Immigration

I believe legal immigration is important for our country and am chagrined when politicians and media instigate angry disagreements relative to immigration.  It is critical to have fair, open discussion of the issues, acknowledging “inconvenient truths”. (Disclosure: both of my parents immigrated to this country legally.)

1.      Other than our few Native Americans, all of our families immigrated to the United States.  Why was our ancestors’ immigration OK, but not current immigration?  (Of course, you could argue that even Native Americans immigrated to this continent.)

2.      Immigrants understand the value of our freedoms and economy.  As any country ages, people whose families have lived in that country for multiple generations tend to take its advantages for granted.  Many people believe that various threats “could never happen here”, but such an attitude increases the risk that those problems occur.  Immigrants bring a very important injection of reality and appreciation.

3.      Immigrants have contributed mightily to our economy and scientific and other advances.  In so doing, they have created jobs for others.

4.      Immigrants often take jobs many US-born citizens don’t want.  Easily transferrable skills like caregiving, sewing and manual labor involve low-paid jobs.  Licensing barriers make it difficult for some foreign professionals to practice here after immigrating. 

5.      Nonetheless, if we refuse to acknowledge that some citizens lose jobs to immigrants and that pay for some jobs is depressed by immigrant competition, we fuel discord.  We should consider those citizens' situation and encourage them to increase their capabilities so they can find gainful employment and should improve our education system to serve them better.

6.      Immigration is part of the fabric of our ideals (“Statue of Liberty”).  We should continue to live our ideals, which are harmonious with all faiths and which help us build a more peaceful, cooperative society.

7.      Risk cannot be fully removed in life.  As we protect against some risks, we increase exposure to other risks.  The best way to protect ourselves is to respect each other and engage in open, fair discussion. 

8.      However, if we were to open our gates, letting anyone enter our country who chooses to do so, I think we would run into a number of problems.  I believe we have a right to determine who should be allowed to enter and who should not.

9.      Vetting can’t be 100% accurate.  In the case of Muslim immigrants, it is deceitful and destructive to pretend that vetting shields us from terrorism risk.  Even if vetting was 100% accurate at entry, Muslim immigrants are more likely to become radicalized later than other residents. Thirdly, children of Muslim immigrants are more likely to become radicalized than their non-Muslim peers.  I believe we should accept some risk, but recognize that we are doing so.

10.  It is not easy to be an immigrant or a member of the first generation born in a new country.  We could reduce our risk by welcoming immigrants more openly and helping them assimilate.

11.  Immigrants can help by alerting authorities to security risks in their community.  I don’t know how much this is being done.  Although I have an impression that more such cooperation should occur, I suspect there is significant cooperation of which I am unaware.

12.  I do not think we needed a ban on Muslim refugees and travelers.  However, I believe that the second travel ban was legal (perhaps the first).  Do you agree with the following arguments? 

• The travel ban for Muslim-dominant countries is illegal but the travel ban can proceed with Venezuela and North Korea.  From my perspective, the judge who made that recent ruling was guilty of religious discrimination.  He ruled that Muslim countries should have preferred treatment over countries with other or more diverse religions.

 

• The travel ban is illegal because it depresses university enrollment in Hawaii.

• The travel ban is illegal because it depresses tourism in Hawaii.

• The travel ban is illegal, regardless of what it says, because of what President Trump said during the campaign.  This argument takes the position that if a president creating an executive order (might it extend to promoters of laws, too?) expressed support for an illegal approach in the past year, then, ipso facto, his executive order in unenforceable, even if he instructed staff to create a legal order and even if the wording of the order is legal.  The court’s interpretation of motive trumps (pun intended) law.  That’s a scary theory.

13.  It is probably easy to reach agreement that we should be able to block entry to terrorists, criminals and other people who pose specific threats (the longer that list, the less agreement there would be).  The more challenging question is whether we should refuse entry to immigrants who meet our vetting procedures.  As we lack the vast uninhabited territory we had in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and as we have social welfare programs that are already unsustainable, I think it is OK to limit the number of qualified potential immigrants who are allowed into our country.

14.  If we block entry to some qualified immigrants, the question becomes how to decide which people to admit?  Do we leave it to chance or do we establish preferences?

15.  At least to some degree, I think we should establish preferences.  As we move down my list, priority becomes less reliable.  A lottery could be used to resolve tie scores, if necessary.  Some people at lower levels may have compelling situations that propel them upward in priority.

a.       At the top of my list would be people who have supported our efforts, hence are exposed to risk.  It is my impression that we have not been adequately loyal to some people who have been loyal to us.

b.      Spouses and minor children of immigrants should be allowed entry.  Absent special circumstances, other relatives should not get preference.

c.       However, in some cases under #a above, it seems appropriate to favor parents who could be exposed to retaliation.  Expansion to siblings, uncles, aunts, or cousins requires increasingly careful judgment. 

d.      People whose brave behavior has created risk of retaliation would be high on my list.

e.       People with skills we need in our country.  Perhaps these should not count against limits.

           f.    Victims of genocide.  I would not object to moving this above e), especially if the
                 immigrants under e) do not count against an overall limit.

16.  Amnesty is an issue on which most voters would agree if politicians would accept a simple compromise.  If you give amnesty without controlling your borders, the amnesty will attract more illegal immigration.  Thus, you need to gain control of your borders (and visa violations) before granting amnesty.  I believe a high majority of voters would support such an approach.

17.   I oppose sanctuary cities.  Immigration law is the responsibility of the Federal government and I believe local governments should not harbor undocumented aliens.  I understand that if people are in fear of deportation, they won’t report crimes.  We should have a respectful and fair system so they don’t have to unnecessarily fear deportation.  If we resolve the amnesty issue, as per the previous paragraph, this issue would greatly reduce.  The argument that "they won't report crimes" is a slippery slope that could justify not enforcing a lot of laws.

18.  If the national government fails to protect a state’s borders, I believe that state should be allowed to step in.  I’m not suggesting that a state should be able to override Federal immigration laws.  A state should not be able to unilaterally bar immigrants who satisfy Federal requirements, nor to admit people in violation of Federal rules or laws.  However, if people are illegally gaining admittance to the state, the state ought to be able to take actions to thwart illegal entry or stays if the Federal government is not performing its job well.

19.  Most of the “Dreamers” are deserving.  President Trump has taken a positive stance in this regard.  Rather than engage in illegal (or at best questionable) action, he has pressured Congress to take a stance.  While I don’t think I would have taken his approach, I respect it and recognize that it may well turn out more positively than what I would have done.  A permanent solution is preferable, however the solution should not open the flood gates for the Dreamers' relatives.

20.  Foreign policy can impact immigration.  Had a “safe zone” been created in southern Syria, immigration problems of the past few years would have been much smaller.

NFL Players Protesting by Kneeling during our National Anthem

I view the NFL player protests as follows:
 
1.      We want our younger citizens to be concerned about our country and to engage in helping it maintain and fulfill its ideals.
 
2.      We want such participation to non-violent and non-obstructionist.
 
3.      To me, kneeling is a respectful way to express one’s concern.  (One of our local players once rode a stationary bike while the anthem was played.  I don’t consider that to be respectful.)
 
4.      When they express their positions, others have an opportunity to disagree and engage.
 
5.      If they use their stature to draw children’s attention to an issue, they should accept the responsibility of listening to others who engage them positively.  Here in KC, the police invited protesting players to join them on patrol, which I felt was a very positive response.  (I don’t know if that has occurred yet.)
 
6.      An employer has a right to terminate an employee who is disruptive to team esprit, etc.  I would not terminate players for protesting by taking a knee.  Teams have a right to do so but I would urge caution.
 
7.      I think it would be WRONG for the league to ban such players.  That seems to constitute conspiracy to remove their ability to participate in their profession, for expressing their thought. 

Phantom of the Opera

During our vacation, Tina and I saw “Phantom of the Opera” in New York City.  It was the second time we’ve seen this outstanding program.  I recommend it to everyone.

Andrew Lloyd Weber is a genius!  It is hard to believe how he can create so many so amazing new songs when people have been creating songs for centuries.   Here are my favorites (in no particular order) from “The Phantom”.

• The Phantom of the Opera
• The Music of the Night
• That’s All I Ask of You
• Masquerade
• The Point of No Return

You can find the lyrics at http://www.metrolyrics.com/phantom-of-the-opera-lyrics.html, but you want to hear the haunting music.

Different people see different themes in “Phantom of the Opera”.  When I ask women what the movie is about, they almost invariably say that it is a movie about a girl torn between two loves.  Men give a much broader range of responses.

But few people see the movie the way I do.  Most people describe the Phantom as a monster or terrible person.

I think the Phantom was a wonderful person!  He was bright, motivated and compassionate.  But society rejected him because of his disfigurement, eventually turning him into a bitter person who used his capabilities destructively.  But even so embittered, he eventually sacrificed for the woman he loved.

To me, “The Phantom of the Opera” is a great story of how we (society) can cruelly and stupidly waste human potential.  I perceive the human race as renewable because we can create new humans.  However, the human second is a non-renewable precious resource.  We need to find ways to maximize utilization of each human second, by educating, encouraging and inspiring humans to perform at their best.

Do you think my October 2016 assessment of Donald Trump was accurate?

The following excerpts of my October 16, 2016 communication about the 2016 election describe my evaluation of Donald Trump.  I've deleted wording about Hillary Clinton and some specific legislative issues, but no changes have been made to the evaluation of Trump as a prospective president.  Unfortunately my comments were correct.

 

Donald Trump is a pragmatist, which makes a Trump presidency more unpredictable.  While that leaves open the possibility that some good things might result, his intention to hire a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton is further evidence that he will not bring our country together.

Donald Trump is amazingly narcissist.  As such, he does not seem to understand the concept of truth.   When I try to understand his rampant lies, I think of the difference between someone who is amoral and someone who is immoral.   A person who is immoral knowingly does things that are wrong.  A person who is amoral does not have a way of judging right from wrong.  Trump’s lying seems similar to being amoral.  He just knows what he wants to be the case and says it.  Truth or falsehood is irrelevant to him.  That’s scary.

Trump lacks the mental discipline/stamina to stay on topic.  This is a serious stamina issue for a President.  He is also very weak at thinking before speaking.  That’s a form of discipline and perhaps mental stamina.

Trump repeatedly alienates people typically for no good reason.  He is a very poor judge of how he affects people.  This aspect of his temperament is very damaging for a President of the USA who has to bring domestic people together and also must build relationships with foreign leaders.

Although there are times when we have to stand for principles and can’t sacrifice them for compromise, I feel that we greatly need a unifier as President now. 

But Trump, as described above and with his promise to name a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, is even less of a unifier.

Trump temperament is scary relative to foreign policy.  His intentions are unclear.  He should be able to create coherent policy but he has failed to demonstrate such ability. 

He is very sensitive to criticism and lashes out aggressively and irrationally in response.  Taking a chance on him seems really reckless.  It seems clear why people fear his finger on the nuclear button.

Non-Proliferation (some focus on North Korea)

I grew up during the Cold War, thus I remember:

• Routine air raid drills at school
• Frequent advertising for underground air raid shelters to be installed in backyards
• “On the Beach”, a 1959 movie which depicted the results of nuclear war
• Looking out my high school window during the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, wondering if I’d be able to see missiles launched by the Soviet Union to attack our Groton Connecticut nuclear submarine base 50 miles away.
• The 1964 movie “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”, a comedy about a berserk US General who launches nuclear missiles.
• Traveling in Europe and realizing the fear of citizens in other countries that the USA and USSR could trigger a world-ending war over which they had no control.

At that time, only the USA and the Soviet Union (United Soviet Socialist Republic or USSR, often mis-identified as “Russia”, which was its most populous member) had nuclear capabilities.  Mutual destruction was the deterrent that avoided nuclear war.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT; https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/) was signed in 1970, ushering a period during which fear of nuclear war subsided greatly.  The fall of the Soviet Union generally reduced fear further, although there was concern that the USSR’s nuclear arsenal might not be adequately secured, hence might be vulnerable to being stolen by (or sold to) terrorists.

Unfortunately, countries have several natural incentives to develop nuclear weapons:

1. To reduce the risk that other countries will attack or otherwise “push around” your country.
2. To help your country achieve an aggressive expansionist foreign policy.
3. As a source of national pride and to encourage scientists to remain in your country.

The nuclear risk is fundamentally different than all other risks as it could suddenly destroy our planet and becomes increasingly likely as nuclear weapons spread.  To counter the above incentives, the world must convince governments that the disadvantages of developing nuclear weapons outweigh the advantages.  The disadvantages could include:

a)      Sanctions: Clearly the best approach, sanctions must have teeth and be broadly supported internationally.  Unfortunately, it can be very profitable for a country or business to undercut sanctions and it is hard to maintain them long-term.

b)      Pre-emptive strikes:  These require early knowledge, a commitment to act, and precise attacks.  If one country acts as the policeman of the world, others will fear it and it may lack the morality to do its job appropriately consistently.  If the pre-emptive strike requires international co-operation, it may be subject to subterfuge and lack of timeliness.

c)      Shunning/embarrassment:  Such suasion is not likely to work.

d)     We could share peaceful nuclear technology to reduce the need/excuse for developing nuclear capability which can be transformed into weapons and to help create a positive, cooperative international culture relative to nuclear weapons.

e)      Other suggestions are welcome!

Unfortunately, we’ve created a situation in which governments logically expect to negotiate economic advantages by developing nuclear weapons (“nuclear blackmail”).  We encourage proliferation in that way and then those countries' enemies feel a need to develop nuclear weapons.  The resulting nuclear research can exacerbate the situation further by creating easier and less detectable methods of developing (smaller) nuclear weapons.
 

You might stop reading here.  Or you might like to keep reading for a description of our “Agreed Framework” with North Korea and discussion of what has happened since, including criticism of President Bush’s decision to cooperate with India relative to nuclear weapons and of President Obama’s negotiations with Iran.

Relative to North Korea (DPRK, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), detailed timelines can be found at the following web-sites:

• https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/North Koreachron. 
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_nuclear_program

In 1992, the International Atomic Energy Commission concluded that North Korea was in violation of the NPT.  Rather than submitting to more inspections, North Korea announced that it would withdraw from the pact.  It subsequently suspended the decision to withdraw and suggested negotiations with the USA.

Negotiations broke down after the North Koreans took steps to hide their past actions, which had been defined as a “red line” by the USA, but then were resumed, per http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/18/world/a-shift-on-north-korea.html?mcubz=0.

Eventually, Jimmy Carter re-opened stalled negotiations, going to North Korea in a gesture that he and the USA government described as independent of the USA government.  Subsequently, there have been reports that President Clinton recruited him to make that overture.  (Does this suggest that 100% transparency may not always be the best policy?  People love to speak in absolutes, but the world is not that simple.)

The “Agreed Framework” resulted, defined as follows according to https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework.   (My parenthetical comments are labelled “CT:”.)

Joint U.S.-North Korean Obligations:

·         The United States and North Korea committed to move toward normalizing economic and political relations, including by reducing barriers to investment, opening liaison offices, and ultimately exchanging ambassadors.  (CT: This was a good idea, presuming that the reasons for having broken relations were being removed by this agreement and that this agreement did not block future sanctions that might become appropriate.)

·         Both sides commit not to nuclearize the Korean Peninsula. The United States must "provide formal assurances" not to threaten or use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Pyongyang is required to "consistently take steps" to implement the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korean Obligations

·         Reactor Freeze and Dismantlement: The framework calls for North Korea to freeze operation of its 5-megawatt reactor and plutonium-reprocessing plant at Yongbyon and construction of a 50-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon and a 200-megawatt plant at Taechon. These facilities are to be dismantled prior to the completion of the second light-water reactor.

·         Inspections: North Korea must come into "full compliance" with IAEA safeguards when a "significant portion of the [light-water reactor] project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components." Full compliance includes taking all steps deemed necessary by the IAEA to determine the extent to which North Korea diverted material for weapons use in the past, including giving inspectors access to all nuclear facilities in the country. (CT: This provision seems to have been deficient because the timing was vague, despite the good “before delivery of nuclear components” wording, and deferred.  It takes several years to complete inspection, so the light-water reactor project would have to be delayed if inspections were deferred in this fashion.  According to Wikipedia, the chairman of the IAEA, Hans Blix, expressed this concern.)

·         Spent Fuel: The spent fuel from North Korea's 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon is to be put into containers as soon as possible (a process called "canning") and removed from the country when nuclear components for the first light-water reactor begin to arrive after North Korea has come into full compliance with IAEA safeguards. (CT: The USA paid for this process, but that does NOT seem to create an incentive for other countries to develop nuclear weapons.)

·         NPT Membership: The Agreed Framework requires that North Korea remain a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

U.S. Obligations

·         Establish and Organize KEDO: This includes the securing of diplomatic and legal rights and guarantees necessary to implement the light-water reactor project. (CT: KEDO stands for “Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization” which was intended to implement the agreement.)

·         Implement the Light-Water Reactor Project: The United States is to facilitate the construction of two 1,000-megawatt light-water nuclear power reactors. (CT: Japan and South Korea were supposed to finance and supply North Korea with these light-water reactors, estimated to cost $4.5 billion or $8 billion, depending on source (John McCain referred to it as two $4 billion reactors).  Replacing 255 megawatt capacity with 2000 megawatt capacity appears to have rewarded North Korea for having created its nuclear capability.  Replacing with a 250 megawatt capacity would have avoided incentivizing nuclear proliferation, but North Korea may not have accepted such an offer.  I’d expect our negotiators to say that North Korea did not accept such a proposal, but you can’t be sure unless you walk away in a fashion that convinces the other side that you will not sweeten the offer.)

·         Provide Heavy-Fuel Oil Shipments: To compensate for the electricity-generating capacity that Pyongyang gave up by freezing its nuclear reactors, KEDO will supply North Korea with 500,000 metric tons of heavy-fuel oil annually until the light-water reactor project is completed.  (CT: Estimated to cost $0.5 billion. This did NOT reward North Korea because it replaced what their nuclear reactor would have produced.)

Full wording is available from http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/aptagframe.pdf.

According to Wikipedia, “The pact was neither a treaty subject to Senate approval nor a legally binding executive agreement, but a non-binding political commitment between the two countries noted by the United Nations Security Council.”  (CT: It seems strange that North Korea would have accepted such terms and strange for us as well.  Perhaps Bill Clinton did not think he could get this through Congress.)

I’ve heard someone involved in the above negotiation say that “we did not have a choice”.  It seems that our negotiators concluded that North Korea would not accept a less attractive offer and we were unwilling to risk that North Korea would irrationally attack the South if the existing reactor was attacked.  At best, saying that “we did not have a choice” is an incorrect statement.  At worst, it indicates that our negotiators bargained poorly by mentally painting themselves into a corner.

What happened subsequently?  The timeline links above can help you work through what happened.  But there are many lessons to be learned:

a)      The discussions treat the North Korea situation as a series of Korean incidents, isolated from broader impact.  They tend to ignore the impact that the North Korean situation has on other countries and, to a lesser degree, ignore the impact of situations with other countries on North Korea.  As noted above, I believe we have incentivized other countries to develop nuclear weapons.

b)      North Korea developed offensive missiles, which had not been restricted in the 1994 agreement.  Subsequently, when negotiating with Iran, the Obama administration (apparently having learned from the North Korea situation) insisted that missile restrictions be part of any agreement with Iran.  However, the Obama administration surrendered on that issue, which is one of the reasons I believe it negotiated poorly.  President Obama made it clear that he would sacrifice important demands in order to reach an agreement.

c)      North Korea provided missile capacity to other countries (such as Iran in 1996, Pakistan in 1998, and Yemen in 2002, reportedly), reportedly exported nuclear knowledge to Libya in 2004 and threatened to give nuclear weapons to terrorists in 2005.  (Note: Another concern I had with the Iran deal was that it did not preclude Iran working on developing nuclear weapons with allies outside of Iran.)

d)     Naturally, based on past success, North Korea demanded financial compensation in return for ceasing missile development and trade.  At times, North Korea has demanded $1 billion annually.  It has insisted on support launching North Korean satellites, energy support and food support, in negotiations which have failed.

e)      The USA imposed sanctions.  North Korea stated that the USA had negotiated away its right to impose sanctions for non-nuclear reasons.

f)       The USA and its allies were slow in building the light-water reactors and in supplying energy.

g)      In 1998, India tested a nuclear weapon.  India and Pakistan were two countries that did not sign the NPT.

h)      In 2001, the Bush Administration was inaugurated.  North Korea reacted strongly to a muted comment by the Bush Administration. 

i)        Joel Wit (who worked on the agreement for the USA) assigned blame to North Korea, South Korea, the Clinton Administration and Congressional Republicans in a 2001 statement (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/what-should-we-do-with-the-u-s-north-korea-agreed-framework/).   Others blame either the North Koreans or the USA mostly.  Perhaps Wit was intending to be “diplomatic” in spreading the blame but he did identify problem behaviors by the various participants.  Although Wit supports diplomacy, his statement raises the possibility that diplomacy is doomed to failure.  John McCain expressed his concerns here: https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1995/6/post-137a3484-6bba-4855-a2e8-367b4d4ceb7d).

j)        President Bush left nuclear warfare on the table as a possible response to North Korean transgressions and promised not to initiate a nuclear attack on North Korea.  I supported that part of Bush’s position as I think we need both a carrot and a stick, but when Bush labelled North Korea as part of an “Axis of Evil”, along with Iraq and Iran, in 2002, I felt he was not being helpful.  In September 2002, the Bush administration released a report which emphasized pre-emptively attacking countries developing weapons of mass destruction. It explicitly mentioned North Korea.  Such a threat may be necessary.  Many of our negotiators, politicians, academics and media presume that a preemptive strike against a North Korean nuclear site would result in North Korea unleashing an attack on South Korea.  It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about that risk but I think it is inappropriate to blindly assume that North Korea will act irrationally.  Its behavior relative to nuclear weapons does not seem to have been irrational to me.

k)      In 2002, it apparently became clear that North Korea was enriching uranium.  The USA said that North Korea admitted doing so.  After a while, North Korea claimed that it had said it had a right to do so, rather than that it had done so and in 2003, it denied having done so.  It seems that either there was a breach of the agreement (the USA position) or proof that the agreement did not serve our purposes (the North Korea claim of its right), perhaps because we had been unable to predict all the future ways that might develop to create nuclear weapons.  However, it can be argued that North Korea’s “right” resulted from the USA not fulfilling its responsibilities.  I’ve heard a person involved in the original negotiation lament that the Bush administration did not engage in diplomacy at that time.  I’m uncomfortable that his comments suggest to me that he felt we should have continued to “buy off” North Korea.

l)        In 2002, North Korea restarted its banned nuclear sites, which the IAEA condemned in early 2003.  North Korea claimed to have a workable nuclear device. (CT: Seems unlikely that North Korea could have had a workable nuclear device at this time if it had complied with the Agreed Framework.)

m)    In 2006, the Bush administration decided to support India’s nuclear capability, convincing Congress to approve an exemption to the Atomic Energy Act for this deal.  Eight of India’s 22 nuclear sites were intended for military use, according to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800233.html.  I was appalled by Bush’s attitude that the USA can decide who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

n)      More broadly, President Bush turned USA foreign policy on its head by trumpeting our “right” to engage in preemptive war if we feared another country.  This statement particularly upset me as it undermined the USA’s valuable historical position of favoring world peace.  Once trust is lost, it is hard to regain.  Prior to the Bush administration, I had never observed the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower had warned us.  Bush’s military-industrial hawks scared me greatly.  Please note that this paragraph does not denigrate the threat of a pre-emptive surgical strike against a nuclear weapons site; I am criticizing Bush for justifying general aggression based on fear.

o)      Republicans repeatedly criticized the Agreed Framework as an appeasement to North Korea.  In doing so, they inadvertently underscored the ability of other countries to blackmail us by developing nuclear weapons.

p)      As noted above, President Obama negotiated what I believe to be a weak agreement with Iran.  Although I did not like his agreement, I concluded that I would have voted for it reluctantly, had I been in Congress, because our Presidents need to have negotiating authority.  If not, other countries will never want to negotiate with our administrations.  See my September 2015 blog.

Diplomacy is a great tactic.  But as Teddy Roosevelt said “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”  It is NOT good diplomacy to incentivize countries to create nuclear weapons.

If we want to avoid nuclear proliferation (which is something we SHOULD want to avoid), there have to be strong negative consequences for a country that develops nuclear weapons.  If strong consequences are assured, we can minimize the number of occurrences.  Diplomacy would also be more effective and could be accomplished (not necessarily in all cases) by avoiding the negative consequences rather than giving incentives.

What could we do?

a)      We could make peaceful nuclear process scientific information readily available.

b)      We could create strong sanctions.  (Note: it is not clear that we could create strong sanctions in every case.  It would be important to have an international agreement in advance that stipulated the strong sanctions and committed all signatories to obey the sanctions, with another set of prescribed sanctions applying to countries which undercut such a sanction.)

c)      We could apply surgical strikes to destroy budding nuclear facilities.  There are great risks in a situation in which one country has unilateral capability to do unilateral strikes of such type.  Many USA citizens are blind to some of the risk because they think we are always right.  Even if we were always right (which I don’t accept), if we were a unilateral international policeman, we would stimulate terrorist attacks against us.  Therefore, it would make sense to consider an international approach.

I don’t know the right answer and the right answer may shift from one situation to another.  However, I fear that we negotiate with a short-term view, inadvertently increasing the risk significantly.

How to Deal Monuments to Robert E. Lee and more generally

The Charlottesville murder and injuries are clearly totally unacceptable and should be strongly criticized by all of us.

The Charlottesville violence makes my commentary about renaming or destroying monuments, buildings, etc. more important, albeit probably much more controversial than it otherwise would have been.  It seems odd to seem to be on the side of white supremacists, but my reasons for my belief likely differ from theirs.  Of course, no matter how strongly I might disagree with someone on some issues, there are other issues on which we likely can agree.

One of Yale’s residential colleges was named “Calhoun College” in honor of Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina.  While at Yale, I visited Calhoun College frequently because a close friend lived there for three years.  Also, my wife (Tina) spent a week at Yale as part of an experiment in having females residing on campus the year before Yale went co-ed.  She resided in Calhoun College.

There were protests against the name of Calhoun College for several years.  I was not inclined to agree with the demands that the college be renamed.  When Yale signaled that it might rename the college, my first reaction was that Yale was caving in to student protestors instead of fulfilling its obligation to educate them.

Yale created a committee to establish principles to apply when a question of renaming a building arose (Report of the Committee Regarding Principles of Renaming) and another committee to apply those principles to the Calhoun College issue (Recommendation to Rename Calhoun College).

After reviewing those papers (which I recommend that you read at the above links), I concluded that Yale had given careful thought to the issue, created a valuable process/paper and had applied those principles appropriately in renaming Calhoun College to Grace Murray Hopper College, in honor of an eminent mathematician who led efforts to develop the first computer compiler language and later was “the person most responsible for the success of COBOL during the 1960s”, according to her biographer, Kurt Beyer[i].  She taught 10 years at Vassar (where she earned her BS degree in math and physics in 1928), before joining the Navy in WWII.  She eventually became a rear admiral.  Ms. Hopper received a master’s degree (1930) and a Ph.D. (1934) in mathematics from Yale.

With that background, I’d like to address the specific issue of monuments, schools, stamps and other tributes to Robert E. Lee.  Please note that my comments are specific to Robert E. Lee and do not extend to Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson or others in the Confederacy, nor to the Confederacy as a whole or its flag.

As explained more fully below, I believe Robert E. Lee was a true USA hero!  Lee gave very serious thought to his actions and made decisions based on carefully-pondered moral principles rather than his personal advantage.   He was a very reluctant secessionist and was the face of reconciliation after the war. Honoring Robert E. Lee is in our nation’s interest, as we would benefit greatly if more people mimicked his behavior.  My respect for Lee is independent of his decision; it is tied to his integrity in making his decision.  Who are we to question his decision made after deep, excruciating introspection? 

To me, Lee’s principal legacy is the importance of basing decisions on principles of honor, duty and integrity.   We have a dire need for people to make decisions based on such principles today.

Furthermore, honoring Robert E. Lee provides a remembrance that there were good people on both sides of the Civil War (as in other wars).  That thought-provoking benefit should not be expunged lightly.  We need to respect people with whom we disagree and to find areas of agreement.

I am distressed when I hear people describe Lee as a “traitor”.  Loyalty was a core value of his.  If a child’s parents divorce and the child is required to choose which parent with whom to live, is the child necessarily acting in a traitorous fashion to the parent the child does not choose?

Supporting diversity involves appreciating the uniqueness of every individual and trying to understand and respect their thought processes.  Tarnishing Lee solely because he was a part of the Confederacy is a violation of the fundamental principles of fairness and diversity.

In accordance with Yale’s guidelines, it would be easy to create plaques explaining why we honor Lee.  Doing so would have significant educational advantages, as well as dissolving some people's concerns about Lee statues.  Public input as to wording could be solicited and considered by a committee appointed to draft such wording.  The Charlottesville mayor (who is African-American) made an excellent suggestion along these lines.

If desired, a Robert E. Lee statue could be replaced with a statue in which he is not in military uniform. 

One of Yale’s principles is to try to judge the individual through the lenses available at the time of his/her life, rather than applying revisionist history.

During Lee’s life, people rarely traveled far from the place of their birth.  Local and state loyalties were predominant, which is very different from today’s transient habits and loyalties.

Lee was highly-respected in his lifetime, even by Northerners during and following the war.  Despite having no need to do so, Ulysses Grant invited Lee to visit him in the White House during Grant’s presidency.  Do we know better than Lee’s contemporaries?  In some cases, we might because more evidence may have developed over time than was known at that time.  But in Lee’s case, I don’t think damning evidence has been discovered since his death.

If he was a scoundrel, why did West Point name a barracks after him?  Why did the Army build Fort Lee?  Why did the Navy name a ballistic missile submarine in his honor?  Why did the US government mint several stamps in his honor?  Why did Teddy Roosevelt extol him?  If the statues are to be destroyed these other “honors” should also probably be removed and a lot of schools, roads and counties should be renamed.

To me, it seems unfair to accuse Lee of wrong- doing for choosing to defend his state, life-long friends, neighbors and family, rather than to bear arms against them.

Although he felt the North had acted improperly toward the South historically, Lee wrote that he “would defend any state” and “can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union” and that he was “willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.” 

“The Union vs. Virginia” presented him an impossible choice, leading him to state “I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia.”   

He wrote “If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?” 

Remaining in the Union’s army seems as though it would have been the easier and more profitable decision for him, but he opted for honor.  Envision a future world run by the United Nations.  In such a world, any action against another country might be perceived to be wrong, because all issues should be resolved by the UN.  In that world, razing a statue of Winston Churchill (because Churchill declared war on Hitler) would seem similar to razing a statue of Robert E. Lee because people today don’t think he should have favored his state over the Union. 

Lee played the role of a general, not of a politician.  When the South lost, he resisted suggestions that guerilla resistance continue.  He supported reconciliation, rejoiced that slavery was ended and chastised other Southerners who complained about the post-war situation.  

Lee had contributed significantly to the USA  before the Civil War (in the Mexican War and as Superintendent of the US Military Academy) and he contributed to it significantly afterwards (as a well-recognized advocate of reconciliation and as president of Washington and Lee University, where he was revered, apparently by all, including minority students, from 1865 to his death.)

In 1856, 6 years before the war started, Lee wrote to his wife “slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country”.  But he also felt that slavery was better for African-Americans than their lives in Africa. 

While a Confederate general, Lee supported his wife’s and daughter’s illegal school for slaves on their property.  He stated that education was important before freedom and voting rights could be granted and that education of African-Americans was beneficial for both races.  So although he felt slavery was better for African-Americans than their lives in Africa, he supported educating African-Americans to improve their lives (and to help everyone).

Lee’s father-in-law left him slaves, decreeing that they should be freed within 5 years.  Lee tried to rehabilitate his father-in-law’s debt-ridden estate but found it difficult, partly because the slaves had understood that they would be freed immediately, hence resisted his rule.  He had escaped slaves whipped.  But he freed the slaves after 5 years. 

He supported his wife’s and mother-in-law’s efforts to liberate slaves and send them to Liberia.

He suggested inviting slaves into the Confederate Army with a chance at freedom in return for meritorious service.  However, he allowed his army to capture free slaves, then arrange for them to be sold back into slavery.

Despite my strong respect for Lee, clearly there is room for criticism of Lee, through contemporary lenses and particularly through modern lenses.  Lee was a complex man but he seems to have consistently worked hard to live up to his moral code and should be respected and honored for doing so.  (As a young man, he went through West Point with no demerits, which underscores that he was a disciplined man of principle even at a young age.)

Destroying Lee statues is a slippery slope.  When one statue is censored/razed, the barrier to the next statue, book, movie, school name, stamp, etc., is diluted. 

I think it is clear Lee’s decision to side with Virginia did not reflect a desire to protect slavery.  Destroying commemorations of Lee is a slippery slope not only relative to Washington, Jefferson and others who owned slaves but also to many other people we honor.  No one is perfect; we can find reasons to justify destroying any monument --- and people will create such arguments if we encourage them to do so.

Ironically, Lee might support destroying the monuments honoring him or removing the Confederate markings.  In 1869, he refused to participate in a commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg, writing "I think it wiser ... not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."  I would cite this as further proof that we should honor Lee as a statesman with tremendous integrity.

I think we have more important issues to discuss as a country than tearing down existing monuments.  These debates detract by taking time, media space and fracturing our population.  Defendants of Lee view statue destruction as an example of one part of the population trying to impose its views on another part of the community. 

If we are going to engage in such discussions, at least we should engage in orderly discussion based on principles similar to those enunciated by Yale.  Such orderly thought is critical to avoid the slippery slope mentioned above.  We should act with integrity and fairness rather than venom.

---

[i] https://news.yale.edu/2017/02/10/grace-murray-hopper-1906-1992-legacy-innovation-and-service

Donald J. Trump's meeting with Russian Attorney

Although some Democrats are, as usual, overstating the situation¹, Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with the lady who was described as a Russian government attorney (in two separate emails and described as a “Russian attorney” in a third) IS unquestionably a BIG deal for me because of the administration’s repeated statements about the Russians.

The bold, underlined commentary below conveys my significant concerns.  I can imagine explanations for the other comments; they simply add some more questions.

Junior believed he was meeting with a Russian representative and was told that this was part of a Russian campaign to help his father against Hillary Clinton.

Initial text: “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.”

Junior says he is being completely transparent but has released no communications that he had with Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner regarding the situation.

He explains that the campaign was thinly-staffed so he met directly with this attorney.  If the campaign was thinly-staffed, why was he accompanied by the campaign manager and Kushner?  Furthermore, Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s attorney, says that campaign staff had dozens of meetings each day.  Why was it so easy to exchange texts and schedule a meeting with three top campaign staff with short-notice changes, unless this was perceived to be important?

Junior repeatedly says (at least three times in one TV interview with Sean Hannity) that the meeting was a courtesy to Rob Goldstone.  In the same interview, he then said the same thing another way (he “did it for an acquaintance and a friend”).  If it was a courtesy, why did Manafort and Kushner also attend?  Why did he write “I love it”?  Why did he respond within 17 minutes and suggest a call “first thing next week” on a Friday?  Why, on Monday, did he write “Rob could we speak right now?”  Why did he respond with his cell phone number in one minute?  Why was he able to confirm both Manafort’s and Kushner’s availability in 55 minutes?  Why does he agree that he “pressed” the lady for the information she was supposedly holding?  Why did he twice thank Rob for his help in setting this meeting up?  I don’t use the term “lie” easily², but this “courtesy” statement is a “lie” in my opinion.

Obviously, Junior, Manafort and Kushner thought this was going to be an important meeting.  Junior wrote “I love it especially later this summer”.  The “later this summer” wording seems to suggest when he thought valuable “dirt” might best be released.  It did not suggest that he was happy to wait “until later this summer” to learn the details, as he suggested having the call on the next week-day.  It seems surprising that none of the three of them told the candidate, who is a control freak, about this meeting.  I wrote the previous sentence before learning that the candidate then suggested, in a speech, that he would make a major speech about Clinton issues (which speech he apparently did not make).

Although the meeting had no valuable information, it is surprising that it did not occur to them to report the meeting, at least after the fact, to the Republican National Committee or someone else.  

I understood Junior to tell Hannity something similar to lots of people send emails like that during a campaign, but no others have been cited and he told Hannity later that there were no others.

Junior stresses that this happened before there was a hullabaloo regarding possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.  That’s another embarrassing comment, not just for Junior to make but for others to repeat.  Does it change the nature of his interaction?  If “collusion” occurred (which is still unproven --see definition at the end of this blog), you would not expect people to raise a hullabaloo about it BEFORE it occurred.  The big issue is that this meeting was not brought to light in response to the hullabaloo.

President Trump has been questioning whether Russia is responsible for the DNC email hack and whether Russia meddled in the election.  Meanwhile, Junior (and likely Kushner and Manafort) were sitting on statements that Russia was actively trying to help his father. 

Clearly, during the hullabaloo, Junior should have told his father that he had some reason to believe that the Russians might have been meddling, even if he thought it was unreliable.  If Junior did tell the President, then the President has been involved in a cover-up and has been dishonest.  That’s a big deal!  Often, the cover-up is far worse than the information being hidden, as seems to be the case here.

If Junior did not tell the President, then he is an extremely unreliable, irresponsible person.  Unlike Jimmy Carter’s brother, Junior is highly-regarded and praised by his father.  His father entrusts him with a lot of responsibility and continues to praise him.

Attorney Sekulow says variously that the President did not see Junior’s previous statement before it was made and that he did not see the emails before they were made public.  If either is the case, I think Junior is hearing “You’re fired!” wording behind closed doors, rather than the public praise the President is giving him.

Assume this information had not come to light and the Special Prosecutor cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with the Russians.  The Russians could then have released this information at any time in the future.  Conceivably it could have been used to blackmail the Trump administration.  But, at a minimum, it could have been released to distract our media and leadership at a time when it was beneficial to Russia to do so.  That's a big deal!

Curious: I wonder what Rob Goldstone meant by “I believe you are aware of the meeting”?  Why did he email that he would send the names later, but not do so?  Why did Rob write “won’t sit in on the meeting”, but then apparently sit in (as he apologized when it ended)?  I have not reviewed previous statements by Junior, Manafort and Kushner about meetings with Russians; clearly it would be worth doing so.  Fortunately, we have a Special Counsel to do so.

Sean Hannity and others are criticizing the media for not reporting and focusing on issues related to Democrats.  Some of those criticisms are valid³, but they do not change my belief that THIS is a big deal!

As is usual (and probably substantiates my position), I think readers from both sides of the political spectrum will object to some of my comments above or foot-notes below.  I remind those who challenge my criticism of the Trump team above to focus on the bold, underlined statements.

Footnotes:

¹ Tim Kaine calls this meeting “treason”.  Many Democrats call it “collusion”.  The Kansas City Star writes today “For months on end, we’ve been hearing about Russian attempts to boost Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign” (as though new revelations about that have been coming out regularly) and writes “If this is not collusion, then we don’t know what that word means.” (a strange confession for a journalist to admit that they don’t know what “collusion” means.  Please see the definition below).

² For example, I described President Obama’s “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” statement as being deceptive rather than a lie, because PPACA allowed you to keep your doctor, but only until the government had an opportunity to force you into its program.  In case you don’t remember, any change to a health care program, even increasing deductibles to reflect inflation or decreasing deductibles to make it more attractive, resulted in having to come into compliance with the PPACA.

³ Consider the following quote from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/22/barack-obama/obama-romney-called-russia-our-top-geopolitical-fo/)

In March 2012, at a summit meeting in South Korea, Obama was caught in a “hot mic” incident.  Without realizing he could be overheard, Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more ability to negotiate with the Russians about missile defense after the November election.  “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama was heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian President Putin.

At the time, the Republicans tried to use this against President Obama.  I don’t remember them being very successful with it, nor a supportive media challenging his “collusion”.  Yet President Obama initiated this discussion, asking the Russians for a favor to help him in his campaign.  Today’s liberal media would refer to that as having requested valuable compensation from Russia.

Definition of Collusion (from Wikipedia): Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.

Other definitions will differ somewhat.  But there was no agreement here.  Had there been "dirt", the source might have been made public (hence not secretive).  There is no evidence that any deception was intended or that anyone would be deprived of their rights.  The clearest potential situation relative to collusion appears to be fake news, but I am not aware of any evidence that there was such collusion.