Peter Harris > Recent Status Updates

China:
Zakaria seems to be wrapping up his analysis with the coming revolution involving China and the US. While he says China wants to be benevolent in it’s leadership, it has created problems like ownership of the neighboring sea lanes, or arguing with India and Australia. Zakaria says China has a bad problem of being relied upon for loans by other countries but then requiring backbreaking interest repayments.

Something useful for today:
The book is talking about either letting technology drive the economy or have some form of government control. Zakaria says that was Hoover’s mistake and it took FDR’s creative government control to correct the economy. If we are experiencing a wave of technological revolution again, maybe we could learn from this time in history.

Good and bad revolutions:
The overwhelming theme of the French Revolution gone wrong was violence.The theme of the Dutch and Industrial Revolutions was Parliamentary democracy in which all voices were heard and represented.I would like to comment about Zakaria’s argument for the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.He talks about the the steam powered pump,before that was the Cotton Gin of Eli Whitney in the US

Critical of Venice and Austria and Spain:
Zakaria criticizes Venice because you had to be born into power. He defends the Protestant reformation in Austria and comes down on Spain as being money hungry during a time of change. With the Netherlands, Zakaria seems to really like the decentralization of power that he says was created by it’s geography. He says the Protestant uprising was fueled by the printing press

Left versus Right:
Zakaria makes the case that the left makes a group advocating change and the right makes up a group adhering the stay on course attitude. He is going to delve into past revolutions and use them as a model to predict future revolutions. I don’t know why he credits parliament without mentioning anything about the senate of the Roman republic. Aren’t we talking about a democratic legislative body?

How good was he?
I thought for sure he would end up winning the gold medal in the Olympics. But, when I checked the times, he was actually 7 seconds behind world record time in the 1 mile. Even though I thought he was going to dominate, it was a huge accomplishment for him to make the Olympics team.

We are all still alive:
Just about the time he decides on a specific college , he discovers his real parents are still alive. He goes back to Africa and celebrates with all the people of the village. Things are going well for a kid who almost died at the age of six.

A lucky break?
He gets himself selected to be in a group of kids(17 years old), who basically get adopted by, in his case, wealthy Americans living in Syracuse, New York. He spent 6 months in Nairobi getting schooled on being American and the first thing he does when he gets to Syracuse is go for a long run.

Quite a story:
Lopez Lomong is a very young African kid from South Sudan who suddenly finds himself in a life or death struggle for about 1 month. He gets saved by 3 teenagers who he never sees again. They all run for about 70 miles to the border with Kenya. From there, he gets taken to the refugee camp: Kakuma. He stays at this camp for apparently the next 10 years. During the struggle he causes damage to his legs.

Way in the future:
The author brings up the reason we all agree that we will eventually have to leave the Earth for another home. We are not surprisingly trying to find ways of living longer and, as this happens, we will overpopulate Earth. A graph is presented showing about 8 earth like planets. After searching the internet, the second one on the list is now no good. Another one must have been found since this book

Fusion rockets:
I thought this seemed like the most practical option of trying to get close to the speed of light. But, I have lately calculated that it would take 400 generations in space just to reach the closest Earth like planet 4 light years away. It’s not practical for deep space, but maybe Mars. The author tells us robots will play a huge role in building our base on Mars. Nanotechnology could also help

Mars:
The author describes the differences between Mars, Venus, and Earth and the natural phenomena that created our Earth to sustain life. I’m a little more pessimistic about the long time it will take to terraform Mars. I also agree with the method to do so. I would also like the idea of, not just 5 astronauts going, but a Division size Army going to Mars. I’m also more worried about the planet reverting back.

Lunar Gateway:
This book was written 6 years ago and it appears that the timeline was a lambitious. There should already be an orbital lunar space station halfway built by now but I don’t think it is meeting that timeline. I’m still not sure why we shouldn’t be building a base on the surface and not orbiting the Moon? The author talks about Elon Musk a lot and how he wants to bypass the Moon to get to Mars

The past until now:
The author uses the first chapter to explain the past and how we got to the now. He starts with Goddard and goes to Von Braum talking about V-2 rockets. Then, he gets to the some 15 Saturn rockets that got us to the Moon. He covers Armstrong landing on the Moon and the Space Shuttle program.

My intro:
I’m reading this book to expand what I already know about the inevitable need for man to leave Earth. And, I think all scientists agree that man will have to leave Earth. I was into fusion technology as a possibility of getting the necessary speed in space but now doubtful. I think, in the near future, building a base on the moon makes scientific and economic sense in getting to Mars more efficiently.

Arafat, Israel, and the Gaza Strip:
From the end of the reading,the author says Arafat wanted a Palestinian nation and wanted to model it after South Vietnam.The author says he was unsuccessful because he refused to engage in peaceful negotiations and instead always chose the path of the gun.It’s hard to believe the struggles for 40 years 1965-2004,to create a Palestinian state. Lesson: terrorism doesn’t work

Early Vietnam (1954):
After the French were defeated, a guy named Edward Lansdale moved into South Vietnam with the intent of using unconventional tactics to strengthen the south. The author says that when Lansdale left circa 1957, he had been largely successful. South Vietnam was stable and had what was supposed to have been a free election. Although Diem would have won, cheating was suspected.

Mao Zedong and Chang Kai Shek:
It was the Nationalist backed by the USA versus the Communists backed by the Soviet Union. The Author says Chaing started the Civil War, but when Chaing failed to capture Manchuria, the USA’s Marshal told them to ceasefire. Probably during at least 4 instances the author brings up Mao guerrilla skills. There are actually many photos of Mao living in caves and off the land.

Discussions on success:
The author puts forth arguments about the failures of special forces and the argument whether or not needed,if the missions end in failure.I’m reminded of 1980 and the failure to rescue some 90 hostages in Iran.Carter had to do something and it appears to have failed because of engineering miscalculations instead of ranger or special forces mistakes.The Bin Laden mission was a success.

Special Forces:
The author makes the distinction that guerrillas and special forces are not one and the same. It’s the support given to special forces that guerrillas don’t have.Although, I think it true that special forces and rangers were created to fight fire with fire. I’m pretty sure the colonists realized the nomadic and, knowing the land, abilities of the natives and created the Rangers to do the same

Being a terrorist, good or bad?
I think the author says it must be addressed in case by case manner.The only thing statistics have proven is that terrorists are always the younger people.When a terrorist willfully kills a nonviolent person, is there any way this is a good thing? No. If a terrorist, who truly believes in the argument, out of nothing else to live for, commits himself to brutality a good thing? Maybe

Abolitionist John Brown:
Personally,I never would have thought of John Brown as a terrorist, but I can see the author’s argument. Similar to MLK, I look at both men as people who hastened something that had to inevitably happen at some point in time.With John Brown, he apparently employed very ruthless killings in order to strike terror throughout the South.I think the South was employing terrorism against blacks

Chechnya and Russia:
Upon reading about this one, I am reminded of 2 things: you can’t negotiate with terrorists And,fight fire with fire.There’s a description of the Russians coming into some makeshift Chechnya town and burning all the huts. Terrorists never surrender.Even after stooping down to them and burning everything, Chechnyans still would just as soon burn to death, thinking they are making a statement

Italian Unification (1860):
One thing clear to me, is that guerrilla warfare most often involves a strike and retreat form of combat. Garibaldi perfected this during the Italian unification. However, while the author tries to put Garibaldi in this category, he had a sense of empathy for his enemies, which I didn’t think was guerrilla. Also, he never wanted spoils of war. Do guerrillas want war riches or not?

The Romans:
Even in a book about guerrilla warfare, the Roman Empire must be discussed. The German tribes were the guerrillas and an eventual contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire. Although guerrilla warfare seemed very primitive without any strategy, the author introduces attacking and retreating. If the enemy pursues, then setup an ambush. The key was being light and quick, but also knowing the land well.

Sargon/The Bronze Age:
The author draws a loose connection between hunting and the art of combat. He thinks that agricultural farming came first. Out of the need to defend farming, loosely connected to The Bronze Age, the first combat was started by Sargon, ca 2350 BC, in Mesopotamia,using bronze-tipped spears. He introduces guerrilla warfare with the brutality, savagery, and complete destruction, no gain in wealth

Famous names in Ice Hockey:
According to this book, we should all know the names of about five people. James Creighton , in 1875, organized the first game in the Victoria Rink in Montreal. Frank One Eyed McGee was a prolific scorer in 1915 and died in WW 1. Willie O’Ree was the first black hockey player “Jackie Robinson of Hockey “ who invented the slap shot. Hobey Baker was a great player in college and died.

Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs:
The book spends a lot of pages talking about these two teams and the history and victories between them. I noticed the Detroit Red Wings have 11 Stanley Cups to Toronto’s 13, but didn’t get acknowledged in this book. The Montreal Canadiens have amassed an amazing 24 Stanley Cups in its history, albeit 8 years of early years are included. The Montreal Forum is praised.

Hockey Hall of Fame:
As I read through this book, I am in disagreement about the locations chosen for the Hockey Hall of Fame. Just as the Baseball Hall of Fame is not in the appropriate place, neither is the Hockey. Montreal is the home of Ice Hockey and Montreal is where the Hall of Fame should be based. Sutherland made a pitch and it was first built in Kingston.

Update entry:
There was a Lord Stanley for whom the Championship Ice Hockey Cup is named. The women of his family created interest for women to become involved in Ice Hockey. I think of baseball and football when I read about Blacks in Ice Hockey. As early as 1890, there was a Black Ice Hockey League (7 teams) that coexisted until 1930. In 1948, about the same time as football, Blacks were playing in the NHL.