Freedom, once it is experienced, is an unconquerable force. Conquest of Ukraine, the Baltics, or Taiwan would be a pyric victory at a cost far in excess of a conquerors’ perceived value.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Return of Great Powers (Russia, China, and the Next World War)
By: Jim Sciutto
Narrated By: Jim Sciutto
Jim Sciutto (Former American news anchor for ABC, national security correspondent for CNN, Yale graduate majoring in Chinese history.)
Jim Sciutto has been seen by many on television. One suspects few know he served as the Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to China between 2011 and 2013. His book, “The Return of Great Powers” is interesting but not particularly revelatory. It was written before today’s news of the blows to Iran’s role in the Middle East with the removal of Syria’s brutal leader and Israel’s increased attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas. Tragically, there is always death of innocents in war. The question is whether war is ever worth its cost.
Sciutto certainly has a better grasp of China than most Americans based on his education and experience but his general analysis of the “…Great Powers” and their return is more topical than insightful.
The rise of Putin and Xi have certainly changed the world. Newspapers and television are full of stories about these leaders’ dance around the war in Ukraine. Xi offers moral and financial support to Putin, along with some important weapon components needed by the military, but China limits military equipment and direct munitions provisions for the war. China may benefit from Russia’s Ukraine invasion because of Xi’s expressed interest in acquiring Taiwan but China’s advances have not moved much from where they were before the invasion.
What seems clear today, particularly in Sciutto’s book, is that Putin has made too many mistakes in his invasion of Ukraine.
Putin’s apparent disregard for Russian soldiers’ deaths undoubtedly threatens his influence with many Russian citizens. Some of America’s media suggest Putin is becoming more conscious of his political and personal vulnerability. It is reported by Gleb Karakulov. a Russian engineer and defector who fled to Kazakhstan, that Putin has become paranoid and increasingly isolated.
Sciutto suggests Estonia is on a Putin invasion list once Ukraine has been conquered.
Having recently returned from the Baltics, occupation of Estonia would be a pyric victory for the same reasons as the Ukraine invasion. The hate for Russians one hears from Baltics’ residents (Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latavian) who were under the rule of Russia from 1940s to 1991 is palpable. The jail cells, torture, and murder of Baltic citizens by Russia is detailed by tour guides from each country. The prosperity of the Baltic countries since 1991 is a tribute to freedom that will not be given up easily by its people. At best, Russia may be able to occupy the Baltics, but citizen resistance would far outweigh any value occupation might offer.
Sciutto goes on to imply Taiwan will lose its independence to China.
The picture of death and destruction he outlines with China’s overwhelming military might mitigates against China’s success. Once freedom is experienced, it is like genies in a bottle–difficult to be re-imprisoned. Whether NATO or America will come to Taiwan’s aid is unknown, but like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s interest in the Baltics, the price to be paid is higher than the reward they can expect.
Freedom, once it is experienced, is an unconquerable force. Conquest of Ukraine, the Baltics, or Taiwan would be a pyric victory at a cost far in excess of a conquerors’ perceived value.
Trump’s mass deportation idea is draconian and inhumane. A system of deportation should be organized to repatriate some undocumented immigrants but not to expel them without fair consideration of their circumstances and the needs of the American economy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Real Americans
By: Rachel Khong
Narrated By: Louisa Zhu, Eric Yang, Eunice Wong
Rachel Khong (Author, American editor in San Francisco. Born in Malaysia to a Malaysian Chinese family.)
In a 1931 book, “Epic of America”, James Adams described America as a land where life should be better and richer for everyone, with opportunities for each according to their ability or achievement. This was written in the depths of the depression that began with the stock market crash of 1929. Of course, illegal immigration was nearly impossible in the 1930s, but still–there were 500,000 American immigrant arrivals in the U.S. during that decade. That amounted to 11.6 percent of the U.S. population at that time. Rachel Khong’s vision in “Real Americans” tests the next four years of Trump’s administration.
Khong writes a fictional story of a romantic relationship between an undocumented young Puerto Rican woman who is about to be deported and an equally young South Korean American who is falling in love with her.
Both are well educated by the American education system. The boy is interviewing for entrance to Yale while the girl is meeting an immigration lawyer to see what can be done to avoid deportation. The girl lives with a feckless “Wanna-Be actor” father and driven mother who is struggling to make a living in America. The daughter is shown to be quite intelligent with the ambition to become a data analyst.
Mass deportation without fair consideration of immigrant circumstance and their societal contribution is inhumane and foolish.
The developing affection between these two characters is beautifully created by the author. They are an example of why resident status needs to be treated fairly when immigrants are found to violate the immigration laws of the United States.
The idea that immigrants take jobs away from native American workers is a false flag.
The agricultural industry will be seriously impacted by mass deportation of undocumented labor.
The need for workers in America will continue to grow in the foreseeable future of the largest economy in the world. The demographics of an aging American population (that is not replacing itself) requires immigrants to grow and maintain the economy. The two characters of Khong’s story may not be every immigrant but they show how some are the future of American prosperity. Mass deportation of illegal immigrants will harm the American economy.
Immigrants have played a critical role in what America has become.
Khong is just telling a fictional story about American immigration, but it clearly illustrates how political rhetoric devolved into political lies and misinformation about the value of all human beings. America does have a history of Indian and Black murder and enslavement, but it also has a history that ameliorates discrimination and past misdeeds. One hopes the blunt force of immigrant deportation is not a policy that repeats America’s societal mistakes. American needs a carefully adjudicated immigration policy for the betterment of society.
Today, the total percentage, including 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants, is estimated at 14.3%. In the 1930s, 11.6% of the American population was immigrant. The question is whether the undocumented should be deported, regardless of the contribution they make to American productivity.
An aging population in America is not being replaced by native born Americans. Worker loss of undocumented immigrants may be harmful to American productivity.
Trump and his deportation Czar, Tom Homan.
Trump’s mass deportation idea is draconian and inhumane. A system of deportation should be organized to repatriate some undocumented immigrants but not to expel them without fair consideration of their circumstances and the needs of the American economy.
Khong’s story is entertaining fiction, but Trump’s deportation plan is a threatening work in progress.
Purnell’s biography implies the drive to succeed for women is based on intimacy rather than inherent human equality. Though that is not the intent of Purnell, intimacy has historically been the avenue women have had to take in society to open opportunity’s door.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Kingmaker (Pamela Harriman’s Astonishing Life of Power, Seduction, and Intrigue)
By: Sonia Purnell
Narrated By: Louise Brealey
Sonia Purnell (Author, British journalist, worked at the news magazine “The Economist”)
Every writer is influenced by the country in which they were born. Sonia Purnell writes an interesting biography of Pamela (Digby-Churchill) Harriman in “Kingmaker” but from the perspective of a British journalist. This is not to argue Purnell’s interesting perspective is wrong but that there is a spin that is nationalist, more than objective, about Pamela Harriman’s life.
During the beginning years of WWII, America avoided the war until Pearl Harbor when it became clear that a policy of isolationism would not work.
The reluctance of many American businessmen and industrialists like Joseph Kennedy and Henry Ford would not see Hitler for what he was, a fascist racist planning to dominate as much of Europe as Germany’s war machine would allow. Some in the American government, like Franklin Roosevelt, understood Hitler was a threat to all of Europe if not America. Roosevelt maneuvered the government to support England with a Lend/Lease program to defend themselves against German aggression, despite a political majority’s desire for isolationism.
Getting back to Purnell’s history of Pamela Harriman, Purnell explains the important role Pamela played, before Pearl Harbor, that mobilized America’s entry into the war. Pamela Harriman is unquestionably an English patriot. Her close relationship with Winston made her an ideal conduit and influencer in smoothing the relationship between America and the British government. The intimate relationship she developed with Harriman is a tribute to her contribution to the formation of an allied force to defeat Germany.
The massive Lend-Lease program is created in the late 1930s because of the Neutrality Acts that kept America out of direct engagement in the early days of WWII.
The program began in 1939 as a cash and carry program that evolved into a Lend-Lease program in 1941. American could lend or lease military equipment and supplies to any country that allies themselves with the U.S. if it were to enter into the war. The United Kingdom, Russia, and China were considered crucial to any alliance that might be created to defeat Germany. The complexity and logistics of Lend-Lease required astute management by American managers. Harry Hopkins was its first administrator, but Averill Harriman was needed to become a diplomatic political expediter for the process.
Purnell argues the political process in the American/United Kingdom relationship was smoothed and improved by Pamela Digby Harriman who was married to the son of Winston Churchill, Randolph Churchill.
Randolph has at best, a mixed reputation. He was a heavy drinker, reckless, and rude. He was married and divorced twice and had gambling problems that were a constant debt problem that disrupted Pamela’s life. She became closer to Winston Churchill than to her husband and became much more politically involved and astute than her husband in government affairs. That experience made her a perfect match for building a closer relationship with Avrill Harriman that became an affair between two married adults. Harriman was twenty-eight years older than Pamela but had a reputation as a suave ladies’ man.
Purnell reflects on the many affairs of Pamela Churchill Harriman beginning with Averell Harriman, then Edward R. Murrow, and proceeding to John Hay Whitney, Prince Aly Khan, Gianni Agnelli, Alfonso de Portago, Baron Elie de Rothschild, Frederick L. Anderson, Sir Charles Portal, and William S. Paley. The story becomes stale.
There is a cloying sense of unfairness in “Kingmaker ” because Pamela’s skill seems trivialized by her sexuality.
Pamela simply wanted an equal opportunity to succeed in the pursuit of money, power, and prestige, i.e. all the secular objectives men take for granted. Purnell’s biography implies the drive to succeed for women is based on intimacy rather than inherent human equality. Though that is not the intent of Purnell, intimacy has historically been the avenue women have had to take in society to open opportunity’s door.
Andrew Leigh’s brief history of economics reminds listeners of a threat America faces in the next four years.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
How Economics Explains the World (A Short History of Humanity)
By: Andrew Leigh
Narrated By: Stephen Graybill
Andrew Leigh (Author, Australian politician, lawyer, former professor of economics at the Australian National University, currently serving as Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury and Assistant Minister for Employment in Australia.)
Andrew Leigh offers a bird’s eye view of the history of economics. He provocatively explains why the European continent, rather than Africa (the birthplace of the human race) came to dominate the world. He suggests it is because of economics and the dynamics of the agricultural revolution.
Because Africa offered a more conducive environment for natural food production, Leigh infers natives could live off the fruits and nuts of nature. He infers farming and agricultural innovations (like the plow) were of little interest to Africans.
One may be skeptical of that reasoning and suggest the primary cause is sparse arable land for early African inhabitants. Without arable land, there was little advantage from the agricultural revolution.
Nevertheless, Leigh’s history is a wonderful reminder of great economic theories that improved the lives of an estimated 8.2 billion people on this planet. He touches on the lives of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes, and Milton Friedman. Each made great contributions to the history of western economics.
Adam Smith is considered the father of modern economics. (1723-1790)
Leigh notes Smith was a deep thinker who sometimes neglected the world he lived in by forgetting to properly dress himself or falling into a hole while thinking about economic theories. Some of his key theories were “Division of Labor”, the “Invisible Hand”, “Labour Theory of Value”, “Free Markets and Competition”, and “Capital Accumulation”; all of which remain relevant today. One that seems so important today is “Free Markets and Competition” and the disastrous idea of tariffs that are being promoted by the pending Trump administration.
Smith notes natural resources are not equally distributed in the world. Some countries have more raw material than others, more available labor at a lower cost, and can produce product at lower prices. With free trade, all citizens of the world are benefited by lower costs of goods. With tariffs, product costs are artificially increased when they could reflect actual costs of production. Of course, the producer can increase costs, but the market will find an alternative if the costs become too high.
David Ricardo (1772-1823)
Ricardo’s theory of competitive advantage suggests some countries can produce product at less cost than others. This reinforces the critical importance of free trade. Free trade flies in the face of both the Biden’s passing administration and Trump’s future administration; both of which believe tariffs protect jobs in America. They don’t; because tariffs artificially increase product costs while protecting labor inefficiency that increases consumer prices. Tariffs are a lose-lose proposition. It may affect jobs in the short term but there are many jobs that can be created by government and private companies in human and public service industries. Those investments would offset inefficient product production and ensure future jobs.
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
Leigh notes that Keynes was bisexual and a pivotal figure in modern economics. He believed in the theory of Aggregate Demand meaning that “…spending in an economy is the primary driver of economic growth.” He advocated government intervention when demand was low, and that government should increase spending and cut taxes to increase demand when a recession or depression threatens the health and welfare of the public. Interestingly, Trump believes in reducing taxes but objects to government spending that improves employment. The effect of reducing taxes only increases income inequality and does little for employment because the rich are wary of investing in a weakening economy.
Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Both Keynes and Friedman believe in government intervention, but Friedman exclusively believes in using only monetarism as a tool. Keynes agrees but had the added dimension of government spending that creates jobs. In contrast, Friedman argues there is a natural rate of unemployment and when government intervenes it creates inflation. He strongly agreed with free markets which suggests he would be against tariffs but at the expense of higher unemployment. The cloying part of that argument is it increases income inequality by making the rich richer, the unemployed and middle-class worker poorer.
Leigh’s book is a brief review of western economics. It glosses over much of the science, but it is highly entertaining and worth listening to more than once. Additionally, Andrew Leigh’s brief history of economics reminds listeners of a threat America faces in the next four years.
Eubanks is wrong to think digitization ensures a future that will create a permanent underclass. The next four years may not show much progress in welfare, but American history has shown resilience in the face of adversity.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Automating Inequality (How Hich-tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor
By: Virginia Eubanks
Narrated By: Teri Schnaubelt
Virginia Eubanks (Author, American political scientist, professor at the University at Albany, New York.)
At the risk of sounding like a “bleeding heart” liberal, Virginia Eubanks assesses the inefficient and harmful effects of technology on welfare, childcare services, and homelessness in America. Eubanks illustrates how technology largely reduced the cost of Indiana’s welfare. However, cost reduction came from removing rather than aiding Americans in need of help. She shows southern California is better organized in the 2000s than Indiana in their welfare reform movement in the 1990s. However, the fundamental needs of the poor and homeless are shown to be poorly served in both jurisdictions.
In the last chapters of the book, Eubanks looks at Pennsylvania’s childcare services (CCW). She argues her research shows digitization of personal information, societal prejudice, and inadequate financial investment as fundamental causes of America’s failure to help abused children. Eubanks implies the cause of that failure is the high-tech tools of the information age.
Eubanks offers a distressing evaluation of Indiana’s, California’s, and Pennsylvania’s effort to improve state welfare programs.
The diagnosis and cure for welfare are hard pills to swallow but Eubank’s research shows welfare’s faults without clarifying a cure. She clearly identifies symptoms of inequality and how it persists in America. Eubank infers America’s politicians cannot continue to ignore homelessness and inequality. America needs to reinforce its reputation as the land of opportunity and freedom. Eubank implies technology is the enemy of a more equal society by using collected information to influence Americans to be more than self-interested seekers of money, power, and prestige.
Eubank explains how Indiana welfare recipients were systematically enrolled in an information technology program meant to identify who receives welfare, why they are unemployed, and how they spend their money.
She argues this detailed information is not just used to categorize welfare recipients’ qualifications for being on welfare. The purported reason for gathering the information is to help those on welfare to get off welfare and become contributors to the American economy. What Eubank finds is the gathered information is used to justify taking citizens off of welfare, not improve its delivery. Poorly documented information became grounds for denying welfare payments. If someone failed to complete a form correctly, their welfare payments were stopped. The view from government policy makers was that welfare costs went down because of the State’s information gathering improvements. In reality welfare costs went down because recipients were rejected based on poorly understood rules of registration. Indiana did not have enough trained management personnel to educate or help applicants. Welfare applicants needed help to understand how forms were to be completed and what criteria qualified them for aid.
From Indiana State’s perspective, information technology reduced their cost of welfare. From the perspective of Americans who genuinely needed welfare, technology only made help harder to receive.
Eubank notes there are three points that had to be understood to correct Indiana’s welfare mistakes:
information algorithms qualifying one for welfare must be truthful, fair, and accurate,
the information must reflect reality, and
training is required for welfare managers and receivers on the change in welfare policies.
Another point made by Eubank is the danger of computer algorithms that are consciously or subconsciously biased. A biased programmer can create an algorithm that unfairly discriminates against welfare applicants that clearly need help. This seems a legitimate concern, but Eubank misses the point of more clearly understanding the need of welfare for some because of the nature of American capitalism and the consequence of human self-interest. Contrary to Eubank’s argument, digitalization of information about the poor offers a road to its cure not a wreck to be avoided.
WELFARE CATEGORY ELIGIBILITY PERCENTAGES IN INDIANA
Eubank tells the story of a number of Indiana residents that had obvious medical problems making them unemployable but clearly eligible for welfare payments. They are taken off welfare because of mistakes made by government employees’ or welfare recipient’ misunderstandings of forms that had to be completed. From the government’s standpoint Indiana’ welfare costs went down, but many who needed and deserved help were denied welfare benefits. The rare but widely publicized welfare cheats became a cause celeb during the Reagan years that aggravated the truth of the need for welfare in America. The truth, contrary to Eubanks opinion, becomes evident with the digitization of information as a basis for legislative correction.
Eubank notes Skid Row in Los Angeles lost many of its welfare clients with gentrification of the neighborhood. The poor were moved out by rich Californians who rebuilt parts of Skid Row into expensive residences.
Eubank explains a different set of problems in the Los Angeles, California welfare system. The technological organization of the LA welfare system is better but still fails to fairly meet the needs of many citizens. The reasons are similar to Indiana’s in that algorithms that categorize information were often misleading. However, the data-gathering, management, and use of information is better. The more fundamental problem is in resources (money and housing) available to provide for the needs of those who qualify for welfare. It is not the digitization of the public that is causing the problem. Contrary to the author’s opinion, digitization of reality crystalizes welfare problems and offers an opportunity for correction.
Homelessness is complex because of its many causes. However, having affordable housing is a resource that is inadequately funded and often blocked by middle class neighborhoods in America. Even if the technological information is well organized and understood, the resources needed are not available. Here is where the social psychology of human beings comes into play. Those in the middle class make a living in some way. They ask why can’t everyone make a living like they have? Why is it different for any other healthy human being in America? Here is where the rubber meets the road and why homelessness remains an unsolved problem in America.
People are naturally self-interested. One person’s self-interest may be to get high on drugs, another to steal what they want, others to not care about how they smell, where they sleep, look, live, or die. Others have chosen to clean themselves up and get on with their life. Why should their taxes be used to help someone who chooses not to help themselves? Understanding the poor through digitization is the foundation from which a solution may be found.
Traveling around the world, one sees many things. In India, the extraordinary number of people contributes to homelessness. In France, it is reported that 300 of every 100,000 people are homeless. Even in Finland, though there are fewer homeless, they still exist.
It is a complex problem, but it seems solvable with the example of what Los Angles is trying to do. It begins with technology that works by offering a clear understanding of the circumstances of homelessness. A detailed profile is made of every person that is living on the street. They are graded on a scale of 1 to 17 based on the things they have done in their lives. That grade determines what help they may receive. Some may be disqualified because of a low number but the potential of others, higher on the scale, have an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty with help from welfare. It is the resources that are unavailable and social prejudice, not gathered personal digital information, that constrain solutions.
With informational understanding of a welfare applicant, it principally requires political will and economic commitment by welfare providers. There is no perfect solution but there are satisficing solutions that can significantly reduce the population of those who need a helping hand. American is among the richest countries in the world. Some of that wealth needs to be directed toward administrative management, housing, mental health, and gainful employment.
Like all countries of the world, as technological digitization improves, human services will grow to become a major employment industry in the world.
America, as an advanced technology leader, has the tools to create a service economy that is capable of melding industrial might with improved social services.
Eubanks travels to Pennsylvania to look at their child services program.
What Eubanks finds in Pennsylvania is similar to what she found in LA and, to a degree, Indiana. Children who are at risk of being abandoned, abused, or neglected are categorized in a data bank that informs “Child Services” of children who need help. The problem is bigger than what public services can handle but the structure of reporting offers hope to many children that are at risk. Like LA, it is a resource problem. But also, it is a problem that only cataloging information begins to address.
Parents abuse their children in ways that are often too complicated for a standardized report to reveal. Details are important and digitization of personal information helps define what is wrong and offers a basis for pragmatic response.
Computerized reports, even with A.I., are only a tip of the reality in which a child lives. This is not to argue child-services should be abandoned or that reports should not be made but society has an obligation to do the best it can to ensure equality of opportunity for all. Every society’s responsibility begins with childhood, extends through adulthood and old age–only ending with death. Understanding the problems of the poor is made clearer by digitization. Without digital visibility, nothing will be done.
Eubanks gives America a better understanding of where welfare is in America. She is wrong to think digitization ensures a future that will create a permanent underclass. The next four years may not show much progress in welfare, but American history has shown resilience in the face of adversity.
We may be surprised by what Trump will do in four more years. The million or more voters who put him over the top deserve what good or bad comes from their choice.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership
By: James Comey
Narrated By: James Comey
James Comey (Author, director of the FBI from 2013 to 2017, fired by then President, Donald Trump.)
With the re-election of Donald Trump, it seems time for a review of James Comey’s book to better understand his perspective on the soon-to-be new/old leader of America. This review is admittedly biased. On the other hand, Comey’s and this book-reviewer’s mutual bias are reinforced by comments of other Americans who personally served in Trump’s first administration.
Mike Pence, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, Mark Esper, William Barr, and John Kelly, were all former officials of President Trump’s first administration. As is widely known, all of these officials have guarded, if not negative, opinions about Trump’s position as the leader of the “free world”. What “freedom” is there when his former chief of staff categorizes Trump as a fascist?
John Kelly (Trump’s chief of staff from 2017-2019.)
Mike Pence refused to endorse Trump in his 2020 run for re-election. Rex Tillerson called Trump “pretty undisciplined” in 2018 and counseled Trump to not violate the laws of the land. The former Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, warned Trump about “militarizing our response” to protests against the government. He is quoted to have said “Never did I dream that troops …would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights…of fellow citizens.” Mark Esper, who succeeded Mattis, said January 6th’s run on the capitol “…threatens our democracy”. William Barr, Trump’s former Attorney General, said Donald Trump shouldn’t be near the Oval Office. John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, notes Trump fits the definition of a fascist. We should remind ourselves–a fascist is a dictator who believes in centralized autocracy, militarism, suppression of opposition, nationalism, and economic control. “What freedom is there in an America led by a fascist”? America has chosen to re-elect Trump despite the aforementioned concerns by people who worked in his administration.
James Comey is fired by Trump for several reasons.
Comey is fired by Trump for several reasons. One, he mishandled the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email. He refused to admit the president was a part of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign. Additionally, Comey refuses, at the request of Trump, to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Trump dismisses Comey in 2017. (Ironically, Michael Flynn pled guilty in 2017 for making false statements to the FBI. President Trump pardoned him in 2020.) As a result, Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended the firing of Comey.
The Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended the firing of Comey.
Comey’s biography is about his life from childhood to adulthood. The first chapters are about his parents and siblings. He recounts a burglary incident in his home when only he and a younger brother are in the house. The burglar enters the house with a gun and threatens both boys while looking for money and valuables. Though James grows to be six feet eight inches tall, he is not big when this incident occurs. He and his brother are naturally frightened. James tells the burglar where to look for money that he might find in the house. The boys are locked in a basement bathroom and the burglar leaves but sees the boys trying to escape through the bathroom window. The burglar returns. James runs to the neighbor’s house for help but the burglar escapes before the police arrive.
Comey notes he was bullied when in grade school.
The bullying eventually stops, and one wonders if it was because of his growth spurts or because of his ability to adjust to the social environment in which he lived. He had teachers and employers during his school years that became character models for him in life. He writes of incidents that he feels became examples that led him to become the person he became. From the perspective of this listener/reader, they were experiences that made Comey an ideal bureaucrat. This is not to demean bureaucratic positions but to suggest Comey matured to be a believer in systematic analysis of human behavior.
James Comey became an ideal bureaucrat for the Federal Government because he was a believer in systematic analysis before developing institutional policy or taking consequential action.
Comey starts his professional life as an attorney. His big break comes from the George W. Bush administration when he is offered the position of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Ironically, he went to work for Rudy Giuliani, an unprincipled but popular mayor of New York. Giuliani became President Trump’s personal lawyer and was later convicted for defamation. (Birds of a feather?) Bush asked Comey to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the U.S. government. He was confirmed by the Senate in 2003. In 2013, Barack Obama appointed James Comey as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
A disturbing chapter in Comey’s book is his prosecution of Martha Stewart for insider trading.
Comey tries to negotiate a deal with Stewart to keep her out of jail if she would plead guilty. She refuses and Comey orders continuation of the prosecution. Stewart was convicted and sentenced to five months in a minimum-security prison. There is a “holier than thou” sense of Comey’s action but his side of the story is that fame and wealth are no excuse for illegal behavior. This is a feeling one may or may not agree with because fame and wealth should not be a license to violate the law. (The obvious irony is that President Trump will escape punishment for his law breaking because of re-election.) In Comey’s opinion, when Stewart would not plead guilty, she became the author of her own punishment.
Scooter Libby (American lawyer and former chief of staff to V.P. Dick Cheney.)
Scooter Libby’s prosecution brings up another incident that tests Comey’s character more than the effect of a person’s wealth and fame. Comey’s advance in the Federal Government came from the Republican Party led by Bush. Libby is indicted for lying to the FBI about divulging the name of a CIA officer (Valerie Plame). Libby is convicted because of Comey’s investigation despite his political appointment by the Bush administration. One might argue that Comey refuses to bias FBI’ investigations based on fame, wealth, or political affiliation with these investigations. That seems apparent, considering the title of his biography, i.e. “A Higher Loyalty”.
Comey’s biography offers insight to what Trump may or may not succeed in doing when he assumes office. Like the administration of George W. Bush, the bureaucracies of America’s government will have some influence on Trump’s agenda.
THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE AP INFO ABOUT TRUMP’S PLANS:
to empower the National Guard and domestic police forces to deport an estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants,
leave abortion laws to the discretion of the American States with no federal mandate,
restructure the Food and Drug administration,
eliminate taxes on earned tips, eliminate taxes on social security income, and reduce taxes on corporations from 21% to 15%,
create tariffs of 10 to 20 percent on foreign goods,
reinstitute the 2020 executive order requiring the federal government buy “essential” medications only from U.S. companies,
block purchases of “any vital infrastructure” in the U.S. by Chinese buyers,
roll back societal emphasis on diversity and legal protection for LGBTQ citizens and Title IX civil rights protections for transgender students,
reduce the role of federal bureaucrats and regulations across the country,
target elimination of the federal Dept. of Education to promote privatization of schools, while increasing regulations on what can be taught in schools,
repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act,
deny the existence of global warming while discouraging fuel efficiency standards and incentives for fuel conservation,
make it harder for companies to unionize and discourage unionization dues payments,
withdraw from world affairs with a non-interventionist military policy while increasing defense spending for a missile defense shield.
Comey explains how overreaction to 9/11’s attack led to growing suspension of human rights in America.
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.
Legislation drawn by the Bush administration condoned CIA’ torture of foreign nationals and anti-American demonstrators. That proposed legislation was opposed by the Attorney General’s office and did not get passed. However, the CIA and some military personnel got ahead of government policy decision in their actions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration did not give up on their desire to allow torture.
Undoubtedly, some actions will be taken before Congressional or bureaucratic approvals but there is hope for restraint based on what the Attorney General’s office (John Ashcroft) objected to when it became aware of the CIA’s actions. The threat of mass resignation by the Attorney General’s office made Bush reconsider what his staff proposed to Congress. One presumes, there will be similar bureaucratic resistance to Trump’s extreme policy recommendations.
Alberto Gonzales (80th U.S. Attorney General from 2005-2007.)
However, despite objections to the torture system practiced by the CIA, Bush’s administration chose a new Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. In that Presidential choice, bureaucratic policy changed, and torture became an acceptable form of interrogation. Changing bureaucracy leadership is the modus vivendi for Donald Trump’s threat to American Democracy and what can happen in the next four years.
Comey seems a decent person. He is no hero. He is obviously intelligent with a conscience that one would expect from a moral, if not always effective, attorney. Trump is a threat to American democracy but there have been many threats to democracy in our history. We may be surprised by what Trump will do in four more years. The million or more voters who put him over the top deserve what good or bad comes from their choice.
The election results are in, and Trump is our President once again. This is a sad commentary on the will of the American people and the threat America is to world economic comity.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
People, Power, and Profits (Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent)
By: Joseph E. Stiglitz
Narrated By: Sean Runnette
Joseph Stiglitz (Author, American economist, public policy analyst, received a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001.)
With reservation, Joseph Stiglitz’s book “People, Power, and Profits” is reviewed here. The reservation is because of the risk of succumbing to echo-chamber’ belief. That belief is that corporations and wealthy individuals should not be able to pour as much money as they want into the American election process, that bankers unjustly escaped punishment for the 2008 financial crises, and that Donald Trump should never again be elected President of the United States.
Stiglitz is considered a “New Keynesian” economist which puts him at odds with famous economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Friedman believes the most effective fiscal policies comes from monetary policy control by the government. Hayek believed in a market economy with as little government intervention as possible. Stiglitz flatly disagrees with Hayek and only agrees with Friedman in that government has a responsibility to intervene in government economic policy. Stiglitz identity as a “New” Keynesian is because, unlike Keynes’ economic theory, there is no waiting for an economic crisis for government to intervene but to intervene now to make future economic crises less likely.
John Maynard Keynes (English, Eton and King’s College graduate, mathematician, economist, 1883-1946, died at age 62.)
Why I am concerned about listening to Stiglitz’s book about the economy is that I am listening to some things I already believe. I believe the gap between rich, and poor is the greatest threat to, not only American democracy, but all forms of government. Stiglitz may be my echo chamber.
Stiglitz believes in democratic government intervention to ameliorate the wide gap between rich and poor.
Stiglitz has an idealist platform to cure what he views as the solution to narrowing the gap between rich and poor in America. Stiglitz makes five policy recommendations to reduce the gap between rich and poor in America.
Increase taxes on income from capital gains and inheritance.
Use tax revenues to improve public education in ways that equalize costs between the rich and poor.
Refine anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies and promote competition.
Intervene in corporate governance to ensure fairer compensation between management and labor.
Regulate banks to prevent exploitation of the public.
These are defensible polices but they have to survive the give and take political process of American democratic government.
However, that process is unfairly biased by allowing corporations and the wealthy to pour disproportionate amounts of money into the American election process. Contribution by corporations and the wealthy should be limited because candidates are beholding to big financial donors with little concern for the poor.
In the 2020 and 2024 election cycle, big donors contributed from 75 to 78 percent of campaign donations.
The problem with Stiglitz’s book is not in his recommendations but in his vengeful angel’ rhetoric. America is founded on freedom, not revenge. It is the give and take of differences of opinion and “checks and balances” of the Constitution that have made America great. Many mistakes have been made and are still being made by our government but even a horrible President like Trump cannot change the fundamental direction of our democracy.
John F. Kennedy’s belief that a rising tide lifts all boats has not provided life vests to the poor in America.
The gap between rich and poor in America must be resolved. Neither Harris nor Stiglitz may be the answer, but Trump is only going to try to resurrect a past that has led our government in the wrong direction. The unconscionable cost of medical services and drugs, extraordinary compensation for executives, regressive taxes, election financing bias, and financial industry greed must be addressed through the American political process.
American democracy’s failures will not be cured, but they must be addressed and ameliorated to remain a beacon for freedom in the world. The election results are in, and Trump is our President once again. This is a sad commentary on the will of the American people and the threat America is to world economic comity.
Darznik’s novel is based on a woman who believed and acted on a conviction that men and women are created equal.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Song of a Captive Bird
By: Jasmin Darznik
Narrated By: Mozhan Marno
Jasmin Darznik (Iranian born American author with a BA from the University of California and a PhD in English literature from Princeton.)
“…Captive Bird” is classified as a novel. However, it is loosely based on the life of Iranian poet, Forugh Farrokhzad, who defied the traditions of mid-twentieth century Iranian culture. Today’s Iranian culture would undoubtedly be as anti-Farrokhzad as the 1950’s culture in which she lived.
Forugh Farrokhzad
Iranian poet and painter born in Tehran in 1934, died at age 32 from a car accident in 1967.
If even a small part of Darznik’s novel is based on true events, Forugh Farrokhzad was an extraordinary human being who symbolized the truth of sexual equality. In one of the most patriarchal countries in the world, Ms. Farrokhzad rebelled against a conservative and myopic view of women’s rights.
Jasmin Darznik characterizes Farrokhzad as a trailblazer who believed and lived a life of sexual equality.
The story Darznik tells is of a human being choosing to livelife in whatever way her mind and emotions led. Darznik’s heroine fought the restrictions of women’s inequality in a country riven with militant patriarchy. Farrokhzad’s history is one of rebellion against her father, a colonel in the Iranian army, and the societal taboos of Iran, many of which are resurrected in today’s Iranian government.
Darznik’s story is of a woman who acts like a free man, chooses her sexual partners, leaves her husband and only child, and seeks fame as a poet in a land renowned for poetry.
Like a man or any human being, Farrokhzad has sexual desires and ambitions to be something more than a footnote in history. Like husbands who leave their children through divorce or separation, Farrokhzad leaves her son. It is the same habit of many absent fathers who may love their children, but choose, like Farrokhzad, to pursue life beyond being a mother or father.
The world is beginning to understand women and men are 99.9 percent the same with fractional differences for conception, and strength.
The desire for sex, money, power and/or prestige are the same for all human beings. What is remarkable about Farrokhzad life is that she seems to have recognized that belief in one of the most patriarchal countries in the world. The way Farrokhzad lived her life, as reflected by the author, shows why men and women should be treated equally.
What is not mentioned in Darsnik’s novel is that Farrkhzad was also an artist.
This is a painting done by Farrokhzad despite her principal feminist reputation as a poet in the conservative culture of Iran in the 1950s.
The author’s story suggests Farrokhzad’s father commits her to an asylum after estrangement from her family and her rejection of female inequality. In the asylum, Farrokhzad is heavily sedated and subjected to shock treatments that make her catatonic. She is rescued with her father’s decision to allow her to leave the asylum in the care of a rich Iranian woman. This benefactress is a fellow traveler in Farrokhzad’s belief about women. Farrokhzad eventually recovers from her catatonia and continues her liberated life.
Though the dates Farrokhzad’s real life do not match historical events in Iran, Darznik captures the essence of a remarkable Iranian woman.
The shah of Iran, Mohammad Pahlavi is deposed in 1979. The author conflates the history of the oil industry’s unfair monopolization by Great Britain, the King’s departure and Farrokhzad’s storied life. She tragically dies in a car accident in 1967 at the age of 32. (Some suggest the car accident is suspicious.)
Darznik’s novel is a compelling argument for sexual equality. It is based on a woman who believed and acted on a conviction that men and women are created equal. The author’s story is particularly impactful because the woman she alludes to is born in a country that is among the most patriarchal in the world.
Tariffs to restrict foreign production is shooting citizens in the foot by artificially increasing the cost of living.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy Is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth – and How to Fix It
By: Dambisa Moyo
Narrated By: Pamala Tyson
Dambisa Moyo (Zambian-born economist and author with a BS and MBA from Harvard, former World Bank consultant to Europe, Central Asia and Africa.)
“Edge of Chaos” is a revelatory and intelligent analysis of economic rewards and risks of democracies and dictatorships. Fundamentally, Moyo argues failures of government economies are related to societal instability and short-term government economic policies that are disproportionately influenced by monied interests and kleptocratic political leaders. Rich corporations and kleptocratic leaders distort economic opportunity, create chaos while producing and exacerbating economic inequality. She argues America is at the edge of chaos because of a flawed democratic election system that is biased toward short-term rather than long term economic policy.
Moyo identifies the Gini index of income inequality to show that there is little difference between the rich and poor in China and the United States despite their government leaders’ differences.
China is a dictatorship while America is a form of democracy. They are nearly the same on the Gini index scale of citizen inequality while South Africa, Zambia and Brazil are at the bottom. Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus and most of the Scandinavian countries show the lowest differences in citizen’ economic inequality. Mayo argues the difference has little to do with their forms of government except in relation to their government policies. In her opinion, China and the United States could improve their citizen’s Gini index position if their government policies would focus on income equality.
Both China and America have relative stability but with different forms of government.
Unquestionably, freedom is the sine non quo (indispensable ingredient) of America, but it is income inequality that causes the chaos Moyo alludes to in her book. That chaos is not overtly apparent in China because of dictatorship but one who has traveled to China feels there is a similar level of discontent, if not chaos, among its citizens over economic inequality.
Moyo’s solution for reducing America’s growing chaos seems difficult but not impossible to implement.
Dambisa Moyo’s solution revolves around the following 8 recommendations.
Make voting compulsory to increase voter participation more representative of the people.
Make election to the House of Representatives a six-year term like the Senate to encourage longer term economic goals but limit the number of terms one can be in office. (Eliminate career politicians.)
Increase the pay of politicians to what successful private sector leaders receive.
Establish policy making agencies that can focus on long-term policies without being threatened by near term election cycles.
Invest in the education of future leaders of the political system.
Encourage public officials to focus on economic diversification with an educated understanding of technological change in the world.
The wealth of the nation should be focused on reduction of economic inequality.
Strategies to manage natural resources should be developed to focus on sustainability.
Fair trade is where America is on the wrong side of history according to the author.
Adam Smith believed in fair trade.
Adam Smith argued for removing trade barriers like tariffs and quotas because of limited natural resources. He explains resources are more efficiently allocated, product production is increased, and economic growth is improved with free trade. As inferred by Moyo, American chaos is partly a result of ignoring Adam Smith’s prescient understanding of economics.
America democracy has journeyed a long way since 1776.
America’s fundamental success came from its emphasis on freedom within rules-of-law organized around the “checks and balances” of three distinct branches of government, i.e., the executive, congressional, and judicial branches. This is the strength of American Democracy that has offered stability. The inference made in “Edge of Chaos” is that America’s stability is at risk if it does not adapt to technological change wrought by A.I. and global interconnectivity.
Technology is changing the nature of American productivity from material products to service. With the help of A.I., America can begin to address many of the service needs of its citizens. From aid to the homeless, to education for service to others, to drug treatment of the addicted, to improved health care for all, the prosperity and income of Americans can be more equitably shared.
Global interconnectivity requires greater acceptance of fair trade as originally described by Adam Smith.
Today’s alleged protection of worker employment by using tariffs to restrict foreign production is shooting citizens in the foot by artificially increasing the cost of living. Re-education for service to the public by using A.I. to make citizens more human-centered offers an alternative to 21st century American chaos.
These are intelligent observations by a very young and well-educated author.
How close is the world to its next world war? The character of today’s leaders seems as threatening as Stalin and as unpredictable as Churchill.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Stalin Affair (The Impossible Alliance That Won the War)
By: Giles Milton
Narrated By: Giles Milton
Giles Milton (Author, British writer and historian.)
Giles Milton offers a fascinating and well written account of the dynamics of the relationship between Churchill and Stalin with a brief analysis of Franklin Roosevelt that shows a difference of opinion about Stalin. There are some surprises in Milton’s history of the beginning and ending of WWII and the role of Joseph Stalin.
As is well known, Stalin and Hitler made a pact at the beginning of the war that made them allies with a plan to divide Europe between their two countries.
The pact falls apart when Hitler chooses to invade Russia on June 22, 1941. Germany made rapid progress and was nearing Moscow when winter struck, and Germany’s wheels of war were stuck in the mud. Stalin was psychologically paralyzed by Germany’s decision to turn against Russia. He hid in his dacha, his second home in the Russian countryside. A delegation of Russians went to the Stalin’s dacha and pleaded with him to direct the defense of Russia against Germany’s onslaught. Stalin is surprised that the delegation wanted him to return to the leadership of Russia in Milton’s telling of the story. One presumes that reluctance is because of Stalin’s mistake in believing Hitler could be a reliable ally in their mutual desire to expand their territories.
Milton’s history has a particular interest to me because of a planned personal visit to the Baltics next month.
In reading a book about the Baltics during WWII, there seems some confusion among the Baltic countries because their sovereignty is being usurped by Russia while the instigator of WWII is Germany. The guide on the trip suggests we read “between shades of gray”, a book written by Rusa Sepetys, a Lithuanian born American writer. Sepetys story is of Lithuania intellectuals being arrested by Stalin’s troops and carted off to Siberia. Brief mention of the Germans is mentioned but implies the Germans were not the enemy but an opposing force of the Russian attack on the Baltics. Having visited Finland last year, it is interesting to find the Finns allied themselves to Germany during WWII because of their fear of Russia’s aggression. Now, having read Sepetys novel of Russian aggression in early 1941, one begins to understand the complexity of which side of the war the Baltics chose to be on.
Ruta Sepetys (Lithuanian born American writer.)
It tells the story of Russia’s invasion of the Baltics soon after Hitler’s decision to attack Russia.
WWII in the Baltics is not Milton’s history, but Sepetys offers a footnote on its consequence in the Baltics.
Milton makes one feel they are in the room when decisions are made about the progress and ending of WWII. It is a fascinating story. Stalin is a villain in sheep’s clothing. His lust for power is unquenchable. Winston Chruchill is shown to be more aware of Stalin’s intent than Franklin Roosevelt. At Yalta, where the peace plan is agreed to and signed, Milton explains Roosevelt is feeble. The Yalta conference took place in February 1945. Roosevelt dies in April, two months later. Stalin’s ambition is the expansion of the U.S.S.R. and anything that gets in the way of that ambition is an obstacle to be overcome or removed.
Milton’s access to historical documents, reveals the many important roles of government leaders during WWII and after.
Of course, the most obviously impactful leaders are Churchill and Stalin, but the author notes the roles of lesser-known participants like Averell Harriman, Kathy Harriman, and Vyacheslav Molotov. There is also the role of Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of the NKVD (the Soviet secret police).
W. Averell Harriman (1891-1986, American politician, businessman, and diplomat.)
Averell Harriman, as the son of a wealthy railroad baron, becomes the founder of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., an investment company. He became one of the richest men in America.
Harriman is asked by Roosevelt to become the America’s diplomatic contact with Great Britain to manage the Lend-Lease Program before America enters the war. As a personal envoy, he strengthens the alliance between Britain and America. Later he becomes Ambassador to the Soviet Union after Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin. Milton touches on the married Harriman’s attraction to women and his extramarital affairs. However, Harriman was revered by Churchill, and later Stalin, for the aid he coordinated for both countries during the war.
Kathleen Harriman (1917-2011, died at age 93.)
A lesser-known role is of Harriman’s daughter, Kathy Harriman. In the first years of contact between her father and Stalin, Ms. Harriman smooths America’s relationship with the Russian administration.
Ms. Harriman leaned to speak Russian and aided her father in his diplomatic contact with Soviet officials. She became a correspondent for the International News Service and Newsweek during her time in Russia. In 1944, Ms. Harriman exposes the mass murder of 22,000 Polish officers by the NKVD, at the order of Stalin. She plays a role in the Yalta Conference in assisting the American delegation with logistics and management.
Milton makes a listener feel like they are in the room at a dinner table with Stalin and Churchill when they exchange harsh words about the creation of a western front to aid the Russian army in the fight with German soldiers.
Stalin demeans the British army for their early failures in the war when they were outnumbered and outgunned by the Germans. Churchill is deeply offended by the disparagement and is on the verge of canceling a dinner with Stalin before leaving Russia. His anger is quelled by Harriman. Churchill changes his tone with the Russian leader and mends their relationship over cigars and alcohol. However, there is little doubt about their continued acrimony and Churchill’s unshaken belief in Stalin’s intent to expand his empire.
Milton offers the same “in the room” understanding of what happens at the Yalta Conference.
Germany is divided into four occupation zones which ended up being East and West Germany. The groundwork for the United Nations is formed with the aid of promoting international cooperation and prevention of future conflicts. A zone of influence is created between Eastern European Countries which were added to the U.S.S.R., to expand a buffer zone between Russia and the Western Powers. This iron curtain results in the cold war. The table is set at Yalta for the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi and Japanese leaders and for future reparations to rebuild Europe.
“The Stalin Affair” is an excellent reminder of WWII that makes one think about what is happening today with Russia in Ukraine and Israel in Gaza. How close is the world to its next world war? The character of today’s leaders seems as threatening as Stalin and as unpredictable as Churchill.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 