unbounded-cardinality

[unbounded-cardinality]

Dialing Out.

I wish all of my readers a happy holiday! After some reflection, I've decided to dial out of this blog and move on to other matters.

The lights of December is one of my favorite times of the year -- and I firmly believe that somewhere between the crackling ice beneath foot, the glimmering stars of the morning dawn, and the local barista preparing the coffee bar, a God sits squarely between it all, smiling here, frowning there, and always hoping that we will be better next year.

Best wishes to all.

December 12, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Was it a hit job or revenge?

Before I get into any analysis, my thoughts go out to those in pain or suffering that has resulted from United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson's assassination earlier this week.

Probably a hit for hire

Summary: it was a hit job. Multiple parties were likely involved. The killing was meant to be captured on camera. The intended audience: chief executives across the world. I would not rule out the use of Bitcoin as the means of payment for the hired assassin.

Details

Just about the last place on earth you would perpetrate an assassination on a mid-western executive is in Manhattan. Quarters are tighter, it's riddled with cameras, and people number in the millions. Why Manhattan?

So it would be seen. So every chief executive across the world -- especially those outside America -- would see it and be put on alert.

The ostensible message is a threat of some kind.

Multiple parties involved

The conventional thinking is that this was a solo act that somehow was tied up with a personal fuss over insurance claims. Maybe. But maybe not.

I would not rule out a conspiracy of more than one individual -- after all, you would have to know a number of disparate facts to coordinate the hit: the target's whereabouts, the target's clothing and appearance, the precise timing of the attack. In short, there would have to be a fairly high level of confidence in gathered intelligence to execute the hit. Could one guy do all that? Possibly. But it would have been tricky.

Tracing Bitcoin

DeFi -- decentralized finance -- is heralded as a new era of finance in which transactions don't have to depend on centralized banks. Well, the downside is that transactions are more difficult to trace.

If the hitman was paid in Bitcoin, how do you figure that out? I don't know even where to start. And since the G.O.P. and President Trump are suddenly in love with DeFi, it probably is not going to get easier tracing these kind of transactions.

Thank you, President Trump. We now feel safer.

December 6, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

What-If Scenarios under a 2nd Trump Presidency

Each morning, I counted the number of cars lined up for the Palo Alto CalTrain to San Francisco. I felt the car-count was a pretty good proxy for market trends: if the car-count increased, investor spirits were generally rosy, and markets were correspondingly higher. It was a weird way to keep attuned with public markets, but as the car-count increased, I was convinced I might be on to something. However, what I was really looking for was not an increase, but an incremental drop in counts: layoffs would of course be the first tell-tale sign of weakness, and car-counts would surely ease up in the wake of those layoffs.

In 2020, it was the worse market proxy ever

In March, 2020, when COVID lockdowns hit the scene, the car-counts near CalTrain dropped precipitously to zero! In short, my clever analysis could not have been more wrong. There simply was no linearity to the meltdown in employment in early 2020: it was as sharp as it was sudden.

Hubris is historically a solid predictor of failure

After last week's national elections, it appears the G.O.P. is about to walk away with a trifecta of electoral achievements: an unexpected return of Donald Trump to The White House, Senate-majority rule, and what appears to be a continuation of majority rule in the House.

It could well be the most hubristic presidency ever.

That would be a huge mistake

I have been mulling over what-if scenarios during a 2nd Trump presidency. Some of them are worrisome. Worse, I'm not the only one out there who sees stuff like this -- giving some of these what-if scenarios a measure of credence. Read on.

War between trans-national gangs and American military

There has been some conjecture about U.S. military intervention in Central America in relation to drug and human trafficking. Because of America's overwhelming military superiority, it is easy to imagine that such intervention would be both brief and inexpensive.

Think twice about that. And in particular, think about Ukraine and Russia.

Intervention in Central America would likely pit stateless gangs against American interests. Worse, we have to assume that stateless gangs either have or could gain access to some of the most heinous weapons out there. Moreover, I would not rule out that bad actors out there may be keenly interested in supporting such groups against American interests. It may even be safe to assume that covert arms trafficking to Central and South America is already underway.

All of this is a recipe for mayhem south of the border and conceivably in border states, too.

Mass deportations likely not secret

Suppose an American plane full of undocumented aliens lands in Mexico City. Now suppose a gang destroys the plane and conflict ensues.

It is simply not difficult to imagine an escalation like this -- one that takes place in an alien country but affects American assets.

Drones over Texas

Or suppose we enter a tit-for-tat exchange with entities across the border. It is not difficult to imagine a rogue group sending armed drones over Texas.

Market implosion, again

One of my persistent concerns is economic: what happens when a market implosion happens. This is not mere conjecture. Share prices are at a record high. President-elect Trump is insinuating executive decrees that may be inflationary.

There is widespread expectation that inflation is over. However, we shouldn't forget Tuesday's election, which in part was a referendum on high consumer prices under Biden.

Said another way, inflation may be behind us. But it may be in front of us, too -- and next time, in a big way.

Who is running the executive branch?

We could well be entering an era of rudderless direction. Let's be frank here: President Trump is an old guy. All the right-wing barbs aimed at Biden are equally valid for Trump.

So who will be leading?

Presumably Trump will have a lot to say. But the question remains: who will be leading? Who will be making decisions?

The conventional thinking is that there are a lot of smart people like Elon Musk and his cohorts who can support a Trump presidency. But note: none of those guys was elected.

And what if something else happens -- markets melt down, and moneyed interests around Trump withdraw to lick their wounds.

Who then is leading?

I wonder a fair amount about this question -- and I hope the military leadership out there has clear, decisive pathways for bypassing an incoherent if not incompetent executive branch.

November 9, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

The parallels with Nazi Germany are astonishing

A 2nd Trump presidency brings little consolation

Here are similarities between America in 2024 and Germany in the 1920s-1930s:

The U.S. dollar, like the Deutsch mark of that era, is a monetary denomination that easily could falter -- implying greater inflation, an erosion in the purchasing power of savings, and steeper business costs -- especially for asset-laden businesses that depend on capitalization to function (precisely, by the way, the kind of businesses that give Trump voters the jobs they need).

The executive leadership will soon be keen on removing a large number of persons from U.S. soil. Unlike Germany, keen on removing Jews from its soil 100 years ago, the obvious target in America will be Central Americans. This kind of operation does not happen overnight. There will be meetings, plans, expansion of detention areas, and then presumably deportations. It's harrowing to think through this new reality. The comparison to Germany may be a bit extreme right now; but Trump / Vance seem especially preoccupied with this goal. It would be remiss to think that those on the ground involved in deportations would be necessarily humane or kind: a deportation by definition is forcible. It's not a far cry to imagine such an act descending into violence.

In Nazi Germany, business capitulated to government. Compare that to American history: in one guise or another, government has always served at the pleasure of the business community. Give me a country where that's not true -- where government predominates over business -- and I will give you a country in distress. But already, before a 2nd Trump presidency has even started, we can sense some measure of capitulation in the business community. Let me say this again: capitulation is the hallmark of an over-reaching government that has no place in America -- not now, not ever.

Donald Trump, like Adolf Hitler, is a riotous sack of anxieties -- racial, paternal, financial, intellectual. There is no operating motive in his decision-making or demeanor other than self-preservation. It's unclear how all these anxieties play out in a 2nd administration. But we have some tell-tale signs, and in general, they bode ill -- but especially for those trademark American liberties: freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion.

How we got here no longer matters. We got here. Now the big question is: who among us will summon the courage to stay in America and to confront this new reality with all its dark implications for our future?

November 6, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

The Enemy Within: start with me.

After candidate Trump's "Enemy Within" remarks went viral, I started wondering the obvious: does team Trump consider me an enemy?

As it turns out, this election I voted for G.O.P. candidate Steve Garvey against Adam Schiff. Some years ago, during the one voting season I lived in San Francisco, I voted against Nancy Pelosi. I intentionally lean conservative amidst a prevailing left-leaning atmosphere in Northern California. Let's just say it suits me.

On the other hand, this time, I did not vote for candidate Trump -- I don't see him as necessarily radical or weird or even criminal. I just view him as a blathering, incompetent loud-mouth -- spewing vitriol for reasons that appear part political, part egotistical. If I saw him or some permutation of the cadre who surround him as viable change-agents, I would vote for them in New York Minute ...

Ahhh, New York. Madison Square Garden ....

So many of us wondered what would ultimately take down Donald Trump. The FBI? A special prosecutor? A Congressional impeachment? A playboy / stripper? His ex-attorneys? His ex-accountant?

There has been so much opposition, so many ways he should have fallen that we exempted the one, sure-fire way he has always fumbled his entire life: by way of his own incompetence.

Madison Square Garden hasn't sealed the end of Trump, but if he loses, the Garden may well be recognized as the tipping point in hindsight. Only supreme mis-management and decisively poor leadership would allow for the rank filth that took stage. I simply am stunned, and I suspect much of the rest of America is, too.

We're going to see how this plays on Election Day and after. If I had to voice a prediction, at this point I would be in Harris' corner.

October 28, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

We are on the right path. The economy is fine. Share prices are healthy and up. A vote for Trump would be an adventurous turn into the unknown.

"He's a Nazi." -- Yale Law School graduate J.D. Vance about Donald Trump in or around 2016.

We need to think hard about this

Where I grew, if you threw rocks at the schoolhouse, you would get suspended -- and possibly expelled entirely. We are now being asked, once again, to elect Donald Trump to the highest public office in America. But he didn't simply throw rocks at the schoolhouse. In plain terms, he attempted to destroy it -- insinuating in no uncertain terms that Vice-President Pence ought to hang, and then exhorting his supporters on January 6, 2021 to sack The Congress and halt the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump did not merely exhort his followers -- he sat idly by and watched the sacking for hours on end as peacekeepers and law enforcement officers were physically assaulted.

This is no Command-in-Chief who seeks law and order. This is a radicalized individual keen on undoing the freedoms and liberties and peace that Americans have fought and died for. Not only does he not belong in The White House. He should be nowhere near Capitol Hill -- the legislative body with which he is asked to make laws and policy to server the greater good of the country.

He did not debate a single G.O.P. contender, and then lost in the one public debate he had with Democratic candidate Harris

Shamefully, we are now asked to vote for Donald Trump -- when in fact, he did not debate a single G.O.P. contender during the entire primary season. And then the one public debate he did have with the opposition -- with Vice-President Harris -- he lost soundly.

Is this any surprise?

Trump has been given too many passes

The right-wing press, his peers, Wall Street, the business community -- many have given Trump lightweight treatment. And this in the face of obviously traitorous inclinations.

He took home top-top secret documents. Did he sell them?

The FBI and CIA probably know what Trump took home. They're not going to tell Americans because it's horrifying to think the obvious: did President Trump sell our nuclear secrets to Vladimir Putin or some other enemy?

We can't dismiss that possibility. And yet, we are asked to vote for Trump for president.

Is this really happening?

How did we ever get here?

The G.O.P. It's that simple. Respectable graduates of Yale and Harvard and Stanford -- writers, attorneys, investors -- have knowingly embraced a deeply compromised candidate in the name of selfish motives: lower taxes, possibly pro-defense hawks, maybe nativists averse to the browning of America.

But not only that, the current Trump platform is premised on a lie -- that the 2020 election was stolen.

For our best educated citizens -- the ones we entrust with our nation's leadership in business and banking and defense and health -- for them to be compelled to subscribe to a lie in the name of whatever selfish motives move them -- this in short is a tragic undoing of who we are as a people and nation.

Line up the generals

Our military generals need to be ready. If Trump takes the helm, we have to assume the worst -- that our enemies have penetrated The White House. There is no way I would believe a word Trump says or follow his directives. No way.

This, in short, would be the most vacuous presidency ever. What power would Trump have? He would be a figurehead -- smiling to the cameras and participating in street cheers with supporters.

But there simply is no way our military can entrust serious national decisions to someone who is compromised.

October 22, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Do mass deportations make economic sense?

We already have a track record. It's dubious.

In the early years of these United States of America, our leadership was confounded by issues of mass deportation. Do we get rid of our black slaves -- get rid of them entirely by deporting them -- or do we enslave them, count them as partially human in allocation of our national resources? Our answer was economic -- we forewent the costly decision (extremely costly for a country saddled with debt at the time) of deporting blacks, and instead enslaved them in for-profit enterprises -- largely agrarian. To be sure, we helped start the country of Liberia in West Africa, and some American blacks were able to leave the USA. But that was ultimately a failed effort at ex-patriating a significant population from the USA.

Our leadership then did not have AI. They did not have spreadsheets. They did not have Yale Law degrees.

They simply had common sense.

Deportation and ghettoization of Native American tribes also questionable

The other vast effort in deportation occurred in the late 1800s with the displacement and ghettoization of Native American tribes. While it probably is true that American leaders -- often by breaking legal treaties -- were able to capitalize on the removal of Native Americans from mineral-rich lands, the entire operation left the country with a doubtful record in race-relations but worse, a population that was disenfranchised and, in effect, nearly entirely underutilized.

In short, we gained mineral wealth, but we continue to pay a stiff penalty for those gains.

Trump / Vance are pushing hard for mass deportations

Watch a few rallies. View a few clips from the debates. Somehow, mass deportations -- with its highly doubtful record in American history -- has made a comeback. It's popular. Educated, well-spoken thinkers support it. I would say to high degree, Trump / Vance have not invented this issue, but have merely dialed into it.

So whence the genesis of what sounds like a good idea but in its best incarnation would likely be a disastrous undertaking -- both costly and violent?

No doubt the genesis must be the right-wing media with its habit of looking for scapegoats when it can't confront authentic issues that impact ordinary Americans.

In short, it is a dreadful tactic as old as time.

If Trump / Vance are merely advocating for the removal of criminals -- well, that's nothing new. We all are. We're going to have to hear more tangible plans if mass deportations are once again in the works.

October 12, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

What to do with Google?

November, 1998

I entered Susan Wojcicki's home. Actually, it was her home's mother-in-law's cottage in the back. I didn't know who she was. I didn't care. I was there in response to a 25-character ad I had scrounged up in the back of the San Jose Mercury. It was late 1998. Everything was going digital, and I intuited that all the regular-thinking programmers would likely be looking at digital ads, too. That's why I scoured paper ads -- I had to think different, because the valley was already against me. I scarcely knew how deep that resentment would grow in the coming years.

First in line for my job interview was a guy named Sergey. There weren't many words. When he presented me a math problem to encode in C, I demolished it like roadkill. My Yale professors had taught me well. I only learned years later that he had been an NSF fellow in the graduate Department of Computer Science at Stanford, and that he would become a member of the National Academy of Engineering and one of the richest men in the world.

Next in line was a chirpy fellow named Craig. We chatted at length about indexing web sites and related questions concerning coherent persistence of data. Craig was a bright guy, but I was able to keep pace with his line of questioning. We circled around different strategies, and again, only years later, did I learn that one of our central talking points was what would come to be known as Page Rank. Craig himself would be recognized as employee #1.

Finally, I spoke a bit with a gentle, soft-spoken fellow named Larry. We exchanged a few words, and then he was off with a phone call.

The three guys I met that day were of course Sergey Brin, Craig Silverstein, and Larry Page -- the co-founders of Google and their first employee.

When we met, Google was hardly four weeks old. They were focused on search and programming in C and Python. I had retrained my programming skills on the new language of Java, and alas, we went our separate ways. Whenever I bumped into Sergey in the years that followed -- whether at a trade show or a Mexican eatery in downtown Palo Alto -- he was eminently polite. I don't care whatever happened to Sergey since then; I will always remember him as the youthful, nice guy who smiled and politely greeted me on the streets of Palo Alto.

June, 2004

I had just returned from East Africa, where I served in the Peace Corps while our country waged war in the Middle East. I scoured every resource I could for my next gig. I had to, as I knew elements in the valley would do all they could to block my advancement. I kept thinking about Google -- it's upcoming IPO, the wealth of problems they advertised on their website. I thought I would pause my objection to working for a search company and just see if six years later now I might find a comfortable place there. And if I made a few bucks -- let's just say after working for almost nothing in Africa -- I might just feel justified with a small windfall from Google's IPO.

There was no call back. There was no in-person interview. There was merely a brief email explaining that HR did not perceive that I was a good match.

The monopolists had arrived at Google.

Reach of Google inextricably embedded in the valley

Although tangential to the story of Google, I continue to benefit from its largesse -- as a consumer of technology, as an author of software, as an employee at start-ups financed by present or former Google staff. Google, in short, is so entwined in the story of Silicon Valley that even someone like myself -- someone whom the valley has notably marginalized -- feels a bit uncertain about a Justice-mandated assessment against Google.

You shouldn't break or share Google's data

The better Google's data, the better search results are. The better search results are, the better off humanity is in the aggregate.

These are statistical assertions. But I would say -- without ever having logged onto a single Google server -- that this probably is the case.

You can't just break apart that data. I submit that sharing that data is not that great an option either. That is, sharing data -- so the argument goes -- might level the playing field for search. But you have to imagine what this means: either competitors access Google server farms directly, or Google does a data dump and some competitor reproduces Google server farms. The latter is not going to happen -- no way. It's expensive and doubles our entropic footprint -- this amidst what might be called our direst hour of climate change.

So then does Google share access to its server farms? This is a dicey proposition as well.

Can you sensibly break apart Google?

I don't know enough about the firm's divisions or revenue profile to answer this question. However, I doubt if a conventional break-up would matter -- let's say breaking away hardware from search, or breaking away software services (GMail, GPC, etc) from search.

In any of these scenarios, you are still left with the big gorilla in the room: Google search.

Create investment pool by garnishing future revenue

I believe Google's importance to society is so immense -- I have called it a national treasure elsewhere in this blog -- that I believe any conventional anti-trust thinking here just does not work. But there are still ways to penalize Google's anti-trust behavior, and I propose one.

Justice should consider garnishing Google revenue and creating an investment pool for start-ups. The fund would be managed outside of Silicon Valley and advisably would exclude Stanford and valley interests.

This accomplishes several things. First of all, I believe we would see more venture deals per year. We would most certainly squander more capital -- but imagine, there would be more good-paying jobs to go around, and importantly, we would cultivate more young talent.

Compare that to now: venture companies are whimsical about whom they fund and how many deals they make each year. Meanwhile, a young Computer Science graduate may struggle finding her first job.

So in short, I am saying this: take money from Google and spend it liberally across the country, across everything. We will see a lot of start-up failures, but out of that destruction we will create something even better.

How large should fund be?

Large. Really large. For example, if valley risk capital is 100b, then achieving 100% of that is fair game, in my opinion. Valley capitalists will frown on this as it obviously would feel like artificial competition orchestrated by the government. My response: venture capitalists have gotten too conservative. Let's mix it up, and mix it up fast.

Whatever happens to Google sets a precedent.

Whatever happens with the anti-trust case against Google will surely set a precedent for other technology behemoths. So it's important we get this right.

What will happen with the other big players? Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and now NVIDIA.

Would breaking apart any of them make sense? Would breaking them apart now -- on what feels like the eve of an embattled world -- make any sense?

My general reaction in all of these scenarios is that government interference is undesirable. But we have to see the wider picture -- the macro-picture: these last 30 years have been a resounding success for a handful of firms and their employees, but that success has also coincided with a wider erosion in small businesses, a dwindling middle-class, and a notable uptick in drug overdoses.

Maybe what happened in the valley has nothing to do with what happened to the rest of America. Maybe it does. I don't really care what the answer is. But if I am going to spend money on America, I would do it sooner rather than later.

August 16, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

We are going to win. Period.

Joe Biden: American Hero.

Will the G.O.P. replace Donald Trump as its nominee in this year's presidential election? Of course not. Why? Because it's inconceivable that Donald Trump would place national interests above selfish ones and withdraw from the campaign just as President Biden has done today.

By contrast, President Biden has reminded the world that America remains a beacon of hope for ordinary citizens. Leaders come and go, but national ideals like freedom and self-rule endure.

Electoral challenges for Democrats persist.

There are two kinds of traders: the quants and -- for lack of a better term -- the punks, the guys who trade on instinct and gut. Despite going through an academic regimen heavy on analysis, quantitative methods, and rational thinking, I am one of the punks -- often relying on my instincts for many important decisions in life. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. But if my decision concerns markets, I enjoy the benefit of knowing in real-time the quality of my decision. That's one of the reason I love markets -- because they level the playing field in a way that, say, Sand Hill Road most definitely does not.

Rush to back Kamala Harris may be ill-fated.

The rush to back Vice-President Harris may be ill-fated. It might seem rational. It might seem fair or just. It might be cost-efficient. None of that matters.

We are confronting one of the most diabolical challenges in American history: a rank and blatant power-grab at the highest level of public life. Make no mistake. If Trump/Vance win, they will weaken if not destroy the dollar, significantly damage American competitiveness, corrupt the judiciary, perpetrate deeds that would likely bring Americans to The Hague for human rights violations, and leave responsible governance in tatters for a generation.

Vice-President Harris, for all her gifts, is -- as others have written -- a a vestige of the Biden era, which may sell in some quarters, but likely not in others. More concerning, however, is her distinct status as a member of the coastal elites. While that might be a strong selling point in urban and coastal venues, it's not at all clear how that plays out in the swing states of the midwest. If I had to guess, my instinct would be that Trump would do better than Harris in the swing states.

So where does that leave us: Whitmer / Booker 2024.

The most imaginative and daring suggestion I've heard thus far is from Nicolas Kristof of The New York Times: Gretchen Whitmer and Cory Booker. It makes sense. It will roil the status quo. Most importantly, it will energize Democrat constituencies across the country and, I would expect, especially in swing states.

July 21, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Democrats, now is the time to take some risks.

Biden nomination is DOA

As a Biden donor, I take little pleasure in acknowledging the pulse of widespread anxiety among voters: President Biden should withdraw his nomination for the American presidency, and he should do that imminently so voters can better evaluate eligible successors.

No one wants to be called a quitter or ineffectual or simply too old -- and to be sure, I've been called all of those things and more. You cannot go through a long life in America -- not to speak of a long public life in America -- and not confront what William Shakespeare called the slings and arrows of mankind. President Biden notably has survived precisely because of his habit of weathering the worst that life can throw at us.

As President Kennedy so eloquently said, it is now time to pass on the torch to a new generation of leaders. Not only that, this moment is one in which we should embrace risk -- taking chances that in a more stagnant moment in history might be discouraged or even impossible:

As others have written, a Gretchen Whitmer nomination speaks to many constituencies, preeminent among them the manufacturing belt of the American midwest. A Whitmer nomination would not only bring fresh perspective, but a more youthful one that hopefully will bridge this moment -- in talent and decisions -- with whatever happens in the next 20-40 years.

A Pete Buttigieg nomination might worry many pollsters. But we should balance those worries against the vastly deeper concerns of another Trump presidency. A gay president may not be what middle-of-the-road, family oriented voters want; but if those voters are going to support Trump anyway -- even fathoming voting for Trump -- we already are in a bad spot. I'll take a gay, Iraqi war veteran and Harvard graduate any day over Trump.

I have personal doubts about a Kamala Harris nomination. But a curious alternative would be Michelle Obama. With name recognition and spouse to an honest statesman and former president, her nomination would resonate with many voters angling to steady the ship -- that is, voting into The White House a known quantity without Trump's disruptive and antagonizing habits.

Flexibility will distinguish the Democrats

Anyone in corporate America will tell you that great leadership is flexible -- you have to be, because the one certainty in the future is that you don't know what's going to happen.

In the face of all the uncertainty in coming years, the GOP is inflexible with its nominee -- President Donald Trump. The GOP is not going to change candidates, even if polls indicate that voters neither like him nor Biden. The reason: because, dangerously, President Trump has taken over the GOP.

Meanwhile, the Democrats should project flexible and imaginative leadership by downgrading the Biden nomination and bringing in fresh faces for replacing Biden.

July 13, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Bega kwa Bega

For those of you who follow this blog -- especially my cohorts in Silicon Valley -- it is all too easy to get caught up in our daily firefighting, our political differences, our instinct for redemption in the face of the machine -- and I don't mean computing machines.

Whatever our personal battles -- especially here in the valley -- they absolutely pale vis a vis the heartbreaking experience of countless African children.

I usually don't make this kind of pitch, but I know the people at Bega kwa Bega, and I know that if you make a small contribution -- and $329 surely is a drop for many of you -- you will truly be helping out a kid for the 2024-2025 school year. You won't get anything back for that except maybe some kind of self-gratification. But somewhere out there, a kid will show up at school in uniform with a pencil and paper.

The list of kids in need that I'm posting here happen to be girls -- that's just the list I got. You can make your donation through PayPal by sending your contribution to:

BegaKwaBegaUS@gmail.com

If I'm breaking any laws by posting this, let me know and I'll make suitable edits.

List follows:

June 10, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Iran Attack on Israel: Putin opens 2nd front against Freedom.

Israelis and Palestinians have been at odds with each other for 70 years. Many of the reasons are well-known and, frankly, not much different now than they were in the past.

So why only since October 7, 2023, have Houthi rebels been firing on commercial trading lanes? It's not as if an Israeli invasion of Gaza -- however disproportionate -- qualitatively changed the picture. In fact, Houthi rebels were so decisively on the fringe of world politics that most observers -- including myself -- scarcely even knew they existed.

So why now? Why should any commercial vessel passing by Yemen be concerned about aerial attacks from the Houthis?

One simple answer: Vladimir Putin.

No one more thrilled to see a war in Israel than Putin

Here is a picture (courtesy of New York Times) of President Putin's visit to Iran only months after he ordered the invasion of Ukraine:

While opinions differ about the quality of nation-alliances across the world, we can all agree that Iranian support of the Russian incursion into Ukraine has led to a surge in casualties among civilians, the destruction of villages and cities that have no military connection at all, and continued Russian advances against Ukrainian lands -- advances that are notably unwelcome.

Iran drone and missile attack against Israel breaches grave milestone

All of Israel's public pronouncements through the years about being under siege by neighbors eager to see its demise -- pronouncements that, frankly, grew wearisome over the years -- must now be viewed through the prism of Iran's massive attack last night -- 300 missiles and drones by some counts. Moreover, Iran's attack does not appear to be a calculated, targeted one. Instead, it appears it was a sprawling attack -- an attack that mirrors Russia's own attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

Said another way, if Russia is a recognized state terrorist, then Iran should now be viewed as its junior partner.

Nukes possibly on the way

We must assume the worst: that if Iran fired hundreds of aerial munitions at Israel, that arming at least some of those munitions with nuclear warheads is not far off the table. Of course, Iranian nukes will not be home-made. Instead, they would likely be Russian imports.

Absolutely irresponsible that U.S. Congress pauses Ukraine aid

Make no mistake: the big loser in the U.S. Congress' pause in Ukraine aid is not Ukraine. The big loser is Freedom. While members of the G.O.P. continue to pander to President Donald Trump's feckless whims, Vladimir Putin -- along with Iran -- are angling to weaken American resolve and military capabilities.

Divide-and-conquer is one of the oldest strategies. A Trump victory for The White House in 2024 would only strengthen the vilest enemies of Freedom.

"He's a good man." -- President Donald Trump of Vladimir Putin at Helsinki Summit in 2018.

A divided Congress, a divided America, can only strengthen the hand of our enemies. President Donald Trump's major platform ideal is the division of Americans -- by race, by wealth and class, by education, by everything. Because when he divides America, he strikes a cord with the most extreme emotions that people harbor -- their worries and their angst. That, in a nutshell, is the Trump revolution.

Is it any wonder China, Iran, and Russia also want President Trump to win?

April 14, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

This St Pat's Day, you might think about the fragility of civilization.

The book sat on my mom's shelf for about 25 years. Civilization? Who cared. The Irish? Certainly not I. It was a thin book. When I once actually perused the first few pages, they merely reenforced my initial impression: this was some kind of historical note with a bit too much religion and decisively too little drama.

For whatever reason, about 10-12 years ago, I gave the book a second chance. What started out as mildly boring grew into an interesting story of western Europe and how, by way of religion -- in this case, Catholic monasteries -- humanity was able to salvage and even restore a great repository of ancient texts.

But in so many ways, the story was implausible. The much more likely happening would have been that we should have lost all the rich stories and writings of ancient Greece and Rome.

We didn't. St. Patrick -- possibly an orphan, likely a penniless boy -- was shuttled off to the Continent -- far away from what probably was an extremely hostile context in England. Somewhere along the way he went through some kind of religious metamorphosis, and then took it upon himself to erect monasteries across western Europe. These became store houses of ancient texts, which monks preserved through transcription. The monasteries themselves evolved into the modern university, and voila! -- humanity's aspirations for civilized discourse grew by leaps and bounds.

Civilization is under fire now

The forces of nihilism are at work. If truth is the first casualty of war, then civilization is a close second. As I write, Vladimir Putin is being re-elected in Russia in what can only fairly be called a farcical semblance of democratic choice; the leading opposition leader Alex Navalny -- died a few weeks ago in an arctic penal colony, and the only other candidate with anti-war sentiments was marginalized and then banished from the election altogether.

Here is just one photo (courtesy of The New Yorker) of Putin's war on Ukraine, now two years old:

A 2nd Trump presidency would further unravel civilization

In America, the leading G.O.P. candidate is once again President Donald Trump. We need not elaborate on his shortcomings here, but it should be obvious his leadership would further unravel civilization. It may be easy to dismiss such an assertion as rhetoric or electoral banter. But let's take a look at just a few elements in what a 2nd Trump administration would likely imply:

No doubt, President Trump would pander to Vladimir Putin. As I write, the Russian military is engaged in exercises with Iranian and Chinese militaries. Surely the American president would not pander to Mr. Putin under such circumstances. That unfortunately does not appear to be the case with Mr. Trump.

President Trump would embrace lies as he did in his first term. Worse, during a 2nd term, the cabinet and advisors around him would likely be less able and less inclined to thwart his prevarications. It's hard to know what that might mean. But the COVID-19 pandemic is a darn good reference point -- Trump simply did not care about the science and what the facts had to say. He in fact called COVID-19 a "Democratic hoax". Let's be clear: for the millions who died and for the millions who endure longstanding side-effects, COVID-19 did not feel like a Democratic hoax.

President Trump supported the bald-faced attack on The Capitol in the final days of his presidency. If he was comfortable with an attack on The Capitol, is it far-fetched to think he would be comfortable with an attack on the Supreme Court of the United States, or the FBI, or the IRS, or the U.S. Military itself? I would assert that he would in fact attack all of those and, indeed, all American institutions that are not disposed to his current whims.

I conclude with a familiar picture of the riot on The Capitol. This is what it means to see civilization die out. It's worth noting that President Trump sat idly by for hours as these riots transpired.

March 15, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

No Doubt About It: President Trump is a Russian Asset

If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

All the fuss over Russian interference in the 2016 American presidential election now seems perfectly quaint. Clearly, President Trump is not merely aligned with Russian interests. Rather, he has all the appearances of being an actual Russian asset.

Nomination for Governor Haley could not be more urgent.

As G.O.P. presidential frontrunner, President Trump's invitation to Russia to attack Europe cannot be separated from the Republican Party itself. Europe is one of America's most significant trading and strategic partners. A Russian attack on Europe would, hands down, be a disaster for the world economy.

A couple of weeks ago, I called President Trump a bad choice for business. Let me restate my position: it is now obvious President Trump would be a horrifying choice for American business.

The urgency to nominate Governor Haley is now -- truly -- a national emergency.

What happened at the 2018 Helsinki Summit when President Trump met with Vladimir Putin?

The secret meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin -- secret except for translators -- is now surging in importance. What happened? What words were exchanged? What deals made?

We don't know. President Trump ordered his translator to destroy notes from that meeting. But we can draw some conclusions:

President Trump may not only want to scale back NATO. He may have made a deal with Putin to do that.

Putin attacked Ukraine in 2022. It is plausible -- entirely now given President Trump's comments over the weekend -- that Putin's ultimate plan is to invade other members of the NATO alliance. The most obvious targets: the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. But Poland, Romania, Croatia, maybe even Hungary would not be out of the question.

New World Order

If there is a "New World Order", as Vladimir Putin claimed along with his Chinese counterpart a few months back, it is now quite clear whose side President Trump is on.

SCOTUS did not stop President Trump. Who will?

February 12, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Sad Day for SCOTUS

When I briefly dialed into the Colorado case before SCOTUS this morning, I had in fact already viewed the outcome as a foregone conclusion. Why on earth would a conservative majority -- half of whom President Trump himself appointed -- side with Colorado? Nevertheless, there must have been something in the air, because when I saw the live-stream link, I interrupted my morning routine to tune into 10-15m of the hearing.

I wasn't disappointed.

There was the somber, austere voice of Justice Thomas -- the one justice who arguably has been bought off. There was the fiery intelligence of the latest appointee -- Justice Jackson. The ever so smart voice -- and smart in a bored manner -- of Justice Gorsuch. The slight slurs of our dear Justice Kavanaugh, who sounded like he had awakened to the case from a night of one too many drinks.

Who cared if SCOTUS was gonna give President Trump a pass. Who cared if Trump was gonna have a 2nd-go in his effort to take down democracy and dominate the country as its first dictator. Who really cared about that? No, the real drama was here, in the words, the carefully crafted innuendo that Colorado wasn't just out of line -- no, Colorado was throwing a long-bomb in one last ditch effort to win our country back from the dark fate that must surely await it if Trump wins again.

It was hard afterwards to square the polite conversation of the court with at least one question a lot of Americans may be asking themselves: if the court is going to give President Trump a pass on January 6th, then my God, just what are we in for if he wins?

February 9, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

Trump Presidency a Mortal Hazard to Every Living American

It is shocking that this late in the 2024 presidential election cycle that I have to write these words: if Donald Trump can't even meet in his own competitors in the G.O.P. face-to-face in a public debate before a national audience, you can pretty much bet he's not going to have the backbone to face off America's most serious enemies.

He has invited violence upon The American Republic

During his presidency from 2017 - 2021, Donald Trump on numerous occasions invited violence upon elected public officials across the spectrum -- culminating of course in the January 6th riots, in which he, our sitting command-in-chief, did nothing while a mob sacked The Capitol.

Voters need to think about this. If in 2021, Donald Trump invited violence upon the 2nd highest elected official -- Vice President Mike Pence -- where would he stop in a 2nd term?

This isn't matter of Christians versus Pagans, or lies versus the truth. This is a matter of personal safety for every American.

Largest European war in 100 years, but Trump is pro-Putin

Vladimir Putin and his allies have made explicit nuclear threats against western interests, including American. Voters need to take stock of these threats: a nuclear attack on America -- on any place -- would be a catastrophic happening. And yet, during his presidency, Donald Trump made intentional efforts to align his decisions with President Putin's: dissolve NATO, disentangle America from Europe, roll back the Magnitsky act.

It would be one thing if Russia were a peaceful cohort angling to influence progress. As I write, the Russian military is firing missiles at hospitals, playgrounds, and churches in Ukraine.

And we want Donald Trump to be president a 2nd term?

This is not outlandish. It is despicable.

Top secret document that President Trump took home

Most Americans will never know what top secret documents Donald Trump took home -- the reason: because some of the them were absolutely top-top secret. Voters must assume the worse: that President Trump took home America's dearest nuclear secrets with nefarious intentions. What were those?

Voters -- but especially Republicans -- need to answer this question. If our national secrets were not safe in the hands of President Donald Trump during a first term, would they possibly be safer in his hands during a 2nd term?

It is, in my opinion, almost insane that I have to write this. Why is this guy anywhere near the 2024 presidential ballot?

CIA and FBI will suffer under a 2nd term

Our national buffer against threats, foreign and at home, has always been our intelligence services: the FBI and CIA. Under a 2nd Trump presidency, they would fall sharply under assault of an executive who is full of vengeance -- especially, I should emphasize, the FBI. This cannot possibly make America safer.

Again, it is shocking I have to write any of this. The people writing and speaking all of this should, at a minimum, be the people running against Donald Trump.

January 11, 2024

[unbounded-cardinality]

The Perilous Prospects of a 2nd Trump Presidency

Clinton Presidency: 1993-2001

The conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton was a brilliant president who oversaw a booming economy, a balanced national budget, largely peaceful relationships abroad, and the ascent of America as the world's sole superpower.

I never liked the guy.

From the moment I saw his first interview on television, there was something in his delivery that I intuitively perceived as disingenuous. Maybe it was my Texan roots that viewed an Arkansan president with suspicion. Or maybe it was the smiles. Or maybe the hairdo. Who knows.

But like so many, I voted for President Clinton because I viewed him as the least worst choice for our country. It was only years later that I learned -- mainly through 2nd-hand stories -- the perilous place we entered in the wake of the Clinton presidency.

First week of Clinton presidency

Reportedly, during President Clinton's first week of presidency, department heads across the government visited the Oval Office, but notably one -- the Director of the CIA -- was kept at bay for over an hour, waiting outside the president's office wondering if his meeting with the new president would ever happen.

One hour waiting for Clinton. Director of the CIA.

In the wake of that meeting, President Clinton proceeded to restructure national intelligence -- leading to the removal of numerous staff, the minimization of agents abroad, and the erosion of national budgets for the sleuthing that protected American interests for decades, both home and abroad.

Is it any surprise that 9/11 caught America off guard?

Not to me. By the time jets struck The Pentagon and World Trade Center, America had exactly one agent on the ground in the entire country of Afghanistan. (NOTE: I might have the country and number here mistaken, but the general point is valid -- intelligence services in the mideast suffered sharp setbacks under the Clinton presidency.)

Second Trump presidency would be decisively unsafe for America

If President Clinton -- unintentionally perhaps -- made America less safe, a second Trump presidency would be a perilous journey into the unknown. Here are the reasons why.

First, the quality of cabinet and staff members around the president is sure to degrade under a 2nd Trump presidency. The reason is simple: because entering Trump's galaxy is a fool's bet that you want get into trouble, too. Witness the credible cases against politicians who pre-Trump were widely respected. Who did Trump take down and how bad have they fallen? You can tally for yourselves. The question for voters is: would we have an operational presidency at all if Donald Trump is elected a 2nd time?

Second, a quality of both the modern G.O.P. and President Trump himself is what might be generally called "payback". With so many grievances weighing down both, it is conceivable a 2nd Trump presidency would be less about leading and more about vengeance. Can we, for example, expect a functional FBI that is protecting American interests? I wouldn't count on it. Recent history suggests, instead, that FBI interests would be hamstrung by Trump attacks and, worse, contending with the politicization of their own ranks. In short, a 2nd Trump presidency would be roiled by internecine struggle -- the kind that resembles what happened in Israel in the months and years leading up to October 7th.

Third, American business will suffer. This is counter-intuitive because the G.O.P. is decisively pro-business. Unfortunately, we have to confront the distinct character of the modern G.O.P.: that it is consumed with social causes (immigration, objectionable school curricula, political correctness) and will end up inflaming the country instead of focusing on decisions that might steer the economy forward. This, to me, is the real tragedy of the modern G.O.P.

Fourth, a 2nd Trump presidency would go beyond bellicose rhetoric and likely carry America directly into wars. My first guess is that Trump would tackle the "low-lying fruit" -- going after Mexico and other regimes south of the border. But I would not rule out a more expansive military footprint, either in the Pacific or elsewhere. A 2nd Trump presidency, in short, would neither have the wisdom of advisors that might hem in an autocrat, nor the inclination to avoid war.

Fifth, and perhaps most sadly, a 2nd Trump presidency quite possibly would see the erosion of the rule of law, a higher frequency of kangaroo courts and their dubious decisions, a suspension of habeus corpus within the union, the erection of something like concentration camps across the American Southwest, and a judiciary that is not independent at all.

January 6, 2024