Latest news with #ElonMusk-DonaldTrump
News18
a day ago
- Sport
- News18
News18 Evening Digest: Musk's Father In Moscow, Fadnavis' Rhyme-Laced Jibe At Rahul & Other Top Stories
Last Updated: We are also covering: Karnataka Govt Held RCB Event Despite Police's Warning Note, Actor Sana Makbul Hospitalised Due To 'Grave Condition & other top stories. In today's News18 evening digest, we bring to you the latest on RCB Stampede, Elon Musk-Donald Trump Feud, Germany's Immigration Rule & other top stories. The Karnataka government ignored an explicit warning from the police about the risks of holding a felicitation ceremony for IPL-winning team, Royal Challengers Bengaluru, at the Vidhana Soudha, and still went ahead with it on June 4. Later, in the evening, lakhs of cricket fans gathered outside the M Chinnaswamy Stadium for the victory celebrations, leading to a stampede that claimed 11 lives. Read More Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Sunday took a subtle yet sharp rebuke at Congress leader Rahul Gandhi after he claimed 'match-fixing" in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections saying that Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha has made the same mistake throughout his entire life. Actor Sana Makbul Hospitalised Due To 'Grave Condition' Health Scare Former Bigg Boss OTT 3 winner Sana Makbul has been hospitalised, moments after posting photos from her Eid celebration with her family. Though the details of her ailment haven't been revealed yet, her friend Dr Aashna Kanchwala posted a photo of Sana from the hospital bed, praying for her speedy recovery. Read More The Indian Premier League (IPL) requires a 12–16-week operating window to rival the brand value of leading global sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, and Premier League, according to Punjab Kings co-owner Mohit Burman. Read More First Published: June 08, 2025, 18:25 IST
Japan Times
02-04-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
The DOGE solution? 'No thanks' says Japan, with reason
The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, the Elon Musk-Donald Trump project to reform the U.S. government bureaucracy, has been described as a sledgehammer, bulldozer, meat cleaver, wrecking ball — you get the picture. Whatever the metaphor, it is a uniquely American approach to institutional reform, reflective of the larger culture within which it operates: brash, impulsive, self-confident, expansive. Again, you get the picture. While I'm fond of the saying, 'whenever I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my gun,' it's important to take seriously arguments about culture when thinking about ways societies change — or don't. That understanding is more critical than ever at a time of wrenching transition throughout the world. Failure to grasp the essential characteristics of each country will ensure that outsiders misread the moment and fail to appreciate what is going on and why. German sociologist Max Weber first explained the link between culture and economic outcomes over a century ago. He argued that the values of reformist Christians — hard work, discipline and frugality — provided the foundation of successful capitalism and explained the West's pre-eminence. In the intervening years, capitalism became ubiquitous. National variations are then explained as the product of broader cultural forces. So, for example, the ferocious and voracious Western variant which celebrates the individual and his or her independence is the product of a frontier ethic where lonely individuals combat the forces of nature on their own. By contrast, Asian versions are more 'group-oriented,' hierarchical and respectful of norms, traditions and precedent. This stems, we are told, from the agricultural roots of these societies that demanded cooperation to harvest the crops upon which they depended. These crude stereotypes often comport with lived experience, but generalizations are invariably general. This can get squishy — and that is when that trigger finger gets itchy. When Singapore's former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, was asked what were the 'Asian values' he credited for his country's extraordinary success he replied: 'hard work, drive for education and respect for one's parents — you know, all the things that made the United States great!' Sociologists and social psychologists have done their best to provide more precision and scientific rigor to this analysis. Canadian business professor Rosalie L. Tung distinguished between 'dry' and 'wet' cultures in her 1984 study, 'Business Negotiations with the Japanese.' She argued that non-Japanese have 'dry' business relationships that are based on legal documents and the economic dimensions of the deal. By contrast, the Japanese develop 'wet' relationships that are more personal and transcend the four corners of the agreement. These are long-term arrangements that bind the parties even when conditions change. Paperwork is important, to be sure, but it's not necessarily determinative. Deals are adjusted to allow relationships to continue. Perhaps the most famous assessment of national cultures was that of Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede. A massive study of over 100,000 IBM employees yielded a six-dimensional analysis that identified the following key characteristics: power distance (acceptance of inequality), individualism, uncertainty avoidance (tolerance of unpredictability), masculinity, short versus long-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. His results confirmed many preconceptions about Asians. Conclusions about Japan offer no surprises. The country is mid-range between a collectivist and an individualistic culture, with a long-term focus, a preference for certainty, little tolerance for large inequalities in power and disdain for indulgence; restraint is preferred. It's also quite masculine. That first finding — that the country teeters between individualism and collectivism — is a bit of a surprise, but other researchers argue that the country is in transition, with younger generations more inclined to 'selfishness' than their predecessors. That seems like an unremarkable conclusion. While Hofstede has ruled the academic roost, a new analysis has gained prominence in recent years. In 2019, University of Maryland psychology professor Michele J. Gelfand published 'Rule Makers, Rule Breakers,' which argued that a distinction between 'tight' and 'loose' cultures was the key to understanding national behaviors. Gelfand wants us to focus on social norms, 'the glue that keep(s) us together, (that) gives us our identity and help(s) us to coordinate and cooperate at such a remarkable level.' She adds that 'social norms are the key that unlocks societal order, and even the possibility of constructing a human society.' Some groups have stronger norms than others. Gelfand calls these 'tight' cultures. Those with weaker norms are 'loose.' Of course, none are pure and there is invariably a mix of both types, but she concludes that 'cultures vary in the degree to which they emphasize norms and compliance with them.' I take Gelfand seriously because Ulrike Schaede, professor of Japanese business at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California, San Diego, does. She adopted the 'tight-loose' framework in 'The Business Reinvention of Japan,' her Ohira Memorial Prize winning book. As Schaede explained, 'Tight cultures, such as Japan's are characterized by strong norms for what constitutes the 'right' behavior as well as strong mechanisms for ostracizing deviants. In contrast, loose cultures, such as that in the United States, have a much wider definition of what is acceptable and do not sanction noncompliance to nearly the same degree.' Schaede identified three norms that dominate Japanese culture: Be polite and considerate, behave appropriately and don't make trouble (or make disruptive decisions). Implicit in this reasoning is consideration of a much wider range of interests when decisions are made. This means that would-be reformers must maneuver delicately or their actions could trigger resentment and rejection. 'Being noisy, pushy or brazen will rarely yield success in Japan.' While the glacial pace of change here can infuriate non-Japanese, Schaede adds that this 'has distinct advantages for managing change. The most important is that once a decision has been made and everybody is on board, change can happen swiftly. Preparation may seem to take forever, but the execution can be expeditious.' That is the key point as I ponder the havoc unleashed by DOGE. I can't imagine a DOGE-like beast in Japan. No one can. It is utterly alien to every tradition, precedent or cultural inclination in this country. The only possible condition under which such a mechanism could exist would be foreign imposition — occupation or the fear of one (i.e., the Meiji Restoration.) My book 'Peak Japan' was intended to answer the question of whether the triple catastrophe of March 11 would catalyze change in Japan. Yet even that horrific cascade of disasters proved insufficient. The point that Schaede makes, and about which I am ambivalent, is that Japan doesn't need that change. She argues that critical reforms are occurring within businesses to prepare them for the new global competition. She urges us to forget world-beating conglomerates and instead focus on occupying vital nodes in global supply chains. By that metric, Japan is succeeding. (Slowly, but without doubt.) In contrast, there is DOGE. It may be better suited to American culture but there is no mistaking its impact on the larger society: The U.S. is literally tearing itself apart — and this is in the best performing Group of Seven economy in the world post COVID-19. Meanwhile in Japan, after three decades of stagnation, there is none of the angst, unhappiness, anger and division. The change that is taking place, despite being elemental on some levels, is far less disruptive than that occurring in other countries. For sure, it's not as fast as Western observers — critics — would like. But the culture of slow, steady, incremental transformation that accounts for all stakeholder interests appears to be far more successful in navigating vital change than one that acts by fiat from the top. To those who counter that the U.S. has produced a 'superior' economy — there are plenty of metrics to validate that adjective — I point to the larger social upheaval that has accompanied not only DOGE but the process of the Schumpeterian "creative destruction" that got us here. Neither Tung, Hofstede nor Gelfand would argue that one set of norms is 'better' than another. Instead, each is merely better suited to or reflective of the society that produced them. From this vantage point at this moment in history, however, a verdict is pretty clear. Brad Glosserman is deputy director of and visiting professor at the Center for Rule-Making Strategies at Tama University as well as senior adviser (nonresident) at Pacific Forum. His new book on the geopolitics of high-tech is expected to come out from Hurst Publishers this fall.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Dems Shouldn't Run Away From the USAID Fight—They Should Win It
ON MONDAY, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT for the District of Columbia published an affidavit from 'Terry Doe,' the pseudonym of a USAID employee challenging the Elon Musk-Donald Trump shutdown of America's foreign assistance programs. We don't know where Terry Doe is stationed—maybe in Ukraine helping to keep that country's energy grid up, or in Central America fighting gangs, or in the Horn of Africa supplying hospitals serving war victims. It doesn't matter. What's important is that this man, who had previously served twice in active war zones, chose a life helping America in tough places overseas. And that when doctors told his 31-week pregnant wife that life-threatening complications with her pregnancy required her to come home, USAID refused to pay for a MEDEVAC because of the Trump administration's funding freeze. He was able to successfully appeal to a U.S. Senator for help. But it was too late. On February 8, his wife started hemorrhaging and had to be hospitalized in place. As of the filing of the affidavit, she remains on bedrest until her due date in April, with doctors advising her that it is now too dangerous to get on a plane. I read this story and felt utter fury at the scumbags working for Marco Rubio at the State Department (or maybe he works for them) who are making these decisions. If you're going to unlawfully kill a U.S. government agency that is funded and mandated by Congress, fine. We can have that fight and eventually kick your asses in court; but don't abandon the Americans that agency sent overseas—men and women for whom you are still responsible—without the means to protect themselves or get emergency care. It would be no different if a president ended a U.S. military mission in a foreign country and then told soldiers recently wounded in that mission that we were leaving them behind. But the story also brought to mind conversations I've had with several Democrats in the last couple of weeks that pissed me off almost as much. Often, those Democrats would casually say something like: 'It's a shame what they're doing to the State Department and USAID. But foreign aid isn't really popular, so we shouldn't focus on that right now.' Join now On one level, I get it. If I were in Congress right now, I'd spend time in my district talking about mass firings of air traffic controllers, cuts to cancer research, farmers getting stiffed, and Elon Musk seeing our personal tax information. Those are the outrages that will hurt Americans immediately and directly. But it would be an insult to the people I represented to say they don't also care what happens beyond America's borders. Even in the most Republican communities I represented while in Congress, I saw more Ukraine than MAGA flags flying after Russia's invasion in 2022, and while many of those folks would be happy to see the war end, none would tolerate forcing Ukraine to surrender. I'll also never forget how many constituents reached out to me during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some had served or knew someone who served in a military or civilian capacity there; some had family ties to the region; most just cared about American security and honor. And I'll never forgive the political consultants who misinterpreted superficial polling data to advise us that voters didn't care how we left Afghanistan so long as we left. Joe Biden paid dearly for that mistake. Let's name some of the consultants making similar arguments now. There's David Axelrod, who says his 'heart is with the people' protesting USAID cuts but that his head says to leave the issue alone. There's Rahm Emmanuel, who has spent decades pretending to be tough by saying the word 'fuck' in every sentence while urging Democrats to fight only for causes that are already popular and to surrender on everything else. Republicans, of course, do the exact opposite. They work hard to shape the public opinion that Democratic operatives then say their party must accept as immutable and passively follow. Who in America ever heard of 'critical race theory,' for example, before Republican operatives defined it as a threat and started winning elections on it? As for the notion that Americans don't care about foreign policy, here, too, Republicans have shown that it's better to set the terms of the debate than be reactive. After all, for years the GOP painted itself effectively as strong on the world stage and Democrats as weak. Now that Republicans have pulled a 180 and started licking foreign dictators' boots while abandoning every effective tool of American influence in the world, are Democrats truly incapable of capitalizing? The Bulwark doesn't lick the boots of dictators. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The 'safe' advice many Democrats are getting now is to wait till Musk and Trump go after something unimpeachably popular and to scream loudly about that. The risk of that approach from a policy standpoint is that in the end, the administration will give ground on the headline-grabbing cuts to cancer grants, Meals on Wheels, and nuclear weapons safety, leaving every less visible but no less critical part of America's public sector in shambles. The exceptions would legitimize the rule that Trump can ignore Congress's power of the purse. But there's an even bigger danger. If Democrats keep ceding ground in the public debate, what will be left? After all, the FBI was unimpeachably popular—especially with conservatives—till Republicans started smearing it as part of some communist deep state. If they can do that, will any part of the U.S. government be truly 'safe' to defend when this is over? The Democrats' task in this fight is to stop a group of radical fanatics from dismantling the government of the United States and selling it for scrap. Not parts of the government, but all of it. Stories about average Americans being hurt by the freeze on popular domestic programs are powerful—of course we should lead with those. But stories about betraying American values and the Americans who sacrifice for our country overseas can be powerful, too. Don't forget that one reason we have USAID and the Peace Corps and American aid workers saving lives in foreign lands is that John F. Kennedy and other presidents, Democratic and Republican, inspired Americans to believe we had an interest in doing good in and for the world. If you're an elected official now and can't explain to voters why helping Ukraine hold Putin at bay makes us safer, or that we're better off stopping diseases in other countries before they kill us here, or that it's wrong to let Americans serving us abroad bleed because Elon Musk took away their money for MEDEVACs, you should have your politician's license revoked and get a new line of work. I'll close by noting that some Democratic political consultants still understand this. In my first race for Congress, my media adviser, a great Jersey guy named Brad Lawrence, saw my State Department human rights background as a plus, and he slapped this slogan on all my literature: 'He stood up to dictators; he'll stand up for you.' He understood that voters care more about what happens at home than abroad, but that our leaders' approach to the wider world can reveal their decency and their strength. This would be a good time for all Democrats to remember that. Tom Malinowski served as the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Obama administration and was a member of the House of Representatives from 2019-2023. Share
