EXPIRED: Kissinger The Negotiator – Lessons From Dealmaking

.
Click here to view possible topics for future meetings. Participants of each monthly meeting vote for the topic of the next monthly meeting.

If you would like to suggest a topic, it is requested as a courtesy that your suggestion be posted here at least 24 hours in advance so that others will have time to give it proper consideration.

EXPIRATION. We have always had a rule that a Possible Topic remains active so long as it receives at least one vote every six meetings. However, if a possible-topic proposal contains a wealth of information that is worth preserving but has not received a vote for six consecutive meetings, it is retained but listed as “Expired."

**********************
SHORT-FUSE NOTICE

*****
EXPLANATION

Occasionally, a Proposed Topic for Future Meetings has a SHORT-TIME FUSE because a governmental unit is soliciting PUBLIC COMMENTS for a limited time period with a SPECIFIED DEADLINE.

Exhibit A would be the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic entitled “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.”

We had already focused on this topic for our 4/9/2008 meeting more than 8 years ago when the PBS Newshour interviewed a Yale U. Biology Professor who had already created a “Chimaera” with 25% Human DNA and 75% Chimp DNA (Chimps are the animals that share the most DNA with humans).

The Yale U. Biology Professor stated that he was then (2008) in the process of creating a “Chimaera” with 50% Human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA, and that he planned to create in the near future (2008 et seq.) a “Chimaera” with 75% Human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

As our 4/9/2008 meeting materials posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org disclose, Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

But, even more appallingly, Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already being created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Unfortunately, the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic was prompted by a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) which appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and which had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

So the reason for inaugurating this Short-Fuse Notice Section is to provide a Special Heads Up that a Proposed Topic has a Public-Comment Deadline that will occur before the first regular meeting date at which the topic can be discussed -- so that any of our readers who want to comply with the Public-Comment Deadline can contact the Proposer of the Topic in order to confer with anyone else who may be considering comments by the deadline.

*****
PENDING SHORT-FUSE PROPOSALS

1. Re “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.” (proposed 8/5/2016), although the 9/6/2016 public-comment deadline of the National Institute of Health (NIH) has passed, this Topic Proposal is still active. PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED TO THIS PROPOSAL THE 1/29/2017 UPDATE ENTITLED0 “HUMAN-PIG CHIMERAS -- DECENT BEHAVIOR DESPITE OPEN BARN DOOR.”

2. Re “Destroying Great Salt Lake To Grow Low-Profit Hay For China” (proposed 9/27/2016), there is a 10/24/2016 public-comment deadline that will occur before our first possible regular meeting (11/16/2016) at which this Proposed Topic could be considered.
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

EXPIRED: Kissinger The Negotiator – Lessons From Dealmaking

Post by johnkarls »

.
I propose that we read “Kissinger the Negotiator: Lessons from Dealmaking at the Highest Level” (to be released 5/8/2018 by HarperCollins – 448 pages – pre-order for $19.71 Hardcover or $14.99 Kindle from Amazon.com).

This should afford an excellent opportunity to compare the negotiating ideas of Henry (Opening to China) Kissinger with President (The Art of The Deal) Trump as America embarks on a new “Opening to North Korea,” and deals with all the trade negotiations currently taking place as well as a looming withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement.

The monthly bulletin for May of the Harvard Club of NYC arrived today (April 19) and, among the zillions of events, listed an interview of Dr. Kissinger about the proposed book by its two principal authors for noon on Wed May 9 (I will be in town and have registered for, and will report on, the event).

**********
The listing in the Harvard Club of NYC Bulletin --

Dr. Henry Kissinger: The Return of the Wiseman
5/9/2018 Wednesday – Noon Talk
Free Event – Registration Required

The Club is honored to welcome Dr. Kissinger, graduate of Harvard (BA, MA, PhD) where he became a tenured professor. Born in Germany in 1923, he fled the Nazis in 1938, returned to Germany with the U.S. Army from 1944-1946, graced Harvard in the 1950s and 60s, was appointed as President Nixon’s National Security Adviser in 1969 and Secretary of State in 1973, won the Nobel Peace Prize that same year, and has spent half a century advising U.S. presidents and global leaders on foreign policy challenges.

The format of this event will be a discussion with Dr. Kissinger hosted by Jim Sebenius, Director of the Harvard Negotiation Project and professor at the Business School, and Robert Mnookin, Chair of the Program on Negotiation and professor at the Law School.

Professor Sebenius is principal author along with Bob Mnookin and Nick Burns of [Harvard’s] Kennedy School [of Government] of the just-published “Kissinger the Negotiator: Lessons from Dealmaking at the Highest Level.”

Many of Dr. Kissinger’s greatest accomplishments have been at the negotiating table. The focus of this discussion will be the ingredients of those very successes and the lessons for business and diplomatic negotiators in their most challenging encounters.

**********
Unfortunately, the book will not be released until May 8, the day before the May 9 event -- so there will be little or no opportunity to read it before the event.

However, as mentioned in an e-mail exchange posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org by Pat as a so-called “Reply” to “An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China” which is currently the second posting in the “Participant Comments” section of the bulletin board for our 3/14/2018 meeting on “American Tianxia: Chinese Money, American Power and the End of History” -- I believe that I have read everything ever written by Henry Kissinger (at least everything that is in the public domain).

Before the May 9 talk, I will also have re-read President Trump’s “The Art of The Deal.”

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Re: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China

Post by Pat »

.
Here's the posting referenced in John's penultimate paragraph.

Re: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China

Posted by Pat » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:36 pm

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China
From: Pat
Date: Fri, February 23, 2018 2:54 pm MST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

Thank you for your response which I have just posted on our bulletin board.

You sound like you really understand nuclear diplomacy -- is there any particular reason?

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: An Attack From North Korea Is An Attack From China
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, February 23, 2018 11:19 pm MST
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

Yes, there is a particular reason why I know a fair amount about nuclear diplomacy.

During my 50 years of reading well in excess of 1,000 thick historical tomes/biographies, there have been two particular areas of interest.

My all-time favorite historical hero was Winston Churchill, as a result of which I have probably read everything written by him or about him.

But my all-time favorite subject was nuclear diplomacy -- learning at the foot (at least initially) of the master, Henry Kissinger -- as a result of which I have probably read everything written by him.

The reason for the claim -- “learning at the foot (at least initially)”???

When I was a student at Harvard Law School 1964-1967, Henry Kissinger was a Professor in Harvard’s Political Science Department (before it began calling itself Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government).

I’ve forgotten whether it was my first or second year at HLS, but a seminar on Nuclear Diplomacy was offered jointly by HLS and the Political Science Department.

It was scheduled to be taught jointly by Prof. Kissinger and HLS Prof. W. Barton Leach.

I have no idea why Prof. Leach was scheduled as a joint presenter with Prof. Kissinger since Prof. Leach was a property-law professor and had co-authored the-then most popular property-law casebook with Prof. A. James Casner.

At the beginning of the very first class, Prof. Kissinger insulted Prof. Leach’s nuclear-diplomacy qualifications and Prof. Leach walked out, never to return.

At that time, Prof. Kissinger was the world’s recognized expert on nuclear diplomacy, having already authored the definitive book in the field -- “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy” (1957) -- as well as authoring books on subjects that were tangentially related -- “A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822” (1957); “The Necessity of Choice: Prospects for American Foreign Policy” (1961); and “The Troubled Partnership: A Re-Appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance” (1965 – which was available pre-publication for our course in working-copy form).

Although I couldn’t take the course for credit because the first and second year curricula for HLS in those days permitted no elective courses, I attended every session of Prof. Kissinger’s course and probably spent more time on it than the rest of my courses combined.

And never looked back!!!

Probably reading everything ever written by Henry Kissinger and most erudite offerings by other experts in the field.

Thank you again for your e-mail. Such memories make an old man feel young again!!!

Your friend,

John K.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Kissinger Event "Sold Out"

Post by johnkarls »

.
For our members who might have been "slow on the draw," the Harvard Club's Kissinger Event is "sold out" with a substantial waiting list.

Reservations are always "non-transferable" with ID checked on the way in.

So if you are "just dying" to attend, the best strategy is just to show up because there are often "no shows" and people on the "waiting list" tend not to show up on speculation there will be enough "no shows" to make it in.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Press"
To: john@johnkarls.com
Cc:"Debbie Press"
Sent: Thu, 3 May 2018 16:28:50 +0000
Subject: Event Confirmation: NOON TALK: Dr. Henry Kissinger: The Return of the Wiseman

Dear Member

This is a reminder that you are registered for the following Program:
NOON TALK: Dr. Henry Kissinger: The Return of the Wiseman
May 9 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm

This event is sold out with an extensive waitlist. If you can no longer attend, please cancel your reservation here or reply to this email so that we can cancel it for you and offer your seat to another member.

Please remember that no guests are allowed at this event. It is a member only event.

Thank you so much and we really appreciate your consideration.

Best Regards,

Deborah Press
Programs & Membership Services Manager
Harvard Club of New York City

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Report on Kissinger Event Sans Kissinger

Post by johnkarls »

.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Press" <dpress@hcny.com>
To: john@johnkarls.com
Sent: Wed, 9 May 2018 14:32:10 +0000
Subject: Dr. Kissinger will not be attending today's talk

Dear Member,

Due to unforeseen circumstances, Dr Kissinger will NOT be able to attend the noon talk on Wednesday, May 9. Nonetheless, we are going to continue the program, with our two moderators, Professors Jim Sebenius and Bob Mnookin, of the Business and Law Schools, respectively. Dr. Kissinger prepared his remarks for this event in tandem with Professors Sebenius and Mnookin and they will reflect his opinions on current world negotiations including those pertaining to Iran, Korea, China and Russia.

We apologize for the last minute notification, but know you will find Professors Sebenius and Mnookin to be edifying and engaging.

David Wagener, Program Committee

Best Regards,

Deborah Press
Programs & Membership Services Manager
Harvard Club of New York City
35 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
Direct Line: [redacted]
http://www.hcny.com
Follow us on Instagram: harvardclubnyc


******************************************************
Meeting Report

So what more is there to say???

The third paragraph of my original proposal had said “I will be in town and have registered for, and will report on, the event.”

First, there was no explanation for why Kissinger cancelled!!!

Yes, he is 95 years old later this month, but one would think that a “health problem” would NOT be described as “unforeseen circumstances” -- “unforeseen” perhaps but no excuse for opacity.

I am guessing that he is being consulted by the Trump Administration on North Korea and/or Iran and they didn’t want him answering questions in public.

Second, there is no substitute for being able to ask questions of, and obtain answers (or “non-answers”) from, the person in whom you are really interested.

Because your intermediaries can be very frustrating.

**********
The Middle East

For example, Professors Sebenius and Mnookin (two of the three co-authors of “Kissinger The Negotiator”) claimed several times that as a result of Kissinger’s diplomacy, Russia was “closed out of the Middle East for 30 years until Syria”!!!

First, the reference to “30 years” is curious because “30 years” following the 1973 War would be 2003.

Russia’s naval base in Syria was established BEFORE the 1973 War in accordance with a Soviet-Syrian Agreement in 1971.

Yes, Russia became Syria’s main arms supplier in 2005, but that belies the main claim by Professors Sebenius and Mnookin that “Russia was closed out of the Middle East” DUE TO KISSINGER’S DIPLOMACY!!!

As we have discussed many times, until the 1973 War, Syria (and several other Arab countries) used Soviet armaments.

And Israel, of course, used primarily American armaments.

And in many ways, the 1967 “Six Days War” was a PROXY WAR testing who had “the best toys”!!!

[And please forgive me in advance for the obvious callousness in referring to armaments as “toys”!!!]

So needless to say, the mendacity (or ignorance) of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin was frustrating!!!

[And not worth a question in the Q&A period, since they had already staked out their position. And what good would it do even if they suddenly admitted in front of 500 people that they had gotten it wrong all these years and, more importantly, in the book they had just published.]

No, Kissinger’s diplomacy had nothing to do with Arab countries being convinced by the 1967 and 1973 Wars that American “toys” were far superior to Soviet “toys”!!!

And that the superiority of American “toys” meant nobody was interested in Soviet “toys”!!!

Or thought for a moment of buying Soviet “toys” in order to create more mischief!!!

BTW, President Trump’s two missile attacks on Syrian chemical-weapons sites are fascinating when viewed through the lens of demonstrating the relative effectiveness of American tomahawk missiles and Russian anti-missile weapons. Which is hard for the American public to gauge since President Trump claimed repeatedly after the most recent attack last month that EVERY tomahawk missile hit its target, while the Syrians claimed that many, if not most, Tomahawk missiles were intercepted/destroyed.

**********
Angola and South Africa

Quite a bit was made by Sebenius/Mnookin about how Kissinger had countered Soviet influence in Southern Africa during the Nixon Administration which Kissinger served.

Professors Sebenius and Mnookin set up “the Bogie Man” by mentioning that the Soviet Union had achieved influence in Angola in which the Soviets had stationed 20,000 Cuban troops!!!

A good question for Sebenius and Mnookin would be whether they are Disciples of “The Domino Theory” since they immediately began talking about how the Soviet penetration of Angola threatened in Cold War terms both Rhodesia and South Africa!!!

And how important it was for Kissinger diplomacy to “turn around” Rhodesia’s Prime Minister Ian Smith from public speeches claiming that black-majority rule would never be permitted “in a thousand years” to actually agreeing to black-majority rule a mere two years later -- by Kissinger engineering the cutting off of essential economic support from South Africa.

The first problem with the theory of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin is why it was so important to preserve WHITE-MINORITY RULE IN SOUTH AFRICA ITSELF for another two decades!!!

The second problem with the theory of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin is why Soviet penetration of Angola on the Atlantic Coast was so threatening to Rhodesia which did not even have a common border with Angola and which, though landlocked, was oriented both politically and economically with South Africa whose coast is primarily on the Indian Ocean.

And the third problem with the theory of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin warps around on the fourth problem with the theory of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin.

Angola at the time of Nixon/Kissinger was a tremendous oil producer and a member of OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) WHICH QUADRUPLED WORLD OIL PRICES DURING THE NIXON/KISSINGER REIGN.

BTW, OPEC at that time was dominated, both in terms of the number of countries and in terms of productive/exporting capacity, by the Persian Gulf states (Saudi, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, the Emirates, etc.).

And such non-PG members as Indonesia, Nigeria, Angola and Venezuela were really just there for show.

After all, Saudi ran the show, because it was the Saudis who were the only ones willing to curtail sufficient oil production in order to make OPEC prices stick.

As was painfully obvious to the rest of the world (to the extent they had insisted in burying their heads in the sand) during the period of “two tier pricing” in the late 1970’s when Saudi refused to go along with OPEC pricing, giving Texaco/Chevron/Exxon/Mobil the famous “Aramco advantage”!!!

But back to the mendacity (or ignorance) of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin.

First, yes Angola was a significant (though relatively small) oil exporter -- but why would anyone think that Rhodesia (or even South Africa) had any significant oil production, or even significant oil-production potential, or even a “corner” on any other crucial markets.

[NB: obviously I am not considering South Africa’s pivotal position in diamond mining/production as important because the world can survive without baubles and it can learn to worship other baubles. Moreover, if the Soviet Union managed to “corner” the diamond market by taking over South Africa, then in accordance with the apparent “Domino Theory” of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin, that would simply make the existing stock of baubles held by citizens of Western countries even more valuable.]

But back on track.

Why was I claiming that the “third problem” of the theory of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin warps around on their “fourth problem”???

The third problem, of course, is the strategic importance of an oil producer such as Angola and the relative unimportance of a bauble producer such as South Africa.

The fourth problem, of course, is the imperious attitude of academics and pols who believe that countries were/are important in running the world!!!

When obviously it is multi-national corporations that run the world in many ways!!!

It was Western oil companies that discovered oil in Angola!!!

And just like with the rest of OPEC, it was Western oil companies that continued to run Angola’s oil industry even during the period of Soviet/Cuban influence.

And yes, we did ask Kissinger to see what he could do about the Cuban troops who (almost like college frat boys on Saturday-night “panty raids”) interfered with an offshore production platform or two. [All of Angola’s exploration/production was offshore.]

Usually, it requires only the proverbial “well reasoned” word or two from a seemingly-disinterested party with the host country’s Foreign Minister, Finance Minister and/or Oil Minister about how the host country’s “take” which depends on production is being harmed -- to cause the Defense Minister to reign in his “frat boys.”

But that certainly did not excuse Kissinger from wasting time on preserving white-minority rule in South Africa for another 20 years in order to preserve Western access to baubles.

The main point of the “fourth problem” is that multi-national companies are probably more instrumental in preserving “world peace” than the world’s governments.

At the very least this would be an interesting PhD thesis in the event that the likes of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin would be open minded.

And no, in order to avoid a tsunami of “blow back,” I am NOT claiming that “world peace”(which includes considerable repression) is necessarily the most humane way for the world and its nations to be governed.

BTW, why do the likes of Professors Sebenius and Mnookin agonize over Soviet penetration of EVERY country???

In terms of oil, Syria is nothing so who cares (except that it shares a border with Israel).

And in terms of oil, who cares if the Soviets have linked up with Iran which is a significant producer/exporter and desperate to export all the oil it can??? The key, of course, would be Soviet penetration of Saudi and the other Arab countries in the PG that have long-lived reserves (which is why the Saudis have always been interested in restraining OPEC prices set by exporters that have only short-lived reserves and want to gouge while they still have something to sell, because with long-lived reserves the Saudis were always concerned that too-high prices might produce the development of alternative fuels which might render obsolete oil & gas) because if Russia were ever able to attain a significant influence over the Arab countries in the PG, the quadrupling of world oil prices under Nixon/Kissinger would look like “child’s play”!!!

Incidentally, in terms of real “real politik” (and no, that is NOT redundant but more of a rebuke to the likes of Sebenius/Mnookin and perhaps even Kissinger), the actions of the First President Bush to plunge the U.S. into “Gulf War One” following the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam’s Iraq could be viewed in terms of at least two questions -- (1) Why should America have to go to war to benefit the now-extinct Gulf Oil Company??? (2) But on the other hand, if nothing was done to curb Saddam, would he then have reached for the proverbial “brass ring” of lightly-defended Saudi Arabia which would have created exponentially worse havoc than OPEC’s quadrupling of oil prices???

[BTW, sending American troops to Saudi was what provoked Osama bin Laden who, within a few years of Gulf War One, had issued a fatwā entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"!!!]

At least neither of the Presidents Bush “took their eyes off the ball” when it came to meddling in Venezuela!!!

Presumably because each recognized that real “real politik” meant there was NO American “national interest” in going to war over Venezuela since, unlike Saudi, it had no major impact on world oil prices.

**********
Kissinger’s “Opening to China”

We have discussed many times how the Vietnam War was utterly unnecessary even in Sebenius/Mnookin/Kissinger supposedly-real “real politik” terms -- for President John (“you break it, you own it”) Kennedy who at least “green lighted” if not orchestrated the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem a mere 3 weeks before his own assassination, and for President Lyndon (Gulf of Tonkin) Johnson -- if Kennedy and Johnson had believed the intelligence regarding the “1959 Sino-Soviet Split.”

The Soviet Union had treated ISLAMIC TURKS of Russian Turkestan (which fragmented into all of the “stans” except Pakistan and Afghanistan) as their “disposable populations” in whose midst nuclear testing could be conducted.

Ditto China vis-à-vis the ISLAMIC TURKS of Chinese Turkestan (aka Sinkiang Province).

And by 1959, the Soviets were trying to unite the ISLAMIC TURKS of both Russian and Chinese Turkestan under their own aegis in order to render China A NON-NUCLEAR POWER OVERNIGHT!!!

[The Chinese, for convenience, had located all of their nuclear research/production facilities in Sinkiang as well as using it as their testing grounds.]

Ditto the Chinese who by 1959 were trying to render the Soviet Union A NON-NUCLEAR POWER OVERNIGHT!!!

So the question I would have liked to pose for Henry Kissinger???

Was he betting that nationalism is sometimes more important than economic class in evaluating American intelligence (including its implications) regarding such matters as the 1959 Sino-Soviet Split, and in exploiting it with his “Opening to China”???

[Obviously, the question assumes that that is what he did.]

It is impossible to describe the frustration with Sebenius and Mnookin who talked about Kissinger’s “Opening to China” as if it were a matter of schmoozing and personalities, rather than real “real politik” for all three countries that could, presumably, have been accomplished by anyone who believed the intelligence and considered its implications!!!

Enough already.

Because I could waste the rest of my NYC stop complaining about Sebenius/Mnookin and there are more important things to do!!!

Respectfully (at least toward our members) submitted,

John K.

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Your Reference to "Frat Boys" in Your Meeting Report

Post by Pat »

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Your Reference to “Frat Boys” in Your Report on the Kissinger Meeting
From: Pat
Date: Fri, May 11, 2018 9:03 am MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

In your report on the Kissinger Meeting (sans Kissinger) which is the third so-called “reply” to your topic proposal on “Kissinger the Negotiator,” you refer in the third example of Kissinger negotiations (which related to Angola) to the 20,000 Cuban troops in Angola as “frat boys.”

That is a term which psychologists say is often used in an envious manner by males who were not members of fraternities while attending college.

Is that true of you?

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Your Reference to “Frat Boys” in Your Report on the Kissinger Meeting
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, May 11, 2018 11:52 pm MDT
To: Pat
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

The short answer is “no.”

The long answer fits nicely with our exchange of e-mails that you posted in the “Participant Comments” section for our 9/14/2016 meeting entitled “The Silver Spoon In His Mouth With Which John Karls Was Born.” It is available at viewtopic.php?f=458&t=1487&sid=719e082d ... 6257314f14.

The focus of that 9/14/2016 meeting was “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of Family and Culture in Crisis” which had been ballyhooed as providing insight into the blue-collar working class of the America’s Midwest.

And I and George Kunath had argued that a Kentucky Hillbilly, though living slightly inside the Ohio border from Kentucky, has virtually nothing in common with blue-collar workers of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

You had questioned what I had in common with George Kunath who “pulled himself up by his bootstraps” by working in a TRW foundry in Cleveland on weekends and during vacations in order to afford St. Ignatius High School in Cleveland, John Carroll University in Cleveland and Boston College Law School.

And I responded by pointing out that George and I were “cut from the same cloth” though one generation removed.

[My grandfathers were a farmer and a public-school janitor, requiring my parents to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” which caused them to instill in me a “work ethic” that featured such summer jobs as a public-school assistant janitor, Lake Michigan lifeguard, Bavarian farm worker, Interlochen MI Music Camp intermediate-boys counselor & life-saving/sailing instructor, odd-job laborer (mines, road crews, etc.) in the Western U.S., "graveyard shift" drill-press operator for General Motors, financial analyst for the U.S. Post Office Dept., and a member of the first U.S. governmental task force for integrating the public schools of the Old Confederacy a mere two years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two years before the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.]

However, it seemed relatively inconsequential to list student activities.

But since you ask, I was a member of a fraternity at the University of Michigan that prided itself in having both outstanding athletes and leaders in student activities.

So I participated in inter-fraternity athletics in three sports where I was the only person on my fraternity’s teams in each of those sports who was not an “all state” player in that sport in high school.

[“All State” high school players participating in the inter-fraternity league were NOT unusual because good athletes tend to be “all state” players in more than one sport and they like to continue playing the other sports for which they were NOT recruited for the U/Mich varsity.]

HOWEVER, I always like to think that the most important thing I did in undergrad was my work with the foreign students.

As previously discussed, the University of Michigan was by far and away the best public university in the nation in the 1950’s and early 1960’s because it was the university of the auto industry, which had served as the “arsenal of democracy” during WW-II -- not only manufacturing all of America’s military vehicles including tanks, but also many if not most of its army-air-force bombers. [There was no separate Air Force in WW-II.]

Indeed, most of the auto industry and its suppliers had located their R&D units in Ann Arbor because it was more convenient than trekking to MIT.

So it should be no surprise that U/Mich when I was there 1960-64, had more foreign students from more countries than any other university in the country.

More than 1,900 foreign students from 93 countries, 24 of which had so many students that they formed “nationality clubs.”

I ran foreign-student orientation for the University.

And I ran the International Affairs Committee of the Student Union which provided monthly public forums featuring foreign students discussing current international issues, a Model U.N. in which both American and foreign students participated, a Big Brother program and, most popular of all, an International Festival in which, for an entire weekend, the 24 afore-mentioned nationality clubs were each given a large meeting/conference room in the Student Union to turn into something typical of their home country (such as a restaurant, for which they cooked) and a slot in a “variety show” for which they performed (e.g., Filipino Bamboo Pole-Dance, Thai Candle Dance, etc., etc.)

BTW, I participated in a Big Brother program at Harvard Law School in which my “Little Brother” was Joseph Rizkallah, an LL.M student from Lebanon. At the time, Joe’s father was the “J. Edgar Hoover” running Internal Security for Lebanon. Shortly after our graduation, Joe’s father was assassinated and Joe himself was assassinated within 10 years of graduation. May he Rest In Peace!!!

So I hope that answers your question -- my calling 20,000 Cuban troops "frat boys" was meant to describe immaturity on their part rather than envy on mine.

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Section 3 – Possible Topics for Future Meetings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest