces of African society will achieve a momentous victory over the interloper. For too long, we have succumbed to the false gods of the white man. But we will emerge and cast off these foreign notions.” 

I could hardly believe my ears. His boldness in speaking of such delicate matters in the presence of Dr. Wellington and other whites seemed utterly astonishing to us. Yet at the same time, it aroused and motivated us, and began to alter my perception of men like Dr. Wellington, whom I had automatically considered my benefactor.



I cannot pinpoint a moment when I became politicized, when I knew that I would spend my life in the liberation struggle. To be an African in South Africa means that one is politicized from the moment of one’s birth, whether one acknowledges it or not. An African child is born in an Africans Only hospital, taken home in an Africans Only bus, lives in an Africans Only area, and attends Africans Only schools, if he attends school at all. 

When he grows up, he can hold Africans Only jobs, rent a house in Africans Only townships, ride Africans Only trains, and be stopped at any time of the day or night and be ordered to produce a pass, failing which he will be arrested and thrown in jail. His life is circumscribed by racist laws and regulations that cripple his growth, dim his potential, and stunt his life. This was the reality, and one could deal with it in a myriad of ways. 

I had no epiphany, no singular revelation, no moment of truth, but a steady accumulation of a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments, produced in me an anger, a rebelliousness, a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people. There was no particular day on which I said, From henceforth I will devote myself to the liberation of my people; instead, I simply found myself doing so, and could not do otherwise.



Africans could not vote, but that did not mean that we did not care who won elections. The white general election of 1948 matched the ruling United Party, led by General Smuts, then at the height of his international regard, against the revived National Party. While Smuts had enlisted South Africa on the side of the Allies in World War II, the National Party refused to support Great Britain and publicly sympathized with Nazi Germany. The National Party’s campaign centered around the swart gevaar (the black danger), and they fought the election on the twin slogans of Die kaffer op sy plek (The nigger in his place) and Die koelies uit die land (The coolies out of the country)—coolies being the Afrikaner’s derogatory term for Indians. 

The Nationalists, led by Dr. Daniel Malan, a former minister of the Dutch Reform Church and a newspaper editor, were a party animated by bitterness—bitterness toward the English, who had treated them as inferiors for decades, and bitterness toward the African, who the Nationalists believed was threatening the prosperity and purity of Afrikaner culture. Africans had no loyalty to General Smuts, but we had even less for the National Party. 

Malan’s platform was known as apartheid. Apartheid was a new term but an old idea. It literally means “apartness” and it represented the codification in one oppressive system of all the laws and regulations that had kept Africans in an inferior position to whites for centuries. What had been more or less de facto was to become relentlessly de jure. The often haphazard segregation of the past three hundred years was to be consolidated into a monolithic system that was diabolical in its detail, inescapable in its reach, and overwhelming in its power. The premise of apartheid was that whites were superior to Africans, Coloureds, and Indians, and the function of it was to entrench white supremacy forever. As the Nationalists put it, “Die wit man moet altyd baas wees” (The white man must always remain boss). Their platform rested on the term baasskap, literally boss-ship, a freighted word that stood for white supremacy in all its harshness. The policy was supported by the Dutch Reform Church, which furnished apartheid with its religious underpinnings by suggesting that Afrikaners were God’s chosen people and that blacks were a subservient species. In the Afrikaner’s worldview, apartheid and the church went hand in hand.



Although I was happy to be back, I felt a sense of guilt at the sight of my mother living all alone in such poor circumstances. I tried to persuade her to come live with me in Johannesburg, but she swore that she would not leave the countryside she loved. I wondered—not for the first time—whether one was ever justified in neglecting the welfare of one’s own family in order to fight for the welfare of others. Can there be anything more important than looking after one’s aging mother? Is politics merely a pretext for shirking one’s responsibilities, an excuse for not being able to provide in the way one wanted?



During the proceedings, the magistrate was diffident and uneasy, and would not look at me directly. The other attorneys also seemed embarrassed, and at that moment, I had something of a revelation. These men were not only uncomfortable because I was a colleague brought low, but because I was an ordinary man being punished for his beliefs. In a way I had never quite comprehended before, I realized the role I could play in court and the possibilities before me as a defendant. I was the symbol of justice in the court of the oppressor, the representative of the great ideals of freedom, fairness, and democracy in a society that dishonored those virtues. I realized then and there that I could carry on the fight even within the fortress of the enemy.



I entered the court that Monday morning wearing a traditional Xhosa leopard-skin kaross instead of a suit and tie. The crowd of supporters rose as one and with raised, clenched fists shouted “Amandla!” and “Ngawethu!” The kaross electrified the spectators, many of whom were friends and family, some of whom had come all the way from the Transkei. Winnie also wore a traditional beaded headdress and an ankle-length Xhosa skirt. 

I had chosen traditional dress to emphasize the symbolism that I was a black African walking into a white man’s court. I was literally carrying on my back the history, culture, and heritage of my people. That day, I felt myself to be the embodiment of African nationalism, the inheritor of Africa’s difficult but noble past and her uncertain future. The kaross was also a sign of contempt for the niceties of white justice. I well knew the authorities would feel threatened by my kaross as so many whites feel threatened by the true culture of Africa.



I was made, by the law, a criminal, not because of what I had done, but because of what I stood for, because of what I thought, because of my conscience. Can it be any wonder to anybody that such conditions make a man an outlaw of society? Can it be wondered that such a man, having been outlawed by the government, should be prepared to lead the life of an outlaw, as I have led for some months, according to the evidence before this court? 

It has not been easy for me during the past period to separate myself from my wife and children, to say good-bye to the good old days when, at the end of a strenuous day at an office I could look forward to joining my family at the dinnertable, and instead to take up the life of a man hunted continuously by the police, living separated from those who are closest to me, in my own country, facing continually the hazards of detection and of arrest. This has been a life infinitely more difficult than serving a prison sentence. No man in his right senses would voluntarily choose such a life in preference to the one of normal, family, social life which exists in every civilized community. 

But there comes a time, as it came in my life, when a man is denied the right to live a normal life, when he can only live the life of an outlaw because the government has so decreed to use the law to impose a state of outlawry upon him. I was driven to this situation, and I do not regret having taken the decisions that I did take. Other people will be driven in the same way in this country, by this very same force of police persecution and of administrative action by the government, to follow my course, of that I am certain.



It is true that there has often been close cooperation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But cooperation is merely proof of a common goal—in this case the removal of white supremacy—and is not proof of a complete community of interests. The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the cooperation between Great Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such cooperation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into Communists or Communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a Communist world.

It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accepted Communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades Communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with and work with us. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism.



Your beautiful photo still stands about two feet above my left shoulder as I write this note. I dust it carefully every morning, for to do so gives me the pleasant feeling that I’m caressing you as in the old days. I even touch your nose with mine to recapture the electric current that used to flush through my blood whenever I did so. 



Although Robben Island was becoming more open, there was as yet still no sign that the state was reforming its views. Even so, I did not doubt that I would someday be a free man. We may have been stuck in one place, but I was confident the world was moving toward our position, not away from it.



In May of 1984, I found some consolation that seemed to make up for all the discomforts. At a scheduled visit from Winnie, Zeni, and her youngest daughter, I was escorted down to the visiting area by Sergeant Gregory, who instead of taking me to the normal visiting area, ushered me into a separate room where there was only a small table, and no dividers of any kind. He very softly said to me that the authorities had made a change. That day was the beginning of what were known as “contact” visits. 

He then went outside to see my wife and daughter and asked to speak to Winnie privately. Winnie actually got a fright when Gregory took her aside, thinking that I was perhaps ill. But Gregory escorted her around the door and before either of us knew it, we were in the same room and in each other’s arms. I kissed and held my wife for the first time in all these many years. It was a moment I had dreamed about a thousand times. It was as if I were still dreaming. I held her to me for what seemed like an eternity. We were still and silent except for the sound of our hearts. I did not want to let go of her at all, but I broke free and embraced my daughter and then took her child into my lap. It had been twenty-one years since I had even touched my wife’s hand.



I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your freedom. Too many have died since I went to prison. Too many have suffered for the love of freedom. I owe it to their widows, to their orphans, to their mothers, and to their fathers who have grieved and wept for them. Not only I have suffered during these long, lonely, wasted years. I am not less life-loving than you are. But I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free…. 

What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested on a pass offense? What freedom am I being offered to live my life as a family with my dear wife who remains in banishment in Brandfort? What freedom am I being offered when I must ask for permission to live in an urban area?… What freedom am I being offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected? Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts…. 

I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the people, are not free. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. I will return.

9.15.2025

Long Reads are Good Reads

 


 

Reading is, as I’ve written before in this space, an important activity for me, as it is simultaneously information gathering, brain exercise, and soul rejuvenation. I wish I had more time to read but am glad for the space I do carve out. 

This year I’ve really tried to lean into long books, again something I’ve written about in this space. As I am a voracious reader, when I am in a good read that is short I can tear through it in a week or less. Which is great, in fact a huge reason reading is such a high-return activity to invest in, to tap into the wisdom and talent of others. But oh, how satisfying it is to sit with a topic or a storyline for several weeks. 

In 2025 I’ve been blessed to enjoy, over many weeks at a time, the following titles, all of which are strong recommend and as you can see most of which are fiction. 

Divine Comedy: Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso (Alighieri)

Tale of Genji: The Authentic First Translation of the World’s Earliest Novel (Shikibu)

The Aeneid (Vergil)

Tools Of Titans: The Tactics, Routines, and Habits of Billionaires, Icons, and World-Class Performers (Ferriss)

Pachinko (Lee)

Bleak House (Dickens)

City of God (Augustine)

Roots: The Saga of an American Family (Haley)

Infinite Jest (Wallace) 

Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela (Mandela)

These reads took a lot of my time but I found them to each be highly worth it, whether for cultural significance, insight into our human condition, or just sheer enjoyment. 

What would you recommend I dive into next?

 

 

 

 

 


9.10.2025

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 492

 



Here are a couple of excerpts from a book I recently read, "Infinite Jest," by David Foster Wallace.



“My application's not bought," I am telling them, calling into the darkness of the red cave that opens out before closed eyes. "I am not just a boy who plays tennis. I have an intricate history. Experiences and feelings. I'm complex."



And the videophonic stress was even worse if you were at all vain. I.e. if you worried at all about how you looked. As in to other people. Which all kidding aside who doesn't. Good old aural telephone calls could be fielded without makeup, toupee, surgical prostheses, etc. Even without clothes, if that sort of thing rattled your saber. But for the image-conscious, there was of course no such answer-as-you-are informality about visual-video telephone calls, which consumers began to see were less like having the good old phone ring than having the doorbell ring and having to throw on clothes and attach prostheses and do hair- checks in the foyer mirror before answering the door.

But the real coffin-nail for videophony involved the way callers' faces looked on their TP screen, during calls. Not their callers' faces, but their own, when they saw them on video. It was a three-button affair:, after all, to use the TP's cartridge-card's Video-Record option to record both pulses in a two-way visual call and play the call back and see how your face had actually looked to the other person during the call. This sort of appearance-check was no more resistible than a mirror. But the experience proved almost universally horrifying. People were horrified at how their own faces appeared on a TP screen. It wasn't just 'Anchorman's Bloat,' that well-known impression of extra weight that video inflicts on the face. It was worse. Even with high-end TPs' high-def viewer-screens, consumers perceived something essentially blurred and moist-looking about their phone-faces, a shiny pallid indefiniteness that struck them as not just unflattering but somehow evasive, furtive, untrustworthy, unlikable. In an early and ominous InterLace/G.T.E. focus-group survey that was all but ignored in a storm of entrepreneurial sci-fi-tech enthusiasm, almost 60% of respondents who received visual access to their own faces during videophonic calls specifically used the terms untrustworthy, unlikable, or hard to like in describing their own visage's appearance, with a phenomenally ominous 71 % of senior-citizen respondents specifically comparing their video-faces to that of Richard Nixon during the Nixon-Kennedy debates of B.S. 1960.

The proposed solution to what the telecommunications industry's psychological consultants termed Video-Physiognomic Dysphoria (or VPD) was, of course, the advent of High-Definition Masking; and in fact it was those entrepreneurs who gravitated toward the production of high-definition videophonic imaging and then outright masks who got in and out of the short-lived videophonic era with their shirts plus solid additional nets.

Mask-wise, the initial option of High-Definition Photographic Imaging — i.e. taking the most flattering elements of a variety of flattering multi-angle photos of a given phone-consumer and — thanks to existing image-configuration equipment already pioneered by the cosmetics and law-enforcement industries — combining them into a wildly attractive high-def broadcastable composite of a face wearing an earnest, slightly overintense expression of complete attention — was quickly supplanted by the more inexpensive and byte-economical option of (using the exact same cosmetic-and-FBI software) actually casting the enhanced facial image in a form-fitting polybutylene-resin mask, and consumers soon found that the high up-front cost of a permanent wearable mask was more than worth it, considering the stress- and VFD-reduction benefits, and the convenient Velcro straps for the back of the mask and caller's head cost peanuts; and for a couple fiscal quarters phone/cable companies were able to rally VPD-afflicted consumers' confidence by working out a horizontally integrated deal where free composite-and-masking services came with a videophone hookup. The high-def masks, when not in use, simply hung on a small hook on the side of a TP's phone- console, admittedly looking maybe a bit surreal and discomfiting when detached and hanging there empty and wrinkled, and sometimes there were potentially awkward mistaken-identity snafus involving multi-user family or company phones and the hurried selection and attachment of the wrong mask taken from some long row of empty hanging masks — but all in all the masks seemed initially like a viable industry response to the vanity,-stress,-and-Nixonian-facial-image problem.

But combine the natural entrepreneurial instinct to satisfy all sufficiently high consumer demand, on the one hand, with what appears to be an almost equally natural distortion in the way persons tend to see themselves, and it becomes possible to account historically for the speed with which the whole high-def-videophonic-mask thing spiralled totally out of control. Not only is it weirdly hard to evaluate what you yourself look like, like whether you're good-looking or not — e.g. try looking in the mirror and determining where you stand in the attractiveness-hierarchy with anything like the objective ease you can determine whether just about anyone else you know is good-looking or not — but it turned out that consumers' instinctively skewed self-perception, plus vanity-related stress, meant that they began preferring and then outright demanding videophone masks that were really quite a lot better-looking than they themselves were in person. High-def mask-entrepreneurs ready and willing to supply not just verisimilitude but aesthetic enhancement — stronger chins, smaller eye-bags, air-brushed scars and wrinkles — soon pushed the original mimetic-mask-entrepreneurs right out of the market. In a gradually unsubtlizing progression, within a couple more sales-quarters most consumers were now using masks so undeniably better-looking on videophones than their real faces were in person, transmitting to one another such horrendously skewed and enhanced masked images of themselves, that enormous psychosocial stress began to result, large numbers of phone-users suddenly reluctant to leave home and interface personally with people who, they feared, were now habituated to seeing their far-better-looking masked selves on the phone and would on seeing them in person suffer (so went the callers' phobia) the same illusion-shattering aesthetic disappointment that, e.g., certain women who always wear makeup give people the first time they ever see them without makeup.

9.08.2025

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 491

 



Here are a few excerpts from a book I recently read, "Opinions: A Decade of Arguments, Criticism, and Minding Other People's Business," by Roxane Gay.


The climate into which I write my opinions is incredibly fraught but I write, nonetheless. I write to express outrage or bear witness or express admiration. I write knowing many people will disagree with me for one reason or another, sometimes reflexively. When I publish a new essay that’s provocative in some way, my father will reach out, in a concerned but also teasing manner, about how I’m making too many enemies. He worries that by virtue of expressing opinions, I am burning bridges. He’s probably right, though that is never my intention. And, frankly, any bridge my work might burn is not a bridge I have any interest in traversing.



I am often accused of being angry because I write about infuriating problems. I bristle at this accusation, because it is one. There is always the implication that anger is wrong, unbecoming, inappropriate. Being called angry is not a compliment; it is a warning that I’m overstepping, that I don’t know my place—even though I absolutely know that my place is wherever I choose to be. Sometimes I try to defend myself, because anger is not the primary engine of my work. And other times I get angry, because anger is an entirely appropriate response to bigotry, systemic bias, and injustice.



As a writer, I believe the First Amendment is sacred. The freedom of speech, however, does not guarantee freedom from consequence. You can speak your mind, but you can also be shunned. You can be criticized. You can be ignored or ridiculed. You can lose your job. The freedom of speech does not exist in a vacuum.



What white people are really asking for when they demand forgiveness from a traumatized community is absolution. They want absolution from the racism that infects us all even though forgiveness cannot reconcile America’s racist sins. They want absolution from their silence in the face of all manner of racism, great and small. They want to believe it is possible to heal from such profound and malingering trauma because to face the openness of the wounds racism has created in our society is too much. I, for one, am done forgiving.



If you had asked me, before George Floyd’s killing, if I believed in police abolition I would have said that reform is desperately needed but that abolition was a bridge too far. I lacked imagination. I could not envision a world where we did not need law enforcement as it is presently configured. I am ashamed. Now I know we don’t need reform. We need something far more radical. The current system does not work. Even during protests against the current system, law enforcement officers largely behaved as they always do, with blunt force and apparent indifference to the safety of protesters. They believe they are righteous. Burn it all down and build something new in the ashes.

9.04.2025

Still Growing Old

 




I recently had a humorous but telling incident on my bus ride into work. It being rush hour, the vehicle is often crowded and even standing room only, so finding a free seat is much appreciated as there’s a big difference between being able to read my book sitting down and having to stand on my feet for most if not all of the ride. 

Towards the back, I spotted an empty seat, so I slowly made my way to it, and then even more slowly eased my way into it. I say “slowly” and “even more slowly” partly because the bus was in motion for most of this act, sometimes going at a steady speed and other times starting and stopping. But mostly because that morning I found myself sore all over, so between the bus lurching back and forth and my feeling pain in multiple parts of my body, it was a chore to execute the simple (albeit multi-step) task of going from standing to sitting. 

Alas, a woman who I had to cross in front of to get to the seat got impatient with my taking my time being in her space while I was easing my butt into my seat, and in a burst of frustration yelled out, “will you hurry up?” I did my best to do so, feeling that her impatience was justified seeing as I was taking so long to do something that seemed so straightforward to do. 

Perhaps on the outside I present as a healthy young man. If I may say without getting too big a head, I do try to take care of myself physically, so I feel like I am in good shape. And, many people say I look much younger than my age. I am glad for these things and do not take for granted that they are positive characteristics that I should be happy about. 

But, while I don’t think I’m old yet, I’m certainly not young anymore. And, many days, I am feeling the physical aches of an aging body: a very sore leg that especially hurts when sitting, a sensitive ankle on my other leg that I need to be careful about, a back that smarts in multiple places, and muscles all over in random places that somehow got tweaked or strained. Hence, the slow pace to sit down, and coming from someone who people would otherwise assume is hale and hearty, cause for at least one person to snap at me to hurry up wondering why I would be so slow.

Perhaps I can learn some stretches to ease the throbbing pain in my sore leg, or my ankle and back tweaks will work themselves out if I rest them enough and otherwise take good care not to further strain them. But, I’m clearly past the age where my body can bounce back from any and every twinge. From here on out, the ailments will only pile on more, and at some point my exterior appearance will catch up to my physical age, so that people will no longer assume I’m younger and compliment me for looking good but rather simply treat me like the old man I am becoming. 

There is nothing wrong at all with being old. Indeed, growing old is often accompanied by greater happiness, as we take deeper joy in life and realize that fulfillment does not require being young and hearty. Alas, many of us will fight this, because we have lived our lives with the natural invincibility of youth, and we are scared at how vulnerable we are when we are no longer young. 

I broached this topic over 10 years ago in this post, and of course today I am 10+ years older than that musing. I have certainly aged in body and mind since then. I’m happy to say that I have largely aged well, not just that I have taken care of my body but also that I have grown wiser in my older years about things like my happiness and my limits and my blessings. I think that if that 40ish Lee were to look into the future and see me today, he would be incredibly happy to see how well I am doing in every way. 

But, the fact of the matter is, getting older is hard, and as much as I feel I’m in a good place physically and mentally, I know I will fight it at times. Here’s to doing what I can to stay healthy and happy, accepting my limitations without being sad about them, and moving as fast or slow as is good for me (and avoids being yelled at my others).

9.03.2025

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 490

 




Here are a few excerpts from a book I recently read, "Driving the Green Book: A Road Trip Through the Living History of Black Resistance," by Alvin Hall.


As I thought about the increase in the number of pages and listings in “The Green Book” as well as ads, some with pictures, in subsequent editions, I realized that the publication could be seen as an indicator of economic growth within Black communities and a self-created, expanding sense of freedom, although still segregated, promised by the American Dream.

  

“There will be a day sometime in the near future when this guide will not have to be published. That is when we as a race will have equal opportunities and privileges in the United States. It will be a great day for us to suspend this publication for then we can go wherever we please, and without embarrassment. But until that time comes we shall continue to publish this information for your convenience each year.”

  

These assumptions and stereotypes were especially pervasive during the time “The Green Book” was published. They were fueled in some measure by simple ignorance on the part of white people who either didn’t know many Black people or were unable to fully understand the lives and circumstances of the Black people they did know. Sadly, these beliefs were also embraced by many white people for less excusable reasons. Believing that Black people are foolish and wasteful in their behavior provides a socioeconomic explanation for poverty in the African American community that eliminates the role of racism and discrimination. If Black people bring poverty upon themselves and therefore “deserve” to be poor, there’s no need for white people to accept any responsibility for the legacy of racism – a comforting rationalization.

  

The second factor behind the popularity of large, “fancy” cars among some Black Americans was racial discrimination in hotels and motels. In countless communities across the country, it was impossible for Black travelers to find lodging that would accommodate them. As a result, millions of Black families driving across country to visit family or friends may have had to sleep in their cars in roadside rest sites while another person in the car stayed awake watching for possible trouble. Also, if you were traveling with children they could play and nap easily on the long bench seat in the back. No wonder many Blacks developed a philosophy that they passed on to their children: “When you buy a car, get the most comfortable and powerful one you can afford. You never know when you may have to sleep in it or when you may need the horsepower to get away from a problem.”

  

Furthermore, Chike pointed out, some Black workers found that the famous $5-per-day salary did not apply to them. Instead, these workers found themselves receiving paychecks of just around $3.50 per day from Ford. When they complained, they were told that, if they demonstrated themselves to be of “upright moral character,” they could arrange a special account at their neighborhood church, through which the additional pay might be received.

  

Many towns and cities had a very limited number of listings. For some destinations, “The Green Book” offered only “tourist homes” – private residences where travelers of color could rent rooms – a more random equivalent of today’s Airbnb service. In Mobile, Alabama, for example, Dr. James Franklin, a wealthy black physician, opened his home to local visitors from the obscure to the renowned. His guest book, now part of the collection at the History Museum of Mobile, includes pages signed by guests like opera star Marian Anderson, baseball legend Jackie Robinson, and NAACP officials Walter White and Roy Wilkins. None was welcome at any of the city’s fine hotels.

 

Some people whom Janee and I interviewed said they eventually began questioning their reliance on “The Green Book” – not only because more hotels, motels, restaurants, and other businesses were becoming open to Black customers, but also because the civil rights movement had championed and begun to spread a more assertive strategy for achieving equality. Rather than sticking with the safe path of patronizing the welcoming businesses featured in “The Green Book,” some Black Americans began to feel it was their duty to demand accommodation as whites-only businesses.

  

“Loree Bailey was actually working the motel switchboard on April 4. So, when Dr. King’s associates pick up the phone to call emergency services after the shots were fired, she makes the call. Later, she was handling a lot of the initial calls in the aftermath of the assassination. The next thing we know, she was on the phone with a friend and said, “You know, I’m not feeling well.” She went to her room, lay down, went to sleep, and never woke. She suffered a cerebral hemorrhage [at age sixty-eight] and ultimately passed away [five days later] on April 9, 1968 – the day of Dr. King’s funeral. 

After the assassination, Walter Bailey locked off the room where Dr. King stayed, and it was never rented out again. 

Mr. Bailey was very particular about honoring that space. He had a deep sense of the moment. But, you know, he and his son-in-law, Dr. Charles Champion, were also the ones who had to clean up the balcony. There are photographs of Mr. Bailey in the middle of the night, after the people from law enforcement had left with all the evidence they’d gathered, having to clean up. There’s a gravitas in that moment that I don’t think any of us will ever truly understand. There’s an intimacy and a sacredness in cleaning up the remains of the dead. There’s an honor in that. 

Dr. Champion is still alive today, and while he’s willing to talk about certain things, there’s a depth of emotion there that I don’t think we’ll ever really see revealed because that space, that moment, is filled with something that is levels below what can be excavated. 

So for the Baileys, April 4, 1968 is a doubly tragic day, because Loree Bailey passed away at the same time the national tragedy happened on their property.”

9.02.2025

Welcoming or Unwelcoming


 


Ohio State recently announced that the only wall decor allowed in its dorm common spaces would be school-themed. The spirit behind this policy was to be as welcoming as possible, as public space at a public institution. The question this approach begs is, are things like the LGBTQ+ flag and climate change information and advocacy for Gaza inherently welcoming or unwelcoming?

One school of thought says that by posting such things, incoming students see that these are important topics and that these perspectives and identities are allowed to safely exist in this space. A closeted gay person from a conservative rural town may be relieved and delighted that they are welcomed and celebrated here. A budding activist will be happy to know controversial topics are not avoided but rather are elevated, leading to healthy discourse and advocacy. College is, quintessentially, a place where one's identity is forged, which makes seeing others like you and knowing that you are seen is so important at this phase of life.

The opposing school of thought considers much of this imagery to be akin to religious zealotry that, in service of welcoming one perspective, attempts to intimidate other perspectives into adherence. What one person perceives as "I am accepted here," others may perceive as "when I see these images, I know dissenting voices will be silenced upon penalty of being called bigoted or ignorant." If so, that too may have the effect of making people feel that they and their viewpoints are not welcome here.

(Interestingly, religion itself does not appear to engender the same reaction. If the community bulletin board included a flyer for a Bible study or Muslim discussion, my general sense is that folks for whom that is of interest would love seeing that without others who are not into that feeling attacked. I think that's the premise of this opposing school of thought, is that certain topics have risen to the level of religious zealotry, even at the same time that most religious expressions themselves are not seen as being exclusionary.)

University campuses should be safe spaces for all people, all opinions, and all discussions. College dorms, at least when I was that age, are the quintessential place where you stay up late with amazing people celebrating each other's existence, getting into heated debates, and expanding your perspective by learning more about others who are different from you. So, assuming that is a noble goal, is Ohio State's policy helpful or harmful towards that end. What do you think?

Too Short for a Blog Post, Too Long for a Tweet 522

  Here are a few excerpts from a book I recently read, "Moby Dick," by Herman Melville. Again, I always go to sea as a sailor, bec...