Ideally, public good and ethics will be taught in advance of the melding of technology and government, i.e., not after mistakes are made. However, history suggests humans will blunder down the road of experience with A.I., making mistakes, and trying to correct them after they occur.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.
The Technological Republic (Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West)
By: Alexander C. Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska
Narrated By: Nicholas W. Zamiska
Alex Karp (Founder of software firm Palantir Technologies)Nicholas Zamiska (CEO Palantir Technolgies
The authors are the founder and operations manager of the American software company, Palantir Technolgies. Palantir has been hired by the U. S. Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, agencies of NATO countries, and Western corporations to provide analytic platforms for defense analysis, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing.
They believe artificial intelligence research and development has lost its way.
They argue Silicon Valley has lost focus on what is important for survival of society and Western values. They suggest A.I. should be focusing on serving humanity in ways that responsibly regulate nuclear weapons and protect society from existential risks like climate change, pandemics, asteroid collisions, etc., that threaten human extinction. The authors provide a powerful criticism of technology and its national purpose.
Karp and Zamiska argue that technology is focusing on consumerism rather nuclear annihilation or existential risk.
By focusing on convenience and entertainment for financial success, fundamental problems like the threat of nuclear war, homelessness, inequality, and climate change are ignored or relegated to the trash heap of history. (“Trash heap of history” is the belief that what happens, happens and society can do nothing about it.) The west has become complacent with short-term focus on profit and consumer demand. The authors argue that the greater good is no longer thought of as an important societal goal. The primary goal is making money that enriches creators and company owners by making purchases more convenient to and for consumers.
Aldous Huxley (English writer and philosopher, 1894-1963, author of “Brave New World”.)
Their argument is there should be more collaboration between tech and government. Historically, government is only as good as the information it has to make societal decisions. A computer program can be programmed with false information like the error of weapons of mass destruction that led to an invasion of Iraq that was a bad decision. The domino theory input that led to the Vietnam war; so, on and so on. There is also the threat of an elected President that uses the power of technology to do the wrong thing because of his/her incompetence. There is the risk of government gathering personal information and using it to cross the line into a “Brave New World” where innovation, free thought, and independent action are discouraged or legislated against so people can be sent to jail for breaking the law?
Possibly, melding technology with government is an answer, but it is a chicken and egg concern. Education about public good and ethical practices should begin as soon as the egg cracks, not after hatchlings are already old enough to work. Phrases that come to mind are “What’s done is done” or “The die is cast”.
The authors argue the West needs to up-its-game if it wishes to create a peaceful and prosperous future for a society that is founded on the ideal of human freedom.
Without future generations creating policies based on ethical purpose for the public good, one infers western culture will spiral into individual isolation and self-interest that diminishes western culture and ideals.
Ideally, public good and ethics will be taught in advance of the melding of technology and government, i.e., not after mistakes are made. However, history suggests humans will blunder down the road of experience with A.I., making mistakes, and trying to correct them after they occur.
Today is a time for Americans to look at their motivations to act in ways that diminish human flourishing and happiness. They need to decide whether they are choosing to be evil and act out of malice to do evil things.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Open Socrates (The Case for a Philosophical Life)
By: Agnes Callard
Narrated By: Agnes Callard
Agnes Callard (Author, American philosopher, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.)
“Open Socrates” is not an easy listen but offers insight to the philosophy of Socrates as perceived by a tenured Philosophy professor at the University of Chicago.One of Socrates famous sayings is “Οἶδα τι οὐδὲν οἶδα”, “I know something that I know nothing”. The daunting meaning of the phrase is explained by Callard as something that is found through conversational engagement with others. Socrates believed what truth there is in the world is revealed through public engagement which is difficult for introverts because we fear having our ignorance exposed.
Callard notes that Socrates is an interrogator who elicits others to understand the meaning of human life.
There is a human desire to have meaning in our lives, but we don’t know where to begin or what questions to ask. Callard notes how Tolstoy is contemplating suicide despite his great fame and success as a writer because he does not believe there is any meaning to his life. Callard argues Socrates would say Tolstoy fails to ask questions in conversation with others that would offer the answer he seeks. As a listener/reader one might understand Tolstoy’s reluctance to ask others for their opinion because it exposes his vulnerability. Collard argues one must be willing to admit their errors to get to meaningful conversations with others about what they are discussing. However, few have the strength of character to expose themselves in a way that will continue further conversation.
Collard is preparing listeners for an understanding of the Socratic method, a cooperative dialogue, i.e. asking and answering questions to make one think about underlying assumptions and ideas to uncover inconsistencies to try to discover truth.
One wonders in this exercise, if Socrates is pursuing understanding or building a case to undermine human understanding. The result of a dialog with Socrates seems at best a pursuit of knowledge without finding a definitive answer. At times it seems the Socratic method only reveals the truth of human ignorance.
Collard notes that sophists as reflected in the Platonic and Aristotelian writings about Socrates were often incensed by the Socratic method because Socrates’ interrogations often made them look ignorant and uninformed. However, Socrates offers some definitions of important human characteristics like virtue and knowledge that are as relevant today as they were in ancient times.
Socrates defines virtue as a form of knowledge of right and wrong and those that use that knowledge will act virtuously.
Collard notes Alcibiades who lived in the time of Socrates. He was relentlessly interrogated by Socrates in an effort to elicit a better understanding of himself as Alcibiades, a politician and leader. Alcibiades made many political enemies because of shifting allegiances and political actions. He betrayed Athens in their fight with Sparta. After the fall of Athens, he is considered a threat to its new rulers.
Alcibiades (450BC-404BC, died at age 45 or 46, Athenian statesman and general.)
Alcibiades is known for his ambition, desire for power, and hedonistic lifestyle. He came into conflict with Socrates over belief in the values of wisdom and virtue. Though Alcibiades is noted in Plato’s “Symposium” to have admired and respected, Socrates, Collard notes he fundamentally disagreed with much of what Socrates reveals to him as his lack of wisdom and virtue. Alcibiades lacked self-discipline and moral integrity.
Socrates defines good as that which brings about human flourishing and happiness for one to live a fulfilling life.
Socrates argues evil is based on ignorance that compels human beings to act out of malice to do evil things.
Today is a time for Americans to look at their motivations to act in ways that diminish human flourishing and happiness. They need to decide whether they are choosing to be evil and act out of malice to do evil things.
Though Yovanovitch had nothing to do with Poroshenko’s defeat by Zelensky, it seems clear that her tenure as Ambassador to Ukraine set the table for a change in direction for Ukraine.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Lessons from the Edge (A Memoir)
By: Marie Yovanovitch
Narrated By: Marie Yovanovitch
Marie Yovanovitch (Canadian-American Author, retired senior member of the US Foreign Service.)
Marie Yovanovitch is retired from the US Foreign Service but as is widely known she was fired in the first Trump administration as US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2019. A reported reason for her firing is she is said to have resisted Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. One suspects that is partially true, but Yovanovitch shows she was a believer in equal rights for women and a supporter of Hilliary Clinton which may be additional reasons for Trump’s action to fire her. “Lessons from the Edge” is a memoir of Yovanovitch’s career as an American diplomat.
“Lessons from the Edge” is interesting because it reveals the history of how one becomes an American diplomat and what his/her role is as a representative of America. One may wonder what qualifies one to be a diplomat when some are appointed because of political connection rather than educational accomplishment or training.
Yovanovitch became a diplomat because of her education and personal ambition. Because of her background as the daughter of a Russian born father, she chooses to take classes in Russian which leads to her eventual assignment in Ukraine. Her memoir explains how her journey began and how it ended. It is a highly personal memoir that is enlightening. However, this mild journey explodes at its end. Yovanovitch comes across as a decent person caught up in the events of history, not as a giant of diplomacy but an honest and hard-working diplomat.
Marie Yovanovitch earned a BA in History and Russian Studies at Princeton. During her career she studied at the Pushkin Institute of Moscow and acquired a Master of Science in National Security Strategy from the National War College. Her background certainly qualified her for diplomatic posts. Her early assignments were in Africa which eventually led to Russian speaking countries like Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Ukraine.
Russian speaking countries.
An example of the difficulty of her job is when America wishes to maintain the American Kyrgyzstan’ Air Force base because of America’s role in Afghanistan in 2009. Kyrgyzstan offers closer logistic support for the American military.
The Kyger’ President demands an increase from a $17.4 million-dollar annual rent payment (Yovanovich indicated the rent payment was $2,000,000/yr) to $200,000,000 per year for the continuation of Kyrgyzstan’s American military base. Yovanovich implies Kyrgyzstan’s President, Mr. Bakiyev, demand for higher rent would be to line his pockets with stolen revenue, not help the citizens of Kyrgyzstan.
A final settlement increased annual rent to $60 million per year with additional payments of $37 million and $30 million for new aircraft slots and additional land for location of a new American navigation system.
Kyrgyzstan’s American Air Force Base.
Many questions come to mind in listening/reading Yovanovitch’s book. How important are the presence of American military bases around the world? What is the difference between isolationism and internationalism? Should America remain isolated from other nations or engage and collaborate with other countries of the world? Where is the line to be drawn between American influence and the cost of that influence? This last question is answered in the last chapters of “Lessons from the Edge”.
Yovanovich takes on the complicated role of American Ambassador to Armenia from 2008 to 2011.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are a source of political and territorial tension. There is a dispute over a region called Nagorno-Karabakh that is under the control of Armenia with a majority Armenian population. Turkey supports Azerbaijan while Armenia has a close relationship with Russia. Armenia and Turkey’s relationship is strained because of a WWI Armenian Genocide perpetrated by Turkey. An estimated 600,000 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed between 1915 and 1917. Turkey refuses to identify it as genocide which aggravates Turkey’s relationship with Armenia. Russia has a military base in Armenia and has tried to mediate the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict without much success. Because of energy projects and trade relations, Russia has managed a balanced relationship with Azerbaijan.
Yovanovitch decides to return to the U.S. because of her aging mother and an offer to take the role of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. However, as Ukraine becomes embroiled in a conflict with Russia and her previous assignment and knowledge of Ukraine, she returns as America’s Ambassador. Her mother’s decision to accompany her made the opportunity worth taking.
When Ukraine became independent of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, its transition to a market economy was marked by widespread corruption in the same way as alleged in Russia.
The assets of the country fell into the hands of Ukraine’s leaders who became wealthy oligarchs at the expense of the general population. Election to the leadership of Ukraine gave Presidents like Viktor Yanukovych, who served from 2010 to 2014, license to embezzle state funds. Compounding that corruption were Ukrainian bank owners who were equally corrupt. The fifth president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko faces allegations of corruption with his ownership of the International Investment Bank (IIB).
Rudy Giuliani (American politician, former NY mayor, former U.S. Associate Attorney General–now a disbarred lawyer.)
As if Rudy Giuliani needs no further damage to his reputation than his lies about election fraud, Yovanovitch reveals his role in discrediting her reputation with false accusations about badmouthing Trump as the new President of the United States. Judging from Yovanovitch’s book, Trump is unlikely to have been someone she admired. However, as an experienced diplomat, it is inconceivable that she would have undermined Trump or any U.S. President’s reputation. Trump ordered Yovanovitch’s removal. She is recalled in May 2019.
Volodymyr Zelensky became the President of Ukraine in May of 2019.
Zelensky soundly defeated the corrupt Vasily Poroshenko with 73% of the vote.
Though Yovanovitch had nothing to do with Poroshenko’s defeat by Zelensky, it seems clear that her tenure as Ambassador to Ukraine set the table for a change in direction for Ukraine. This is a very personal memoir of Yovanovitch’s career that is somewhat marred by a plaintive melancholy about life and an aging mother but “Lessons from the Edge” is highly informative about what it takes to be an American diplomat.
America makes a mistake if it chooses to isolate itself from allied countries that have similar economic and political aspirations. It may be time to reset America’s international relations, but isolation is not a rational alternative for an interdependent ecological and economic world.
As Suleyman and Bhaskar infer, ignoring the threat of AI because of the difficulty of regulation is no reason to abandon the effort.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Coming Wave
By: Mustafa Suleymanwith Michael Bhaskar
Narrated By: Mustafa Suleyman
Mustafa Suleyman (British entrepreneur, CEO Microsoft AI)Michael Bhaskar (New York Times writer & publisher, works at Microsoft AI.)
This is a startling book about AI because it is written by an AI entrepreneur who is the founder and former head of applied AI at DeepMind. He is also the CEO of Microsoft AI. What the authors argue is not understood by many who discount the threat of AI. They explain AI can collate information that creates societal solutions, as well as threats, that are beyond the thought and reasoning ability of human beings.
“The Coming Wave” is startling because it is written by two authors who have an intimate understanding of the science of AI.
They argue it is critically important for AI research and development to be internationally regulated with the same seriousness that accompanied the research and use of the atom bomb.
Those who have read this blog know the perspective of this writer is that AI, whether it has greater risk than the atom bomb or not is a tool, not a controller, of humanity. The AI’ threat example given by Suleyman and Bhaskar is that AI has the potential for invention of a genetic modification that could as easily destroy as improve humanity. Recognizing AI’s danger is commendable but like the atom bomb, there will always be a threat of miscreant nations or radicals that have the use of a nuclear device or AI to initiate Armagedón. Obviously, if AI is the threat they suggest, there needs to be an antidote. The last chapters of “The Coming Wave” offer their solution. The authors suggest a 10-step program to regulate or ameliorate the threat of AI’s misuse.
Like alcoholism and nuclear bomb deterrence, Suleyman’s program will be as effective as those who choose to follow the rules.
There are no simple solutions for regulation of AI and as history shows neither Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) nor the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has been completely successful.
Suleyman suggests the first step in regulating AI begins with creating safeguards for the vast LLM capabilities of Artificial Intelligence.
This will require the hiring of technicians to monitor and adjust incorrect or misleading information accumulated and distributed by AI users. The concern of many will be the restriction on “freedom of speech”. Additionally, two concerns are the cost of such a bureaucracy and who monitors the monitors. Who draws the line between fact and fiction? When does information deletion become a distortion of fact? This bureaucracy will be responsible for auditing AI models to understand what their capabilities are and what limitations they have.
A second step is to slow the process of AI development by controlling the sale and distribution of the hardware components of AI to provide more time for reviewing new development impacts.
With lucrative incentives for new AI capabilities in a capitalist system there is likely to be a lot of resistance by aggressive entrepreneurs, free-trade and free-speech believers. Leaders in authoritarian countries will be equally incensed by interference in their right to rule.
Transparency is a critical part of the vetting process for AI development.
Suleyman suggests critics need to be involved in new developments to balance greed and power against utilitarian value. There has to be an ethical examination of AI that goes beyond profitability for individuals or control by governments. The bureaucracies for development, review, and regulation should be designed to adapt, reform, and implement regulations to manage AI technologies responsibly. These regulations should be established through global treaties and alliances among all nations of the world.
Suleyman acknowledges this is a big ask and notes there will be many failures in getting cooperation or adherence to AI regulation.
That is and was true of nuclear armament and so far, there has been no use of nuclear weapons to attack other countries. The authors note there will be failures in trying to institute these guidelines but with the help of public awareness and grassroots support, there is hope for the greater good that can come from AI.
As Suleyman and Bhaskar infer, ignoring the threat of AI because of the difficulty of regulation is no reason to abandon the effort.
Whether an idealist or humanist, the historical truth is that rising authoritarians believe power is all that matters. Today, the world seems at the threshold of authoritarianism.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Bronshtein in the Bronx
By: Robert Littell
Narrated By: Adam Grupper
Robert Littell (American author, former journalist in France.)
Robert Littell researches and imagines the 10 days of Leon Trotsky’s visit to New York City in 1917, just before the Russian revolution. His story offers humanizing and demeaning aspects of Trotsky’s personal and political life as a revolutionary.
Lev Davidovich Bronstein aka Leon Trotsky (1879-1940, Russian revolutionary, politician, political theorist, revolutionary military leader.)
Littell explains Trotsky travels with his two young sons and a female companion (the mother of their two boys) to New York. His first wife is exiled in Siberia for helping him spread leaflets about terrible factory conditions in Czarist Russia. Trotsky escaped to England while leaving his first wife and their two young girls in Siberia. (Trotsky divorces his first wife and marries the woman that Littel calls his airplane companion, either before or after the trip to New York. This is not made clear in Littell’s story.)
Littell explains Trotsky is a kind of celebrity in New York because of his association with socialist beliefs and his involvement in the failed 1905 Russian Revolution.
Trotsky is in his early twenties when he arrives in New York. Littell characterizes Trotsky as a libertine by introducing a female reporter in New York who becomes his lover. Littell reinforces that libertinism at the end of his story by suggesting Trotsky and Frida Kahlo had an affair while his second wife and he were exiled in Mexico.
Aside from Trotsky’s picadilloes, Littell shows how committed Trotsky was to his belief in Marxism and the plight of the working poor.
Trotsky gave several speeches that appealed to New York laborers and their families. An interesting sidelight is appended to Littell’s story when a Jewish industrialist meets with Trotsky after the 1917 revolution in Russia. Naturally, Trotsky is anxious to return to support Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the revolution. However, Trotsky is broke and doesn’t have the money to return to Russia. The industrialist offers an envelope with the money needed for the trip. Neither the industrialist nor Trotsky are believers in the Jewish faith but believe in the power of socialism and its benefit to society.
The political point being made by Littell is that the ideal of communism supersedes religious beliefs.
Trotsky is Jewish but not a believer in God. He is a political idealist. Littell notes Trotsky becomes a military leader in the communist movement. Littell infers Trotsky’s idealism gets in the way of humanism when he orders one in ten prisoners be shot for their opposition to the communist revolution. This is undoubtedly an apocryphal story but a way of explaining how a committed idealist can become a murderous tyrant.
Littell ends his story with a brief and somewhat inaccurate history of the Trotsky’ children. The two girls with his first wife died before they were 30. Zinada had mental health issues and died by suicide in 1933. Nina died at age 26 without any detailed information about her cause of death.
Rather than two boys noted in Littell’s story of the trip to New York, one was a girl named Zinaida. Zinaida, like her half-sister, died by suicide at age 32. Lev, born in 1906, is believed to have been poisoned by Stalinist agents in 1938. As some know, Trotsky was murdered by Stalin’s agents in Mexico City. In contrast to his children, Trotsky, the political idealist, is murdered as an exile at the age of 60. All-in-all, a tragic family history.
Whether an idealist or humanist, the historical truth is that rising authoritarians believe power is all that matters. Today, the world seems at the threshold of authoritarianism.
Trump is threatening government employees with being fired for doing their job and Congress for being the third branch of the American government.
Personal Commentary Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Political Grandstanding
By: Chet Yarbrough
Those who have read book reviews in this blog know some of my political beliefs. The more I read, listen to, and review books written by others, the more I know I do not know what is true and not true. We all get trapped in our own world of experience, belief, and understanding. With concern over that personal trap, this personal opinion is written.
America’s current President is a man of inherited wealth and privilege.
Trump’s popularity comes from attracting attention, impressing followers with strong public stances on issues of which he has little understanding or willingness to educate himself about. His focus is on self-aggrandizement with hyperbolic misrepresentations of facts that appeal to those wishing for definitive answers to multifaceted social issues.
LYNDON JOHNSON (36TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES)RICHARD NIXON (37TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES)RONALD REAGAN (40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES)RONALD REAGAN (40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES)GEORGE WALKER BUSH (43RD PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES)BARACK OBAMA (44TH PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES)
Trump is not the only elected representative or President to oversimplify issues to appeal to voters. Johnson’s war on poverty was used to justify policies that ineffectively addressed needs of the poor. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” used coded language and policies that indirectly targeted African Americans. Reagan’s “War on Drugs” disproportionately affected minority communities and contributed to mass incarceration. George W. Bush emphasized the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) to justify invasion of Iraq. Obama’s red line rhetoric threatened commitment to military intervention, which never happened when lethal gas was used to kill Syrian citizens. Trump’s rhetoric on immigration inferred most immigrants were criminals and a threat to national security. In all of these examples the common denominator is, at worst a lie or at best, a misrepresentation of truth to gain public support.
So, what is the difference? Trump does not care about the impact of his lies.
Trump focuses on self-aggrandizement to promote himself as powerful and important. He is a school-yard bully who scared banks and subcontractors with the fear of handing a financially bankrupt casino back to the bank, and who threatened subcontractors’ pay who worked for him.
Now, Trump is threatening government employees with being fired for doing their job and Congress for being the third branch of the American government. In the end, Trump is threatening the American people who either did or did not vote for him.
“Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here” is an indictment of American foreign policy. There are no easy solutions for immigration, deportation, or human rights in the world.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here (The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crises)
By: Johnathan Blitzer
Narrated By: Jonathan Blitzer, Andre Santana
Johnathan Blitzer (Author, American journalist, staff writer for The New Yorker.)
“Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here” is an indictment of American foreign policy. There seems a loss of a moral center in America with its support of other governments based solely on government type, national security, or economic interest. That is not to suggest national security and economic interest are not critically important but Blitzer’s history of America’s support of Central American governments is appalling. El Salvado, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua are democracies in title but not in reality.
Blitzer tells the story of migrants from El Salvadore and Guatemala who are imprisoned, tortured, and sometimes raped or murdered by their government’s functionaries.
El Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments purport to be representative democratic republics. They are not. They have been dictatorial and punitive victimizers of their citizens. The picture drawn by Blitzer is that both are highly autocratic and riven with exploitation and arbitrary treatment of their Latino populations.
Some immigrants came to roil American communities with the only tools they were familiar with in their native countries.
Many immigrants came to America to escape arbitrary treatment by their governments. America has benefited from its immigrant labor, but some turned to street drugs and violence because of their poverty and the experience their families lived with in their native countries. Driven by self-interest, a survival instinct, and ignorance, America has deported many Latino immigrants who chose the gang life in the California suburbs. Gang life offered identity and income. Gangs like MS-13, the 18th Street Gang and other street name gangs terrorized L.A. and Southern California. The police reacted with violence by rounding up Latinos based on gathered photographs and lists of their families and friends. Some who had proven records of crime were imprisoned or deported to their families’ countries even though they may have been born in America.
America has financially and militarily supported Central America without regard to human rights.
There is a taint of McCarthyism in America’s communist categorization of Central American countries because false categorizations hides the truth. The truth is that democratic countries like El Salvadore and Guatemala have treated citizens as harshly as yesterday’s Stalin, today’s Ayatollah in Iran, and the two Assads in Syria. Reagan’s willingness to sell arms to Iran in the 1980s for money to send to Nicaragua because communism was allegedly opposed by those in power is an example of America’s political blindness. Nicaraguan, Salvadorian, and Guatemalan leadership was as corrupt as many communist countries that practiced violence, imprisonment, torture, and murder of their citizens. Whether one’s government is communist or democratic, the important issue is how its citizens are treated, not its form of government. Bad forms of government will eventually fall from the weight of their citizens’ unequal treatment, just as Syria fell in 2024. The sufferers are always the oppressed citizens and, as interestingly noted by the author, the government perpetrators who live with the guilt they feel when they retire from their military or government jobs.
What Blitzer infers in his history of Central America is that human rights of citizens should be the primary criteria for American financial and/or military support for foreign governments whether democratic, communist, socialist, or other.
National stability comes from citizens’ support of their government. Stability is compromised when human rights are denied. Blitzer implies–America should only financially or militarily support another country only if the nativist nation and culture is working toward equal human rights for its citizens. The immigrant crises in America and the world is caused by nations that do not work toward equal human rights for their citizens.
One is somewhat conflicted by Blitzers’ argument. The conflict is in an outsiders’ understanding of a foreign countries’ culture.
Human rights may be universal, but culture is made of beliefs, values, norms, customs, language, art, literature, food, fashion, social institutions, and unique symbols and artifacts of particular nation-states. This great host of characteristics is not easily quantifiable. No nation can justify rape, torture, or murder but they do exist in all cultures. Ignorance of culture is at the heart of why any country that invades, or militarily and financially supports another country, risks failure.
There are no easy solutions for immigration, deportation, or human rights in the world.
Truman’s presidential accomplishments were not done alone but he managed highly educated and experienced people who got things done. He had the respect of people who reported to him, and he was tough, pragmatic, and willing to make hard decisions when circumstances required leadership.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Truman
By: David McCullough
David McCullough (1933-2022, Author, historian, winner of a Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award, and later given the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2006.)
One of the great historians of the modern age, David McCullough received the National Book Award for “Truman” in 1982. As a biography of an American President, it is among the best ever written about a President whom few regard as being in the category of Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Every chapter is a pleasure to read because it reminds one of why many consider America the best country in the world in which to live. This portrait of the 33rd President of the United States shows a man of modest means, without a college degree, who grows to become a great manager of others and leader of a post WWII world.
President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972, President from 1945-1953.)
Thrown into the Presidency after 82 days as Vice President of the United States, Truman became President. FDR died April 12, 1945. Germany was near defeat by the Allies. Within a month, on May 8th, the Allies celebrated what is known as V-E Day, Victory in Europe Day. Truman is faced with a decision on how best to end WWII by defeating Japan. Though when he rose to the Presidency, he had not been informed about the Manhattan Project. He was fully briefed on April 25, 1945, by Henry Stimson and General Leslie Groves, leaders of the Manhattan Project. In mid-July of 1945 the first atomic bomb was successfully tested and Truman described it as “the most terrible bomb in the history of the world”.
Captain Harry Truman November 1918.
As a former veteran and captain in WWI, Truman knew what continuing the war meant to the lives of American soldiers.
As a former veteran and captain in WWI, Truman knew what continuing the war meant to the lives of American soldiers if Japan were conventionally attacked by Allied forces. He ordered the use of two atom bombs, one on August 6, 1945, on Hiroshima and a second on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. There was no official warning. Leaflets were dropped over some Japanese cities on August 6, but one suspects that was just a precedent to instill fear about further destruction if Japan refused to surrender.
TRUMAN’ CABINET IN 1945
President Harry S. Truman meets with Cabinet members in the White House. From left to right: Postmaster General Robert Hannegan; Secretary of War Henry Stimson; Secretary of State James Byrnes; the President; Secretary of the Treasury Fred Vinson; Attorney General Tom Clark; and Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal.
Truman took complete responsibility for the decision to drop the bombs.
As shown in the movie about Truman’s meeting with Oppenheimer after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman was put-off by Oppenheimer’s concern over postwar use of nuclear weapons. Presumably, Truman’s feelings were that many lives were saved despite the loss of Japanese citizens from the use of atomic weapons. McCullough’s depiction of Truman is that he was tough, pragmatic, and willing to make hard decisions. He took personal responsibility for the use of atomic bombs to end the war.
Truman’s whistle-stop campaign in 1948.
McCullough goes on to explain Truman’s second term election effort that began when Dewey, his Republican opponent, looked like a sure winner. Truman campaigned across the country by train. Truman’s victory and what seemed an interminable train ride was a testament to the grit and determination of this 5-foot, 9-inch dynamo.
Truman’s character description is reinforced with McCullough’s history of Truman’s relationship with General McArthur. In the early days of the Korean war, McArthur took charge of American forces and made decisions that seemed to bode well for the end of the conflict. McArthur reversed the course of the war by insisting on a risky reinforcement of American forces. It was the right move and Truman admired McArthur’s grit in insisting on the reinforcement. However, McArthur overstepped his position when he insisted on bombing Chinese cities when China escalated the Korea war. McArthur publicly criticized Truman’s administrative opposition to escalation.
Truman relieved McArthur of his command in Korea and pursued a negotiated peace at the 38th parallel. This was another tough, pragmatic, and unpopular decision by Truman. In retrospect, one recognizes it was the right decision, but Truman was markedly criticized by the press and public for his decision.
In the early days of the Korean war, McArthur took charge of American forces and made decisions that seemed to bode well for the end of the conflict. McArthur reversed the course of the war by insisting on a risky reinforcement of American forces.
One can argue McCullough’s history places Truman in the pantheon of the greatest Presidents of the United States since Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. Truman ended WWII, agreed with and supported the Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe, created the Truman Doctrine to contain Soviet Expansion, desegregated the military, established the CIA, NSA, and NSC by signing the National Security Act of 1947, approved the Berlin airlift when the Soviets isolated West Berlin, and banned discrimination in the federal workforce. Truman managed some of the greatest minds of his 20th century administration to make America the preeminent leader of the western world.
Truman’s presidential accomplishments were not done alone but he managed highly educated and experienced people who got things done. He had the respect of people who reported to him, and he was tough, pragmatic, and willing to make hard decisions when circumstances required leadership in the face of public opposition.
“Say Nothing” is an attempt to give listener/readers an understanding of Ireland’s “Troubles”. Patrick Radden Keefe helps one understand but it remains a complicated and confusing history because of its mix of religion and national sovereignty.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Say Nothing (A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland)
By: Patrick Radden Keefe
Narrated By: Mathew Blaney
Patrick Radden Keefe (Author, American writer and investigative journalist.)
“Say Nothing” is an attempt to give listener/readers an understanding of Ireland’s “Troubles”. Patrick Radden Keefe helps one understand but it remains a complicated and confusing history because of its mix of religion and national sovereignty. From the 1960s to the late 1980s, there were violent clashes between unionist/loyalists, who were largely protestant and wanted to be part of Great Britain; while Unionist/loyalists, who were largely Catholic wanted independence as the Republic of Ireland.
Bombings, sniper attacks, and violent confrontations caused an estimated 3600 deaths and tens-of-thousands injuries during the “Troubles”.
Not until 1998, with the “Good Friday Agreement” did the deadly conflicts cease. However, Great Britain’s Brexit, periods of political deadlock with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and debates over details of the “…Agreement” have occurred. Keefe tells a story of the build-up to the “…Agreement” in “Say Nothing”.
The Irish Republican Army that wished for Irish independence murdered Jean McConville, a mother of ten, in 1972.
The murder is puzzling because McConville is Catholic which suggests her death was either a mistake or that some Catholics were union/loyalists. Some in the IRA suggested she acted as a spy for the UK. That is a mystery Keefe fails to unravel while giving listener/readers some historical perspective on Ireland’s Troubles. Some say Marian Price was the murderer, but Keefe demurs and argues there is no concrete evidence.
Northern Ireland is over 40% Catholic while the Republic of Ireland is over 60% Catholic.
Ireland’s troubles date back to the 16th and 17th centuries when English and Scottish Protestant settlers chose Ireland as their new home. The native population of Ireland was Catholic and religious differences and land acquisition by Protestants set the table for conflict. In 1921, Ireland was split in two with Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK but with a 40% minority who remained Catholic. A Catholic movement for civil rights in Northern Ireland began in the 1960s. Violence and political conflict ensued with the formation of paramilitary groups like the IRA (Irish Republican Army) that began bombing and shooting Protestant followers. The IRA wished to end British rule, unify Ireland, accommodate religious difference, and create an independent nation.
Over the years, there were several leaders of the IRA. Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha, Liam Lynch, Sean Stiofain, Gerry Adams, and Martin McGuinness. Gerry Adams is the leader most often referred to in Keefe’s book.
The IRA never admitted to ordering the abduction and murder of Jean McConville. The author directly asks Adams if he ordered the murder, and his response is that he has no blood on his hands. Some suggest, her murder was a collective decision by leaders of the IRA.
Both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland were ambivalent about Brexit and chose to neither entirely agree with separation from the EU nor entirely agree with the UK in its rejection of membership.
There remains a great deal of ambivalence about unification of Ireland as an independent nation but “The Good Friday Agreement” allows for a referendum on unification because of what appears to be a majority wishing to create one nation. However, Northern Ireland’s majority wishes to remain part of the UK while the Republic of Ireland wishes to remain independent. Unification seems unlikely because of their differences about being part of the UK.
It is interesting to note that the Catholic religion is the largest religious group in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but that Northern Ireland Catholics constitute 42.3% while the Republic of Ireland is 69.1% Catholic. Keefe’s story triggers an interest in understanding the history of Ireland, but it is too long in its telling to offer clarity.
Homelessness, illegal immigration, and America’s budget deficit will not be cured by reducing taxes on the rich or by tariffs that artificially increase the cost of living, or by cutting the labor force of farmers through mass deportations, or by making it easier to do business in the U.S.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Reagan (His Life and Legend)
By: Max Boot
Narrated By: Graham Winton
Max Boot (Russian-born naturalized American author, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian, writer and editor for The Christian Science Monitor.)
Not being a fan of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, there is some reluctance in reviewing Max Boot’s biography of the man. However, Boot’s writing and research offer an understanding that makes one separate Reagan’s political life from his experienced life. Boot explains Reagan’s life during the years before and after the depression.
Reagan’s father was an alcoholic which reminds one of how one’s childhood is rarely idyllic. Boot’s biography of Reagan shows one becomes who they are–despite the human faults of their parents. The way a child matures is only partly defined by parents’ influence. Reagan’s father’s alcoholism did not carry through to his son.
Boot’s biography shows Reagan to be an affable, well-adjusted, teenager and young adult who has a strong sense of what he believes is right and wrong.
Reagan is a football athlete in high school that grows to become a 6′ 1″ handsome young man from a relatively poor middle-class family. He aspires to college and works to have enough money to attend Eureka College in Illinois. He graduates in 1932 with a BA in Economics and Sociology. Reagan is remembered by classmates and teachers as a smart student and determined football player that gave him the grit and experience to become a movie star in the 1940s.
The first chapters of Boot’s biography of Reagan are about his break into the entertainment industry as a sports caster.
Reagan had a nearly photographic memory. He used that skill to recall a football game he played in college to impress a radio station manager with broadcast details of a game. He recalls a game he played in college and purposefully embellishes his role in the game. Reagan’s skill as a radio announcer led to a screen test with Warner Brothers in 1937 that launched his film career.
As WWII approaches, Reagan enlists as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Air Force. (The Air Force in these early days were not a separate branch of the service.)
Reagan’s experience in the entertainment industry led to producing training and propaganda films for the Army Air Force. Boot explains Reagan had significant vision problems with nearsightedness in his youth and presbyopia (difficulty of focusing on close objects) as he got older. Reagan never served in a combat role. He eventually adopted contact lenses to correct his vision; partly to please film producers who disliked the “coke bottle” lenses he needed to see properly.
Four issues that are interesting and informative in the first chapters of Boot’s biography of Reagan are 1) how affable, and well liked Reagan was to people who met him, 2) that he was well-read, 3) very handsome with a respect for women that carried through to several relationships, and 4) that though he had a sense of right and wrong, his moral center seemed to waiver between concern and indifference.
During the depression, Reagan was a strong supporter of Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to resurrect the American economy.
Reagan seemed more like a liberal Democrat than the conservative Republican he came to be as Governor of California and President of the United States. The remainder of the book shows how that change came about. Boot notes several factors that influenced Reagan to change from a Roosevelt to Goldwater supporter. The movie industry and the growing anti-communist era of the fifties influenced many former liberals. Reagan’s experience in Hollywood reinforced conservativism.
Reagan became rich from his relationship with Gerneral Electric. The corporate culture of GE in the 1950s and 60s was decidedly conservative. When Reagan became the host of “General Electric Theater” that culture seeped into his consciousness.
In 1962, Reagan switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party. He supported the election of Goldwater who ran against President Lyndon Johnson who was mired in the Vietnam war while promoting big government social welfare programs. The influence of Goldwater and the liberalism of the Johnson polices drove Reagan to believe big government was ruining the wealth and opportunity of Americans. He adopted conservative beliefs for economic deregulation, tax cuts that largely benefited the rich, and promoted anti-communist foreign policies. Reagan’s support for conservative policies is exemplified by his “A Time for Choosing” speech supporting Barry Goldwater’s campaign for President in 1964.
In the political climate of the 1960s, Reagan, with the support of GE, runs for Govenor of California. His position as president of the Screen Actors Guild, support of Goldwater, and the public’s perception of inefficiency of state government provided a platform for Reagan to run. The civil rights movement, Vietnam protests, the free speech movement, the Watts riots in LA, and the hippie movement in San Francisco created an environment ripe for conservative reaction. Reagan is elected Governor of California twice, to serve from 1967 to 1975.
Reagan as the Governor of California.
Reagan described his time with GE as a “postgraduate course in political science”.
Reagan’s experience as Governor of California, his Hollywood image, the support of big companies like GE, and the economic issues confronting Carter, give him a platform to run for President of the United States. Todays’ Republicans hold Reagan in high regard. Some view Reagan as one of the best recent presidents of the United States. Those who hold him in high regard cite his economic policies, strong national defense and leadership during the cold war. He believed in small government, lower taxes, and conservative values. Some suggest Trump is Reaganomics second coming.
Reagan runs for President of the United States in 1976. He wins and is re-elected in 1980.
What is not fully understood by some Americans, is the accomplishments of Reagan held some very negative consequences. Some argue he was the prime mover in nuclear weapons reduction. The biography of Gorbachev suggests the prime mover was Gorbachev and his support of glasnost with an opening of Russia to western ideals.
Some, like me, would argue Reagan accelerated economic inequality by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulating the economy.
The federal deficit increased from $70 billion dollars to 152.6 billion dollars during the Reagan presidential years. In comparison to Carter’s administration, the deficit was less than half of Reagan’s at $74 billion dollars. Today’s deficit has grown to 1.83 trillion dollars. Four out of seven presidents (including Trump’s second term) since Reagan have been Republican. The deficit lays at the feet of both parties.
With the election of Trump, who emulates Reagan’s policies, one wonders–how much greater the deficit will be with reduced taxes for the rich and a renewal of economic deregulation.
Homelessness, illegal immigration, and America’s budget deficit will not be cured by reducing taxes on the rich or by tariffs that artificially increase the cost of living, or by cutting the labor force of farmers through mass deportations, or by making it easier to do business in the U.S.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 