Current Events

Finding Hope in Nature and Art

in ,

Often during the bleakest periods of history, people seek refuge in Nature and the arts. In the nineteen-thirties, during the Great Depression, this was especially true. As part of the WPA Federal Project Number One, the US Government commissioned artists, musicians, actors, and writers to create murals, paintings, literature, photography, and plays. Theater and musical groups toured the US, bringing hope to millions of Americans, who could momentarily forget their difficult circumstances and appreciate beauty.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) also contributed to the nation’s relief by creating new trails and campgrounds at almost every national park. In turn, Americans had the chance to enjoy Nature at a small cost, then return refreshed and inspired to their hard day-to-day lives.

In both of my historical novels, the protagonists seek refuge in a national park. In the forthcoming THE VIEW FROM HALF DOME, set in 1934, Isabel flees to Yosemite after a tragic accident and falls in love with the park’s majestic beauty. There, she meets Yosemite’s first female ranger-naturalist, Enid Michael, who helps her learn new skills and discover an inner strength she never knew she had.

Through her magnificent public wildflower garden, which she oversees with help from the Cascades CCC boys, Enid strives to inspire visitors and ultimately preserve the National Parks. Her friend, the legendary photographer Ansel Adams, also hopes to protect Yosemite by photographing its wild, untainted beauty, so people can see what’s truly at stake—and at risk of being destroyed by loggers.

Then, as in now, people turn to the beauty of Nature, literature, art, and music to find a little reprieve from economic and political turmoil, while reconnecting with each other and themselves.

Book Review of Emily Chang's Brotopia: Breaking Up the Boys' Club in Silicon Valley

in , ,

An interesting, important read. As a woman who worked in tech for nearly 30 years (and who holds B.S. and M.S. computer science degrees, plus an MBA), I have seen firsthand the gross disparity in the number of women in management/leadership positions, as well as the sharp decline in women entering the field since the early nineties. In fact, I've also seen dozens of women leave the field during the past three decades.

Disclaimer: I live in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, not Silicon Valley; and I have worked at traditional, hard-core tech telecom and IT companies, not social media companies like Facebook, Reddit, Uber, and Google. In my opinion, it is primarily the latter (social media app companies) that have given rise to the frat-boy "brogrammer" culture.

However, while the larger telecom and IT companies do not have openly misogynistic, lewd cultures, they do harbor serious rank and pay inequities among men and women. What's more, even at the Ciscos, IBMs, etc., there is certainly a tendency among men to dismiss women's ideas, or, as has happened to me several times, coopt those ideas as their own. I have seen arrogant, entitled men at the large, traditional IT companies, many in management positions. At the same time, those larger firms seem to do a better job of at least attracting more women in the engineering "worker bee" positions than the social media firms, probably because their culture is less frat-boy, more mature. For a thorough, holistic view of the industry, I would have liked Ms. Chang to examine a few of the dynamics at the larger, traditional (B2B) IT companies like Cisco, IBM, HPE, NetApp, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree with Emily Chang that the industry could accomplish so much more by promoting more women to management/leadership positions, resolving pay inequities for women and minorities (as Salesforce seems to have tried), seeking out diverse recruits from different industries, and changing their culture from the myth of a meritocracy, which only encourages white males to hire more white males, to an inclusive, creative, and diverse one. Finally, women in tech leadership positions, like Sheryl Sandberg and others, have a responsibility to use their power to recruit and promote more women.

Proposal for Public Service Requirement for Office of US President

in ,

Most of us know the basic requirements for candidates of the office of US President, including the minimum age of thirty-five, US residency for at least fourteen years, and natural-born US citizenship. However, in my opinion, these requirements are not sufficient. After the disastrous Presidency of Donald Trump, a malignant narcissist who couldn’t care less about the fate of our country unless it benefited him, I propose adding a new requirement to the minimum qualifications for this esteemed office.

Forget about the natural-born citizen requirement; any person who has been a naturalized citizen of the U.S. for at least thirty-five (or forty) years, in my opinion, should be allowed to run for President. But in addition, we should instate a new requirement: All US Presidential candidates must have served for at least a year, preferably more, in a public servant role: working for a non-profit or charity, serving in a local or federal Government office or a branch of the military, volunteering in organizations such as Peace Corps or Teach America, etc. This requirement would effectively eliminate opportunists and narcissists like Donald Trump from running and seizing the reins of our country for their own personal gain.

And in case such an opportunist decided to trump up a fake foundation as his or her example of public service (e.g. Trump Foundation) with dubious goals and inner-workings, the organization would first have to be independently “cleared” as a legitimate, bona-fide charity or non-profit, established and managed by someone other than the candidate, with a minimum five year history and a clear mission statement to help disadvantaged people.

Public officials who have served in local or federal government for at least a year would qualify to run for President, as would anyone who had served in any branch of the military or who had worked for a volunteer organization such as the Food Bank, Peace Corps, and so on. The point is that this candidate would need to demonstrate a commitment to helping others besides himself, his family, and his cronies. As a result, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George Bush Senior and Junior, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Ronald Reagan would all qualify as Presidential candidates. Donald Trump, however, would not.

If we add this requirement to the list of US Presidential candidate qualifications, we might not have to be as concerned that another con artist could usurp our country and wreak immeasurable havoc on our democracy.

Geraldine Brooks' Year of Wonders: Relevant to Today

in ,


After my first reading twenty years ago, I just finished re-reading Geraldine Brooks’ beautiful historical novel, Year of Wonders. Surprisingly, I had forgotten most of the plot, and so I read it anew, with a fresh set of eyes, and without bias. It is a lyrical, inspirational story of resurrecting hope and life from the bowels of death and despair.

The novel is based on the real-life village of Eyam in Derbyshire, England in 1666, the Year of the Plague. On advice of their rector, the villagers decided to self-isolate to avoid spreading the disease to other surrounding villages. Their act was heroic in its resolve, especially given the inevitable hardships and tragedy they consequently faced. (For every person aboveground, two lay below ground by the end of the terrible year).

Still, Anna Frith, the novel’s intelligent and compassionate protagonist, manages to survive and thrive, even after losing her husband to a mining accident, and burying her two young sons shortly later, after they succumb to the plague. Together with the rector's wife, she learns how to cultivate herbs for healing purposes, and even steps in to midwife young mothers - all in sharp contrast to some of the superstitious acts the other villagers, in their ignorance, follow in an attempt to ward off the plague.

The reader roots for Anna and her friend, Elinor Mompellion, who courageously seek to spread healing, information, and comfort among their villagers wherever possible. Brooks’ writing is lovely in its quaint seventeenth century language and phrasing and vivid descriptions. What’s more, the tale is relevant to our current events, if only to put them in perspective, for what the citizens of the fictional English town endured between the “apple-picking season” in 1665 and the return of that autumn season in 1666 was far worse.

Year of Wonders is truly exemplary of historical fiction at its best: accurate in its detail, moving and lyrical in its language, and deeply character driven, with a protagonist who struggles against external events and also faces internal dilemmas that ultimately shape the way s/he perceives the world.

At its core, Year of Wonders is a tale of survival, hope, compassion, and embracing life. Highly recommended during our own turbulent times!

Today's Missed Opportunity: Learning from FDR and the Great Depression

in ,

As the coronavirus pandemic crisis deepens and enters its third month in the US, it appears that the Federal Government has adopted, at best, a “laissez-faire” approach, in which state governors must scramble for resources and even fight each other for those scarce resources, at the peril of citizens’ lives. In short, no coordinated national effort has been established; no efforts have been made to disburse medical equipment and test kits in a controlled way; and chaos reigns (much as it has since January 2017, when the current occupant of the White House bulldozed into D.C. with his showmanship and oversized ego, demonstrating little regard for the American people, except insofar as they might play toadies to his narcissism or help him get re-elected). The White House has chosen cronyism and “each state for its own,” lives be damned, over compassion and unity - a fact that should surprise no one.

At the same time, I can’t help but think of how President Franklin Roosevelt, who served as America’s thirty-second President, from 1933 until his death in 1945, and brought America out of the Great Depression, would have handled things differently. Much differently. FDR established the New Deal programs through the WPA (Works Public Administration) to help the unemployed get back to work by cleaning up the National Parks and cutting new trails, rebuilding roads, constructing new buildings, painting murals, and generally reviving the economy.

Trump and his cronies? Not even close. He has bungled the crisis by failing to respond intelligently, let alone in a timely way, and then hoping it would all just “go away,” like a bad dream. In doing so, he and his Administration have missed a huge opportunity both to shorten the crisis and reinvigorate the ailing economy. Had they approached this emergency as a true national emergency and enemy, as FDR treated the Depression, they could have:

  • Put unemployed people back to work in manufacturing masks, gloves, and other critical medical supplies for healthcare workers

  • Put unemployed people back to work in disbursing those supplies

  • Put unemployed people back to work in manufacturing test kits

  • Put unemployed people back to work in disbursing test kits

  • Put unemployed people back to work in administering tests

  • Headed a national task force to organize widespread testing and tracing and corresponding policies

  • Put unemployed people or small companies back to work in developing contact tracing

  • Put unemployed people back to work in implementing the widespread testing and contact tracing policies

  • Put unemployed people back to work in building new hospitals and healthcare infrastructure

  • Put unemployed younger men and women back to work in rebuilding roads, state parks, and National parks, in a modified version of FDR’s CCC (Conservation Civilian Corps)

  • Put unemployed younger men and women back to work in helping school districts with laptops, WiFi routers, to aid online learning

  • Put unemployed younger men and women back to work in helping Food Banks distribute food to the needy in their communities

  • And the list goes on…

Has Trump done an iota of this? Not even close. Well, he signed his name on checks disbursed by the Federal Government to qualifying citizens (including the dead), in hopes that they would thank him with their vote in November. But when it comes to coordinating efforts across the states, or, dare I say, collaborating with the leaders of other countries to help control the spread and implement best practices that have worked in Hong Kong and Taiwan? No. The man’s narcissism has once again become an impediment to aiding his own people.

And isn’t helping people one of the primary jobs of public servants? Most political leaders in true democracies are altruistic to the extent that they hope to change their communities for the better and help improve their citizens’ lives. But in charge of our precious democracy is not a typical altruistic leader of a free and fair democracy. In fact, he is eerily similar to President Buzz Windrip in Sinclair Lewis’ nineteen-thirties novel, It Can’t Happen Here, who is a hair away from fascism - and then insidiously develops a fascist dictatorship under his citizens’ noses, incarcerating journalists and political enemies, curtailing women’s and minorities’ rights, and hiring his own militia.

We can and should learn from history - and what better way than by reviewing and learning from the policies of FDR, one of America’s greatest Presidents? Maybe, just as FDR sparked hope in the desperate people of the thirties following the 1932 election that he won in a landslide from his predecessor, Hoover; our Democratic candidate, Biden, will take on the daunting task of winning the 2020 election and finally transitioning our country from panic, depression and hatred into hope, tolerance, kindness, and unity.

In the shadow of a pandemic

in

The first time I felt the world had taken a sharp, surreal turn was the morning after the US Presidential election in November 2016. Stunned, in disbelief, I moved through the day slowly, my mind a fog. Later, unable to make sense of what had happened, I couldn’t shake the feeling that we had entered a hard, dark parallel universe - one that should never have happened.

In the classic movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Jimmy Stewart’s character, George Bailey, experiences a glimpse of such a dark parallel world when his guardian angel temporarily shuttles him into the evil twin of his own cozy town. Controlled by the misanthropic, greedy Mr. Potter, Pottersville runs rampant with sad, cruel people, beaten down by their hard circumstances. This glimpse is supposed to give George an idea of what his town of Bedford Falls, New York would have become, had he never been born. Indeed, George Bailey’s evening in Pottersville makes him all the more grateful for his life in Bedford Falls, which he has taken for granted.

Similarly, in the fall of 2016, I couldn’t help but think how carefree I had been, living under what I had taken for granted to be the protection of a democracy with free and fair elections. The reality is that while I and others had enjoyed the benefits of an open, democratic society, a thriving capitalist economy, and laws established by what I thought of as mainly fair, benevolent leaders; others clearly had not. November 2016 heralded a harsh wake-up call that a large and growing percentage of the population felt disenfranchised, underrepresented, and even in despair. This twin of our country’s promises of the “American dream” had been there all along.

Three and a half years later, it’s unclear whether the disenfranchised have received any more assistance. What is clear is that our country’s free and fair elections have been compromised, and the current administration appears to be more concerned with its own image and the possibility of re-election than with the country’s best interests.

Now, in the wake of a global pandemic - the first that almost any of us, including centenarians, has seen in our lifetimes, I again feel that we have swerved onto a dark parallel track.

In my opinion, the disaster and effects of COVID-19 would not have been as widespread under a different administration. The pandemic prevention measures in place in over thirty-five countries would not have been cut; CDC and NIH spending would not have been slashed; test kits would have been ordered well in advance; efforts would have been made to listen to medical experts and collaborate with the leaders of other countries to control the spread; airport screenings and quarantines would have been issued out of caution and foresight.

In short, more capable leaders would have taken action months ago, and warned of the severe implications of a pandemic virus instead of ignorantly dismissing it as “another flu.” They would have had the foresight and wisdom to know that without prevention and preparation, our health care system could crumple to its knees, unequipped to handle the incoming cases and other critical cases; and the economy itself could shrink possibly to the levels only seen in the Great Recession and even the Great Depression.

Oddly, if you went on a rafting trip for three weeks without wifi or cell as apparently at least one group did, you might, upon returning to civilization and after recovering from your shock at the news, even be fooled into thinking that you had returned to a government run by a dictator, where disease is rampant; people live in fear; and only the dictator, his family, and close advisors are protected - both economically and physically.

In this terrible, unprecedented moment in history, we have entered a new normal, where children cannot go to school; many people in the service industry cannot work; and income and long years of savings have gone down the drain. However, I am not normally one to dwell on mistakes of the past, hold grudges, or stew about what could have been done differently. So in the spirit of moving on, I’d like to look ahead and come together with others to help out wherever needed.

As an employee in the high tech industry, I feel fortunate to be able to work from home, as does my husband. This is a luxury that many other industries cannot afford, and I am grateful for it. Homeschooling is not convenient, but it is also necessary, for now, to make sure that kids don’t lose ground and continue to sharpen their skills.

While this is a surreal time, others in history have survived World War I, the Spanish Flu of 1918, the Great Depression, World War II, plus countless other intervening conflicts and strife. In fact, many countries outside the US currently suffer far worse - daily struggles to eat, sweeping mosquito-borne illnesses, conflicts and government upsets that force them from their homes and make them fear constantly for their lives.

Maybe, like the fictional character of George Bailey, we can use this moment as a way of reflecting on what we had that was good, and how we can unite to get through this crisis together, stronger. And then, with an eye to the future, let’s figure out how we can create a better, more equitable system that benefits all, a democracy of our own making: by the people and for all the people.

Our Country's Misogynistic Bent

in ,

Elizabeth Warren was roundly defeated on Super Tuesday in favor of the now all-too-familiar barrage of pushy white male politicians in their late seventies. Why? This article from the Atlantic sums it up well: Despite Warren’s competence, intelligence, and thoughtful discourse, our country is apparently too misogynistic to acknowledge her, an accomplished woman, as a viable candidate. Instead, they label her as “condescending” and “strident.”

Huh? In my opinion, compared to Trump and even Sanders and other Democratic candidates, Elizabeth Warren is the antithesis of condescending.

“All we want,” Warren wrote in her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance, “is a country where everyone pays a fair share, a country where we build opportunities for all of us; a country where everyone plays by the same rules and everyone is held accountable. And we have begun to fight for it. I believe in us. I believe in what we can do together, in what we will do together.”

Is this an arrogant attitude, a condescending opinion? No. It’s obvious that Warren, unlike Trump, truly wants what is best for the country, not for herself. She wants to improve people’s lives, lift up the masses. Yet, for mystifying reasons (likely the same reasons that Trump was elected to office in 2016), people can’t accept that she’s intelligent, articulate, well-educated and a leader.

Consider Sanders, on the other hand. Isn’t he annoyingly similar to Trump in his egoistic approach to politics, his obnoxious and dogged determination to steal the spotlight?

Well, no. Our country is evidently willing to accept another old white male with known health issues and a semi-narcissistic personality, as a candidate to defeat Trump. In fact, he’s seen as a principled and passionate leader, a take-charge kind of guy. We are also willing to accept Biden (another old white male). But we cannot accept Warren. The masses see her…ahem…as “shrill.”

Of all the first world countries, the US is exceedingly behind in its views and attitudes toward women. Women still get paid eighty cents on the dollar for the same work as men; they are still underrepresented in managerial and executive board positions in corporations; and they have never held the office of President or Vice President in this country.

In 2016, people dismissed Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump as a result of her personal baggage and a mismanaged campaign. I disagreed then with that reasoning, and I continue to disagree now, when clearly, the evidence points to the fact that our country simply isn’t ready for a smart, capable female leader.

As a woman who has worked in high tech for nearly thirty years, I have seen this “subtle” discrimination in multiple forms at multiple companies. Women leaders are called pushy and abrasive. They are even labeled the “b” word. Men talk over them in meetings; co-opt their ideas as their own; dismiss their successes as “luck,” and pay them less than male counterparts for the same job. Too often, women in analytical positions are held back, because their male counterparts can’t comprehend that they are equally competent in math, engineering and computer science. The female engineers are often labeled “tactical,” the ones who dot the i’s and cross the t’s - not the ones who solve big problems. As for male leaders? They are viewed as confident, respected, analytical, and above all, “strategic.”

Why this double standard? I think it’s the same reason that helped Trump win in 2016: nameless fear. Fear of losing ground. Fear of losing position. Fear of losing authority. Fear of declining earnings. Fear of losing one’s place in society.

Enough already. Fear is crippling, disabling, and thwarts people from being their best. This is why I will, in each and every novel I write (and possibly a high tech memoir in the distant future), highlight strong women and their choices.