Discussion:
[Muddled thinking] Joseph Nye on Soft Power
(too old to reply)
ltlee1
2018-01-04 16:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01

"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."

With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?

In the first case:
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.

In the second case:
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
ltlee1
2018-01-06 00:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01
"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."
With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
More muddled assertion by Nye:

"If we use the term sharp power as shorthand for information warfare, the contrast with soft power becomes plain. Sharp power is a type of hard power. It manipulates information, which is intangible, but intangibility is not the distinguishing characteristic of soft power. Verbal threats, for example, are both intangible and coercive."

Power, to the extend that it is power, must be tangible to involved parties. If it appears to the intangible to someone else, it only means that someone is not seeing the situation from the right perspective. Verbal threats are not exceptions. They are only as coercive as they are tangible.

What if A threatens B that he would beat B up if B does not do A's bidding?
What is tangible concerning this verbal threat?
Simple, A is bigger, stronger, more trained in martial skills and etc than B. That is, tangible signs indicative of A's capability to carry out his threat. On more serious matters, Kim III could not have threatened the US before N Korea had demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.
w***@yahoo.com.sg
2018-01-06 00:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My guess is Joseph Nye thinks better than ltlee.

Wakalukong
ltlee1
2018-01-06 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01
"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."
With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
"If we use the term sharp power as shorthand for information warfare, the contrast with soft power becomes plain. Sharp power is a type of hard power. It manipulates information, which is intangible, but intangibility is not the distinguishing characteristic of soft power. Verbal threats, for example, are both intangible and coercive."
Power, to the extend that it is power, must be tangible to involved parties. If it appears to the intangible to someone else, it only means that someone is not seeing the situation from the right perspective. Verbal threats are not exceptions. They are only as coercive as they are tangible.
What if A threatens B that he would beat B up if B does not do A's bidding?
What is tangible concerning this verbal threat?
Simple, A is bigger, stronger, more trained in martial skills and etc than B. That is, tangible signs indicative of A's capability to carry out his threat. On more serious matters, Kim III could not have threatened the US before N Korea had demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.
Actually, I don't quite get Nye's idea of soft power from the beginning. Of course, soft power could be used to explain many US successes. But more and more people are having second thought.

For example, a Foreign Affairs article several years ago had pointed out to many careful observers the obvious: "Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role."

In addition, power is power. If US culture indeed has a lot of soft power, it could be readily deployed to solve internal problems. What soft power is used to solved what US domestic problems nowadays?




https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy
Resty Wyse
2018-01-06 16:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
Actually, I don't quite get Nye's idea of soft power from the beginning. Of course, soft power could be used to explain many US successes.
The U.s. never have any "soft power", only raw military brute power.
Post by ltlee1
But more and more people are having second thought.
For example, a Foreign Affairs article several years ago had pointed out to many careful observers the obvious: "Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role."
In addition, power is power. If US culture indeed has a lot of soft power, it could be readily deployed to solve internal problems. What soft power is used to solved what US domestic problems nowadays?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy
w***@yahoo.com.sg
2018-01-07 03:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
US soft power resides in the US entertainment industry, pop culture and fast food. Disneyland and McDonald's have more soft power than all of the US goernment.

Wakalukong
Resty Wyse
2018-01-07 04:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by w***@yahoo.com.sg
US soft power resides in the US entertainment industry, pop culture and fast food. Disneyland and McDonald's have more soft power than all of the US goernment.
Wakalukong
Yes.
ltlee1
2018-01-08 16:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01
"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."
With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
"If we use the term sharp power as shorthand for information warfare, the contrast with soft power becomes plain. Sharp power is a type of hard power. It manipulates information, which is intangible, but intangibility is not the distinguishing characteristic of soft power. Verbal threats, for example, are both intangible and coercive."
Power, to the extend that it is power, must be tangible to involved parties. If it appears to the intangible to someone else, it only means that someone is not seeing the situation from the right perspective. Verbal threats are not exceptions. They are only as coercive as they are tangible.
What if A threatens B that he would beat B up if B does not do A's bidding?
What is tangible concerning this verbal threat?
Simple, A is bigger, stronger, more trained in martial skills and etc than B. That is, tangible signs indicative of A's capability to carry out his threat. On more serious matters, Kim III could not have threatened the US before N Korea had demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.
Actually, I don't quite get Nye's idea of soft power from the beginning. Of course, soft power could be used to explain many US successes. But more and more people are having second thought.
For example, a Foreign Affairs article several years ago had pointed out to many careful observers the obvious: "Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role."
In addition, power is power. If US culture indeed has a lot of soft power, it could be readily deployed to solve internal problems. What soft power is used to solved what US domestic problems nowadays?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy
H for hypocrisy is part of US "H" power. H for hormone is another part of US "H" power.

Oxytocin is the hormone of trust, it is also the hormone which allows one to distinguish one's own tribe from other tribes. Trusting one's owns tribe entails distrusting other tribes.
ltlee1
2018-01-12 12:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01
"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."
With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
"If we use the term sharp power as shorthand for information warfare, the contrast with soft power becomes plain. Sharp power is a type of hard power. It manipulates information, which is intangible, but intangibility is not the distinguishing characteristic of soft power. Verbal threats, for example, are both intangible and coercive."
Power, to the extend that it is power, must be tangible to involved parties. If it appears to the intangible to someone else, it only means that someone is not seeing the situation from the right perspective. Verbal threats are not exceptions. They are only as coercive as they are tangible.
What if A threatens B that he would beat B up if B does not do A's bidding?
What is tangible concerning this verbal threat?
Simple, A is bigger, stronger, more trained in martial skills and etc than B. That is, tangible signs indicative of A's capability to carry out his threat. On more serious matters, Kim III could not have threatened the US before N Korea had demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.
Actually, I don't quite get Nye's idea of soft power from the beginning. Of course, soft power could be used to explain many US successes. But more and more people are having second thought.
For example, a Foreign Affairs article several years ago had pointed out to many careful observers the obvious: "Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role."
In addition, power is power. If US culture indeed has a lot of soft power, it could be readily deployed to solve internal problems. What soft power is used to solved what US domestic problems nowadays?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy
H for hypocrisy is part of US "H" power. H for hormone is another part of US "H" power.
Oxytocin is the hormone of trust, it is also the hormone which allows one to distinguish one's own tribe from other tribes. Trusting one's owns tribe entails distrusting other tribes.
And of course H for hiding the head under the sand.
When prominent elites like Joseph Nye talks about American soft power, more likely than not, ivory tower project would be popped up to support his view. In this case, "Soft Power 30" gives the American government high mark.

The reality:
"It is not a coincidence that it is the leading cause of death for young
black men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined. That is the
result of decades of policy choices, neglect, underinvestment, gangs and thugs,
and adversarial policing in communities of color. That said, it’s a mistake to
think that gun violence is a problem just for black people or poor people or only in cities. Gun violence touches every class, color, and community, with thirty three thousand people dying from guns each year—an average of ninety a day.

That’s a particularly devastating fact because gun violence is largely preventable." (Quoted from WHAT HAPPENED)

How could a government which does not care or not able to prevent the largely preventable attractive to the world?
Resty Wyse
2018-01-12 17:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
And of course H for hiding the head under the sand.
When prominent elites like Joseph Nye talks about American soft power, more likely than not, ivory tower project would be popped up to support his view. In this case, "Soft Power 30" gives the American government high mark.
"It is not a coincidence that it is the leading cause of death for young
black men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined. That is the
result of decades of policy choices, neglect, underinvestment, gangs and thugs,
and adversarial policing in communities of color. That said, it’s a mistake to
think that gun violence is a problem just for black people or poor people or only in cities. Gun violence touches every class, color, and community, with thirty three thousand people dying from guns each year—an average of ninety a day.
That’s a particularly devastating fact because gun violence is largely preventable." (Quoted from WHAT HAPPENED)
How could a government which does not care or not able to prevent the largely preventable attractive to the world?
America has no "soft-power". America has been a nation lives by the gun, and certainly dies by the gun. It has been this way since the 1800s. Every part of America was taken away from another tribe or nation. And we continue the same way as it had been since the beginning even as other nations rise. With Donald Trump as president, it can only spiral downward.
ltlee1
2018-01-13 14:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01
"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."
With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
"If we use the term sharp power as shorthand for information warfare, the contrast with soft power becomes plain. Sharp power is a type of hard power. It manipulates information, which is intangible, but intangibility is not the distinguishing characteristic of soft power. Verbal threats, for example, are both intangible and coercive."
Power, to the extend that it is power, must be tangible to involved parties. If it appears to the intangible to someone else, it only means that someone is not seeing the situation from the right perspective. Verbal threats are not exceptions. They are only as coercive as they are tangible.
What if A threatens B that he would beat B up if B does not do A's bidding?
What is tangible concerning this verbal threat?
Simple, A is bigger, stronger, more trained in martial skills and etc than B. That is, tangible signs indicative of A's capability to carry out his threat. On more serious matters, Kim III could not have threatened the US before N Korea had demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.
Actually, I don't quite get Nye's idea of soft power from the beginning. Of course, soft power could be used to explain many US successes. But more and more people are having second thought.
For example, a Foreign Affairs article several years ago had pointed out to many careful observers the obvious: "Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role."
In addition, power is power. If US culture indeed has a lot of soft power, it could be readily deployed to solve internal problems. What soft power is used to solved what US domestic problems nowadays?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy
H for hypocrisy is part of US "H" power. H for hormone is another part of US "H" power.
Oxytocin is the hormone of trust, it is also the hormone which allows one to distinguish one's own tribe from other tribes. Trusting one's owns tribe entails distrusting other tribes.
And of course H for hiding the head under the sand.
When prominent elites like Joseph Nye talks about American soft power, more likely than not, ivory tower project would be popped up to support his view. In this case, "Soft Power 30" gives the American government high mark.
"It is not a coincidence that it is the leading cause of death for young
black men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined. That is the
result of decades of policy choices, neglect, underinvestment, gangs and thugs,
and adversarial policing in communities of color. That said, it’s a mistake to
think that gun violence is a problem just for black people or poor people or only in cities. Gun violence touches every class, color, and community, with thirty three thousand people dying from guns each year—an average of ninety a day.
That’s a particularly devastating fact because gun violence is largely preventable." (Quoted from WHAT HAPPENED)
How could a government which does not care or not able to prevent the largely preventable attractive to the world?
To sum up, the US has 4 H power, the first H is hard power, military and economic, the other 3 H are hypocrisy, hormone(oxytocin) and head in the sand. The last 3 H allow the US to effectively mobilize biases, positive to the US and negative against its enemies.

To the extent that it still lacks true soft power, real and significant issues could only be determined by hard power.
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-13 14:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.china/_G0eyYYdBsk
Post by Resty Wyse
America has no "soft-power". America has been a nation lives by the gun, and certainly dies by the gun. It has been this way since the 1800s. Every part of America was taken away from another tribe or nation. And we continue the same way as it had been since the beginning even as other nations rise. With Donald Trump as president, it can only spiral downward.
Yale Guen Mar, you came to the USA in November of 1949 as a refugee from PRC when you sailed into San Francisco from Hong Kong.

After 68 years in the US, you are saying that USA is no good and that PRC is decidedly better.

Yale Guen Mar, are you thinking of getting a job in PRC?

Or are you smart enough to know the pitfalls?

Yale Guen Mar, you have been in USA since 1949 when you fled Communist China in a ship from Hong Kong to San Francisco.

Yale Guen Mar, you are an opportunist. It doesn't matter what is worst and what is best for the world. You do what is best for you, period.

You stay put in Merced, CA so that you can collect welfare checks from Uncle Sam. At the same time you try your level best to earn 50 cents per approved post from the CCP regime in Beijing.

Yale Guen Mar, are you thinking of relocating to your birth village in PRC to learn first hand from the CCP dictatorship in Beijing?

Or do you think it is more prudent of you to live in USA on welfare checks from Uncle Sam and supplement the welfare checks with 50 cents per approved post from Uncle Chang?

Aren't you stuck in Merced, CA for reasons that are far more mundane than your distaste for America ? Isn't self interest the guiding principle that you keeps you stuck in USA even after 68 years of landing in San Francisco as a refugee from Communist China in 1949?

Aren't you afraid that you'll be a loser two times over if you relocate to PRC - you'll lose your welfare checks from Uncle Sam and, at the same time, if you post something from PRC that doesn't sit well with CCP, its workers will be at your door step in no time with orders to widen your asshole?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.china/nsnNRLOFttk
Post by Resty Wyse
My brother has multi-millions.
They could live very well in China.
After living in the U.S. for 50 years,
who can get use to living in the village,
with no running water, no running hot water,
no indoor bathroom, no natural gas for cooking,...
For the last 3 years of their lives,
they were living in a retirement facility
where everything was done for them for $3,000/month.
The retirement home was the reason they died,
no physical activities.
I went back to our house in 2006 and talked to
our neighbors. They all agreed that if my
parents had gone back to the house to live,
they would still be alive doing things around the house,
doing physical activities to keep their bodies in use.
So Yale Guen Mar, you think that PRC wasn't good enough for even your parents, let alone for you?

Yale Guen Mar, why don't you move back to your birth village so that you can live under CCP dictatorship in PRC? Of course you'll have to be very very careful. Don't post anything that deviates from CCP policy - otherwise you'll get sent away for reeducation through labor ( 勞動教養 ), but not before party workers widen your asshole enormously.

Good luck with your search for old age home with facilities for assisted living.

I think your best bet would be to accept the generous offer by your Hmong neighbors - they are willing to finance your trip to Cambodia for treatment of your infected middle fingers by Dr. Dong with alternate medicine. But of course there is a catch. You'll have to promise Ms. Rolida Lee and all your other Hmong neighbors to never again come back to Merced (or even to Merced, CA) to avail yourself of their generous offer for the travel grant.

Yale Guen Mar, you would be making a mistake if you do not let your Hmong neighbors on Twilight Avenue help you relocate to Cambodia with their travel grant.

Yale Guen Mar, your Hmong neighbors have a very good case for discriminating against you. They want you out of the neighborhood. But they are a gentle lot - that is why your Hmong neighbors are depending more on carrot than on stick to get you out of Merced, CA and even out of USA.
w***@yahoo.com.sg
2018-01-13 15:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ltlee's theory is too fanciful.

Wakalukong
Resty Wyse
2018-01-13 18:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
Post by ltlee1
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-soft-and-sharp-power-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-01
"If someone aims a gun at you, demands your money, and takes your wallet, what you think and want is irrelevant. That is hard power. If he persuades you to give him your money, he has changed what you think and want. That is soft power."
With the above, Nye suggests soft power as a matter of changing what one thinks and wants. Is he right?
Most people whose life is not under threat usually don't think "My life" or "My wallet". But they inevitably still think life is more important than wallet. Else a robber aiming a gun at anyone would be irrelevant. Conclusion: Hard power does not change what one thinks and wants.
If he persuades a person to give him money, he certainly does not make how people would use money irrelevant. People would still want to get the most value with their money. Rather he has successfully introduced a better way to use his money. One that would bring more value to his money. Conclusion: Soft power does not change what one thinks and wants.
"If we use the term sharp power as shorthand for information warfare, the contrast with soft power becomes plain. Sharp power is a type of hard power. It manipulates information, which is intangible, but intangibility is not the distinguishing characteristic of soft power. Verbal threats, for example, are both intangible and coercive."
Power, to the extend that it is power, must be tangible to involved parties. If it appears to the intangible to someone else, it only means that someone is not seeing the situation from the right perspective. Verbal threats are not exceptions. They are only as coercive as they are tangible.
What if A threatens B that he would beat B up if B does not do A's bidding?
What is tangible concerning this verbal threat?
Simple, A is bigger, stronger, more trained in martial skills and etc than B. That is, tangible signs indicative of A's capability to carry out his threat. On more serious matters, Kim III could not have threatened the US before N Korea had demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.
Actually, I don't quite get Nye's idea of soft power from the beginning. Of course, soft power could be used to explain many US successes. But more and more people are having second thought.
For example, a Foreign Affairs article several years ago had pointed out to many careful observers the obvious: "Hypocrisy is central to Washington’s soft power -- its ability to get other countries to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its role."
In addition, power is power. If US culture indeed has a lot of soft power, it could be readily deployed to solve internal problems. What soft power is used to solved what US domestic problems nowadays?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-10-15/end-hypocrisy
H for hypocrisy is part of US "H" power. H for hormone is another part of US "H" power.
Oxytocin is the hormone of trust, it is also the hormone which allows one to distinguish one's own tribe from other tribes. Trusting one's owns tribe entails distrusting other tribes.
And of course H for hiding the head under the sand.
When prominent elites like Joseph Nye talks about American soft power, more likely than not, ivory tower project would be popped up to support his view. In this case, "Soft Power 30" gives the American government high mark.
"It is not a coincidence that it is the leading cause of death for young
black men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined. That is the
result of decades of policy choices, neglect, underinvestment, gangs and thugs,
and adversarial policing in communities of color. That said, it’s a mistake to
think that gun violence is a problem just for black people or poor people or only in cities. Gun violence touches every class, color, and community, with thirty three thousand people dying from guns each year—an average of ninety a day.
That’s a particularly devastating fact because gun violence is largely preventable." (Quoted from WHAT HAPPENED)
How could a government which does not care or not able to prevent the largely preventable attractive to the world?
To sum up, the US has 4 H power, the first H is hard power, military and economic, the other 3 H are hypocrisy, hormone(oxytocin) and head in the sand. The last 3 H allow the US to effectively mobilize biases, positive to the US and negative against its enemies.
To the extent that it still lacks true soft power, real and significant issues could only be determined by hard power.
The U.S. is losing the first H also.
White people never had soft power. It was inhumane from 1492, starting from Christopher Columbus to today's treatment of Africans...
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-13 19:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Resty Wyse
The U.S. is losing the first H also.
White people never had soft power. It was inhumane from 1492, starting from Christopher Columbus to today's treatment of Africans...
Really, Yale Guen Mar? Why, then, did you seek refuge in USA in 1949 when China went Communist.

Yale Guen Mar, you owe Tony Chee Mar everything. Recall that you met Tony Chee Mar for the first time as a 11 year old "Fresh of the Boat" in San Francisco - you had just arrived from Hong Kong in 1949 after the communists took over the country you were born in. Out of the kindness of his heart, Tony Chee Mar (a US citizen) declared that you were his son so that you could be in USA.

Recall what he told you when you arrived in San Francisco. Tony Chee Mar told you, "Yale, you are a turkey".

Tony Chee Mar then added, "This is Thanksgiving. We are going to have turkey."

Wonder-struck, you had said, "Dad, what is Thanksgiving, what is turkey?"

Tony Chee Mar did punish you often, but that was only because he had to and not because it gave him any pleasure. Yale Guen Mar, you were always a pain in the ass. But Tony Chee Mar hoped his (and Kim Hi Wong's) punishments will help you become a better person.

Unfortunately, that was not to be. You were simply incorrigible. You just couldn't stay out of mischief. This, together with the obsession you had developed as a child in rural China for finger-fucking pigs in their assholes, made it inevitable that you would never be more than the miserable self you are right now.

Your mommy, Kim Hi Wong, and your dad, Tony Chee Mar, were good parents and noble souls. Your accomplished siblings Donald Yale Mar, Ellen Heath and Eugene Yale Mar have never failed to acknowledge the contribution of their parents Kim Hi Wong and Tony Chee Mar to their own successes.

Yale Guen Mar, don't be an ingrate. Your plight is your own doing. Tony Chee Mar always did his best to bring you up the right way. It is the height of ingratitude to badmouth Tony Chee Mar for your own failings.

The only think they were ignorant of was that they were fighting a losing cause in trying to get an incorrigible rascal like you to grow up into decent human being like their other children Donald, Ellen and Eugene. But one can drag a mule to the well, but it cannot be made to drink from the well unless it wants to.

Yale Guen Mar, stop cussing at Chinese parents.

What's wrong with being typical Chinese parents?

Donald, Ellen and Eugene grew up to be accomplished, honest upright citizens
So did Homer, Gini, Lawrence, Homer and Clarence.

You are the only black sheep in the family.

There was nothing wrong in the way Kim Hi Wong and Tony Chee Mar brought up their kids. It wasn't their fault that they had a kid like you.

Tony Chee Mar brought you up in his home in 914 10th Street in Phoenix, AZ. He let you work in his cafe. He taught you English and mathematics. He taught you the difference between a rational number and an irrational number.

If you failed to get an education, it was your fault, not theirs. Your siblings didn't fail them. Donald, Ellen and Eugene are as honest and upright as they are accomplished.

Better to have cultured parents than uncultured parents.

And anyway, you shouldn't grudge the fact that Tony Chee Mar cut off your pigtail the moment you landed in San Francisco on the Thanksgiving day of 1949.

Nor should you grudge Tony Chee Mar for refusing to shave a straight line along your head.

Tony Chee Mar was a thoughtful father. He didn't want you to be ridiculed and heckled by your school mates in the new country.
w***@yahoo.com.sg
2018-01-14 00:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The US has 2 more H:
(1) History (as the winner in most wars and exterminations, America writes the history;
(2) H-bombs, with which America could destroy the world many times over (Americans never asked why bother, once should be enough).

Wakalukong

Loading...