MOST INTERESTING ESSAYS 2/5/26: THEORY & TRUTH, MEMORY & INTELLIGENCE, PSYCHIATRY, WRITING, EGYPT IN 2019, LIVE OR DIE, GARDEN OF EDEN, SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION, DEATH ROW, RIGHT & WRONG, FRANTZ FANON, TRUTHINESS, CONSPIRACY, LIBERALITY, LIFE IS LIQUID, BECOMING god-LIKE, TIPPING POINT, VANISHING WORLD, JESUS SAYS
“Say Nothing” is an attempt to give listener/readers an understanding of Ireland’s “Troubles”. Patrick Radden Keefe helps one understand but it remains a complicated and confusing history because of its mix of religion and national sovereignty.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Say Nothing (A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland)
By: Patrick Radden Keefe
Narrated By: Mathew Blaney
Patrick Radden Keefe (Author, American writer and investigative journalist.)
“Say Nothing” is an attempt to give listener/readers an understanding of Ireland’s “Troubles”. Patrick Radden Keefe helps one understand but it remains a complicated and confusing history because of its mix of religion and national sovereignty. From the 1960s to the late 1980s, there were violent clashes between unionist/loyalists, who were largely protestant and wanted to be part of Great Britain; while Unionist/loyalists, who were largely Catholic wanted independence as the Republic of Ireland.
Bombings, sniper attacks, and violent confrontations caused an estimated 3600 deaths and tens-of-thousands injuries during the “Troubles”.
Not until 1998, with the “Good Friday Agreement” did the deadly conflicts cease. However, Great Britain’s Brexit, periods of political deadlock with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and debates over details of the “…Agreement” have occurred. Keefe tells a story of the build-up to the “…Agreement” in “Say Nothing”.
The Irish Republican Army that wished for Irish independence murdered Jean McConville, a mother of ten, in 1972.
The murder is puzzling because McConville is Catholic which suggests her death was either a mistake or that some Catholics were union/loyalists. Some in the IRA suggested she acted as a spy for the UK. That is a mystery Keefe fails to unravel while giving listener/readers some historical perspective on Ireland’s Troubles. Some say Marian Price was the murderer, but Keefe demurs and argues there is no concrete evidence.
Northern Ireland is over 40% Catholic while the Republic of Ireland is over 60% Catholic.
Ireland’s troubles date back to the 16th and 17th centuries when English and Scottish Protestant settlers chose Ireland as their new home. The native population of Ireland was Catholic and religious differences and land acquisition by Protestants set the table for conflict. In 1921, Ireland was split in two with Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK but with a 40% minority who remained Catholic. A Catholic movement for civil rights in Northern Ireland began in the 1960s. Violence and political conflict ensued with the formation of paramilitary groups like the IRA (Irish Republican Army) that began bombing and shooting Protestant followers. The IRA wished to end British rule, unify Ireland, accommodate religious difference, and create an independent nation.
Over the years, there were several leaders of the IRA. Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha, Liam Lynch, Sean Stiofain, Gerry Adams, and Martin McGuinness. Gerry Adams is the leader most often referred to in Keefe’s book.
The IRA never admitted to ordering the abduction and murder of Jean McConville. The author directly asks Adams if he ordered the murder, and his response is that he has no blood on his hands. Some suggest, her murder was a collective decision by leaders of the IRA.
Both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland were ambivalent about Brexit and chose to neither entirely agree with separation from the EU nor entirely agree with the UK in its rejection of membership.
There remains a great deal of ambivalence about unification of Ireland as an independent nation but “The Good Friday Agreement” allows for a referendum on unification because of what appears to be a majority in both jurisdictions to create one nation.
It is interesting to note that the Catholic religion is the largest religious group in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but that Northern Ireland Catholics constitute 42.3% while the Republic of Ireland is 69.1% Catholic. Keefe’s story triggers an interest in understanding the history of Ireland, but it is too long in its telling to offer clarity.
Criminal imprisonment, gun control, and drug addiction solutions are elusive, just as America’s eradication of discrimination is, at best, only a work in progress.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Locking Up Our Own (Crime and Punishment in Black America)
By: James Forman Jr.
Narrated By: Kevin R. Free
James Forman Jr. (Author, professor of law and education at Yale Law School)
James Forman Jr. argues Washington D.C. is a multi-ethnic democratic example of what is wrong with the American penal system, gun control, and an addiction crisis. Forman offers an eye-opening recognition of America’s social blindness. The 2019 estimated population of Black residents in D.C. is approximately 44%. Forman suggests D.C. constitutes a representative sample of what has happened and is happening to Black Americans in “Locking Up Our Own”.
Forman addresses three social issues with Washington D.C.s’ effort to legislate against the consequences of crime associated with a Black population’s gun possession, and drug addiction. America’s history of Black discrimination is well documented. The issues of gun control and drug addiction are top-of-mind issues in all American communities. What makes Forman’s book interesting is his analysis of what he argues is a nascent conservative movement in Black American society.
Forman’s argument is based on statistics and the history of Black discrimination. The American incarceration rates for Black citizens are six times higher than for white citizens. Today’s statistics show 33% percent of the prison population is Black when it is only 12% of the U.S. adult population. White prisoners account for 30% of America’s prisoners but amount to 64% of the adult population.
The fundamental issue of Forman’s book is that more Black Americans are being imprisoned for crimes of addiction and theft than those committed by white Americans.
Forman uses Washington D.C. as evidence for a Black conservative movement because of its high percentage of Black residents. He notes D.C.’s effort to legislate gun control and regulate drug addiction are arguably more restrictive than other parts of the country. Firearms must be registered with the police department. A permit is required to purchase a firearm. Concealed weapons require a license. Assault weapons are banned. Magazine capacities are limited. Safe storage requirements are mandated. In the case of addiction, the “Office of National Drug Control Policy”, ONDCP is established in D.C. The program is instituted to provide funding to support communities heavily impacted by drug trafficking. A “Drug-Free Communities Program” offers grants to community coalitions to prevent youth substance abuse. The city expands Naloxone access to citizens to reverse opioid overdose.
Forman explains these policies are supported by D.C. residents in the face of national opposition to gun control. Forman notes the proactive drug control programs of D.C.
The obvious irony of D.C.’s policies is that they do not reflect what white America promotes but suggests Black America is likely more victimized by lax gun controls and drug regulation. White America needs to get on board.
Several chapters of Forman’s book explain the difficulties of integrating minorities into local police forces.
Police department managers opened their hiring practices to Blacks based on growing Black neighborhoods and belief that police services would be improved with officers who would be more racially and culturally suited to understand policing in minority neighborhoods. Forman recounts 1940s through the 1960s police force integration. He notes police department integration is fraught with discriminatory treatment of Black recruits.
Of course, the idea of crime in a Black neighborhood being better understood by Black officers is just another form of discrimination.
Crime is crime, whether in a minority neighborhood or not. Relegating Black police to Black neighborhoods only reinforces racial discrimination. Integrating the police only became another example of racial discrimination in America. Paring white and Black policemen on petrol became difficult. Getting white and Black policemen to work together becomes even more problematic when promotions are denied qualified Black officers. As with all organizations, police promotions were based on experience and standardized testing. What police departments would typically do is promote white officers over Black officers whether their experience rating or test scores were better or not.
The irony of white resistance to gun control and ineffective drug addiction policies has had an adverse impact on Black-on-Black crime.
The culture created in formally white police departments adversely condones harsh treatment of minorities. Black officers buy into a police department’s culture and begin discriminating against Black residents in the same way as white policemen.
The 2003 brutal beating and killing of Tyre Nichols by 5 Black Police Officers.
Drug addiction is the scourge of our time. Its causes range from the greed of drug company executives to poor policy decisions by the government to escapist and addictive desires of the public. Addictive drugs are the boon and bane of society. On the one hand, they reduce uncontrollable pain and anxiety; on the other they are often addictive, causing incapacity or death.
Discrimination can only be ameliorated with education, understanding, and governmental regulations that are consistent with the rights written in the American Constitution.
Criminal imprisonment, gun control, and drug addiction solutions are elusive, just as America’s eradication of discrimination is, at best, only a work in progress. Guns in the hands of American citizens are not guaranteed except as noted in the Constitution which infers “A well-regulated Militia…” is the only reason for “…people to keep and bear Arms…” How many more school children have to be killed by guns before the lie of American gun rights is dispelled.
The last chapters of Forman’s book address his experience as a public defender in Washington D.C. This is the weakest part of his story, but it points to the theme of an incarceration system in America that is broken. Prisons are not meant to reform criminals. They are overcrowded, violent, understaffed and, most damagingly, lack rehabilitative programs for re-education and vocational training that could reduce recidivism and return former prisoners to a socially productive society.
Homelessness, illegal immigration, and America’s budget deficit will not be cured by reducing taxes on the rich or by tariffs that artificially increase the cost of living, or by cutting the labor force of farmers through mass deportations, or by making it easier to do business in the U.S.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Reagan (His Life and Legend)
By: Max Boot
Narrated By: Graham Winton
Max Boot (Russian-born naturalized American author, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian, writer and editor for The Christian Science Monitor.)
Not being a fan of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, there is some reluctance in reviewing Max Boot’s biography of the man. However, Boot’s writing and research offer an understanding that makes one separate Reagan’s political life from his experienced life. Boot explains Reagan’s life during the years before and after the depression.
Reagan’s father was an alcoholic which reminds one of how one’s childhood is rarely idyllic. Boot’s biography of Reagan shows one becomes who they are–despite the human faults of their parents. The way a child matures is only partly defined by parents’ influence. Reagan’s father’s alcoholism did not carry through to his son.
Boot’s biography shows Reagan to be an affable, well-adjusted, teenager and young adult who has a strong sense of what he believes is right and wrong.
Reagan is a football athlete in high school that grows to become a 6′ 1″ handsome young man from a relatively poor middle-class family. He aspires to college and works to have enough money to attend Eureka College in Illinois. He graduates in 1932 with a BA in Economics and Sociology. Reagan is remembered by classmates and teachers as a smart student and determined football player that gave him the grit and experience to become a movie star in the 1940s.
The first chapters of Boot’s biography of Reagan are about his break into the entertainment industry as a sports caster.
Reagan had a nearly photographic memory. He used that skill to recall a football game he played in college to impress a radio station manager with broadcast details of a game. He recalls a game he played in college and purposefully embellishes his role in the game. Reagan’s skill as a radio announcer led to a screen test with Warner Brothers in 1937 that launched his film career.
As WWII approaches, Reagan enlists as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Air Force. (The Air Force in these early days were not a separate branch of the service.)
Reagan’s experience in the entertainment industry led to producing training and propaganda films for the Army Air Force. Boot explains Reagan had significant vision problems with nearsightedness in his youth and presbyopia (difficulty of focusing on close objects) as he got older. Reagan never served in a combat role. He eventually adopted contact lenses to correct his vision; partly to please film producers who disliked the “coke bottle” lenses he needed to see properly.
Four issues that are interesting and informative in the first chapters of Boot’s biography of Reagan are 1) how affable, and well liked Reagan was to people who met him, 2) that he was well-read, 3) very handsome with a respect for women that carried through to several relationships, and 4) that though he had a sense of right and wrong, his moral center seemed to waiver between concern and indifference.
During the depression, Reagan was a strong supporter of Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to resurrect the American economy.
Reagan seemed more like a liberal Democrat than the conservative Republican he came to be as Governor of California and President of the United States. The remainder of the book shows how that change came about. Boot notes several factors that influenced Reagan to change from a Roosevelt to Goldwater supporter. The movie industry and the growing anti-communist era of the fifties influenced many former liberals. Reagan’s experience in Hollywood reinforced conservativism.
Reagan became rich from his relationship with Gerneral Electric. The corporate culture of GE in the 1950s and 60s was decidedly conservative. When Reagan became the host of “General Electric Theater” that culture seeped into his consciousness.
In 1962, Reagan switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party. He supported the election of Goldwater who ran against President Lyndon Johnson who was mired in the Vietnam war while promoting big government social welfare programs. The influence of Goldwater and the liberalism of the Johnson polices drove Reagan to believe big government was ruining the wealth and opportunity of Americans. He adopted conservative beliefs for economic deregulation, tax cuts that largely benefited the rich, and promoted anti-communist foreign policies. Reagan’s support for conservative policies is exemplified by his “A Time for Choosing” speech supporting Barry Goldwater’s campaign for President in 1964.
In the political climate of the 1960s, Reagan, with the support of GE, runs for Govenor of California. His position as president of the Screen Actors Guild, support of Goldwater, and the public’s perception of inefficiency of state government provided a platform for Reagan to run. The civil rights movement, Vietnam protests, the free speech movement, the Watts riots in LA, and the hippie movement in San Francisco created an environment ripe for conservative reaction. Reagan is elected Governor of California twice, to serve from 1967 to 1975.
Reagan as the Governor of California.
Reagan described his time with GE as a “postgraduate course in political science”.
Reagan’s experience as Governor of California, his Hollywood image, the support of big companies like GE, and the economic issues confronting Carter, give him a platform to run for President of the United States. Todays’ Republicans hold Reagan in high regard. Some view Reagan as one of the best recent presidents of the United States. Those who hold him in high regard cite his economic policies, strong national defense and leadership during the cold war. He believed in small government, lower taxes, and conservative values. Some suggest Trump is Reaganomics second coming.
Reagan runs for President of the United States in 1976. He wins and is re-elected in 1980.
What is not fully understood by some Americans, is the accomplishments of Reagan held some very negative consequences. Some argue he was the prime mover in nuclear weapons reduction. The biography of Gorbachev suggests the prime mover was Gorbachev and his support of glasnost with an opening of Russia to western ideals.
Some, like me, would argue Reagan accelerated economic inequality by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulating the economy.
The federal deficit increased from $70 billion dollars to 152.6 billion dollars during the Reagan presidential years. In comparison to Carter’s administration, the deficit was less than half of Reagan’s at $74 billion dollars. Today’s deficit has grown to 1.83 trillion dollars. Four out of seven presidents (including Trump’s second term) since Reagan have been Republican. The deficit lays at the feet of both parties.
With the election of Trump, who emulates Reagan’s policies, one wonders–how much greater the deficit will be with reduced taxes for the rich and a renewal of economic deregulation.
Homelessness, illegal immigration, and America’s budget deficit will not be cured by reducing taxes on the rich or by tariffs that artificially increase the cost of living, or by cutting the labor force of farmers through mass deportations, or by making it easier to do business in the U.S.
Trump’s purposefully uninformed knowledge of history will become a greater source of conflict in the world because he has a second term’ understanding of how the American government works and how it can be subverted with loyal followers.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Underground Empire (How America Weaponized the World Economy)
By: Henry Farrell, Abraham Newman
Narrated By: L. J. Ganser
Henry Farrell (Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, editor at the Washington Post.)Abraham L. Newman (Professor, School of Foreign Service and Government Dept. at Georgetown University.)
“Underground Empire” is not a surprising revelation in today’s media-savvy era. Every person in the world is being surveilled by someone because of the power and influence of government. Whether a democracy that believes in freedom or an autocracy that believes in absolute control, Farrell and Newman explain how “Big Brother” is watching and acting in ways that affect your life.
The potential for ubiquitous surveillance was known and wished for by some government bureaucrats. Wide social surveillance was resisted by many in the American government until 9/11. After 9/11 that resistance weakened and surveillance of the world, more fully including American citizens, became indispensable. The creation of an “Underground Empire” has weaponized privacy and the fuel of money that can heat, cool, burn or freeze national economies.
The empire’s objective is to be in charge of the future. One may take issue with the word “…Empire”. The scale of an “Underground Empire” varies from nations like America, China, the UK, the EU, Russia, and others to a group of Al Qaeda’ terrorists, or a disparate group of Syrian freedom fighters. The common denominator is technological connection, i.e. the basis of “Underground…” organization for coordinated action that changes the world.
Ferrell and Newman’s primary focus becomes the use of surveillance to influence world policy.
Particularly, the surveillance of money, the source of power and prestige, is shown by the authors to be key to understanding what other countries and interests are planning and doing that affects society. They speculate that 9/11 could have been exposed before it happened with more surveillance of the money that was being accumulated by Al Qaeda and used by the terrorists who attacked the world trade center in New York. That might be true but there is a wider consequence of that level of surveillance. Surveillance has become a weapon in the hands of political leaders. Surveillance of the flow of money, the source of power and prestige, may make “America Great” as inferred by the pending second term President. The EU, NATO, and other international organizations are looked at differently by Trump than by former post-world war’ Presidents. Trump views the EU and NATO as users of American wealth without equivalent contribution to world defense.
On the one hand, Trump objects to NATO because of its disproportionate financial burden to the United States which pleases Putin and changes the perspective of America’s role in the world. On the other hand, the authors note Trump opposed Putin when it came to the Nord Stream 2 oil pipeline to the E.U. The difference has to do with the Trump’s transactional view of the world. Because of America’s vast gas supplies from fracking, Trump sided with Texas politicians who vociferously objected to the second Nord stream pipeline to Europe.
The “Underground Empire” is not exclusively focused on money, but the use of money is based on knowledge of what people are thinking, doing, and wanting. Accumulating information becomes actionable with money. The inference by the authors is that the government’s decision to track money, as well as private information, informs one of what will happen in the future. The problem with this narrow reasoning is that national interests of countries do not always line up with each other. The formation of the EU with its own currency becomes a competitor for America, not just a useful tool for exchange of goods between nations.
Today’s playing field is not limited to major powers. As the spread of technology is mastered by the public, anyone as small as an interest group or as large as an international alliance can influence and potentially change the world. Farrell and Newman offer important understanding of that invisible war. Obvious examples are 9/11, Ukraine’s invasion, and most recently, the overthrow and exile of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But they also reveal another front for conflict between the U.S. and countries that have traditionally been allied with America.
Histories carriers of belief in information transparency are people like Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Mark Felt, and Reality Winner. Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked classified information about global surveillance, Ellsberg exposed the lies of Vietnam, Manning exposed the WikiLeaks, Felt exposed the Watergate scandal, and Winner exposed presidential election interference in 2016. Secrets frequently kill the truth.
Ferrell’s and Newman’s book will make many even more concerned about the Trump presidency. Trump’s purposefully uninformed knowledge of history will become a greater source of conflict in the world because he has a second term’ understanding of how the American government works and how it can be subverted with loyal followers.
To make the point clearer, Trump views the world transactionally. The measure of value is most easily understood as wealth and the influence of money. Appointing wealthy sycophants to the government ensure victimization of the poor.
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.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 