Exploiting divisions for politics

A country that was divided because it is a country of immigrants, with people from all parts of the world, different cultures, different traditions, different languages. But somehow, one ideal that binds them together as a nation.

But that division seems to have been exploited for political ends.

A good leader gets things done in spite of divisions within the ranks.
A great leader unites people in spite of divisions within the ranks.

I don't know what others think, but I think we should really do some research on how this division can and is being exploited. Because we should not be exploited. And knowing how it can be done is the first step toward preventing it from happening again.

One Road One Belt, old idea in a modern form

China premier urges Japan to join 'Silk Road' infrastructure project

The Silk Road of old was for vassal states to bring tribute to the Middle Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom had a vested interest to ensure safety and security along the Silk Road back then. Of course, the side effect was that countries along the Silk Road also prospered due to the traffic flowing through.

The new Silk Road? I would say the key beneficiary is still China. Why else are they doing this? They may be pouring out money to try and help countries along the routes, but the bottom line is that this benefits China.

"Pay tribute to us, and we will help you."
Old idea in a modern form.

I smell a rat...

If my father-in-law were to suddenly become the defense minister (not that he would; he was an architect, he was never a politician, and is now happily retired), and Mitsubishi and Kawasaki and IHI start to pay me millions of yen as a consultant just because of my ex-military background, having done ZERO military consulting work so far, people will smell a rat.

So when a lawyer, who hasn't been practising much law except for a very selected handful of clients, is paid thousands and thousands of dollars for advice... 😕

Anyone wants to hire me for military consulting?

Undoing Obama deals

Trump abandons 'defective' Iran nuclear deal, to revive sanctions

Great.
Just great.

He had until 2025 to renegotiate whatever he didn't like with the deal, but he decided to just throw it out of the window. That's not negotiation; that's giving up. That's what a loser does. Losers give up.

Undoing everything Obama did may be politically beneficial, but that does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Nations continue to stay in the Paris Accord. Nations continue to go ahead with TPP. It seems Iran intends to continue with JCPOA, and since there is no replacement anyway, other signatories are likely to stick with it too.

All it does is show that the U.S. can do what it wants, but the world no longer is at the beck and call of the U.S. It is no longer the Cold War, when you were either with or against the U.S. I just hope Trump will eventually realize this, before the U.S. gets left even further behind from the global community.

Fire Mueller? Why bother?

Trump should not fire Mueller.

The Republicans in office have made it clear: don't do it. Why? Because as long as the investigation is still on-going, they can show they are making some effort to look for wrong-doing. And meanwhile, Trump continues to be in office. If this drags for four years, he completes his term.

Ignore the bad news, bear with the investigation, and he gets to be President until there is some conclusion.

Fire Mueller, and he forces the Republicans in office to act to maintain a show of checks and balances, and they will have to impeach him.

Don't fire Mueller. It will keep the Trump administration in office that much longer.

Playing with economies

Some announcement from the White House, or from President Trump, and the stock market reacts. That's basically what happens, because when the U.S., with the world's biggest economy (although it may soon be surpassed, from the way things are going), wants to do something, there is an impact on the global economy.

So it should be no surprise that the stock market plunged with announcements on tariffs on steel and aluminum. And no surprise the stock market plunged again with announcements on tariffs on Chinese products.

But will these tariffs really make America great again?

Tariffs on steel and aluminum means it is more costly for manufacturers in the U.S. to import steel and aluminum. If the total cost (import price + tariff) is less than the cost of local steel/aluminum, U.S. manufacturers will then have an incentive to switch to locally-produced steel and aluminum, thereby potentially adding jobs to those two industries. But that is just a "maybe". Manufacturers may also choose to continue importing steel and aluminum, and pass on the higher costs to consumers. At the same time, even if they choose to switch to local steel/aluminum, if their prices are higher than imported steel/aluminum (before tariffs), that additional cost is likely to be passed onto consumers too.

At the end of the day, consumers will end up having to bear the burden of whatever increase in costs the manufacturers face. And if manufacturers do not choose to switch to local steel/aluminum (since they are not bearing the cost increase anyway), there may not be any real effect on bringing jobs back to the U.S.

So consumers lose, and the steel/aluminum industry may not win. Strike one.

As for tariffs on Chinese products... well, unless existing manufacturers in the U.S. have the spare capacity to ramp up production to meet current demand when Chinese products get taxed, people will continue to have to import Chinese products, only at higher prices (import price + tariff). Again, the tariffs do not guarantee retailers will switch to local products; they may continue to import Chinese products and pass on the extra cost to consumers. It is the same situation with steel/aluminum; consumers have to pay for whatever increase in costs, and there is no guarantee there will be a positive impact on bringing back jobs.

So consumers lose, and the manufacturing industry/labor market may not win. Strike two.

A large amount of the trade deficit between U.S. and China is actually poured back into the U.S. as China uses that money to buy U.S. bonds. A smaller deficit may mean China is less willing to spend on U.S. bonds. Which is not a problem if the U.S. budget is balanced and spending within its means, but when you keep having deficit budgets and have to issue bonds to fund spending, someone needs to buy those bonds. If China doesn't buy those bonds, interest rates will have to go up to entice others to buy. This raises interest rates in the U.S., which may not be a good thing for businesses (since it is an increase in the cost of borrowing) and a direct burden to households (who may see an increase in interest rates for home loans).

So borrowers in the U.S. lose. This happens, and it will be strike three.

I guess we shouldn't be playing with economies without fully understanding the impact on all stakeholders, both within and outside the country...

Death penalty for drug dealers

So now the U.S. is talking about the death penalty for drug dealers. Well, coming from Singapore, all I can say is that it works. But the death penalty is not applied to all drug dealers. Only those who traffick certain drugs, and above certain amounts.

But the bigger issue is that if the U.S. (specifically, Trump) is thinking about solving the opioid issue... well, then it is not about drug dealers. It is about pharmaceutical firms. So while the introduction of the death penalty may solve an aspect of substance abuse, it is not going to stop the widespread issue of opioid abuse in the U.S. For that, he really needs to do something else.

Look before you connect

Note to self: Always check the pins you are connecting power to. READ the label.

Just blew out BOTH nRF24L01+ modules by connecting 5V to the 3.3V pin of an Arduino Nano. The Arduino survived, but the nRF24L01+ connected to that same 3.3V pin did not.

Was wondering why it didn't work the first time, so I tried the same thing on another set that I had.

And then I realized my mistake. By then, too late. Both nRF24L01+ modules were gone.

Sigh.
😞

RIP Stephen Hawkings

😢
Physicist Stephen Hawkings has passed away. The world has lost a genius, a person who gave us that much more understanding of our world with his theories.

Rest in peace. It is time for others to continue building on your achievements.

Riding on a never-ending roller coaster

The U.S. under the Trump administration is like going on a never-ending roller coaster ride with your eyes closed. Just when you thought you have gotten over the worst of it, it hits another low. And another. And another.

Soon, North Korea is going to look more stable than the U.S. At least Kim Jong-Un has a consistent message; no one knows what Trump is going to say or tweet next.

The case for gun control... or is there still a case?

I really don't want to talk about politics happening in another country, but what is happening in the U.S. now just seems to go against all notions of humane behaviour that I cannot help but feel like wanting to voice my own views on this.

At a time when the nation was young, with threats from all sides, a well-regulated militia was necessary for the nation to survive, to deter would-be aggressors and fight against actual ones. Yet today, the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, and neighbours of the U.S. either lack the will or the means to defeat the U.S. in such combat. The only real threat to the U.S., separated by vast oceans on two sides, would be intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads, and the federal government has devised means to counter such threats. There is no sense in arming people with guns against ballistic missiles. In a way, the concept of having a militia armed with guns to defend the U.S. is an obsolete one.

If you look at self-defence, we all know that self-defence needs to be timely and proportionate. When you apply this principle to individual defence, then if the aggressor is using a gun, yes, having a gun to fire back is self-defence. But if no one has the right to bear arms, there are no guns, then you do not need guns for self-defence. The right to self-defence is still guaranteed; the only thing is the damage factor, which can be reduced by taking guns totally out of the equation. In fact, many countries are able to keep homicide rates, and crime rates in general, at very low levels without having to arm their citizens with guns. While you can never say 100% that outlawing guns in these countries was the factor that resulted in such low crime rates, you can be certain it was one of the major contributing factors. Especially when you compare it to crime rates before these countries outlawed guns.

From an outsider, it is very clear that the gun issue in the U.S. is not an issue about protecting lives. It is an issue used by certain groups to push through their own agendas by using this issue to divide people. A people divided cannot stand up against the real threats. And that is what these groups know. They know that their power will be threatened if the people unite against them. So they need to find issues to divide the people so that they can continue to keep their power. If the people cannot look beyond the manipulation to see this, they will only continue to remain divided at their own expense, and give joy to those who benefit from such division.

My take? Ban the guns from daily lives. If you still want to keep the right to militias, go ahead, have them, but store the guns in the town armory. When an aggressor appears (if one ever does), you can go to the armory, take out the guns, and defend your town. Even if you are living miles away from civilization, modern times with telecommunications and cars mean you are no longer like the settler on the frontier who needs a gun to defend him or herself.

The constitution may be the core of a nation, but like all things, if it does not evolve with the times, it will become obsolete.

Flexible, or lack of principles?

Climate change: Trump says US 'could conceivably' rejoin Paris deal

Trump open to US-North Korea talks 'under right circumstances'

Paris agreement was a bad deal. Talking to NK doesn't work. That was the thinking. But in less than a year, it seems to have been reversed. Now he is willing to go back to the Paris agreement, and he is willing to talk with NK.

Wow... and I thought flip-flops referred to an electric circuit.

It is good to be flexible. But it is a fine line between being flexible, and not having any principles. By being flexible, it means you are willing to negotiate, and then stick with the agreement. By not having principles, people can never trust you, because they don't know when you will change your mind.

Oprah for president? Yes please!

If a TV celebrity can be President of the United States, another TV celebrity (Oprah) can too.

I mean, we now know you don't need to have any background in politics to be president. You just need to be popular. And Oprah is popular. And Oprah is smart. And Oprah is a woman without the baggage of sexual harassment (although she was a victim).

Oprah can talk better in front of a crowd, in front of TV. If being presidential is about having high ratings and being a good reality show, Oprah is going to beat everyone hands down.

And Oprah can probably get something done along the way too, even as she boosts TV ratings and draw cheering crowds. Like getting people to pay attention to the everyday problems faced by everyday Americans.

Hillary, with her political experience and knowledge of how things work in Washington, can offer to be her chief-of-staff, to make sure Oprah's agenda gets implemented.

President: Oprah
Vice President: Tom Hanks or Arnold? Maybe even Stephen Colbert (for the white men vote...)
Chief-of-staff: Hillary
= winning combination

Go! Go! Oprah! 😍

#OprahForPresident
#Oprah2020

The failure of U.S. news

I think this interview of Stephen Miller by Jake Tapper is a good example of the U.S. media being led by the nose by the current administration in the White House.

The media is so caught up in everything the President does and says, they have lost sight of the bigger picture, which is to give a voice to the people. Instead, they are basically helping to spread the President's words, by constantly reporting what he does and says, and trying to refute those actions and words. By giving extensive coverage to the President's statements, they are helping to spread some false statements, and making themselves fake news.

I think the media should really reflect on themselves, and find a way not to overly focus on the President (which inevitably helps to spread his words) and instead report on issues that really matter, that helps to give a voice to the people. A child lies to get attention; don't be drawn into that trap. Focus on the real issues. Don't give him the attention that he seeks. Keep talking about the real issues to be resolved, and force him to work on those instead if he wants attention. The media can help to focus the TV-watching guy on the real issues. If he wants attention, make him earn it. Report on him only when he does something right, or something wrong. Don't give him air time whenever he blabbers off; blabbering off is not work, it is just his way of getting attention.

Report on the real issues, and make people see that he is not doing anything about them. That is the best way to wake up the public. And when the public is awaken, democracy will become effective.

Hello 2018!

So 2018 is finally here.

I really hope 2018 will be a better year. Well, I will also be doing what I can to make it a better year. Like getting down to some work which I really need to finish. And putting some ideas into action.

Here's wishing everyone a Happy New Year! May 2018 be a great year for everyone!