Identity Politics--"He's my man!"--vs. Self-Identity--"I'm a union man!"

 I hope that Bernie Sanders gets the unions going in industry and business as they were in the 1950s--but without the corruption.

The Middle Class really has no spokesman, except to rely upon some autocrat-populist who seeks their vote, no matter how he enriches his set of cronies and himself (which he seemingly regards as "none of their ((i.e., the voters')) business!" 

Some analysts have contended that the unions can't stand up to management because of immigration.  The companies keep wages down by hiring the foreign-born immigrants.  And it is true, seemingly, that in Japan as well as in the US, wages in factory jobs are kept down by hiring those that don't speak English or some other native language.

I took a temp job over one Christmas season with a company that hired both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking workers.  Trouble was that once a supervisor was hired that preferred not to speak English, gradually workers under him were no longer speaking English either, and finally, all the English-speakers left.  We had little choice in the matter.  Go on construction sites; and many times you'll find they're hired as a team--yep, a group of Latino workers.     

With the union label no longer attached to workers in a plant, a wage-earner may feel a loss of identity.  He can't stand up to the giant of his corporation.  He wants a voice--ah, "That's my man!"--his politician.  He looks the other way at the deeds the politician may be doing, nefarious though some of these might be; so long as he's working and making money to pay his bills.  Sadly, he may be impervious to the harm the working there might be doing to his health in the long run (like in professional football or in boxing).

Bernie, help the worker in search of his own self-identity!

Ukrainian President Zelensky's Losing Fight over Corruption

The Economist is reporting (p.48 of 11/14th/2020 issue) that the Ukrainian President is losing in the courts to corruption.  No doubt the corrupt governmental officials are being supported by Russia.

The Russian Federation's Constitution (in effect now) suffered a similar fate in the Russian judicial system over a period of 10 years when it was installed, but especially after President Putin got into office.  It's a common practice of would-be autocrats to control the courts, even as we witnessed in the US through the antics of President Trump.

The way to get to corruption in the federal government is through a free and unencumbered press, of course--the Fourth Estate.  A dictator naturally is drawn to a policy of eliminating any critical press person.  

Another way is to go underworld and try one's luck there.  But that's illegal, too.  It's trying to fight fire with the tools firemen use, but not being trained or allowed legally to use them.  I don't recommend it!  

President Zelensky could call upon NATO to help him come up with ideas.  And that's legal and may do the trick!

Mr. Johnson's Taking On Constitutional Reform

 I think there's a danger in thinking that 1) all people are equals and thereby entitled to full respect, 2) the rule of law is a necessary condition for justice, and 3) democracy is a natural longing of mankind--that these three assumptions are given descriptions of one's condition in nature; though indeed these may be what he or she wishes to be the case in his life.  For we know that individuals who take these as truths may in the course of one's lifetime have to die for believing them.

There is yet another assumption that we should grant as a prima facie truth:  we are born into a particular culture and are indeed not just a member of the human species but a Englishman, an American or a Chinese.  Now, the Chinese contend there are certain responsibilities that accrue to our being members of a particular culture.  These come forth in the Chinese disagreements with the Australians, as of late. 

For the Chinese government contends, as Chinese, we ought to serve the interests of our native land.  So that, if in business, we ought to be prosperous, even if it be as a result of accepting monetary subsidies from  the government to realize that prosperity.   

Now, as Americans, we don't recognize this as a presumptive given.  Certainly not.  Then, how should our diplomats talk with the Chinese whenever in our discussions with them they seek to convince us?  Or do we walk away and vow to limit our trade with them, if we continue to trade with them at all?

Clearly, we both--Chinese and American--look to trade with our trading partners to better our lives.  We want product-A; they produce product-A in which we have short supply, so we want to trade with them, if feasible.

But that is just the point.  When I was in China, in Beijing, talking with Chinese people I looked for common ground, in which we both share an interest and I was ready to make my point.  I found there was persecution of Christians; and sought in the Christian life some quality that the Chinese respected and could find of use of service to the government.  It was that a Christian Chinese was a good worker and known not be a slouch.  So, he was of value to the state.

I understand there are over 140 million Christians in China, today.     

Zambia's descent toward autocratic rule

 A debt problem of 120% of GDP.  Economist (11/14/20 issue)  Another country headed down to autocratic dominion over its populace: the lord of the fray, President Edgar Lungu.  

Zambia becomes like the many lately falling into debt, in the hands of a despot profligate.  Those who don't commit to his rule are driven to migrate somewhere else, where their hopes for survival might be greater.

Venezuela, you remember the country, still being ruled by Nicolas Madero.  Opposition Presidential candidate support weakening over time, even as numbers of those leaving the country grows.  Did the some 50 countries who endorsed him originally offer plans for reorganizing the government that would once again make it a prosperous nation?

One man rule.  Country looking up to him for direction that improves the fate of his people, especially his poor.

Does he know enough?  Are those that run his administration professionals, trained in their positions at some university or college from around the world? 

Why should some citizen submit to his rule?  Obvious.  Else that citizen will be dealt with by the military tribunal or some such with the authority of the state government.  And, they will be professionals, maybe.

Currently in Africa, Zambia and 5 other countries are woefully in arrears to the IMF.

     

Brookings: Discussion on topic ''The Future of Asia''

On 12/17/20 Brookings held an online discussion on "The Future of Asia" from 10-11:30 AM. The panel was introduced by Brookings' President John R. Allen and moderator was Ms. Mireya Solis.  Discussants: Richard Bush, Rush Doshi, Lindsey Ford, and Ryan Hass of Brookings.

While China is but one nation among the entire host of nations in Asia, it took a central place in the discussion.  First off, however, Ryan Hass acknowledged that due thanks was bestowed upon the US military for its crucial role in maintaining 40 years of worldwide peace with no major wars occurring, a fact recently alluded to by the present Queen of England in a recent address to her people.  

For not only has the US maintained bases and installations in over 150 nations but is performing yeoman service in assisting the Ukrainian forces against Russian aggression and leading in NATO to protect European countries.  However, several nations facing economic hard times have wondered aloud why the US does not do more economically for its friends the world over. e.g., providing expertise and grants and loans to upgrade infrastructures in their homelands.  While Trump is yanking US troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq and making Iran poverty-stricken, the new Administration in Washington may regard the few troops required to enable these countries to live in peace and free of war may be worth the monetary cost. 

At that juncture, talk may turn from what the US has done in the past to help its friends as to its seeming pulling back from providing much-needed foreign aid to augment commitments through the UN.  For China was entered the international scene primarily in the economic sphere, doing the construction of infrastructure primarily with their laborers from China, and making loans and providing grants to nations in need of its help.  

Now, it is the case that countries of Asia know China and have been trading with China for centuries. What is new is the political power China has gained on the world stage.  Several panelists noted that these neighboring nations are yet suspicious of China, because it's all so new that China is doing so much by way of manufacturing goods and extending monetary aid and displaying technical acumen and advanced knowledge.  Indeed, China is offering their technical achievements through their frequently government-subsidized corporations to companies throughout Asia that bring these countries up to speed!

And, withal, where is American business?  Is it still committed to the project, begun in the Renaissance, Globalization?  Does it intend to aid the poorer countries of the world to join 5G networks, for instance?

President Trump made clear these past 4 years of his Presidency that he does not support any such romantic notion.  He proved he was about US interests primarily.  But how about the Biden Presidency?

Several panelists alluded to the current way to bind trading countries together is in making coalitions whereby expertise and trading benefits are mutually exchanged. The TPP and coalitional trading groups are forming in the Asian region; and hopefully, US companies, perhaps with Chinese introductions, will come to enjoy some new-found trading partners from Asia.   

  

         

Brookings: Seminar Panels on Schools During Pandemic

 On December 15, 2020, 1:30 P.M. at the Brookings, Washington DC, an online presentation occurred bringing together educators in various positions of administration and teaching in the US schools to assess primarily the school system of grades K-12--as to how they're doing during the Pandemic in meeting educative goals.  There were so many participants, the discussants were divided into two panels moderated by Brookings people in the Brown Center for Education Policy: Douglas Harris and Jon Valant, moderators.

The participants willingly  imparted their views as to what's going on in the schools and by whom, etc.--a veritable outpouring of ideas and assessments of current trends throughout the country.  Significantly, they seemed to concur in assessing new trends.

1. There's plenty of educational institutions now given the green light for government support: the public schools, the charter schools, private schools--Catholic, and religious offerings in the elementary and high school levels.  Loads of options implied thereby for children whatever their backgrounds or native language.  These schools offer usually a lunch program and have available modest medical care on site.  There may be after-school activities conducted, too.  They veritably function as a home away from home--except the kids sleep at home!

2.  Virtual learning is available in cities and towns, but in rural areas, students may not have access to a computer--may not be given one to use while in school.  One participant pointed out that virtual learning usually is not led by a teacher specifically trained in the special features that online learning afford.  Possibly, the teacher in a virtual learning atmosphere functions more like a sports coach, say, in football, than as a dispenser of knowledge and truth--the traditional classroom role.  

3.  As the discussions proceeded in each panel, I was made aware that fundamentally the teachers in these schools fall back upon the children's parents for the authority of their presence and conduct in the schools.  This is made clear in the selection process of the school to which the parents decide to send each of their children: whether to a traditional school or charter, for example.  

That being implied, it would behoove the schools to establish a rapport with the parents--reach out to them for their ideas and comments.  In a tutor situation, for instance, the tutored child's parents could be visited in their home, one day when a child was accompanied with his tutor for a at-home visit.  One person voiced the opinion that the students should be involved in the designs of the educative experiences at the school.

Another participant claimed from her experience that the native language of the child should be taught additionally to the language spoken where he resides, whenever possible, to make the cultural transition smooth.

4.  Emphasis was given to the need to translate employment opportunity into curriculum offerings and topics to make meaningful the economics involved in learning new knowledge and skills, especially, computer programs irrespective of student social backgrounds.

5.  The need for accountability regarding what is offered in the classroom that will be useful to the students and the groups that should do the school and curricula evaluations was taken up.  Colleges and universities tend to be relied upon as the traditional evaluators of whether the educative experience of grades K-12 is valuable to students is now conjoined with the community colleges who are mindful of what talents and skills should be developed in the lower grades as emphasized through their technical programs, developed with business people.

All-in-all, I found the two-hour presentation chuck-full of ideas and thoughts as fodder for future planning sessions of how schools can meet the needs of learning what will be useful to their students turned adults.    

On the Inhumane treatment of Muslims in China's Xinjiang Province; areas in France

I've studied the situation in China on trips to Beijing and I'm familiar with the problems the Muslims have had in various areas around the world.  I've contended the major block to peaceful acceptance of the Muslims worldwide are the actions of the jihadists to establish a religious kingdom on earth--a doctrine that inspired early Muslims many centuries ago.  Any government who has to tackle the declarations of an independent state on their territory must take military action to thwart such jihadist hostile attempts, even as Mr. Macron has stated should there be such an uprising in France. 

I am a Christian and upon visiting Beijing some years ago, I was told many stories from those who had witnessed persecution of the Christians.  That was the time when religious services were held in worshipers' homes.  I talked with representatives of the Beijing government about the conditions under which there would be open practice of the Christian religion in China.

The major point they wished to make was that whether or not a Chinese was a Christian was of little importance to the government compared to his essential affirmation that he was Chinese and therefore subject to the rule and the laws of China--first and foremost.  

For my part, I stressed that Chinese Christians have the reputation of being hard workers, dedicated to their country and wish to contribute with their labor to the good of the Chinese way of life, as spelled out in various revered governmental documents.

I tried to stress that there need be no conflict for a Chinese citizen in good standing to also be a devout Christian, to practice Christian values in his daily activities for the good of the country and the Chinese people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read many years ago the plight of the Mormons who first came to  this country to practice their religion.

They were harassed and persecuted from one settlement to the next; and finally ended up in Illinois.  But there too, the persecution continued.  One night after apparently having supper or at least sitting down for the meal, they got from the dinner and took off!  --To claim as their final territory where they would practice their religion in Utah, near the Salt Flats.

And look how proud the country is today of those Mormons who have served their country over the Centuries.  In my visits to Salt Lake City, I marvel how they have reached out to the poor and the aimless in the West with the hope for a bright future ahead--yes, offering as part of their vision a blessing from that community of believers.  It has proven to change lives, forsaking a lonely destitution.

The point I wish to make is to me an obvious declaration:  With God's help I shall fulfill my duties as a citizen of the United States, even as I regard my Chinese friends in China similarly dedicated to the Chinese Republic.  For I recognize myself as an American possessing a spiritual dimension. 

The Essential Essence of Globalization

 In the October 10th issue of the Economist there's an insert Special Report on the World Economy.  It's worth reason for the fair evaluation it makes of the international project going since the Renaissance known as GLOBALIZATION.  

What's the current fundamental reason for the project on today's economic scene?  Simply, to unite all peoples on the globe for the sake of preservation of the human race.  To prevent the race's self-destruction.

Few intelligensia are aware of the near conflicts erupting during the 1960s and 1970s--the "have-not nations of the world" vs. the advanced "haves."  Then, Nixon was President and minutiae wars were being conducted in Afghanistan, the Koreas and Indochina regions.  But there were rumblings from social "flames" occurring in Africa. Globalization, a movement really begun by the mercantile class, continued colonization of the poor countries around the globe, and countries The Netherlands, England were prominent movers of goods and people in their ships, colonizing where the ships landed.

The world was recovering from World Wars where ruling thugs were hell-bent on stealing the riches from the European trade giants who made out like bandits raking in the riches of the New World in previous Centuries.  

Globalization, plotting along around the world as an intellectual revolution of its own meant that the complaining, envious "have-not" nations could be mollified with promises of their countries' development soon as could be arranged, promises given to disparate interracial mobs wherever they gathered.  Communism, even, was taken seriously as an alternative governmental structure to resolve the glaring economic disparity between the two factions on the world scene.  To prevent robbing blindly the wealthy nations, the poor were told that a religious miracle would bring about a change in the world that righted the wrongs which only luck had distributed poverty to those who had not benefited from the plunders of the great powers--excluding the United States.

Where we have learned to respect those in poverty and sought to rewrite their cultural histories to restore their dignity as human beings, through the use of globalization, much good is coming as a long-awaited result of the project. But just as frequently, we have seen these "have-not" nations lapse into famine and disease with no hope of  trusting to promises of the "haves."  

But here is the point I want to make.  Amid all this talk of "Yes, Yes, Yes" we will stand with you, made by the "haves" through such financial institutions as their IMF, particularly to South American countries, and the World Bank, nevertheless, through the efforts of the Roguish President Richard Nixon, China has grown into an international giant, tangibly offering to especially the African "have-nots"--though nearly to every have-not nation around the globe--economic relief through trade and commerce with them--China.

This surd in history has not met well with the kingpins of roulette, particularly, in the Trump Camp.  I quote from the Economist: "America's share of Chinese imports and exports fell to its lowest in 27 years (recently), before (its)WTO entry.  America circumvented and then sabotaged the WTO, stopping the nomination of judges to its appeal board and thus its ability to adjudicate trade disputes." p. 7 of insert.  So that, China became the trader of the world, while other nations that once were big in world trade came under the rule of the pandemic!  Trump's retort, "We've WON!" 

    

What the Pandemic's major lesson is to us all!

The importance of living in a community that's livable!

 We have come to realize the importance of stores in our neighborhood that meet our needs.  Of having in close proximity a hospital, a church or place of worship, convenient transportation and above all, people around us in time of need and of personal grief and sorrow.

China is moving its citizenry off vacated farmlands into places known as "village consolidations."  It's forced upon the people of that area  But we have come to know that it's not wise simply to let people go it alone--unaware of what disasters they are foisting on themselves and their loved ones.  

I remember teaching at Ohio University in the midst of poverty, as a result of the closure of the coal mines in Southeastern Ohio.  The residents who stayed on past the heyday of the industry seemed so lost and bewildered by all the vacant homes about theirs.  We need to have concern for one another, to help each other relocate to places livable for us humans--not simply exist in a shack with an outhouse out back.  You can see them still in the aerial shots of the western states on TV. 

I hope President-Elect Biden and his team will reach out into the very byways of our country with a message of mercy and care for one another.  When I was working in the computer industry many years ago, I learned early on to know the signs of a company I was working for about to go under; and would beat it out to better opportunities.  That is to say, I'd search for a "village consolidation" where I could prosper by reaching out--networking  through friends and professional organizations for leads to a livable and sustaining community.

Never should the human being "have no choice bu to move into these (forced) settlements!" p. 34 of the October 3rd Economist issue, regarding the present-day Chinese experience of the poor.

Here, the Army Corps of Engineers and the civilian administration should make part of its infrastructure upgrade agenda beautifying the country by getting rid of the slums in the inter-city and the shacks and junk of bygone years left to rot at the locales where they once were part of a thriving and prosperous vicinity.

LIVE AMONG PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT YOU--I think.  

  

   

Fareed Zakaria's Plea for Restructuring the federal government to be more democratic!

Today, Sunday, December 6, 2020, on CNN's program GPS, Fareed urged that the country should learn from the experience of Donald Trump's one term as President of the United States: the lesson: The US should be even more democratic! 

I couldn't agree more!

But, we need an institution within the federal government that serves as the continuing presence of democracy to assure the federal government is actively promoting democracy internally and externally (e.g., through membership in international  cooperative institutions). 

Compare the United States with Great Britain.  I have argued that the Commonwealth of Nations of the UK is just such that institution; and should be recognized for its yeoman service for the democracy's cause among nations.

It's easy to do.  Currently, elections of the Venezuelan parliament are underway.  They are crying for international observers to be on the scene.  None there, even no way to shame its government into allowing nonpartisan control of the elections.

The point is, as nations in Africa are attempting to embrace democratic practices, there must be concerted effort among the seasoned democracies to help the neophytes.

As things stand now, a dictator can assure his power so long as he lives.  Then another dictator can have his sway.  Where are the people's democratic governments to give succor to those countries wishing that their own citizens could lead a life democracy affords to the citizens of democratic countries?  

Meanwhile, the world would suffer under the brandishment of the sword of just another "live it up, Jack, for tomorrow I'm no longer around!" tyrant.    

    

Democracy's troubling aspects within the conduct of American policy today

Nearly every analyst of the practices of democracy in the conduct of American policy alludes to two central problems in making democracy work as it should within US polity.  But with the appearance of President D. Trump on the political scene the problems of maintaining a democratic belief in the will of the people to formulate American legislation has come into jeopardy.  The problem arises with the instrument known as an executive order.  It has been reinforced by the Senate's majority leader's privilege of setting the agenda for Senate consideration of proposed legislation, such that the Senate might not be given opportunity to consider a legislative proposal without the Majority Leader's placement of the item on its agenda.

But the first, the fundamental claw, at the powers of Congress is the executive order granted to the President.  A president of the US need not turn to Congress to gain approval for a policy he wishes to become law of the land.

One man in the administration is granted the right to set tariffs, to determine the international organizations and documents that the United States becomes a participant in or resigns from, etc.  We have already witnessed how the current President has sustained a trade war with China, instituted and maintained by his will alone, seemingly, no matter its consequences to the economy at home or abroad.

This goes against the grain of a democracy in everyday action to promote the will of the people in the policies of government. 

   

 

Crises in Ethiopia: A truly democratic Constitution in the hands of a demagogue

What I think is happening in Ethiopia: a remarkable "advanced" democratic constitution has been adopted.  It bears resemblance in features to we tried to bring to Russia in its new constitution, still in effect, adopted in the 1990s. As reported in the November 7th issue of the Economist, the Ethiopian constitution in effect "guarantees self-rule for each of Ethiopia's ten ethnically based states--and even the right to secede." (p. 40)  In these respects, it contains items I was pushing for in 1989 in Moscow for their new constitution.  

The point is that with powerful and traditionally maintained ethnic cultures within the nation's provinces, it makes sense at the national level to grant local autonomy.  I frequently point to Canada, where Quebec is an integral part of the whole of Canada, but is permitted autonomy at the provincial level of government.

Would that Russia would grant to the region in its territory that is predominantly Muslim!  But Putin would not, preferring to reduce Muslim citizens in the area to the status of slaves to the state.  So too, in China.  

In Ethiopia, the central government wants iron control over its 10 ethnic states.  It will permit no self-rule that exists that might allow departure from the rule by law laid forth by its dictator-head.

...Until there comes another after him--assuming during his reign, he can fight off all the ethnic groups that take him on.   

    

    

       

President Trump's Drive toward becoming an Autocrat a challenge for Democracy

 It's all about letting the President decide on his own matters of monumental importance in the  realm of  US policy.

It's the executive order issued simply by means of his signature--no need for him or her to consult or go through some representative body such as Congress. 

Trump wanted a trade war with China and by signing an order he got it.  He even determined the terms of the battle.  

It happens in the Senate, too.  We've seen Senate leader Mitch McConnell of the dominant party can hold up any bill simply by not placing it on the Senate's agenda.  And, nobody, but nobody can meaningfully object to it!

Supposedly, this country is a democracy, but I think that Trump, as one President flirting with Kingship, has shown that the people's input isn't necessary to put the country in a whole lot of misery by the President's signing an executive order or by the Senate Majority Leader blocking  the people's representatives performing what they supposedly should be doing--namely, setting forth the country's will in formulating government policy.          

Communism is long since dead in the world of ideas!

 I listened last night on CSPAN2 a talk of Trump's claim that China is a communist nation, defended as much as I could tell solely by, Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell.  He's the Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.  The event was held online put on by the Hoover Institute.  Moderator: Larry Diamond; participating in the discussion were Orvillle Schell, Asia Society, US-China Relations Director, O. S. Mastro of Stanford; and I didn't catch the names of anybody else who was part of this.  It was aired 10 PM ET 10/30/20.

 I've been to China more than once and though I've heard governmental officials say they're Communists, they sure are different from the Communists of Russia vintage, 1920s.  I think President Xi is emphasizing the origins of the present regime for his own reasons.  To my mind, China is ruled by an autocrat, who's just like all the others--a dictator; and you'd better not cross him or those he sends to do his bidding at your house, or else you'll be sorry!  Incidentally, Communism died in 1989.  I witnessed its demise in May of that year in Kremlin Square.

Trump is old enough to remember the good old Communism.  He even uses a fond phrase, echoing its heyday, "Things are going to be just fine; suddenly, it's all good."  A nod to Communism's embrace of determinism--"We'll win in the end."  "WE WILL DESTROY YOU!" said a devotee, clanging his shoe on a table to make his point emphatically--(I think it was at a United Nations' meeting, when Communism was Russia's vodka mix.)

But what I found in China was even a Mai Tai drink hadn't caught on with the Chinese devotees to Communism. But "Don't cross me," had, when uttered by a person with power in the totalitarian regime.

In the course of the discussion that aired last night, I was struck by the general, vague tone in the defense of Trump's label of China as a Communist country.  Just about any country subscribes to the Wall Street Journal these days; and most Chinese corporations are listed on some stock exchange; the same is true of Russian companies, too.  So, what's a brand name's worth when nobody but nobody wants the product?  It's capitalism and corporate profits are the names approved, today, by the prosperous crowds.

Take away freedom of thought, word, and discourse and you've got the word that describes the human condition, THOUGH NEVER SPOKEN EXCEPT BY HUSH, HUSH WINKS--slavery.

   

 

  

  .

At Cato: Discussion of movie "They Say It Can't Be Done"

On October 26, 2020 an online discussion of the movie "They Say it Can't Be Done" took place with Chelsea Follett of Cato, moderator, Patrick Reasonover, the presenter and the movie's lead producer, and Johan Norberg of Cato, commentator.  

I had not seen the movie; but the theme of it is well-trod territory among innovators who try to break into a sales market dominated by big corporations with overwhelming market-share monopoly, agonizing over their lot.  The new kids on the block complain its too expensive for the little guy to fight for the right to compete with the establishment, who, after all, get to set the rules for entry into a field, for which they lay claim to an exclusionary privilege, so as to maintain dominance.

One would think that venture capitalists would come to the neophyte innovators' aid.  But while important in the marketing of new products and services, these wealthy investors are reluctant to spend vast sums of money tied up in legal drawn-out battles over copyright infringement charges by the big boys with plenty of lawyers and an abundance of cash from their profits in their market line vs. a cash-strapped new product entrepreneur.

I came across an idea in the Economist recently: many university endowments are investing in Wall-Street.  Maybe, they might allocate some of their funds for start-ups. Surely, they know the history of innovators "borrowing" ideas from those already the known leaders in a field.

The situation is becoming dire: Trump has sided with American big business in their desire to hide or lock up their designs of products they are currently selling so as no other country's corporations could learn of their processes and methods and formulas.  Contrast that position to that of IBM early-on in the computer field, who shared their code as per their agreement with the sponsoring federal government.

Anyway, today's trade war with China is aimed to assure that China will not become competitive with American companies, just so long as the universities don't let on they have the knowledge of how the big guys' products are made, too.     

 

         

Brookings: Bell's tilt-rotor helicopter in Today's Warfare

 This discussion was on-line and was aired 10/23/20 10 AM.  Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings conducted the session; Mitch Snyder, President of Bell was the presenter, and Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Maryland) the commentator.

Already, the military is deploying the aircraft through the Navy, Army, and Marines, but is viewed, principally by the Army, as a tech-assault vehicle in its arsenal.

Its range, speed and comparable maintenance records make it a preferable choice to keeping older craft airborne with only some similar features.

I would hope that it would be the model upon which to build certain feature characteristics:

* able to reach speeds of a jet plane in spurts

* can be housed onboard destroyers and aircraft carriers but possibly refueled in the air by planes and on sea by ships

* nearly noiseless

* could fly around the world without significant maintenance done to it during its flight time

I, as one analyst, view this weapon as possessing "surprise" capabilities that make it less likely of enemy significant attack in retaliation to an assault.

Good show, President Mitch! 

   

 

Brookings: Conversation on how to connect with Chinese governmental people

A conversation-format with Governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Congressman Rick Larsen of Washington state, and Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio moderated by Ryan Hass of Brookings; and Introduction by President John Allen, Brookings, was broadcast online October 15, 2020, 12 noon.  

I came away with a new awareness that while President Trump may not desire to engage the Chinese in regard to common concerns of people living in our separate countries of China and the States, our governmental administrators and national legislators are eager to get going!

And there are issues pressing upon both countries that would benefit from an exchange of ideas.  For one, the matter of poverty, the seeking to tear down then rebuild or relocate those former inhabitants of unsafe buildings.  China is currently moving the former inhabitants of slum dwellings, condemned to be torn down, into larger cities into newly constructed housing. This will permit greater access to hospitals and city services than from where they are coming.  How to get rid of the plight that residential and downtown areas of  towns and large metropolises is something, not just the Chinese but virtually all regions in the US, where people dwell here in great numbers are in need to remedy.

Through NGOs in China and those in the States, the right contacts seem near in the offing for people of good will to work together and tackle--to rid urban plight.  Then too, the problems of job creation and full employment are central to administrations in the US and China, with population explosions not infrequent, generation to generation.  And, lest we forget a new menacing threat, the dramatic change in climate, that will cause the seas to rise above flood stage in populated coastal cities here and in China!

Nevertheless, the commonplace issues of living in modern-day cities where pollution and decay of our structures are forever with us, make sound sense that elected officials at all levels of government should convene international events where solutions are formulated and promoted for the good of mankind--in the case at hand, for those both in America and China. 

What seems to President Trump aspects of American Foreign Policy that may have surprised him.

And, he incorporated three facts to make them hallmarks of his foreign policy, I contend.  These are:

1) NATO under US guidance provides European Defense (similarly, Japan is being defended through US bases on its soil).  

2) China is on fast track to become a world major power due to US encouragement

3) The US military has installations and bases in over 120+ countries worldwide

In each instance, Trump has insisted on pay back for US involvement in accord with certain arrangements with the countries involved, so far as the country is able.  In the case of NATO each member was apportioned a percentage of their budget, I think.

Viewing these three facts, President Trump may have concluded that the US is being made a fool for letting others free load off of US generosity.  I contend nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's look at the reasons for the United States posture over the years in these 3 cases.

1) NATO.  Concern over the Axis powers in WWII prompted the US to assume a major role in Europe's defense.  The idea was voiced after the Second World War, that those countries forming our enemy should not be armed.  Even today, headlines from Germany contain reference to right wing groups that display hostility to the West.  NATO is also opening up the Russian satellite world through its presence in Ukraine.

2) China's leadership have been educated in Western universities, particularly in the US.  President Xi was educated, I believe in an Iowa university.  The obvious financial incentive to learn Western business methods involving deployment of stock markets and capital investment has proved useful in bringing China into the contemporary business world; and has been the basis for their tremendous growth and development in a matter of decades rather than over centuries.  Instead of regarding China as a stepchild learning how to function in a fast-paced nuclear world, Trump has come to regard China, I think, as a free loader, taking all our ideas for their own purposes.  What the US has been doing for lo these many decades is to bring China up to speed as a comparable trading partner to those others the US trades with through the WTO.  Trump would punish China for its copying the West. 

Nevertheless, Trump raises the point that China is presently still classified, through its own actions and policies, a communist nation.  For it was through Mao that the nation became independent, free of foreign domination.  Trump's trade war with China to my mind is an attempt to make China into a foe of the United States, like Russia was during the Cold War.  That move is to my mind thwarted by China's continued dedication to worldwide trade, such that even American corporations seek Chinese advice and permission to maintain their corporate enterprises in China--so to meet the Asian markets for good and services that China already has, including with India, too.  

3) As a step toward peace among nations, the US has set up bases in other countries around the world.  Just by having our presence on foreign soil, we have extended our fellowship and offered what we can in the way of guidance and support to those countries who may be struggling to feed their people and manage the affairs of a viable government.  I believe we have thereby been promoting the cause of peace.  There have been no major wars, lately.

(It is interesting that Russia would have been so thoughtful as to extol peace in its foreign operations--say in Venezuela, where it has propped up an unpopular government, whose policies have led to widespread emigration of its people abroad.)  

(My personal) P.S.  It is by no means a closed matter that China remains Communist.  I have been to China several times and believe they are still learning from us.  The Christian missionary efforts in China continue on; and I have reason to suspect that the number of Christians in China is growing steadily.

                     

   

'THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'' Not fast enough!

 The Economist has lately been following important changes:

1.  This is probably the last time the two major parties will nominate such old men!  Nobody's saying it too loudly, but these candidates are just about on their "last legs!"  It seems as if sometimes each of them could use a helping hand getting on and off stage when making appearances.

2. Worldwide, nations are decrying internal corruption and trying to do something about it.  Witness Ukraine--at the insistence of the United States.  At the same time, those nations' evils of decades of dictatorship under one man or his family are being revealed; and in some cases are spelling an end to their autocratic rule, e.g., countries in Africa.

3.  Agreement among polluting nations seems holding that there must end reliance upon fossil fuels for energy source.  Wind and solar are becoming significantly cheaper.  The advanced countries are planning to significantly cut back on old time sources of energy by 2050 or 2060.

Add to this, there's a push among them to explore outer space as a viable source for augmenting resources on earth.  No telling in future years how successful this endeavor will become.  

In the US, there is immediate need to give the military responsibility for "infrastructure beautification."

Nobody--not the administration nor Congress has taken up the responsibility for improvements in our nation's infrastructure.  Accordingly, I am recommending the military, including the Army Corps of Engineers, be given the responsibility and the budgeting to carry out this important function as we confront the planet's crisis of climate change.  It would be referred to as the United States Beautification Effort.

The idea is to get infrastructure concerns outside the purview of commercial and political interests; and I think the military is where we can assure independence from corporate pressure groups.

We know that our coastal cities are in need of upgrade to handle the extra flow of water from the seas.  We know, too, that there has been little upgrade in the federal highway system in recent years.  There's a lot that can be taken on as projects in beautifying our cities and rural communities.  We need to tear down abandoned structures and plan for better use of land.  China is doing this now (as reported in the Economist).

We must scientifically determine whether to rebuild towns torn down by fire and plight.  It must be on a continual basis.  And the Army Corps of Engineers has a proven record.

Let's improve our outlook nationwide!  

Our democracy in the US is being crushed by autocratic overrides!

They say that times of crises provide opportunities to assess how our country's going.  So, I'm taking this opportunity to express my thoughts about what's going wrong in our present version of democratic rule.

1.  Executive orders issued by the President are circumventing the legislative process.  Rather than going to Congress and seeking support from legislators, the President merely signs an executive order and secures immediate law of his own making.

Now we know that federal agencies can issue their own lawlike rules and regulations; and these can be subsequently contravened by a sitting President.  But then the situation is compounded when a President simply can write law.

2.  The President has the right to establish his own set of tariffs on imported goods from abroad.  It's amazing to me that he doesn't have to ask any agency to go along with his decisions!  He controls the inflow of goods and services from other countries, virtually.  This has led to a trade war with China, because he has declared it!

3.  The President submits his own recommendations for federal judges without input and evaluation from the Bar Association and other institutions of jurisprudence.    

4.  The leading senator of the party in control of the Senate sets the agenda of bills to be considered by the Senate, there being no need to have some working, impartial committee in the Senate or even of, say, in the federal judiciary to construct or approve it. Thus, Senator Reid held control of the Senate in his day and Senator McConnell in the present term.  

Thus, we have come upon an autocratic ruler of the United States, Donald Trump, President of the US, and the doers as he would have them to do, I believe.  

There's an Indian tribal government within US lands!

The Indian territories have long been subsumed under the US.  The tribes do not have a separate militia but have their own regional organizations. That has been the case, to my knowledge, for over a hundred years!  Problems come up now and again, but persons of goodwill are there, prepared to handle them. 

When I was in Russia during the construction of its present constitution that ranges over the entire Russian Federation of Independent States (as it was called at that time in the early 1990s), I argued for the possibility that a nation-state could have sub-states within their borders.  I again argued for the possibility when eastern Ukraine pledged to Russia, since the area is largely comprised of Russians.  Just like the tribes within US overall jurisdiction.  

I therefore objected to the treatment a largely Muslim area was treated by President Putin, virtually treating it as a rebellion.

I still contend: there ought be made provision to enable an area to govern itself differently and independently than that advocated by the national government.

In the August 8th issue of the Economist, the issue of  both Catalan's independence from Spain and Scotland's independence from Great Britain were cited.  But the conditions of that independence were not clearly presented; and I would argue for my interpretation of properly conceived internal independence in these instances, which does not include an external independence--indicated by maintaining an independent militia from the national military.

My proposal for an internal independence would also pertain to the Armenian-Azerbaijan dispute in the current news.  Armenians control the rule of law in those pockets of Azerbaijan where they live; but the national government is responsible for these from take over by some hostile or foreign nation.    

P.S. Note that Canada embraces the province of Quebec that still retains its French flavor of the Old Country in deed and word. 

  

How mayors achieve their claims to fame!

In the October issue of the Atlantic,  Adam Harris discusses the rise of the blacks to assume the mayoralty position in cities across the country, but especially in the South.  His article is entitled, "The New Southern Strategy."

A few years ago, I participated in a seminar in DC to discuss with the new mayor of the capitol of Georgia in central Europe how to establish himself in the position.  I, and some others of the panel, emphasized the importance of righting the problems the citizenry were complaining about regarding the services and expenditures of the city.  Uppermost appeared the need to improve upon garbage collection.   We encouraged the mayor to solve this problem right away.  He had come to us with his vision of how he would transform the city's architecture to make it akin to the horizons of London and Paris.  But we steadfastly urged him to gain the respect of the citizens in ways dear to them.  They wanted the city without clutter and debris in the streets and rats in its sewers!  He was being called upon to deliver when others in his position before him had failed!

Similarly, to the black new mayors in the South looking to change the racist climate of their cities, they need gradually garner the support of their electorate in areas where their citizens cried for improvement in its services.  In this way, the mayors are sure to make themselves useful and important to the city's dwellers in yet more lasting ways.

Remember, as horrible as were the actions of Hitler against humanity, German citizens remembered with uncanny exclaim, "Hitler got the trains to come and go on time!"

Nevertheless, these mayors seem ready to tackle the crises at hand in order to improve the quality of life their cities offer.      

To some workers, the cubicle "never looked so good;" to others, home sweet home!

 Author Amanda Mull ponders the advantages of the corporate office building as the placement of an employee's desk over its location at the employee's domicile.  Actually, the employee could make use of them both, if he had two locations of his workplace.  Her article, appearing in October's Atlantic is entitled, "A Cubicle Never Looked So Good."

I've worked both locations--the home for the past 30+ years living in semi-retirement.  I can tell you that Ms. Mull is correct in her implied criticism of the home: it's isolated from where the action occurs--viz., at the corporate building.  You experience feelings of lonliness.  But that just leads to the employee's greater attention and spotlight on what he is doing to further the goals of the corporation rather than upon his being liked at the place he performs on the company's behalf.  

And working at home has just as long a history:  in the Middle Ages, the craftsman, e.g., a cobbler, sold his shoes where he made them: his home.  Today, the salesman may have an office at corporate, but he is there infrequently. for he knows his worth to the company is in the places he secures a sale of his company's products.

Also what analysts have noted, during the present period of the pandemic and economic slowdown, is that workers who primarily work at home have greater impact on their neighborhood and locale than when they habitually commuted to the big city.  It has led to the theory that the suburbs will eventually become more "citified" in the goods and services available to those who live and work primarily near home.

Moreover, there is a distinct advantage, which if you've worked in both as a primary location, you're probably well aware.  And that is, the office politics that, when you primarily worked there, can have little effect on your productivity and steps you take toward meeting your assignments and work responsibilities, working from afar.  Whereas you worried over what others around you thought how you proceeded to handle your assignments, you now concentrate on how meaningful those actions are to achieve corporate aims, forgetting what others in the chain of command think about you!

      

What's really driving the stacking of the Supreme Court with conservative justices?

If we really think about it, I think we're led to an underlying basic desire that causes us to want to control the world in which we live no matter what we may be confronting at the moment to the contrary.  We want to think that the carbon fuels upon which our lust for energy depends is not harmful to our environment; that the pandemic virus we're currently facing isn't a major threat to our lives; that we can just go on living like most times we've found has been the successful modi operandi in the past; and things will be okay for us.  So that climate change is just a minor shift in temperature which our planet is now recording; nothing really to get all alarmed about--we're just talking a matter of a few degrees.

And if there's one thing that we're sure able to control is the rules and laws we live by:  they really can be regarded by us as the immutable givens--because we've made them and have dedicated ourselves to live by them!

Ah, but wait.  Times change.  We think nothing really is different, but at least the calendar dates aren't revisited.  Time marches on!  

Yet by thinking that the current situation is just a repeat of situations we've handled in the past by laws and regulations we've instituted, we can come a cropper to just some simple delusions.  The facts of some present event certainly are not the same as we had before: we confess the dates are not repeats.  But should we then conclude, so what!

Well, to a degree we humans, being creatures of habits, are led to believe the present resembles the past.  To a degree that assumption works for us; but occasionally we're led to become dogmatic adherents to our habits, and not recognize this principle of regularity in experience has its limitations, that are forced upon us by the details of our current perceptions we ought to be taking very seriously.

In general, to believe the future will be a repeat of the past is as a matter of public policy a willing subjugation of our thinking to that of a dictator or tyrant, whether he wear a judge's robe or a military uniform or a business suit.  It's crap!

What we need to take on the future rationally rather than emotionally is to carefully analyze what we face and determine how best to handle it.  For no rational person can come away with thinking climate change is just the same thing we have come upon when there's a recurring hurricane or temporary dry spell.  And, there's no amount of rationalizing that will lead one to the justifiable conclusion that an unarmed man in handcuffs should be shot dead by a policeman who has detained him for a parking infraction.  

    

  

  

    

Democracy needs democratic nations as mentors

 Fareed Zakaria, in a recent broadcast of his show GPS, highlighted Anne Applebaum's The Twilight of Democracy.  It seems democracy is so slow to act!  Courts take their time to issue their rulings.  Congress seems dominated by the majority party.  The only time, seemingly, that a democratic government is ready to move is when moved by some natural catastrophe, some pandemic or other upheaval forced upon it!

However, when you look around the world, there's a chorus of individuals voicing a longing for the freedom that democracy offers:  Lebanon--crying out; Belarus--seeing how Ukraine has escaped oligarchic rule; Mali--in revolution, needing direction; the Chinese of Hong Kong--remembering the good old days and looking for assistance; others the world over--languishing under the force of autocratic, one-man rule and oppressive subjugation of the individual.

What they need is guidance to the Great Beyond of human independence so they can live a life of making their own decisions without fear of authoritative "guidance" from the state.

Now--there is a Commonwealth of Nations, dedicated to promoting democracy within their several states.  It is led primarily by Great Britain, but is composed of countries the world around.

As representatives of freedom of the human spirit and independence of outside control, these nations espouse the rule of law, equality of persons, justice as fairness, and democratic preservation of the human psyche and will of each.

Truly, each of these member states could become a mentor for those other nations wanting to learn of the higher life for man and woman to live.  As an institution, the Commonwealth is a bulwark for true human insight and development.  

  

The Opportunity for US kids: Make computer primary learning source!

US kids need to catch up.  Kids in S. Korea, Japan, (now) China, and Europe are being taught from the computer--their personal computer.  Teachers are advisors, encouragers of their learning experiences via the computer!  Now is the opportunity for the poor kids of America to catch up and earn a place in the sun.  US Kids enjoy the computer as a vehicle of social communication.  Now, it's time for them to learn to lean on it for personal growth and development.

It's true, the poor kids in the US are not given the computer as their own instructive source.

School recess will become longer and more meaningful than ever because it's the chance to flex their bodies and leave their computers on their desks!

Instruction through the computer is about to take off in Africa and in South America.  Can the US join in this global effort to make learning a lifelong experience via dissemination of knowledge through each individual's reliance upon the computer?

Universities, currently, are struggling in this country to offer online instruction as the primary source for knowledge student acquisition.  But we've come a long ways in some 50 years when University of Illinois students were first introduced to the PLATO online courses through noisy machines.

Don't hold back this chance of opportunity to bring American students up to international standards of futuristic education already designed and implemented--please, American educators become leaders into the future.

UK Opportunity: Mentor Democracies through Commonwealth!

Boris Johnson has led the Commonwealth in recent years.  He knows that the Commonwealth stands strong in promoting and developing countries longing to explore democracy, equality of peoples, and rule of law foundational institutions in their lands.  All the while, uniting through bonds of comrade-ship the joys of family.

Today, Rwanda stands as a beacon of strength in fighting for Africaners against the Covid-19 virus.  Drawing upon the wisdom gained to know how to respond to these deadly forces of nature, Rwanda, one of the members of the Commonwealth, I understand, is fighting back--successfully.

The reader may know that the US military has reached out globally to be welcomed by over 190 countries to establish its military installations--mostly, bases--upon their foreign shores.  I believe the United States through this simple gesture of its military presence has wrought much in providing assistance and support to the cause of peace and prosperity for the entire planet.

Be that as it may, the goals and goodwill that the Commonwealth represent among its membership of nations should be more widely acclaimed as those worthy of even greater acceptance.  I am proposing that through a mentorship program, members reach out to even more nations to enable them to become democratic and pursuers of the aims of social justice and equality among all regardless of race or creed.

Democracy is available to all nations to adopt; education in the ideals of human worth and value;  and technological advance of peoples may be studied and admired, but until nations are experimenting themselves in the advances of civilization that signify the growth of human potential and the exploration of the human psyche (through acts of individual expression and freedom of the human longings to be a self of worth and honor), few countries indeed will afford their citizens the opportunities to experience the wonders of their own natural abilities.  Instead, most countries will continue to harrass human variation from a cultural norm.

Rotary for years has had a program whereby citizens of an advanced technology become paired with citizens of another: city to foreign city.  So too, countries can benefit by learning from those countries professing the high ideas that democracy and human equality for justice and social acceptance.  It simply needs a start.

I think now that the UK has no longer declared itself part of EU, it is in position to assume the helm of the Commonwealth once more.  May it reach out to show how countries may establish the rule of law, of justice for all equally, and welcome the spirit of brotherly unity.

           

Former Secretary Gates argues against US involvement in rebuilding nations' projects

I think he was Secretary of Defense. He was interviewed recently in regard to his new book publication; and brought up the issue of nation rebuilding.  He contended that efforts by the US to impose its structural improvements upon a government have netted poor results and have alienated the natives!

But I think there's a way to get involved in rebuilding a nation that doesn't entail forcing people to accept by the threat of the gun a rebuilding design.

If a government, just getting started, or finding some dire need to make significant changes in its structure, is willing to accept advice and counsel of the US military, in particular, in making changes to the way it is organized, then the specific rebuilding attempt, carried out by the native government but with US help, could be successfully accomplished.  The point is to have the native government lead the way to design and implement any structural modifications--the particular government thus being responsible for the new changes.

The native land must have a lasting government; therefore it should lead the way to its own salvation, as it were.

Specifically, while the US advice is not welcome in all parts of Afghanistan, the Kabul government is willing to work with US personnel in order to take advantage of the knowledge and technical expertise the US offers.  US technical assistance indeed has been of significant value in protecting the people and their lands governed from Kabul; and importantly, such aide it provides in assistance costs little compared to US occupation of an area it would want to have influence over.

In short, the US assistance in nation building could be an invaluable path where a struggling nation could benefit from the experience and wisdom of a seasoned veteran in achieving what that nation wants to do to improve its governance strategies.

   

How we came to sense it's now time to reopen the "normal everyday" outside!

No, it wasn't Trump's twitter or call to "liberate the Democratic states!"

It was an evaluation of how devastating this virus is--once it could be determined how much a threat it poses to the human race.

1--It kills primarily old people, above 65, though it can attack persons of any age.
2--Those who test positive may not need hospitalization and the certain procedures requiring hospitalization.
3--"Old folks' homes" don't usually have medical personnel on their staff; and so there could be changes in the way these facilities are run that would identify virus victims; perhaps, even allow for quarantine quarters on the premises of the afflicted.
4--Care must be made in recommending how the virus should be controlled; and subsequently, overcome.  For there are not only physical affects to any such recommendation, but also mental and social costs, e.g., increase in crime, famine as occurring in Africa and South America; but deterioration of the social fabric.

Clearly, the methods promoted by the public health people to prevent the spread of the virus should be in place while mitigation proceeds in reopening.

Reopening should be in stages as set forth by governmental administrations.  

And, as reopening proceeds, there should be milestones, at each of which an evaluation should occur: whether to continue to the next stage of reopening or even to go back.

You will note that the governors have by and large been responsible agents in their planning for reopening.








 

C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "Link' by Lorien Pratt"

The night of 4/2/20 was the airing of the discussion of the book Link by Lorien Pratt, who is its author.  The event took place recently at the Institute for the Future, in Palo Alto, California.  Ms. Pratt is a proponent of DI--decision intelligence--and I believe is on the staff of the Institute.  Ms Joy Mountford was the discussion's moderator.

DI attempts to tie together, or link, actions to outcomes; and see the process as a human contrivance to make action purposeful, designed to achieve outcomes human beings are trying to bring about through their actions.  The essential linkage of actions to outcomes stamps the process as deliberately pursued in an effort to make a better world through human thought and effort.

Though one cannot anticipate the full impact of an action in a universe of manifold consequences of some purposeful set of actions toward a desired effect, DI sets forth to explain human action in terms of what the agent or doer is attempting to achieve.  Ms. Pratt observed that the movement arose some years ago as an improvement in the march toward AI in cybernetics to settle upon a plan for actions to effect human want as the causal agent's motivation.  So, in a specific situation, when people cannot not seem to agree on some plan of action, DI structures are brought into play to settle the dispute over how to proceed.  Seemingly, knowing what doers are after can resolve the issue of how to proceed.

DI starts its analysis by knowing what goals are that are intended as outcomes of what the participants, i.e., the people being brought together, are being called to do.  Human effort is to direct both the planning and execution stages, since knowledge of the intended outcomes dominate the entire analysis.  In this way, DI differs from simple decision-making; it is decision making with an end view always in accounting for some proposed course of action--making a decision in a place and time (i.e., the situation) to achieve a particular set of results you and your group want.

My overall comment:  There is obvious merit in making action directed, keeping in mind that much more will become learned about the set of actions pursued in actually attempting to perform them.
DI seems a promising way to analyze the stream of deliberate human action. 





 



    

C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "'Make, Think, Imagine: Engineering the Future of Civilization' by John Browne"

I picked up the broadcasting of the evening of 4/2/20.  The discussion took place on Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at the Houston Museum of Natural Science.  Mr. Browne was the CEO of BP Petroleum.
A moderator-questioner of Mr. Browne was Professor A. Minisinis of Rice University.

The major viewpoint he got across in his book is that without engineering that makes knowledge practical for our civilization we would not enjoy the better life available to us.  And, in the future, we must depend on the constant flow of knowledge into our culture or risk the extinction of the human race.  Scientists tell us that the earth will at some time in our future no longer will be inhabitable.  We must progress through knowledge rendered  essential to our civilization: that is our calling.

The promise for our civilization to continue "ad infinitum" lies in mankind's ability to imagine.  Knowledge in an of itself does not have the power nor inherent feature to forestall civilization's extinction were it not that the human being in his reflective moments of pondering knowledge can imagine how he can apply the knowledge to guarantee our race a lasting and improving existence.

Mr. Browne how the individual knower can come up with a practical application to human experience:  he knows how to apply knowledge because by his mental prowess, he is a problem-solver.  For in solving knawing irritation-causing dilemmas, he makes his world a better place for the generations to come.

Mr. Browne admits that the most critical of problems before mankind right now is what to do with the carbon residue that is emitted from combustible engines.  This pollutant has been a source of questioning whether the race can sustain its continued progress.  "We must solve this in the near future," he argues, "for contemporary life is dependent on oil and gas for its lifestyle.  Oil and gas account for 75% of our energy, giving us a phenomenal prosperity."

Succinctly put: through engineering techniques, the human imagination transforms the knowledge he has been taught into a physical reality his civilization can enjoy and benefit from far into the future.

Browne cautions that there are good and bad uses wraught in mankind's world through the application of knowledge, but overall, he is convinced that mankind is driven by the aspiration to make progress for civilization.  "Keep progress on track!" his mantra. 
   
 

C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "'Seven Pillars' edited by Michael Rubin et al"

The airing took place the night of 3/31/20; and the event was at the American Enterprise Institute. 

Several points were raised by panel members, some of whom were both contributors and editors, I surmised.  The points are interesting, to say the least, though perhaps not made before by observers to the Middle-East chaos.

1.  The real winner from the Arab Spring awakening was Tunisia.  It seemed to become stable and more democratic.  In sum, the country seems to be doing well, internally.  No dissent among the group.

2.  But the region is plagued with countries with internal strife, all admitted.  And one wonders why the US appears so quick to heed the demand from Iraq to get out entirely--both from presence in its country and in the region!  Personally, I think the continued presence of US military can only help create a stable environment that is in dire throughout. 

    Several of the participants observed that religion, viz., Muslim, is appealed  to by governmental leaders to as to make it seem they are themselves have legitimacy to rule as if ordained by on high.  And, one or two of the participants pointed out that the Middle East is not benefiting from the wave of populism sweeping across its sands, because the people are not fooled: they, particularly the youth, want an end to corruption in government and call for institutional structures that foster stability--primarily, jobs.  One panelist even characterized most of the governments there as part of a caretaker government, bound to be replaced by true leaders, not simply those now holding government posts.

3.  Complaint was lodged by this or that participant over US diplomacy that hasn't brought about reforms to economic and financial institutions, despite the obvious widespread grab for oil among the powerful.  How can these fanatical power-hungry leaders be brought under rein for the sake of a stable, peaceful land?  It seems the world has unleashed a bevy of radicals, e.g., Isis, to fight it out on the public streets and by-ways.

4.  There is urgent need for Muslim reform similar to what Christians experienced during the Reformation, several speakers agreed.  But they cautioned, don't mention it in any event there, where you would be heard: the subject is taboo!

5.  But what came across to me was how the area has been bombarded with so much yelling and shouting that the people's response to it all is consternation; sheer panic.  Where can they turn?  How have the people benefited over the past 40 years of so much rancor and terror?
What is left of their tradition and cultural ways?

6.  There is a rise of nationalism in the area simply because Ma and Pa are tired of foreign people invading their mosques and stores with new wonders to cure their ailing societies, that have are marked with the signs of psychological confusion and disorientation.

P.S. I am not sure how the title "Seven Pillars" crystallizes the points that emerged from discussion by a very weary band of panelist-travelers!

       
 

C-SPAN2 airing of book discussion "'The Dragons and Snakes' by David Kilcullen"

The discussion took place at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, moderated by Clifford May, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute and Mr. Bowman reviewers.  The airing was the night of March 30, 2020.

The discussants made several points about the directions of US diplomacy and military presence in hot spots around the world:

1.  The US seems to have left out the Afghan government in its discussion for agreement in pulling out of Afghanistan with only the Taliban.  It's as if the US were running away from its commitment to the Afghans to create conditions in their country for a better life.  By our keeping a residual advisory force there, can't we keep to our commitment to help them?

2.  The US military seems to be retaining in its arsenal conventional weaponry, such as the aircraft carrier.  What advances can the military display to demonstrate technological advance?
My Comment: perhaps, the new space thrust will do it!

3.  The US works best through alliances with its friends who share similar values and principles.

4.  Despite continuing criticism, the US has done well in nation-building, even though the countries it has helped to get started have their own ideas about democracy and freedom.

All-in-all the points raised in discussion suggest the book is a ringing endorsement of the proposition that the US is a mighty force to be reckoned with the world over, even in the Middle-East.   

C-SPAN airing of Tony Blair's talk on Populism Politics

On the night of 3/16/20, C-SPAN aired a talk on Populism's Politics given by Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and currently, holding the position of Executive Chair, the Institute for Global Change.  The talk was recorded the previous Thursday.

He started off by citing the many social and political problems that the movement attempts to cope with--immigration, low wages, and the preservation of our environment--for which it claims the traditional parties have failed in their promise to overcome for the sake of our off-springs' better days.

But he insists that at least the traditional parties have attempted to bring in modern technology into the picture of the brave new world that we must prepare for because it is in our future.  Indeed, it is a weakness of populism to attempt to hold on to a glorious remembrance of the good old days--without the need to contend with the presence of a workplace of computerized machines and automated processes that are in the forefront of today's rush toward a future where mankind must fight to maintain his very dignity and worth!

Change is what threatens and dispels the message of hope that populism heralds to its listeners and fellow citizens.  And it is change that is an inherent characterization of our future. Therefore, populism has no way to ward off the forces that make our future perilous for our very survival as a people.

Blair urges us to embrace the very technology that makes change the necessary feature of our future.
We must see technology and its A-I features as some things we can draw upon from our environment, that we can use to make our world a better place to live in than our forefathers had in their day.

Indeed, Blair suggests, we ought to be using medical technology to solve the problem of coronavirus we now face. Technology is the means to bring about new solutions, solutions we must find to lead a better life!  The change that the future holds for us can have therefore beneficial ramifications.  Above all, for our children, teaching them technology that is currently extant, prepares them for the jobs of the future.

Indeed, in my opinion, we must learn to deny populism its romantic qualities that makes its political appeal to the general public so cunningly deceptive as to lull hearers to ward off preparing for the changes inevitably it will mean to us in our years to come and to those of our offspring.   


 

Brookings: Rep. Mac Thornberry reminiscing on his years in the Armed Services Committee, Congress

The title of his talk "Congress and defense policy" was introduced by Mike O'Hanlon of Brookings on Mondaay, March 2, 2020 at the Brookings.

Though Representative Thornberry presented much to reflect upon and mull over, I picked up on two points he raised and will discuss herein.  He's obviously done a lot of thinking on the topic assigned him.

1.  The military is a-political. 

That does not mean, the military doesn't have a culture of its own.  He pointed out that the F35 is packed with an intelligence system that is super-armed with knowledge and capabilities of a full-scale combat-ready planning system for any ontoward event.  That it is housed in a fighter-plane bespeaks the Air Force's culture that casts its fighting and planning capacities within its flying orientation to prepare a though-going defense of the country.

But he also pointed out that as a branch of the military, it is a-political--neither Democratic nor Republican in a political arena.  This feature has long been established in Turkey in years past, as the mechanism whereby when a particular government could no longer function in an administrative capacity, the military would step in, temporarily, before another government could be formed.  Be it noted that the Egyptian government in power a few decades ago was replaced through military intervention.  Then too, several other countries, e.g., in Africa, have used the military to act as interim government from time to time.

2.  It is prudent that military alliances establish an institutional organization lasting over time that guards and protects its member states. 

One that comes to mind because of its many years in service is the African Union that intervenes in political conditions of unrest, extending its area of service to the entire continent of Africa.  NATO provides the same degree of protection to the countries of Europe, but is also supported by the United States.

Along this line, the OAS--Organization of American States--could establish a military arm to handle political disputes in countries of the Americas.  Something like NATO, only in this hemisphere, might be called upon to cope with political stalemates, as in Venezuela, today.

With countries in the region of Indo-China and Japan becoming involved in increased international trade the world over, some new institution, a-poliitical in orientation, could serve the security needs of  protection and promote the cause of peace in situations of political unrest arising in that region of the world.       

Cato Institute: "The Failure of Forcible Regime-Change Operations" Talk presented by Ben Denison

The presenter, Mr. Ben Denison, Postdoctoral Fellow at Tufts University surveyed a century of attempts to bring about regime-change through the use of force to rid illiberal regimes and supplant them with something better.  Supplementing his presentation was Prof. Lindsey O'Rourke, Boston University paper on covert regime-change attempts during much the same time period, last Century till now.  Professor Alexander Downes of George Washington University provided comments on these offerings.  The moderator was Cato's own Vice President, Christopher Preble.  The event occurred at Cato, February 26, 2020.

The topic was well-chosen though over the years analysts on the issue have come to much the same conclusions:  such forced regime-changes tend to unleash political confusion even to the point of civil war--at least does not advance the cause of democracy among all peoples.

I found the material these two authors cited thoroughly digested and well analyzed.  We don't know the precise success record of covert regime-change efforts, but I think the United States State Department and the many Presidential Administrations are aware of the many problems encountered from the many tries to achieve it over time.

I would think those interested in the topic would agree with Denison and O'Rourke that these attempts constitute learning lessons when contemplating any further ventures into supplanting a  regime. I take it is vacuous to add "forced" to any regime-change that is implemented by some other government than the one in power, since a government that is being deposed is likely to take it as a hostile act.

My response to this lively discussion: 
1.  I think it is widely recognized that the time a President is in office, especially, if for only one term, is just too short to successfully wage a regime-change.  And, if a two-term Presidency, there are plenty of competing goals other than some government's regime change that would vie for top priority consideration.

2.  Yet one would hope some government or some international organization would be responsive to a moral demand for regime change.  It is unconscionable that mankind would allow millions of people to be displaced as in the instance of Venezuela or Syria or Yemen because of tyrants and despots who have seized control of government for their own ends, causing devastation and migration and, yes, famine.

Africa has the African Union, which has seemed a viable mediator to bring about peace, e.g., in the Sudan; but the Americas' OAS organization has no military group to work for the cause of peace and governmental stability on its continent save the military and the State Department of the US--acting as the moral agent on behalf of the cause of peace.  Europe has benefited over the years of the services of NATO to stand for justice and peace to the very border of Russia.  May there be always some organization to stand up for the cause of mankind's existence and well-being on earth!

3.  I am cognizant that those interested in doing regime-change for the moral good know from the US bitter experience through the years that the new leadership must be well-trained and receive the very best education in the use of technology as is offered here in the States.  Indeed, the current batch of leaders in China were, by and large, educated here at our very distinguished colleges and universities to take their place thereafter among China's high echelon of administrators and business entrepreneurs.  Years ago, however, a leader was propped up in these foreign countries who had very little education and little experience in what he was being called on to do!  (As I attempted to clarify in the Q/A, those who pursue regime-changing have learned a lot from the past tries and embarrassments.) 

Thanks to the Cato Institute for a needed discussion of this issue.


 

Nobody knows best than our USA political Administration!

We citizens are living through the caronavirus scare.  We are looking from evaluation on how bad it is for us to endure, but we are told that we must take the word of the Administration, in particular, Vice President Pence; and that there should be no communication with the experts, even those on the committee to advise Pence.  Pence will tell us about the situation as it pertains to the US and not them, though we are told that they, not the US President nor his Vice President, is a recognized expert in the medical field. 

All this is a warning of what it means when politicians hog what will be told to the people over the airwaves to include their--the politicians'--own desires to control all forms of  mass media!

Shocking: The US President is viewed as a Putin sympathizer; and the Military isn't instructed to remove him!

The leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said right to the President's face at a meeting aired on TV not long ago that he, President Trump, is a Putin sympathizer, defending his (Putin's) positions and denying Russian interference in the 2016 election process; and yet, nobody asks the Military to remove him from office, pending determination of his loyalty to the US.  After all, the US has just spent years of the Cold War, during which Russia had been viewed as a world aggressor yet now, today, the USA President is ignoring Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections and seemingly decries the US intelligence's community reports of fact that contradict his opinion.

And seemingly, the whole Republican Party stands by his declaration of loyalty, despite his going along with Russia's support of the Venezuelan President that impoverishes and starves the people of that country and sends millions of its citizens in flight--when Russia is transgressing on the Monroe Doctrine that a US President enunciated over a century ago and that President Kennedy may have been defending during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Giving credence to President Trump's dictum, "Times--they are a-changin'!" 

   

BBC reports: Good news--Malaysia has started retraining Muslim radicals successfully

Ending the violent outbursts and hatreds against members of their society.  I wonder if the Chinese are aware of the Malaysian attempts to change extremest behaviors to crumble the power structure of their nations.  That de-radicalization is possible is an acknowledgement that the Christian message of rehabilitation works.

To my mind, the Saudis have instigated a large measure of the violence in the Middle-East against Muslims who don't subscribe to Sunnai religious principles.  Particularly, in contiguous Yemen.     Nevertheless, Muslims must live together regardless of sect differences in beliefs.

Maybe, Indonesia, rather than Saudi Arabia, could lead as the paradigm of  a Muslim life of virtue and morality.

Brookings Institution: Book Review of "Fateful Triangle: How China Shaped US-Indian Relations" by Madan

The session was held at the Brookings, February 12, 2020: Introduction: Suzanne Maloney, Intrim Vice President, Brookings; Remarks by the author: Tanvi Madem, Brookings; Panelists: Thomas Wright, Brookings, and Kurt Campbell, The Asia Group.

The book traces how US-India relations have proceeded, recognizing that China has had friendly relations with both in trade and in military partnerships through the years since India's independence from Britain.  Both India and China trade a lot together, reaching nearly 50 billion dollars in 2013-14.  India buys military weaponry mostly from Russia, but understands that nuclear proliferation worldwide is not good for the planet.  Its official position is one of nonalignment with any political bloc, maintaining a certain autonomy, free to pursue its own national interests.

Now China has just recently had to adjust its trade with the United States because of Trump's tariffs imposed on Chinese manufactured goods, etc. But up to recently, China was benefiting from its trade agreements with the US--Trump thought by implementing some illegal practices that were not censured significantly through the WTO court system. His administration has been encouraging US companies interested in manufacturing abroad to consider India as a place to invest their overseas specialized equipment and factories.

The point is that the US may regard India in terms of the experiences that China has had with India.  Using the prism of China's perception, India may come to regard the US as an unreliable partner in the long run.

That is to say, what I think India may gain from China's recent turnabout in trade is how unreliable the US is in trade and commerce, particularly with Donald Trump as its President and chief negotiator.

In any case, commenting on India's current stance of nonalignment, Mr. Campbell pointed out that India has successfully maintained a posture of meeting its own needs by taking advantage both of what the West and the Russian communists have to offer in goods and services to India and other nonaligned nations in that region.

       

Cato Institute: Discussion of topic: "Future of Progressive Foreign Policy: 2020 & Beyond" --My Critique

The discussion was held at the Cato Institute, Washington, DC on January 28, 2020:  Moderator--Trevor Thrall of Cato and discussants--Kate Kizer, Win without War; Loren Schulman, Center for a New American Security; Mena Ayazi, Alliance for Peace building; and Professor Dan Nexon, Georgetown University.

Right off the bat, some discussants questioned whether the United States should pursue its foreign policy with a threat of US military intervention.  But the US does not simply say to some country, "Do as we say, or we'll take military action against you!"  There has to be some incident, in which the US is confronted with a hostile situation; in which military action is an option among others.  The US' forces are currently in some 190 host countries, engaging in an advisory capacity to keep the peace and maintain stable governmental regimes against violence and aggression that would escalate hostilities in some region and state, e.g., against Al Quaeda.

Discussants were quick to point to issues that the US voters are concerned about: healthcare, homelessness, jobs, climate change; issues, be it noted, that several of the Democratic presidential candidates have proposed remedies for.  They know that their solutions proposed must reach widespread acceptance by the voting public, since adopted recommendations would necessarily mean structural and procedural changes.

However, most plans being discussed in these citizen forums are not new: many have been tried and indeed successfully implemented here and in other countries, particularly, in Europe.  It's only that the US public has been subject to stories of their deleterious unintended consequences.  But the price of hesitating to forge ahead into what is for us uncharted territory is to accept populism, as in Trump's living by what has netted good results in the past, e.g. by relying on fossil fuels like coal.

I would encourage progressives to keep forging ahead developing new proposals to handle our problems and make for greater growth opportunities.  They will be successful in gaining acceptance for them the more innovative they become.  After all, they will be adding to our current US prosperity (which is consumer driven, by the way).   

Foreign Policy Issues

Actually, I didn't hear the country of Iran mention, nor Turkey, China nor Russia, so I am not sure that this was really a discussion of foreign policy stances into the future!  But in concentrating upon getting our troops out of Iran and Afghanistan, Trump has set up a straw man to take pot shots at.
The point is, I don't believe we're getting out of the Mideast, no matter what he does to divert our attention to home front issues alone.  There will be troops there, THANK GOD AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY!  And, I have assurances that once Trump and his minions are out of office, we will assume the rightful position in trade organizations, such as the TPP.  And, there is nothing wrong with a little competition from S. Korea's car industry for global penetration of that market, despite his fear generating among US manufacturers. He has done a modicum of good; and a lot of his actions have caused worldwide consternation.  So, the Democrats are right in saying, the top issue in this Fall's campaign is a foreign policy effort:  Show President Trump the door!

Trump's alliance with the dictators of the world will not last long, despite his efforts at regulating oil production worldwide, a little recognized endeavor of his.


 

     

Brookings Institution: "The Army's strategy in the Indo-Pacific" with Sec of Army Ryan McCarthy

General McCarthy addressed a gathering at Brookings, Friday, Jan 10, 2020 in Washington, DC.

He started off by looking upon China as a threat to the area., but explained the US military presence in the region is an opportunity for the US as an advanced nation to share its expertise and training and equipment with those nations of the region willing to become partners with us.  He noted that the US in the region is engaged in competition with China and Russia, but recognized that our nation has much to offer through our trading networks to nations in this developing the area.

It is will-known, for example, that a major problem confronting emerging nations in international trade is the issue of providing a stable governing institution that is responsive to the will of the people whom they govern.  The US military on the Indo-Pacific shores of these countries can extend sound advice and consultation regarding business and technical support available to them in overcoming their existential problems that currently might present obstacles to its future growth and development in this modern era of advanced technology.

The Indo-Pacific region is growing dramatically; and the US believes we can help the nations of the region through partnership to enable them to grow and become even more prosperous.  We want to share what we know and what we can trade for sake of mutual benefit--growing together through united, common ties of our commercial and social interests.