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.