Mahmoud Khalil (Algerian-Palestinian activist, former graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.)
Mahmoud Khalil tells his story of being arrested by ICE for demonstrating at Colombia University in New York, only weeks before his graduation. Khalil is part of a demonstration against the Gaza war and what is identified by Amnesty International in 2024 as a Palestinian genocide. He is detained without being accused of a crime and sent to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana (approximately 1300 miles south). By coincidence or intent, the Trump administration cancelled approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University before Khalil’s arrest.
President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)President Roosevelt (1933-1945)President Richard Nixon (1969-1974)President Donald Trump (2017-2021, 2025-?)
Kahlil’s book is a reminder of Presidential actions of former Presidents from both parties that have used their power to reinforce their government policies. Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Willson, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and now, Donald Trump, are prime examples. Nevertheless, it is appalling to see the power of a President to arrest and illegally transport and/or deport foreign immigrants who are in this country to become productive workers or to attain an advanced education.
Are Americans more or less free in the 21st century?
America is founded on the principles of “free speech”, and “due process of law”, both of which are violated in the story of Khalil’s treatment by the American government. He is never charged with a crime but is arrested, and detained over 1300 miles from his home, a pregnant wife, and their newborn baby. The treatment of illegal immigrants by ICE is disgusting but Khalil’s experience shows it makes no difference when you look like a foreigner. America’s growing reputation as a bigoted country is confirmed. Khalil’s story shows if you look Black or foreign, your chances for success in America are diminished.
“No Land to Stand On” reflects on America as a country that has a long way to go to become a land of free speech and equal rights.
The power of an incompetent President is only mitigated by legislative and judicial powers, and the limits of their term in office. One hopes the next two years are better than the last two.
“The Cost of Care’ recommends insurance companies, medical services, and government administrations focus on creating a policy of “Medicare-for-all” that treats all elder and/or ill American citizens equally.
The Cost of Care (How Four Nurses Put Patients First in a Profit-Driven System)
Author: Theresa Brown
Narrated by: Donna Jay Fulks
Theresa Brown (PhD, BSN, Rn, Author, American clinical nurse.)
“The Cost of Care” is a somewhat frustrating book to review because it notes human faults that seem to dumb-down the profession of medical care in the United States. Like all products and services in America, cost is rising. Of course, a difference is that medical service is often a necessity rather than a choice. However, like all service organizations, some are managed well; others not.
Childbirth.
The first half of Brown’s book deals with childbirth and the costs and care for young families that choose to have children. Surprisingly, she finds Midwife birthing centers provide better care for pregnant mothers than most hospitals. She highlights Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Portland, Oregon Midwife centers. She notes the counseling and care from “Midwife” birthing centers are less expensive, equally effective, and more comforting for both mothers and newborn than major hospitals. Brown criticizes hospital treatment of pregnancy as emotionally sterile, less patient centered, and less likely to offer the best care for mothers and the newborn. This is an observation by Brown who is educated and licensed as a registered nurse.
A major criticism is Brown’s recognition of what one might call hospital clericalization of health care.
There is a sense of medical treatment becoming a mechanical job by caregivers, including doctors and nursing professionals who show little empathy or expressed concern for their patients. Many who have been treated by doctors, nurses, or hospital admissions employees will recognize some of her criticism. Large organizations, like hospitals, are highly regulated by the States in which they exist. Standardization of service in hospitals is required to mitigate possible mistakes in medical treatment. However, Brown notes that standardization works against the care, comfort, and safe infant delivery offered by mid-wife operations.
The right to choose.
However, what the author ignores is the volitional control a patient or pregnant mother has in choosing a physician. Human beings, whether doctors, nurses, midwifes, or pregnant mothers vary in their attitudes, habits, and beliefs. Both patients and those who provide medical services are human. The best any person can do as a physician, nurse, midwife, or patient is influenced by their education and the life they have lived. A pregnant woman’s choice of service is up to her. Brown argues mid-wife’ deliveries show lower C-section rates, fewer induced births and episiotomies, and higher rates of vaginal births with infant outcomes that are equal or better than hospitals.
Brown suggests care for expectant mothers is diminished by hospitalization.
Few service organizations and their employees perfectly serve the public. If one is not satisfied with a particular physician or medical service, a patient’s options are to choose a different service, live with or self-cure their malady, or try to find another medical treatment service. If the medical facility is the only one in town and has rude or unresponsive employees, a patient’s options are to complain about the medical service to supervisors or owners of the facility. Complaints may or may not change anything but failure to register a complaint will only reinforce poor services of the company.
Aged American citizens.
Brown goes on to discuss medical services for aged American citizens. The majority of Americans cannot afford full-service retirement communities that cover all natural aging maladies of those over 65. Qualification for complete care retirement communities often exceed a net worth requirement of $1,500,000 while most aged Americans’ have net worths of less than $250,000. This economic reality makes ageing in place a necessity rather than a choice for most Americans.
Brown ends “The Cost of Care” with a practical, though ideologically idealized, idea of how to improve medical care in America. She argues for caregivers, particularly nurses, be trained to base their care on human relationship. Brown suggests focusing on a health care change in America. She argues for health care to be reorganized. Her book recommends insurance companies, medical services, and government administrations focus on creating a policy of “Medicare-for-all” that treats all elder and/or ill American citizens equally.
The rise of Artificial Intelligence is a concern of both politicians and the “Nerd…” generation. One doubts the American government will endorse or succumb to a “Nerd Reich” despite the threat of AI in the wrong hands.
The Nerd Reich (Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy)
Author: Gil Duran
Narrated by: Vincent Price & 1 more
Gil Duran (Author, American journalist based in San Francisco.)
Duran has written a provocative book suggesting there is a cabal of tech entrepreneurs like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and others who are engineering a potential master control system that will influence and eventually dominate society. He argues this system of control and influence is creating a “…Nerd Reich” in the sense of Hitler’s Third Reich that initiated WWII.
Leaders of a “Nerd Reich”?
The weakness of Duran’s argument is that most, if not all, human beings have self-interests that are different in ways that are great and small. Theil has strong opinions about what society gets wrong and seeks tech solutions to change societal belief. In contrast, Musk focuses on specific goals, like exploration of space, rocketry, and driverless cars. On the other hand, both show a desire to control humanity’s future like the biblical belief in God’s infallibility. Thiel pursues independent human thought by entrepreneurs not constrained by formal education. Musk pursues civilization-scale engineering based on technological education of the work force. The point is that these two entrepreneurs, like every human being, looks at life differently and emphasizes their personal biases in achieving their goals. Thiel looks for ways to change society by creating entrepreneurs while Musk looks to build things that do not exist with public/private education of workers. The point is that there is no entrepreneurial Tech cabal. There are Tech individuals looking for ways to change the world but in different ways.
Brilliant minds do not pursue the same goals. Revelation comes from different pursuits by those interested in different things. Some look for universal truths of science like Einstein while others look for truth about morality like Friedrich Nietzsche. Technologists will pursue both fields of study. They may agree on one avenue of exploration and not the other. There is no single cabal of interest by technologists, there are many different interest groups. Science and philosophical revelation generally come from an individual, not a consortium of people whether technologists, or scientists, or one person. Franklin Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler were leaders with immense power, but their power came from the people they led. The same is as true today as in the times of Roosevelt and Hitler. It is up to society to decide which path, which leader, we will follow.
Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
The “Nerd Reich” is an exaggerated view of human revelation, discovery, creation, and execution. It does not give a complete picture but only a sliver of life, a period of temporary societal success or temporary failure. There will be and surely are tech cabals today, but that is and always will be the nature of human association or what is called society. Human beings associate with each other because of common interests and pursuits. Revelation always comes from the individual with hangers on that may have played a role in new discoveries, but social change comes from the “many”; not the “one”.
Technology is a widely held interest of millions of citizens of every country in the world. However, it is only one discipline among many. Tech association within society is not a singular controller of action or outcome.
General human judgments are often based on “confirmation bias”. The nature of thought and belief of human beings is often based on evidence that others say is true without personally investigating the basis for their judgement. In addition, we tend to understand information based on things that are compatible with views we already believe. We also have selective memory and tend to forget contradictory evidence. We often fail to consider alternative explanations because of preconceived beliefs that comport with what is being stated as fact or fiction. Further, many are not willing to clearly look at the evidence that supports or denies drawn conclusions.
Reviewing the “Nerd Reich”, one must ask themselves what they have seen that suggests there is a “Nerd Reich”. Does Musk’s actions as an American government employee who fires Department heads and employees at the general direction of President Trump make him a member of the “Nerd Reich”. I think not, in view of his position of Trump’s Presidential appointment and Trump’s ordered direction. President Trump is not, by any stretch of imagination, a “Nerd…”. Trump is simply an autocrat who has risen to the level of his incompetence.
The rise of Artificial Intelligence is a concern of both politicians and the “Nerd…” generation. One doubts the American government will endorse or succumb to a “Nerd Reich” despite the threat of AI in the wrong hands. At least to those of us who believe AI is a tool of humanity, not a superior form of intelligence.
Men and women are different just as races and cultures are different. The key to human progress is equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, race, or culture.
Angela Saini (Author, British science journalist, reporter for the BBC, written articles for The Guardian, New Scientist, and Wired UK.)
Angela Saini’s book challenges while clarifying the argument that male dominance is grounded in the history of human society. She illustrates how cultures varied in their belief and practice of sexual hierarchy but generally were more patriarchal than matriarchal. Archeological evidence suggests gender relations varied. The fact that such evidence is based on fragmentary archeological evidence and the vagueness of interpretation weaken arguments of either sexes’ superiority. Nevertheless, Saini’s research shows most societies have patriarchal tendencies rather than either equal or matriarchal societies. Her history is well documented, but it is a bit tiresome. Because of her research, and the length of her book, one gets the feeling she narrows her thinking to evidence that only supports a preconceived opinion.
Saini notes cultures in northeast India, an area of China, and the North American’ Iroquois and Shoshone seem to show patriarchy takes a backseat to women’s preeminent role in society. She also notes evidence of bonobo primates that are female that show dominance of their species despite strength differences between the genders. This is credible research that suggests gender strength is not the determinate factor in superiority.
Women were found as capable of tending to the farm as men during the agricultural revolution; particularly as mechanization became the hallmark of production. In general, Saini’s book fails to recognize belief in superiority is not the cause of gender discrimination. Power structures in communities and nations whether capitalist or communist are not determined by gender differences. Male or female superiority is not a matter of gender equality, but opportunity inequality. Even though male superiority is obviously false, opportunity inequality shows most societies make it appear true.
Male and female are complementary sexes that are different in their own ways. Both sexes have the capability of being either workers or leaders or whatever a nation needs as long as each has an equal opportunity to be what they choose to be.
Equality of opportunity, whether it is about race or gender, is the gold standard of human equality and achievement. Historians who identify the ills of society based on gender miss the fundamental point of life which is, as the U.S. Army’ slogan once said, “Be All That You Can Be”. Social organizations that get in the way of that goal diminishes human value and interferes with human progress. Men and women are different just as races and cultures are different. The key to human progress is equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, race, or culture.
John Steinbeck (1902-1968, author, Nobel prize winner who wrote 25 novels.)
John Steinbeck’s ability to vivify the lives of the middle and lower classes make stories like “Cannery Row” clear and poignant visions of America. Though published in 1945, “Cannery Row” focuses on a segment of working-class people in Monterey, California, a community about 120 miles south of San Francisco. It is located in an industrial waterfront area lined with boat docks and fish canneries.
Cannery Row as it was in the 1940s.
As a community of people who are mostly manual laborers with immigrants and a few professionals, Steinbeck paints a picture of America that resonates with the 21st century; i.e., at least before the current government administration. The sardine industry, like ocean harvesting today, is teetering on collapse in the late 1940s because of overfishing and environmental change. However, Steinbeck shows the human truth of how an industry grows out of the value of immigrants and the middle class in capitalist America. He offers a historical snapshot of the importance of both immigrant and born-in-America citizens that demonstrate the best of what capitalism offers working families.
Working in America.
Working families in the era of midcentury America came from all over the world. Steinbeck paints a picture of a Chinese immigrant who measures the worth of human beings and makes the best of what they offer by recognizing “no” is often the wrong answer to those who try to take advantage of others. This Chinese American opens a grocery store and measures his success by working within the limits of Americans’ ability to pay for what they need to survive. He offers credit, with limits, to his customers and works with them to maintain his livelihood and invest in other properties when opportunities present themselves. He is approached by homeless laborers about living in a warehouse property that has been vacant for some time. He has purchased the property as an investment. They offer no payment for the shelter, but he reasons if he says no, they will take what they are not given, damage his building, and ruin its potential value. On the other hand, if he says yes, they will occupy the building, be customers of his store, improve his income, and take care of his property that will increase in value over time.
Community leaders.
A highlight of Steinbeck’s insightful story is a doctor who is the center of the community’s stability who exemplifies the best of what American life offers. The doctor is a highly respected, vociferous reader of books and a music lover, who cares for the health of those who live in Cannery row. Whether a woman who is working in a house of prostitution, a delinquent who breaks the law, or a fisherman who brings his crew to stir up a fight, the doctor is the glue that holds the community together.
America is and always should be a melting pot if one takes Steinbeck’s view of America as relevant.
Steinbeck’s stories show what makes capitalist America a melting pot of the world. Whether an immigrant, working person, delinquent juvenile, or community leader, every human being has value. Life in America is not easy, but it is worth everything that a sense of community can offer.
“Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” shows that wealth, belief in something greater than oneself, and human relationship are the powers behind revolution.
Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister (Three Women at the Heart of Twentieth-Century China.)
By: Jung Change
Narrated by: Catherine Ho
Jung Change (Author, Chinese-born British writer whose autobiography is banned in the Peoples Republic of China.)
“Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” is an historically important book about major political struggles that have shaped modern China. It is a story of three sisters who were closely connected to early twentieth century China when it was teetering between being a Republic, independent of the West, and later a communist autocracy. Though China is not yet, by definition, a republic, twentieth century China seems destined to follow Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Principles of the People”. 1) Nationalism-being independent and sovereign. 2) Democracy with Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, and Yuan Control branches 3) A government that attends to people’s livelihood concern including land reform, regulation of capital, and improved living standards for all.
Sun Yat-sen notes the Qing Empire’s decline and emphasizes a need for China’s sovereignty and unity as a singular nation. He insists on independence from the influence of the West. He demands reduction of foreign influence in China from unequal treaties between the West and China. He seeks political unity by reinforcing Chinese national identity. His goal is to establish China as a constitutional democracy in stages beginning with initial military rule but evolving through political tutelage of the people about democracy. His goals are delayed (if not defeated) by the class revolution led by Mao Zedong. China’s historical transition is viewed through the history of three sisters, one which is married to Sun Yat-sen, a second who marries Chiang Kai-shek, and a third older sister who holds the wealth behind the influences of their marriages.
The three sisters of the Soong family.
The oldest of the three sisters creates wealth through personal effort and a marriage to H. H. Kung, one of the wealthiest financiers and businessmen in China. All three sisters are educated in the United States. Their father was a Methodist Christian minister educated in America. The oldest sister (Big Sister), Soong Ai-ling became one of China’s wealthiest women. “Red Sister” married Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Chinese Republic who served as a high-ranking member of early 20th century rule of China. “Little Sister” married Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Nationalist China.
Soong Ai-ling (Graduated for Wesleyan College, became a secretary for Sun Yat-sen.)
CHIANG KAI-SHEK (China’s ruler from 1928-1948)
Jung Change’s story unfortunately obscures the momentous differences between Chiang Kai-shek’s and Mao Zedong’s rule of China with a somewhat ponderous history of the marriages of two of three daughters born in the Soong family. All three sisters are raised as Methodists in America. Chiang Kai-shek ruled China from 1928 to 1948 and governed Taiwan until 1975. His rule is guided by the political beliefs of Sun Yat-sen.
Chiang Kai-shek ruled China as a nationalist one-party state under the Kuomintang (KMT) while Mao ruled China under the Chinese Communist Party. Mao also used the KMT to enforce his rule as leader of the CCP. The contrast between these two rulers is poorly organized in the writing of “Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister”. The author’s history obscures, if not diminishes, the book’s historical importance. It reveals many interesting and surprising facts about early and mid-century China, but the author’s focus is too fragmented.
Sun Yat-sen (Chinese physician, revolutionary and political philosopher who founded the Kuomintang and set the table for what became Taiwan.)
Chiang Kai-shek adopts Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Principles of the People” in his rule of China. The Kuomintang enforces the principle of unity of China with the presumed intent to democratize the government in the future as was envisioned by Sun Yat-sen. Democratization would take time to educate citizens on the principals of political representation. The KMT would exercise military rule until the principals of representation could be understood by China’s citizens. Even when Chiang is exiled in Taiwan, the KMT is in control of its citizens until Chiang’s death. Chiang dies from pneumonia and other ailments in 1975. Taiwan did evolve, as Sun predicted, into a democracy similar to America’s after Chiang’s death. Taiwan endorsed fully competitive elections in 1992 and had its first direct presidential election in 1996. This seems a fulfillment of Sun Yat-sen’s longer-term goal in the “Three Principles of the People”. Sun Yat-sen died from liver cancer in 1925. He was 58 years old.
Rules of nation-state leadership and representation had to be taught to the citizens in Sun’s view of China’s future.
The two sisters of the wealthy Soong family are shown to have had an important impact on the philosophy of rule in China. Sun Yat-sen’s ambition and beliefs gained credibility by being married to a daughter of the wealthy Soong family. Soong Ching-ling is celebrated as the “Mother of Modern China”. She becomes the bridge between Sun Yat-sen’s political beliefs and what became Communist China when Mao Zedong rose to power. Sun Yat-sen’s wife stayed in mainland China and supported the new Communist government.
Soong Mei-ling (First Lady of the Republic of China, wife of Chiang Kai-shek.)
As the wife of Chiang Kai-shek, Soong Mei-ling became the ambassador of China to the West. Because of her fluency in the English language, she helped America understand Chinese government’s relationship to the West. She secures American sympathy during China’s war against Japan and acts as an intermediary between Chinese and American leaders with her intimate understanding of both cultures.
Soong Ching-ling (Chinese politician and activist wife of Sun Yat-sen.)
In contrast to Soong Ching-ling, Soong Mei-ling leaves mainland China to follow her husband to Taiwan. After her husband’s death in 1975, she returns to the United States and dies in New York at the age of 105. In the end, the three sisters were closely allied with China but ended up on opposite sides of the 2oth century’s greatest ideological divide. Soong Ching-ling (Sun Yat-sen’s widow) became a firm believer in Communist China. Soong Mei-ling sided with her husband and became a leading figure in Nationalist Taiwan, while Soong Ai-ling, the oldest and wealthiest of the three, chose to leave China and return to the United States.
It is surprising to find that three Chinese sisters with American Christian backgrounds had prominent roles in China’s twentieth century leadership. “Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister” shows that wealth, belief in something greater than oneself, and human relationship are the powers behind revolution.
Every human being has the potential of choosing their way of dealing with life. Whatever one’s role may be, the best one can hope for is to choose what makes them the best they can be.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“essentialism” (The Disciplined Pursuit of Less)
Author: Greg McKeown
Narration by: Greg McKeown
Greg McKeown (English author, public speaker, leadership and business strategist.)
McKeown earned an MBA from Stanford University after receiving a BA in communications and journalism at BYU. He reflects on the trials and tribulations of being a manager of events in the modern world where one is faced with psychological overload. Management is the skill of being who you are and getting things done through other people. McKeown explains how to become a more effective and productive manager. It begins with a clear understanding of what self-management is and what may get in the way of that accomplishment.
As a manager of someone else’s business, the job is simpler because the goals are determined by ownership but as a manager of one’s own time it is complicated by poor personal management skill. The idea of “essentialism” is in clearly understanding the goal to be achieved and to understand oneself well enough not to be distracted by what is to be achieved and how to organize and motivate the people who are to accomplish desired results. Once the goal is clearly understood, the end must be what ownership and oneself chooses. If the goal is to manufacture widgets, the steps of manufacturing are labor to produce a product, neither more nor less than what ownership directs. A good manager is not to focus on “more is better” but on the steps of manufacturing with an eye to trade-offs that are a consequence of labor organization and productivity.
The problem from a personal perspective is that company goals are easier to understand because they are determined by others.
Clearly understanding oneself is harder because of self-interest blind spots from being both the observer and observed; not to mention– knowing what actions are required to feel fulfilled as a human being.
The best choice in life is to be who you are, not who you wish to be.
As a manager of others to accomplish a goal, there are times when the response to a worker’s idea is no. This should never be meant to diminish the worker but to keep a worker’s eye on the goals of ownership. A good manager is respectful of a worker who offers ideas but always keeps the goal of ownership in the minds of workers to make it clear that a “no” is not to discourage a worker’s labor or idea for improvement. That which does not focus on achievement of the goal should be eliminated with a “no” but with praise and protection of those who are employed to accomplish ownership’ objectives. With clear understanding of the goal and those actions that benefit its accomplishment, a good manager offers focus to labor and reduces decision fatigue for both manager and worker.
Has capitalism lost its way in America?
There is room for criticism in McKeown’s book from the perspective of labor. As an individual working for a manager, one generally does not have the authority to decline meetings called by a manager. As a worker, one is hired to do a job or task, not to work on their own schedule, or to drop what they are doing at their own discretion. A good manager listens and learns from labor but always keeps in mind the goals of ownership. A good manager looks to labor as seeds for future managers by encouraging self-actualization and promotion but without sacrifice of ownership’s specified goals. Institutional realities cannot be ignored by laborers. McKeown implies everyone is a manager when in fact, from a business enterprise’s perspective, that is not true. Some who think they are managers, are not managers and it is important for a good manager to judge others based on achieving the goals of ownership. A good manager will rise from labor based on doing what they were hired to do, not what they think they are capable of doing. This is not to discourage labor’s advancement but to encourage it through performance in accordance with ownership goals.
Peter Drucker. (A consultant who clearly understood the role, importance, and value of competent managers.)
Peter Drucker is often quoted in this book which is a tribute to McKeown’s management judgement. McKeown also mentions Warren Buffett and the principles that made him a multimillionaire. There is a great deal of good advice in “essentialism” for those who aspire to be managers. As McKeown notes, a manager can fail when he/she becomes overloaded with workplace expectations, poor labor management, ignorance of the digital age, poor organization design, or an organizational culture that demands too much from its employees. Every human being has the potential of choosing their way of dealing with life. Whatever one’s role may be, the best one can hope for is to choose what makes them the best they can be.
One remains skeptical of Landemore’s solution, but America and other purported democracies need to wake up to unequal representation in government rule.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Politics Without Politicians (The Case for Citizen Rule)
Author: Hélène Landemore
Narration by: Hélène Landemore
Hélène Landemore, (French professor of political science at Yale University. Received a PhD from Harvard with a thesis on the idea of collective intelligence.)
Hélène Landemore has a radical idea to replace professional politicians like those leading America, Great Britain, and her home country of France by a random selection of citizens to become their government’s legislators. Landemore is obviously an accomplished and well-educated person, but her idea of reform is a problem of scale and the faults of human nature. The complexity of managing any form of nation-state’ government requires more than inexperienced leaders whether elected or arbitrarily chosen. Her weak example is the ancient government of Athens. The size of Athen’s population was miniscule in comparison to today’s democratic countries. Athens is hardly a reasonable comparison to 21st century democracies. However, Landemore notes a fundamental truth about modern democracies.
The fundamental truth of Landemore’s political idea is better representation of the population needs to be created for democracy to survive and prosper.
Governance certainly requires more than deliberation. However, the solution cannot be arbitrary selection of representatives. There have to be fundamental qualifications for those who can represent their economic constituencies. They cannot have a criminal record, and their qualifications must conform to the characteristics of the constituency which they represent.
Capability and accountability become murkier with elected representatives that are inexperienced.
As popularly elected managers of people and bureaucracies, one’s ability to be re-elected may be the best measure of qualification for office. The length of a representative’s term would be limited based on equal representation and an age limit based on an annual mental competency assessment by a board of physicians beginning at age 65. One may argue voter representation would improve over time with popular re-election by those who continue to vote for the person they have chosen to represent their needs, subject to the age 65 competency assessments. This is a controversial issue but with the availability of social security in America, this seems a responsible way of assuring competent constituent representation.
One should keep in mind that ambition is not always bad because people like Lincoln, FDR, Mandela, and Havel were driven personalities. However, poor representative elections of the mostly financially secure and privileged undermines equal representation. Professional politicians elected by wealthy supporters encourage corruption, self-serving legislation, and detachment from the general population. But critics argue that in large societies some form of political specialization is unavoidable, just as medicine requires doctors and law requires lawyers. The question may not be whether politics can exist without politicians, but how politicians can be more representative of all; i.e., including the rich, poor and those who have chosen to be or are inadequately educated.
Presidents can be corrupt, self-serving, and detached. In theory, checks and balances by a wider swarth of Congressional representatives would counter polices of a corrupt President.
Scaling of a more representative body would be the greatest challenge to democracies like America, Great Britain, and France. Potential elected representatives who know or can learn how to assemble interested participants in governance must represent their constituency. The big “ask” of these new representatives is that they also work to gain some understanding of foreign policy, government military action, budgets, international trade, and pandemic management. Legitimacy of a constituency representative would be tied to elections that are central to the demographic interests they represent. One way for America to become more representative is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The limit of 435 members was created in 1929 when the population was 1/3rd of what it is today.
Fairer representation of all is the preeminent goal of democratic governance. Trump is the antithesis of that goal.
One remains skeptical of Landemore’s solution, but America and other purported democracies need to wake up to unequal representation in government rule. The strongest single objection to Landemore’s political idea is in a method of election and government policy creation that offers fairer representation of all nation-states’ citizens. Her fundamental truth is that today’s professional politicians fail to represent the diversity of democracies’ citizens.
It is up to this generation to revise the checks and balances of American Democracy to assure the abuses of power by a President will not destroy the fundamental strengths of democracy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Regime Change (Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump)
Author: Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan
Narration by: Robert Petkoff
Jonathan Swan (Australian and American investigative journalist at NYT, reporter who won the Emmy Award for Best Edited Interview for Axios.)Maggie Haberman (American journalist, political analyst for CNN, White House correspondent for the NYT, published a best seller, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump” in 2022.)
If only a small percentage of Swan’s and Haberman’s history is objective, Trump’s presidency shows the weaknesses of American democracy. America’s president supervises executive departments, directs cabinet secretaries, orders the firing of employees, sets executive branch priorities, and issues lawful orders to federal agencies. Every American President’s power to hire executive branch employees has the ability to create a managerial ruling class that concentrates wealth and power in a like-minded group with direct reports to the President. Trump, with the character traits of a martinet, allows no disagreement and demands loyalty above all. He hires a cadre of rich Americans to lead the executive branch with total loyalty to one person’s beliefs and actions.
President? Trump.
The President of the United States has direct power over military operations with the right to deploy military force at will. Trump demonstrates that power with the bombing and intended domination of Iran. Trump’s intent is to eliminate Iran’s leadership and its nuclear bomb ambitions; i.e., objectives that fail on many levels. Congress only has the power to declare war, fund the military, and regulate armed forces. Trump did not declare war. He legally uses the military to attack an independent nation; murder alleged drug traffickers without trial and institute an American immigrant deportation policy without either American congressional or judicial endorsement just because, as President of the United States, he can.
January 6, 2021, Trump’s patriots?
The President’s power to pardon leads to the release of hundreds of Americans who had been jailed for attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Over two thousand rioters attacked Capitol Police, damaged the chambers of Congress, and threatened elected officials like the House Speaker and Trump’s chosen Vice President who would not endorse Trump’s belief that his reelection had been fraudulently stolen.
“Regime Change” is a difficult book to be objective about because of a personal distaste for Donald Trump. Much of what Swan and Haberman write reinforces a view of corruption by bullying of a President who is undoubtedly as controversial to some Americans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and FDR were in their times. The difference is that Trump is a proven liar whose public statements are proven false by independent fact-checking organizations. An objective judge of Trump’s presidency will only be fairly revealed by historians in future years. Though “Regime Change” seems well documented, the emotion of current times and the rage of citizens who elected this scofflaw will refuse to believe the truth.
Trump’s cabinet updated April 2, 2026
With a second term control of Trump’s election, he handpicks executive department employees and cabinet secretaries principally based on loyalty. Trump proceeds to issue lawful orders to federal agencies as a part of his administrative power. The President’s power to create executive orders requires no legislative oversight. That power is only constrained by constitutional and statutory authority over which a President has no control. That constraint requires time to be enforced, and Trump chooses to do as he wishes until restrained by either congressional or judicial action, neither of which are happening because of time or Constitutional right.
Trump exposes structural weaknesses in American Democratic government.
It is up to this generation to revise the checks and balances of American Democracy to assure the abuses of power by a President will not destroy the fundamental strength of democracy.
There is an ongoing hybridization of American capitalism and Chinese communism. Is Trump’s authoritarianism becoming more like Xi’s communism or Xi’s authoritarianism becoming more like Trump’s capitalism? One wonders–are we growing closer together or farther apart?
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
House of Huawei (The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company)
Author: Eva Dou
Narration by: Nancy Wu
Eva Dou (Author, American journalist who reports on technology for The Washington Post.)
“House of Huawei” is a complex history of the growth and development of what became a Chinese multinational technology company that builds smartphones, laptops, smartwatches, and most importantly, telecom infrastructure for cloud services around the world. It is China’s version of Amazon that becomes a massive seller of tech equipment, internet use, and communication.
Ren Zhengfei (Chinese entrepreneur and engineer, founder of Huawei Technologies.)
There are many names of Huawei business leaders that are largely unknown to most Americans. Ren Zhengfei is the founder and most important person in Dou’s story. He is born in 1944 to schoolteacher parents during the Cultural Revolution. He served in the Chinese armies engineering corps that shaped his management style. He worked through famine, political purges, and the strict discipline of military service. He became the founder of Huawei in 1987.
Deng Xiaoping (China’s Chairman of the Central Advisory Commission of the Chinese Communist Party, 1982-1987)
The advance of Deng Xioping opens a capitalist door to the world for Huawei. Beginning in 1978 through 1989 Deng reforms the communist party and encourages a limited form of capitalism in China. When Xi takes over, Huawei becomes more directly subject to communist party oversight. As a company, Huawei is pulled closer to China’s government control. The Huawei network is classified as a national-security asset. Though Huawei may or may not have sought closer association with the CCP, it became entangled with state strategy.
Xi makes Huawei a national champion of innovation and semiconductor technology. It becomes a symbol of China’s technology ambitions while being a target of U.S. sanctions. Dou shows Huawei becomes a battleground for tech strategy between China and the Untied States
Sun Yafang (Chinese engineer and Chairwoman of Huawei, 1999-2018.)
Sun Yafang is a former chairwoman of Huawei. Her ties to Chinese intelligence services are viewed as a recurring controversy with Huawei’s involvement with America. Her relationship with China’s state power structure creates concern on the part of the U.S. with Huawei’s data collection as a part of Huawei’s practices in America.
Meng Wanzhou (aka Cathy Meng or Sabrina Meng, Deputy Chairwoman and CFO of Huawei.)
Ren’s daughter, Meng Wanzhou, becomes the Chief Financial Officer of Huawei. Wanzhou became known to the world when she is detained in Canada in 2018 at the request of the United States. Her arrest ironically leads to more familiarity with Huawei and its expansion in the world. The primary concern the author reveals is how dependent Huawei may be on the Chinese government for information about America’s technology services.
The fundamental concern of America, Germany, and Japan is Huawei’s use of data collection in their countries.
In the end, these countries decide to ban or restrict the use of Huawei’s equipment because of their ties to the Chinese Communist Party, government, and military. Beginning in 2019 the U.S. banned some of Huawei’s services and global chip supplies. By 2026, Huawei is banned from American federal networks, and telecom infrastructure services. Germany and Japan take similar actions between 2018 and 2026.
Dou explains Huawei’s history exposes deep contradictions with China’s government-directed economic growth.
The authoritarian and state-directed economic and political structure of China is a challenging contradiction to the idealism of communism. China’s communism is compelled to change ideologically from Marxism-Leninism to a state-directed form of capitalism. Huawei becomes a telecom giant euphemistically called socialism with Chinese characteristics. In truth, Huawei is structured to be more capitalist than communist with interventionist potential by the state if it conflicts with centralized control of the party.
Communist captitalism.
Dou explains how Party committees are created within Huawei’s management system. These committees exercise ideological control over Huawei’s executives. Huawei’s objectives are required to conform to national priorities. The development of 5G and telecom infrastructure becomes a national, not private asset of the company. This generates fear in the U.S. about security liabilities and foreign influence of China on U.S.’ and allied countries’ political and/or economic affairs. Dou notes China’s leadership insists on enforcing its security laws, data practices, and CCP’s rules of the road for Huawei’s operations.
Huawei discipline.
Dou notes that Xi’s anti-corruption campaign pressures Huawei to tighten internal governance. Executives of Huawei were disciplined for being too extravagant. The CCP organized ideological training for company employees to more fully align them with the Party. China’s government interference in Huawei’s management leads to U.S. sanctions and an arrest of Meng Wanzhou’s in Canada. The United States has effectively banned Huawei telecom and surveillance equipment. Federal agencies cannot use Huawei devices. American internet companies in the U.S. that receive federal funds must remove Huawei equipment. Though Huawei phones and laptops are not banned in the U.S., they are not sold by major U.S. carriers or retailers. The UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, and Canada have taken similar actions against Huawei services. Huawei product like laptops and mobile phones are not universally banned but many Western countries have barred telecom infrastructure because of national security concerns.
What is striking about Dou’s book is the history of Huawei shows both confluence and separation between Communism and Capitalism.
Both use the capitalist tools of competition, private enterprise, and global markets. Both are involved in the private sector and provide preferential treatment, political protection, and financing. Nationalism is a greater force than Marxism for both China and the U.S. American corporate discipline is similar to communist party discipline. Further, economic and political strategies of America and China have similarities. However, the two cultures conflict with each other over globalization and levels of interference or control of private companies. America leans toward transparency, partnership, open markets, and international trust. China opts for secrecy, political reliability, ideological conformity, and oversight to ensure national security. Furthermore, America thrives on risk-taking, experimentation, a free market and decentralized decision making while China emphasizes political correctness, Party control, ideological discipline, and insistence on corruption elimination.
In sum, it seems there is an ongoing hybridization of both American capitalism and Chinese communism. Is Trump’s authoritarianism becoming more like Xi’s communism or Xi’s authoritarianism becoming more like Trump’s capitalism? One wonders–are we growing closer together or farther apart?
