Hoping for a November Surprise

So, unless you have been under a rock for the last 15 months, you should know this: the richest and most powerful nation will elect her next administration tomorrow. Ah, such gruesome 15 months.

And the last 2 weeks been, well, tensed. Apparently, the FBI decided to fire-drill leaking information regarding a presidential candidate. And, apparently, for all of their talks of courage and principles, GOP leaders decide that winning is everything. As such, the republican experiment of the new world teases with shutting itself down. It still does, obviously, but not as likely.

There were some rays of hope. Apparently, early voting shows great enthusiasm among groups that make up future of this nation: the brown, the educated, the young (hopefully?). And that enthusiasm may save the day, after all.

After done probably most that I can do as citizen, contribution and voting, I am left with hope. And I hope for a November surprise. Or, maybe, a November miracle.

I hope that The United States of America, the richest, most powerful, most enduring democracy of the globe will, finally, wake up and show the world how democracy is done. I hope that she would shove aside he who dares threatening her freedom of press, of speech, of personal liberty. I hope that she would enshrine  her professed principles: liberty and justice for all.

I hope that Americans will finally wake up and cast aside their cowardice leaders: those who endorse racism, sexism; those who tolerance abandonment of their friends and allies; those who value their careers over their professed principles. Wouldn't it be nice if all endorsers of he-who-shall-not-be-named get voted out of office? Wouldn't it be nice if the people cast down their shackles and trample over their oppressors?

Finally, I hope that progressivism will return with vigor. 8 years ago (sound like a life time away, doesn't it?), Americans made epic history. And the country surged ahead: racism was cast aside; health care was reformed; Wall Street was regulated; the environment got some attention. Tomorrow, I hope that the US will progress again.

Hope is sometimes vain. But, what else do we have but hope? (btw, if you have not voted, there is something else; get your butt in line and vote).

Stop Demanding "Real-world" Application in Teaching Programming

Once more, a programmer calls for teaching "computer science" through doing "working piece of software that real people use." Hacker News discussion has been a bit critical, but people still seem to think that software engineering education somehow calls for such ideas. This has sicken me so many times that I have to say it here:

For the love of all that is elegant and maintainable, stop demanding real-world application in teaching programming. And I meant all programming teaching, regardless of theory or engineering.

Let's take a step back and think about insane demand for "real-world-ness." In sports, this would be equivalent of telling a kids to compete in Wimbledon to learn tennis; or join NFL to learn football (or FIFA for the other football); or join a gang to learn martial arts. How insane are those proposals! Or, it's like learning physics by building bridges across real rivers. Or learning biology through working in the farms. Or learning chemistry through building bombs. How stupid are these? (well, beside the farm thing; tipping cows actually sounds fun).

The only good analogy for this kind of obsession would be servicing jobs, such as mechanic or electricians. However, this analogy is also extremely flawed. For one, these tasks are physical, so the same exact situation has value for students to repeat over and over; programming, once it's done once, copy-n-paste will solve all subsequent instances (and that's how most real-world work is done). Furthermore, natures of these tasks are completely different from programming; a better analogy would involve engineering a car or electricity grid; oh, so we should train engineers by making them build cars, on day one. Good luck! Lastly, even training for servicing involves "scaled-down versions of real-world projects." After all, each exercise needs one true solutions. Real-world situations rarely offer such niceties.

Therefore, please please stop obsessing over "real-world" and "real people." It's a stupid ideas, a recipe for disasters!

How, you ask?

First, because it will surely lead the students to mistake the trees for the forest. Sure, there is a lot of drudgery in real-world programming, bug fixes and all that. However, those are not, and should never be, the crux of a programmers' tasks. Instead, a programmer's true calling, and the focus of her work and attention, lies in designing and engineering, in the creation of a beautiful object that has not existed. Sure, Zeus has to arrange for Athena to be bathed and dressed and armed, but he must first will her into existence. The willing is programmers' pleasure; the bathing, dressing, and arming are its costs. Why, for the love of all goodness, do we want to torture students with drudgery?

Second, the point of education is to clarify concepts and techniques. This is precisely why school projects are not real. They are engineered to illustrate the concepts. This is why every single physics book contains phrases like "assume that there is no friction." By removing hairy details, the instructors demonstrate the concepts to their students. Once the students have understood the concepts and techniques, their applications are but trivial matters. Thus, it makes no sense to start out with hairy details. At best, it delays learning unnecessarily. At worst, it actively distracts the students and misleads them into a soul-crushing view of programming.

Lastly, starting with something so applicable runs the risk of locking students into a specific set of technologies. All projects need a few things: a programming language, a revision management system, an issue tracking system, and probably a build/test system. Each has at least several choices. Although these choices differ mostly at cosmetics level (think LISP vs Java), many of the differences have sparked religious wars over technologies. Thus, educators would do well to sidestep these thorny issues and focus on (as said above) concepts and techniques. If the students are instead thrown into the middle of a complicated situation (and all real world projects are complicated), they may over-invest in the particulars of that project. This easily leads to lock-in and closemindedness. Just look at the .NET-only or Java-only crowds. Their schools probably strive to equip them with a practical tools. These schools ends up scaring them off from other technologies.

Thus, let me repeat my plea again: please stop this stupid obsession over "real-world" in teaching programming. Please teaching programming as the wonderful, creative, and elegant art and science that it is. I committed to programming because of its beauty, because of the god-like feeling of conjuring up something out of nothing, because of the freedom and personality that it offers. I did not become a programmer to write a stupid "great bug report." I became one to avoid them. So, please, stop torturing people you are supposed to help.

Bluntness and Abuse

Supporters of Trump and like-minded say that they like "blunt talk about Islam." For example, "Islam hate [America]" or "thousands of Muslims celebrated 9/11." Blunt talk, eh? Let's talk blunt for a bit.

Islam carried on the Greco-Roman cultures and traditions. Without them, classics of antiquity would burn in the Christian fire. Without them, we have only kings, emperors, popes, and cardinals, and Democracy (of Athenian fame) or Republicanism (of Roman fame) would die in the Inquisition.

Islam is the largest religion on the face of the planet. While a tiny minority of them are quite deadly, most of them seem to like USA just fine. Wait, here is a blunt twist, USA has better favorable rating among Middle Eastern Muslims than Trump does among his own countrymen and women.

While I always condemn violence against bystander in Paris, let's be reminded that France did pass laws that hinder Muslim culture expression. Such laws can be (actually, they may very well be intended to be) viewed as provocation against Islam of all stripes and forms.

USA, for all of its crying and condemnations, ruined 2 countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), killed millions of bystanders, failed to support Muslim democracy (i.e. Arab Spring). Together with Russia, she turned Syria into full-fledge civil war. American army, navy, and airforce killed more innocent bystanders in Iraq alone than whatever ISIS have done in the whole Europe.

How about those "blunt talks"?

I am sorry, but Trump and his kinks ain't about "blunt." Blunt means frankness even when truth hurts. That does not mean the truth always hurts. More importantly, it does not always demean other people. Finally, if it does hurt, it probably hurt all sides more or less equally.

When a "truth" seems to hurt only one side, i.e. Trump style "bluntness" about Islam, it's usually not "truth." It's simply abuse hurled at other people.

Dear Americans: please stop abusing other people.

Please Stop Trying to Be Silicon Valley

Everyone wants to be Silicon Valley these days. From cities to countries, people keep claiming this or that is either going to be "the next Silicon Valley" or "the Silicon Valley of such and such region". In fact, some economic powerhouses (Taiwan and Japan have been mentioned) are willing to sacrifice their current industries to jump on the software bandwagon. The allure of pretty screenshots and massive market caps of Google and Apple and the likes prove quite irresistible.

Frankly, this saddens me from time to time. I am really really ticked off when people from developing countries (India is often mentioned, but some other countries too) assert that software and Silicon Valley model will somehow lift them off poverty. I mean, it's their countries and cities, so I don't want to be rude. But, really?

Development of a powerful software industry has quite a few drawbacks. Those are:

• Software is a non-essential product. In other words, you can't feed people with software; you can't shelter people in software; you can't warm people with software. This means that even if a region gets rich doing the web, it may still have food, clothing, and shelter shortage. In fact, Silicon Valley has quite a shelter shortage right now!
• Software requires high level of technologies to boost productivity. This is less obvious than above, but holds just as much importance. Let's say that if India wants to improve its food production capacity with software. Well, that requires farmers to use systems that can run these fancy software. But if the farmers have those systems, India would not be a developing countries.
• Software does not require much. This sounds like a good thing, but it's not. Because it is so easy, infrastructure are not properly built. India, again, stands as example. For all of those booms in software and service outsource, Indian infrastructure, including essentials for software system like internet, is still patchy. Driving toward Silicon Valley, thus, will not raise the bar for the whole economy; it will only create a few newly-rich.
• Software increases economic dependency on outsiders. It, after all, needs hardware to run, and hardware industry is something totally separate from software. More subtly, its output also depends on outsiders. See 2nd point above: for developing countries, other industries can't readily take advantage of the new software, so the industry would be stuck doing dirty works for foreign corporations.
• Software has low barrier of entry. This low barrier entices cities to be Silicon Valley. However, it also invites massive competitors. This means that hard-fought economic edges can vanish overnight. Furthermore, this also means that there is a strong drive toward lower prices, which reduces the economic gains for the successful cities.

Thus, a country can't get rich doing Silicon Valley. In fact, I have doubt if a city can stay rich doing Silicon Valley, given how hard-won economic edges may be taken away easily.

So, what should a city drive for?

First, finance. You know, 2008 really gave banks and financial services bad names. However, finance underlines an economy. As Niall Furguson argued in The Ascent of Money, every economic revolution is preceded by a financial revolution; every super power is preceded by a financial center. In fact, Silicon Valley's real miracle is its financial prowess. These days, people talk about venture capitalists and investments and such, but they forgot how revolutionary these things are. The investors essentially take strangers' money, then give it to other strangers, some of whom are twenty-something with nothing more than a good presentation. Humans, by nature, distrust strangers. And yet, just look at modern American financial arrangement.

Thus, more cities should aim to be New York, London, and Frankfurt. Such move would lay down the foundation for all other industries. It also fosters better, more connected, more trusting societies. After all, when one can trust the whole life saving to others, one learns how to judge people by more than bloodlines.

Second, agriculture. Food is the foundation of human progress. Cheap, abundant, and nutritious food fuels people to grow, to work, to innovate, also to learn, to love, to explore, and to make better lives. Improvement in agriculture not only nurtures the consumers, but also the producers: they can aspire to compete on a global scale. It also brings food and economic independence to developing and crowded countries. Agriculture is also likely to encourage development of other industries. For example, farmers require financing (eg. loans and mortgages), machines, stocks, refrigeration, transportation, etc. Each of these has its own requirements (eg. making machines need metallurgy, casting, steel, etc.).

By the way, agriculture does not need to be low tech. Biology engineering, breeding, environmental research, chemical engineering, and gene engineering are vital players in production of agriculture. Storage, planning, and transportation of the products require further modern technologies and innovations. Marketing, consumer education, brand building involves modern media and communication channels. Agriculture has been with humans for a long time, and will continue to do so for imaginable future. As such, it can scale up and down the technological scale without any issue.

Third, hardware and robotics. Now, software is a silo industry, which does not drive the development of other industries. On the other, hardware and robotics demand much more. To produce chips takes a lot of precision. To produce them at scale require massive investment in infrastructure, building, and technologies. Also, different from software, hardware needs serious financial investment. And, finally, hardware and robotics enable much more than software. Well targeted, they (with the virtue of being physical) can be employed in different fields with minimum extra technology investments.

Finally, I think more places should pick up the lead in energy innovation. Our modern world survives on electricity. However, we have yet to find anyway to produce it without ruining our environments. Plus, transportation of electricity is quite inefficient and requires intensive maintenance.

Energy production will probably encourages financial investments (did I mention that finance underlines economy?), chemical engineering, physics, probably precision engineering, metallurgy, etc. It also provides the foundation for modern lifestyle and the foundation for modern industries. It also provides energy security and independence for its host countries. An excellent choice.

All in all, there a choices. Interesting choices, compared code and software. And I for one sincerely hope that people will look beside the latest trend for their hometown development.

Is GOP still a Serious Political Party?

Once upon a time (as in, when I first arrived on this shore), I had these images about Democratic and Republican parties: the former as young, hippy, and dreamy group, while the latter as a band of suited, serious people dealing with the real world. Lots of cues reinforced such images. GOP, after all, stands for "Grand Old Party," which is quite odd given that it's the younger of the 2. GOP, on average, consists of older, more educated, more "traditional", more religious, and wealthier (thus more likely to be in leadership and professional positions) than its competitor. There are proverbs that celebrate the supposed seriousness of GOP and caring of Democratic party, such as "if you are not Democrat before 30, you have no heart; if you are not Republican after 30, you have no brain."

The last few years, though, my impression has changed quite radically.

Let's start the with the presence, as in, the last "big issues" of the 2 parties. As of today (02/27/2016, if anyone keeps count), the last big events of GOP have been Gov. Christie's declaration of support for Mr. Trump, the debate in Texas, and the show down over (potential) Supreme Court appointment. The last big events of Democratic party (not counting the running primary) were Senator Bernie's economic plan and constitutional duty of the president in Supreme Court appointment. Alright, the last of entries of both are 2 sides of the same coin: Democrats want to at least a pretense of regular constitutional process, while Republicans want to shut out the other side. Let's analyze these events, shall we?

If one reads on Republican events (except maybe the discussion over Supreme Court appointment), one can be forgiven to think that this is a teenager dispute. Let's see, Senator Rubio ridiculed Mr. Trump of sweating, and Mr. Trump shot back that the Senator was low life and used quite a bit of make up. Huh? I mean, huh? It's understandable that there was a show going on. However, is this how serious people do civic discussion? I mean, how old are those men? 16? Wait, sorry, my school discussion at 16 was more serious that that. This resembles 12 year olds trading verbal abuses. It makes me feel ashamed to host such joke in my supreme legislative body.

Talking about legislative body, i.e. the Senate, it's not doing so hot right now. You know, I heard of something called "saving face." It means that you don't burn bridges: even if you disagree from the beginning, you still give your opponents the courtesy of polite listening and consideration. I mean, those Republicans keep bring up Vice President Biden's quote from 1992. However, that very quote shows the difference between grace and bridge burning. Then Sen. Biden said, "I highly recommend." There was a shed of grace left for his opponents, that they did have option to ignore a recommendation. Sen. McConnell leaves no such consideration. He simply refused his constitutional duty and refused the president his constitutional power. Is take-no-prisoner the way we should treat our fellow colleagues? Is take-no-prisoner the way we should treat our fellow citizens?

On the Democratic side, the discussions were radically different. The arguments over Sen. Bernie's plan focus on actual policies, not sweat and make-up. The arguments are almost put forward as "well, we do want that, but this plan is..." In other words, the attackers showed respect for the attacked, even conceded good ideas. The arguments are laid out in thoughtful opinion and academic papers. It feels like a discussion, not a school brawl.

These events are just proxy to the whole election cycle as a whole. News on GOP side seemed to be generally about characters and their blusters, such as debate performance and unrealistic plan to bomb far away areas. News on Democratic side has been around policies, trust worthiness, and party loyalty, which are generally more civic than their competitor. It seems that GOP is not having a civic and political debates. No, they seem to instead having a reality show about who can make the most outrageous utters and who has more testosterone.

But, then, again, what would one expect? After all, at least a third of Republican party at this point support a candidate who condemned a whole country (Mexico) as criminal, regarded the largest religion in the world (Islam) as terrorist, insulted the Pope (I mean, seriously!), praised torture (I kid you not, he said that torture worked and therefore is acceptable), and generally made mockery out of his country. If this was not bad enough, his biggest opponent tried to out-do his immaturity rather than to remind the fellow citizens what American Exceptionalism is about. The uneducated, misinformed, and recession-stricken citizens can be pardoned for their ignorance, but it's just impossible to pardon the representative whose job it was to ensure national prosperity, liberty, and dignity. What do people think of U.S.A. when a serious contender of her highest leadership insulted her neighbor and insulted the Pope. I mean, come on, He was the Pope. Can we not pay a bit of respect to that?

But, then, again, what would one expect? GOP greatest aim has been to illegitimize their country first citizen by any mean necessary for the last 8 years. What kind of citizens who prefer their country's bankrupt to losing election? What kind of citizens who prefer purity of ideology to functioning government? What kind of citizens who prefer the downgrade of their country worthiness to changing their ways? What kind of citizen who prefer wasting time on a law that has been approved by all 3 branches of government to functioning civic government.

What kind of citizens are those?

I used to think that GOP had a few bad apples. But look at their primaries and caucuses. Bad apples are not the problem. Bad apples have dominated the norms, and good apples fought desperately to save the soul of their party.

At this point, I must ask: is GOP still a serious political party? Or is it simply a dangerous game show that bored Americans play?

Battle Order of Liberty

As I read news about various attempts to modernize Middle East, one disparity jumped out. Often, the West would celebrate every bit of cultural and legal progress, yet there was preciously little news in the economic front. In fact, if anything, the West (especially the US) actively works to reduce importation of the region's most important product, oil. For example, American-led forces occupied Afghanistan and Iraq for almost a decade; from this, we seem to only hear news like woman education, election, and such, yet we rarely (if ever) seen anything "Made in Afghanistan" or celebrate, says, completion of a factory. In my humble opinion, this disparity is the very reason for the failure to establish a stable, self-sufficient governments and societies in these countries.

Before continuing, let me clarify something. I think that social and legal progresses are extremely important. The subjugation and debasement of women in those society are completely unacceptable. Education and election anchor stability and modernization. I wholeheartedly believe those above points.

That said, order of execution also plays a vital role in success and failure. In fact, for state and society building, it is among the deciding factor. It's like treating a sick patient. The same set of actions in wrong orders pretty much guarantees a patient's demise. In fact, a right order (eg. test reaction to a drug before administrating it) prevents wrong actions from happening. Same thing here. Sure, we will need to liberate women and stop human trafficking and such. However, do we need to do them first?

There are 2 reasons why this order (culture first, economic second) cannot work out. First, it destabilizes and, in some cases, outright alienates key stakeholders of the society. Second, it can be (and actually is) perceived as belittling the identity, culture, history, and dignity of these societies.

Let's start with the more eminently understandable reason: destabilization and alienation of key, powerful stakeholders. The stakeholders in question are the male elders of these societies. Remember this, so long as a region is not in an all out war, so long as some degree of order and stability is in place, there exist people who prosper and hold power. Furthermore, these people will recruit at least a sizable minority as their minions through shared privilege. For example, in a military dictatorship, the dictator himself (or herself, but female rarely reaches there) and the generals prosper and hold power; furthermore, they also buy support of the army through shared power and dignity (right to abuse civilians, says) and resources (food, weapons, pay, etc.).

In Afghanistan, the rulers are Taliban head honchos and local warlords. They also buy support of many men by giving them (the lesser men) moral superiority and power over their families. For those men, these both appease and chain them: on one hand, it feels good to be told how righteous you are, and it feels good to lord over some other people (i.e. your wives and children); on the other, these men "had" the privileges, which mean they could lose if the regime lost. Humans naturally have a bias against loss. This means that a new regime must give these men more than these privileges (roughly twice more?) for them to feel well compensated.

Fast forward, and we have American invasion of Afghanistan. From Western eyes, this was an act of justice: an international coalition taking down a terrorist organization and establishing order, justice, liberty, and democracy. Probably from Afghan women's eyes, it was a progress: they could now go to school and debate and vote.

However, how does the invasion look through Afghan men eyes? Now, I am clearly not an Afghan man whose life was disrupted by the invasion. However, I can conjecture of what such men may feel. Compared to, says, the women, who at least gained new, significant, day-to-day rights, what did the Afghan men get out of the invasion? Their fragile (violent? terrorist?) order was shattered; their lives and limbs were in danger every moment, awake or asleep. More importantly (because the above 2 points might or might not already happen under Taliban), their rights and privileges over their families were ruined, and whatever livelihoods they had accumulated burned with the bullets and bombs. And what did they get? About nothing. Sure, they can vote, but given that they had not voted for centuries, given that vast majority of election fairness was questionable, what does voting right really really gave them? Furthermore, corruption still ran rampant, so whatever new justice and political systems would not help the regular men anyway.

In other words, Afghan men saw nothing but loss from the invasion. Obviously, there are theoretical ways to counter this. The easiest of which would involve quick building of an economic base. Giving a person a (relatively, of course) decent job means more than just extra income and reduced poverty. It also means giving that person stake in the system. It binds such person with the success and survival of the economic and social way from which the person derives necessities and comforts. However, as said earlier, such news never seemed to come. This disparity means that the men would (women, one may imagine, have more concrete gains) have no stake and much loss. What else would such person do but rebel?

Now, to make the matter worse, men make up roughly half of the population. Furthermore, the cultural conditioning of the region gives them extra respect and importance. This means that their social weight was, at least, more than half of the countries. And the invasion very well pissed them off. So much for liberation.

Of course, I have been talking about Afghanistan, where a terrorist regime rule. Iraq must have been worse. Iraqi government was stable enough to briefly invade Kuwait. Such actions meant that Iraqi internal stability and economic development must be at least higher than Afghanistan. And what do the key players of this country, i.e. the men, get out of the toppling of their government?

So, economic weighting of gain and loss already put the interventions at deep risk. However, there is another factor to all of those social, cultural, and legal reforms. It pretty much guarantees the hostility to the invaders (i.e. "liberators").

Before weighing gain and loss, before debating liberty and slavery, as far as a local is concerned, such reforms are foreign. Foreign in 2 senses: first, foreign because these societies are not well-prepared to implement many of these reforms; second, foreign because the reforms themselves come from a different cultures. The first sense of foreignness, with appropriate determinism and resources, can be overcome. The second, though, is much much harder.

My opinion is that Americans generally are not well versed with the psychology of strangers imposing their ideals (usually at gun points or after destroying indigenous regime). However, for the imposed, this is a slap in the face. Well, maybe more of a spit than a slap. The slap is probably the forceful destruction of their local regimes. After all, the invaders are telling them that their cultures are terrorist, sexist, evil, and generally beneath contempt, and that they should (I meant, must) adopt this new set of ideals that they can barely comprehend. How would you feel if somebody tells you that?

Obviously, there are various (again, theoretical at this point) ways around this. The most obvious way is to through timing. If, says, a group of Iraqis successfully topple their current regime under the banner of liberty and democracy (which is essentially what the Arab Spring was about), Western government can rush in with resources and help. Because the change started within and is represented by the same people of the same culture speaking the same language, the ideals are more likely to be accepted.  The second way involves making these culture a part of a the invaders, then convert them over. An example would be to make Afghanistan a developed country, then tell them, you know, developed countries don't treat their women like that. I am pretty sure this is what European Union is about: to integrate Soviet sphere into the West, then to change their minds to adopt Western culture.

Either way, it's important to make the people feel like they belong with the invaders, to make them a part of the coalition, and to give them concrete gains. The lopsided victory of culture changes over economic improvement acted reverse of this. They first stripped a sizable chunk of the population of their privileges, then humiliated their culture and dignity, then lectured them on how to socialize and behave. Such a great plan! And some Americans actually expect the locals to welcome them as liberator. Sometimes I wonder what Bush and co smoked when they plan for Iraq.

Then, what of women liberation and fair election? Are they not worthy of implementation as soon as possible? I am not a woman, so I can be tactless here, but rushing in only hurt the local women in the long run. Remember, things don't disappear just because the laws ban them (like domestic abuse; it happens even in the US). Corrupted laws ban practically nothing. As such, there are a couple of (again, stressing this, theoretical) ways to implement these cultural and sensitive reforms.

First strategy involves step-by-step changes. The change can start with banning the most outrageous and hideous practices (like stoning to death or public beheading or such) or allowing/encouraging the most innocent steps (like free primary public education with sex segregated). Once the first step can be enforced properly, then the next step, slightly more aggressive step, can proceed, like banning child marriage. Then the next step. The idea is to change slowly to avoid backslashes.

Second strategy involves education, but a special kind. In Vietnamese, it's called "new wine in old bottles." The best English translation would be "wolf in sheep's clothing." Sounds bad? It is quite trickery, but not all bad. The strategy is to educate new ideas through existing and respected channels. I think "Iraqi security forces" are good example: instead of having white people shooting down Iraqi rebels (the rebels are terrorists, but they are Iraqi, so will raise Iraqi sympathy when shot down by outsiders), let Iraqi police hunt down Iraqi criminals. Similarly, there are various channels whose usage I don't see. Why don't we send progressive Islam preachers to Afghanistan and Iraq? I actually mean that. Some Americans seem to link "Islam" with "terrorism." However, it needs not be. Islam actually has a much more tolerant history than Christianity (mostly because empires in Middle East had to deal with more diverse population than, says, Holy Roman Empire). Or, mass sponsor Middle Eastern students to study abroad with contract to work in their home countries. Or, buy off (seriously, just buy them off) war lords to implement progressive reforms. The point is: do not call attention to the new ideas; cloak new ideas in old forms, languages, social structures, and rituals. That way, the locals may actually evaluate them rather than just reject out of principles.

Third strategy is out right trading: do this and we will give you that. Note: "this" and "that" must be chosen very very carefully. We want to appear belittling the invaded cultures and traditions. Furthermore, we want to establish long term relationship, not one off actions. A good way of trading, by the way, is to give first, then implement requirement. Remember human nature: we bias against loss. Thus, if we start with, "you do this first," the other party may walk away. Instead, we can say, "well, here is some privilege. Like it? OK, now you need to do this or we take it away." It's hostage trading, essentially. And what's the easiest commodities for trading? Economics, of course. One can imagine a factory who pays well, who then demands that all employees must send their children (girls and boys) to schools. Economic venues (factories, shops, offices) can also be political, educational, and cultural venues. It's the same even in the US: offices usually have billboards filled with cultural and leisure opportunities.

All 3 strategies above share a few important traits. First, they don't blatantly celebrate changes that may seem scandalous to a sizable (not necessarily majority, but numerous enough to disrupt socially) demographics. Second, they ensure that changes always come after buy-in: changes are applied to stakeholders, not "the people." The goal, as stated above, is to avoid rejection out of principles. Good ideas are only good if they are considered. Rubbing things, no matter how good, into people's face will get rebellion, not cooperation.

Thus, justice and liberty require a battle order. No one embrace outside invaders with open arms for long. No one like to see their identity and culture invalidated and held in contempt. No one fight for social and political orders to which they don't belong. Respect, buy-in, and shared progresses will help root progress. Lack of those, and progressives are at perpetual risk of beheading.

Reconsidering Ulysses S. Grant

Now that I am at the middle of the 2nd book on Civil War, I feel the need to defend Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant military record, especially against that of General Robert E. Lee, his chief opponent.

Ever since I first learned of American Civil War (and this was before my arrival at American shore), the War has been explained thus: the North won by the virtue of is superiority in finance, technologies, and manpower. After my arrival, this explanation was augmented by the assertion that the South (in particular, Army of Northern Virginia by Robert E. Lee) actually fought better and braver, but finally was crushed under the manpower of the North. A story of tragic heroes, really: the South claimed almost all of the "better" generals of the war, from "Stonewall" Jackson to Longstreet to Lee (not to count Johnston, Beauregard, and Bragg, whose fame predated the Civil War). Meanwhile, generalship of the North was, at best, hindering (stories of Burnside being burned on his side, anyone?) and at worst killed and maimed the seemingly inexhaustible stream of soldiers.

Comparison between Grant and Lee is particularly stark. Lee is widely considered to be a military genius, the beloved of the army, the hope of the Confederate and the fear of the Union. Meanwhile, Grant is generally viewed at the butcher of his own troops. Occasionally, people would "concede" things like "Grant was better at strategy; he directed an all-side attack on the Confederate" as excuses of why Lee lost. Even with those "concession," the only widely accepted reason of Lee's defeat revolved around the superiority in manpower and technologies and money of the Union. In other words, Grant contributed little (if anything beside carnage) to ultimate Union's victory.

The more I read about the Civil War, however, the less accurate this picture became. As of this point, I believe that the picture was a total lie. In fact, as I learn of the so-called "Lost Cause" of the Confederate, I am quite certain that such picture (the greatness of Lee and of the Southern military; the supposed clumsiness and bloodthirst of Grant and Northern government) was fabricated by apologists of white supremacy to excuse the South.

And I am here to clarify the story.

First, credit where credit due. Lee should not be held responsible for lack of strategy. One cannot say that Grant knew of overall strategy while Lee was ignorant. Grant was, after all, the general-in-chief of Union armies (note the plural form). Meanwhile, Lee was only command of Army of Northern Virginia. Furthermore, this position (general-in-chief of all armies) had existed within Union armies since the begin of the war. From Winfield Scott to McClellan to Halleck to Grant, Union side always had a professional general to direct their war effort. In contrast, another supposed military genius (who probably handed more victories to Grant than anyone else), Jefferson Davis, headed both civil and military command in the Confederate. So, stop scolding Lee for his "lack of strategic vision." It was not his job.

Second, another credit where credit due: Grant did not invent the multiple-front war. He merely continued it. There are 2 potential inventor of this ingenuity: Winfield Scott and Lincoln. In fact, the Union had fought on multiple fronts since the very beginning of the war. After all, the Union has absolute advantage in the sea, so Union's navy lent itself naturally to fighting in the back of the Confederate. Remember, New Orleans was captured while Grant was only a corp commander. Given that multiple general-in-chiefs came and went, credit belong to Lincoln for maintaining this strategy.

Right, now that those are out of the way (2 points above actually demean Grant), let's talk about the military career of Ulysses S. Grant. How was Grant as a tactician and strategist? Let's consider, say, battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson. Grant and Foote put Howe brothers (of the American Revolutionary War fame; they commanded the British army and navy) to shame. In fact, Fort Henry stood witness for how Grant was not a butcher: bombardment from the ships captured the fort without army's bloodshed. Similarly, the cooperation between navy and army proved decisive in forcing Fort Donelson to surrender. If Grant was so ignorant of tactics and so blood thirsty, he would have thrown his measly army at Fort Donelson for butchery.

Furthermore, Grant's ability was further proven with Vicksburg campaign. In fact, I maintain that this campaign outstripped Lee's exploits in term of tactics and strategy. Grant sneaked his army in between a larger force, broken down that force piece by piece. I know of only a few places where this happend: by Napoleon, by fiction, and in Chinese military textbooks. Even Hannibal should bow down to such daring and brilliant piece of strategy.

If Fort Henry and Vicksburg proved Grant's worth as a strategist, Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing) and Wilderness proved his worth as tactician. The former (Shiloh) is particularly proving, especially in contrast to his opponent, the famous Albert Sidney Johnston. Where as Johnston acted like a colonel (he led a charge on his right wing while the commanding chain of his whole army disintegrated into chaos), Grant acted as the commanding general of the whole army. Grant remained in the center, moving troops as required, plugging holes and putting out fires. Then, when the morale sagged (even the unflabbable Sherman flinched and thought of retreating), Grant remained as cool as a cucumber. Coolness won out.

Now that we established Grant's capacity, let's talk about his manpower advantage. By 1964, the Confederate was in deep trouble. Always outmanned and outgunned, by 1964, the Confederate was cut into multiple pieces. In the West, the Union controlled Mississippi river, chopped off Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. In the deep south, Sherman would soon driver from Chattanooga down to Atlanta and the coast, cut off Alabama and Florida. This means that Lee could not marshal even the full power of the Confederate, and puts Army of Northern Virginia into serious disadvantage.

And who cut the Confederates into pieces? Ah, my man Major General Grant (when he freed Mississippi river, he was still Major General).

Thus, one can say that Grant created his own manpower and supply advantage. Now, to be fair, Union Navy's role in capturing New Orleans should also be given important credit, as well as Lincoln's strategy of envelopment. However, on land, without Grant and his victories in Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Vicksburg, Mississippi river would be blocked. Therefore, a lion share of credit for the shortage of power of the Army of Northern Virginia must go to Grant for his fine work in the west. And, remember, Grant trained Sherman in his way of war. Thus, he claimed a token of credit in the very deep south, too.

Another word on supply: Grant proved himself again here (and, to be fair, along with Halleck). His army, despite its various marvelous maneuvers, was never short of food, ammunition, and other supplies. Given that armies march on their stomach and fire their ammunition, supply chains play major role in war. Different from Lee (who operated within a few dozens of miles from his capital), Grant's army operated in far away field. Thus, Grant's ability to arrange supply for his troops was unparalleled, maybe even by George Washington himself.

As we see, Grant was a great general in his own rights. In fact, from his invention of Navy-Army joint operations at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, his brilliant maneuvers at Vicksburg, his excellent exploitation at Chattanooga, to his mastery over supply of food and ammunition, one can even argue that Grant outstripped Lee in commanding capacity. And, hey, he prevailed at the end, right? This, of course, is not to downplay Lee's brilliance. Lee was a great general (Johnston would bear witness), who was responsible for such a long existence of the Confederate. However, Grant, too, was a brilliant military commander. Yet everyone worships Lee while bashing Grant. How's that fair?

I have a few theories on the difference of treatment for the 2 equally brilliant commanders.

First was the carnage of 1864 and 1865. Too many men died. As McPherson pointed out in Battlecry of Freedom, by 1865, the Union army lost its drive due to the sheer amount of of turn over. And this turn over was from casualty. As the general-in-chief, Grant shouldered the blame for this. However, one must understand that there was frankly no other way. Grant and Lee were locked into this situation: there was about 100 miles between the Richmond and Washington DC; any, um, creative movement risked the other side breaking through. And breaking through meant lost of the national capital. Thus, frontal assault was required.

Second, Lee enjoyed a kind of sacred aura. It should be reminded that Lee's own grand victories (Seven Days battle, Chancellorsville, his 2 attempts to the North) cost many tens of thousands of casualties. And we have not counted the defeats (Gettysburg and the final campaign). In fact, Grant's greatest victories (beside 1864-1865 campaigns) cost way few casualties proportional to Lee's victories. However, Lee's aura of brilliance deflects this kind of analysis. People are content to say "yeah, Lee battled here and there and the Union armies were defeated," and not "well, Lee's men died by the thousands." True, Lee must do what he did. But so must Grant!

Thirdly, Lee's brilliance shined right in the most important theater: the hundred miles between the 2 capitals. Grant's awesome campaigns happened in the back water of the West. The history books (besides those talking about Grant specifically) would talk glowingly at length about Lee's exploits while giving 1-sentence summary of Grant's victories. Thus, Lee's brilliance is emphasized. And Grant?

Fourthly, the time of Grant in the limelight was the time of carnage. Grant arrived in Washington in 1864 and proceeded to start the bloody campaign for Richmond. Thus, talking about Grant means talking about the staggering blood of 1864 and 1865. In contrast with Lee's emphasize on brilliance, Grant got the emphasize on death and casualty.

Lastly, and I think this is the deciding factory, the "Lost Cause" movement of apologists in the South post-bellum. Those wanted to excuse their side while demonize the other. Grant, as the victorious general and the president of Reconstruction, was the must-aim target. Lee, as the model of Southern gentry, was the must-praise hero. And revisionists did their work. After those historical revision, Lee emerges as an angel while Grant sinks as butcher.

My opinion of Civil War is like this: the Union deserved to win. They fought for a worthy cause: the preservation of their country (sorry, but most of them were quite racist; emancipation was forced, not driven). The Confederation deserved to loses. For God's sake, they fought for their rights to enslave human beings! What kind of states fight for such sickening rights? And they was given an appropriate man for the job. Ulysses S. Grant was probably among the top 5 generals that this country ever has the honor to host. And we should appreciate that.