Rename Caribbean “The Sea of Obesification”?

The Caribbean Sea is named after the Caribs, a group of people who were nearly all killed by open borders, i.e., by immigration from Europe and Africa (the latter mostly involuntarily).

If we were to rename the body of water after events that occurred in more recent times, what would the appropriate name be? The Caribbean’s initial wealth was all from sugar. When that faded due to technical advances in making table sugar from beets, the islands got by with rum as an export (cane sugar is required as a precursor for traditional rum). Today, the islands thrive on (1) cruise ships that serve six meals per day, and (2) all-inclusive resorts that serve six meals per day. In other words, the islands of the Caribbean prosper by making people all over the world obese.

Since, sadly, nobody remembers the Caribs would it make sense to rename the body of water “The Sea of Obesification” (not the “Sea of Obesity” because there are plenty of obese people in other parts of the world, e.g., those who’ve paid for cruise tickets or resort nights).

As we cruised the Sea of Obesification, Celebrity Ascent offered delicious bread pudding with vanilla sauce at about half the meals:

Here’s the “Cavery” where giant roasts are carved up, as in cave-dwelling times:

(Either this is a misspelling of “carvery” or someone was having fun.)

The ship also had more elegant table-service restaurants with superior presentation, e.g., a Kosher salad:

I don’t think that I gained weight on the trip, as it happens, because I was more active than usual. Certainly there was no excuse not to hit the gym, which offered a magnificent view as well as top-of-the-line equipment:

Full post, including comments

History of Huawei (II)

A second post about the core topic within House of Huawei: The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company

How does hiring and firing work in a company that isn’t passionate about DEI?

On January 28, 1996, Ren Zhengfei held Huawei’s first “mass-resignation ceremony.” Each head of a regional sales office was told to prepare two reports: a work summary and a written resignation. “I will only sign one of the reports,” Ren said. “Dear Chairman,” the resignation letter said, “I have fought for the company’s sales development and sacrificed my youth. But in the few years that I’ve worked on the sales front lines, my technical and business ability may not have kept up…. If through the process of examination and selection, the company identifies a more suitable person for sales work, I will sincerely resign from my current position.” Huawei had started out in rural markets, and many of its early sales managers were provincial in their experience and network of contacts. As Ren sought to go national and international, he decided to make the entire sales staff resign and reapply for their jobs. “The mountain goat must outrun the lion to not be eaten,” he had told them ahead of the event. “All departments and sections must optimize and eat the lazy goats, the goats that do not learn or progress, and the goats with no sense of responsibility.” Now Ren took the podium. “Being an executive at Huawei should be understood as a responsibility, a choice to sacrifice personal happiness,” he said. The resigning sales managers were allowed to speak in turn, some choking back tears. “As a Huawei person, I’m willing to be a paving stone,” one said. “If I can’t keep up with the pace of the company’s development, I’m willing to let new people, and higher-level people, take over my job,” another offered. “My youth and ability are limited, and Huawei’s future is long,” a third said. “I can’t hold back the company because of me.”

Maybe sales will be one of the few jobs left to humans after Elon Musk gets Optimus to do everything?

Ren had grown up in the Mao years, when there was no such thing as private-sector sales. Now he presented sales to his young followers in rousing terms, almost as a mystical vocation. “Sales work is special, complex, and noble,” he told them. “You need the intelligence of a scientist, the insight of a philosopher, the eloquence of an orator, the ambition of a social reformer, and the optimism and persistent spirit of a religious man.”

Polite protocol for a business dinner involved breaking out the baijiu, a clear sorghum spirit that has an eye-watering 120-proof kick, and pouring out round after round of shots over a rotating parade of exquisite dishes. The protocol also involved getting drunker than your clients to show your respect for them. One early Huawei executive wrote about having to excuse himself for a vomit break while entertaining customers—not an uncommon occurrence. Others developed stomach or liver ailments. This seemed to happen particularly often in the far northeast, which had a reputation for heavy drinking. “The key staffer for this account is currently suffering hepatitis but refuses to come back to Shenzhen for medical treatment and insists on fighting on the front line through the ice and snow,” Ren said in 1995 about a Huawei salesperson based in Yichun, close to the northeastern border with Russia.

The story of Huawei is definitely not as simple as “it was a planned economy and the planners picked Huawei”:

Despite the interest that Huawei had received from government officials, it was only one among many contenders, and not even the most favored one. In 1995, officials had set up a state-owned switchmaking champion called China Great Dragon Telecommunication in an effort to combat the foreign switchmakers. Great Dragon was built around the military engineer Wu Jiangxing’s breakthrough 04 switch and had been formed by merging eight smaller telecom companies. The government was pouring some $2.2 billion a year into the venture. Also in 1995, the Xi’an Datang Telephone Co.—a venture set up by a state-run research institute and several Chinese graduates from US universities—began mass production of its new switch, the SP30. And across town in Shenzhen, the Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Company—which would later be known as ZTE—had developed its ZXJ10 switch. People called them the Big Four of China’s domestic switchmaking, and they made quick work of eating into the foreign vendors’ market share. Within a few years, the price of telephone switches in China had dropped from $300 per line to $70 per line. With so many contenders, and such thin margins, companies were always flaming out. In early 1996, a dozen of Great Dragon’s 04 switches abruptly failed due to a software problem. The company never recovered.

Huawei had started out as an underdog compared with its state-owned rivals. Now it was emerging as the frontrunner, so much so that the state-owned companies were crying foul. “They sell cheaply to get market share,” an executive at Datang complained. Great Dragon’s Wu Jiangxing griped to Shenzhen’s Science and Technology Bureau that the local government shouldn’t just support privately owned companies.

Despite the shortage of PhDs in DEI in China and overt sexist sentiments, women are able to rise to top executive positions.

The executive who rose the highest was Sun Yafang, who was elevated from marketing and sales president to Huawei’s vice-chairwoman in 1994. She was an intense woman of around forty, with a hawkish nose and a stately bearing. She had overseen Huawei’s “marriage” to the state through the joint ventures with provincial telecom bureaus and had led the mass resignation of the sales managers. People whispered that Madam Sun had worked for the Ministry of State Security, or the MSS, China’s powerful civilian intelligence agency, before joining the company. Perhaps that had something to do with her rapid rise through Huawei’s ranks, or perhaps not.

Sun ran a tight ship, cracking down on excessive golfing among the managers. “Huawei’s sales staffers all know that if Madam Sun sees you without a tie on a convention floor, your fate will be a miserable one,” a member of her team wrote about her. “Not to mention her fiery temper. The hurricane of her criticism will leave you with no possible hope to find an escape.”

Ren had proved willing to promote capable female executives, even as he sometimes expressed old-fashioned views on women in the workplace. “Many companies don’t like hiring female employees, because female employees are inefficient and can’t achieve the goals when they do things,” Ren said in a speech to Huawei’s secretaries around this time. “Female employees have a big shortcoming, which is they like to gossip and nag, which undermines unity. Originally, the purpose of hiring female employees was to add a lubricant to the management team. The main characteristic of male employees is their rigidity, and they are prone to producing sparks when they collide. With a layer of elastic sponge in between, there won’t be sparks.”

A lot of Huawei’s management and corporate practices were modeled on IBM’s and with IBM consultants’ help:

IBM’s consultants started arriving at Huawei’s headquarters in August 1998. They would remain in residence for a decade. Gary Garner, one of the early IBM consultants, recalled that his first impression of Huawei was that it was a vibrant but undisciplined company where things were sometimes just scrawled on sticky notes instead of being filed properly. “President Ren had a whole bunch of bright young PhDs,” he said, “but it was disorganized. It wasn’t ready to go to the international market.” Some of Huawei’s managers protested the new systems, which they found burdensome. Ren insisted they follow the IBM way. If the shoes didn’t fit, Ren told them, they had to “cut their feet to fit the shoes.” IBM’s output was fifty-five times Huawei’s that first year, 1998. Ren set a goal of shrinking the difference to thirty-five to forty times greater by 1999. “We are making big strides forward,” he told his staff. “We’re narrowing the gap.”

One place that Huawei didn’t follow IBM was onto a public stock exchange. The company remains privately owned, mostly by employees, to this day.

Imagine if U.S. politicians would follow Ren’s example of voluntary semi-retirement at age 67:

In December 2011, Ren, sixty-seven, announced he was stepping back to allow younger hands to steer the company. “I increasingly don’t understand the technology, increasingly don’t understand finance, and only half understand management,” he told his staff. “If I can’t treat our group kindly and democratically, and fully unleash the talents of all our heroes, I will have achieved nothing.”

Much of the rest of the book is about Huawei’s entries into various foreign markets and tussles with the U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies that either (1) wanted a back door to tap into communications, or (2) were worried that their Chinese counterparts had a back door into Huawei’s gear. I won’t cover that here because it is too involved, but I will have another post about this House of Huawei: The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company.

Full post, including comments

History of Huawei book

I promised more about House of Huawei: The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company (see Unprovoked genocide against the Uyghurs) and here it is…

The book covers the modern history of China as well as the history of Huawei. The book should be inspiring to us older folks because the founder of Huawei was born in 1944 and, at age 81, is still involved in corporate management:

In Guizhou, Ren Moxun met a seventeen-year-old named Cheng Yuanzhao. With big brown eyes,[15] round cheeks, and a broad smile, she was also bright and good with numbers. They married, and Cheng Yuanzhao soon became pregnant. Their son was born in October 1944, and they named him Ren Zhengfei. It was an ambiguous name. Zheng meant “correct,” and fei meant “not.” “Right or wrong” would be a fair translation.

We are reminded that China is a multi-ethnic empire:

Mao’s officials believed they were extending a civilizing influence to the nation’s frontiers—Guizhou in the south, Inner Mongolia in the north, Tibet and Xinjiang in the west. The residents didn’t necessarily see it that way. They had lived for centuries with their own languages and customs, and they were now being compelled to assimilate. There were those who did not like Ren Moxun and his school either. After someone threatened to kill him with a hand grenade—the precise reasons are unclear—the school was issued four rifles to protect the staff and students. One of Ren Moxun’s objectives was to inculcate his students with the right beliefs. “Principal Ren, your guiding ideology must be clear,” a visiting official instructed him. “You must make clear who the enemies are, who we are, who are our friends.” Ren Moxun organized rallies for the students to denounce their enemies. The enemies at home were the oppressive landlords. The enemies abroad were the Americans, who were waging war against North Korea, one of China’s allies. Ren Moxun reported that the “scoundrels” hidden among the teachers were successfully caught through these criticism sessions, which were often intense, with students bursting into tears. In the anti-America sessions, students offered up secondhand accounts of atrocities committed by US troops in the area, presumably when they had passed through during World War II. One student said a US soldier had shot a farmer for sport near the Yellow Fruit Waterfall. Another said a classmate’s sister had been dragged into a jeep and raped. It was hard to say what, exactly, had happened years ago with US soldiers, but the resentment against America was certainly real.

and that the Cultural Revolution wasn’t a great time to be an educator or a student who wanted to learn

Ren Moxun was hauled onto a platform in the school cafeteria, his hands tied, his face smeared with black ink, the tall hat of shame denoting a counterrevolutionary placed on his head. “Studying is useless!” people shouted. “The more knowledge you possess, the more reactionary you are!”

One of Ren Moxun’s students demanded the principal admit that he’d instilled feudalist thinking in the students, such as by quoting Confucius. According to a recollective essay by Feng Jugao, a different student, when Ren Moxun tried to deny the accusation, the accuser rushed forward with a wooden stick and beat him until the stick broke.[53] “I can’t say if the wooden stick was weak, or if Principal Ren’s backbone was strong,” Feng wrote. “But the wooden stick broke in two across Principal Ren’s back.” Feng recalled his mother being aghast, saying that the students who beat the principal would get their karmic punishment.

Universities nationwide were banned from matriculating any new students between 1966 and 1976. Ren Zhengfei’s younger siblings were shut out, but through the random luck of his birth year, he’d been able to eke out a college education. In 1968, Ren graduated with a major in heating, gas supply, and ventilation engineering.

At age 42, Ren started Huawei:

Shenzhen legalized the establishment of “minjian” (unofficial or, more literally, “among the people”) private technology companies in February 1987 under a pilot program. Applicants poured in from across the country—professors and engineers from Beijing to Kunming. The idea of running your own company in the SEZ was exciting—and risky. Seventy-five percent of the first batch of entrepreneurs asked their state employers for temporary unpaid leave, with the option of reprising their old jobs if their startups didn’t work out. Ren founded Huawei as a minjian company on September 15, 1987, with twenty-one thousand yuan pooled between himself and five investors.

Wuhan was the source for more than SARS-CoV-2 and coronapanic:

Ren arrived in the inland city of Wuhan in the spring of 1988 in search of engineers. Dubbed “the Chicago of China,” Wuhan was a bustling industrial city on the Yangtze River. The Huazhong Institute of Technology had been founded here in the 1950s, and three decades later, conditions at the university were still spare: Students bunked six to a room in the dorms and took cold-water showers.[38] There was no air-conditioning or heat. But there was a professor who was knowledgeable about telephone switching, and Ren hoped he could help Huawei build a switch.

The book covers the 1989 protests and power struggles, then returns to the early days of Huawei:

Ren’s team had been making simple analog switches that could handle forty, eighty, or, at most, a couple hundred phone calls at once. Their early attempt at a more complex one-thousand-line switch was a failure, suffering from serious cross talk, dropped calls, and a tendency to catch fire from lightning strikes. Now, in 1993, they were trying to build a digital switch that could handle ten thousand telephone calls at once. This would catapult them into the big leagues. They would no longer be selling to hotels and small offices; they would be selling directly to the telephone switching centers for entire cities.

Ren had rented the third floor of an industrial building on Shenzhen’s outskirts for his fledgling R&D team. There was no air-conditioning, only electric fans, and they took cold showers to try to keep cool. They rigged up nets to try to escape the ferocious mosquitoes. A dozen cots lined the wall. The engineers worked day and night, flopping down on mattresses to sleep for a few hours when they reached exhaustion, which led to the saying that Huawei had a “mattress culture.”[9] One engineer worked so hard that his cornea detached, requiring emergency surgery.

It wasn’t as simple as going to the state’s web site and forming a corporation or LLC:

By 1991, Huawei had ten million yuan in fixed assets and was churning out eighty million yuan worth of switches a year. It had 105 employees, the majority of whom were shareholders. That year, Huawei’s shareholders did something curious: after proudly launching themselves in 1987 as one of Shenzhen’s first wave of “minjian” private tech companies, they voted unanimously to stop being one. From 1992 to 1997, Huawei would be a jitisuoyouzhi, or a “collectively owned enterprise,” something that was neither “private” nor “state-owned” in the modern senses of the words. Indeed, such companies were most similar in spirit to the Mao-era communes: Beijing defined them as “socialist economic organizations whose property is collectively owned by the working people, who practice joint labor, and whose distribution method is based on distribution according to labor.” While collectively owned businesses had been used in the countryside to mixed success, China’s national government had, in 1991, just formalized guidelines for urban collective companies. Putting on the “red hat” of a collective was popular among startups then as a way to obtain political protection. The Stone Group—hailed as “China’s IBM” in the 1980s—had been a trailblazer in this regard, successfully switching to a “collectively owned enterprise” in 1986. The 1991 national guidelines stipulated that collectively owned enterprises could enjoy preferential treatment in national policies and apply for loans from specialized banks. The guidelines also ordered government authorities nationwide to incorporate the companies into their economic plans in order to ensure the success of the urban collective economy. It remains unclear why Ren and his team decided to switch to a jitisuoyouzhi, though it’s likely that the broader financing opportunities were attractive.

Like Jeff Bezos, who married a secretary at D.E. Shaw while he was a VP (Wokipedia says that MacKenzie Scott had “an administrative role” at D.E. Shaw, implying that she might have been a top manager; the New York Times says that she held the job of “administrative assistant” (i.e., secretary)), Ren might have married his secretary:

While the precise timeline is unclear, Ren Zhengfei had remarried at some point and was building a new family in Shenzhen. This second marriage may have taken place around 1994, according to a speech Ren gave in January 2009, in which he praised his second wife, Yao Ling, for “fifteen years of silent devotion to the family.” Yao Ling was a petite and graceful young woman, much younger than Ren, with almond-shaped eyes and a winsome smile. Some news reports referred to her as Ren’s former secretary, though this has not been confirmed by the company. Ren had called Meng Jun “very tough”; he called Yao Ling “gentle and capable.”

The company prospers partly because the Chinese government imposed a “Buy Chinese” mandate similar to the U.S.’s “Buy American” mandates:

Since Ren’s meeting with Jiang in 1994, much more government support had been pledged. At the end of 1994, Zhang told Ren that in the next five-year economic plan, half of telecom operators’ switch purchases would be reserved for purely domestic companies like Huawei. “The way I look at it,” Zhang said, “it’s not that important what type of ownership structure a company has. The important thing is if it’s Chinese. So we at the Electronics Ministry want to support a business like yours.” China would have 84 million telephone lines’ worth of switches in operation by 1995, and officials planned to more than double that to 174 million lines’ worth by 2000.

I’ll close here and pick up in another post. Meanwhile, if you’re interested, read House of Huawei: The Secret History of China’s Most Powerful Company.

Full post, including comments

Coronapanic five years ago at Penn State

A reminder that exactly five years ago, the police in Pennsylvania were hunting for college kids who committed the crime of assembly (formerly a “right” protected by the First Amendment). From Life on campus during the plague:

At the same time, the students were reminded “It is better to report someone who’s innocent than to not report someone who’s guilty.” (context: sexual assault, though it is unclear how a sexual assault might occur among students who were following the college’s coronapanic dictates).

Full post, including comments

The death of two Harvard undergraduates, William Cowper Boyden III and William Stanley North III

It’s the Day of the Dead for our neighbors in Mexico.

While cleaning up my mother’s possessions, I found a correspondence between my late father, apparently a friend of William Cowper Boyden III, and the young Mr. Boyden’s father. I couldn’t find much on the Web regarding the sad December 22, 1955 death of two young Harvard men, but the Crimson obliquely referred to them having been killed in a car accident:

The William Cowper Boyden III Scholarship and the William Stanley North III Scholarship, set up in memory of two College students killed while driving home for Christmas vacation, has a combined endowment of over $25,000.

I found the letters interesting because it seemed unlikely that a younger-than-average Jewish scholarship student like my dad (he skipped at least the last year of high school) would have been friends with anyone from such a well-established family, but also for the style of pre-email pre-ChatGPT correspondence. It’s also sad because so little trace is left of these two men.

Full post, including comments

Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, Maine

Happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day to those who celebrate. In the spirit of the holiday, here are some photos from the Abbe Museum, which is devoted to telling the story of the Wabanaki to anyone willing to pay $18:

Note that a person who is able-bodied and able-minded but who chooses to refrain from work gets in free via his/her/zir/their SNAP/EBT card. The person with a developmental or intellectual disability, however, is charged $16. The museum admits in various places that it occupies stolen land and, to their credit, admits the rightful owners for free (“Tribal ID” is required so Elizabeth Warren would be excluded).

Masks were encouraged on June 10, 2025. Note the fine Maine summer weather (50 degrees and rain/mist all day):

Inside the museum, roughly half of the visitors took the mask encouragement to heart (“to lungs”?), though I also observed a couple of ceremonial chin diapers. In a victory for common sense, a family visiting had 100 percent mask coverage rather than one member wearing a mask and then becoming infected by the non-masked members after returning home.

Two out of three masked in the photo below:

Here’s a Land Acknowledgement, which also informs via Science that the “Native communities [] have lived here for thousands of generations” (even with a Palestinian rate of reproduction, it is tough to understand how “thousands of generations” can fit into the 13,000 years that archaeologists say is how long people have lived in Maine):

And a statement about genocide and decolonization:

Nobody seems to like the idea of giving the land back to its rightful owners and paying rent.

The men’s room was ready for Tim Walz’s visit:

Full post, including comments

New York Times offers a new immigrant-rich history of jet engines

“The U.S. Deported This Chinese Scientist, in a Decision That Changed World History” (New York Times, May 30, 2025):

In 1950, though it didn’t know it yet, the American government held one of the keys to winning the Cold War: Qian Xuesen, a brilliant Chinese rocket scientist who had already transformed the fields of aerospace and weaponry. In the halls of the California Institute of Technology and M.I.T., he had helped solve the riddle of jet propulsion and developed America’s first guided ballistic missiles.

The immigrant invented the jet engine, then? The Wikipedia history of the jet engine credits various English and European engineers, notably Frank Whittle, with most of the “riddle-solving” work done more than 20 years prior to 1950.

I wonder how many more years it will be before all textbooks relate a history of science and technology in which all innovations are from migrants, the 2SLGBTQQIA+, women, and Engineers of Color.

Below, Qian Xuesen’s Gloster Meteor.

Full post, including comments

General MacArthur in Manila 1945 and Israel in Gaza today

I’m been reading The Battle of Manila: Poisoned Victory in the Pacific War (Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College; published 2025 by Oxford University Press (i.e., a military work from a publisher in a country that can’t defend its own border)).

The loss of the Philippines in the first place was due to incompetence, similar to how Japanese success at Pearl Harbor was due to incompetence (failure to heed a radar warning of planes inbound from the NW). Having squeezed and provoked Japan, the U.S. expected attacks in Asia and yet the Japanese caught the Americans by surprise:

Recalled to active duty as the United States was on the verge of war, MacArthur wanted to defend the entire archipelago. “We are going to make it so very expensive for any nation to attack these islands that no one will try it,” he explained. On the first day of the war, the Japanese caught the air forces under his command on the ground and destroyed them. MacArthur then attempted to defend the entire island of Luzon. While his men did well tactically—fighting the Japanese to a standstill—their supplies were in the wrong positions, which sealed their fate as they retreated into the cul-de-sac that was the Bataan Peninsula.

The decision to fight in 1945 to take back the Philippines might also be said to have been an example of American military incompetence. Most of the senior officers wanted to ignore the Philippines and capture Formosa (present-day Taiwan) instead as a more useful base for bombing and invading Japan (USNI article). The Philippines would have been freed from Japanese rule in August 1945 when Japan unconditionally surrendered, though of course it was tough to know that in late 1944.

The book is about the fight for one city, Manila, and as such there are some parallels to the present-day fighting in Gaza. What the two battles have in common:

  • a mostly urban environment
  • the majority of people in the environment were/are not soldiers
  • the army trying to take the city (US in 1945; IDF today) was trying to minimize the number of non-soldiers killed
  • the army defending the city was indifferent to the number of non-soldiers killed and/or actually trying to increase the number of non-soldiers killed

The differences:

  • the non-soldiers of Manila were hostile to the defending army (Japan) and, in fact, was an organized guerilla force against the army whereas the non-soldiers of Gaza are fervent supporters of the defending army
  • the army attacking Manila (US) was trying to minimize damage to buildings and other infrastructure
  • the army attacking Manila (US) wasn’t trying to feed the army defending Manila (Japan) and, in many cases, defenders had to surrender or commit suicide because they’d run out of food and/or water

The book reminds us that war is most glorious when seen in the rearview mirror:

One of the great myths of World War II is that the American public immediately rallied to the cause after Pearl Harbor. The truth is that men had to be drafted, and they did not want to be in either the Army or the Philippines. Willard Higdon was honest about his motivations: “I was 27 yrs old, with a wife and a 5 yr. old dtr. I did not want to go.”

The Japanese actually weren’t that excited about owning the Philippines:

The main reason for their invasion in 1941 and 1942 was geopolitical. The Philippines had few natural resources that the Japanese economy required. What they wanted was to drive the Americans out of the western Pacific and, once that was done, they wanted to liquidate their commitment to the Philippines quickly. The Japanese had little interest in turning the archipelago into a Japanese colony.

The enemy doesn’t always cooperate with one’s plans…

Even as late as February 5 [the battle was February 3-March 3], MacArthur had no plan for an urban battle. “I do not believe anybody expected the Japs to make a house-to-house defense of Manila,” Eichelberger told his wife. The general belief—at MacArthur’s headquarters, at Krueger’s headquarters, and with the press—was that the Japanese would evacuate without a fight. Thirty years later, when he sat down to write his memoirs, Chase could not understand why anyone had made this assumption. “It was counter to everything the Nips had done in previous campaigns.”

The U.S. had almost no experience with the kind of fighting that was to ensue:

Other than some short operations in World War I and a few in the European theater, the last time Americans had fought in cities had been in 1864 and 1865 with the battles of Atlanta and Richmond. There are seven major characteristics of urban warfare. The first is that artificial terrain features constrain and channel movement. Buildings become significant geographical objectives. Roads direct advances in certain directions. Both can be barriers. Depending on the material used in their construction, they might be quite vulnerable to military action or quite impervious. Some weapons have better utility than others in the city, and these issues often influence tactics. Another feature is that ground operations are compressed and decentralized. Engagements are between small, tactical units—squads, platoons, companies—for small, geographic objects—a room, a building, or a city block. A third factor is that combat usually becomes three-dimensional. Soldiers fight ground operations as in any other form of ground combat, but they also advance and fight in sewers and blast holes through basement walls. They also have to fight an opponent that might control the floor of a building immediately above or below them, and they might move from rooftop to rooftop. City combat always consumes more time than other forms of fighting. This factor is relative, though. How slow is slow? The month-long fight for Manila was significant compared to other ground operations fought in the Pacific, but nothing compared to the eight-month-long struggle for Stalingrad or the twenty-eight-month-long siege of Leningrad. A fifth factor in urban warfare is the presence of civilians. There are always non-combatant deaths in urban operations and their presence requires some effort at stability operations afterward, but sometimes also during the period of active combat. Civilians can be assets or liabilities when it comes to intelligence gathering, as both the Americans and Japanese would learn. The ready influence of the media is another factor. Cities by their very nature are media centers and always have resident journalists. Since urban areas are also important population, political, economic, financial, cultural, religious, trade, and transportation centers, their fate attracts the interest of reporters. A final dynamic of urban warfare is the outsized ramification of its outcomes. Location matters, and cities are always more important than undeveloped countryside, and engagements for their control have more influence than engagements in isolated areas. Each of these would be in play in Manila.

As in the Gaza fighting, the army trying to take the city owns the airspace:

The US forces also had total air superiority, and piper cub observation planes loitered over the city looking for targets.

(Note failure to capitalize Piper Cub!)

A civilian population that does not support the defending army makes a city tough to defend:

The Japanese were well aware that the Filipinos on Luzon were welcoming the Americans enthusiastically. They resented this and they had orders—which they implemented willingly—to make the Manileños pay. The Battle of Manila was defined by the methodical targeting of the civilian population. The Japanese historian Hayashi Hirofumi has argued, given where most of the incidents took place, that the majority of these killings were done by the Imperial Japanese Army.1 Their orders, though, came from Rear Admiral Iwabuchi Sanji. He made the determination that there was no difference between Filipino guerrillas and civilians. “When the enemy invaded Manila, the citizens were welcoming the enemy well and disrupted all of our fighting action,” he reported. “The number of citizens is estimated to be about seven hundred thousand, but on the front line north of the Pasig River between 3 and 5 February, the general public carried out the following guerrilla activities: communicate with U.S. troops before our attacks, shoot our soldiers, and report our locations to U.S. troops. As a result, our surprise attack was infeasible, and many of our troops were unable to achieve their objectives.”2 The attitude that all Filipinos were the enemy was widespread among the Japanese defenders. Taguchi Hiroshi, a Navy aviation mechanic who became a prisoner of war, explained to U.S. Army investigators in late March: “The enlisted men in the lower ranks, believed that, since the Filipinos indicated that they were cooperative toward Americans in their attitude and had ill feeling toward the Japanese, because prices of food and other articles during the period when we occupied the Philippines went very high . . . , higher officials ordered the destruction of Manila and the Filipinos.”

Some locals were more creative than others…

“The real heroines at San Agustin were the prostitutes, they were the ones that helped,” Gisbert declared. The Japanese had concentrated them in the Intramuros. Gisbert guessed that their numbers were in the hundreds. They were willing to serve as nurses. They were also quite good at scrounging. They could acquire clean linen, or whisky, which Gisbert used as anesthesia. All of which suggests that they had a way of influencing Japanese supply officers.

Even as American soldiers were getting killed, MacArthur refused to let them fight effectively (i.e., by using artillery) because he doesn’t want his former home trashed:

The general was genuinely horrified by what was unfolding in Manila, and seemingly unable to process it. “MacArthur was shattered by the holocaust,” Lieutenant Paul P. Rogers, the headquarters typist, observed. Everything he had done to spare Manila in 1941 was being undone by his own troops, and the major coup of taking the city intact with its port facilities undamaged was falling apart in front of him. Admitting to that kind of setback was not in him. Suddenly the general and his command had a vested interest in making sure there was as little coverage of Manila—positive or negative—as possible. A press report that declared, “Manila is dying” set him off. MacArthur ordered Diller to block any usage of that phrase. He also ordered the units under his command to refrain from using artillery in the city. “That was most unlike the General, who prided himself on winning victories with minimum loss of life,” Diller recalled.

Eventually the subordinate officers wear MacArthur down:

He appointed a three-man committee to talk with MacArthur about the artillery restrictions. After listening to the three, MacArthur, despite his vehement and emotional initial response changed course completely. His subordinates were making it clear that they were not only taking heavy losses, but at rates they could not sustain. With reporters now in the mix, he could ignore that consideration only so long. He removed all the limits on both the artillery and on the media. His public relations man was happy: “They did start using artillery, and it all worked out just exactly the way I wanted it to.” The removal of restrictions on artillery was the third major event that shaped the battle for Manila. Despite their reputation as being a bunch of “yes men,” the staff had pushed back against the general and gotten him to reverse himself. Robert S. Beightler was happy with this decision: “From this point on, we really went to town.” Beightler was advocating any means which he believed would speed up the tempo of combat and save both American and Filipino lives. After the battle ended, he reported to Krueger: “the fantastic defenses of small pockets of resistance which had been isolated required the employment of all available weapons.” Some of this argument is rather weak. The infantry used indirect fire as a crutch to avoid close combat. The problem: it resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians. Figuring the exact numbers killed in Manila is a tricky business. It seems

Full post, including comments

When a rogue president defied the Supreme Court

I think that we can all agree that our democracy would be at an end if a president were to defy the Supreme Court. Has it ever happened? I asked ChatGPT. Here are some snippets:

In the early 1930s, FDR removed the U.S. from the gold standard and invalidated gold clauses in both public and private contracts. These clauses had allowed creditors to demand payment in gold, insulating them from inflation.

The Supreme Court heard several consolidated cases, the most famous being Perry v. United States, which challenged the government’s abrogation of gold clauses in government bonds.

There was press speculation that FDR might defy the Court if it ruled against him, especially since the stakes were so high for the administration’s economic agenda.

In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the government’s position, essentially avoiding a constitutional crisis.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion in Perry v. United States, holding that while the government’s action was technically unconstitutional, the plaintiff had not suffered a legally redressable loss.

Yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt did prepare a contingency speech in the event that the Supreme Court ruled against him in the 1935 gold clause cases, particularly Perry v. United States.

The speech was drafted in anticipation of the Supreme Court potentially striking down his policies on invalidating gold clauses.

In this prepared address, FDR was ready to assure the public that he would not allow the economic system to collapse, even if it meant ignoring the Court’s ruling. The draft included language that strongly implied he would defy the decision.

According to historical sources, including William Leuchtenburg’s writings and Henry Morgenthau’s diaries, the speech essentially framed any contrary Court ruling as a threat to national survival, and FDR positioned himself as the defender of the people’s economic security over rigid constitutional formalism.

Here’s a paraphrase of the key idea from that draft speech:

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the government must repay debts in gold, then the administration would have no choice but to protect the nation’s economy by refusing to comply—suggesting a potential constitutional crisis.

Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR’s Treasury Secretary, kept detailed diaries. In entries from January 1935, he discusses FDR’s draft speech and concerns about the Supreme Court decision. These diaries are held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and are available digitally. Look for entries in January–February 1935 regarding the gold clause litigation.

Secondary source: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 by William E. Leuchtenburg:

“[FDR] had even prepared a radio address for the evening of the day the Supreme Court ruled, asserting that the government would defy the Court if it invalidated the gold policy. But the Court, by a narrow margin, spared him the necessity.”

Full post, including comments

Did Albert Einstein ever say anything about empathy?

Loosely related to Which explorer called the Gulf of Mexico/America the Golfo de Florida?

David Levitt, a Marvin Minsky PhD student at MIT 40 years ago, posted the following meme on his Facebook feed:

It struck me as odd that Einstein, who died in 1955, would have written or said anything on the subject of “empathy”, a term that has only recently come into vogue as a personal bragging point (“I’m empathetic and you support genocide; #FreePalestine”). Being a horrible person without an AI assist, of course I couldn’t resist commenting with Einstein’s well-documented writing “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.” (from 1922-23 diaries), presenting this in a positive light as an inspiration to Harvard University’s admissions office. And I noted that even our AI overlords couldn’t find any source for Einstein having said “Empathy is patiently and sincerely seeing the world through the other person’s eyes”. David responded with a clickbait quote web page, which itself did not cite any source, as proof that Einstein had opined on empathy. (Of course, since those who advocate for diversity can’t tolerate viewpoint diversity, he subsequently defriended me.)

Now I’m curious… did Einstein ever write or say anything on the subject of a working definition of empathy, as in the meme? Most of Einstein’s writings are online, e.g., at https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/, so one would think that ChatGPT would have consumed them. In fact, however, ChatGPT can’t find any instance of Einstein using the term “sincerely” except in closing a letter with “Yours sincerely”. This makes sense to me because bragging about one’s superior fund of sincerity is also a relatively recent phenomenon.

David Levitt has a Ph.D. from MIT. This member of the credentialed elite accepted a combination of meme and clickbait quote web page as proof that a historical event (Einstein writing or saying something) actually occurred. In the bad old days, by contrast, middle school kids were taught that they couldn’t use an encyclopedia as a source. Teachers demanded that they find a primary reference so as to avoid accepting a misattribution. What is a reasonable definition of historical truth in an age where we have an arms race between people with computer assistance putting out falsehoods (possibly just for clicks/ad revenue) and people training LLMs? If Grok says that something didn’t happen can we be more confident in that than in Wikipedia, for example? Are LLMs sufficiently skeptical to cut through what’s produced by all of the cleverest Internet content developers? Or are we doomed to lose access to historical facts? In fifty years will the remnant humans left alive by Skynet believe memes in which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. praises rule by AI?

Separately, never forgot that Albert Einstein is justly famous as a science writer for popularizing the work of physicist Mileva Marić (photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and special relativity, for example). Even if Einstein never wrote or talked about empathy, that doesn’t take away the credit he deserves for his work in assisting Ms. Marić with publishing her research.

The “Capt. Gilbert” quote might be genuine. How about the Hannah Arendt quote? She died in 1975, decades before the Empathy Boom among Democrats. ChatGPT:

No, Hannah Arendt did not say, “The death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.”

This quote is often misattributed to her, but there’s no verified source—none of her writings, interviews, or lectures—where she says or writes this exact line.

Finally, let’s look at the Elon Musk quote, taken from a conversation with Joe Rogan (bold highlights are my own potential excerpts to capture the spirit of the Musk-Rogan conversation):

Musk: There’s a guy who posts on X who’s great, Gad Saad?

Rogan: Yeah, he’s a friend of mine. He’s been on the podcast a bunch of times.

Musk: Yeah, he’s awesome, and he talks about, you know, basically suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide.

Rogan: Also don’t let someone use your empathy against you so they can completely control your state and then do an insanely bad job of managing it and never get removed.

Musk: The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. The empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response. So, I think, you know, empathy is good, but you need to think it through and not just be programmed like a robot.

Rogan: Right, understand when empathy has been actually used as a tool.

Musk: Yes, like, it’s weaponized empathy is the issue.


I, of course, will never see eye-to-eye with Elon Musk on the issue of whether every vehicle should have sliding doors… #LongLiveHondaOdyssey

Full post, including comments