Guns Guns Guns. Mom and Pop Market. Jobs and Jobs. Youth Homeless. Celebrity Gossip. Nukes. The Dutch. The Chinese. And More Trump.

MOST of the items below are my reaction/comments to daily or weekly news. Some are two years ago or so. Hence many need some updating. Some entries are "old" but still significant, I believe, in relation to current news or issues. But if you have questions, I can try to respond. Thanks!

WE need to scoot out of this sickening/boring and extremely divisive partisan thinking and blaming partyline tenets as the culprit for whatever ails society. This government is still bipartisan. For example, not all GOPs are pro gun or anti gun regulation. Let me quote an openly-anti Trump or pro Democrats publication, Rolling Stone: "Republican presidents from Richard Nixon – who wanted a federal ban on handguns – to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush all voiced support for gun control. George H.W. Bush was so furious at the National Rifle Association's extremism that he renounced his lifetime membership during his term in the White House." 

          
          Also there are Democrats who are against gun control, like Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) I would appreciate it as well if discussion goes beyond rant and accusations, and instead let us cite historical facts and what do we think about them (than links). Then we can have a fine conversation. Lest dogmatic partisans (sic!) forget, look back. Andrew Jackson, Democrat, ushered Indian Removal. Abraham Lincoln, Republican, authored Emancipation. Richard Nixon, signed EPA. Etc etcetera. When people simply spit out anti partyline or anti president, tendency is they don't really know what they're ranting about. Google it. It's easy. And read. Quit the Russian links, please. 

NEWS. "Who Wants to Run That Mom-and-Pop Market? Almost No One." Across the country, old-fashioned grocery stores are among the most endangered of small-town businesses. This runs in consonance with people's unswerving romance with "healthy" albeit transported foods, of course. "Better" health-conscious groceries, that are owned by the big guys, snuff out the mom and pop store or farmers' market although most local produce/products also abide by organic (farming) principles. And then when your neighborhood deli or vegetable stand lose profit, which they are bound to anyhow, here comes the smiley rep of the 1 Percent with a sweet offer. Mergers and/or buyouts. That's how things are. 

NEWS. "SpaceX Is Now One of the World's Most Valuable Privately Held Companies." Elon Musks's rocket company raised $350 million in new financing, raising its valuation to about $21 billion. Whoa! The rich are really investing in more technology. Apple Inc. and Volkswagen's individual fiscal year R&D bankrolls are higher than the annual budget of Trinidad and Tobago, and other smaller countries. According to UN, 805 million people go to bed hungry each night. Figure that one out. Feed them electronics?

NEWS. "Linking Public Works to Local Hiring Faces a Trump Challenge." The administration is reviewing an Obama initiative allowing cities and states to force infrastructure projects to give preference to their residents. I get it. Maybe some cities/states do honor such an initiative. But in Asheville? I don't know. There's a construction boom alright in my home-city. Like hey 3 or 4 buildings in town being erected, nonstop, on rotation. Not including subdivisions. But who mostly work on those infrastructures or projects? I read in local papers that most contracts (from outside outfits) also bring in their workers. Meaning, non-locals. I am not talking Obama or Trump administration. I am talking about it's always been that way since I got back from Los Angeles in 2009.

NEWS. "When Foreign Companies Are Making, Not Killing, U.S. Jobs." The Chattanooga region has become a magnet for investment from overseas, helping drive Tennessee's unemployment to a record low. In Chattanooga and the surrounding region more than two dozen companies from 20 countries have set up shop, generating billions of dollars in investment, employing thousands of workers and helping drive Tennessee’s jobless rate to 3.6 percent in June, a record low for the state. 

          But political and business leaders here in Hamilton County, a conservative stronghold where Trump won a majority of the votes, worry that the president’s attacks on trading partners and exhortations to “Buy American” could set off a protectionist spiral of tariffs and import restrictions, hurting consumers and workers. BTW the #1 foreign employer in Tennessee is not the Chinese. Nope. It's the Japanese, with 185 firms, employing 50,900 this year. China isn't even in the top 10. Number 2 is Germany. Meantime, Tennessee leads the nation in the number of workers employed by a foreign-based company, with 136,000.

NEWS. "Political Donors Put Their Money Where the Memes Are." Funding is flowing into social media, where partisan organizations are specializing in creating viral messages to reach voters. Did you just share a meme? Someone that I know who's based in Napa Valley earns loads of dough working on these meme etc contracts in his basement. Doesn't matter if it's Democrats, GOP, or whatever. As he says, "I don't give a f*** about politics. But this work pays good!" Oh well. That is why I am so poor, I guess. 

NEWS. "Questions Emerge Over What Wisconsin Must Give for Foxconn Plant." Critics raise doubts over state subsidies and loosened environmental rules for the plant, but Gov. Scott Walker says thousands of new jobs outweigh the costs. There you go. A very gut issue that mattered a lot in the last elections. A new liberal/progressive stand on how the world should be as per climate change against a conservative working class position of how's life right here right now in front of a measly dinner table. Both have compelling points. Yet the heart of the matter was: How to translate those into votes.

          Foxconn invests $10 billion to build a plant in Wisconsin. That'd be an equivalent of at least 3,000 jobs. Wisconsin initially dangled a lavish come-on worth $3 billion in tax subsidies to the Taiwan-based electronics contract manufacturing company. Foxconn Technology Group (a.k.a. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.) is the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer, and the largest private employer in China where 12 of the its largest plants are located. Look back in history, 2001, when China entered WTO. Guangzhou and other provinces promised the same (and much more) to US companies. How the world tilts, isn't it? 

NEWS. "1 in 7 New York City Elementary Students Will Be Homeless, Report Says." A new report details the daunting challenges faced by children and schools as homelessness increases in New York City. Meantime, North Carolina has one the highest percentages in the United States of children under 18 years of age who are food insecure on a regular basis. Almost 1 in 4 or 24.6 percent. Tell me, what or where your political passion is pointing at?

NEWS. "To Stay Sane, Read More Celebrity Gossip." Enough with the news alerts on North Korea. Give me a Kardashian Twitter war instead. See, I told you New York Times and The Guardian columnists agree with me. Why ruin a day's delicious Homard Etouffee dinner just because the TV remote went to MSNBC or CNN or Fox. Pretty angry people in there. Hey, do you know that Kourtney Kardashian is seeing Che Guevara's long lost great grandson who lives in Macau? Uh huh.

NEWS. "Fiat Chrysler Is at a Crossroads. It's Looking to China for a Solution." Even before one suitor's interest emerged this week, the automaker had been in talks for months on Chinese investments or other deals, officials say. Okay. Let's talk about car business moolah. Do you know that the #1 foreign employer in Tennessee is not the Chinese. Nope. It's the Japanese, with 185 firms, employing 50,900 this year. China isn't even in the top 10. Number 2 is Germany. Meantime, Tennessee leads the nation in the number of workers employed by a foreign-based company, with 136,000. And what business mostly? Automotive. 

NEWS. "America's Risky Nuclear Buildup." It's not just North Korea. Don't mention Iran. Uhh Russia? Washington's plans to upgrade its nuclear arsenal are also contributing to global instability. American nuclear advances threaten to start a new arms race and change the logic of mutually assured destruction, which has undergirded nuclear stability since the 1950s. Washington’s defensive capacity is centered on the deployment of batteries of missile interceptors, most notably the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and the Aegis systems. Pentagon's commitment to missile defense, coupled with an aggressive improvement of offensive capacity, is bound to shake other nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia and China.

NEWS. "Trump Can't Stop Trade With North Korea. But He Does Have Options." With about $650 billion in U.S.-China trade on the line, Washington must tread carefully if it wants to pressure Beijing to take a tougher line on Pyongyang. Why can't we talk peace, compromises and negotiations, and do business instead? I mean, come on! The US got nothing to gain from North Korea except a fondling of macho cowboy ego. Let the Chinese work it out since it's obvious Kim Jong-un needs Beijing. North Korea boasts of a self-reliant (economic) development strategy which assigns top priority to developing heavy industry, with parallel development in agriculture and light industry. 
         But following fall-out with Russia, Pyongyang has found refuge from Chinese help. Beijing's economic assistance to North Korea accounts for about half of all Chinese foreign aid. NK trade with China represents 57 percent of North Korea's imports and 42 percent of its exports. The Chinese control 90 percent of North Korea's trade and as the Times of India recently puts it, "It is in the Chinese government's hands to exercise economic pressure on Kim Jong-un to achieve the diplomatic resolution needed to de-escalate tensions in the region."

NEWS. "With Rupert Murdoch's Help, Tab Media Targets Young and Cheeky on Campus." The youth-oriented media company, which describes itself as "anti-establishment and a little subversive," compiles breaking news from unpaid student writers at 40 American colleges. Connect dots. Unpaid. Millennials. "Anti-establishment and a little subversive." Murdoch. This is how the Future's media is swallowed by the 1 Percent in Present time. And you are still telling me to read links and memes? Commonfreakinsense.

NEWS. "If You Build It, the Dutch Will Pedal." Utrecht, the Netherlands' fastest growing city, is one of the world's most bike-friendly places in one of the world's most bike-friendly countries. You see, things can be worked out. Per city. Per county. Per locality. Bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and public bus system that works 24/7. Yet we focus our protest on generalities and huge terms and universal idealism/s. How are we supposed to take care of global environment's health if we can't or we don't pressure our local City Council to uhh well just google the Dutch example. 

NEWS (you may add updates). "Median U.S. Household Income Up for 2nd Straight Year." Household income rose by 3.2 percent in 2016 as the recovery delivered growing prosperity. Health coverage broadened and poverty declined. Yet economists say bump in incomes doesn't erase 50 years of misery. Recent trends have produced positive statistics, but forces undermining the middle class may reach back farther than many economists have thought. It takes more than your preferred president, including the current one or the ones that were defeated, for the US to return to `50s economic comforts. Says Mark Rank, a professor of social work at Washington University in St. Louis: “Over the past five decades, Middle America has been stagnant in terms of its economic growth." In 1973, the inflation-adjusted median income of those working full time was $54,030. In 2016, it was $51,640 — roughly $2,400 lower. A big chunk of that group formed a critical core of support for Mr. Trump, not really because it was Trump. It was because they spoke of their real economic anxieties felt through the years. Hence they bought into promised changes in trade, immigration and tax policies as a solution/s as they bought in past administrations' campaign rhetoric. 

All About a Prince named Erik

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 1. Who is Erik Prince? Mr Prince is a businessman and former U.S. Navy SEAL officer best known for founding the government services and security company Blackwater USA, now known as Academi. He is the brother of you should know who but let's focus on Mr Prince. Loads of political trajectories are pointed at Mr Prince amidst his proposal "to privatize the war." This surfaced following President Trump's increasing frustration that his national security team's strategy in Afghanistan isn't working. 

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 2. Let's define "privatize," verb, transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control. That'd mean the government ceases to be the owner of the entity or business. The process in which a publicly-traded company is taken over by a few people is also called privatization. Meantime, if the US government spends for war or whatever we call military presence somewhere, that'd fall under Defense budget, which is essentially taxpayers money. Question: If the government's military spending is privatized, where'd we course what'd could be saved from the huge Defense budget? (I will discuss that later.) 

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 3. As they entered White House, Donald Trump proposed $639.1 billion Defense budget; Obama, $523.9 billion. Trump's tenure isn't over yet so we don't what'd be his term's total spending. To give you an idea, in FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54 percent of that fiscal year's discretionary budget. In 2017, President Obama proposed an increase of $2.2 billion over the base budget. So on and so forth. Lots of money, right? 
          I can probably say maybe some money went to the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program, which admitted a record 110,000 refugees in 2016. But FRSP is under the Department of Health. To give you an idea, hosting refugees cost U.S. taxpayers $8.8 billion in five years time, like $70,000+ a year per person. Think about your total annual salary, uh huh. But then government budget juggling is a fact so maybe some of those Defense billions went to refugee resettlement. 

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 4. Back to Mr Prince. His name and Blackwater USA first came up, or Erik kinda noise was comparatively louder, when Trump visited Saudi Arabia on the onset of Donald's presidency. Saudi Arabia, the OPEC stalwart and #1 producer of oil (before Russia rocks it) and most importantly, #1 exporter to the US. Think Aramco, based in Dhahran, which digs up the world's second-largest proven crude oil reserves. Now called Saudi Aramco, it was formerly Arabian-American Oil Company. 

         You may Google "oil in Middle East" and it'd take you to Getty time or far back to 1930s, and you'll read names like Karl Twitchell, Stephen Longrigg, and eventually California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC), which leads to Texas Oil Company, CALTEX, and there we go to eventual marketing network in Africa and Asia. My point: US military is imperative out there. More importantly, Saudi Arabia and US' bilateral agreements have always been dovetailed with "arms etc for oil" since way back when. How'd that happen? I could mention first Communist "interference" in the region but that's not my topic, for now. 

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 5. Now this is the hitch as Trump visited the kingdom. Saudi Arabia has decided to diversify under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Such a trade diversification move is not a Saudi initiative. Rich Qatar has been doing that recently. And it's working. Damn, the Prince has been buying art recently. Not bad, right? Compared with buying arms. 
          Following the reminder of Arab Spring (started 2010), SA has been planning to lessen oil drilling and do other fun and profitable things since they already got the moolah anyways. Like, follow the Chinese example. Remember, Beijing bankers also advised Russian natural gas/oil magnates to diversify upon handing them loan/s. Anyhow, SA has been hinting of low oil production for years. Yes, Yemen and Syria are trouble areas but hey maybe foreign policy's war funding should be focused instead to other things and let private business dudes deal--while Washington blocks a possibility of 1978 oil crisis. We still gotta deal arms since that's what was written. 

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 6. Question: Are private arms dealers new in re government funding of war? No. For starters, let me just point you to these enterprising dudes, Efraim Diveroli and David Packouz, who received a US Army contract to supply munitions for the Afghan National Army worth approximately $300 million more than ten years ago. What makes Erik Prince different from Diveroli and Packouz? Not much. Only, Prince could be official, but those two guys, you may call them, dubious. 
          But then should I point you to history? Arms dealership by major businesses: Dassault Aviation, Sukhoi, Mikoyan, EADS, Leonardo, Thales Group, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman to name a few. What makes Blackwater USA or Academi different from those? You see, once a bomb is dropped or a militia is funded, people out there who get hit aren't talking about who the Pepsi or Coke dropped them. They will point to America or Russia or China or any world power. A government's foreign policy. So why don't we focus on ending the war and instead deal lo meins or organic hummus? By pointing our guns (pun, okay?) at personalities and people, we are negating issues and policies. You may strike Trump or Prince out, but the system stays. As The Who shouts, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... We don't get fooled again!" 

ALL ABOUT a Prince named Erik, 7. Lastly, back to my previous question. If war-shenanigans are privatized, what do we do with whatever is saved from the Defense money? Easy. Fund FEMA or make it a department than just under Homeland Security. Improve veterans health benefits. Etc etcetera. But I am sure or almost sure that lotsa money will be directed towards two major trade routes: South China Sea and Strait of Hormuz. Washington has somehow silenced Pyongyang and Seoul is now chillin' with bros and sis across the 38th parallel border. But Iran is still you know being a butt. Iran may annex Saudi Arabia in re stewardship of OPEC. That is a concern. But maybe some money will be pitch as major leverage when Washington and Manila sit down for new bilateral summit in re military bases out there. Makes sense. Meantime, I'd rather chuck the Erik Prince talk and just instead talk about the real Prince. You know, "When Doves Cry"? 

THE WORLD THESE DAYS. Geopolitics by way of the US and China, and other role players. Part 2: Strait of Hormuz.

THE WORLD THESE DAYS. South China Sea on that side, and then Strait of Hormuz on this side. Hormuz. a strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is where petroleum/oil from mostly OPEC countries (especially Saudi Arabia) passes to the West. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. On the north coast lies Iran, and on the south coast the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. About 20 percent of the world's petroleum (about 35 percent of the petroleum traded by sea) passes through the strait, making it a highly important strategic location for international trade. The narrow Strait is considered one of the most, if not the most strategic strait of water on the planet. Through its waters, in giant ocean-going tankers, passes much of the oil from Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAR. All those countries post huge headache to Washington. Except Iran. 

         What are other problems? Muslim extremism, especially one emanating from Yemen. Besides that, Saudi Arabia has been threatening slow production/export. Arms for oil has always been Washington's deal with the Kingdom, and although Obama upped Defense budget, it didn't really help. Trump upped Defense budget more but Donald wants to spread it out to the East as well. Why shake it? Syria is still unresolved and we need money for refugees? Meantime, we gotta earn money, too, right? So why deal with OPEC especially that Iran is maneuvering to take leadership from SA? Non-Muslim OPEC nation like Venezuela (3rd exporter to US) is embroiled in shit right now.
          But the real problem these days? Iran. Remember that 2011–12 dispute? The dispute arose on 27 December 2011, when Iranian Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. You may dig in, google google, but you may just look into Washington support for Ba'athist Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War in 2003. The mutual animosity hasn't subsided, sadly. 

         Meantime, how important is a closure of the Strait of Hormuz to the US and its allies (hence gargantuan interests and investments there)? For one, disputes there would inflate oil prices, not only in the west, but in Asian countries such as Japan, India and South Korea. All three countries collectively account for 42 percent of Iranian oil exports (Japan 17 percent, South Korea 9 percent, and India 16 percent). But that's just Iran. What if Saudi Arabia relegates OPEC control to power in Tehran? OPEC crude oil pricing is still controlled by the US but with Iran rising, expect modifications of course. 

SO while Saudi Arabia eases up oil, and an impending "new" OPEC, led by Iran, isn't so friendly with Washington, as Venezuela sinks in internal strife, who to turn to? Canada. Canada has overtaken Saudi Arabia as #1 exporter of oil to the US, at Canada 4.02 million barrels a day (or 40 percent of US' total oil imports). And we don't have to ship via Strait of Hormuz, you just have to pipeline them. Mexico also sends oil to the US, some 7 percent, across the border but that wouldn't last. Nafta, right? Now are Trump and Justin Trudeau cool with each other? You tell me. What about the new Mexican president? Andrés Manuel López Obrador who won half of the nation's votes in a multiparty election? 

         This, while America needs the oversupply. Last year, the United States imported approximately 10.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 84 countries. And it seems it isn't enough. That despite America's huge deposit and production (#3 in the world). Why do we need oil? We consume 20+ percent of global supply, plus if we need to jack up the factories and Trump trillion-dollar infra blueprint, keep the oil coming. What is the missing link? Russia, currently #1 producer of oil. BTW Russia entered WTO in 2012, so it can freely trade with the US and allies. 
         Some say the US is now #1 in oil production. It doesn't really matter. We still need to import till things somehow even up and the dollar regains strength as how it was before China emerged. But then the Liberal mindset will always fight homeland oil drilling since a cool environment is their prime political mantra these days. So where do we go? We will still drive the sedan, hybrid or SUV to score condoms on the next bend and tweet and post 24/7 and binge-watch hours and hours as Vegas Strip and Times Square frolics with electric magic nonstop forever. Don't forget we guzzle up oil the most than any other nation on earth, including the larger ones.  

         Just chill and enjoy. Price of gasoline is still around the US average of $2.40/gallon and unemployment is manageable at 4 percent. It helps to calm down and enjoy our privileged blessings while Raqqa burns in war and Myanmar wades in flood. We can help more of humanity if we take it easy and sustain peace than foment hatred just because we don't like one president's hairdo. Dig.

THE WORLD THESE DAYS. Geopolitics by way of the US and China, and other role players. Part 1: South China Sea.

THE WORLD THESE DAYS. (1) South China Sea. Before Beijing's dragon woke up and realigned pawns et al in geopolitics' chessboard with its mighty economic wok, Washington ruled South China Sea. After 1898's Treaty of Paris or upon defeat of Spanish Armada by America's fleet, the US gained the Philippines and Guam (and Puerto Rico). Then, two years following end of World War II and defeat of Japan's Imperial Army in the region, the US fortified its military investments in the islands (1947) by way of Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base in the Philippines, plus of course military might stacked up in Guam and Japan. Manila and Tokyo thus evolved into Uncle Sam's most obedient allies out in Asia's Pacific shoulders. Then after Korean War (1953), the US earned love from the South. Then the entirety of Vietnam after the war (1975). In those years though, Khaleesi's Beijing dragons were still asleep. But South China Sea was all about America. Let economic summits firm things up. Washington's foreign policy in the East was anchored on "modified protectionism" for a reason. 

(2). CHINA starts to wake up. Year 1989. Tiananmen Square raged. No more of Maoist legacy. Deng Xiao Ping was pressured to modify or redress Beijing's (economic) open door policy, which meant, eradicating the last of Mao's remnants: The Gang of Four. Deng started talking with Washington. In 1993, Bill Clinton launched his “constructive engagement” with China. Talks talks talks. Then in 2000, boom! Clinton signed the U.S.-China Relations Act, granting Beijing permanent normal trade relations with the US and paving the way for China to join the World Trade Organization in 2001. Between 1980 and 2004, U.S.-China trade rises from $5 billion to $231 billion. US exports to US was rockin'! In 2006, China surpasses Mexico as the United States’ second-biggest trade partner, after Canada. Yet when George W. Bush took over, China lowered tariff/taxes (to lure West's 1 Percent), eased environmental standards etc. In no time, as Clinton's liberals hug trees in Yosemite and lobbyists blocked oil drillings in Oklahoma etcetera, US corporate giants moved East. Guangdong, Henan, Guangzhou, Hubei, Jiangsu, Zhejiang etcetera. China's manufacturing kingdom emerges.  

(3). WHILE all these were happening (late-80s to 1990s leading to China WTO in 2001), major upheavals were taking place in the region. The Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos (known Washington benefactor) was ousted. Then in 1992, the Philippine Senate kicked out Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base out of the islands after talks fell in re renegotiation of a treaty signed in 1947. Around that time, the Asian (economic) tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) batted for regional cooperation and codependency versus ages-long reliance with the US and the West. In no time, the Tiger Cubs (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam) followed suit. A threatened West countered and so the currency crash of the `90s, a suspected George Soros machination, stalled the region's march to regional progress. But when China got in WTO in 2001, things changed. 

(4). BEFORE China's membership was approved (2001), the US was already exporting to China which saw trade surplus soared. So Clinton's liberalization brainchild by way of China for the benefit of US economy seemed feasible. Economic growth was around 4 percent annually, and record job creation was high (22.7 million) in his time. But not for long (refer to Item #2.) Fast forward, as China rules the money game by way of its manufacturing clout, it set its sights on South China Sea as it mended relations with Taiwan, and other countries in the region like Vietnam and Indonesia. When Russia pulled out of North Korea, Beijing got in. China's leadership knew they could use Pyongyang as political leverage as Beijing sits with the West, especially with Washington. Then China showered investments all over the region, and stalled animosities among countries (especially Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam) fighting for spot in South China Sea by handing each and everyone money. Japan also stakes some claim in this very important geography but Japan doesn't need moolah with the same urgency that the Philippines and Vietnam do. Besides, Japan is a pacifist nation, in fact Tokyo gives more aid (especially during calamities) to Manila than Washington or Beijing forward their own help.

(5). SOUTH Korea and Singapore got richer, Indonesia finally tapped its oil, Vietnam and the Philippines marched to NIChood from 3rd world status. Etc etcetera. But the US needs to regain hold of the region somehow. It still has military installations in the region (South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and 5 more satellites in the Philippines) and of course trade investments. George W and Obama didn't do much to fix the situation since both presidents actually pushed more exodus of US companies to the region by bailing out banks and bigwigs rendered shot by the Chinese onslaught. Question: What's the deal with South China Sea? Big deal! The sea carries tremendous strategic importance; one-third of the world's shipping passes through it carrying over $3 trillion in trade each year. Other things like oil and gas reserves are believed to lie beneath its seabed.

(6). LET's jump to Taiwan. Taiwan is the headquarters of Foxconn, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer. Taiwanese-owned but six of its largest plants are located in China, plus scattered all over the globe (Brazil, India, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Mexico, Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czech Republic). A $10 billion flat screen TV Foxconn manufacturing plant is up Wisconsin. The US/Taiwan deal vows 13,000 high paying jobs, the largest corporate attraction deal in U.S. history, in terms of pure number of jobs. Some Foxconn's more prominent clients: Acer, Amazon, Apple Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., Cisco, Dell, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Huawei, InFocus, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Sony, Toshiba, Vizio, and Xiaomi. Shipment route: South China Sea. Who rules South China Sea these days? China. Not the US anymore.

          Among other reasons, why was the North Korea/US handshake a must? While NK doesn't have the capability to actually physically rattle the US, it can shake Asia, and yes South China Sea. And America/Europe/global interests from trade to military to people/expats, Pyongyang can do something bad. Enter China. Beijing holds NK by the neck, it's only source of aid following pull-out of Russia in 2006, as Kremlin supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 condemning North Korea's nuclear test/s.

(7). OTHER US bottlenecks in the East. Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyii used to be the model of democracy out there, Nobel Peace Prize, and all. Till she turned her back on Washington. Remember, opium production in Myanmar has historically been a major contributor to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Myanmar is the world's second largest producer of opium after Afghanistan, producing some 25 percent of the world's opium, and forms part of the Golden Triangle. Opium poppy is pharma gold. 
         

Meantime, the Philippines' populist Rodrigo Duterte is a rabid anti-Washington foreign policy dude. Given. And he's got reasons. Although around the time of power transition from ex prez Benigno Aquino Jr to him, Manila offered Washington eight more (military) bases where it can build facilities to store equipment and supplies under a new security deal, amid rising tension with China over the South China Sea that time. But it's either talks with Obama didn't result to any rewriting of the deal, deemed one-sided by the 1991 Senate, or Beijing took over as Duterte sat, and henceforth, took Asean leadership. As I previously noted, the East (Tigers or Tiger Cubs) weren't really cool with overdependence with the West starting the 1990s. Meanwhile, investments from Seoul, Taipei, and Beijing poured in. And don't forget, Mahathir Mohamad, one of Tiger Cubs' masterminds, is back in power. I mean, China dangled a $134 billion investment to Kuala Lumpur as Mahathir sat, so what do you think? 

 

REVIEWS/REACTIONS. Free State of Jones. Fifty Shades Darker. The Founder. Arrival. The Great Wall.

"FREE State of Jones" (2016), written and directed by Gary Ross, stars Matthew McConaughey. Inspired by the life of Newton Knight and his armed revolt against the Confederacy in Jones County, Mississippi, throughout the American Civil War. I read about Newton Knight in college. Since then, I've always been fascinated and intrigued by his story. Problem is, after several readings and interviews with professors and historians, I get mixed opinions or contrary historical account/s of his exploits or "heroism." It seems Americans are divided over his motives and actions. Such controversy has been fueled by widespread opposition among white people to Knight's alliances with slaves during the war, and his postwar marriage to a freed slave. Meantime, his allies or believers developed a small mixed-race community in southeastern Mississippi at a time when inter-racial marriage was considered illegal, except for a period during Reconstruction. After the war, Knight joined the Republican Party and served in Mississippi's Reconstruction government as a deputy US Marshal.

         Fact: Abraham Lincoln (Republican) who authored the Emancipation Proclamation as a presidential proclamation and executive order in 1863 drew support from the antislavery portion of the Whig Party, and combining Free Soil, Liberty, and antislavery Democratic Party members, the new Republican Party formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery. Hence, it is expected that Knight was a Republican. 
         Anyhow, I saw "Free State of Jones" as a voracious student of history more than a film enthusiast. Yet it helps that you read some Newton Knight backgrounder first before you settle down on the couch for this 2 hours and 20 minutes $50 million-budgeted saga. We can't lose with McConaughey as a thespian non pareil, plus there's the always reliable Mahershala Ali (as freed slave Moses), so by virtue of sheer lead acting, this mini epic is not really a boring exercise. Yet I find some of the dialogues kinda dull speeches. Many so I won't mention. I wanted to dig in some flaws in Newt's character but the movie wasn't into that. He was a hero, period. Like you, I wanted to know where the fiction starts and truth ends, and vice versa. But maybe I am over-intellectualizing. As I said, this movie is not a boring thing. More importantly, it makes me dig deeper into the evolution of America's politics. You should as well. Something to think about.

"FIFTY Shades Darker." I don't know what words to fit in a 300-word "review." But I will. While I cook dinner. There will be a "Fifty Shades Freed," by the way. OMG. I don't know what angle or position in bed or non-bed they'd explore next. Nothing new to me. I am 57 years old with dozens of broken valentines not to know, dig? To save yourself the torment of dialogues and soap, cut through the chase and go to pornhub. Or better be, read Anais Nin's "Delta of Venus" or Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying." There's also "The Other Side of Midnight" by Sidney Sheldon, a high school reading shenanigan, that is much better that this E. L. James ersatz. Or try A. N. Roquelaure's (a.k.a. Ann Rice) books. And I mean, read. READ. Don't watch. Reading kickass erotica fires up the imagination and then boom! You know what I mean?

"THE Founder" (2016, via Netflix), directed by John Lee Hancock, stars Michael Keaton. The story of businessman Ray Kroc, and his (re)creation of the McDonald's fast food chain after a cunning "takeover" or buyout of the original San Bernardino, California barbecue store from founders Richard and Maurice McDonald. Dick and Mo McDo built their store in 1940 and 8 years later, reorganized their business as a hamburger stand, using production line principles. Kroc joined the company as a franchise agent in 1955 and subsequently purchased the chain from the brothers, then moved its headquarters in Illinois, Ray's home state. Today, McDonald's is the world's largest restaurant chain, serving approximately 68 million customers daily in 120 countries across approximately 36,900 outlets.

         According to a BBC report published in 2012, McDonald's is the world's second largest private employer (behind Walmart with 1.9 million employees), 1.5 million of whom work for franchises. But of course both giants are widely criticized for alleged wrongdoings in the line of environment, health, and labor. That's not the subject of this post though. The movie's kick is the value of toil. In Croc's words, "Persistence." He didn't inherit the store or franchise compared with the Waltons. He worked his ass off. Studied the plan, reworked it, traveled, faced investors, got turned down and then got up again. Such is the industry wisdom of the olden days when entrepreneurs actually hit the road and talked with people, face to face. 
        The movie is an obligatory bio narrative, nothing big deal. It's Keaton's ferocious grip of the character and hyper insistence that kept the film interesting. And I always love movies that talk about the past. 

"ARRIVAL" (2016), directed by Denis Villeneuve, based on the 1998 short story "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang. Stars Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker. The main intrigue (for me, at least) is Chiang's exploration of language and determinism. Determinism is a doctrine that says all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. It also implies that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. The subject of Determinism is a multi-pronged intellectual provocation hence it was a favorite topic in vacant hour jousts in my college years.

         Chiang (and the movie, of course) navigated that theme via linguist Dr. Louise Banks (Adams), who narrates the story, from the day her daughter is conceived. Addressed to her daughter, the story alternates between recounting the past: the coming of the aliens and the deciphering their language; and remembering the future: what will happen to her unborn daughter as she grows up, and her untimely death.
         It's a pretty esoteric treatise but Villeneuve's deft handling of the material makes the storytelling accessible even subtly suspenseful. At first, it had the ruminative makings of a Terrence Malick bore but the movie kept me focused and wanting more. 

"THE Great Wall" (2016), directed by Zhang Yimou. I knew what's in store for me in this movie yet I still watched it. Just wanted to know how Mr Zhang squandered his huge talent with this $150 million-budgeted CGI ersatz. Who is Zhang and why I dig this dude? He's the director of non-Hollywood classics "Red Sorghum" (1987), "Ju Dou" (1990), "Raise the Red Lantern" (1991), and "To Live" (1994). 

          The lead writer for "The Great Wall" is no joke as well. He is Tony Gilroy, nominated for Academy Awards for his direction and script for "Michael Clayton." He also wrote the screenplays for the first four films of the Bourne series, all great. But don't let this top notch tandem bullshit you. This movie isn't about the Song Dynasty or how two marauding white men showed up looking for "black powder," which could have been a swell plotline, right? Nope! This movie is all about Chinese warriors outfitted like Power Rangers battling antsy monsters who think like slick blow hustlers in Detroit. The white hunk who led the battle royale? Of course that'd be Matt Damon, a kickass archer warrior from Massachusetts. If you like that kinda cinema, go ahead, enjoy. Good for you. For me? At least it was fine while I do other house chores like wash dishes with my hands. 

SOME of the movies above are available on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime.

Russia. China. North Korea. Terrorism. Stuff.

NEWS. "ISIS, Despite Heavy Losses, Still Inspires Global Attacks." The Islamic State's territory-building project is crumbling, but it still has an international reach and an ideology that motivates attackers around the world. I always say, we can pulverize terrorism's camp with "mother of all bombs" and even take down their leadership but until we alter or modify a system that breeds anger and hatred, terrorists will keep on spawning, with or without actual support from ISIS or Islamic State. The Arab Spring was a lesson. And terrorism isn't just confined to Muslims and we know that. Many act and carry out mayhem as self-proclaimed jihadists or Right-wing killers or Extreme Left urban guerrillas and lone wolves by mere internet indoctrination. Hatred peddled, wittingly and unwittingly, on Social Media is today's New Danger.

IT is quite logical that most cellphone users are those people living in giant countries. China, India, United States, Brazil, and Russia are the top 5. Japan, although relatively a small country, at #8 is understandable. It is also the #3 economy in the globe. But what perplexes me? Why people in tiny nations like Bangladesh and the Philippines use cellphones a lot (#10 and #12, respectively). They love gossiping and selfie'ing and tweeting and texting all the time. Uh huh.

DO you know that the most digitally-savvy country in the world is Singapore? Aside from the fact that its government promotes a digital agenda, they pretty much had that coming as they coursed their magnificent march to economic heights beginning at the time of Lee Kuan Yew. Finland and Sweden are number #2 and #3. The US is #5. But that know-how doesn't entirely mean they are the smartest. Or owning the most awesome cellphone or kickass laptop don't make one intelligent; it's how we use these gadgets that make us smart. Although Singaporeans, Finns and Swedes know their electronic technology it doesn't mean they are super reliant on them as do others who use them more. A good balance of technological savvy and primitive reflex is it. Computer overkill makes us zombies; non-adherence to technology makes us cluelessly isolated.

LET's TALK ECONOMICS. What is Trade Liberalization? It is the removal or reduction of restrictions or barriers on the free exchange of goods between nations. This includes the removal or reduction of tariff obstacles, such as duties and surcharges, and nontariff obstacles, such as licensing rules, quotas and other requirements. Such an economic dictum has always been prevalent in practically all regional economic summits, especially those controlled by the 1 Percent in the West (before the advent of the new China post-Mao or from the onset of Western mercantilism via Queen Isabella's galleon trades and/or Marco Polo's Silk Road trips to hang out with Kubla Khan in 1200s).

          How does liberalization, aptly import lib, affect smaller nations prior to World Trade Organization's inception in 1995? Simple. The junk or substandard or "toxic" products that bigger economies rejected were funneled to smaller nations (read Third World) on "friendlier" tariff obstacles, duties and surcharges etc. Homegrown traders, of course, gobbled them up. Consumers eager and fascinated with anything "imported" bought into them. Now since production are spread out all over the world, the evils of import lib has been minimized since why buy a lawnmower or peanut butter that were manufactured/processed homegrown anyway just because there were shipped from Helsinki or Kentucky? Nope. They don't ship them anymore as much as they do MIT educated managers and product/IT designs for production. Hence you do away with higher cost or mark-ups etc etcetera as per supposedly excised taxes and tariffs.

          Good for other countries but not good for America because of heavy imports since WTO's globalization. Your washer dryer costs more because it was made in Juarez, Mexico. Again, why blame other countries? Who invented trade liberation or globalization? What the world should do is sit down and negotiate on the basis of economic equality. We blame China for flood of products on retail, Saudi Arabia for oil pricing, Mexico for deluge of (undocumented) workers, and Russia for everything but not in the same way that we look at ourselves in the mirror.

          For one, by way of globalization, bigger economies allowed other nations (via businesses or other organizations) to develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. Thus member countries, especially China and Russia are now able to compete with the US and Europe. Rest is history. How many huge US companies maintain plants in Mexico for example while Mexico remains as the #4 top exporter of oil to the US, and that's just across the border. Saudi Arabia is boss of OPEC but Aramco, the biggest oil field out there, is owned by US and Britain. Still, American oil magnates control global oil pricing. The Saudis allowed diggings of oil but we gotta supply them arms among other concessions. Russia? Russia is top producer of crude oil but they don't use their oil the way we in the US do. They use their oil as leverage to excise influence globally. China? Okay. I have to stop.

WHY did the United States put its mighty hand on Colombia's "Drug Wars" in the `90s and not in the Philippines' current version? Why President Duterte's anti-Washington girth is so convenient, for now? Okay. Colombia is #1 in coca production (think pharma 1 Percent) and it is, to date, the #4 (or #5) oil exporter to the US. (Forget about how America loves the blow.) The Philippines? There are no poppy fields or oil reserves in the islands. BUT there were two gargantuan US military bases that spelled (military) impregnability to Washington in the region. Need I recount how significant the archipelago was in the Pacific War, Korean War, and Vietnam War? Why Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam evolved into US (or West) allies?

WHY Vladimir Putin is a genius? Russia, which consolidated its massive oil wealth (#1 globally) after USSR, is NOT a member of OPEC. But a member of World Trade Organization (like China). The world's Top Three: United States, China and Russia are not OPEC members yet the US and China control world trade. Kremlin excises power over non-allies (of the West). There is no trade if there is no oil. Why is Canada a power, too? Simple: They can trade but you don't control their oil pricing (#7 producer but non-OPEC member). And why Brazil, Mexico, and Norway are powers in their own right/s? Non-OPEC members but they can compete on the WTO table. North Korea? They don't care. They don't need Netflix or Walmarts. (And their iPhones come from kin Seoul or bro Guangzhou. Made of smuggled Campbell Soup cans tied by strings. So no tax.)

RUSSIA! RUSSIA! Of course President Trump and the Russians had a deal. They are compadres. Don't people know that? It's clear as sunlight even before the D maneuvered himself to GOP kingdom come. Then he won and what do we expect? But I see all this as more of crude oil issue. As long as the US chugs in 20+ percent of total global consumption, oil will still be the top-tier issue in America irrelevant that we are #3 in production. Meantime, Saudi Arabia stays as #2 exporter to US in last 20 years, irrelevant of Arab Spring's possible blowback and ISIS threats in Middle East. President Obama stuck with Saudi Arabia/OPEC pricing despite warnings of production cut. Vladimir Putin saw that opportunity, sure. This dude is a genius in reading signs. So why not help Trump? Right?

          But then Russian steel companies were already here even before Trump loomed and Obama and Congress (that time) already let Russia in WTO in 2012. So they can always compete trade-wise, irrelevant of Trump. Just like when China entered this globalization wagon by way of Clinton/George W in 2001. Now that the Russian fiasco pulled Trump deeper (all time low in public approval for a US president plus embarrassing schism in White House), now we turn to Saudi Arabia again. I saw that coming.

         The Kingdom was whining over arms promised them (among others, in exchange for US/UK oil drillings) to fight the ISIS or Muslim extremism especially in Yemen which Obama cut. Obama's Defense appropriation was unprecedentedly huge so when Trump upped it some more, it's not surprising. Defense or military power are compelling negotiating chips. What's weird is, why is it Trump is balking on NATO's (esp. Germany and France) proposal in re pooled resources vs global terrorism and his issue is money? Shows that Trump doesn't know what he's doing or people around him are at odds what is it that's good for Washington.

         BTW that ISIS crap in the south of the Philippines was obvious. It's gotta be ISIS otherwise how else can Washington justify repositioning itself in South China Sea without it's military clout? That's why (Philippine) President Duterte turned to Moscow. Beijing will not bite Washington's bone vis a vis Defense dare. They're busy spreading out business globally. Also, the world underestimates Vlad Putin. He knows how to work things out. He is a master spy thinker. And he's got oil first of all. Repeat: Oil is power. I don't think ISIS is going to shake his butt anyhow the way terrorism pummels top European allies. At this juncture, Putin is more influential globally than Trump is which is sad for Americans, especially that Trump just pissed Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.

         Meanwhile, I do understand this anti-Russia brouhaha. It's easier to hate them than the Germans or Japanese, for example. Thing is, while we are busy reading the news and discussing shit on social media, the Russians just got in (in the way the Chinese did). And they got in few years before 2017.

I DON'T get it why some people still hail hallelujah WikiLeaks. Julian dude has always been Kremlin's leverage. Where is he? Ecuadorian embassy. And who's a friend of Ecuador? China. Both Russia and Ecuador got oil. Both countries are beneficiaries of Chinese credit or investment. The US and Ecuador used to have close ties, especially in combating drug trafficking etcetera, until President Correa offered political asylum to Julian Assange in 2012. Ecuador and Iceland (where WikiLeaks was formed) have extradition treaty with the US but refuse to honor it. The Chinese leadership isn't like Vladimir Putin. They don't bully, they offer business. And Assange is business to Beijing. Meantime, he is Russia's negotiating chip.

SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT. It's just something that makes Social Media alive. Imagine if Russia is Greenland or Trump is as cute as Trudeau? Facebook will be boring. No one to diss, nothing to ridicule. Long time ago, we'd probably leaf through morning paper for 10 mins and watch evening news for 15, eat breakfast and supper, check out "Bewitched!" or baseball, sleep. Wake up, drive kids to school, go to work, pay bills. I mean, did we talk much about Russia during Cold War as much we do these days? Escobar was handing out moolah to poor Colombians and selling coke to Americans, and blood spilled in the street like monsoon flood, yet did we ever care beyond a glance? New Wave and hair bands were more fun dalliances in those years. Ellsberg before, Assange today. Same story yet the Mighty MIBs, on 1 Percent payroll, are still doing it. Tomorrow they will be whistleblowing what the world already knew but choose to ignore in favor of ice cream and funnel cakes or Buds.

          In these times of Netflix and politics, these are okay distractions from funk and blues, as long as hey did they do something about mortgage and stuff lately? Truth is, whether Trump sits still or gets out the door, another target practice will be onstage. And we will still be feeling the pain in our gut. At least yes I enjoyed "My Sharona" and "Turning Japanese Sa!" in those years. Yet there were massacres in Bologna and El Salvador, airport attacks in Rome and Vienna and a Beirut bombing that killed 299 American and French servicemen. Three important political figures were assassinated: Anwar Sadat, Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Olof Palme yet people didn't argue or unfriend. Instead they forgot their ism fixation and partyline allegiance/s and merged as one, somehow.

MORE on these so-called Trials or Justice System. TRIAL by the mob, media overkill, or public perception don't really work in American jury system. Throw in the best in Defense lawyering in the likes of F. Lee Bailey, Gerry Spence, or Johnnie Cochran? Done. They will exploit what's in front of them to the hilt and win. I don't know who Bill Cosby's lawyers are but history repeats itself for a reason or two. Cochran (in O.J. trial): "I don't fight. I win." Who bailed out Imelda Marcos in her racketeering etc New York trial in 1988? Her BFF Doris Duke. When the fact is, Imelda's $5 million bail money was just coffee dough in the Marcoses' stash lounging in a Swiss bank. More so, her I am the victim the Filipino people are my children I love them tearjerker worked in front of the jury weaned on daytime soap. The media don't hand down verdicts, you see. The jury does.

         Like, can you imagine if Pablo Escobar was brought to Miami to face trial? He had to be wasted because he had to be wasted, period. Meantime, Colombia is still #1 in coca/cocaine production 24 years after his death. Who benefits? You tell me. This makes Julian Assange a genius. He had it all figured out from the get go in Iceland in 2006. He may not have the jury although he won the truth-deprived left side of the road. He got more and better than his "enlightened" public exalting his WikiLeaks. He's got Moscow and Beijing behind him. Genius!

SINCE there's so much talk about China and Russia which are traditional Communist powers (agrarian and proleteriat, respectively), and are currently spreading out influence in Southeast Asia, in place of America and Europe's (England, Netherlands, Spain, France) historical protectionist hold, many think the region is Communist/Socialist by itself. No. I'd say the region is more religious/cultural than ideological. Yet there were significant instances when Communism, Chinese/Maoist styled mostly, tried to slip in particularly in British Malaya (Malaysia) and Indochina (Vietnam, Cho Chi Minh time) or via Sukarno’s Indonesia or Ne Win's Burma (Myanmar) as well as during Pol Pot's horror reign (Cambodia).

         An interplay between nationalism, internationalism, and communism was/is prevalent in the region. To understand that better, try to define "nationalism" Eastern style than via Western thinking and maybe zoom in on Thailand (Siam), the only country in Southeast Asia that wasn't invaded or colonized by a foreign power. Internationalism, Eastern way, is not globalization (WTO design) or globalism, by the way. Credit the Chinese for shrewdly cocktailing (active verb) Eastern internationalism and Western/US globalization and then look at them now.

         Meantime, you may ask, why is it Asean (the organization) is tight, especially economic wise? And why West's 1 Percent emissary George Soros is perennially focused in the region like a modern day Marco Polo (to the East)? Then we need a few beers to discuss the Asian Tigers and Asian Cubs of the 1990s. And I will tell you why it isn't about China or Russia why Southeast Asia and/or Philippine president (and Asean head) Duterte acts the way he does via a vis Washington and European Union.

DON'T superpowers influence national elections in other countries where their 1 Percenter interest thrives? I believe that is a no-brainer. Russia got in WTO in 2012 even before this Trump/Russia fiasco came out. With the Chinese' staggering investment in the US and vice versa, don't mutual "interference" happens? Don't their respective emissaries meet up secretly in some backroom of a steakhouse and discuss business? Don't we know that? Then a 25 year old youngster touched the issue. Boom! Jailed. Wanna be rescued as well by the Russians? It's both sad and dumb. One breaks the law in the name of a political/economic truth that has always been the case since the politico and the trader became BFFs.

I DON'T think communism/socialism still exists in its traditional template or model. Especially in the economic sense. It's interesting though how the Chinese (traditional agrarian socialism) modified (or interfaced) their communist principle with Western-styled capitalism. How is that? For one, the Central Committee still commands the loyalty of its workforce (disciplined via Maoist production style adherence) in terms of quota/product delivery yet their marketing mojo is old school capitalism. Their capital spread out globally in just less than 20 years (since their entry to WTO in 2001).

          Meantime, the Russian Marxism (proletariat socialism) still works due to their focused or grip of the culture but Kremlin's problem is diversification vis a vis marketing. Russia is "rich" due to its massive deposit of crude oil and natural gas (and how Vladimir Putin brilliantly fills up the gap between OPEC deals) but like the Saudis they are stuck with their ancient dictum (Saudi's religion, Russia's politics). These days though the capitalist 1 Percent is blurred. It's now a combination or partnership of all these guys. Diversity, you know.

IF you ask me, I believe China hasn't really changed despite their obvious embrace, or modification, of capitalism Western style. The Chinese are still essentially governed by a tightly-disciplined, production line-styled adherence to their government and socialist principles yet they adapted big time with changing global truths and facts, and see them now. Capitalism, Maoist version. America's Left that are aligned with Bernie Sanders' socialist democracy, of course, believe that their guru could do better. Maybe. But again this is Corporate America, whoever or whatever governs. It is not the template or system, it is the people and the socioeconomic structure where it is housed that ushers a political governance. China.

BEIJING's socialism, or should I say the Chinese version of democratic socialism, is what works in these current times when the 1 Percent rules the roost. Many progressives gravitate to Bernie Sanders' version because it is very ideal. It hasn't been done, at least in corporate America. Or in its strictest sense, democratic socialism, which relies heavily on workers hands and face to face interaction, hasn't really been tried within/around current computer technology reality. Think Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Pakistan, late 70s) or Olof Palme (Sweden, early 80s).

          China's socialism is realistic than idealistic--because it works. It's staring at us. First, it compromised with WTO's austere regulations when they got in 2001. Then they regrouped and slowly ushered their own shrewd version of globalization. More so, they recognize the 1 Percent because the 1 Percent isn't just the cloud, it is the sky unfortunately. They work around Western protectionist capitalism till we don't know anymore where's 1 Percent in the Chinese side of economic Milky Way.

         I mean, they knew that Russia's oil will start to boil as OPEC roils over Arab Spring and ISIS blowbacks. But Kremlin isn't high on diversification like the Chinese do. So Beijing lent Russian oil magnates money so they can keep digging as China keeps on investing in other industries. America's young has begun to dismiss the 1 Percent and its wasteful shenanigan that kills the environment so China offered its 1.3 billion-strong non-complaining humanity to do the factory work. So there. Now they are spreading the love globally. But this is "love" not nirvana love ruminating in a haze of herbal smoke, trapped in dreamful inertia. This is "love" that pays the rent in a swirl of sweat, pro-active with a timeline. Chinese socialism in the time of apps.

DO you know that more recent terrorism related attacks and deaths in Western Europe were more widespread in 1979-80 than they are these days? Number of attacks then was 1,615 against 2015-16's 604. Deaths were tallied at 719 then; 383 in 2015/16. Number 1 cause of death in those years? Suicide, which accounted for 433. Terrorism, 1. Western Europe, yes. But it's a compelling indication of what it was then and now in our midst. It's interesting if we could sit down and figure things out why. By the way, the data above was from the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database. Not my data or alternative fact. Western Europe: Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland, and United Kingdom.

A NEW York Times article infers that China may be oversharing. Sharing stuff. Ride sharing. Bike sharing. Then there's start-ups on share umbrellas, concrete mixers and mobile phone power banks. One wants to share basketballs. What is wrong with sharing? How can we over-share? This is socialist/communist China, after all. You know the story? Hint: Homegrown ride sharing in China drove Uber out of the giant country, uhh giant market. That is why. And that's the story.

DO you know that the world's top two oil companies in terms of revenue are Chinese? China National Petroleum Corporation ($428.62 billion/year) and PetroChina ($367.982)? China is "only" #6 in oil production. America's Exxon Mobil (#3) earns $268.9 billion annually. That is why the Chinese got money to help Russia dig up its massive oil deposits (and others elsewhere, mostly non-OPEC members). At least, Beijing commits $360 billion on renewable energy through 2020. NOTE: The US (eg Aramco etc) has more oil on its disposal yet the Chinese oil dudes are richer? That's beside the fact that American companies do essentially dictate oil pricing, globally. Yet the Chinese got more moolah? So who is smarter?

NORTH Korea is our favorite punching bag. Villain royale! Their leader's hairdo worse than President Trump's. Nuke devils! But then check this out. Aside from the fact that many of their basic services are a lot better than ours, it's not like many Americans are scared of visiting that communist nation. Uri Tours, headquartered in Kearny NJ, brings thousands of tourists there each year. I mean, you may even participate in a marathon officially sanctioned by the International Association of Athletics Federations. They got funnel cakes and organic leeks out there as well.

          It is popularly known that North Korea bans religion. But then Pyongyang University of Science and Technology is run by evangelical Christians. Founded seven years ago by a South Korea-born American, the school has thrived because of a deal with the leadership. It provides children with an education they cannot get elsewhere — computer science, agriculture, international finance and management, all conducted in English by an international faculty. And you know they don't ban the utterance of "Merry Christmas!" in this school.

          Let's be kind to one and all. And they'll be kind with us, too. And stop believing in all those media links fed by Murdoch and Soros. You see, going to another place that isn't our comfort zone is a no-brainer. Common sense. If your agent says, no dissing their bosschief leader, don't. Respect the sonamagun. At least pretend since it's not like he's gonna share his kimchi with you in an official dinner, anyway. Who do you think you are? Jared K? LOL! If your host says, weed is cilantro and coke is Coca Cola there, and that's what those are, believe. Don't argue. Don't fight. Don't get jailed. Don't be stupid. Otherwise don't go. Yet there are more to enjoy in places like North Korea than you know. You know what I mean, right?

THE kind of "licks" that WikiLicks lick/ed out to the public seemed so new yet these are old stuff. Long time ago, scribes like Antonio Pigafetta for example wrote shit detailing gruesome shenanigans by the white explorer somewhere else beyond Cracker Barrel. Imagine, if there's already an iBook that time? Or Facebook? Meantime, awful things happened in Islas de Filipinas for 300 years and then when Spain and USA were wrestling each other who'd wrest power over the tiny country, more awful things went down. Same during the Pacific War. And so on and so forth. Those were "open" secrets. No need to lick them. Surveillance and spying are widespread especially during the Cold War. Or politicians carelessly talking (or exchanging correspondence/s) with whoever that they shouldn't. 

         Only difference is, these "licks" weren't sold to the public like merchandise. We "buy" them or buy into them. We say, "OMG! That was awful!" And then we discuss and debate these in Social Media. Chat argue fight explain elaborate chat again etc etcetera. Unfriend unfriend unfriend more. And then boom! We already spent so much time online. We just forgot that we overdrafted again and oh well! We've been "licked" again!