The split among the Iranian people about domestic life and religion is only magnified by America’s failure to understand Iranian culture. Bombing will not resolve social differences in Iran.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
King of Kings (The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation)
Author: Scott Anderson
Narration by: Malcolm Hillgartner & 1 more
Scott Anderson is a novelist and veteran war correspondent. His previous novels include Moonlight Hotel and The Man Who Tried to Save the World.
The antipathy America has about the Ayatollah’s takeover of Iran is exemplified by the young followers of his rule who chose, on their own, to attack the American embassy in Iran and take representatives of the United States as political hostages. Initially, the Ayatollah rejected the hostage taking but began to see its potential for dealing with the American government.
On November 4, 1979, 66 Americans were seized, 13 were released early, 1 was released later. That left 52 Americans that were held for 444 days. None were killed but were physically and psychologically abused during their captivity in Iran.
Anderson tells the story of Marine Corps Colonel Charles “Chuck” Scott’s as the most openly defiant, confrontational, and unbowed of the American hostages. His lifetime of military service gave him the strength to show no weakness and to refuse the students hypocritical abuse of their power over him. He became a respected and undoubtedly feared captive of the students. Scott was a symbol of calm for the hostages, some of which were overwhelmed by their imprisonment.
Colonel “Chuck” Scott–died at age 90 in 2023.
Anderson characterizes the hostage crisis as America’s misperception of the religious-populist character of Iran which seems as true today as when the Shah of Iran was deposed. President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran is a clear example of America’s continuing misperception of the complexity of Iranian society.
The split among the Iranian people about domestic life and religion is only magnified by America’s failure to understand Iranian culture.
Bombing will not resolve social differences in Iran. Like Colonel Scott’s reaction to being imprisoned by Iran, America must be steadfast in its resistance to Iran’s religious zealotry and deal with whatever actions taken by Iran that directly harm American interests. The killing of innocent Iranians is no answer to a government that cannot resolve conflicts in their own society.
One’s heart goes out to the citizens of Iran and wonders what hope there is for their future. Iran seems trapped between rock and a hard place, a choice between the bombs of war and religious fundamentalism.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
King of Kings (The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation)
Author: Scott Anderson
Narration by: Malcolm Hillgartner & 1 more
Scott Anderson is a novelist and veteran war correspondent. His previous novels include Moonlight Hotel and The Man Who Tried to Save the World.
“King of Kings” is an informative historical account of the collapse of Iran as a former monarchy and current theocracy. The hubris of the King and the Ayatollahs have no one to blame but themselves for their government’s failure. What Anderson shows is that what royal and theological leaders have in common. Both neglect the wellbeing of the Iranian people. The King squandered the wealth created by the oil industry to buy a false sense of security. The “King of Kings” made excessive investments in weapons and a spy service called SVAK rather than invest in Iran’s economy for the betterment of its citizens. The King’s SVAK turned into MOIS in the Ayatollah’ regimes. Neither regime invested in the people’s welfare. Both secret services were designed to spy on Iran’s citizens and reinforce the delusion of serving the people when in fact they were designed to preserve their governments’ power and control.
Iran’s leadership as a monarchy and theocracy have failed its people.
Anderson shows the “King of Kings” initially improves the general welfare of Iran’s citizens but because of inept leadership and the privileges of power, the Shah failed the Iranian people. The Shah’s incompetence as a manager of Iran’s great oil wealth is a wasted opportunity that could have provided a better life for its citizens. Rather than encouraging economic growth, the Shah chose to invest in weaponry and other countries products to sustain Iran’s economy.
The Iranian people were not farming or creating their own industries to sustain and grow their economy.
The King’s failure to invest oil revenues in the economy and Ayatollahs who cared little about economic investment, impoverished the Iranian people. When other countries like Saudi Arabia flooded the market with oil, the economy of Iran collapsed. That loss of oil income impoverished the people of Iran. Iran had become dependent on other countries produce rather than the work of their own farmers and industrialists to support their lives and families. That impoverishment drove many back to the ideal of a Muslim religion that believes hardships of life are only preparation for heaven.
The rule of the Ayatollahs seems as incompetent as the Shah’s.
The Ayatollahs fail to improve the economy and rely on a secret service that victimizes all who criticize their rule. It seems they believe the hardship of life is no concern because heaven awaits all those who believe in the Ayatollah’s governance. Anyone who fails to support the Shia Muslim autocracy is murdered or imprisoned based on the Ayatollahs’ belief in the hereafter. Iranians may believe in the Ayatollahs’ teaching and are willing to support their government, but a substantial portion of the Iranian people are discontented with their poverty and hunger.
Iranian oil fields supported the wealth of Iran before Saudi Arabia’s entry into the market.
Anderson explains how Iran became a troubled country. Neither rule as a monarchy or theocracy offered a solution to poverty and hunger. The answer may not be capitalism or democracy, but the present and past Iranian governments have not served the needs of its people. One’s heart goes out to the citizens of Iran and wonders what hope there is for their future. Iran seems trapped between rock and a hard place, a choice between the bombs of war and religious fundamentalism.
America’s self-interest is to see Iran as an independent State that does not murder Americans. Regime change may be a small step toward that goal or a step into quicksand that will only swallow more American lives.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
King of Kings (The Iranian Revolution: A Story of Hubris, Delusion and Catastrophic Miscalculation)
Author: Scott Anderson
Narration by: Malcolm Hillgartner & 1 more
Scott Anderson (Author, novelist, non-fiction writer, war correspondent who has written for the New York Times Magazine, GQ, Esquire, and Vanity Fair. Was raised in Taiwan and Korea, received an M.F.A. in creative writing from University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop.)
This review is only a glimpse of Anderson’s book, but the bombing of Iran gives this reviewer a sense of urgency about President Trump’s decision to bomb and kill the current leader of Iran.
Anderson, having been raised in a non-American culture, has written an interesting history of Iran that offers some perspective on Iran’s Persian culture and its tumultuous transition from royal leadership to an Islamic Republic. Iran’s monarchy had survived for 2500 years. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini deposed the “King of Kings”, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in 1979.
In 2024, President Trump directed America’s bombing of Iran that killed Iran’s second leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The purported reason for the bombing is to save the Iranian people from the tyranny of its current leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei had become Iran’s leader after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Mohammad Reza Shah PahlaviAyatollah Ruhollah KhomeiniAyatollah Ali Khamenei
Anderson infers Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, though a Shia Muslim himself, was too detached from the Muslim religion practiced by a majority of Iranian society. The Shah pursued modernization without bringing Iran’s Shia Muslim believers into the “Sturm and Drang” of modernity. Despite improving the economic condition of Iran’s citizens, the Shah ignored the importance of a religion that reaches back to 651 CE with the Arab Muslim conquest of Persia. Even though the economic benefit of modernization is documentable, the gap between rich and poor, along with belief in a religion that emphasizes an afterlife, made too many citizens of Iran unhappy with the Shah.
Muslimism began in the early 7th century and spread across the Arabian Peninsula. An estimated 68 million Iranians, approximately 89% of the country, are Shia Muslim believers. Anderson believes the Shah’s failure to understand the importance of his own religion led to the 1979 revolution that toppled the “King of Kings”. Anderson suggests too little effort was made to bring religion into the Shah’s management of the Iranian people. Putting aside that failure, one wonders could any leader bring his people to believe in life today when their religion emphasizes an afterlife is the only goal of existence. Whether any leader of Iran could have ameliorated citizen discontent in Iran is hard to argue. Because of America’s decision to kill Iran’s leader, that speculation is moot.
It is not a matter of being or not being Religious but a matter of having a pragmatic and compassionate understanding of humanity.
Now, America is faced with the Shah of Iran’s dilemma of bringing religion into the administration of Iran’s government. Americans have solved that problem with the separation of church and state. Is that possible in Iran? That separation is something Anderson suggests is the mistake made by the Shah. Is America more or less likely to solve that problem than an Iranian? President Trump believes he should have the power to approve the next leader of Iran. Problem solved???????
America’s self-interest is to see Iran as an independent State that does not murder Americans. Regime change may be a small step toward that goal or a step into quicksand that will only swallow more American lives. Just doing something is not an answer to the complications of international relations.
Does American Democracy have the resilience to adjust to a massive change in its economy from Artificial Intelligence? That is the essence of Turley’s concern about “The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution”.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Rage and the Republic (The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution)
Author: Jonathan Turley
Narration by: Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley (Author, American attorney, legal scholar, commentator, professor at George Washington University Law School.)
As George Santayana wrote in “The Life of Reason” in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Jonathan Turley served on the board that judged whether Clinton and Trump should be impeached. His history in “Rage and the Republic” is a scholarly assessment of America’s struggle with democracy and “rule of the many” rather than the “One”. Turley reviews the histories of the American and French revolutions to show how they were fundamentally different and what that difference shows in the present and implies for the future.
President Trump is testing the limits of democracy.
Trump is not the first nor the last President who has taken liberties with the ideals of Democracy. President Franklin Roosevelt was heavily criticized for his public works decisions during the depression just as President Trump is heavily criticized for his imperial actions on immigration and the bombing of Iran. As one listens/reads to Turley’s “Rage and the Republic”, one is comforted by the history of America’s struggle with the framework of democracy as it is defined by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Democracy has been challenged by many in the history of its establishment but has managed to right itself from the trials it presents for belief in liberty and equality for all.
An inherent difficulty of Democracy is in balancing freedom with authority.
Turley reminds listener/readers of the early days of American independence and men (because they were mostly men) like Thomas Paine who railed against abuse of power by Governors of independent States like Pennsylvania, and the government of the early American states. Paine’s history is of a flawed human being who rose to be an American patriot. Paine reinforced belief in Democracy with his political actions and beliefs reported in his publication of “Common Sense”. Paine railed against the Governor of Pennsylvania for profiting from his role as a head of state just as many criticize Trump today for doing the same as President of the United States.
Despite Paine’s “Rights of Man”, every President, Republican or Democrat, has sided with corporate interests. Some Presidents undoubtedly benefited from those interests.
Turley explains Paine’s imprisonment in France during the French revolution. The irony of Paine’s imprisonment in France is America’s neglect of his predicament, and the rage of the French Revolution which may be harbingers of a future for American citizens. Just as “Trump’s induced” riot of January 6, 2021, and today’s public reactions to ICE’ immigration and Iran’s bombing, public reactions may be warnings of America’s future.
One hopes America’s rage does not devolve into anything like the French revolution.
America remains a land of immigrants. In today’s world, Turley notes it is common for Americans to have more than one citizenship. He notes a French citizen who becomes an American farmer in the United States. Despite being a French citizen, he adapts to a different way of life and grows to identify himself as an American. That adaptation will be greater for all Americans in the 21st century.
Turley’s interesting history of public rage is a warning about the massive transition governments will have to make because of Artificial Intelligence and its impact on employment. Does American Democracy have the resilience to adjust to a massive change in its economy from Artificial Intelligence? That is the essence of Turley’s concern about “The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution”.
The Seminole Indian leaders, Osceola and Abraham, formed an alliance for multiracial freedom that remains the goal of all rational human beings. They failed and only became free in death.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Free and the Dead
Author: Jamie Holmes (The Untold Story of the Black Seminole Chief, the Indigenous Rebel, and America’s Forgotten War.)
Narration by: David Sadzin & 1 more
Jamie Holmes (Author, writer for the NYT, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Slate. Served in the Peace Corps after receiving a degree from New York University and went on to Columbia to receive a Master of International Affairs.)
“The Free and the Dead” is a book that shows how little this reader/listener knows about slavery and Black history. “The Free and the Dead” is a history of Black slaves in Florida who were descendants of Spanish Florida that became a refuge for enslaved Africans fleeing the English colonies between the 1600s and 1700s. Spain offers asylum and freedom to runaways who could reach Florida in the early days of America.
Some former slaves joined the Seminole Indian confederation to become leaders and translators of Indian languages for early settlers of what became American territory. Holmes reveals some of the cultural blending between Seminole and African descendants who had escaped colonial slavery. Separate villages of these culturally blended descendants gained relative freedom in the U.S. South by becoming fierce fighters for Seminole Indian freedom in the Seminole Wars between 1817 and 1858.
Today’s Indian Reservations.
As most Americans know, the Indian wars were lost and the Seminoles like all Indian tribes were moved around the country to reservations that changed with subsequent Presidents’ and American military’ orders. Holmes reveals some of this early history in “The Free and the Dead”. The most famous Black Seminole leader was Abraham who became a co-leader with Osceola, an indigenous Seminole Indian who resisted U.S. policies.
Abraham (A prominent Black Seminole leader in the 19th century.)
Abraham became a Black Seminole chief. He was a former slave who became an influential military leader of the Seminoles. He spoke English, Spanish, and the Creek Indian languages which made him an important intermediary in negotiating with white settlers. Abraham worked with major Seminole war leaders in negotiating agreements between white settlers and Seminole tribes. This twist in the history of American slavery and Osceola’s and Abraham’s alliance make Holmes’ story insightful.
Osceola, leader of the Seminole Indians in Florida in the Second Seminole War.
Slavery today seems as prevalent as it was years ago. America’s Declaration of Independence says, “all men are created equal”. Ironically, it seems neither men nor women seem to qualify.
The Seminole Indian leaders, Osceola and Abraham, formed an alliance for multiracial freedom that remains the goal of all rational human beings. They failed and only became free in death. Abraham seems to have died in old age while Osceola is captured and dies in prison.
As a reviewer of “The Great Deformation”, I am personally repelled by Stockman’s analysis but choose to rely on professional economists’ opinion, more than a politician/businessman who had a role in tanking the American economy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Great Deformation (The Corruption of Capitalism in America)
Author: David Stockman
Narration by: Willaim Hughes
David Stockman (Author, American politician, businessman, and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget for the Reagan Administration.)
David Stockman has written a troubling book about the American economy. Despite his having been an elected representative of Congress and a former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Reagan administration, he argues the fiscal responsibility of America’s government has corrupted “…Capitalism in America”. This is a surprising comment from a former Republican congressman with Republican ties who is a graduate of theological studies, not economics, from Harvard.
Stockton is not educated as an economist. He derides Reagan for profligate spending while having been Reagan’s OMB Director. He feels qualified to argue the crises of 2008 was badly managed because it did not allow the market to allow bankruptcy of major corporations in America. Stockton suggests AIG (American International Group) and the major banking conglomerates of America that have bad debt on their books should file for bankruptcy if they cannot meet their financial obligations without a government bailout. Of course, this is the road not taken so no one can know whether Stockton is right or wrong.
GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)BARACK OBAMA (44TH PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)
Though the harm done to many Americans by the solution of the Bush’ and Obama’ administrations is fresh in most American’s minds, one cannot help but be skeptical of Stockton’s opinion. If bankruptcy had been allowed by those companies that could not meet their debt obligations, would American capitalism and its economy have been any better? How many Americans would have been harmed by those bankruptcies? The loss of jobs from bankruptcy would have been immense. Consider the number of people with no income who would be unable to pay their bills. What would happen to their ways of life? Would America’s government stand by and allow them to become homeless and hungry? Today’s homelessness suggests America’s government might stand by and do nothing.
Franklin Roosevelt shows America’s government can finance a solution for crisis through public works that would bring America back to prosperity. Is that different than bailing out employers of the American public to sustain family incomes from a potential financial melt-down. Are the ideals of capitalist greed worth continued impoverishment of the poor?
Stockton’s solution is to cut the defense budget, reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and let the public fend for itself. Stockton argues to have corporate subsidies and tax expenditures reduced with deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. He goes on to support binding spending caps, no new tax cuts without an equal offset in expenditures, no bail outs with a belief that nothing is too big to fail, a reversal of Trumps 2017 tax cuts, a balanced budget, no long-term deficit financing, no permanent emergency spending, and a smaller federal footprint on the economy. These seem easy solutions for one who is financially secure but draconian for those who have been unable to grasp the economic opportunities of American capitalism.
More people will die from inability to receive medical care, more will go hungry and suffer from malnutrition, and homelessness. Stockman believes the current system is unsustainable. Let’s accept that point but victimizing and creating more homeless and poorer Americans only cheapens democratic capitalism.
Stockman is right in explaining the U.S. debt increase is unsustainable.
Interest costs are creating extraordinary pressure as a line-item cost for America’s budget. Reform is immensely difficult because of political differences of opinion. According to most economists with education as economists, Stockman’s observations are true, but most economists do not believe that truth will lead to a sudden market collapse. The majority of economist suggest Stockman’s explanation of long-term fiscal challenges can be ameliorated to avoid a wide market collapse. Though Kenneth Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, and Olivier Blanchard agree with Stockman’s diagnosis, they do not think his doom scenario is likely. Jason Furman, Douglas Elmendorf, and Ben Bernanke do not believe a bond-market revolt will crater government financing. Though all agree government debt is unsustainable, interest costs are rising too fast, and political discord is a problem. These “educated economists” believe entitlements can be gradually reformed, and a sudden collapse of the economy will be abated.
Carmen ReinhartBen BernankeDoug ElmendorfKenneth Rogoff
In general, most economists recognize America cannot continue to increase its debt but most economist believe the U.S. will adjust its economic policy to avoid collapse. As a reviewer of “The Great Deformation”, I am personally repelled by Stockman’s analysis but choose to rely on professional economists’ opinion, more than a politician/businessman who had a role in tanking the American economy.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. President Trump exemplifies that truth.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
48 Laws of Power
Author: Robert Greene
Narration by: Richard Poe
Robert Greene (American author, wrote seven international bestsellers, received his degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison in classical studies.)
This is a long book that shows a breadth of understanding about the history of power. How power and influence is acquired and wielded by human beings. Power and influence ranges from idealism to pragmatism to nihilism. In some sense, the “48 Laws of Power” is a study of emperors, courtiers, generals, con artists, and others who acquired power over others in history. What Greene reflects on is the social and human art of gaining and wielding power over other human beings. Whether one is low or high in the hierarchy of humanity, the general key to having power according to Greene is “never outshine superiors” but “always court attention that gains either respect, influence, or control of others”.
STALIN MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976)ING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)Kim Jong-un (CURRENT -DEAR LEADER-OF NORTH KOREA)
Greene brilliantly summarizes many characteristics of leaders in history to support his fundamental beliefs about power. He suggests all humans are primarily self-interested. One may disagree with that belief as a universal truth because there are many examples of social cooperation to achieve a common good or a stable system of governance. However, there is always a prime mover, a powerful person behind the scenes who drives the effort to succeed or fail.
Greene argues power is the result of interpersonal relationships. There is a great deal of truth in Greene’s analysis of power but from an institutional or organizational point of view, power is spread among departments’ leaders who report to a single leader. This is not to contradict Greene’s examples of interpersonal power but to temper belief that all power rests with one wielder of power. There is a great deal more to power than individual human manipulation. Organizations of the modern world are built around individual departments with singular powers beyond singular organizational leaders.
American Capital.
To give an example: regardless of who is President of the United States, there are Constitutional and legal systems that constrain his/her power. The bureaucracy of governance operates within rules set by law and precedent. In the case of business enterprise, shareholders, boards, and regulatory frameworks diminish the power of its executives. Further, even in the marketplace of business, capital limitation, supply chains, national platforms like Google, Amazon, and credit card companies have major influences on power exercised by any singular entity. Power in every human organization is also influenced by religions, social myths, and societal norms.
In this increasingly interconnected world, power has become impersonal, sometimes structural and emergent in ways that are non-intentional but significantly more powerful than one individual.
The weakness of the “48 Laws of Power” is that it fails to address institutionalized power that multiplies the power of individuals. A leader of a government or corporation works within a framework of historically developed departments that have their own powers and influences on public and private functions. The dynamics of power Greene explains apply within departments of government and corporations that go beyond the power of one leader.
This often leads to unintended consequences. ICE and Trump’s power are a current example of unintended consequence because of the murder of two Minneapolis American citizens who demonstrated against the President’s immigration policy. One doubts that the President of the United States wishes for the murder of American citizens who disagree with his immigration policies. However, power of the individual still matters as is demonstrated by today’s American President. Greene precisely explains how one person gains power over another despite a modern world that complicates individual power.
ICE murder of American citizens in Minneapolis who are protesting Trump immigration policy.
President Trump demonstrates his power over education, government employment, health and human services, birth control, and immigration policy. However, both good and bad government policy is magnified by Departments of Government that report to the President, i.e., bad policy coming from a President’s power is only made worse through implementation by subordinates who create their own power structures.
It is not that Greene’s analysis of power is wrong but that it applies to individual relationships without addressing distortions of power exercised by departments of business and government that have developed their own hierarchies of power.
One doubts any President of the United States who orders elimination of illegal immigration wishes to have ICE agents murder American citizens. This is not to absolve President Trump but to suggest the ICE employees on the ground bare the weight of two unjustified murders in Minneapolis.
Greene’s explanation of power is spot on, but it is about every person’s rise to power, not the reality of one leader’s power. Organizations are made up of many other managers using the same laws of power as their presumed superior. The end result is a level of unintended consequence. Or as Lord Acton noted: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. President Trump exemplifies that truth.
Fugelsang preaches to the choir in writing about Trump’s ignorant Immigration policy. It is not a matter of being or not being Christian but a matter of having a pragmatic and compassionate immigration policy that serves the needs of America’s future.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Separation Church and Hate (A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds)
Author: John Fugelsang
Narration by: John Fugelsang
John Fugelsang (Author, American actor, comedian, television host, political commentator.)
John Fugelsang argues President Trump’s immigration policies are unjust, hypocritic, and unchristian. Fugelsang, as the son of a mother and father who have deep religious backgrounds, appears to have carefully read the Bible. In his Christian’ beliefs about humanity, Fugelsang argues Trump distorts Christian teaching, has no compassion for immigrants, and pursues an immoral immigration policy that exemplifies a false relationship between “…Church and Hate”.
Good government, not religion, is what is needed to solve America’s immigration problem.
As one who is not raised with any particular religious beliefs, much of what Fugelsang argues makes sense. The gestapo tactics of the Trump administration are appalling. Whether one is a Christian or not, the terrorism created by Trump’s policy of home, school, and street attacks on people who may or may not be immigrants is un-American and, according to Fuigelsang, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Where Fugelsang is off the mark in his criticism is in attacking presumed motives of the President as opposed to the substantive reasons for managing illegal immigration. Trump’s methodology is cruel and unjust. The point of being Christian is superfluous. Fugelsang’s knowledge of the Bible is exemplary but who cares? It is not whether one is following Christian beliefs but whether one with power is acting with compassion and good judgement in addressing what is wrong with America’s immigration policy.
America needs immigration reform.
It is easy to agree with much of what Fugelsang has to say but it is not addressing the complexity of the problem of immigrants’ desire to have a better life. Trump is making the same mistakes past Presidents have made with native Americans. Rather than addressing the reasonable needs of human beings, past American Presidents made deals for Indian land, broke promises, murdered native populations and rejected inherent human rights. Trump is doing the same with today’s immigrants.
The starting point for correcting the problem of illegal immigration is in the creation of a fair, compassionate, and workable immigration policy.
Money is being wasted on gestapo-like actions by our government that terrorizes the public with armed ICE officers who continue to send the wrong message to the world about American democracy. We are not a police state. We are the nation that said, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.
Trying to turn back time is a waste of American revenue and manpower.
Trump, Congress, and the Judiciary need to back-off from a show of power. Our government needs to get to work on practical solutions that help American gain control of immigration. A show of power will not solve illegal immigration. It is only Trump’s theatrical way of making it look like he is doing something about illegal immigration. What he is doing is making America look like Hitler’s Germany. This is not America or what it stands for.
Fugelsang may be right from a Christian’s perspective about Trump’s lack of Christian belief but that is the easy part. The hard part is creating a compassionate solution by the American government for immigrants that have entered the country illegally. America needs an immigration policy that works for the future. Immigrants made America. American power and prosperity will decline without the help of immigrants. Modernization and a falling birth rate in America will reduce available labor for its future.
Fugelsang preaches to the choir in writing about Trump’s ignorant Immigration policy. It is not a matter of being or not being Christian but a matter of having a pragmatic and compassionate immigration policy that serves the needs of America’s future.
Democratic socialism is a great ideal but offers no solution for the flaws of human nature. The slim hope for Orwell’s democratic socialism is “The Ministry of Truth” which ironically is its greatest danger.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Ministry of Truth (The Biography of George Orwell’s 1984)
Author: Dorian Lynskey
Narration by: Andrew Wincott
Dorian Lynskey (Author, journalist, based in London)
Dorian Lynskey has written an informative biography of George Orwell’s most well-known book, “1984″. Orwell, a 6’ 3” political activist and theorist, shakes the foundations of communism and democracy. He argues both systems of government fail their citizens. Orwell argues the power of the few in communism and rising authoritarianism in capitalist democracy create an environment of inequality that victimizes the powerless and poor of society.
Orwell believes government run by the few is seduced by personal interests. Lynskey argues that Edward Bellamy influenced Orwell by showing how the utopian visions of all governments, however well‑intentioned, become authoritarian when they demand total social conformity. From that insight, Orwell writes “1984”
Edward Bellamy (American author, journalist and political activist, died at the age of 48 in 1898.)
Orwell’s “1984” becomes more relevant and threatening today because of artificial intelligence. The potential of A.I. for thought manipulation by purveyors of misinformation, and its surveillance capabilities threaten societal norms.
Lynskey argues that 1984 is relevant today because the forces of communism and democracy manipulate truth, are authoritarian, and define language in ways that harm society. Lynskey’s view isn’t that we live in Orwell’s world, but that we live in a world where Orwell’s insights may help us understand what is happening around us.
George Orwell (1903-1950, died at age 46.)
Orwell pillories the Soviet Union and communism in his satirical book “Animal Farm” which he wrote between 1943 and 1944. He had experienced Stalinist-like repression in the Spanish Civil War. Those who have travelled to the Baltics and listened to families that lived under Stalin’s reign over their countries will understand Orwell’s view of communism. Pigs in Animal Farm are Stalin’s apparatchiks that become the ruling class in Animal Farm, just as they did in the Baltics. They claim leadership, privileges and exempt themselves from labor. As “…Farm” leaders they squeal propaganda, censor activists that resist their piggish control and manipulate language to exploit the working class of the farm. The pigs lie among themselves by believing sacrifice of everyone is necessary for the “greater good” while the pigs feed on farming production and others grow hungry.
“1984” does not directly attack democracy but it reveals its weaknesses, illusions, and vulnerabilities.
“1984” is written near the end of Orwell’s life and becomes his most successful publication. He shows how democracies can sleepwalk into authoritarianism. Some would argue that is happening today in the guise of immigration policies that deny basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Agencies designed to serve America are being dismantled by today’s government. The idea of “it can’t happen here” is happening here. Propaganda and misinformation distort what is actually happening across America. Many Americans are becoming complicit with the rhetoric of a punitive federal government.
The rhetoric of misdeeds.
Lynskey explains “1984” is relevant today because the struggle over truth, language, surveillance, and authoritarian thinking has intensified, making Orwell’s warnings seem like a toolkit for understanding the present.
Orwell went to Morocco primarily for his health—specifically to recover from severe lung problems that are later recognized as tuberculosis. Morocco was a cheap place to live with a warmer climate that eased his respiratory illness. He left Morocco in 1939 and returned to Britain during WWII. After the war, he spent his last years (1946-1949) writing “1984” in Jura, Scottland. He died in London on January 21, 1950.
Lynskey explains Orwell, like Martin Luther King, believed in socialist democracy.
What is missing in “The Ministry of Truth” is an Orwellian solution to capitalist greed in western culture. Human nature interferes with the ideal of socialist democracy. “The Ministry of Truth” shows how prescient Orwell is about the ills of government but discounts the dark side of today’s democracies, i.e., namely capitalism. The underlying weakness of capitalism is the consequence of a permanent underclass because of economic inequality. Lynskey notes Orwell rejects capitalism because of its flaws, but socialist democracy is no answer because of human nature. Orwell seems to acknowledge that material life with capitalism is better, more freedom is inherent, but less perfect. However, socialist democracy offers no solution to that part of human nature that is human greed. He criticizes democracy without offering any alternative.
The ubiquitous internet and iPhone are not foreseen by Orwell.
The internet is a medium for “alternative facts” that can as easily offer lies as truth. When power speaks with “alternative facts” truth is lost and the public is misled. Society is diminished. Democratic socialism is a great ideal but offers no solution for the flaws of human nature.
Inequality in America.
The slim hope for Orwell’s democratic socialism is “The Ministry of Truth” which ironically is its greatest danger. A “…Ministry if Truth”, with the potential of A.I., can aid or destroy democratic socialism by focusing on concrete recommendations to mitigate inequality. On the other hand, A.I. in the hands of an unchecked tyrant can increase inequality.
Like all world changing inventions and discoveries, iPhone came with costs ranging from children’ and adults’ addiction, to rare minerals depletion, to environmental pollution. The long-term effect of iPhones has changed the world with unexpected, often unforeseen, consequences.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The One Device (The Secret History of the iPhone)
Author: Brian Merchant
Narration by: Tristan Morris
Brian Merchant (Author, American technology journalist, writes for The New York Times, Wired, Slate, The Atlantic, and the Guardian.)
Brian Merchant works around the tech world but never quite in it. His understanding of today’s technology has made him a popular writer for national news outlets. Never having been employed by a tech company, his analysis of iPhone history, the role of Jobs, and the history of its development is as an outsider to the process of invention. As a writer about technology, there is a level of objectivity but also reservation about an outsider’s details. Merchant reports what others tell of iPhone’s history rather than as a person being there as a part of its development.
Merchant’s investigation explains the iPhone’s creation is a messy human process entailing the dangers of mining, involvement of other companies and individuals, patent questions, and labor struggles. The impact of the iPhone’s invention is world changing. In a fundamental way, Merchant discounts the mythology of iPhone’s invention by one person or company. There were decades of prior invention before the iPhone became more than an idea, let alone a world changing device.
The mining industry and assembly line development were in place before the raw material and labor that would be needed for iPhone development. Merchant suggests Apple became the central orchestrator rather than singular inventor of the iPhone. Merchant argues the iPhone is a synthesis of decades of technological improvement, unnamed engineers, labor and organizations of miners and factory workers, and innovations needed to produce Apple’s revolutionary product.
Genius and invention go hand in hand. However, Merchant explains in the early 20th century, much of the technology that became a part of the iPhone’s foundation were already invented. He notes touchscreens, voice recognition tools, motion tracking, and early iterations of what became Artificial Intelligence had already been discovered. Merchant’s intent is not to diminish the genius of Apple, Jobs, or its employees but to show the public that every extraordinary human invention has precursors and essential earlier discoveries. It took Apple’s leadership and employees to integrate the many technologies that had been discovered earlier to create what has become a handheld window to the world. Merchant explains no great inventions are created out of thin air. He suggests every invention of the present is dependent on thought, labor, experience, and invention of the past.
Merchant discounts the idea of the “lone genius” because every genius depends on insight and events of the past to correlate what she/he invents in the present. The iPhone unifies decades of technological progress. The iPhones’ invention reorganizes global behavior, creates a new economic and industrial model, and gives the world a pocket supercomputer. The geniuses of Apple earned their reputations, but they relied on discoveries of the past.
Thinking of Curie, Einstein, Newton, and other giants of science, one wonders how Merchant’s belief about genius is valid. He would argue the brilliance of Curie, Einstein, and Newton are built on prior knowledge, their predecessors, and the tools of their time. Their genius is in connecting past knowledge and discovery of others with the present. Their genius is dependent on predecessors. Merchant is not diminishing Jobs’ or Apple’s genius, but their breakthroughs could only come from groundwork established by others.
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION ON A BAD DAY IN BEJING,, CHINA
Like all world changing inventions and discoveries, iPhone came with costs ranging from children’ and adults’ addiction, to rare minerals depletion, to environmental pollution. The long-term effect of iPhones has changed the world with unexpected, often unforeseen, consequences.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 