Credible Threat of Force

Diplomacy is toothless without the credible threat of force.  In the Korean Peninsula, the North Koreans have used a credible threat of force to milk concessions out of its neighbors and the United States for decades.  The provocations are plentiful: nuclear detonations, missiles fired into the Sea of Japan, capture of the USS Pueblo, shelling of South Korean islands, sinking South Korean ship, and so on.  Each of these were acts of war but no one really wanted to restart the Korean War.  It has long been easier to just pay the 'ransom' and kick that can down the road.

Trump has decided to try another tactic.  First, he has countered with a credible threat of force.  In the wake of his Syrian attack, his credibility on red lines is much stronger than his predecessor.  Moreover, Trump is using Taiwan as a means of pressuring China to in turn pressure North Korea.  Without Chinese support, North Korea would be in dire straits.  Secretary of State Tillerson has noted that nothing is off the table, including making Japan and South Korea nuclear powers.  The stakes have been raised.

 

By leaving the war card on the table, Trump has a better bargaining position than his multiple predecessors.  Yes, it is brinksmanship but the appeasement strategy has only made North Korea more dangerous.  Is the North Korean regime rational?  War is suicide.  However, Trump is unlikely to initiate a war but might jump at a provocation, like he did with the gas attack in Syria.

 

Amazingly, I am reminded of an episode of Star Trek: A Taste of Armageddon.  In the episode, the warring people of two planets had done away with most of the destructive and uncivilized aspects of war, making it fairly tolerable.  The only issue was that some citizens had to report to disintegration booths if they were selected as a casualty.  Kirk destroyed the computer that simulated the war and now real bombs would have to drop.  Real consequences are on the table and real negotiations may occur.

 

If Trump's efforts here follow the pattern of all previous presidents, North Korea will get some sort of pay off while offering empty and unenforceable promises to stop nuclear development and the can will be kicked further down the road.  However, that could be preferable to a regional war that may see a nuclear attack by a desperate North Korean regime.  Of course, use of a nuke assures the total annihilation of the North Korean regime.

Airline Hell?

Ever since the man was dragged off the plane, there has been an uptick in stories about how bad the airlines are.  What does this mean?  I see two likely scenarios:

One: Airlines have become terrible recently.  Not that airlines have been great, but for some reason they have descended to a less tolerable level of customer service.  The news media has recognized this and is giving exactly the amount of coverage that it merits.

Two: The dragging story was a ratings winner and the media are currently in a feeding frenzy for more stories that reflect badly on the airlines.  Thus, though the level of service is no different from what it has been, the added attention is highlighting what wasn't considered newsworthy before the dragging.

 

My vote is for scenario 2.  More than a million people fly each day and it is a virtual certainty that a few of those people had a bad or even disastrous experience.  Right now, those 1 in a million stories are getting front page treatment and painting the airlines as villains.  The airlines are cruel capitalists who don't care about their customers and the proof is that they do not achieve a 100% satisfaction rating.

 

The dragged passenger has settled with United, as all knew he would.  This should be a lesson:  Never go willingly, make them drag you and there is a payday in your near future.

Shutdown Showdown

There is yet another threat of a government shutdown and the Republicans are quaking in their boots.  They have spent years promising to cave on every last principle they supposedly hold rather than let nonessential portions of the government close up shop.  This constant spinelessness is why the tactic is repeated, year after year.  The Democrats can stand on their principle - no funding for the border wall - and be hailed as heroes.  Is it any wonder that this broken record is put on the turntable so regularly?  Every shutdown in the last 20 plus years has benefited the Democrats, either as propaganda or electoral advantage.

 

Trump suggested that he might be okay with delaying the funding for the wall until the budget fight rather than this continuing resolution.  Such only encourages the Democrats to press on with the threat of a shutdown.  Amazing how the shutdown will be triggered by the Democrats but blamed on the Republicans and Trump.  It is great when the media is on your side.  Trump would be best served to let the government shutdown.  Most of the people who are sent home are members of the 'resistance' to his presidency anyway.  Besides, the best time to be unpopular is when it isn't an election year.  Pin the shutdown on the Democrats intransigence over a comparatively tiny sum of money and this shutdown tactic might get shelved.  If Trump let's it slide now, the shutdown will just be rescheduled for September.

The Art of the Deal

In 1987, Donald Trump's book, The Art of the Deal, was published.  Thirty years later, I decided it was time to read it.  Mostly, it is Trump expounding on his various high profile deals.  There are chapters on the Grand Hotel, Trump Tower, Atlantic City casinos, his involvement in the USFL, and the story of Wollman Ice Rink in Central Park.  It is surprisingly readable and offers excellent insight into Trump's way of thinking.

In chapter 2, Trump outlines The Elements of the Deal:

Think Big: "If you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big."  He offers the view that most people think small and thus leave a lot of room for big thinkers to dominate.  No one would accuse Trump of not thinking big.

Protect the Downside and the Upside Will Take Care of Itself: "If you plan for the worst - if you can live with the worst - the good will always take care of itself."  Make sure the worst that can happen will be doable, then anything above that is all good.

Maximize Your Options: "I always keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no mater how promising they seem at first."  He proposes having a variety of pathways to success.  Many of the deals he details would still have been profitable even if he had to just sell the land or rights to someone else.

Know Your Market: "Some people have a sense of the market and some people don't."  Trump proposes this is an instinct and some just happen to have it.  He's not a fan of number crunchers and focus groups.  He holds critics in low regards as they would likely be failures trying to produce the thing they review (e.g. film critics would likely make lousy films).

Use Your Leverage: "The worse thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it.  That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead."  It is always good to have something that the person on the other side of the table wants, or needs.  If you don't have that, spin a story that makes it seem you do.  Salesmanship and imagination are key.

 

Enhance Your Location: "Just as you can create leverage, you can enhance a location, through promotion and psychology."  Trump loves the superlative (I find superlatives to be synonymous with hyperbole with the possible exception of gold medal winning athletes and the like and generally avoid using them.  Trump does not share my views on that) and is constantly saying how this person is the best, that deal was the worst, or this is the greatest.  Such liberal use of extremes has an impact.

 

Get the Word Out: "You can have the most wonderful product in the world, but if people don't know about it, it's not going to be worth much."  Here Trump notes that the press is always eager for a good story and sensational ones are better.  He notes that even a critical story that could be personally hurtful can nonetheless be good for business.  He argues to be straight with the press but always frame things in the best possible light, which sounds like a contradiction.  Never be defensive.

 

Fight Back: "But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard."  In this, Trump is very different from typical Republicans.  Where George W. Bush ignored every attack or criticism against him, Trump lets none escape his ire, even when it makes the situation worse to do so.  This is probably one of the greatest selling points for Trump since he entered politics.  The Republican base is used to candidates who shrug indifferently when attacked whereas Trump breaks out the dueling pistols.  Fighting is a novelty among Republicans.

 

Deliver the Goods: "You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotions and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole.  But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."  This very point is what killed the rest of the Republican field in the primaries.  Republicans made big promises over the last 8 years and never delivered the goods.  The people caught on and decided to try something different.  Of course, Trump promised tax cuts and Obamacare repeal and hasn't yet delivered the goods.  Hmm.

 

Contain the Costs: "I believe in spending what you have to.  But I also believe in not spending more than you should."  Trump offers a story in which he reduced the number of door hinges by 1 per door.  Considering how many doors were in the building, it saved $20 thousand.

 

Have Fun: "If you ask me exactly what the deals I'm about to describe all add up to in the end, I'm not sure I have a very good answer.  Except that I've had a very good time making them."

Each of these elements regularly appear in the rest of the book.  I found it particularly humorous how every plot of land he had was the best plot of land imaginable.  When in competition with another developer, he offered vast praise for his plan and crapped all over his competitor's plan.  So many aspects of last year's campaigns were explained in the book.  Trump's hyperbole and habit of demeaning his opponents shows up repeatedly in the book.  The end results speak volumes.

It is an easy read and often very entertaining.  Trump's repeatedly overcoming the bureaucracy of New York City made me laugh.  Definitely worth reading to gain insight on President Trump's way of doing things.  Every member of Congress should read this book, whether an ally or an opponent of the president.

 

Welfare Scientists

Scientists are marching on Earth Day to, among other things, protest "proposed U.S. government budget cuts under President Donald Trump."  The US government is $20 trillion in debt; cuts need to be made.  Scientists are also troubled by "attacks on science."  Modern 'science' frequently deserves to be challenged.  The Replication Crisis entirely justifies the falling status of science in the public mind.  The pressure to publish or perish has led to a lot of junk getting published.

 

Generally speaking, government should get out of funding science.  If citizens are unwilling to fund research voluntarily, why should the government coerce them to do so through their tax dollars?  Let them do crowdfunding.  Perhaps scientists could sell shares in the eventual profits to be earned from the research.  When scientists want money from government, I always think on a particular scene from Ghostbusters:

 

Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've WORKED in the private sector. They expect *results*.

Dr. Raymond Stantz

 

You're scientists.  It is beneath you to be marching for handouts.

Gaia Day

In 1798, Thomas Malthus proposed that population growth would eventually outpace agricultural production and result in famine.  At the time he proposed this, the population of the world was around 1 billion people.  Today, the population is in excess of 7 billion.

 

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb in which he warned that mass starvation was just around the corner on account of overpopulation.  At the time, the world population was around 3.5 billion.  In 1990, he wrote a sequel called The Population Explosion in which he called for controls on population.  At the time, the world population was just over 5 billion.  In 1994, he offered an ideal population of the earth, targeting between 1.5 and 2 billion people.  Of course, the population was nearly 6 billion by then.

 

On this day in 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated.  Mother Earth was in trouble because of the pollution of mankind.  Prophecies of doom were provided.  Some of the most extreme can be found here.  Mass starvation and an ice age caused by polluting smoke stacks were inevitable by the 1980s.  The soil would become incapable of growing anything, the sky would darken to where only half as much sunlight could filter through, and humanity might be at risk of extinction.  These apocalyptic predictions are laughable today but somehow don't reflect negatively on the equally apocalyptic modern claims.

 

When Apocalypticism is espoused by religious cranks like Harold Camping or ancient Central American calendars, the claims are viewed with appropriate skepticism.  When 'scientists' make such claims, skepticism is suddenly painted as denial.  Despite having predictions of doom proved wrong time and again, the Earth Day Religion is still treated with more respect than its apocalyptic cousins.

Paris Shooting

A 'gunman' killed a Parisian policeman before he himself was killed.  Despite having read three stories on the subject, I could not discover the name of the gunman.  Why is that?  Ever notice how every time a guy named Muhammad kills a bunch of people while screaming Allahu Akbar, that should not be taken to reflect ill on Islam but when a guy is dragged off a United Airlines flight, it is clearly because Trump is president.  Really?  This is the 6th 'terrorist' attack in Paris in the last 3 years.  If Le Pen wins in the upcoming election, this will certainly be a factor.