I LOVE HK: a spark for democracy

I LOVE HK.

My beautiful birthplace, Summer 2013.

There's a quote most often attributed to Thomas Jefferson that says: "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When governments fear the people, there is liberty."

And then, in "The Hunger Games," there's a quote that reads: "Every revolution begins with a spark."

I genuinely believe in these two profound quotes. And that's why today, my thoughts are with the brave peoples of Hong Kong, from students to working professionals, standing up for something they believe in and fighting for a universal right, namely universal suffrage, that we, as humans, should each have. I stand with you. I feel your pain and suffering. 

I say peoples, and not people, of Hong Kong because it's a diverse city comprised of so many backgrounds, beliefs, national and ethnic origins, race, religions and sexualities, all of whom are united to defend the freedom that Hong Kong has enjoyed over the past decades. It is precisely this freedom that has allowed Hong Kong to become a cultural, economic and political beacon in the East to so many.

Hong Kong today, September 28, 2014. Courtesy: CNN.

Governments like China cannot endure, at least not in their current form, especially in this new digital age. And a simple spark can lead to something revolutionary. The way governments work is a new game for this next century—people can demand their voices to be heard, more so than ever before and I believe what is right will prevail. Hong Kong has been so prosperous because of the equality and freedom—freedom of assembly, of expression, of information, of the press, of speech—that has existed over the past several decades. I don't think there is anywhere as prepared as Hong Kong to remind us that freedom is truly not free and must be defended daily.

My heart hurts and I am saddened seeing the devastating photos come out of Hong Kong, photos of streets that I have walked on and admired. But it also makes me proud of the citizens of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, just like as in American cities, these shouldn't be seen as embarrassments, but rather, a functioning civil society able to hold thoughtful conversations and stand up for what they believe in. The government is the entity that should be embarrassed for their oppressive response and for governing without the consent of the governed.

That's why I also think, for me, I find stories like "The Hunger Games" so powerful, because people are living out these scenarios each and every day. It's quite inspirational if you think about it.

Night lights in Hong Kong, Summer 2013.

"Echoing Tiananmen, 17-year-old Hong Kong student prepares for democracy battle"

CNN and CNN International
—"Fear has been deeply rooted in our genes through the past 65 years. The majority of China's 1.3 billion people are not true citizens; most of the people are simply submissive."
—"You can form political parties in Hong Kong. You can publish books that are forbidden in mainland China. The media can criticize the central government and the chief executive of Hong Kong."
—"Mainland China is a tinderbox that's been physically suppressed by the authorities, and Hong Kong is a seed of fire."
—"The Communist Party is very scared of this tiny bit of land, because if true universal suffrage can blossom in Hong Kong, it is very likely true universal suffrage will end up happening in the mainland."

My thoughts on Glass, integrity and the free flow of information

Today, I received this e-mail from my Macroeconomics Professor at +The George Washington University: "That means that Google glass and similar devices are NOT allowed during assignments..." 

I am happy that my Professor is starting this type of conversation about +Google Glass  nd new technologies so swiftly and transparently.

Certainly, as an Explorer, these situations where Glass is singled out, are expected, just like +Cecilia Abadie fighting her traffic ticket today (http://goo.gl/UN60mo) or those told to leave restaurants (http://goo.gl/neb8zf). I agree Glass should not be used during exams. Yet, it is utterly irresponsible for those in authority to single new devices like Glass, which functions just as smartphones and tablets do, in this manner. Certainly, this period of testing is where society is educating itself and distinguishing what is real and what is exaggerated by the media, both its features and limitations. For example, having Glass rest on top your head like sunglasses indoors will not enable a student to cheat and is not a qualification of cheating, just like having a phone in your pocket. However, this type of conversation is good to start.

While I don't know if this e-mail is directed to me currently, I do feel the need to share this information clearly and openly. Your feedback, both in agreement or disagreement, is encouraged.

We should embrace technology, especially with the potentials it offers education. More importantly, we should not create hysteria and spread misinformation. Finally, integrity, including in academics, is one of my core values and I believe a society well-educated in not only knowledge but also morals and values will not have these problems.

As C.S. Lewis once said, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”

From this point forward, I am reaffirming my commitment to act with integrity in an ethical and moral manner that takes into account my strict moral discipline, just like I did in 8th grade when I created study guides from public class notes and let information flow freely (allowing others to collaborate, build on top and download those guides at their own discretion) even after one teacher, with a complete opposite view than all the other parents, students and teachers, labeled it as a form of cheating.

You can learn more about my mission statement, vision and values here: 

https://plus.google.com/+iantang/about.

Ballmer, don't be the jealous goat.

Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, is at it again, complaining about +Google and blaming its dooms on Google's success (http://goo.gl/VMKeJ6 via +ReadWrite). In the past years, Microsoft has gotten so jealous that it has practically forgotten all that's good with itself. And so, a short story...

"A farmer in a village had a goat and a donkey. The farmer used to make the donkey work hard and fed him good food - carrots, radish, corn, etc. The goat was very unhappy since it had to find food on it's own and eat grass. It became very jealous of the donkey.

The goat thought of a plan. The goat thought that if the donkey stopped working, it would get the good food the donkey got from the farmer. So the goat pushed the donkey into a large hole. The donkey was badly hurt and it could not walk.

The farmer became very sad seeing the donkey's bad health condition. He wanted the donkey to recover soon from illness since he had to get work from the donkey. The farmer thought that feeding the donkey with goat's soup might make the donkey recover from illness soon. Hence, the farmer killed the goat and gave the donkey it's soup.

So instead of getting the donkey's food, the goat itself became food for the donkey."

Microsoft is a strong company. With lots of potential. But instead of focusing on how it can fulfill its potential, it has entered an endless cycle, twisting itself into a windsor knot, to try to take out Google. To try and use taxpayer's dollars against a company which individuals choose to use at his or her discretion. To try and get governments to "control" Google, even after the Federal Trade Commission found no wrongdoing.

Ballmer, stop with the fabricated claims Microsoft and +FairSearch.org continually create, especially when Microsoft does the same thing. Stop being a company so jealous of another that you forget all that's good with yourself. Stop getting so hell-bent at destroying Google because you think their success has led to your doom. Stop yourself from deteriorating, caused by your laser focus on Google. Stop being the goat.

Or else one day, Microsoft will vanish into the state of nothing. Don't Scroogle yourself.

Ballmer, you're leaving soon. Stand for something. Leave a legacy of morality at Microsoft. Of instilling values that were lost in the past decade. Of humility. Of innovation. Of truthfulness. Because Microsoft can achieve so much, if it focused on what mattered, itself.

Courtesy of: http://bakesah.blogspot.com/.

Look at +T-Mobile. Look at +Yahoo! These companies were perceived to be doomed. Yet, in the past months, they have refocused on themselves and they're becoming the underdog that people are starting to take seriously again. T-Mobile, whose focus on innovative plans and programs, and not its CEO's harsh criticisms of other carriers, is now a beacon of hope for many people who are fed up with traditional mobile carriers. Yahoo!, whose focus on recreating a gorgeous experience, has attracted back both users and employees.

Microsoft. You can do it. I want a day when I can't wait to get my hands on a Microsoft product. A day when I am excited about Microsoft's releases. But that will not happen when all you do is steer me in the direction of looking at Google.

(short story: http://goo.gl/OKdAAR via Kuttees) 

My thoughts regarding BSA's anti-gay policy

Over the past seven years, I have been a member of the +Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest and most well-known youth organizations in the nation, founded in 1910. In 2012, I became an Eagle Scout. Looking back, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the program, which has given me countless challenges, experiences and opportunities; these have all improved and shaped my life.

The Boy Scouts of America, along with other aspects of my background, has also caused me to become an advocate of the most basic of human rights. That is, every individual should be treated equally and is entitled to his or her own opinions (thoughts, morals, values) and the guarantee of the freedoms of assembly, expression, religion and speech, so far as the resulting actions do not impose physical danger or harm to others within society.

Therefore, not surprisingly, I feel strongly in regards to the controversial Boy Scout policy, a national ban on gay members and leaders.

Since BSA's establishment, it has aimed to "prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." As a result of this mission, the BSA won a Supreme Court case in 2000 which upheld its national ban on gays. BSA simply stated that it excluded such members because "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."

However, to me, restricting membership access ultimately betrays the BSA's mission altogether, more so than "homosexual conduct," due to BSA's firm ideology of treating everyone equally, a conclusion I came to throughout my years as a Boy Scout.


Duty to my country and being morally straight.
As a Scout, one promises the following, as part of the Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

One phrase sticks out to me in particular: "To do my duty to God and my country." It is my belief that following the Pledge of Allegiance, also something each Scout must know, is the soundest way to fulfill the duties as a citizen for one's country. That very Pledge says:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 

In the Scout Handbook, "with liberty and justice for all" is described as "with freedom and fairness for every person in the country - you and every other American." Clearly, doing one's duty to the country involves treating each individual equally and giving each person the same type of access regardless of their individual beliefs, morals and values.

Another phrase is important to me: "morally straight." Think what you may, but the official Scout Handbook states that this means "to be a person of strong character... you should respect and defend the rights of all people." Again, the Scout Handbook alone explicitly states the contrary of the intention of the BSA's anti-gay policy.


The Scout Law.
The Scout Law is "the foundation of Scouting, expressed in just twelve simple points."

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Quite obviously, there are a couple traits that should immediately be emphasized when discussing the issue of providing equal membership for gay members and leaders. The following traits and summary definitions are per the Scout Handbook.

Friendly - A Scout "offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own. Accept who you are, too, and celebrate the fact that you don't have to be just like everyone else. Real friends respect the ideas, interests, and talents that make you special.

The Scout Law, as per the Scout Handbook.

Clean - "There's another kind of dirt, though, that can't be scrubbed away. It is the kind that shows up in foul language and harmful thoughts and actions. Swearwords and dirty stories are often used as weapons to ridicule other people and hurt their feelings. The same is true of racial slurs and jokes that make fun of ethnic groups or people with physical or mental limitations. A Scout knows there is no kindness or honor in such tasteless behavior. He avoids it in his own words or deeds."

In these two traits of the Scout Law alone, the Scouting organization (in a perfect world) clearly believes that everyone, regardless of their background, beliefs, origin or race should be fully accepted and treated as an equal. The Scouting organization is violating various parts of the Scout Law by not respecting people of different beliefs and not allowing those people to "accept" themselves.

As a result of the violations of "friendly" and "clean" of the Scout Law, the BSA violates several other traits as well.

Obedience - Obedience must be guided by good judgment. If someone tells you to cheat, steal or do something else you know is wrong, you must say no. Trust your own beliefs and obey your conscience when you know you are right.

Brave - Saving lives is not the only test of bravery. You are brave every time you do what is right in spite of what others might say. You are brave when you speak the truth and when you admit a mistake and apologize for it. And you show true courage when you defend the rights of others.


Personal experience.
Whether it is in my own Troop or at a summer camp, I have had the fortunate opportunity to meet many people, from all walks of life with hundreds of different beliefs on everything. This diversity created a better environment and allowed me to foster and grow. It made me a better person who was more open-minded to the people of this world.

From my personal experience, the ban on gay members and leaders is a policy that is rarely enforced in the lower tiers of Scouting. Not only is it virtually unenforceable, but the majority of the population also realizes the stubbornness of the policy. The world is becoming a more open place, and the BSA should learn to adapt if it wants to survive.


The Boy Scouts of America is an organization that aims to educate youth on values, and making ethical and moral choices based on the values described above. What does this say about the BSA when the organization outlines various values but does not follow through?

It is understandable why the BSA would implement such policies. While it may seem as if it would reduce the amount of unwanted sexual conduct within the BSA, it does not accomplish that at all. On the contrary, it hinders the speed at which the BSA can fulfill their mission. More importantly, the American justice system is proudly known for its "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. Labeling all gay members and leaders automatically as sex offenders is hurtful and immoral.

A good analogy would be travel. Though many terrorist attacks have been associated with people of Middle Eastern descent, those same people do not automatically get banned from traveling, or even restrictions on where they can travel. It is only if they pose a credible threat that they get put on a no-fly list, or arrested at the airport.

Each individual is equal, despite the different beliefs we each have, which ultimately make the world a better place. It is my sincere hope, that in the near future, any boy or man who wants an opportunity to grow and learn in the Boy Scout program will be able to do so without unequal treatment.

What are your thoughts? No matter what your viewpoint, add your voice to the discussion, because it should be heard. Discussion is the best thing possible for progress.

"What the Girls Scouts and the Boy Scouts are trying to teach is important. They're trying to teach kids to be leaders. And the more that we teach people how to accept people for who they are, the more self-confident they'll be and the better leaders they'll become."

The issue with banning drinks

Recently, New York City has announced that it may ban large, sugary drinks, specifically those over 16 ounces, from being sold, in an effort to try to keep its citizens healthy.

It's utterly disturbing. It's economically and morally wrong. It's plainly not right. America has always been the land of the free - where companies can flourish and citizens can make their own informed decisions. Implementing a ban on such products will ultimately restrict both of those freedoms.

Image Courtesy of McDonald's
http://www.mcarkansas.com/26966/20992/default-page/

The Economy
Operating a business is already hard enough, and it's getting harder and harder each day in America. Piling on more restrictions on what businesses can or cannot do restricts their mobility and, in turn, devastates the economy. When Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's or other successful American businesses have to stop selling drinks larger than a certain size, that's cutting off profits that they otherwise would have had. And, if they want to try to balance out the losses, prices on other products may rise, hurting American consumers in the long-term.

Imposing new regulations on businesses drives up the cost of doing business, and that's not something we want, especially during a economic recession that's still taking place today. 

But, more importantly, a ban of this sort is immoral, and something that is in complete contradiction with the morals this great country of freedom was founded upon.

The Morality
America was founded as a country where its citizens could make individual choices based on their own judgements, knowledge and morals. What and how much a specific citizen chooses to drink, and what he or she wants to do to the body falls under the list of individual choices and decisions, and is one that the government has no right to decide.

Furthermore, unlike alcohol, drinking too much sugary drinks only hurts the individual in the long-run, and will not cause the individual to act with poor judgement. America has always stood for tolerating other people's actions and opinions, as long as it does not hurt surrounding citizens. This is the same thing.

The government (along with scientists and the  mainstream media) has continuously warned about the dangers and risks of drinking drinks with an excess of sugar. That's the farthest the government should go and that has always been their role regarding how they protect citizens. Is the government going to start banning syrup, bacon, coffee and other "unhealthy" foods as well? Who's to decide what is unhealthy or not? Let individuals decide this for themselves based on the known facts and studies.

Finally, banning large, sugary drinks is "censorship" on a physical level. The government cannot and should not assume what those drinks are used for after being purchased. In this case, they are assuming that it will be used for consumption, individually. Maybe it will be split up between a family. Maybe between a few friends. Whatever the case, the government cannot assume anything. Even if it is for the individual, there are too many motives to just have a general ban on these products.


Beverage companies and restaurants already have an obligation to clearly display nutritional information on each and every packaging label. Calorie counts, sugar amounts and more are already made readily available for each consumer. From that point out, it's up to the consumer to judge whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, for them to purchase and consume. Just like how prohibition did not work in the 1900s, banning large and sugary drinks will not work either. But this time, there's a lot more moral issues involved that would threaten the freedom Americans have come to enjoy daily.

Justice, for all

Every single day, in America's Pledge of Allegiance, we recite the phrase "justice, for all." This simple phrase suggests that marriage, and who can marry who, should not even be a topic in our country.

Both the people who come out and say they support same-sex marriage and the people who come out and say they oppose same-sex marriage are wrong. It doesn't matter what they think... it matters what each individual believes. Their opinions shouldn't matter. People can decide what's best for themselves and how they want to lead their lives.

It's sad that we are still living in a country with "separate, but equal" characteristics. These people are still normal people, who should have the same equal, unalienable rights and their beliefs should be protected under our Constitution.

Americans should be able to lead their lives however they choose to, including decisions about who they want to spend their lives with. No one has any right to dictate or restrict who people can, or cannot, marry, nor do they have a right to justify what is right. No one can define "love." If you don't believe in or support same-sex marriage, or regular marriage, just do not do it. It's wrong to stop other people from believing in something different. It's not physically hurting anyone.

America was founded on the belief that everyone is equal, even if their opinions are worlds apart. It's sad that we still cannot see the very clear answer. Just don't even bother defining marriage and let each individual choose.