Andrew Yang is not yet a president and still is only a presidential candidate for the Democrats, and yet he is already inspired people to give strangers a load of cash without any string attach. Check out a few good folks with the mindset of abundance who handling out $1K to random strangers in Harlem in the video right after the break.
In case you’re wondering who is Andrew Yang still, through a YouTube video I watched earlier I found a link to a Venture for America’s pilot podcast which interviewed Andrew Yang in detail about how he ditched his corporate lawyer job for becoming an entrepreneur. He explained how he was transitioned from being paid well as a lawyer to go around and asking rich investors for money to support his startup. It was a difficult time for him and he went into debt and so forth. Of course, later he became a CEO of a successful company and moreover he left that company to found Venture for America which the Venture for America’s pilot podcast invited him to participate as the first guest of the podcast even though, I think, he was already washed his hand from running Venture for America at the time he got interviewed. Hopefully, I wasn’t wrong on this, but regardless this podcast reveals a lot about the man who is running for a presidency of the United States of America, and his name is Andrew Yang! Check out the podcast link right after the break. Enjoy!
I’ve been following Andrew Yang on YouTube, and I was really excited about his debate on Thursday. I caught the debate late on YouTube while it was playing live on YouTube, and so I had to rewind the playback live video and try to see how the debate was going for Andrew Yang. I got frustrated to see Andrew Yang was so silent and not a lot of questions were being directed at him for the longest time. I felt he was so shy and shouldn’t be on the debate stage until I realized there is another YouTube video which he explained that his mic was deliberately turned off. Check out the YouTube video right after the break to see his explanation of why he wasn’t able to interject his points into the debate most of the time.
I didn’t finish watching the debate because I felt the whole thing was a joke! Now, I’m even more frustrated that they deliberately switched off his mic. Now, I can see why this whole thing is so rigged!
Update: I found another video shows why Andrew Yang couldn’t interject his points into the debate.
The above video tries to explore the idea of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy values into one system. In real life, currently, we do not have a system in which both values could be incorporated in a balance manner. For an example, in the West, Democracy is being valued more, thus the systems lean toward mediocre leaders with greatest popularity. In the East, the opposite case mostly occurs. Still, there probably are situations that smooth sailing does occur for the West, and bad sailing does occur for the East. This is a luck and bad luck happenstances. For an example, the people in the West might just pick the best leaders by chance, thus the system could be run by the most popular leaders who are not mediocre. In the East, bad luck could occur, thus the system could have corrupted, mediocre leaders who hold the positions of power and don’t want to relinquish such powerful positions — thus they become unpopular for sure.
The luck and bad luck happenstances are the unexpected elements, thus these things are beyond the control of the system. What people want are the system that can be configured in a way that ensures the highest chance of electing the best leaders that could run the country in the best manner if possible. Unfortunately, electing is more of a popularity contest than electing the best leaders. Why? Election is about who got more votes, and thus in theory anyone could be running for a position to get votes. Strangers vote for each other — it’s more about who appears to be the most competence gets the popularity — thus getting the position. In the Meritocracy system, a pretender who could keep the act together might also appear to be competence, thus fooling the previous leaders who vouch for his or her promotion. Still, the Meritocracy system is built to ensure the highest chance of picking leaders according to meritocracy values.
When marrying Democracy with Meritocracy, we’re running into a direct conflict. Democracy encourages the priority of voting while Meritocracy encourages the priority of strictly observing/testing before a promotion. Thus, in reality we don’t see any system which distributes equal powers to Democracy and Meritocracy. In China, I think some local regions do have elections, but it’s obviously one party state — so there is no true election at the very top. So the true dilemma is how are we marrying the Democracy and Meritocracy together?
I have an idea! Why don’t we have a constitution that ensures a house of Democracy which governs by election, but the house of Democracy is there to examine the performances of the most popular leaders who had gotten the positions through the voting process. After the leaders’ terms are up, they need to be either promoted to longer term positions according to their performance-report-cards, but if their performances are poor they could be demoted or even be impeached. Once they got promoted to longer term positions they could move into the house of Meritocracy. Still, even once they reach the house of Meritocracy, more examinations must be done to ensure that the leaders within the house of Meritocracy are truly excellent. If they’re just pretending to be excellent at their jobs, they could still be impeached within the house of Meritocracy.
Well, I think the idea I suggest above could be tested out for the case of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy together. It’s like the people got to participate in a popularity contest before the real leaders could eventually be recognized. Such a system does provide layers of examinations of our leaders so they could not take it easy and get so corrupted such as becoming lazy in serving people, involving in corruptions and scandals, and so forth. What do you think?
I was reading an article which mentioned how China may use technology in space to ram United States’ satellites to prevent spying and GPS and whatnot activities in wartime, and I thought to myself that China could also create satellites that may act like a last resort measure in which it would project indiscriminately projectiles to all satellites in an orbit, including the ones that China operates. Why I think China can also go this route? Well, let me see, in wartime China got the number on her side, because she got 1.3 billion people to draft from for a world war. If China can sacrifice her satellites to destroy all satellites of her enemies, then why not right? After all, when all satellites become inoperable, China can use traditional warfare tactics that do not rely on satellites to win war — she got the number on her side. Of course, this is only my imagination, because I don’t know if China has ever created something like this yet. Of course, the United States can do the same, but this means such technology would force the United States to fight blind. I think the United States prefers to have her satellites operating during wartime.
In this early years of the 21st century, we know that superpower countries won’t go to war against each other, because they all got nuclear weapons. Of course, I hope I’m right about this, because it could be a disaster for humankind if superpowers do go all out against one another. Anyway, the United States is facing a real challenge as Russia and China team up ever closer to carve out more influence in the world. The United States of course wants to stay number one and dictate the direction of the world’s trajectory, but Russia and China are not playing the United States’ game. Just recently, Russia and China carried out huge military exercise in South China Sea. The video right after the break demonstrates how China and Russia team up in military trainings and efforts. The video is in a 360 degree panorama format, and so you can use your mouse to press and hold on the onscreen arrows in the video to watch the video in 360 degree, both horizontally and vertically.