LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama's speech announcing the details of his executive order on immigration on Nov. 20, 2014, starts by saying he is not bypassing Congress or the Republicans. He says Republicans had the opportunity to pass legislation in the House that passed the Senate, or come up with their own bill. And still have an opportunity to come up with a bill he could sign into law that address the shortcomings of the current immigration system. In selling the bill to Americans he points out that this is not an amnesty, that the current system which allows immigrants here to stay illegally without paying taxes or any accountability is an amnesty. He points to deportation of millions as not an option, an out of the character of America. That deportation of criminals will continue and is up 80% in his administration, without mentioning that deportation under his administration for ordinary undocumented immigrants without any criminal record had reached a high of 400,000 a year under his administration, higher than under the Republican Bush administration. In fact it had reached such levels that Hispanic groups stated they would sit out the midterm 2014 elections and not vote for Democrats or Republicans, after providing a significant part of the winning margin for Obama in the 2012 presidential election. President Obama says he has the legal authority to prevent deportation, and that this is essentially what this executive order does- providing a temporary right to stay and work in this country to undocumented immigrants here living in the shadows who are here for more than 5 years, not a permanent status or citizenship. He cites other presidential decisions of the last 50 years, Republican and Democratic, that have integrated large groups of undocumented immigrants, including an executive order by President Reagan. And he refers to the Bush presidencies 41 and 43, where both father and son, considered Hispanic Americans "a part of American life," as good hard-working people deserving a chance to be Americans. The speech ends with an appeal to the compassion of Americans urging them to look at their own individual stories going back one, two or several generations, or Ellis Island where the early waves of European immigrants entered the country in the 19th century, and to immigrants from the period after the early British settlements in the 18th century. This is typical Obama, as much as the calculated decision to pursue a aggressive deportation policy was for the first 6 years of his administration, including the decision for "Dreamers" or young people before the 2012 election. "Scripture tells us, we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger. we were strangers once, too. And whether our forbears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here because this country welcomed them in." Over 2 million deportations in one of the most aggressive deportation policies of any administration, followed by an effort to stop deportations before the next presidential election, when the NYT had called his deportation policy "infuriating." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
John Hills, a law professor at Indiana University and author of "The Political Centrist," says tough political exchanges are endemic to the American political system. Others say putting crosshairs on representatives in Congress like Giffords on websites or its equivalent wasn't the practice since the times of Jefferson and Adams. We looked at the letters of George Washington during the long struggle with the British and it showed composure and civility even in dire circumstances and difficulties. Criticism by Washington of the lack of help and risks he was exposed to throughout the war was worded carefully, with civility and yet conveys the great urgency. What about the letters of Jefferson and Adams who were on opposite sides of the debates of that time, a time more infused with momentous issues because of the French revolutionary tide in those years? A letter to Abigail Adams, from Washington, June 13, 1804, gives a glimpse of that relationship: "The friendship with which you honored me has ever been valued, and fully reciprocated, and altho' events have been passing which may be trying to some minds, I never believed yours to be of that kind, nor felt that my own was. Neither my estimate of your character, nor the esteem founded on that, have ever been lessened for a single moment, although doubts whether it would be acceptable may have forbidden manifestations of it. Mr Adams friendship and mine began at an earlier date. It accompanied us thro' long and important scenes. The different conclusions that we had drawn from our political reading and reflections were not permitted to lessen mutual esteem, each party being conscious they were the result of an honest conviction in the other. Like differences of opinion existing among our fellow citizens attached them to the one or the other of us, and produced a rivalship in their minds which did not exist in ours." Jefferson in this letter says that one act of Adam's gave him a moment of personal displeasure, the last appointments by Adams as President "from among my most ardent political enemies." This says Jefferson "laid me under the embarrassment of acting thro' men whose views were to defeat mine, or to encounter the odium of putting others in their places...If my respect for him did not permit me to ascribe the whole blame on the influence of others, it left something for friendship to forgive, and after brooding over it for some little time, and not alwasys resisting the expression of it, I forgave it cordially, and returned to the same state of esteem and respect for him which had long subsisted...I maintain for him and shall carry into private life an unform and high measure of respect and goodwill, and for yourself a sincere attachment."...

LyrArc Article Gist
After increasing the price of subsidized diesel, the Indian government lays out a plan to cut the deficit over five years. The plan sets a goal for the deficit of 5.3% for fiscal year ending March 2013 to come down to 3% by 2017. Earlier India's central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), had said the government needed to take action on the deficit before it reduced interest rates. The RBI faces a difficult task in reducing rates to stimulate the slowing economy because inflation was 7.8% in Sept. 2012. At the same time the sharp decline in growth is a cause for serious concern- the most recent RBI forecast for GDP growth made in July for the current fiscal year through March 2013 is 6.5%. This may not be achieved as other economists have lowered the estimate to as low as 5% because of slow government action in economic reforms, high interest rates, and the uncertain global economc outlook. The last action by the RBI to lower interest rates was a drop of half a percentage point in April 2012. Much of the momentum for the Indian economy was lost in the first half of 2012 with the governments vacillating steps for opening the retail and other sectors to foreign investment. Only in October 2012 has prime minister Manmohan Singh set a clear direction by dropping coalition partners opposed to reforms and announcing new policies for foreign investment....

LyrArc Article Gist
German perceptions of Mikhail Gorbachev are shown here in DW.com. He is revered in Germany because of Gorbachev's efforts to end Soviet rule in East German state called the GDR, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev supported German reunification but did not do this is in a way that ensured that ordinary Russians and citizens of the GDR could make the transition to democratic processes in a smooth way. He also failed to grasp that economic transition could be difficult and would require extensive aid and grants from the west, and that safeguards and protections for retired pensioners and vulnerable sections of society needed to be in place. The following is a reflection of the background in political government and economy of the events in Europe leading to the war in Ukraine.  As a result Gorbachev's instincts were right by first 1956 as a student, and then 1979 as government official about the need for democratic processes to realize the real potential of Russia, just as has happened in many countries that lacked these processes for change in government- Japan, Germany, South Korea, India, Brazil and many countries in Asia and Latin America. But not realizing that these countries made the transition with considerable American and British assistance. Even where there was no direct assistance indirectly the British setup the first limited Swaraj or free rule in India, with elections and elected assemblies in Indian states in the 1930's, following the pattern in Dominion states Australia and Canada. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated within these processes for rights of South African Indians and Colored people, gaining experience, including study of British law.  A son of poor farmers in the agricultural region of North Caucasus, in Stavropol, it is relevant today that his maternal grand parents were from Chernihiv in Ukraine. He came to power in 1980 after entering the Politburo that year. These were the waning years of Leonid Brezhnev, president of the Soviet Union who followed Nikita Khrushchev (1953- 1964). Khrushchev was from eastern Ukrainian region near Donetsk. Leonid Brezhnev was a protege of Krushchev since 1931, from Kamianske, Ukraine.   Gorbachev was influenced by Khrushchev's speech that denounced Stalin in 1956 in favor of a freer and more open society. Khrushchev, became first secretary of the Communist party in 1953 after the death of Stalin and set the pace of post war Soviet society from 1950 to 1964. He removed the fear of the dictatorship of the proleteriat working class, increasingly dictatorial under Lenin, and blatantly arbitrary under his successor to make Soviet Union a freer society.  Yet his tendency to make decisions on his own without consulting others, and the failure of agriculture in the Soviet Union including food shortages led to his replacement by his protege Brezhnev. Brezhnev's whole career was built under Krushchev in Ukraine, in the army in Ukraine, and as a political leader in the Soviet 18th Army that entered Prague in 1945 defeating the Nazis. Why is this relevant? Gorbachev was educated at Moscow State University when the Soviet Union was in the Sputnik era, and felt at the time that it could reach the 1950's standard of living in the US- very different from the earlier leaders. Yet he may have been too much of an optimist and not hands on in understanding the working of a modern economy as large as Russia and the interests of different groups of society that had to be be balanced and protected. His understanding of the US and of how the US and British economies had evolved was limited or nonexistent. The isolation of the Soviet period may have compounded this. The Russian state in the Soviet Union could not simply unwind the power of the state and its intervention and everything would come out right of its own accord.   Leonid Brezhnev, the Ukrainian Russian who succeeded Krushchev from 1964 to 1979 let the system of Soviet rule remain as it was, in the Great Stagnation, leading to lethargy, lack of innovation, and a weak economy with military expansion. Gorbachev tried to regenerate the system by opening it up, but failed to see that there was a risk that it could come apart quickly as it did in just 4 years after he became president in 1985. Only the centralized power of the state had kept the Russian state together from the Tsarist period through the Communist period. The risks of this Gorbachev failed to grasp. What if it happened too quickly without a safety net for the people who could not make the transition. What lawlessness and failure of the rule of law could happen. The US and Britain had evolved their democracies over centuries. Wars were fought in the US and Britain over rights and responsibilities of kings and parliaments. In the US Lincoln fought the civil war not just for emancipation but to ensure safeguards for free white men on the farms so that Labor did not get disabilities placed on them by Capital (entrenched forces of Capital of which the southern plantation economy was only one aspect.)  Japan and Germany were set up as democratic states through American power and constitutional frameworks with Marshall Plans or agreement to take in unlimited imports from Japan. This bad scenario happened in Russia because Gorbachev failed to set the conditions first and work patiently to achieve them including introducing limited  elections and parliamentary processes first in Russia.  Leaders such as Yeltsin who succeeded Gorbachev in 1989, winning the elections that followed, failed to provide a safety net for the vulnerable in the 1980's. Unemployment increased rapidly, life expectancy dropped in Russia, and the economy failed in the early years after 1980. A Marshall Plan like that offered to Germany could have helped but Gorbachev's failure may have been his failure to provide this transition by arranging for West Germany and the US to support a planned transition, a kind of Marshall Plan of Aid, and maintaining a gradual move to democracy as the country was given time to learn institutions of American and British parliamentary democracy. No such Marshall Plan was negotiated for a smooth transition over inevitable obstacles, no safeguards were put in place for illegal efforts to control the state by rogue elements and to seize assets of state companies, no efforts to first introduce limited elections and parliamentary processes for learning democratic process in Russia, and the people of Russia were left with a memory of the this period as a bad lawless period from 1989 to 2005.  Leading to the situation today under Putin of aspiring to the Soviet period as a kind of period that had offered Russia the world recognition it had lost. And this had happened even though the Russian economy had recovered and the standard of living had risen under Putin. Putin's career spanned the period as a Russian official in Dresden, Germany Democratic Republic or Soviet period East Germany to working in the St Petersburg City Council under Yeltsin. He personally witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the German Democratic Republic from Dresden and Gorbachev's refusal to build a transition period for the changes so that it would not be traumatic for the GDR. Even after reunification these traumas remain in some segments of the older population in East Germany that saw themselves as neglected and support extreme right wing parties in eastern German states by 2020- considering the Soviet period as one in which their lives were less neglected.  After three terms as president Putin with his own traumas from that period in Dresden, and with a mother lost in the period after the Nazi invasion of Russia, a father who survived the Battle of Stalingrad, saw the period of lawless behaviour in the collapse of the Soviet Union as the"greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Putin and people around him made missteps and miscalculations launching a war in Ukraine, leading to the situation today- jeopardizing hard won gains for the Russian economy. By 2022 Russian standards of living had risen and the economy was in the best shape it had been in the modern period since the Industrial Revolution. Yet largely exposed because of the dependence on oil and gas during a period of climate change and focus on building future economies free of fossil fuels.  Putin in his own peculiar logic may have seen this as the only opportunity in 2022 before deliinking from fossil fuel reduced the importance of the Russian fuel dependent economy to make some territorial readjusments in Ukraine with a quick war taking Kviv. That turned into a massive miscalculation with the emergence of nationalist fervor in western Ukraine spreading to the whole country of 40 million people. In the future to 2030 with phasing out of the fossil fuel economy, Russia without the connections to the US and European Union's technology and resources it had during Putin's three terms, and facing strict sanctions from US and EU, faces a difficult future. This has cautionary lessons for all countries- the US that read too much into the fall of the Berlin wall and indulged in a losing proposition with free markets that damaged its infrastructure and manufacturing with shifts to China, China understanding of how it to was dependent on the world economy for its future development, India that had to navigate a difficult period and what lessons to draw for building a bigger economy, the EU realizing the failure of its policies of depending on Russia for energy and China for manufacturing with fragile supply chains,  and Russia that there were twists and turns and the need for safeguards and experience building democratic processes before these processes would work for the economy, its people and for Russia as a nation. ...