Cadence of Conflict: Asia, November 14, 2016

Cadence of Conflict: Asia, November 14, 2016

The news in Asia is Trump. Having put their chips with Clinton, some governments in Asia are scrambling to guess what Trump’s next move will be. Japan didn’t interfere. So, things are “business as usual” in Tokyo. While Asian politicians scramble to clean up their attempt to chose America’s next president, they still might not learn from Japan’s example: It is generally best if one country does not interfere with the elections of another country.

That election-country boundary is somewhat askew where Beijing and Hong Kong are concerned. Beijing is not supposed to interfere at all, as per the condition of the H-Kexit from Britain in 1997. Beijing did, however slightly and defensibly and yet predictably objectionable, and now Beijing must intervene.

Pro-Independence lawmakers inserted a byword for China in their oaths, which legally alters the oath. In doing so, they relegated their oaths’ legitimacy to the determination of higher courts in Beijing. If they couldn’t figure out how not to invite intervention, how could they keep domestic peace as lawmakers? If they didn’t know the legal meaning of words, how could they craft laws with proper wording in Hong Kong? Though unanswered at this time, these are questions their actions begged, making their argument for the second H-Kexit less credible, but, nonetheless more infamous and more famous, depending on who is asked. Infamy and fame gain equal press. “Press” is the battle HK Independence advocates win every time, which is why some in Hong Kong argue that “press” is all they want. But, there is always more going on.

In answering the metaphoric question of whether to be the dead lion or the victorious fox, the Hong Kong Umbrella students chose to be dead foxes. Some call them “martyrs”. Others call them “dinner”. The weakness and failings of disrespect aren’t limited to Hong Kong. The rest of the world is demonstrating the same toward Donald J. Trump, who did get elected after all. Now, Asia must figure out how to deal with the decision in the US while Trump figures out how to deal with the indecision of Asia. Unlike fame and infamy, decision and indecision fair differently.

Read More

Cadence of Conflict: Asia, November 7, 2016

Cadence of Conflict: Asia, November 7, 2016

China had been doing so well. Hong Kong had one of the best democratic systems of representation in the world—allowing a plurality of representatives to be elected in each legislative district. Since the Crown left Hong Kong, the number of newspapers went from three to countless. Hong Kong became a world city, dearly loved from the four corners of the world.

Then, it all changed.

The decline began with a natural sentiment against status quo. That wasn’t enough by itself. China, having possessed Hong Kong for just over 15 years, declared that politicians would be vetted for being pro-China in advance. That was the first clue.

Foreseeable anger was ignited by likely influence from media mogul Jimmy Lia—who to this day captured some of the best photojournalism of protests he likely created. The “Umbrella Movement” started as a face, but was given a name when police used pepper spray, provoking the crowds to respond with umbrellas. The Western media’s influence can’t be ruled out, but neither can many factors.

Latest episodes of the ongoing Hong Kong drama included the recent elections. A few students from the Umbrella Movement protests were running. A number of pro-Independance candidates were not allowed to run after Hong Kong mandated a pro-China affidavit signed in advance—and the election office could decide if the signers were “sincere”. Two Umbrella students seemed to get past the process and were elected, but not allowed to take their oaths. This week, after turmoil, disruption, and well-covered attention from international press, the State-run People’s Daily declares that they should never take their oaths. Beijing will decide next week. Beijing also removed Hong Kong’s minister of finance, Lou Jiwei, 66.

The argument against pro-Independence legislators is rooted in the Basic Law, a kind of Constitution for Hong Kong. The Basic Law states that Hong Kong is part of China. All laws are open to request for review. China and India both did with Britain. But, in this situation, there is no distinction explained as to the right or wrong way Hong Kongers may ask to seceded. It’s all either forced or just not allowed.

Beijing miscalculated. Free people, such as in Hong Kong and much of the West, must be governed and laws must be controlled. Things work reverse of that way in China. Perhaps China’s control of Hong Kong would have gone better had there been a powerful British advisory envoy to help China understand the newly acquired anomaly called Hong Kong SAR. But, the Chinese don’t like to take advice and the British don’t like to give it.

Hong Kong could have been happy without changes. But no one liked status quo, not the people, not even Beijing, and arguably not the Crown. The question remains unanswered: Was it Beijing’s goal to incite Hong Kongers to rise up by vetting people before rather than reviewing laws after? Or, was it the Crown’s goal to allow China to irritate the dragon by not training Beijing how to ride it yet handing over the reigns? Was it all a plot from the Western press who just want to sell newspapers? Or, is it all some alien plot managed from a secret extraterrestrial base on the moon? All possibilities remain equally on the table since we don’t really know what’s actually going on.

It is unlikely that China wanted Hong Kong to break down. It was one of the best things China had going. Hong Kong won’t be the same. Change is coming before China promised and before Britain required, one way or another.

Hong Kong didn’t see the only shuffle in the Western Pacific. Taiwan was booted from Interpol. The guesses as to that hidden hand and its motive are much less vague than guesses about Hong Kong’s.

Read More

Encore of Revival: America, September 5, 2016

Encore of Revival: America, September 5, 2016

Homeland Security wants to “secure” the elections. Why now, all of a sudden? One would think the topic should have come up back in 2001. Does DHS want more public trust? More than motive, DHS is redefining it’s value. DHS is gambling.

By claiming that elections need DHS, DHS is claiming that the elections are in need of help. By helping these “needy” elections, DHS is claiming that it’s value and effectiveness now depends on the continuation of those elections.

So, with this DHS move, if the elections don’t happen, Washington should scrap DHS.

DHS either doesn’t see any threat and just wants to claim “elections” as another reason to justify its growing existence, or else DHS does see a real, true, dangerous threat that it’s not telling us about and DHS may be the actual reason this next election succeeds at all. We may never know.

In military humor, with DHS “securing” elections, at least it won’t be the Marines trying to “secure” them.

The topic of “takeover” wasn’t limited to DHS and elections this week. With Amazon’s SpaceX rocket destroying Facebook’s 150 pound (currency, not weight) satellite, corporate takeovers will slow down some.

Police in Ferguson, MO are having a hard time hiring—proving that Obama’s police policies have certainly failed to result in “good police”, the result, instead, being “no police”. At least, Symphony would like to think that Obama considers “no police” to be a failure. Clinton should say it’s a failure. Limbaugh might say otherwise. Either way, so much for Obama’s takeover of police. There just aren’t any to take over these days, you see.

Now, we find that Soros may have actually been behind the Obama-police takeover. That also failed as much as it was exposed.

Hillary’s takeover of nearly everything is also being exposed. Pacific Daily Times ignores Hillary news for the most part, otherwise stories of her corruption might dominate every headline.

Then, we go back to the timing of DHS’s announcement and related stories. WND replied with expected skepticism, about a week later also as expected. But, more interestingly, an article from US News headlined about the possible “death” of a candidate before the election. However, the entire article was a mere “if-then” statement of information the public has known for a long time. It said nothing about any reason to believe that a candidate might actually die before the election. And, also interestingly, it was released the same day Examiner discussed DHS.

One would think that whatever or whoever wanted DHS to take over elections also has fingers in the media, but not for any conspiracy evidence. It’s just an indication of news savvy. “If-then” scenarios just aren’t news. But, non-news influences don’t know that.

Read More

Encore of Revival: America, August 22, 2016

Encore of Revival: America, August 22, 2016

Today’s news is that Trump passed Hillary at the LA Times’ poll. This week could be about as evenly divided as America may ever be concerning Trump.

Liberal logic against Trump seems to be generally about as complex as, “He is ridiculous because he just is.” This does not mean that Liberal critics of Trump are not thinking or can’t formulate logical explanations of their ideas. Rather, it seems that, to them, Trump opposes all their ideologies for self-evident reasons. Of course. No one would disagree that Trump “just seems ridiculous” by all Liberal standards. Asking Liberals to provide reasons for their view of Trump would be like asking a fashion expert to deduce the rational for concluding that someone’s clothes don’t match; you either see it or you don’t. The back-and-forth between “Trumpists” and Libs isn’t unusual, though a little more entertaining this election cycle.

But, the unusual critique of Trump comes from closer to his own base: Conservatives.

Symphony cannot find a substance-based explanation from Conservatives who distrust Trump. The only Right Wing explanations seem hypothetical, demographic-based, and inductive. “He walks among the rich. Therefore he will act like a crony capitalist in government,” goes the general reason for suspicion.

Conservatives usually base their beliefs on proven history, not untested ideology. In logic, Conservatives prefer to be deductive, not inductive. Conservatives generally act more understanding of wealthier classes. So, it seems strange for an inductive theory based on class-focused stereotypologies to move Conservatives so. But, it does. They find their reasons for distrusting Trump quite compelling.

Given history, why shouldn’t they?

Americans believe that Hillary’s sale of her country for personal and financial gain is just normal. They look at Obama dumping cash on Iran like a “drug dealer in chief”. They see Bush having willfully played the “Sunday morning” card to get elected; they felt fooled. Accordingly, many people believe that Trump should and will attempt any and all of the same. They believe this without any further evidence than the past has already presented.

But, Trumpists also cite the past, specifically in Trump’s portfolio.

Trump’s track record says he will be good. If he can’t build something, it will be the first time. If he lets someone else’s money control him—even someone who won’t miss a billion dollars—it would be the first time. If the overall treasury he manages ends in sell-off bankruptcy, it will be the first time. If his opponents gain an advantage and defeat him, it will be the first time. If his projects are filled with “$20,000 hammers”, it will be the first time. If he doesn’t fire incompetent people who would make things worse, it will be the first time. If his enemies don’t make some sort of peaceful compromise with him, it will be the first time.

But, his Conservative doubters don’t see those “first times” as well as they see other “first times”…

If a politician isn’t controlled by big money, it will be the first time. If a president makes peace with his enemies, it would be the first time since Reagan and Gorbachev. If government projects don’t see costs bloated by pork cronyism, it will be the first time. If incompetent people get fired swiftly, it will be the first time. If “faith and switch” doesn’t exploit Sunday morning voters, it will be the first time—though Grudem and Dobson may have spoiled that already, but at least it isn’t coming from the candidate himself, for the first time.

Perhaps things have just been too bad and too difficult for just too long. If Trump wins, no matter what happens, there will be a lot of “first times”. And, in these times of so many firsts, a lot of people don’t know what they should think.

Read More