Review: Ad Astra

The beautifully crafted space drama that defines the father and son relationship between Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) and Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is essentially a story of a workaholic father who is willing to sacrifice everything in order to pursue a goal that he deems to be his life's purpose.

The computer generated imagery is beautifully sublime, letting the audience experience the void of space in all its glory, as well as the void of a father who was never really there for his son. Make no mistake, unless you own your personal movie projection room, this one is for the theater going experience and not for the personal streaming.

The common thread throughout this space odyssey are the consistent psychological evaluations, performed by an AI computer and supplemental biosensor, of the central character played by Brad Pitt. In his desire to live up to his larger-than-life father, Brad Pitt's character is so in control of his body that his beats per minute previously never exceeded 80 in all of his missions on the International Space Antenna. He is as close to a machine as he can come, always making the logical decisions instead of emotional ones. The station, a scientific collaboration between world's nations, is designed to reach out deep into space in order to make contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Beyond this point, you will find movie spoilers. If you haven't seen this movie, which I highly recommend you do, you may want to take a rain-check on reading the rest of this post.

Upon suffering a fall due to a mysterious power surge, he is summoned by the Space Command representatives on earth to embark upon a top secret mission to Mars. The Space Command believes Tommy Lee Jones' character Clifford is alive, leaving his son Roy as the best hope of communicating with him. That is in essence his task, to communicate with the Neptune vessel, which was the principal vessel of the Lima project.

The Lima Project was supposed to be the pinnacle of Tommy Lee Jones character's achievement in its attempts to make contact with intelligent alien life. But the vessel was believed to be lost with all crew aboard, up until the mysterious power surges began originating from Neptune - the final stop of the Lima project,

Brad Pitt's character soon discovers that his father is not the man he believed he was. After getting a jump drive of a classified communique from his father's former co-worker (played by Donald Sutherland), he soon learns that his father's obsession with discovering alien life drove him to do the unthinkable - murder his crew members who didn't share his passion.

On Mars, Brad Pitt's character attempts several times to send a scripted communication to Mars, but to no avail. When he finally goes off script and sends an emotional plea to his father, it appears as though the Space Command operators captured a response from Tommy Lee Jones' character, but nothing is mentioned. Instead, he gets a job well done from the officers and is told that his further involvement in this mission is terminated due to his emotional connection.

He finally fails a psychological evaluation and is sent into a comfort room to regain calm and control. Through a lower ranking Space Command official (who also had parents on the Lima project vessel), he learns that the rocket he hitched a ride on to Mars is actually meant for the final destination to Neptune and carries nuclear munitions. Connecting the dots, Brad Pitt's character realizes that this was a mission to terminate the Lima Project vessel. Furthermore, with his successful transmission exchange with Tommy Lee Jones' character, he pinpointed the target for the Space Command.

Using an underground pipeline, he is able to become a stowaway on the rocket to Neptune, but in their attempt to kill Brad Pitt's character, the rest of the crew perishes. When he finally arrives at the destination coordinates at Neptune Brad Pitt's character finally makes contact with his father, only to come to a heartbreaking realization - Tommy Lee Jones' character never really cared for his son or his wife. Clifford McBride's only purpose in life was to discover new corners of the universe and to ultimately discover intelligent alien life.

Nevertheless Roy McBride still tries to save his father, after planting nuclear bomb on the Lima space vessel. At this point, Clifford forces Roy to let go of him, as he'd rather die in space. Begrudgingly obliging him, Roy returns to his ship and sets a course back to earth - using nuclear detonation as his propellant.

The final psychological evaluation Roy goes through, shows him in touch with his emotional side. Willing to love and be loved, letting go of the void left by his father who was never there to begin with.

The movie is a wonderfully crafted tale that I give 4.5 out of 5 stars. I highly recommend this movie to anyone that loves space movies and strained father-child relationship flicks. Dating back to a movie a few years earlier, I would say if you loved "Interstellar", you will love "Ad Astra".

Until next time, grab your popcorn, milk duds, turn off the phone, and enjoy the movie. 

Review: Cold War

This Cold War era love story by Pawel Pawlikowski is loosely based on his parents' relationship that in real life spanned the entire timeline of Cold War from beginning to end. It is evident by the product that he has put his heart and soul into this picture.

The movie itself is in black and white in its native Polish language with English subtitles. But that alone does not diminish the raw emotion of this work of art. The relationship at the heart of this film is between the music director of a folklore group and one of its performers.

There are plenty of tactical silences in this movie, which accentuate the dialogue and its characters ability to act without saying a word. It also is in contrast with the musical folklore group that the movie begins with. Its theme runs counter to the traditional Hollywood love stories and stays true to its Eastern European storytelling roots. WARNING: Beyond this point, you will read spoilers.

The movie begins several years after World War II, with the music director Wiktor (played by Tomasz Kot) and his subordinates traveling through Poland in search of its most talented performers in order to assemble a Polish Folklore Group. He comes across Zula (played by Joanna Kulig) who wows him with her... assets despite not having the most pure voice. He lets her into the folk group and they begin their torrid affair off stage.

As time moves on, the political forces in charge force Wiktor and the Folk Group's management to add to its performances a more Communist Promotional angle, which angers Wiktor and slowly leads him to consider defecting to the West. As in the 1950s Berlin still had no wall, while on tour Wiktor convinces Zula to escape across the line of demarcation in Berlin after their scheduled performance. At the last minute, Zula decides to stay, feeling that she doesn't have the stomach nor the talent to make it in the West, while Wiktor walks across the line and eventually settles in Paris.

Both characters seemingly move on, but on a chance encounter a few years later they are magnetically drawn to each other again and the passion displayed by both actors here is undeniable mastery in performance. They attempt to live together in Paris, but ultimately cannot. Jealousy, suspicion, and resentment build up to a boiling point and Zula runs back to Poland. Wiktor attempts to follow her back, but is arrested on suspicion of espionage.

They meet again in Poland, with Zula now having another husband and children. Yet the very same magnetism they have for each other is still strong as ever. They get back together for one final rendezvous and perform the very act that the Communist State denies them - a church wedding. It is not a formal wedding - the church is a crumbling ruins, there is no priest, and the only thing that makes this a proper wedding are the candles and their vows.

A good measure of a dramatic tour de force performance for me is whether or not a story lines draws me in and makes me care about the characters enough so that for that hour and a half (or more) I vicariously live through their experiences. In this case, the movie succeeded. I give this movie 4.5 out of 5 stars. It really shows that classic cinema is alive and well.

P.S. If you love this genre of Cold War era love stories, there is a 1988 movie that stars Daniel Day Lewis, Juliette Binoche and Lena Olin that is excellent - "Unbearable Lightness of Being"

Their Thoughts Are Flat

We, the inhabitants of this earth, usually attempt to improve our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. We do this through research and experimentation, using the scientific method that most of us learned about in Junior High School. Throughout history, there has always been a group of people that have attempted to preserve the status quo - either out of conservative religious or close-minded stubborn reasons. But what we're seeing today are a new breed of people who are attempting to reverse centuries of scientific progress by demanding that their opinions be respected as facts.

I call this group of people the Flat Thinkers, as they tend to dismiss science and tend to view their opinion above all. Let's take the Flat Earth theory for example. Flat Earthers believe that the world is flat, despite centuries of evidence to suggest otherwise. It is amazing to me that in this day and age, when we have had manned space missions since 1961 that provide photographic evidence that the Earth is round, some people still choose to dismiss facts for their opinions.

In fact we can go all the way back to Ancient Greece around 2200 years ago when a mathematician, Eratosthenes from Alexandria, proved that the earth is round with nothing but a stick and sunlight. He had observed that in the city of Syene a stick planted in the ground at 90 degrees at noon casts no shadow. He attempted the same experiment in Alexandria, planting a stick in the ground at 90 degrees and at noon, he observed a shadow at 7 degrees variation. That meant that the curvature of the earth was causing the variance. Using this information and the distance between the two cities, he went on to calculate the first even known circumference of the earth.   

Fast forward to today, and the Flat Earther group known as Globebusters were so convinced in their belief that the Earth is flat, that they decided to prove it once and for all with an experiment. They set up two identical boards with equidistantly placed holes in each, placing them some distance apart, with a camera at one board's end, and a light farther away from the other board's end. If the earth were flat, compensating for sea level, the light emitted at one end using the same height as the camera would be clearly seen through both boards and directly observed by the camera. This did not happen, until the person holding the light elevated it enough to compensate for the curvature of the earth.

So, just like Eratosthenes' experiment, the Globebusters proved yet again that the earth is round. And in the process, they disproved their own group's beliefs. Let's stop treating erroneous beliefs with white gloves. Let's stop considering opinions as facts without a shred of proof. And let's stop the regression of centuries of scientific progress on the whim of the uneducated and the fearful.

James Dolan and the Knicks

A lot can be said of the incident between a fan and the New York Knicks owner, James Dolan, earlier this week. The incident took place after an uninspired performance by the Knicks at Madison Square Garden. As the game was winding down, a fan said to James Dolan "Sell the team", which irked Dolan and prompted him to ban the fan from the Garden, responding to the yet to be identified fan "Enjoy watching them on television". 

Now, this fan appears to have planned the incident all along. He began video recording with his phone before the exchange, and immediately sold the video to TMZ after the incident. Regardless of the fan's conduct, a professional should have a thicker skin, as the fan didn't say anything directly offensive to the owner. James Dolan owns two sports franchises in New York, and given how much the fans are charged for tickets and concessions at Madison Square Garden, he should allow a little more leeway. 

The biggest problem I have is the aftermath with the New York fans who wish for James Dolan's departure, taking to social media to put pressure on the owner. I am personally not very fond of James Dolan and his decisions through the years with the New York Knicks or the New York Rangers. However, he has been known to spend money to attempt to win, and has found some degree of success with the Rangers. And with the landscape that contains penny pinching owners (just ask the New York Mets fans), New York can do a lot worse than James Dolan. 

If you truly want him to sell the team, don't put pressure on him through social media, don't bring signs to the arena, and don't verbally confront him. James Dolan stated that the team does not belong to the public - it belongs to the shareholders and it is a business. As such, the only pressure a business understands is the loss of profit. So dear Knicks fans - if you want James Dolan to sell the team, make a statement by NOT buying the Knicks tickets, by NOT buying the overpriced Madison Square Garden goods at its concession stands, by NOT buying any Knicks apparel or memorabilia, and by NOT tuning in to watch them on television or online. 

Only once you hurt James Dolan's bottom line, will he even consider selling the team. 

 

Independence Day

As we celebrate another 4th of July in the United States, I cannot help but think back to the first 4th of July I was a part of, in 1990. I was in this country for exactly 5 months, 11 years of age, and understood English only to the degree the network cartoons and 2 months of public school could teach me. I had very little knowledge of American history, and honestly was mainly drawn in by the fireworks.

As time passed, I learned a lot more about Independence Day, my English improved, and this country that welcomed my family and I with open arms became my own. I was proud to become a citizen of this great country and understood that its system of government was far better than the country where I was born.

This country was born out of the desire to break through oppression from an overseas ruling party and an idea to govern better, with the majority of the country's population playing a factor in how it is run. It is this spirit of defiance, perseverance, and self-improvement that we celebrate on this day.

Our system of electing public servants may not exactly be categorized as a Democracy. In fact, with the electorate college, two party split, and the electoral college system that comes with it; we would be more correct to call it a Polyarchy. By Polyarchy we mean the elite few, who represent the many, making decisions within our government regarding how our country is ran. Nevertheless, it has held a standard for some time since its establishment on how modern Democratic style governments function.

Within the past few decades the system, which I have proudly been a part of since that first 4th of July back in 1990, has become more immobile, ineffective, and inadequate; for the American people to even consider it a representation of the United States population. In effect, the only thing this system of government performs well is create career politicians that are within the fiscal fishing nets of the American corporations for the duration of those careers.

As a result, the elected officials have no desire to serve the people, but just appear to do so enough to get elected and re-elected. We need a better way. In honor of the country I love and care about, I suggest the following basic points to reform our government to return it to its stated form: "...of the people, for the people, and by the people".

1. Abolish political parties - a politician must represent the people whom elect him or her, not the party money or corporate money that determine an ideology that does not resonate with majority of the American people. Multiple points of view will also force politicians to work with each other to reach a consensus, rather than the current stalemate in American politics.
2. Abolish corporate and private contributions to elected officials (or any proxies that exist for those officials). They are supposed to be officials elected by the people, not bought by the corporations.
3. Equality in elections - pass a law that gives each candidate with a certain amount (deemed significant for their home population) of signatures to be given equal amount of television, print, and radio exposure. Obligate network news corporations to provide objective equal airtime to candidates, without any commentaries, opinions, or editorials. Publicly provide the candidate's career records in the same fashion.
4. Civic Duty Holidays - introduce 4 new holidays a year (Civic Duty Days) that obligate the American population to familiarize themselves with local and national candidates and their record.  We, as the American people, should be seeking out the candidates that represent us best, and not allow the best looking image full of hollow promises to push their campaigns onto us. Each one of us must take a certain degree of responsibility for the politicians that represent us.
5. Abolish careers in politics - term limits in politics that force politicians to come back into the workforce after serving their term(s), which the laws they passed have impacted. Currently, the career politicians are detached from the general workforce, which in many ways leaves them isolated from reality.
6. Performance Reviews for Elected Officials - on the aforementioned Civic Duty Days, the voters that elected the officials into office will hold them accountable by conducting a public review of the politician's performance with respect to campaign promises made and any unforeseen decisions made. This will keep elected officials honest to the people. If the politician suffers two unsatisfactory performance reviews in a row, their seat will be vacated during the next election cycle and a new set of candidates will compete to fill it.

There are more nuances to each of these points, which I am more than happy to discuss. So leave me a comment to suggest what you think or any ideas you may have. We need to do better, and all of us must be responsible in doing so.

Digital Freedom

Our Digital Freedom is under attack. Net Neutrality is a very important set of consumer protections that we are all guilty of taking for granted. 

Many of us don't remember the early age of privatized Internet over two decades ago with AOL, Earthlink, and other dial-up internet service providers dictating the internet portals and tools its consumers had to use. In those early days, people were too mesmerized by the promise of Internet to pay attention that the very providers to whom they paid money for access, were in fact maximizing their profits by limiting their customers' options. But in the days of dial-up speeds, content was limited in itself. Therefore, these restrictions did not seem to limit any desirable content from the users' screens.

Fast forward to the present. Our networks are now flush with fiber-optic high speed connectivity, we have multiple competing streaming content providers, and the choices we often make when browsing the web may be undesirable to our Internet Service Provider's bottom line. 

Our previous US administration, for all its shortcomings, was wise enough to foresee the potential for predatory abuse and introduced the Net Neutrality protection. 

What is Net Neutrality? Essentially, it is a law that states that every Internet Service Provider must treat every Internet content its customers request equally, regardless of origin. A popular example of this is consider that you are a customer of Verizon FiOS and have a Netflix subscription. Now Verizon already offers Video On Demand content, as well as a slew of movies through its lineup of networks and premium channels. However, Netflix offers its own competing streaming video that may make the customer decline to order Video On Demand from Verizon or even cancel premium channel subscription from Verizon altogether. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Verizon could reduce the speed with which you stream Netflix or make you pay a subscription fee to use Netflix at high speed.

The ramifications go beyond simply blocking competing content for customers and raking in additional profit. Suppose you want to start a small business that sells a product or service that your Internet Service Provider also sells directly or through a partner company. This means, that the ISP can simply block the Internet Traffic of your business and force you to either not use their service or make you pay a premium in order to allow your content. This naturally forces you, the business owner, to incur additional expense that your ISP, the competitor, does not have to. This is the very definition of monopolistic predatory practice. But without Net Neutrality, this type of action would be considered legal.

Luckily, we still have Net Neutrality and Verizon, Optimum, Comcast, et al; can only salivate at the money they can make by fleecing their customers further. But this protection may soon come to an end. The current FCC commissioner has outlined a plan to get rid of the Net Neutrality protection, with the vote on the FCC panel to commence on December 14th of this year. If this repeal passes, it may not be long until we all are subjected to the aforementioned abuses by our Internet Service Providers.

It is important for all of you, the voters, to call your local Republican Senators and Representatives and let your voices be heard. When you call, make sure to note the names of the three Republican FCC Commissioners: Ajit Pai, Michael O'Rielly, and Brendan Carr. Let your local Senators and Representatives know that if pressure is not placed on these commissioners and Net Neutrality is repealed, they will not have your vote come Mid-Term elections in 2018.

Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

It is quite rare, in this day and age, that I get to see a movie with an original story line that is so well written and directed, that I find myself truly forgetting that I am sitting in a movie theater. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is exactly the type of cinematic experience I recommend every movie lover and story lover enjoy.

This movie will drag you out of your seat and make you to empathize with people who are completely unlikable, laugh at things that are tragic, and make you want to hope where there is hopelessness.

Frances McDormand gives a remarkable performance of a grieving mother who cannot reconcile the past without justice. Unable to find peace, she approaches the problem just like she has approached everything else in her life - through confrontation. Her son, ex-husband, the chief of police, and an admirer; all bear the brunt of her abrasive and determined crusade to get a measure of revenge.

Woody Harrelson plays the Chief of local Police. A career lawman who has done well for himself, he is terminally ill, which is apparently the town's worst kept secret. He brings to the story the thematically relevant issue of racism among some police officers, where he shelters a deputy accused of wrongdoing. Butt he is a man of law, giving Frances McDormand's character all the latitude she is legally entitled to, despite her attack that is aimed at him.

Sam Rockwell plays the deputy who is rough around the edges. He is a brute force individual, who has been accused of racism in the past. He attempts to uphold the law and protect his boss, the chief of police at every step; even when it means pushing the envelope of what is legally allowed. He is a foul mouthed, disorganized, and nasty individual that doesn't evoke anyone's sympathy in the beginning. Yet he is key to the unfolding of the story's final chapter.

The theme of the story centers on justice and a measure of revenge. Whether it is revenge for a lost daughter, a fallen co-worker, or any other wrongdoing that a person has been subjected to; the exposure to hatred and anger are key. Throughout the entire movie, the carefully woven undertones show that if you hold on to the hatred and anger, you ultimately become the instrument of injustice - the very opposite of your initial intent.

Judging by the reaction of the theater's audience, it is my understanding that a lot of people didn't get the ending. The problem is that we, the audience, have been often exposed to movies that process everything for us right down the final meaning. It is far rarer to experience a move that leads you down the path to the finale, where all parts are aligned, and leave the finale up to the viewer's interpretation.

--------------------------------------------
SPOILERS BEYOND THIS LINE
--------------------------------------------

My interpretation of the ending is that it doesn't particularly matter whether the suspect is guilty of this particular crime or another crime. It doesn't matter whether the suspect dies or not. What matters is that Sam Rockwell's character finally found his ability to be a detective, guided by a letter from his late chief. What matters is that Frances McDormand's character knows she is not alone and that she finally has hope due to the work of a dedicated police officer. Here is what we know before the screen fades to black:

1) Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell know that the man they are chasing is not the man responsible for the death and rape of Frances McDormand's daughter.

2) They have reconciled themselves that the man they are chasing is evil because he has committed a crime.

3) They have not finalized the decision to kill the suspect. They agree to see how things play out, to determine if he will pay for his crime with his life.

The moral of the story is that the aspect of anger and vengeance that both of these characters live with is a destructive force. It made them both chase down a man who is not responsible for the specific crime at the center of the story. Just because the man must be "guilty of something", forces both main characters to come to the brink of becoming the Judge, the Jury, and the Executioner.

The only plausible poetic unwinding version of this story leads me to believe that the execution will not occur. Whether it is Rockwell's character realizing that it is wrong to take a man's life for another crime, or McDormand's character understanding that killing a man for a different crime will not bring back her daughter; the leading towards this path ultimately is foreshadowed by the doubt in their dialogue as the screen fades to black.

A highly enjoyable cinematic experience. Highly recommended.

I give it 5 out of 5 gummy bears!!!

Xi Jinping follows in Putin's footsteps

The general secretary of the Communist Party, and president, of China Xi Jinping was initially chosen as a compromise by the Central Committee and Party delegates in 2012. It was a compromise between the desire to stay close to the Communist ideals and the desire to capitalize on the modern era reality that China has become a global economic power to be reckoned with.

But this son of an elite founding member of China's Communist Party, who has taken many twists and turns along his way to the top, is anything but a compromising figure. Throughout his first term as the general secretary, he has shown his willingness to dispose of the government of years past, instill a unified economic identity, continue to censor outside world, as well as cement his place in China's history books.

Soon after his father was imprisoned for being vocal and confrontational within China's Communist Party, the teenager Xi Jinping found himself target of the scorn of many of his peers and authorities that now viewed his family in a negative light. He learned his first lesson from his father - that being vocal in opposition to authority is an approach that doesn't achieve the desired result in China. So he immersed himself in his studies, went to the farm lands to perform manual labor with the country's peasant population. This was the call of Mao Zedong to all of China's population living in large cities.

This experience toughened up the young Xi and he soon found himself accepted as a member of the Communist Party, despite his father's tainted legacy. He began to establish a network of influential party members that would turn out to be his main support base in his pursuit for the top of the party hierarchy. He finally achieved that goal in 2012, when he was selected as the new general secretary of the Communist Party.

His actions after he took power in China, mimic those of the actions taken by Vladimir Putin, when he was elected to the reigns in Russia in 2000. A house cleaning of all the corrupt officials and a crackdown on unwritten, but previously accepted, bribe to conduct business policy. Just like Putin, Xi Jinping dismissed and imprisoned former long standing security and economic officials, that may have presented obstacles to his policies and vision. And just like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping did it all under the guise of performing a service to the country and upholding the moral high ground for which every man, woman, and child should strive.

Xi Jinping, in a remarkably similar fashion to Putin, was able to consolidate power by antagonizing elements within the ruling party, and within China, which would have stood in his way of making unilateral decision on their behalf. This was something Vladimir Putin coined the "verticals of power" a decade earlier.

Unlike Russia, China does not have democratically elected leaders. Xi Jinping does not need the same trick that Putin used from 2008 through 2012, when Putin served as Russia's Prime Minister, to side step consecutive term limit law. Xi Jinping's continuity in power solely depends on the Communist Party election every five years. So this year, he brought down the hammer.

Having already brushed aside many of his potential opponents early on in his reign, he has now enshrined his name and ideology into the Chinese constitution. The "Xi Jinping Thought for the Modern Era with Chinese Characteristics" is an ideology that has been unanimously adopted by the Party Congress and has now been written into the constitution. With no apparent understudy declared to take over for him in the future, this new Mao-degree status paces the way for Xi Jinping to rule for decades without any significant opposition.

While Xi Jinping certainly started by following Vladimir Putin's blueprint for the consolidation of power, he has since then surpassed it. Xi Jinping doesn't have any real opposition within the country at this point in time, while Vladimir Putin's opposition keeps growing. But that is largely due in part to Russia's remaining free press coverage and recent economic woes. Neither of theses factors are present in China.

Will Xi Jinping rule China until his death? Does the economic trouble that has forced the Russian people to re-evaluate its leadership have a chance to do the same in China? Leave me your thoughts and questions in the comments below.

China Sees Opportunity

For as long as I can remember, in every economics class of the latter 20th century and early 21st, we have been taught that the United States is the industrial leading behemoth that cannot be surpassed because of its sheer fiscal might. Every currency exchange in the world still compares its local currency to the US Dollar and the United States is still the target for every worldwide consumer innovation, as it is the largest most lucrative market in the world today.

But times are changing. Let's step back and understand the passing of the torch that saw the United States rise as the worldwide economic leader. People who don't study or pay attention to history, may not realize that by the turn of the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Great Britain was the world leader in most major industrial and financial measurements. However, by this time the British Empire grew beyond its means. With its empire stretching across the globe and the financial stresses inflicted by various conflicts, that standing became very tenuous. The beginning of the end was the beginning of World War I, where Britain extended itself further fiscally, and just could not keep up with the rising growing economy of the United States.

Despite going through the Great Depression, the United States kept growing in every phase of its economy. The final straw that unseeded Britain from the top spot was the havoc World War II inflicted upon its people, infrastructure, and finances. Soon their colonies, once the cornerstones of their financial income, began to break away as independent sovereign nations. Then their industries began to be nationalized. Finally, their national budget proportionally became a shadow of its former self. This made the economy grow at a snail's pace and even contract at times.

The United States had none of these problems. The younger nation was buoyed by the end of the Civil War. The United States saw its greatest leaps in industrialization and natural resource discoveries push the growth margin higher than ever during the "gilded age", leading up to the start of the 20th century. By the time of the roaring 20s, the country was now an economic contender on the world stage. But because neither of the world wars saw any extensive damage to the United States infrastructure, there was no pause and no rebuilding cost. This freed up the United States to invest in its growth further and leap past its European competitors with a seemingly insurmountable advantage into first place.

It is a spot which we, as a nation, have not relinquished since. However, our supremacy on the world stage has diminished over time. Since the late 20th century, the United States government has continuously mismanaged its budget to the tune of a financially devastating fiscal deficit. As the GDP and per capita income increased, so did the manufacturing costs. As a result, we have transformed our economy into a service, credit, and consumer economy. All the while shipping our blue collar manufacturing jobs overseas. With that transition we have also given the technical expertise and the income, which was previously kept in house, to nations we never saw as our competitors, let alone our equals.

But this is exactly where China finds itself today. Having absorbed decades of manufacturing and assembly handover from Western nations, China has acquired both the infrastructure and the technical knowledge base necessary to compete on the world stage as equals. Furthermore, Chinese government has acquired sufficient sovereign debt of every Western nation, including the United States, to be able to have political and economic leverage it previously dreamed of.

But now, having accumulated sufficient wealth, China is transitioning. It finds itself at the exact same inflection point that the United States found itself in the late 19th and early 20th century, when it was breathing down Great Britain's neck. Except now it is China ready to overtake the United States as the leading economy in the world. Chinese government is well poised for the role, with a bank roll of foreign debt and a national cash surplus that now seems more attractive to global investors than ever before.

As the conflicts of the world swirl around, the safest place for foreign cash is still the United States, as it is being recognized for its past fiscal dependability. But the winds are changing, and the Asian powerhouse that is China sees opportunity in this crisis. Up until now, they have been able to manipulate its currency and keep the value of the Yuan down to keep its manufacturing infrastructure viable on the world stage, and its Yuan-denominated sovereign debt purchases high in value. But their per capita incomes and currency value is growing beyond these controls. Soon enough, China will find itself in transition to a consumer economy. And that's exactly when the United States will be faced with a similar fate that Great Britain faced in the 20th century.

What do you think? Will China become a major consumer economy within the next decade? Will foreign investors see it as the new capital safety market? Will the US Dollar Standard crumble within the next decade? Please Leave your thoughts below in the comments section.

Catalonia Indecision

Among the many brewing flares of discontent around the world today, I bring your attention to the Northeastern Spanish region of Catalonia. This region has been fighting to be recognized as an independent sovereign state for 300 years. Catalonia is beautiful and wealthy with an abundant array of historical, artistic, and popular culture highlights. In fact, I found it to be enchanting and very friendly on my visit to the region last year.

But it is also restless in its desire to break away from the rest of Spain. Throughout Barcelona I have seen the Pro-Independence red and blue striped flags with a white star on blue triangle hanging from windows and balconies that signify the desire of the Catalan people. Some people believe that Catalonia is often taken advantage of by the Madrid government, with its cash flow often used to make up the financial shortcomings found across the rest of the nation. Others believe that Catalonia is an important compliment to the rest of Spain that should remain as one. So we see a split in Catalonia between Unionists and Pro-Independence supporters. We also see animosity by the Spanish government toward a region that already has a healthy degree of autonomy thanks to the Spanish Constitution.

As Democratically as it can appear to be, the Catalan government headed by Carles Puigdemont held a referendum on the will of the people for Catalonia to secede from Spain. On the heels of the previous referendum held in 2014, it appeared to have a wide-ranging support among the public. After all, that three year old vote produced an 80% support for Catalonia's independence from a 41% voter turnout. The Unionists said that people who did not want to so secede did not take part in the vote. While the Pro-Independence supporters said that usual voter turnout is in the same percentage range anyway. This time, it wasn't enough for Madrid's Constitutional Court to rule the referendum illegal.

For Spain, losing Catalonia would mean a complete economic and political disaster. It would forever change the Spanish national budget, put its obligations to the European Union at risk, and could result in a default on its outstanding Sovereign debts. This is why the Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy, who still remembers the vote three years ago, mobilized the Spanish Civil Guard and additional law enforcement bodies to intervene and prevent the public from voting.

Catalonia responded with fierce defiance. A convoy of tractors dubbed the "Tractorada" drove into the Catalan capital Barcelona to block Central Government's law enforcement from preventing the vote taking place. School teachers and elected officials set up social media communication centers to distribute information on how the voting process will evade Madrid's efforts to curtail the vote. Local police, Mossos d'Esquadra, chose to defy Madrid's orders and instead protected their own Catalan people. Despite Madrid's law enforcement violence in its suppression of the vote on October 1st, more than 43% of Catalonia voted on the referendum with 90% voting in favor of independence from Spain.

Now comes the hard part. According to the Spanish Constitution, Madrid has article 155 at its disposal in the event the autonomous region of Catalonia attempts to secede from Spain. However, its measures are limited and could backfire in cementing Catalonia's opposition to Madrid even further. The article grants Spain the ability to temporarily suspend autonomy in the region, dissolve existing local governing body, and impose new elections. However, with such a widespread support for Catalonia's independence, it is highly unlikely that the elections will yield a new governing body that won't be dead set on the region's independence.

The Central Government in Madrid hasn't been doing itself any favors either. By imprisoning two of the secessionist activists, Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sanchez, prominent in this independence movement, prime minister Mariano Rajoy has only cemented Catalonia's resolve. Tensions are running high, and nobody wants to make the first move. In fact, Mr. Puigdemont is cognizant what the declaration of independence would mean for Catalonia with respect to Spain. So he has suspended the implementation of independence in order to seek dialogue for a smoother transition. To decode that last sentence - Mr. Puigdemont does not want to seem like the guy who began civil unrest here, so he has thrown the hot potato into Madrid's hands.

For Mariano Rajoy's part, he has remained resolute on this matter. He has thrown this dialogue right back into Mr. Puigdemont's court, issuing an ultimatum on whether or not independence has been declared. After not getting the clarification from Catalonia's governing body and Mr. Puigdemont, the Spanish Prime Minister has invoked article 155 and will impose elections in January that will first see Catalonia's governing body dissolved.

With so many Catalan people rallying for independence and so close to realizing their vision, I doubt that any election will stop them. We have seen that both diplomatic and coercive measures have failed. In my view, in the highly unlikely event that the January elections do yield a Unionist governing body, it will be widely rejected in Catalonia by the people and create an even more fierce opposition to Madrid's rule.

What are your views on this matter? Will the Catalan people realize their vision? Will Madrid subdue opposition? Will Catalonia remain a part of Spain in any capacity? Drop me a line in comments below to share your thoughts.

Heroin and Oxycodone

You cannot escape the terms Opioid Abuse, Opioid Epidemic, and Opioid Crisis, in today's news articles and political debates. The reason behind it is the steady increase in how many people have died from prescription painkillers over the past two decades.

I have an inside perspective into this state of affairs, as I have worked for a pharmacy around the time when pain management centers began to pop up and prescribe painkillers for every kind of ailment over 17 years ago. In addition, I have had two close people who have been engulfed by this epidemic. Luckily both of them are still alive and on an endless path to recovery.

The recovery is endless, because this kind of addiction never goes away. It stays with the person for the remainder of their life. And any anomaly in terms of mental or physical stress, coupled with availability of the drug, always puts an addict into a prime position to relapse.

The proliferation of the Oxycodone type medication began to amplify in the late 90s, as an effective painkiller. The Pharmaceutical companies were called to testify before Congress regarding the medication's safety. Despite having the knowledge that Oxycodone is very similar in molecular structure to Heroin and more study was necessary, the Pharmaceutical Executives lied through their teeth and said that addiction to the medication is rare and avoidable.

After all we shouldn't be that surprised. It was the Pharmaceutical giant Bayer, who over a century ago certified Heroin to be safe. It was sold in every Pharmacy for decades, until it was summarily pulled off the shelves due to its apparent addictive property.

That's right, the Pharmaceutical companies, their suppliers, and retailers put profit before the well being of the very people whom they claimed would avoid feeling the pain. The Pharmaceutical companies were very effective in their marketing technique. They went to every doctor, hospital, and pharmacy to tout the benefits of their medication and entice them to be prescribed for everything from headache, toothache, to recovery from surgery and cancer treatment.

But people became addicts, and in much greater numbers than the Congress or Pharmaceutical companies could foresee. The State Department and the Drug Enforcement Agency caught on to the early signs of this deadly trend and had competent attorneys lead successful cases to restrict these medications and contain the Opioid crisis.

The only problem was that the private Pharmaceutical companies have more money than the DEA or the State Department. So the Pharmaceutical companies began to recruit the most competent DEA attorneys and make them work against the very same cases the attorneys constructed for the government.

And this is where we find ourselves today. The Opioid Crisis has now reached Epidemic proportions, with over 15,000 Americans dead in 2015 due to prescription painkiller overdoses alone. We have over two million Americans who have been identified as having at least a degree of dependency on prescription painkillers. These are two million lives, each with a lifetime of recovery ahead of them... if they are lucky.

We need to act on this matter. We need to call our local elected officials to put pressure with our votes. We, as human beings, cannot stand idly by while the greedy Pharmaceutical companies extract profit at the expense of human life. This is a serious matter, and nobody is immune. Because the next time you go to a hospital for something minor, it may be you who receives a painkiller prescription.

Review: The Mummy

Having fond memories of the original late 90s Brendan Fraser movie, I had some hesitation to watch this reboot of a series. I held true to this hesitation, as I didn't want to pay money for this amalgamation of stories that are as predictable as the trailer foreshadows them to be.

However, when no other good movie was available on the return flight from my Bermuda vacation, I decided to spend the two hours watching this work of corporate art. After watching this movie, I have a far greater appreciation for Brendan Fraser's acting skills over those of Tom Cruise. Tom really is a very terrible actor when it comes to real human expressions without any dialogue.

Moving on, the story line is highly speculative due to the wild gaps in logic all along. Such as, if Tom Cruise and his comic relief sidekick are soldiers, they would have been long deemed AWOL and court marshaled, before any question of black market adventures arose.

But it doesn't stop there, the mystery of the organization that keeps order between good and evil devolves into British literary villain of dual nature played by Russell Crowe. Something that has nothing to do with ancient Egypt. At this point, I got the suspicion that even before establishing this movie as entertaining enough on its own, it already began to set up for a sequel.

Furthermore, when the mummy does reanimate, her minions appear to be not the ancient soldiers of movies past, but zombified humans she collects along the way. The way she completely reanimates is also reminiscent of the way vampires regain strength, rather than mummified royalty.

Lastly, the main character's "sacrifice" does not make sense and runs counter to the manner in which the story should have easily resolved the main conflict. It also tends to be very silly in suggesting that an ordinary human being can "will" themselves over the all powerful god of death.

Aside from these shortcomings, this movie is only good for a brainless action thrill ride full of computer generated imagery that is the very well crafted. If you're a fan of Universal's Dark Universe, you may enjoy some of the characters involved. But this is not a movie I would recommend for anyone that enjoys the story line or the plot.

I give this movie 2.5 out of 5 gummy bears.

Review: Beatriz At Dinner

I found this movie to be very well paced, with expressive and human touch at every turn. The dialogue between the main characters of the story was executed in a flawless and consistently connected fashion. Beatriz at dinner is a very well scripted and acted portrayal of a practical modest spiritual therapist that unintentionally enters the world of the well off and often oblivious to reality.

A good mannered client invites Selma Hayek's character (Beatriz) to the dinner party, after she is stranded on location by her stalled vehicle. She soon learns that she is surrounded by people who aren't interested in their own health, spiritual satisfaction or their environment.

Their only pursuits are image, self-gratification, and money. At the dinner table, the values clash in a very direct but well mannered fashion. However, all manners are eventually stripped away when Beatriz finds out what the guest of honor's business and hobby involve.

The sparring escalates to a full blown confrontation. And while Beatriz defends her position with concern for humanity and spiritual well being, the hosts and guests of the dinner party are only concerned with their finances and status.

The evening's main guest is a very brash Real Estate mogul named Doug Strutt, played masterfully by John Lithgow. He is a man who is engulfed by his own ambitions and aura of infallibility, requiring an occasional adrenaline rush that he achieves through big game hunting expeditions.

The screenplay soon reveals that there are two connections between him and Beatriz. She first realizes that Doug shares the same profession as the man who destroyed her hometown with a hotel project, and initially thinks they are one in the same.

Despite animal hunting and passion for real estate finance that rub Beatriz the wrong way, she feels a sudden overwhelming desire for revenge when she realizes that Doug is the man who killed her goat. At the last minute, she comes to her senses and does not go through with it. Instead, the movie ends on a note of letting go and cleansing herself in the ocean.

My thoughts is that the movie is a very excellent portrayal of clashing values between the people who are true to themselves and their humanity, as opposed to those who are trapped in the pursuit of material satisfaction at the expense of others. It also offers a view of what effects of any given action can have on the lives of others. Finally, it truly underscores that the action of revenge and violence are not the way to resolve conflict between people. Instead, the moral of the film is to let go of the pain and let go of the hate.

Outside of the incredibly overly sensitive Beatriz, whose character was by design made such to contrast with the rest of the characters, the movie hits every mark as far as entertainment and message delivery is concerned. Beatriz's sentiments border on unbelievable, which is why I cannot give it the perfect mark it otherwise deserves.

I give Beatriz at Dinner 4.5 out of 5 gummy bears.

Vegas Murders

I am incredibly saddened by the mass murder of concert goers outside of Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas this past Sunday night. Stephen Paddock, with unclear motives, stocked his hotel room with a sizable arsenal of automatic weapons and unleashed a deadly barrage upon the unsuspecting crowd. To me it is tragic, shocking, and sad. I mourn for the victims and the city.

The reason I encourage everyone to stop using the term 'shooting' and start using the term 'murder', is because it is the most accurate term for intentional loss of life. We have become so desensitized to the term 'shooting', that the only way we can truly grasp the reality of what happened Sunday night is to use the term 'murder'.

The second thing I encourage everyone to do is to stop using the term 'terrorism' until it is confirmed to be valid. The term 'terrorism' is defined as the 'unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims'. While the violence aspect of what Stephen Paddock did at the Las Vegas country music festival this past Sunday night is clearly evident by the 59 attendees killed and another 527 injured, there is no political motives that have been uncovered at all as of yet.

Both of the aforementioned terms are excessively used by the media to grab the headlines, viewers, and internet traffic. Such is the reality of the entertainment news delivery vehicles we live with. But news should not be entertainment. The news delivery vehicles should be impartial, objective, and avoid instilling fear or confusion in the minds of its viewers.

Politicians also hijack such tragedy for their own political agenda. They usurp the lives that were lost and changed forever in order to achieve their selfish crusade. Do not let them influence you. Think for yourselves and learn to recognize when exaggerated fear is being applied as a manipulative tactic in order to get a desired response from you.

Stephen Paddock was an independently wealthy reclusive individual with no political or religious affiliations. He owned various properties across the United States, gambled a lot, but was generally known as a nonviolent person. He texted his brother to check on their mother's health, after hurricane Irma ravaged Florida. He successfully passed Federal background checks at every gun shop he ever purchased a firearm from and showed no abnormal psychological tendencies before he turned violent Sunday night.

Those of you who know me are aware that the Las Vegas strip has been an annual destination to me over the past two decades. New York may be the city that never sleeps, but Las Vegas is the city where time is irrelevant. To many it serves as a destination for celebrating life's joyous events, a fun spot for business conferences, and an escape from everyday reality. In addition to the incredibly painful human tragedy, after Sunday night's events that image has lost some of its luster.

I sincerely ask all of you to not fall under the entertainment news media's influence of panic and fear. It causes needless confusion, division, and antagonism toward each other. It prevents us from uniting together as human beings and achieving a common voice with the politicians who should represent all of us. Think independently and find trustworthy news outlets like the BBC, that provides unbiased objective information and has no ulterior motives to pursue. We should all expose and shame the politicians who usurp tragedies for their own political means. Such people should never be allowed to hold an elected office ever again, because they are unable to represent anyone's interests except their own.

Trumpier than Trump

With our nation's president going on the offensive with everyone from foreign allies, dictators, media, to professional sports and more; we have become accustomed, if not completely numb, to some of the things he says that are deprived of any intelligence whatsoever.

Fast forward to this past week in Alabama, where a firebrand conservative Roy Moore won a Senate seat by igniting the flames of the intellectually less fortunate. We should be concerned with this development, if we are ever to progress our country out of the educational and intellectual decline, or else we risk tumbling ever further into the phenomenon known as Idiocracy.

Roy Moore is a more audacious version of Trump - a Trumpier Trump, if you will. He doesn't do Public Relations remediation of anything he does that is viewed as a negative, because he doesn't believe anything of the kind exists. This is a man who has conviction that all of society's ills boil down to the people forgetting about God. He believes that God incurs wrath on all of us, because of those among us who have strayed from the almighty.

He also believes that homosexuality is illegal, all law comes from God himself, evolution is a hoax, Obama is not an American, reds and yellows are fighting, and Islam is a false religion. He even idolizes Vladimir Putin and likens himself to the character of the Russian leader.

But if that wasn't enough, he was fired from his previous job on the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing a Federal order to remove the massive stone Ten Commandments statue from inside the courthouse. While he believes all law comes from God, it is evident that he picks and chooses which laws to follow on a case by case basis.

While the media and the people here on the East Coast may chuckle and laugh at his election, it is not a reason to laugh. It is a rather sad event that we have to tolerate such people representing any community as elected officials. He is by far not the only one present in the Senate or the House of Representatives. Various representative degrees of the intellectually challenged sit and preside over laws that impact us nationally.

We all are responsible for this. We must take our education system back, enforce separation of church and state, communicate with our representatives, keep aware of legislative news, and vote intelligently. If we brush off the election of the Moores with a chuckle and a laugh, it won't be long before Idiocracy is realized.

Cracks in Japan

If you're like most Americans, you have probably missed the news this past Monday morning that the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe has called for snap elections and a dissolution of the current government body that has previously given him stern opposition.

In effect, he is seizing the moment of higher approval ratings that are currently hovering above the fifty percent mark and put him in a much better position to make this move than his thirty percent approval ratings just months ago. So what has changed? He is finding the opportunity in the North Korean threat, which has propped up his approval despite an economy that is in deep trouble.

Japan's annual debt is currently over twice its own annual gross domestic product. This means that Japan has to continue borrowing and use its own quantitative easing variation of the program in order to keep up the illusion of a functional economic health.

Essentially, the world's governments are all doing this. They are borrowing from each other with money they do not have, treating each others' debt as assets. So we are all essentially stuck holding each others' IOU notes that on which we can barely pay the interest. The problem with playing this global game of musical chairs is that sooner or later the music will stop... and there will be no chairs.

Every time the governments borrow, print, and dilute money; they are in fact devaluing the currency each country uses and its people earn. Therefore, these measures are going along a curve of continuously diminishing returns. As a result, there will come a time when these measures will become completely ineffective. And that's when the music will stop.

Japan, with the highest ratio of debt to GDP, will be one of the first, if not the first country to fall in this setting. Shinzo Abe, being the proponent of monetary easing measures, is seeking to consolidate power and reduce opposition, as his Monday power move has proven.

In America, we will likely be the last nation to feel the impact of this global wave of deflation. The reason is once the dominoes begin to fall, all foreign countries' biggest capital holders will transfer their wealth to the United States market, as it is seen as the most stable. But this will ultimately prop up our assets only to fall the farthest and in the most painful devastating fashion.

That is why Japan matters, why foreign economies we have ties with matter - our economic well being is intertwined with the countries whose debt United States lists as assets. We must recognize that the troubles we are seeing in armed conflicts across the world and natural disasters that devastate other countries are not just "their problem", it is in fact our collective problem.

So do not be deceived by the skyrocketing Dow Jones and S&P 500 in the next few years. These events occur because of the money coming in from foreigners to temporarily avoid the calamity that their nations are enduring, one that will ultimately come our way in the end.

For now, the market will be a good place to keep your savings and retirement. But once the music stops, the only assets that will be safe are defensive ones, whose value doesn't fluctuate based on paper currency.

Woe is Boxing

Professional sport of any kind is a basic distraction from real life, which so many of us use to relax, deflect stress, and blow off some negative energy. Boxing, in particular, is a working man's (and woman's) sport where competition by way of the fist and movement achieves victory. Two combatants bruise and injure each other for 12 rounds on canvas in order to achieve supremacy and respect by the end.

When you are the Boxing governing bodies, you want to promote a genuinely worthy fight like the one we saw last night between Canelo Alvarez and Gennady Golovkin. Two complementary style fighters in top form, slugging it out for the undisputed championship of the world. There's just one problem, as is with any sport where judges decide the winner, There are no definitive metrics to decides who wins or loses, unless a knockout is involved.

The general metrics we use to judge any fight are number of punches thrown, number of punches landed, percentage of punches landed, and the power punches version of the aforementioned three. But, the judges may override those figures based on more subjective metrics - the punches that landed more effectively or cleanly than others, who controlled or was more aggressive during the fight, and who was more stationary than their opponent. This is where the competency of the judge comes into play.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the enterprise of Boxing in a very questionable, if not altogether laughable, place. Spotty and inconsistent judging, promotional shenanigans, no regulations for champions to fight the top rated challengers, and a general apathy toward the ever increasing money the Boxing broadcasters charge the public. This is all a very dangerous recipe for the Boxing's governing bodies.

So what do they do? The promoters finally come up with a worthy and blockbuster fight where the top boxers in their division compete for the championship, 2 years after it was supposed to happen. The Boxing's governing bodies decide that it would be great to have a rematch (because they can fleece the public for even, even before the original bout starts. So they insert Adalaide Byrd into the judging panel as insurance, to make sure that the scorecard from the judges gives them a better outcome, in terms of getting a rematch.

After 12 rounds, of some of the best boxing we have witnessed in a while, last night the decision went to the judging panel. The result was a draw, which the vast majority of people who saw this fight thought was unjust. Gennady Golovkin controlled the fight and thrown, as well as landed, more punches than his opponent, Canelo Alvarez. Canelo landed some crushing blows, but they were too far and too few in between to even come close in making this anything resembling a close fight.

Teddy Atlas, the ESPN's boxing analyst and a very important voice of conscience in this once revered sport, is 100% correct. The Boxing authorities are corrupt and culpable in the decision, as they have appointed judge Adalaide Byrd to the panel, despite her glaring record of questionable scores in prior contests. Despite promoters asking her to be removed from the panel before the fight. If she is incompetent, she is the kind of incompetent that the Boxing authorities like - it appears her score for any fight can be bought.

In watching last night's post-fight ESPN coverage, I am incredibly saddened by the blatantly fraudulent corporate sellout comments by Stepehen A Smith. He is a child in a grown man's body, whom nobody taught that raising your voice does not make you right - it just makes you seem arrogant and self-absorbed. He started off deflecting Teddy Atlas' scathing criticism of the Boxing authorities by using this argument - "everybody here in Vegas knew that Golovkin will have to knock Alvarez out and that if it goes to the scorecards, he will not win the decision". Just because it is the truth, Stephen A Smith, does not make it right (no matter how much the deal between ESPN and Boxing is worth). He went on to sell the rematch and spinning this turd into how good it is for the sport.

It is the perfect setup because the Boxing authorities, and their money-receiving enablers, can use the lone judge as the professional scapegoat whom they paid - "Oh, it was Adalaide Byrd and her incompetence." But these Boxing authorities were responsible for not only allowing this judge on the panel, but insisting she stay there despite objections form the promoters. But Teddy Atlas is right, short of removing the human judges and using technology to computerize the scoring of punches landed and their power, we will never have a finite metric for a Boxing match decision. And the Boxing authorities are free to exploit this weakness for profit.

So where is the sport of Boxing today? It is in the same category as Figure Skating, where the judging panel decides the fate of the match. And at times like this, their decision runs counter to the reality we saw in the ring.

Last night we saw a fantastic fight, and I left last night with the following:

1. Deep admiration for Gennady Golovkin and Canelo Alvarez for giving us a great fight
2. Complete disgust with Adalaide Byrd, Stephen A Smith, and Boxing authorities
3. Empathy for Teddy Atlas and all those who are Boxing purists that ache for the sport
    

Nuclear Fear

By now we have all been sufficiently bombarded with the fear of a nuclear conflict on television and online, given the recent tensions with North Korea.

The North Korean missile program has recently been able to repeatedly and successfully launch intermediate range ballistic missiles, including a very dangerous launch over the Hokkaido island of Japan. Western intelligence agencies say that not only does North Korea now possess a missile that can reach parts of the continental United States, but that they have also been able to miniaturize their nuclear arsenal so that the nuclear payload can be delivered via such a vehicle.

On our home front, the president of the United States has not practiced effective international diplomacy to calm the tensions. In fact, he has only inflamed the situation when offering "Fire and Fury" as a means with which he plans to address the North Korean threat. We have a wide array of military assets in the Korean peninsula and have conducted military exercises with the South Korea as a show of force. None of this has worked, nor will work, to resolve the tensions.

The leader of North Korea, Kim Jung-Un, is following in his father's footsteps in attempting to flaunt his country's military in order to gain international attention and at times blackmail countries for economic concessions. However, with the escalated nuclear capabilities of the North, there is no longer an aura of invincibility for the US and its allies. There is, for the first time, substantial fear.

While we remember the days of the Cold War, when Soviet Union squared off with the United States, and its days of escalating Nuclear capabilities and countermeasures, this confrontation is quite different. In the days of the Cold War, both sides had professionals of distinguished integrity that held human life in highest regard, and intervened in order to preserve it.

One notable example is when the Soviet physicist, Andrei Sakharov, made a breakthrough in high yield nuclear ordinance in 1960. Despite demands from the Politburo for the most powerful bomb ever created, he intervened and convinced them to reduce the yield by half. As a result, he may well have saved all life on earth. While the bomb RDS-220 (commonly known as Tsar Bomba) had yield of half of the original design, the test detonation was still a devastating event that wiped out a village, was felt over a thousand miles away, and its blast wave orbited the earth thrice.

Such men of integrity and courage are rare. In fact, I am beginning to doubt that many exist anymore in today's world. I certainly doubt that there are any left in a repressive and dictatorial regime of the North Korea.

The End of Bullying?

In recent years, the effects of bully behavior in our nation's schools has become fully exposed with tragic consequences. We have seen news stories of children committing suicide, after a prolonged period of being subjected to bullying by their peers. Just this year alone in the United States the lives of Gabriel Taye, Sadie Riggs, and Mallory Grossman have been lost to consequences of bullying behavior.

But unless you're a child or a teacher, you don't really witness first-hand the extent of cruelty that children are subjected to. You are left only with second-hand accounts. But never fear, social media is here. Those second-hand accounts now appear on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc. The bullies themselves, as well as bystanders who enjoy the spectacle, are posting their actions online.

In the United States, the schools are attempting to correct this behavior through raising awareness and reporting measures. The theory is that once a bully is exposed, confronted, and the victim's suffering is brought to light, the likelihood of a repeat offense is less. The problem here is that these measures are built on a hypothesis that the community's stand on bullying behavior being unacceptable will discourage such behavior.

Let us dive deeper into what a bully wants to achieve. The vast majority of bullies inflict physical and mental pain on their peers in order to satisfy their sense of recognition among their peers and to highlight a difference between themselves and their victims for personal status of superiority. To a bully, the confrontation is a part of the action they seek in the process. Therefore, the reverse situation of a non-damaging confrontation inflicted upon a bully does not guarantee that his or her destructive behavior will cease.

Awareness and reporting are a great start, but they are by no means the solution. In Finland, a new system has been implemented with significant success. It is called kiusaamista vastaan, translated - against bullying. The concept is rather simple - it is to starve the bullies of the attention they seek. It involves significant training for the teachers and a new part of the curriculum that teaches students to engage the victim of bullying with caring positive attention and to ignore the culprit. Much more than sending a message to the bully, this program sends a message of support to the victim and deprives the bully.

This program involves a large amount of educators' time to implement, which works well with the Finnish education system. However, it would require a wholesale curriculum overhaul in the United States, where the teachers are forced by the system to be more concerned with the students' test scores, than they are with their mental and physical well being. In Finland, being a teacher is one of the more prestigious and lucrative occupations, for which the best of the best apply. In the United States, that's simply not the case.

But Finland is not the only nation finding success in combating bullying behavior. In China, the Beijing education authorities were severely disturbed a year ago when videos of cruel bullying incidents in schools began to surface on social media. The courts ordered the education authorities to take action in order to combat this problem. Their solution is a multi-step program that forces bullies to undergo military training (what we in the United States call boot camp), provide community service, and make speeches at schools regarding the evils of bullying. The punishment is levied in a court, just like a criminal offence, and the initial sentence has a term to it in months of service required. After the term expires, the court hears from the program administrators and the offender to rule on whether her or she is ready to rejoin their peers in civil society.

In my opinion, the Finnish solution sounds excellent but unrealistic for the United States education system in its present shape. As it stands, I am in favor of the Chinese solution and here is my reasoning. Bullying behavior is a clear and present threat to the physical and mental well being of the entire student population. As a result, we as Americans, have to extend the Bill of Rights to our children in schools and punish the offenders who infringe upon them. For adults, assault and harassment are punishable offenses that can be prosecuted in a court of law. We can do our future generations a service, by addressing these tendencies early on.

What do you think? Should we take the Finnish, Chinese, American, or a completely different approach? Leave your comments below, as I am curious to find out what creative solutions we an come up with.  

Don't Take Your Successes For Granted

One of the most incomplete, but wildly popular, sayings is that "experience is learning from your mistakes". 

First of all, let's dissect that statement. The term experience in the given context is defined as having acquired a certain degree in a practical skill as a result of repeated exposure (hands on or through observation) to the corresponding events. If experience implies learning, then the true measure of experience is defined by your successes in participation, not your failures. 

The only thing a failure will teach you is what not to repeat again. It is true that certain failures will create situations that force you to be resourceful and test you, some subsequently leading to success. But ultimately, you learn from your successes with respect to what works. 

As children, we know this to be true from a young age. From the time a child crawls, walks, uses a spoon, etc.; that child recognizes the feeling of success and repeats those successes in their continuous process of learning. 

As we get older, our goals and achievements become more complex and multifaceted. Some of these include purchasing a house, making the right investment, raising a child and advancing a career. The more items we have to cover in order to achieve success in any given goal, the more likely it is we will experience failure at some point on our way to achieving that goal. This, I suppose, is the reason why the aforementioned saying about mistakes being the source of our experience is so prevalent.

However, the greatest mistake many adults repeat is failing to learn from success. The reason for this is when we fail, we are forced to assess our failure and figure out where we went wrong, ultimately setting us on a more correct path to success. However, when we succeed, there is no pressing need to assess our success in order to figure out where we made the right choices and where other factors were in play despite mistakes. 

From personal experience, almost a decade ago, a potential promotion in an industry I love dearly fell into my lap. It is a position I earned specific graduate education for, accumulated the right industry background, and seemingly made the right impression with the company staff. Up until that point in my career, every single promotion that I had applied for, I received. It seemed so natural, that I could do no wrong, or so I thought. But despite having all the right credentials, scoring desirably on the personality assessment, and acing the interview; I did not get the job.

The job went to an external Software Development professional candidate who had no experience in the given industry. I was completely blindsided. After running through all the variations in my mind of how this could happen, the blame game, and pondering my future; I decided to research all the information on this matter I could get from my colleagues.

I discovered there were several factors that led to me being excluded from consideration for the given role. 

First, the organization I worked in acquired a reputation for promoting younger staff with limited experience to higher level positions, which made the parent company question the organization's choices. This made it less likely for me to be chosen for the role, as the local managers wanted to make a better impression with this particular hire.  

Second, I acquired the perception for being demanding of my co-workers. At the time I did not have a wife, kids or a house. I could immerse myself in work, and push as much of my energy as I could during the working hours. The adverse perception from my colleagues was that I would be as demanding of them in a more administrative role. This provided resistance from some of my colleagues, when asked by Human Resources how would I fare in this particular role.

Lastly, I was highly valued by all the department heads and my direct manager in a purely technical role. I was seen as a valuable technical resource with no viable replacement in the event of a promotion. Neither the upper management nor my direct manager wanted any part of having to replace me in the vacated position. This factor, contributed the heaviest towards this failure. 

Ultimately, I realized that in all my prior promotions and job offers, I succeeded. This never made me go through the same analytic process that I had to go through at this point in time. As a result, I always thought that my approach to getting the next job was without fault. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The mistake that I kept on making, despite the string of successes, was to focus on myself and project the person I thought the organization needed.

In reality, in order to get any job, I needed to focus on the organization, the role, and the specific profile needs of that role, in order to make sure I project the match the organization is looking for. I have been applying that principle ever since.

Most importantly, I learned not to take my successes for granted. I have learned to carefully scrutinize my successes, just as much as my failures, in order to separate where I was right and where I was lucky despite being wrong. 

I would advise everyone to learn from your successes. Go over the details of each and every step. You'll be surprised how much you can learn from them, when you stop taking your successes for granted.