Podcasts about Vietnamese

Last time we spoke about the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. In the summer of 1939, the Nomonhan Incident escalated into a major clash along the Halha River, where Soviet-Mongolian forces under Georgy Zhukov decisively defeated Japan's Kwantung Army. Zhukov's offensive, launched on August 20, involved intense artillery, bombers, and encirclement tactics, annihilating the Japanese 23rd Division and exposing weaknesses in Japanese mechanized warfare. The defeat, coinciding with the Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact, forced Japan to negotiate a ceasefire on September 15-16, redrawing borders and deterring further northern expansion. Stalin navigated negotiations with Britain, France, and Germany to avoid a two-front war, ultimately signing the German-Soviet pact on August 23, which secured Soviet neutrality in Europe while addressing eastern threats. Post-Nomonhan, Soviet-Japanese relations warmed rapidly: fishing disputes were resolved, ambassadors exchanged, and the Chinese Eastern Railway sale finalized. By 1941, a neutrality pact was concluded, allowing Japan to pivot southward toward China and Southeast Asia.   #193 The Chiang-Wang Divide Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. After that lengthy mini series covering the battle of Khalkin Gol, we need to venture back into the second sino-japanese war, however like many other colossal events….well a lot was going on simultaneously. I wanted to take an episode to talk about the beginning of something known as the Reorganized National Government of the Republic of China, or much shorter, the Wang Jingwei Regime. It's been quite some time since we spoke about this character and he is a large part of the second sino-japanese war.    After the fall of Tianjin and Beiping, the government offices in Nanjing entered their annual summer recess. All of GMD's senior leadership, from Chiang Kai-shek down to Wang Jingwei, gathered on Mount Lu, a picturesque resort in northern Jiangxi, south of the Yangtze, famed for cliffs, clouds, and summer villas. Although Chiang had visited Mount Lu every summer, this was the first occasion that nearly the entire central government assembled there. Analysts suspected the gathering was a deliberate move to relocate government functions inland in the event of total war. Dozens of the nation's leading intellectuals were invited to Mount Lu to discuss strategies for countering Japan's ambitions. The forum was scheduled to begin on July 15 and to last twenty-seven days in three phases. The bridge incident caught them off guard. Unlike Manchuria, Beiping had long been the nation's capital, and the shock added urgency to the proceedings. When the forum, chaired by Wang, finally opened on July 16, speculation ran as to whether this signaled another regional conflict or the onset of full-scale war. The media pressed for a resolute stance of resistance from the government. To dispel the mounting confusion and perhaps his own indecision, Chiang delivered a solemn speech on July 17, declaring that if the incident could not be resolved peacefully, China would face the "crucial juncture" of national survival and would consider military action; if war began, every Chinese person, from every corner of the country and from every walk of life, would have to sacrifice all to defend the nation.   Chiang's Mount Lu Speech was now commonly regarded as the moment when China publicly proclaimed its firm commitment to resistance. Contemporary observers, however, did not take Chiang's stance at face value. Tao Xisheng, a Peking University law professor who had been invited, recalled that after the speech, people gathered in Hu Shi's room to discuss whether a peace option remained. Chiang left the mountain on July 20, leaving Wang to chair the conference. The discussions continued upon their return to Nanjing, where a National Defense Conference was organized in mid-August. It was also Tao's first encounter with Wang Jingwei. A "peace faction," largely composed of civil officials and intellectuals, began to take shape around Wang, favoring diplomatic solutions over costly and potentially ineffective military action.   During this period, both Chiang and Wang publicly called for resistance, while both harbored hopes for a peaceful solution. Yet their emphases differed. On July 29, Wang Jingwei delivered a radio address from Nanjing titled "The Critical Juncture," echoing Chiang's slogan. He likewise asserted that after repeated concessions and retreats, the critical juncture had come for China to rise against Japan. It would be a harsh form of resistance, since a weak nation had no alternative but to sacrifice every citizen's life and scorch every inch of land. Yet toward the end, Wang's speech took on an ironic turn. He stated, "The so-called resistance demands sacrificing the whole land and the whole nation to resist the invader. If there is no weakness in the world, then there is also no strength. Once we have completed the sacrifice, we also realize the purpose of resistance. We hail 'the critical juncture'! We hail 'sacrifice'!" The sentiment sounded almost satirical, revealing his doubt about the meaning of total sacrifice.   The hope for containment was crushed by Japan's ongoing advances. On November 12, Shanghai fell. Chiang's gamble produced about 187,200 Chinese casualties, including roughly 30,000 officers trained to German standards. Japanese casualties were estimated at a third to a half of the Chinese losses, still making it their deadliest single battle to date. The battered Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, long convinced of their invincibility, were consumed by vengeful bloodlust. The army swept from Shanghai toward Nanjing, leaving a trail of murder, rape, arson, and plunder across China's heartland.   With the fall of Nanjing looming, the central government announced on November 20 that it would relocate to Chongqing, a city upriver on the Yangtze protected by sheer cliffs. Plans for Chongqing as a reserve capital had already begun in 1935, with Hankou as the midway station. To preserve elite troops for the future while saving face, Nanjing was entrusted to General Tang Shengzhi and his roughly one hundred thousand largely inexperienced soldiers. Nanjing fell on December 13. Despite this victory, Japan's hopes of ending the China Incident within three months were dashed. The carnage produced by the war, especially the Rape of Nanjing, left a profound moral stain on humanity. A mass exodus from the coastal provinces toward the hinterland began. People fled by boats, trains, buses, rickshaws, and wheelbarrows. Universities, factories, and ordinary households were moved halfway across China, step by step. The nation resolved to persevere, even in distant mountains and deserts if necessary. In Sichuan alone, government relief agencies officially registered about 9.2 million refugees during the war years.   Chiang Kai-shek, after paying respects at Sun Yat-sen's mausoleum, flew to Mount Lu with Song Meiling. The so-called Second Couple chose a more modest path: like most refugees, the Wang family traveled upriver along the Yangtze. On November 21, they left Nanjing, abandoning a recently renovated suburban home and thirty years of collected books. Coincidentally, the ship carrying Wang Jingwei from Nanjing to Wuhan was SS Yongsui, the former SS Zhongshan that had escorted Sun Yat-sen to safety and witnessed Wang's ascent and subsequent downfall from power. Ironically renamed "Yong-sui," the ship's new title meant "peace," while the compound term suijing denoted a policy of appeasement. This symbolism—Wang being carried away from Nanjing by a ship named "Eternal Peace"—foreshadowed his eventual return to the city as a champion of a "peace movement."   After the Mount Lu Forum, Hu Shi and Tao Xisheng could not return to Beiping, now under Japanese occupation. They joined the government in Nanjing. Beginning in mid-August, Japanese bombers began attacking Nanjing. Air power—an unprecedented weapon of mass destruction—humbled and awed a Chinese public largely unfamiliar with airborne warfare. By striking a target that did not serve its immediate interests, Japan demonstrated its world-class military might and employed psychological warfare against the Chinese government and people. Because Zhou Fohai's villa at Xiliuwan had a fortified cellar suitable as an air-raid shelter, a group of like-minded intellectuals and civil servants sought refuge there. They preferred a peaceful approach to the conflict, subscribing to the idea of trading space for time—building China's industrial and military capabilities before confronting Japan. Tao Xisheng and Mei Siping, old allies of Zhou Fohai, lived in his house. Another frequent guest was Luo Junqiang, an ex-communist. The former CCP leader Chen Duxiu, recently released from prison, joined their gatherings a few times. Gao Zongwu hosted another meeting site. Hu Shi, as a guest himself, jokingly called this circle the "Low-Key Club" (Didiao julebu), a label that underscored their pragmatic defiance of the government's high-flown rhetoric urging all-out resistance. Many members of this group would later become central figures in a conspiracy known as the "peace movement," with Wang Jingwei as its leader and emblem.   As Gerald Bunker noted, the peace scheme did not originate with Wang but with certain associates of Chiang, elements in Japanese military intelligence, and members of liberal-minded Japanese political circles who were linked to Konoe. Zhou Fohai belonged to the Chiang-loyalist CC faction, named for Chen Guofu and Chen Lifu. Zhou believed that resistance under current conditions was suicidal. He sought to influence Chiang through people around him, including Wang Jingwei, whom he found impressionable and began visiting at Wang's salon. Gao Zongwu, head of the Foreign Ministry's Asian Department, felt sidelined by Chiang's uncompromising stance. They shared the sense that Chiang might be willing to talk but feared the price, perhaps his own leadership. They were dismayed by the lack of a long-range war plan beyond capitulation. Their view was that China's battlefield losses would worsen the terms of any settlement, and that the war's outcome seemed to benefit Soviet Russia and undermine the GMD more than China itself. The rapid collapses of Shanghai and then Nanjing vindicated their pessimism. Chiang's autocratic decision-making only deepened their dissatisfaction. They feared China was again at risk of foreign conquest from which it might not recover.   Wang Jingwei became the focal point for these disaffected individuals, drawn by his pacifist leanings, intellectual temperament, and preference for consensus-building. After the government relocated to Hankou, he lent guidance to the Literature and Art Research Society (Yiwen yanjiu hui), a propagandist body led by Zhou Fohai and Tao Xisheng. Its purpose was to steer public opinion on issues like the war of resistance and anticommunism, and to advocate a stance that the government must preserve both peace and war as options. Many believed it to be Wang's private organization; in truth, Chiang supported its activities. For much of 1938, Chiang's belligerent anti-Japanese rhetoric and Wang's conciliatory push were two sides of the GMD's broader strategy.   Among the society's regional branches, the Hong Kong chapter flourished under Mei Siping and Lin Baisheng. In addition to editing South China Daily News, Lin established Azure Books and the International Compilation and Translation Society (Guoji bianyishe) as primary propaganda organs. Ironically, Mei Siping had himself been a radical during the 1919 student protests, when he helped set fire to the deputy foreign minister's house in protest of perceived capitulation to Japan.   Wang Jingwei also actively engaged in international efforts to broker peace between Japan and China, including Trautmann's mediation by the German ambassador. Since the outbreak of war, various Western powers had contemplated serving as mediators, but none succeeded. Nazi Germany, aligned with Japan in an anti-Soviet partnership, emerged as China's most likely ally because it did not want Japan to squander its strength in China or compel China to seek Soviet help. Conversely, Japan's interest lay in prolonging the war or achieving a swift settlement. Ambassador Trautmann met with Wang Jingwei multiple times from October 31 to early November 1937 to confirm China's preference for peace before negotiating with Japan. The proposal Trautmann carried to Chiang Kai-shek on November 5 proposed terms including autonomy for Inner Mongolia, a larger demilitarized zone in North China, an expanded cease-fire around Shanghai, a halt to anti-Japanese movements, an anti-communist alliance, reduced tariffs on Japanese goods, and protection of foreign interests in China. Although Japan did not specify territorial gains, these terms deviated significantly from Chiang's demand to restore pre–Marco Polo Bridge status. After Shanghai fell, Chiang's rigidity softened.   On December 5, at Hankou, the National Defense Conference agreed to begin peace negotiations based on Trautmann's terms, a decision Chiang approved. But it was too late: Nanjing fell on December 13, and a provisional Beiping government led by Wang Kemin was established, signaling Japan's growing support for regional separatism. On December 24, Japan issued an ultimatum for a harsher deal to be accepted by January 10. In response, Chiang resigned as chairman of the Executive Yuan on January 1, 1938, and was succeeded by his brother-in-law Kong Xiangxi. Chiang declared that death in defeat was preferable to death in disgrace and refused to yield under coercion. The Konoe Cabinet announced on January 16 that Japan would not negotiate with Chiang Kai-shek. Trautmann's mediation had failed.   After Konoe's announcement, mediation became even more precarious, as it placed the already deadly, no-win situation between the two nations in deeper jeopardy. Secret contacts between the two governments persisted through multiple channels—sometimes at the direction of their own leaders, other times at the initiative of a cadre of officials and quasi-official figures of dubious legitimacy. Many of these covert efforts were steered by Chiang himself. In late 1937, Wang Jingwei even sent Chen Gongbo to Rome to explore the possibility of Italian mediation between China and Japan. After meetings with Mussolini and Foreign Minister Ciano, Chen concluded that Italy had no genuine goodwill toward China and favored Japan. His conversations with other Western leaders (Belgium, France, Britain, and the United States) proved equally fruitless. In diaries, Zhou Fohai and Chen Kewen recorded a pervasive mood of pessimism among Hankou and Chongqing's national government factions. Although direct champions of negotiating with Japan were few, many voices insisted that China was on the brink of collapse while secretly hoping peace talks would begin soon. Gao Zongwu's mission emerged from this tense atmosphere.   With Konoe's cabinet refusing to negotiate with Chiang Kai-shek, many regarded Wang as the best candidate to carry forward a diplomatic solution. Yet Wang remained convinced of his loyalty to Chiang and to Chiang's policy. The Italian ambassador visited Wuhan to offer mediation between Wang and the Japanese government, an invitation Wang declined. Tang Shaoyi's daughter traveled to Wuhan to convey Tokyo's negotiation intent, but was similarly turned away. Even Chen Bijun, then in Hong Kong, urged Wang to join her and start peace negotiations; he again declined. Tao Xisheng remembered a quiet night when Wang confided in him: "This time I will cooperate with Mr. Chiang until the very end, regardless of how the war unfolds." His stance did not change when Gao Zongwu reported that the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office wanted him to head the peace talks.   Gao Zongwu's bid was brokered by Dong Daoning, head of the Japan Affairs Section in the Foreign Ministry. Shortly after Konoe's statement, Dong traveled to Shanghai to meet Nishi Yoshiaki, representative of Mantetsu, and Matsumoto Shigeharu, a Dōmei News Agency journalist. Nishi and Matsumoto then introduced Dong to Kagesa Sadaaki, head of the Strategy and Tactics Department in the General Staff Office. Kagesa introduced Dong to Deputy Director Tada Hayao and colleagues Ishiwara Kanji and Imai Takeo, who agreed that a peaceful resolution to the China crisis aligned with Japan's interests. It would be inaccurate to paint these figures as pacifists: Ishiwara, who helped build Manchukuo, also recognized that further incursions into China could jeopardize Japan's hard-won gains. They proposed a temporary resignation by Chiang to spare Konoe from having to retract his refusal to negotiate, thereby allowing Wang to lead the talks. In short, the scheme aimed to save face for Konoe.   Dong returned to Hong Kong and delivered the proposal to Gao Zongwu, who had been stationed there since February under Chiang's orders to oversee intelligence and liaison with Japan. Luo Junqiang, Gao's contact, testified that Gao was paid monthly from Chiang's secret military fund. Gao went back to Hankou twice, on April 2 and May 30. On the second trip, he personally conveyed Japan's terms to Chiang. Gao later admitted that Chiang never gave him explicit instructions, but rather cultivated an impression of tacit approval. At no point did Gao view the deal as Chiang's betrayal. As long as Chiang retained control of the military, Wang's leadership could only be nominal and temporary. Unbeknownst to Wang, Gao's personal ties to Chiang remained hidden from him; he learned of them only through Zhou Fohai. Startled, he handed the information to Chiang Kai-shek and told Tao Xisheng: "I cannot broker peace with Japan alone. I will not deceive Mr. Chiang." Given Tao's later departure from Wang's circle to rejoin Chiang, Tao's recollection could be trusted.   Two months later, Wang left Chongqing to pursue a peace settlement. A key factor may have been persistent lobbying by Zhou, Gao, Mei, Tao, and especially his wife Chen Bijun. Luo Junqiang recalled that Kong Xiangxi objected that Gao acted without him, prompting Chiang to order Gao to halt his covert efforts, an order Gao ignored. Gao and Mei Siping continued to press for a deal. Gao even spent three weeks in Japan in July, holding extensive talks with Kagesa Sadaaki and Imai Takeo. Their discussions produced the first substantive articulation of the Wang peace movement as a Sino-Japanese plot to end the "China incident." On November 26, Mei flew from Hong Kong to Chongqing with a draft of Japan's terms and Konoe's planned announcement. The proposal stated that the Japanese army would withdraw completely within two years once peace was reached, but it demanded that China formally recognize Manchukuo. Wang was to leave Chongqing for Kunming by December 5, then proceed to Hanoi. Upon Japan receiving news of his arrival in Hanoi, the telegram would reveal the peace terms. This pivotal moment threw Wang into intense inner turmoil. Zhou Fohai visited Wang daily, and Wang delayed decisively each time, much to Zhou's frustration. Ultimately, it seemed that Chen Bijun rendered the final judgment on Wang's behalf. As in earlier episodes, Wang found himself trapped by an idealized image of himself held by family, followers, and loyalists, seen by them as a larger-than-life figure who must undertake a mission too grand to fail.   Yet Wang's stance was not purely involuntary. As Imai Takeo noted, he fundamentally disagreed with Chiang's strategy of resistance. The so-called scorched-earth approach caused immense suffering. Three episodes stood out: the 1938 Yellow River flood, ordered by Chiang to impede Japan's advance, which destroyed dikes and displaced millions, yielding devastating agricultural and humanitarian consequences; the subsequent epidemics and famine that followed, producing about two million refugees and up to nine hundred thousand deaths, while failing to stop the Japanese advance toward Wuhan (which fell in October); and the Changsha fire, ignited in the early hours of November 13, which killed nearly thirty thousand people and devastated most of the city. These events sharpened Wang's doubts about Chiang's defense strategy, especially its reckless execution and cruelty. By late November, Wang began to openly challenge Chiang's approach, delivering a series of speeches advocating his own war-weariness and preference for limiting resistance to preserve national strength for future counterstrikes. He argued that guerrilla warfare burdened the people and wasted national resources that could be saved for a later, more effective defense. He urged soldiers to exercise judgment and listen to their consciences, and he attributed much of the civilian suffering to the Communists; nonetheless, with General von Falkenhausen, Chiang's German adviser, now urging a shift toward smaller-unit mobile warfare, Wang's critique of Chiang's strategy took on a more pointed, risksome tone. If resistance equaled total sacrifice, Wang was not prepared to endorse it. As Margherita Zanasi noted, Wang Jingwei and Chen Gongbo had long shared a vision of a self-consciously anti-imperial "national economy", the belief that China's economy had not yet achieved genuine nation-power and that compromising with the foe might be necessary to save the national economy.   Wang and Zhou also worried that continuing resistance would strengthen the Communists and that genuine international aid would not arrive, at least not soon. After Nazi Germany occupied Czechoslovakia, Wang briefly hoped for the formation of an antifascist democratic alliance. Yet the Munich Agreement disappointed him. Viewing Western democracies as culturally imperialist, he doubted they would jeopardize their relations with Japan, another imperial power, on China's behalf. This view was reinforced by Zhou Fohai and other China specialists who had recently joined Wang's circle; they argued that China would fall unless the international situation shifted dramatically. Their forecast would prove accurate only after Pearl Harbor.   In the end, Wang longed for decisive action. He had been sidelined since the government's move to Wuhan. At the GMD Provisional National Congress in Hankou (March 29–April 1), the party resolved to restore Chiang Kai-shek to near-total control by reasserting the authoritarian zongcai system. The Congress also established the People's Political Council as a nominal nod to democracy, but it remained largely consultative. Wang was elected deputy director and chairman of the council, yet he clearly resented the position. Jiang Tingfu described Wang's Hankou mood as "somewhat resentful," recognizing the role as largely ceremonial. More optimistic observers attributed his dismay to the return of dictatorship, and he likely felt increasingly useless. Since the Mukden Incident, Wang had prioritized party unity and been content to play a secondary role to Chiang, but inaction did not fit his sense of historical purpose. It was Zhou Fohai who urged Wang to risk his reputation for a greater cause, presenting a calculated nudge to someone susceptible to idealism. A longing to find meaning through action may have finally pushed him toward a fateful decision. As Chen Bijun bluntly told Long Yun, her husband "was merely an empty shell in Chongqing and could contribute nothing to the country; thus he wanted to change his surroundings."   Wang considered staying abroad as a serious option amid the Hanoi uncertainty. Gao Zongwu had previously told Japanese negotiators that if Konoe's stance did not satisfy Wang, he might head to France. Chongqing echoed this possibility. On December 29, Ambassador Guo Taiqi, acting on Chiang's orders, telegraphed Wang suggesting he go to Europe "to take a break." It would have offered a graceful exit. Kagesa recommended Hanoi as Wang Jingwei's midway station because, as a French colony, it offered a relatively safe environment. Only the French were armed there, and several members of the extended Wang family had grown up in France, enabling them to communicate with the colonial authorities.   After Wang departed for Hanoi, Long Yun hesitated for weeks. On December 20, he telegraphed Chiang, saying Wang had paused in Kunming on the way to Hanoi to seek medical treatment. Knowing this was untrue, Chiang replied on December 27 with a stern warning about Japan's unreliability, a message that appeared to have persuaded Long. A day later, Long urged leniency for Wang. Following Wang's publication of the "yan telegram," public anger likely pushed Long toward a final decision. On January 6, he informed Chiang of a letter from Wang delivered by Chen Changzu, and he noted that the Wangs were considering the French option, but recommended allowing Wang to return to Chongqing to show leniency and to enable surveillance.   Chiang replied two days later that Wang would be better off going to Europe. The extended Wang family resided in two Western-style mansions at 25 and 27 Rue Riz Marché, surrounded by high walls. On February 15, Chongqing's envoy Gu Zhengding brought their passports to Hanoi. Accounts differed on what happened next. One version had Wang offering to travel abroad if Chongqing accepted his proposal to start peace talks; if Chongqing remained indecisive, he would return to voice his dissent. Another version claimed Gu's primary task was to bring Wang back to Chongqing, which Wang declined, preferring France.   Although the French option was gaining favor, the Wang circle continued to explore other avenues. In early 1939, secret contacts with the Japanese government persisted, though not always in a coordinated way. Chiang's intelligence advised that the Wang group was forming networks in Shanghai and especially Hong Kong, with Gao Zongwu playing a central role. On February 1, Gao returned from Hong Kong and stayed for five days, finding Wang in a despondent mood. Wang asked Gao to pass along a few letters to Japanese leaders urging the creation of a unified Chinese government to earn the Chinese people's understanding and trust. Wang believed his actions would serve the best interests of both China and Japan. On March 18, the Japanese consulate in Hong Kong informed Gao that funding for the Wang group would come from China's customs revenues that Japan had seized.   Meanwhile, Chiang Kai-shek sensed a shift in the war's direction. On February 10, Japan seized Hainan, China's southernmost major island. The next day, Chiang held a press conference describing the development as "the Mukden Incident of the Pacific." He warned that Japan's ambitions could threaten British and French colonial interests and U.S. maritime supremacy. Gao Zongwu read the speech and concluded that Chiang's outlook had brightened.   For three months, the Wang circle met frequently to weigh options. The prominent writer and scholar Zhou Zuoren, who had already accepted a collaborationist post as head of the Beiping library, warned Tao Xisheng, saying "Don't do it," signaling his misgivings about collaborating with Japan based on his reading of Japanese politics. As Zhou observed, many young Japanese militarists did not even respect General Ugaki, let alone a foreign leader.   Then the assassination of Zeng Zhongming, Wang's secretary and protégé, abruptly altered the meaning of Wang's mission. The Wang group was deeply unsettled by Zeng Zhongming's assassination. The event came as a shock. On March 20, Gu Zhengding's second Hanoi visit concluded. Allegedly Gu delivered passports and funds for a European excursion. On a bright spring day, the entire Wang family enjoyed a lighthearted outing to Three Peaches Beach, only to be halted by a French officer who warned they were being followed. During their afternoon rest, a man posing as a painter, sent by the landlord to measure rooms for payment, appeared at the door and was turned away when he insisted on entering every room. More than twenty people in the household, none were armed.   Since January, Hanoi had been a hive of BIS activity. The ringleader was Chen Gongshu, a veteran operative under spymaster Dai Li, though Chen's recollections clashed with those of other witnesses, leaving the exact sequence unclear. Chen claimed their role was intelligence and surveillance until March 19, when an unsigned telegram from Dai Li ordered, "Severest punishment to the traitor Wang Jingwei, immediately!" The mission supposedly shifted. The Wang family was followed the next day but evaded capture in traffic, prompting a raid on the house. Reports varied: some said Wang resided on the second floor of No. 27; others suggested he lived in No. 25, with No. 27 used for day guests. The force entered the courtyard, forced open the door to Wang's room, and a getaway car waited outside. Chen, in the car, heard gunshots: initial shots toward a downstairs figure, then three shots through a bedroom door hacked open with an axe, aimed at a figure beneath the bed, believed to be Wang Jingwei. The team drove off after four to five minutes. Vietnamese police soon detained three killers who lingered in the courtyard and even listened in on a hospital call. Chen didn't realize the target had been misidentified until the next afternoon. Some BIS records suggested Wang and Zeng Zhongming had swapped bedrooms that night, a detail Chen doubted. Chen did not mention a painter's earlier visit.   There were competing accounts of the event with their numerous inconsistencies that fueled conspiracy theories. Jin Xiongbai outlined three possibilities: (1) the killers killed the "wrong person" as a warning to Wang Jingwei; (2) they killed Zeng to provoke Wang toward collaboration; or (3) the episode was always part of a broader Chiang-Wang collaboration plan.   In any case, Dai Li showed unusual leniency toward Chen Gongshu, who was never punished and later led the Shanghai station. After Dai Li's agent Li Shiqun was captured in 1941, Li not only spared Chen's life but recruited him on a double-agent basis for the remainder of the war, with Chen retiring to Taiwan. Chiang Kai-shek never discussed the case publicly or in his diary, and his silence was perhaps the strongest indication that he ordered the killing.   I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. Wang Jingwei, once a key figure in China's resistance against Japan, grew disillusioned with Chiang Kai-shek's scorched-earth tactics during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Amid devastating events like the Yellow River flood and Changsha fire, which caused immense civilian suffering, Wang joined a peace faction advocating negotiation. Secret talks with Japanese officials led to his defection in 1938. He fled Chongqing to Hanoi, where an assassination attempt, likely ordered by Chiang, killed his secretary Zeng Zhongming instead.   

What if vulnerability isn't what makes you unsafe…What if vulnerability is what makes you powerful?In this deeply moving and joy-filled conversation, Elaine Starling welcomes Thymai Dong-Sheehan, educator, author, and founder of Innervate2Educate Consulting, to explore identity, belonging, spirituality, and the courageous journey of learning to love yourself exactly as you are.As a Vietnamese refugee who grew up navigating discrimination, cultural tension, and the pressure to “prove” her worth, Thymai shares how embracing vulnerability became her path to freedom. Through her book The Beauties of My So-Called Asian Life: Vulnerability, Equity, Spirituality, she reframes identity as sacred, difference as powerful, and self-love as a spiritual act.This episode will help you release either/or thinking, embrace your “hyphen,” and fall in love with the beautifully imperfect human you already are.Topics Covered0:00 – Is Vulnerability Weakness or Leadership?Why hiding diminishes power — and shining creates connection3:30 – Breath, Intention & Creating Safe SpaceThe I AM / CONSCIOUSNESS practice and courageous alignment9:30 – Refugee Roots & Shared HumanityThymai's father's legacy and the power of remembering “We're all human.”14:40 – The Three G's of AbundanceGrowth, Goodness of others, and God's Glory18:30 – Turning to Each Other Instead of On Each OtherConnection across lines of difference23:30 – Love as a Non-Zero-Sum GameWhy giving light doesn't diminish yours27:50 – Embracing the HyphenLiving fully as Asian-American instead of choosing one identity32:40 – Falling in Love with YourselfAccepting flaws, complexity, and evolving identity35:00 – Living the Vertical LifeLooking inward first before pointing outwardKey Takeaways

Here’s a question that cuts to the heart of what makes sales hard: What do you do when your commodity is identical to every competitor’s, the buyer knows it, and the only lever they want to pull is price? That’s the challenge Ash from Chennai, India brought to me on a recent Ask Jeb episode. Ash works as a trader importing textile goods from Asian manufacturers and selling them into Spanish-speaking markets in South America and Spain. No proprietary product. No unique features. Pure commodity, all the way down. And yet Ash is holding customers. Getting repeat orders. Building relationships across borders and languages. He just needed a framework to understand why it was working and how to make it work even harder. The Trap Every Commodity Salesperson Falls Into When everything looks the same, most salespeople default to one of two bad moves: race to the bottom on price, or get paralyzed trying to explain a value they can’t articulate. Here is the brutal truth. Your buyer already knows the product is a commodity. They know they could go direct to the factory and cut you out entirely. They are not confused about that. What they are evaluating is whether the risk and hassle of cutting you out is worth the savings. Your job is to make sure the answer is always no. That requires you to stop thinking about what your product does and start thinking about what YOU do. Three Reasons Customers Keep Buying From Ash When I asked Ash why his good customers keep coming back, he gave me three answers that every salesperson in a commodity business needs to write down. You make it easy. Ash speaks Spanish. His customers speak Spanish. If they go direct to a Chinese or Vietnamese factory, they face language barriers, cultural friction, and communication breakdowns. Ash eliminates all of that. Business people will pay for less hassle. Time is money, and you are saving them both. You are someone they like and trust. Ash follows up. He wishes customers a happy New Year. He remembers what matters to them. That is not fluff. That is relationship equity that compounds over time. When customers feel like they can trust you, when a familiar voice picks up the phone, they do not want to start over with a stranger. You reduce financial risk. In Ash’s business, buyers put down a 20% deposit, sometimes a hundred thousand dollars or more, and pay the balance when the container arrives. The nightmare scenario is that container showing up full of the wrong product. Ash’s company has been operating for over 20 years. They do what they say they are going to do. That longevity is not just a stat. It is a security blanket. The Power of the Micro Story Knowing your value is half the battle. Being able to articulate it when a buyer pushes back on price is the other half. Here is what I told Ash: You need stories. Not case studies. Not bullet points. Short, vivid, real stories that make the risk of cutting you out feel tangible. Something like this: “I get it. You could go directly to the factory and save ten percent. Some of my customers tried that before working with me. One of them got a container full of product that was not what they ordered. It cost them more than they saved, and they had no one local, no one they trusted, to help them fix it. That is why they work with me now.” That story is doing three things at once. It validates the buyer’s instinct to compare prices. It quantifies the real cost of the cheaper alternative. And it positions you as the solution to a problem they have not had yet but definitely do not want. If you are newer to sales and do not have your own stories yet, go talk to your senior teammates. Read industry articles. Find examples of what goes wrong when buyers skip the middleman. Then make those stories part of your standard value conversation. Not Every Buyer Is Your Buyer This is the part that stings a little, but it is important. Some buyers are going to push back on your margins until the conversation goes nowhere. They will tell you the price they need, and if you cannot hit it, they will walk. That is okay. What they are telling you is that they do not value what you bring to the table. They want the cheapest option, and that is a legitimate business decision. They are just not your customer. Your job is not to convert every skeptic. Your job is to keep your pipeline full and find the buyers who genuinely value ease, safety, and responsiveness. Those are the ones who become long-term accounts. Those are the ones who, two or three years in, cannot imagine buying from anyone else. Ash is already doing this well. He has visited customers in Mexico, Colombia, and Spain. He has done office meetings and factory tours. When a customer says yes to a visit, they are telling you something: you matter to us. That is what I call an engagement test, and Ash is passing it. Your Value, Packaged Simply In commodity sales, your pitch does not need to be complicated. It needs to be consistent. Here is how I would frame it every time a buyer pushes back: I make this easy for you. I am responsive. And your money is safe with me. Then back each of those up with a story. That is the whole game. Not features. Not specs. You. When you are tired and ready to wrap up the day, remember this: the prospecting you do today pays you for the next three months. Pick up the phone and make one more call. The buyers who value what you do are out there. Go find them. Want to take this to the next level in person? Join Sales Gravy at one of our live events, where we work with sales professionals and leaders to build the skills, mindset, and habits that drive elite performance. See all upcoming events at salesgravy.com/live.

There's a concept within statecraft known as grand strategy. The "grand" strategy means paying attention to every avenue of conflict, not just the military sphere, but also the diplomatic, the logistical, and the domestic, and everywhere else advantage might be gained or lost. It encompasses soft power, irregular actions, public opinion, etc. But at the same time, it also encompasses prioritization and focus, because, while it's important to consider every avenue, resources are always limited and need to be spent wisely.  A great example of grand strategy done right is the US in WWII. We supported the Soviets, we developed nukes, we invaded Europe, we came together as a nation, and most of all, we buried the Axis with our industrial capacity.  For an example of grand strategy done poorly consider Vietnam. Our battlefield tactics were great. But at the strategic level we comprehensively failed in almost every domain. There was vast domestic opposition, political goals were unclear, we failed to contain the conflict geographically, and never really understood the resolve of the Vietnamese people. You might think that the point of grand strategy, if well executed, would be winning. I disagree, I think the point of grand strategy is not losing. (There's probably an essay to be written about how this applies to Iran, but I think we have enough hot takes on that subject at the moment.) Grand strategy asks you to pay attention to all potential avenues by which disaster may arrive. Disaster in Vietnam did not arrive through the front door, it came from many unexpected directions, but an unexpected disaster is still a disaster, and generally worse than disasters which have been foreseen. As one considers the various aspects of grand strategy, what would it mean to have a personal grand strategy? And how would that be different from just living a "good life"? As a bridge between these two ideas, consider the life of Napoleon. Something Robert Greene does at great length in his book: The 33 Strategies of War By: Robert Greene Published: 2006 496 Pages

Money is one of the biggest quiet stress points for travellers heading to Vietnam.Will your card work? Do you need to bring Vietnamese dong before you leave? How much cash should you carry? What are ATM fees and withdrawal limits in 2026?In this episode of One Question at a Time, I break down exactly how to handle money in Vietnam so you land informed and confident.You'll learn how the Vietnamese Dong works (and why the zeros and note colours can cause confusion), when cash is essential, where cards are widely accepted, what to expect from ATMs, and how to avoid unnecessary fees. I also share the simple strategy I recommend to balance cash and cards safely — whether you're staying in major cities or heading into rural and remote areas.If you've ever wondered whether to rely on your debit card, bring USD, exchange money before travel, or withdraw on arrival — this episode gives you clarity before you land.Listen now and take the guesswork out of managing money in Vietnam.  The best way to connect with me is not via text, it is through the website www.whataboutvietnam.com website and email.Follow on your favourite pod channel, email directly to whataboutvietnam@gmail.com Keep abreast of news on our social pages on FB, IG,LinkedIn and TikTokLet me design your #customised #private tour of Vietnam - See our Travel ServicesDo you need a #Dental Procedure? Why not find out what's possible through our Dental and #Cosmetic Medical partner Worldwide Beauty Hospital. Mention #whataboutvietnam to receive 5% discount at Worldwide Beauty Hospital

7. Guest Author: George Black Headline:Identifying Dioxin Hotspots and Multigenerational Damage Summary:Canadian and Vietnamese scientists identified dioxin hotspots at old airbases, revealing how the poison persists in food chains and affects future generations. (7)1968 AUSTRALIA CAMP

The photo of a Vietnamese girl running away from a napalm strike is one of the most famous in history. But who actually took it? With conflict photographers Gary Knight and David Burnett, and film-maker Bao Nguyen. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus

In het jaar 40 n.Chr. doen twee hoogopgeleide Vietnamese edelvrouwen iets wat niemand voor mogelijk hield: ze grepen de wapens, beklommen hun oorlogsolifanten en leidden een leger ten strijde tegen de machtige CHinese Han-dynastie. En wonnen. Dit is het verhaal van Trung Trac en Trung Nhi — twee zussen die zich niet klein lieten krijgen. Wil jij een PodcastHeld zijn? Dat kan! Geef me vijf sterren op Spotify of een duimpje op Podimo en volg me op Instagram, TikTok, of Youtube. Of koop mijn nieuwe boek! Nu ook verkrijgbaar als audioboek! Een besneeuwd kasteel, een vervloekte diamant, een gemaskerd bal, een onverklaarbare moord... Kom mee naar Kasteel De Haar. Als je durft... Mijn nieuwe boek is  Moord in Kasteel de Haar. In dat boek worden Joop en Nettie, het dynamische duo uit De Moord op mr. Jacques Wijsman, door barones Hélène van Zuylen uitgenodigd op Kasteel de Haar.  Het hoogtepunt is een gemaskerd bal waar iedereen als Napoleon moet verschijnen. Tijdens het bal wordt één van de Napoleons vermoord. Wie heeft de trekker overgehaald en hebben ze eigenlijk wel de juiste Napoleon te grazen genomen? Als ze tot overmaat van ramp ingesneeuwd raken met de moordenaar moeten Joop, Nettie en Hélène zo snel mogelijk de moordenaar ontmaskeren... Ik groeide op in Haarzuilens, letterlijk om de hoek van het kasteel, heb er ook jaren als gids gewerkt. Het was altijd de droom om nog eens een boek te schrijven waarin barones Hélène allerlei avonturen zou beleven. Dit is dat boek. Sterker nog, we zijn al aan de VIERDE DRUK!!! Moord in Kasteel de Haar is overal te koop, zoals Bol en Bruna,  maar ook bij je lokale boekhandel zoals Boekhandel Van Kralingen in Breukelen!!!  

This complexly savory liquid seasoning is often made with only two ingredients: fish and sea salt. Anney and Lauren get lost in the history and science of nước mắm -- Vietnamese fish sauce.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vietnam's government strictly regulates and controls religious affairs through state-approved religious organizations. Vietnamese authorities have frequently harassed, detained, arrested, and imprisoned members and advocates of unregistered religious communities that have sought to operate independently of state control. USCIRF's Victims List documents more than 90 individuals who Vietnamese authorities have detained or imprisoned under national security charges for trying to peacefully practice their faith.On this episode of the USCIRF Spotlight podcast, Commissioner Rachel Laser speaks with Quynh-Vi Tran, of Legal Initiatives for Vietnam, and the Managing Editor of the Vietnamese Magazine, to discuss Vietnam's legal system as it relates to freedom of religion or belief.

TRANSCRIPT Robertson: [00:00:00] Gissele: Hello and welcome to the Love and Compassion podcast with Gissele. We believe that love and compassion have the power to heal our lives and our world. Gissele: Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more amazing content. And if you’d like to support the podcast, please go to buy me a coffee.com/love and compassion. Today we’re talking about how to become a more compassionate civilization in light of the world’s most recent events. Robertson Work is a nonfiction author, social ecological activist, and former UNDP policy advisor on decentralized government, NYU Wagner, graduate School of Public Service, professor of Innovative Leadership and Institute of Cultural Affairs, country Director, conducting community organizational and leadership initiatives. Gissele: He has worked in over 50 countries for over 50 years and is founder of the Compassionate Civilization Collaborative. He has five published books and has [00:01:00] contributed to another 13. His most well-known book is a Compassionate Civilization. Every week he publishes an essay on Compassionate Conversations on Substack. Gissele: Please join me in welcoming Robertson work. Hi Robertson. Robertson: Hi Giselle. How are you? Gissele: I’m good. How about yourself? Robertson: I’m good, thank you. I here in the Southern United States. I’m glad you’re in wonderful Canada. Robertson: great admiration for your country. Gissele: Ah, thank you. Thank you. Gissele: I wanted to talk about your book. I got a copy of it and it was written in 2017, but as I was reading it, I really found myself listening to things that were almost prophetic that seemed to be happening right now. What compelled you to write Compassionate Civilizations at this moment in history. Robertson: Yes. Thank You you so much, and thank you for inviting me to talk with you today. Robertson: And I wanna say I’m so touched by the wonderful work of the Matri Center for Love [00:02:00] and Compassion. I have enjoyed looking at your website and listening to your podcast and hearing Pema Chodron speak about self-love. If it’s okay, I’d like to start with a few moments of mindful breathing Gissele: Yes, definitely. Robertson: okay. I invite everyone to become aware of your breathing, being aware of breathing in and breathing out. Breathing in the here and in the now. Breathing in love. Breathing in gratitude. I have arrived. I am home. I’m solid. I am free breathing in, breathing out here now. Robertson: Love [00:03:00] gratitude. Arrived home solid free. Okay. And to your question, after working in local communities and organizations around the world with the Institute of Cultural Affairs and doing program and policy work with UNDP and teaching grad school at NYU Wagner, I felt called to articulate a motivating vision for how to embody and catalyze a compassionate civilization. Robertson: So each of us can embody, even now, even here, we can embody and catalyze a compassionate civilization in this very present moment. We don’t have to wait, you know, 50 years, a hundred years, a thousand years. we can embody it in the here and the now. So I was increasingly aware of climate change, climate disasters, [00:04:00] the rise of oligarchic, fascism, and of course the UN’s sustainable development goals. Robertson: I also had been studying the engaged Buddhism of Thich Nhat Hahn for many years, and practicing mindfulness and compassionate action. As you know, compassion is action focused on relieving suffering in individual mindsets and behaviors, and collective cultures and systems. The word that com it means with, and compassion means suffering. Robertson: So compassion is to be with suffering and to relieve suffering in oneself and with others. So, I gave talks about a compassionate civilization in my NYU Wagner grad classes and in speeches in different countries. Then in 2013, I started a blog called The Compassionate Civilization. So in 2017, there was a [00:05:00] new US president who concerned me deeply and who’s now president again. Robertson: So a Compassionate Civilization was published in July of that year, as you mentioned, 2017. The book outlines our time of crisis and provides a vision, strategies and tactics of embodying and catalyzing a compassionate civilization, person by person, community by community. Moment by moment it it includes the movement of movements, mom that will do that. Robertson: Innovative leadership methods, global local citizen, and practices of care of self and others as mindful activists. So there’s a lot in it. Yeah. The Six strategies or arenas of transformation are environmental sustainability, gender equality, socioeconomic justice, participatory governance, cultural tolerance and peace, and non-violence, socio. Robertson: So since then [00:06:00] I’ve been promoting the Compassionate Civilization Collaborative, as you mentioned, to support a movement of movements. The mom, Gissele: thank you for that. I really appreciated that. And I really enjoyed the book as well. It’s so funny that, the majority of people see a world that doesn’t work and they want things to change, but they don’t do something necessarily to change it. When did compassion shift from a private virtue to a public mission for you? Robertson: Great question. Thank you. I think it began the private part began very early in my Christian upbringing. I was raised by loving parents to love others. You know, love of neighbor is the heart of Christianity. And understand that love is the ultimate reality. You know, that you know, as we say in Christianity, God is love. Robertson: So then when I went off to college at Oklahoma State University, I found myself being a campus activist. So I shifted to activism for civil rights. We were [00:07:00] demonstrating for women’s rights and for peace in Vietnam. As you know, the Vietnam War was raging. And after that, I attended Theological Seminary at Chicago Theological Seminary, but. Robertson: My calling happened when I was still in college, and it was in a weekend course, just a one weekend in Chicago. Some of us drove up and attended a course at, with the ecumenical Institute in the African-American ghetto in Chicago. And my whole life was changed in one weekend. I mean, I woke up that I could make a difference and I could help create a world that cared from everyone, you know? Robertson: And here I was. I was what? I was a junior in college. So then after that, I worked after college and grad school. I worked in that African American ghetto in Chicago with the Ecumenical Institute. And then in Malaysia, I was asked to go to Malaysia and my wife and I did [00:08:00] that, Robertson: And then. We were asked to work in South Korea, which we did. And then the work shifted from a religious to secular is we now call our work the Institute of Cultural Affairs. And from there we worked in Jamaica and then in Venezuela, and then back in the US in a little community in Oklahoma Robertson: And then I also worked in poor slums and villages. So then with the UNDP. I worked in around the world giving policy advice and starting projects and programs on decentralized governance to help countries decentralize from this capital to the provinces and the cities and towns and villages to decentralize decision making. Robertson: Then my engaged Buddhist studies particularly with Han and his teachers and practice awakened me to a calling to save all sentient beings. what [00:09:00] an outrageous calling, how can one person vow to save all sentient beings? But that’s what we do in that tradition of the being a BofA. Robertson: So through mindfulness and compassionate actions. So then I continue my journey by teaching at NYU Wagner with grad students from around the world. I love that so much. Then to the present as a consultant, speaker, author, and activist locally, nationally, and globally. So Gissele has been quite a journey, and here we are in this moment together, in this wild, crazy world. Gissele: Yeah, for sure, One of the things that I really loved about your book that you emphasize that we need to have a vision for the world that we wanna create. If we don’t have a vision, then we can’t create it, right? many of us are, focusing on anti, anti-oppressive, anti crime, anti this, anti that. Gissele: But we’re not really focusing on what sort of world do we wanna create? and I’ve had conversations with so many people, and when I ask the question, if people truly [00:10:00] believe. The human beings could be like loving and compassionate, and we could create a world that would be loving and compassionate for all many people say no. Gissele: And so I was wondering, like, did you always believe that civilization could be compassionate or did you grow into that conviction? Robertson: Great question. I definitely grew into it. Yeah. even as a child, I was awakened, you know, by the plight of African Americans in my country, in our little town in Oklahoma. Robertson: So I kind of began waking up. But I wasn’t sure, how much I or we could do about it. So I really grew into that conviction through my journey around the world working in over in 55 countries, it’s interesting the number of people your podcast goes to serving people and the planet. Robertson: So. Everywhere I worked Gissele, I was touched by the local people, that people care for each other, you know, in the slums and squatter settlements, in villages, in cities, the, the rich and the [00:11:00] poor. everywhere I went regardless of the culture, the language, the races, the issues the, the local people were caring. Robertson: So my understanding is that compassion is an action. It’s not just a feeling or a thought. It’s an action to relieve suffering in oneself and in others. but suffering is never entirely eliminated. You know, in Buddhism, the first noble truth is there is suffering, and it continues, but it can be relieved as best we can with through practices, through projects, through programs, and through policies. Robertson: So what has helped me is to see, again, a deep teaching in Buddhism that each person is influenced by negative emotions of greed, fear, hatred, and ignorance. And yet we can practice with these and to become aware of them and just, and to let them go, you know, and to practice evolving into loving kindness as [00:12:00] you, as you do in in your wonderful center. Robertson: Teaching more loving, kindness, trust and understanding. We can embrace inner being that we’re all part of everything. We’re all part of each other. You know, we’re part of the living earth. We’re part of humanity. I am part of you, you are part of me. And impermanence, you know, that there is no separate permanent self. Robertson: Everything comes and goes, and yet the mystery is there’s no birth and death. ’cause you and I. we’re part of, this journey for 13.8 billion years of the universe, and yet we can, in each moment, we can take an action that relieves our own suffering and in others. So, as you said, a vision is so, so important. Robertson: I’m so glad you touched on that, that a vision can give us a calling to see where we can go. It can motivate us, push us, drive us to do all that we can to realize it, you know, if I have a vision for my family. To care for my family. If [00:13:00] I have a vision for my country, if I have a vision for planet Earth, that can motivate me to do all I can do to make that really happen. Robertson: So right now there are so many challenges facing humanity, climate disasters. Oh my, I’m here in Swanno where we’ve had a terrible hurricane in 2024. We’re still recovering from it. Echo side, you know, where so many species are dying of plants and animals. It’s, it’s one of the great diebacks of in evolution on earth, oligarchic, fascism. Robertson: Right now, we’re in the midst of it in my country. I can’t believe it. You know, you’re, you’re on 81. I, I thought I was, gonna die and still live in a country that believed in democracy and freedom and justice. And so now here we, I have to face what can I do about oligarchic, fascism and social and racial and gender injustice. Robertson: Other challenges, warfare. And here we are in this crazy, monstrous war [00:14:00] in the Middle East. You know, what can we do? What can I unregulated? Artificial intelligence very deeply concerns me. we’ve gotta regulate artificial intelligence so it doesn’t hurt humans and the earth. Robertson: It doesn’t just take care of itself. So, you know, it’s easy Gissele to be despairing and to give up, you know, particularly at this moment. But actually at any time in our life, we’re always tempted to say, oh, well, things will be okay, or There’s nothing I can do, you know, but neither of those is true. Robertson: There are things we can do. We can stop and breathe and continue doing what we can where we are. with what we have and who we are. We do not have to be stopped by despair or by cynicism or by hopeism. We don’t. So thank you for that question about vision. I vision still wakes me up every day and calls me forward. Robertson: I’m sure it does. You as well. Gissele: Yeah. I [00:15:00] mean, without vision, it’s like you don’t have a map to where you’re going to, right.what’s our destination if we don’t have a vision? And so this is for me, why I loved your book so much. you are helping us give a vision Gissele: I mean, the alternative is what is the alternative? there’s my next question. What happens to a society that abandons compassion? Robertson: Exactly. Well, I sort of touched on it before. it falls into ignorance and into greed. Wanting more wealth, more power. for me for my tribe and, and falls into hatred, falls into fear, falls into violence, and that’s happening now, she said. Robertson: But I love what Thich Nhat Hahn reminds us of, of is that if there is no mud, there is no lotus. And that, that means is, you know, if there is no suffering, there can be no compassion . So without suffering and ignorance, there is no compassion or wisdom, because suffering calls us to relieve it. when I see [00:16:00] my wife or children in pain, I want to help them. Robertson: or when I see others, neighbors, you know, during the pandemic, our neighbors took food and water to each other. You know, after the hurricane, neighbors brought us water. suffering calls the best from us, it can, it can also call, call other things. But again, there’s no mud. Robertson: The lotus cannot grow. So we can continue the journey step by step and breath by breath. So that’s what I’d say for now. but that’s an important question. Gissele: you said some key things including that, people have a choice. They can choose to be compassionate, or they can choose to use that fear for something else, right. Gissele: But I often hear from people, well, you know, they want institutions to change. why are the institutions more, equitable, generous, compassionate and you know, like. I don’t know if we have a vision for what compassionate institutions look like, [00:17:00] what would compassion look like at that level? Robertson: Oh, that’s where those six areas you know, the compassion would look like practicing ecological regeneration or sometimes called environmental sustainability. You know, that we we’re part of the living Earth gazelle, We’re not separate from the earth . We breathe earth air, we drink earth water. Robertson: We you know, the earth. Hurricanes come. The earth. Floods come We are earthlings. I love that word, earthlings, and so, how do we help regenerate the earth as society? And that’s why, you know, legislation aware of climate change, you know, to reduce carbon emissions. Robertson: The Paris Accord, and that’s just one example, how do we have all laws for gender equality so that women receive the same salaries as men and have the same rights. as men, we gotta have the laws, the institutions you know, and the participatory democracy, that we have a constitution. Robertson: a constitution is a vision. of what we are all about. Why are, we’re [00:18:00] together as a country, so that we can each vote and express our views and our wishes, and that government is by foreign of the people. It is. So it’s, it’s critical, you know, that we vote and get out the vote again and again and again. Robertson: And to create those laws, those institutions they care for everyone. And the socioeconomic justice. we need the laws and institutions that give full rights to people of color to people of every culture and every religion, and every gender every transgender, every human being, every living being has rights. Robertson: That’s why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so important. I’m so grateful that it was created earlier in the last century in my country our country cannot go to war without congressional approval. Robertson: Aha. did that just not happen? Yes. But it’s in the Constitution. the law says that we must talk about it [00:19:00] first. We must send the diplomats. We must doeverything we can before we harm anyone. War is hell. there are other ways of dialogue and diplomacy. Robertson: we can do better. But again, it takes the laws and institutions. Gissele: thank you for that. I do think that we have some sort of sense in terms of what we find doesn’t work for us, right? these institutions don’t work, they’re based on separation, isolation, punishment, and we see that they don’t work. We see that, like inequality hurts everyone. Gissele: We see that all of these things that we’re doing have a negative impact, including war. And yet we don’t change. What do you think prevents societies from becoming more compassionate? Robertson: if we’re in a society that if harming people through terrible legislation and laws and policies that makes it hard for people then have to either rebel and then they can be you know, killed. Or they have to form movements peaceful movements like the [00:20:00] Civil Rights Movement in my country, you know, with Martin Luther King leading peace marches and our peaceful resistance, in Minneapolis, the peaceful resistance to ice, so what one big thing that’s, that makes people think they can’t be compassionate again, is the, larger society, you know, the institutional frameworks and legislations and laws and government practices. Robertson: But even then, as we’re seeing, you know, in Minneapolis and everywhere, and Canada is leading in so many ways, I think I, I’m so grateful for the leadership of your, your prime minister, calling the world thatwe must not let go of the international rules rules based international practices that we’ve had for the last 80 years, my whole life. Robertson: You know, we’ve had the, the UN and the international rules and now some powers want to throw those out, but no, no, we are gonna say no. we’re [00:21:00] surrounded by forces of wealth and power as we know. And however we can each do what we can to care for those near hand, far away, the least the last, and the last for ourselves, moment by moment. Robertson: Breath, breath by breath. And sometimes we, the people can change history and the powerful can choose compassion. And, we’ve changed history many times. We’ve created democracy. We, the people who have created civil right. Universal education and healthcare of the UN and much more. Robertson: you touched a moment ago on the pillars of a compassionate civilization. You know, there are 17 UN sustainable development goals, as you know, but I decided 17 was a big number, so I thought, why don’t we just have six? That’s why my book, it has six arenas of transformation for ease of memory and work. Robertson: and they are environmental sustainability, gender equality, socioeconomic justice, participatory governance, cultural tolerance, peace and nonviolence. So modern [00:22:00] societies can be prevented from being compassionate also by Negative emotions as we were talking about, of ignorance, greed, hatred, and violence. Robertson: Greed thinking, I need more wealth. I’m a billionaire, but I need another billion. You know, I’m the richest billionaire in the world, but I wanna buy the US government hatred, violence. So these all for me, all back into the Buddhist wisdom of the belief that I’m a separate self. Robertson: Therefore, all that’s important is my ego. Hell no, that’s wrong. You know, my ego is not separate. When I die, my ego’s gone. You know, all that’s gonna be left when I die, or my words and my actions, my actions will continue forever. my words will continue forever. May I, ego? No. So the, if I believe my ego is all there is, and I can be greedy and hateful and fearful and violent, but ego, unlimited pleasure and narcissism, fear of the other, ignorance of cause and effect, these don’t have to drive us. So [00:23:00] structures and policies based on negative emotions and the delusion of a separate self and harm for the earth. We don’t have to live that way. We don’t have to believe propaganda and misinformation and ignorance, and we can provide the education needed and the experience. Robertson: We don’t have to accept wealth hoarding. You know, why do we have billionaires? Why isn’t $999 million enough? Why doesn’t that go to care for everyone and to care for the earth? So again, we have to let go of wealth hoarding of power hoarding. Robertson: we don’t need all that wealth. We don’t need all that power. We can, we can care for each other. We can care for the earth. Gissele: There, there are so many amazing things that you said. I wanted to touch on two the first one is that I was having a conversation with an indigenous elder, and he said to me, you know, that greed is just a fear of lack, right? Gissele: And it really stopped me in my tracks because, when we see people hoarding stuff in their [00:24:00] house, we think, well, that’s abnormal. And yet we glorify the hoarding of wealth. But it isn’t any different than any sort of other mental health issue in terms of hoarding. And so that really got me to think about the role of fear. Gissele: And, if somebody’s trying to hoard money, it’s not getting to the root of the problem, issue. It’s never gonna be enough because they’re just throwing it into an empty hole. It’s a a billion Jillian, it’s never gonna be enough because it’s never truly addressing the problem. Gissele: But one of the things that you said as we were chatting is, that the wealthy, the elite, they can choose compassion, they can always choose it, which is an amazing insight. And yet I wonder, you know, in terms of people’s perspectives of compassion and power, do you think that the two go hand in hand or can they go hand in hand? Gissele: Because I think there might be some worries around, well, if I’m more compassionate, then I’m gonna be, taken advantage of, I’m gonna be, a mat. what is your [00:25:00] perspective? Robertson: Oh, I agree with everything you said and your question is so, so important. Thank you so much. Robertson: there are billionaires and then there are billionaires like Warren Buffet. Look, he’s given. Tens of billions of dollars away, hundreds of billions of dollars away, and other billionaires have done that. And then there are the billionaires, who think 350 billion isn’t enough. Robertson: You know, I need more. Well, that’s crazy. That is sick. That is sad that, that is a disease. And we have to help those people. I feel compassion for billionaires who think they need another 10 billion or another a hundred billion, or they need five more a hundred million dollars yachts, or they need another 15 $200 million houses around the world and that that is very sad. Robertson: And that they’re really suffering. They’re confused. Yeah. They forget what it means to be human. They’ve forgotten what it needs to be. An earthling that we’re just here for a moment. Gissele: Agree. Robertson: We’re just here for a moment, for a [00:26:00] breath, and we’re gone. Breathe in, we’re here, breathe out, we’re gone. And so we can stop. Robertson: We can become aware of that fear, as you said. We can take good care of that fear. I love the way Thich Nhat Hahn says. He says, hello, fear, welcome back. I’m gonna take good care of you. Fear. I’m gonna watch you take care of you. You’re gonna Evolve. ’cause everything is impermanent. Everything changes. So fear will change. Robertson: Fear can change. Fear always changes It evolves into Another emotion, another feeling, So let it go. Let it go. In the truth of impermanence. ’cause everything is impermanent. Fear is impermanent. So we also can remember the truth of inter being that I am part of what I fear, I am part of. Robertson: This current federal administration. You know, I’m part of the wealthy elite, and it is part of me. I fear of the US administration right now, but it is part of [00:27:00] me and I’m part of it. I fear climate change, but it is part of me. I’m part of it. I fear artificial intelligence , unregulated. I fear old age, but boys, I’m 81 and a half, it’s here. Robertson: So I’m gonna take care of it. I’m gonna say, Hey, old man, I’m gonna take care of you. And they’re all me. There’s no separation. I love Thich Nhat Hahn’s word. We enter are, we enter are now, how can I stop, become aware of fear, breathe in and out, and know the truth of inter being and impermanence and accept it. Robertson: Care for it. get out to vote, care for the self, write , speak, do what I can to care for what I can. My family, my neighbors, my city, my county, my country, my world. And everything changes. Everything passes away. Everything comes in and out of [00:28:00] being, what happened to the Roman Empire? Gissele: Mm, Robertson: what’s happening to the American Empire. Everything comes in and goes out like a breath, breathing in and breathing out. And then everything transforms into what is next? What is next? what is China going to bring? Ah, there is so much that we don’t know, Robertson: I love Thich Nhat Hahn’s teaching that. when we become aware of a negative emotion, we should Stop, breathe, smile. And then say, oh, welcome. Fear. Welcome back. Okay, I’m gonna take care of you. Okay, we’re in this together. Robertson: And then you just, you keep breathing in awareness and gratitude and things change. Your grandkid calls you, your baby calls you, your dog, your cat. You see the clouds, you see the earth, the sun. You see a star. You realize you’re an [00:29:00] animal. You know the word animal means breath. Robertson: We are animals. ’cause we breathe. We’re all breathing. So I love that. You know it. I love to say I am an animal. ’cause I, you know, we, human beings are often not, we’re not animals. We’re superior To animals, you know? Right. we are animals, that’s why we love our dogs and cats and we can love our, the purposes and the elephants and the tigers and the mountain lions and, and the cockroaches and the chickpeas and the cardinals we are all animals. Robertson: We’re all breathing. So I love that. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that was so beautiful. I felt that also, I really appreciated the practice too. In this time when we, like so many us are, are feeling so much fear and so much uncertainty and not knowing how things are gonna pan out, to just take a moment to breathe and reconnect to our true selves, I think is so, so fundamental. Gissele: And I hope that listeners are also doing it with us. you know, as I have [00:30:00] conversations with people around the world we talk a lot about, the way that the systems are set up, the institutions. Gissele: And it took a lot of hard work for me to realize that we are the institutions, just like you said, so the institutions are made up of people. And I was so glad to see that in your book, that you clearly say, you know, like it’s about people. It’s about us. It’s like we make up these institutions, you know? Gissele: And when I’ve looked at myself, I’ve asked myself, who do I wanna be? What do I really, truly wanna embody? And my greatest wish for this lifetime is to embody the highest level of love and to truly get to the point where I love people like brothers and sisters, that I care for them and that we care for one another. Gissele: And yet, there are times when I wanna act from that place, but the fear comes up, the not wanting or not trusting or believing when the fear comes up, how can compassion really help us change ourselves so that we can create a [00:31:00] different world? Robertson: What you said is so beautiful, and your question is so powerful. Thank you. Yes. And I’m gonna get personal here. we can do what we can, we can take care of ourselves, we can take care of others as we can, but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up when we can’t. You know? Robertson: So I, here I’m 80, I’m over 81, and I have issues with balance and walking, and I have some memory issues and some low energy issues. So I have to be kind to myself. I, so I’ve just decided that writing is my main way of caring for the world. That’s why I publish one or two essays a week on Substack, on Compassionate Conversations for 55 countries in 38 states. Robertson: And so I said, you know, I used to travel around the world all the time. Not anymore. I don’t even want like to travel around the county. Robertson: Anyway, I’m an elder , so I have to say , okay, elder, be kind to [00:32:00] yourself, but also do everything you can, write everything you can speak with Gazelle if you can. Robertson: I also have to decide who I’m gonna care for. I’ve decided I’m gonna care for my wife who just turned 70 and my two kids and my two grandkids, my daughter-in-law, my cousins and nieces and nephews, my neighbors here and North Carolina. Robertson: The vulnerable, you know, I give to nonprofits who help the hungry and the homeless to friends and to people around the world through my writings and teachings And so the other day I drove to get some some shrimp tacos for my wife and me for dinner. Robertson: And a lady came up and she had disheveled hair. And she just stood by my car and I put the window down a little and she said. can you drive me to Black Mountain? that’s not where we were. I was in another town. ‘ cause I’m out of my medicine. Robertson: She just, out of the blue said, stood there and said that. And I thought, [00:33:00] oh, oh, hmm. Oh, so, oh yes. So I, I wanted to say, but who are you? How are you? Do you live here? Do do you have any friends or family? Do you, you, can I give you some money? Do you have, but I was kind of, I was kind of struck dumb, you know? Robertson: I thought, oh, oh, what should I do? And so I said, oh, I’m so sorry I don’t live in Black Mountain. And she said, oh. And she just turned and walked away and she asked two other cars and they said no. And then she walked away. And then she walked away. I thought, oh, Rob, Rob, is she okay? Does she have a family? Robertson: Did she have a house? What if she doesn’t get her medicine? How can she walk to that town? Could you have driven her and delayed taking dinner home to your wife? And then I said, but I don’t know. And then I thought, oh, but she’s gone. And I then I said, okay, Rob. Okay, Rob, [00:34:00] you’ve lived 81 years. You’ve cared for people in the UN in 170 countries. Speaker 3: Yeah. Robertson: And you’ve been in 55 countries, you’re still writing every week, you’re taking care of your neighbors and family and friends. Don’t beat yourself up. Old guy. Don’t beat yourself up. But next time, you know what Rob, I’m gonna say, Hey, my dear one, are you okay? I don’t have any money, but I can I buy you? Robertson: We are here at the taco shop, Can I buy you dinner? I would, I’m gonna say that next time, Rob. I’m gonna say that. and then I also gazelle,I’m gonna support democratic socialist institutions. You know, some people are afraid of that word, democratic socialist. Robertson: But you know, the happiest countries in the world are democratic socialist countries. Finland is the world’s happiest country. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, those are in the top 10 [00:35:00] when they’ve, when there have been analysis of, if you, if you Google happiest countries in the world, Robertson: those Nordic countries come up every year. Why? They are democratic socialist countries. You pay high taxes and everybody gets free college. You know, free education, free college, free health everybody gets taken care of in a democratic socialist country in the Nordic countries and New York City. Robertson: I’m so proud that our new mayor in New York City Zoran Mai is a democratic socialist. He is there to help everybody, but particularly those who are hurting the poor, the hungry , the sick, or the people of color, women, the elderly, the children. I’m so proud of him and I write about him on my substack and I write him Robertson: I he’s one of my heroes just like Bernie Sanders is one of my heroes. And Alexandria Ocasio Cortes, a OC is one of my, my heroes, CA [00:36:00] Ooc. So, and you know, I used to never tell anybody I was a Democratic socialist ’cause I was afraid. I thought, oh, they’ll think I’m a socialist. Hell no. I am now proud to say I’m a democratic socialist. Robertson: I’m a Democrat. I vote the Democratic ticket, but I’m always looking for progressives, progressive Democrats, you know, democratic socialist Democrats. because, you know, our country can be more like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland New York City. New York City is showing us the way America can be like a New York City. Robertson: I’m so proud of New York City and I used to live in New York City so as an old person. I can only do what I can do. and I’m not saying, oh, I poor me. I can’t do anything. No, no. I’m not saying that. I’m saying I can do a hell of a lot as this 81-year-old, it’s amazing what I can do, but that is why I write and speak and care for my family, neighbors, friends, the poor. Robertson: [00:37:00] Donate to nonprofits for the homeless and the hungry vote. Get out the vote. So yes, that’s my story. Gazelle. Gissele: I totally relate. I mean, I’ve been in circumstances like that as well, where you wanna help. But the fear is like, what if a person kills you? What if they don’t really have medication? Gissele: What if you get hurt or they try to rob you or they have mental health problems? Mine goes to protection and it is very human of us to go there first. And so, so then we get stuck in that ping pong in that moment and then the moment passes and you’re like, you know, was it true? Could I have driven that person? Gissele: And that would’ve been something I wanted to do for sure. But in that moment, you are stuck in that, yo-yo, when the survival comes in. And so helping ourselves shift out of that survival mode, understanding and learning to have faith and trust. And for me that’s been a work in progress. Gissele: It really has been a work in [00:38:00] progress. The other thing I wanted to mention, which I think is so important that we need to touch on. It’s the whole concept of socialism. So I was born in South America before I came to Canada and so I remember lots of my family members talk about this, there’s many South American countries that got sold communism, as socialism we’re talking about approaches that instead of it being like a democratic socialism that you’re talking about, which is the government, make sure that people are taking care of and that the people are probably taxed and provided for what would happen in those countries was that. Gissele: Everything got taken away. People were rationed certain things, and, it was horrible. it was not good, but it was not socialism. And there was many governments that took the majority of the money, then spent it on themselves, left the country, took it themselves, and so especially the Latin American community is very much afraid of socialism because they think back to that, the [00:39:00] rationing of electricity, the rationing of food, the rationing of all of that stuff, it wasn’t provided openly. Gissele: It was, everybody gets less. And so you have these people with this history that then have come to the US and think they don’t want socialism. They think democracy means that people aren’t gonna take stuff away from them, but that’s not what it means either. ’cause I don’t even know if like in North America we have a true democracy. Robertson: so thinking about reframing of how we think or experience democratic socialism, that it doesn’t mean less for everybody and in everything controlled by the government. It means being provided for abundantly and, also having the citizens be taxed more, which means we are willing to share our money so that we can all live well, Beautiful. Beautiful. Oh, thank you. Hooray. Wonderful. What country are you? May I ask where you coming? Gissele: Yeah, of Robertson: course. Gissele: Peru, I Gissele: [00:40:00] Yeah. Robertson: Wonderful. I’ve been to Peru a few times. A wonderful, beautiful country. And I, I lived in Venezuela for five years. ‘ cause I love, I have many friends in Venezuela. Robertson: But anyway I agree with everything you just said. That’s why I said what I said that I now can, I can confess that I am a democratic socialist. And that’s not socialism. It’s a social democracy is what it’s called. Yeah. That’s what they call it in Finland and Denmark and so on. Robertson: They call it social democracy. It’s democracy. But it, as you say, it’s cares for everyone and for the earth. We have to always add and the earth, ’cause you know, all the other species and, and the other life forms and the ecosystems, the water, the soil, the air, the minerals the plants, the animals. Robertson: and we have the money, as you said. I mean, if I had $350 billion, think of what taxes I could pay if the tax rate was, you know, 30%. [00:41:00] And rather than nothing, some of these, some of these folks pay, Gissele: well, I think we have glorified that we all wanted that, right? Like we got sold this good that oh, we should all want to be as wealthy as possible, right? And so we normalize the hoarding of money. Not the hoarding of other stuff, right? Gissele: And so we have allowed that, which gets me to my, next point, you talk about the environmental impact as part of a compassionate society, which absolutely is necessary. Gissele: And as human beings, we can be so lazy. We want convenience. We want to, have our package the next day. We don’t wanna wait. are we willing to pay higher wages? Are we willing to wait? Longer for our packages, like, are we willing to, invest in our wardrobe instead of buying fast fashion? Gissele: We don’t do these things and these have environmental impacts, and it also have human impacts, and at the end, they have impact on us. What can we do to ensure that, that we address that [00:42:00] complacency so that we are creating a fair, affordable , and compassionate world. Robertson: So important. Thank you. Robertson: It’s, it’s a life and death question. So yes, we should always ask about ecological and social impacts and take actions accordingly. That’s why I recycle every day. You know, some people say, oh, recycling is stupid. What do they really do with this, with it? You know, are they, are they really careful when you, they pick it up? Robertson: but I recycle religiously every day That’s why I support climate and democracy through third act. There’s a group that Bill McKibbon has started here in the US called Third Act. It’s a group of elder activists, activists over 60 who are working on climate and democracy issues. Robertson: So I’m doing that. That’s why I vote and get it out to vote. And as I said, I vote for Democrats and Democratic socialists. That’s why I write and speak and vote for ecological regeneration for social justice, for peace, for [00:43:00] democratic governance. It’s so critical that we keep questioning our actions like. Robertson: Okay, why am I recycling? Is it really worth the time? You know, deciding about every item, where it goes, and then putting out it out carefully and rinsing it first. And is that really going to help the world? ’cause you also know we need systemic changes, because you can always say, oh, but what the individual does doesn’t matter. Robertson: We need laws, we need institutions of ecological regeneration, and we need laws on caring for the climate and stopping climate change. So you can talk yourself out of individual responsibility when you realize that we need laws and institutions that protect the environment. Robertson: But it’s both. It’s both. what each person does, because there are millions of us individuals. So if there are millions of us act responsibly, that has, is a huge impact. And then if we [00:44:00] also have responsible laws and institutions that care for the environment as well as all people, then that’s a double win. Robertson: So I agree with you. We have to keep asking that question over and over and making those decisions and they’re hard decisions. We have to decide. Gissele: Yeah, I’ve had to look at myself like one of the commitments I’ve made to myself is not buying fast fashion. And so, investing in pieces, even though sometimes I feel lack oh my God, spending that much money on this, you know? Gissele: Yeah. It all comes back to me. if I am not willing to pay a fair wage, that means that the next person doesn’t get a fair wage, which means they don’t wanna pay a fair wage and so on and so forth. And then it comes back to me, you know, my husband has a business and then, you get people that don’t also wanna pay a fair wage. Gissele: It’s all interconnected. And so we have to be willing, but that also goes to us addressing our fear, our fear of lack, that we’re not gonna have enough. All of those things. And the biggest fundamental [00:45:00] fear, and you mentioned death to me, is the ultimate Gissele: fear That we must overcome I think once we do, like, I think once we understand that we are not, this human vessel. Gissele: that we’re not just this bag of bones and live in so much constrained fear that perhaps we could. really open up ourselves to be willing to be more compassionate . What do you think? Robertson: Absolutely. I’m with you all the way. Yes. We fear death because we’re caught in that illusion of a separate permanent self. Robertson: You know, it’s all about me. Oh, this universe is all about me. The universe was created 13.8 billion years for me. Robertson: Yeah. But it’s all about me and particularly my ego, honoring my ego. Building up my ego, praising my ego being, you know, that’s why I wanna be rich and famous. Robertson: Fortunately, I never wanted to be rich or famous, but that’s another story. We’ll talk about that some other time. But everything and [00:46:00] everyone is impermanent. When I realized that truth and it, it came to me through engaged Buddhism, but you could, you could get that truth in many, many ways. Robertson: That everything and everyone is impermanent. we’re part of the ocean. But the waves don’t last forever, do they? But the ocean lasts forever. Robertson: So My atoms, are part of the 13.8 billion year old universe. my cells are part of the living earth. Yes, they remain When I die, you know, go back into the earth. back into the soil and the water and the air but My ego doesn’t remain. What, what remains, as I said before, are my actions. Robertson: Everything I did is still cause and effect. Cause and effect. Rippling out. Rippling out. Okay. Rob, what did you do? What did you say? did you help that, did you touch that? Did you say that? so my actions and words continue rippling forever. So Ty calls that, or in the Plum Village tradition of engaged Buddhism, it’s called my continuation. Robertson: Your actions and your words [00:47:00] are your continuation that last forever as your actions and words will continue through cause and effect touching reality forever. So when my ego does not remain so I can smile and let it go. I often think about my continuation. You know, I say, well, that’s why, maybe why I’m writing so much and speaking so much. Robertson: And caring for so many people every day, you know, caring to care for my wife and my children and grandchildren and friends and neighbors, and the v vulnerable and the hungry, and the homeless, and the, and my country, and my city, and my county, and my, and why do I write substack twice a week? Robertson: And containing reflections on ecological, societal, and individual challenges and practices. And so every, week I’m writing about practices of mindfulness and compassion. So I’m trying to be the teacher. I’m trying to send out words of mindfulness and compassion so that they will continue reverberating when I’m dust, Robertson: So [00:48:00] I’m reaching out. In my substack to just those 55 people in 55 countries, in 38 states, touching hearts and minds and even more on social media. every month I have like 86,000 views of my social media. Why do I do it? It’s not just about ego, you know? Robertson: Oh, Rob, be famous. No, Rob is not famous. I’m a nobody. I gotta keep giving and giving and giving, you know, another word, another action, so I can, care for people around me through personal care, donations, voting, volunteering workshops, I’m helping start a workshop in our neighborhood on environmental resilience through recycling, through group facilitation. Robertson: I’m trained in, facilitation. I’ve been trained my whole life to ask questions of groups so they can create their own plans and strategies and actions. that’s some of my answer. Robertson: I hope that makes some sense. Gissele: Thank you very much. I appreciated your answer and it made me really think you are one of our compassionate leaders, right? [00:49:00] You’re, you’re kind of carving the way and helping us reflect, ’cause I’ve seen some of your substack, I’ve seen like your postings. Gissele: That’s actually how I kind of reached out to you. ’cause I was so moved by the material that you were sharing, the willingness to be honest about what it takes to be compassionate and how hard it can be sometimes to look at ourselves honestly, because we can’t change unless we’re willing to look at ourselves. Gissele: All aspects of ourselves, like you said, we are the billionaires, we are the oligarchy, we are all of these people. The racism that voted that in the, the racism that continues to show the fear, all of that is us. And so from your perspective, what do compassionate leaders do differently? Robertson: Yes. Well, it great question. Robertson: what do compassionate leaders do differently? Well, he or she or they. Robertson: are empathic. I think it starts with empathy. What are like, what are you feeling? What are you thinking? Robertson: What are you, what’s happening in your life? So an empathic [00:50:00] leader listens to other people. They see where other people are hurting. They care. They ask questions and facilitate group discussions, enable group projects. They let go of self-importance, you know, that it’s not all about me. Robertson: They let go of narcissism. They let go of, the ego project. They help others be their greatness. They care for their body mind so that they can care for others. and they donate and vote and recycle and more and more and more and more. did you know in Denmark. In elementary school every week, children are taught empathy. Robertson: You know, they have courses on empathy, Robertson: when I was growing up, I,didn’t have courses in school on empathy in church school, you know, in my Sunday school at, in my church. I was taught to love my neighbor and to love everyone, and that God was love. But in school, in my elementary [00:51:00] school and junior high and high school, we didn’t talk about things like empathy and compassion. Gissele: Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. I did know about Denmark ’cause my daughter and I are co-writing a book on that particular topic. The need to continue to teach love and compassion in, Gissele: being a global citizen. Right? And, and I’m doing it with her perspective because she just graduated high school, so she has like the fresher perspective, whereas mine’s from like many moons ago. Gissele: We need to continuously educate ourselves about regulating our own emotions, having difficult conversations, hearing about the other, other, as ourselves. Because that’s, from my perspective, the only way that we’re gonna survive. a friend of mine said it the best that we were having a conversation and she does compassion in the prison system and she says, I can’t be well unless you are well. Gissele: My wellness depends on your wellness. And that just hit me in my heart, like, ugh. Not that I live it every day, Robertson, Gissele: every day I have to choose and some [00:52:00] days I fail, and other days I do good in terms of like be more loving and compassionate and truly helping the world. But it’s a choice. It’s a continual choice. So this goes to my biggest challenge that maybe you can help me with, which is, so I was having this conversation with my students. We were talking about how. In order to create a world that is loving and passionate for all, it has to include the all, even those who are most hurtful, and that is really difficult . Gissele: I’m just curious as to your thoughts on what starting point might be or what can help us look at those who do hurtful things and just horrible things and be able to say, I see God within you. I see your humanity. Even though it might be hard. Robertson: Yes, It is hard. several years ago when I would hear [00:53:00] leaders of my country speaking on the media, I would get so repulsed that I would turn it off but I began practicing. Robertson: I practiced a lot since those days and I realized, you know. People who hurt, other people are hurting themselves. they’re actually hurting. they’re suffering. People who hurt others have their own suffering of, they’re confused. they’ve forgotten what it means to be human. Robertson: They’re, full of, greed, of their own fears, all about me. Maybe they’re filled with hatred they become violent. they’re suffering. I still find it very difficult to read or listen to certain people. Robertson: But what I do is I stop and I breathe and I smile and I say, okay. Robertson: I care. I’m concerned about you. I don’t know what I can do, but I am gonna do everything I can to care for the people, being hurt, you know, like my fellow activists in [00:54:00] Minneapolis are doing, or elsewhere, we could mention many places around the world where people are risking their own lives. Robertson: You know, in Minneapolis, two activists were killed, Ms. Good Renee Good, and Alex Pretty were killed because they went beyond their fear, you know? they got out there in the street because the migrants were being hurt and they got killed. Robertson: So, you know, At some point you have to come to terms with your own death, I don’t know if I have a, a minute to go or 20 years, I still have to let go. And so how do I care for my wife, my family, my friends, my neighbors my country, the vulnerable, the homeless, the hungry, and, as you said, for the wealthy and powerful who are hurting others, you know, starting wars attacking migrants, killing activists. Robertson: It’s hard. You know? So I have to say, I love the story of [00:55:00] when during the Vietnamese war Thich Nhat Hahn and his monks. They did not take sides. They did not say we’re on the side of the Vietnamese or the us. They did not take a side in the war. This is hard for me ’cause I, I usually take sides. Robertson: The practice was, okay, we’re not going to support we’re Vietnamese or the us. Were going to care for everyone. So they just went out caring for people who were getting hurt and during the war, people who were hungry, people who needed food, people who were bleeding, Robertson: So they decided their role was to care for those who were hurt not to attack. To say, I’m for the blue and I’m against the red. They said, I’m just gonna, care . Like, the activists in Minnesota, They’re, they’re not attacking ice, they’re singing to ice. Robertson: And so yes, we have to acknowledge our own anger. [00:56:00] I’m angry with these politicians. sometimes I want, to hate them, but I have to say, I do not hate you, my friend. You are confused. You’re so confused. You’re hurting others. So you’re so hurtful. Robertson: You don’t realize how you’re hurting others. But, I’ve got to try to stop you from hurting others. I’ve got to try to help those who are hurt and maybe I’m gonna get hurt, you know, because in the civil rights movement, if you’re out there doing on a peace march, you might get beaten up. Robertson: as I said, I’ve lived in villages, poor villages, and. Urban slums in several countries. And some people could say, well, that’s stupid. You could get hurt. You know, you could, you could as a white person living in a African American slum or in a Korean village or in a Venezuelan village, Robertson: So, you know, I say, was I stupid? Was I risking and I was with my wife and children? Was I risking the lives of my wife and children by living in slums and, and villages? Yes. Was I stupid? I mean, [00:57:00] no, I wasn’t stupid, but I was risking our lives. But I somehow, I was, called I wanted to do it. I said, okay. Robertson: but my point is it’s risky, you know? And you have to keep working with yourself. That’s why I love the word practice. Robertson: You know, in Buddhism we keep practicing, and I love your, the teaching of that you have on your website of Pema Chodron, you know, on self-love. You know, you have to keep practicing. How do I love myself? Say, okay, I’m afraid and I’m just this little white person, but or I’m this little old white person, but I’m gonna do everything I can and be everything I can. Robertson: I really appreciated the story of Han not choosing sides. I mean, you’re right. If we are going to see each other’s brothers and sisters and is is one global family, we can’t pick a side over the other, even though we so want to. Gissele: And, and I’m with you. when I think that there’s a [00:58:00] unfairness, when there’s people that are vulnerable or suffering, I’m more likely to pick to the side that is like, oh, that person is suffering. They’re the victim. But what you said is spot on. People that truly lovewho have love in their heart, like when you were raised with love. Gissele: You had love to give others because your cup was full. So it overflowed to want to help others, to want to love others. People that are hurting, that don’t have love in their hearts are those that hurt other people. Robertson: Mm-hmm. Gissele: They must because they must be so separated from their own humanity. Robertson: Yes, yes, yes. Gissele: And yet things are changing. You mentioned Minnesota, and I wanted to mention that I love that they’re doing the singing chants, and they’re not making them wrong. they’re singing chants like you can change your mind. You don’t have to be wrong. You don’t have to experience shame and guilt for the choice you’ve made. You can always change your mind. And in your book, you talk a lot about movements. Do you wanna [00:59:00] share a little bit about the power of movements and helping us create a compassionate civilization? Robertson: Oh, yes. Thank you. I’m, I’m a big movement fan. it started in college with the Civil Rights Movement. I realized, wow, you know, if a lot of people get together and do something together, it can make a difference. Like the Civil Rights movement. Gissele: Yeah. Robertson: And the women’s movement and peace movement. Robertson: And like in Vietnam, the peace movement, we could really make a difference if we get out in March. I think that being an individual or part of an organization that is part of a movement can be a powerful force. And so I focus in my life and that, that book on the six movements that I’ve mentioned, and those movements can work together. Robertson: And when they work together, they become a movement of movements. They become mom. Hmm. I like that because I I’m a feminist and I think that we need so [01:00:00] desperately we need more feminine energy inhumanity and in civilization. Robertson: So I’m a unapologetic feminist. And so that’s why I like that the movement of movements, the acronym is Mom, you know, and so it’s the Moms of the World will lead us like you. And so they’re the movements of ecological regeneration, socioeconomic justice, I’m repeating gender equality, participatory governance, cultural tolerance, peace and non-violence. Robertson: And you know, we also have the Gay Rights Movement, the democracy movement. there’s so many movements that it made a huge difference. So. I began saying that I, after writing the book, I said, okay,now my work is the work of the Compassionate Civilization Collaborative. Robertson: And I decided I wouldn’t make an organization, I it, wouldn’t have a website, I wouldn’t register it. I wouldn’t raise money for it. It would just be anybody and everybody [01:01:00] who was part of the movement of movements who was working to create a compassionate civilization. Robertson: So that’s what I did. And that’s where I am. I’m this old guy in my home. I don’t get out a lot. I don’t drive a lot. I just drive to nearby town. I have a car, but I don’t use it a lot. I don’t like to walk up and down hills. Robertson: IAnd sometimes I can’t remember things and I say, Hey, but look, you have so many friends all over the world and you can keep encouraging through your writing. So that’s why I keep writing, you know, it is for the movement of movements. Robertson: I guess that’s why I write. here’s something I want to share, something I thought or felt or something that I wrote about. And maybe it will touch you. Maybe it’ll encourage you. Maybe we’ll help you in your life. Robertson: I live in a homeowners association neighborhood. It’s a neighborhood that has a homeowners association. We’re 34 families and we have straight families, gay families. we have white families and non-white families. [01:02:00] We have Democrats, Republicans and Socialists. Robertson: We have Christians and Buddhists and Hindus. And so what I do, I say, Hey, we’re all neighbors. We all helped each other during the pandemic. We all helped each other after the hurricane. It doesn’t matter what our politics are or our religion or our sexuality, we’re all human beings. Robertson: We’re all gonna die. we all want love. We all want happiness. And We can be good neighbors. We don’t have to have ideology, you know, we don’t have to quote the Bible, we don’t have to quote Buddha. We can just be good neighbors. So we’re gonna have a workshop this spring And so we’re all going to get together down the street in this big room, in the fire station, and we’re gonna have a two hour workshop. And will it help? I don’t know. Will it make us better neighbors? I don’t know. Why am I doing it? I’m driven to do it. I’ve done workshops all over the world and I wanna do a workshop in my neighborhood. Robertson: I’ve done workshops with the un, I’ve done [01:03:00] workshops with governments, with cities So I love to facilitate. I love getting people together to solve problems together to listen to each other, respect each other, to honor each other. Gissele: so I’m just gonna ask you a couple more questions. But I’m just gonna make a comment right now about what you said because I think it’s so important. Gissele: Number one is I love that your neighborhood is a microcosm of what our world could be like . The fact that people got together to help and make sure that people were taken care of. If we could amplify that, that could be our world. I think that’s such a beautiful thing. Gissele: And the other thing that I think is really fundamental is that even through your life, you are showing us that some people are going to go pickett. And that’s okay. Some people are gonna write blogs to help us, and that’s okay. Some people are gonna do podcasts, and that’s okay. There are things that people can do that don’t have to look exactly the same. Gissele: Some people are going to have more courage, and they’re going to put their bodies in front and potentially get hurt. Other people, maybe they can’t do [01:04:00] that. So there are many different ways to help. The other thing that you said that was really, really key is the importance of moms . And that was one of the things that really touched me about your book, the acronym. Gissele: I was like, oh my God, I so resonate with this. Because I do feel that we need more feminine energy. We really kind of really squash the feminine energy. But the truth of the matter is we need more because fundamentally, nurturance is a mother energy is a feminine energy. Gissele: Compassion’s a feminine energy. Yes, yes, yes, Robertson: yes, yes, Gissele: so if I can share my story. Last night I was at hockey game. My son was playing hockey. Robertson: Mm-hmm. Gissele: And our team they don’t like to fight. Gissele: We play our game and we have fun and we’re good. And so the previous teams that were there, it was under Youth 15, most of the game was the kids fighting. And taking penalties. And so the game ends, the people come off the ice and two men that are starting to get like into a fight [01:05:00] now, woman got in front of them. Gissele: Wow. and said, we all signed a form that said, this is just a game. Remember who this is for? even though she was elevated, she totally stopped that fight between two men that we were not small. And So it was, it was really interesting. Robertson: Wonderful. Gissele: it was a woman who actually stopped a fight Gissele: It’s the feminine power. And that doesn’t mean, and I wanna make this clear, that doesn’t mean that men have to be discarded or have to be treated the same way that women are treated. ’cause I think that’s a big fear. That’s a big fear that some white males have. It’s no, you don’t have to be less than, Robertson: right. Robertson: We need Gissele: to uplift the feminine energy. So there’s a balance. ’cause right now we’re not balanced. Robertson: Exactly. Exactly. Oh, boy. Am I with you there? there’s a whole section in my book, as you noticed on gender equality I’m gonna read a tribute to Mothers I. Robertson: Tribute to Mothers Giving Birth to New Life, nurturing, [01:06:00] sustaining, guiding, releasing, launching, affirming Love. Be getting Love a flow onwards. Mother Earth, mother Tree, mother Tiger, mother Eve. My grandmother’s Sally and Arie, my mother, Mary Elizabeth, my children’s mother, Mary, my grandchildren’s mother, Jennifer, my grandchildren’s grandmothe

Danh Vo talks to Ben Luke about his influences—from writers to musicians, film-makers and, of course, other artists—and the cultural experiences that have shaped his life and work. Vo was born in 1975 in Bà Rja, Vietnam and raised in Denmark. He lives and works between Germany, where he has a studio in Güldenhof, 80km outside Berlin, and Mexico City. His art is often founded in personal experiences and relationships, but alludes to wider social and political conditions and structures, both present and historical. The way he reflects on his autobiography is distinctive: his art is embedded in his experience as a Vietnamese immigrant to Europe as a child and queer identity, for instance, but his collaborative practice often stems from coincidences or serendipitous occurrences in daily life. Danh uses found objects of different registers, from household items to historic religious sculptures, as well as archival images and texts, and brings them into dynamic relationships, in which the exhibition space and context is often a vital component. He also incorporates the work of other artists and designers into his installations, and his practice has been likened to that of a curator or archaeologist. Ultimately, his vision is entirely his own, but by involving the thinking and making of others, he ensures that it resonates with discussion, providing more questions than answers. He reflects on his idea to set traps for himself through his art in order to question his desires, and how that relates to the viewer's experience of his work. He discusses the balance between his studio life in Güldenhof and his use of the exhibition space as a studio to forge his installations. He reflects on the influence of Felix Gonzalez-Torres and his writing on the work of Roni Horn, he discusses the many collaborations in his work, from that with the artist and writer Julie Ault to his project working with Martin Wong's mother on the collection she built with her son. And he explains why William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973) has been the source for numerous works. Plus, he answers our usual questions, including the ultimate: what is art for?Danh Vo: πνεῦμα (Ἔλισσα), Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, until 2 August; Danh Vo, White Cube, New York, 11 September-10 October Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since 2008, there has been tremendous public interest in the social and ecological ramifications of the global land rush, a rapid increase of capital investment into land, especially for the establishment of agricultural and tree plantations. In Laos, the government has granted five percent of the national territory to investors as long-term land concessions since the early 2000s. Land investments, globally and in Laos, have violently and unjustly dispossessed peasants and Indigenous peoples of their life-giving land, leading to their immiseration. Yet, targeted communities have rarely accepted the theft of their land outright, often struggling to protect their land rights with varying degrees of success. How can these divergent outcomes of land control be understood? In Socializing Land: Plantations, Dispossession, and Resistance in Laos (U Hawai'i Press, 2025), Dr. Miles Kenney-Lazar addresses these questions by investigating the development of Chinese and Vietnamese pulpwood and rubber plantations on the lands of ethnic minority Brou people in eastern Savannakhet of southern Laos. He argues that land should not be viewed as a “thing” but as a set of social relationships among different groups of people. The characteristics of these ties to land play a critical role in determining if and how its use, access, and ownership change—whether land becomes the property of plantation capitalists or remains in the possession of peasant farmers. Furthermore, the book explores the contradictory role of the state, simultaneously pursuing investment-driven economic growth built upon the coercive expropriation of land while pledging to protect a limited set of peasant land rights. Highlighting the sociality of land demonstrates that land transactions are full of friction and contestation. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Since 2008, there has been tremendous public interest in the social and ecological ramifications of the global land rush, a rapid increase of capital investment into land, especially for the establishment of agricultural and tree plantations. In Laos, the government has granted five percent of the national territory to investors as long-term land concessions since the early 2000s. Land investments, globally and in Laos, have violently and unjustly dispossessed peasants and Indigenous peoples of their life-giving land, leading to their immiseration. Yet, targeted communities have rarely accepted the theft of their land outright, often struggling to protect their land rights with varying degrees of success. How can these divergent outcomes of land control be understood? In Socializing Land: Plantations, Dispossession, and Resistance in Laos (U Hawai'i Press, 2025), Dr. Miles Kenney-Lazar addresses these questions by investigating the development of Chinese and Vietnamese pulpwood and rubber plantations on the lands of ethnic minority Brou people in eastern Savannakhet of southern Laos. He argues that land should not be viewed as a “thing” but as a set of social relationships among different groups of people. The characteristics of these ties to land play a critical role in determining if and how its use, access, and ownership change—whether land becomes the property of plantation capitalists or remains in the possession of peasant farmers. Furthermore, the book explores the contradictory role of the state, simultaneously pursuing investment-driven economic growth built upon the coercive expropriation of land while pledging to protect a limited set of peasant land rights. Highlighting the sociality of land demonstrates that land transactions are full of friction and contestation. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Since 2008, there has been tremendous public interest in the social and ecological ramifications of the global land rush, a rapid increase of capital investment into land, especially for the establishment of agricultural and tree plantations. In Laos, the government has granted five percent of the national territory to investors as long-term land concessions since the early 2000s. Land investments, globally and in Laos, have violently and unjustly dispossessed peasants and Indigenous peoples of their life-giving land, leading to their immiseration. Yet, targeted communities have rarely accepted the theft of their land outright, often struggling to protect their land rights with varying degrees of success. How can these divergent outcomes of land control be understood? In Socializing Land: Plantations, Dispossession, and Resistance in Laos (U Hawai'i Press, 2025), Dr. Miles Kenney-Lazar addresses these questions by investigating the development of Chinese and Vietnamese pulpwood and rubber plantations on the lands of ethnic minority Brou people in eastern Savannakhet of southern Laos. He argues that land should not be viewed as a “thing” but as a set of social relationships among different groups of people. The characteristics of these ties to land play a critical role in determining if and how its use, access, and ownership change—whether land becomes the property of plantation capitalists or remains in the possession of peasant farmers. Furthermore, the book explores the contradictory role of the state, simultaneously pursuing investment-driven economic growth built upon the coercive expropriation of land while pledging to protect a limited set of peasant land rights. Highlighting the sociality of land demonstrates that land transactions are full of friction and contestation. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies

Since 2008, there has been tremendous public interest in the social and ecological ramifications of the global land rush, a rapid increase of capital investment into land, especially for the establishment of agricultural and tree plantations. In Laos, the government has granted five percent of the national territory to investors as long-term land concessions since the early 2000s. Land investments, globally and in Laos, have violently and unjustly dispossessed peasants and Indigenous peoples of their life-giving land, leading to their immiseration. Yet, targeted communities have rarely accepted the theft of their land outright, often struggling to protect their land rights with varying degrees of success. How can these divergent outcomes of land control be understood? In Socializing Land: Plantations, Dispossession, and Resistance in Laos (U Hawai'i Press, 2025), Dr. Miles Kenney-Lazar addresses these questions by investigating the development of Chinese and Vietnamese pulpwood and rubber plantations on the lands of ethnic minority Brou people in eastern Savannakhet of southern Laos. He argues that land should not be viewed as a “thing” but as a set of social relationships among different groups of people. The characteristics of these ties to land play a critical role in determining if and how its use, access, and ownership change—whether land becomes the property of plantation capitalists or remains in the possession of peasant farmers. Furthermore, the book explores the contradictory role of the state, simultaneously pursuing investment-driven economic growth built upon the coercive expropriation of land while pledging to protect a limited set of peasant land rights. Highlighting the sociality of land demonstrates that land transactions are full of friction and contestation. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Since 2008, there has been tremendous public interest in the social and ecological ramifications of the global land rush, a rapid increase of capital investment into land, especially for the establishment of agricultural and tree plantations. In Laos, the government has granted five percent of the national territory to investors as long-term land concessions since the early 2000s. Land investments, globally and in Laos, have violently and unjustly dispossessed peasants and Indigenous peoples of their life-giving land, leading to their immiseration. Yet, targeted communities have rarely accepted the theft of their land outright, often struggling to protect their land rights with varying degrees of success. How can these divergent outcomes of land control be understood? In Socializing Land: Plantations, Dispossession, and Resistance in Laos (U Hawai'i Press, 2025), Dr. Miles Kenney-Lazar addresses these questions by investigating the development of Chinese and Vietnamese pulpwood and rubber plantations on the lands of ethnic minority Brou people in eastern Savannakhet of southern Laos. He argues that land should not be viewed as a “thing” but as a set of social relationships among different groups of people. The characteristics of these ties to land play a critical role in determining if and how its use, access, and ownership change—whether land becomes the property of plantation capitalists or remains in the possession of peasant farmers. Furthermore, the book explores the contradictory role of the state, simultaneously pursuing investment-driven economic growth built upon the coercive expropriation of land while pledging to protect a limited set of peasant land rights. Highlighting the sociality of land demonstrates that land transactions are full of friction and contestation. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/geography

Since 2008, there has been tremendous public interest in the social and ecological ramifications of the global land rush, a rapid increase of capital investment into land, especially for the establishment of agricultural and tree plantations. In Laos, the government has granted five percent of the national territory to investors as long-term land concessions since the early 2000s. Land investments, globally and in Laos, have violently and unjustly dispossessed peasants and Indigenous peoples of their life-giving land, leading to their immiseration. Yet, targeted communities have rarely accepted the theft of their land outright, often struggling to protect their land rights with varying degrees of success. How can these divergent outcomes of land control be understood? In Socializing Land: Plantations, Dispossession, and Resistance in Laos (U Hawai'i Press, 2025), Dr. Miles Kenney-Lazar addresses these questions by investigating the development of Chinese and Vietnamese pulpwood and rubber plantations on the lands of ethnic minority Brou people in eastern Savannakhet of southern Laos. He argues that land should not be viewed as a “thing” but as a set of social relationships among different groups of people. The characteristics of these ties to land play a critical role in determining if and how its use, access, and ownership change—whether land becomes the property of plantation capitalists or remains in the possession of peasant farmers. Furthermore, the book explores the contradictory role of the state, simultaneously pursuing investment-driven economic growth built upon the coercive expropriation of land while pledging to protect a limited set of peasant land rights. Highlighting the sociality of land demonstrates that land transactions are full of friction and contestation. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

警視庁本部、東京都千代田区就労資格のないベトナム人を違法に働かせたとして、警視庁国際犯罪対策課は４日までに、入管難民法違反容疑などで、人材派遣会社「アイディーエー」社長、井田一彦、同市国府台、採用担当社員の宇佐美雄也、同県掛川市長谷、両容疑者ら男３人を逮捕した。 Tokyo police have arrested three men for their alleged involvement in employing Vietnamese nationals without work permits at a factory in the city of Fukuroi in Shizuoka Prefecture, central Japan.

The Cognitive Crucible is a forum that presents different perspectives and emerging thought leadership related to the information environment. The opinions expressed by guests are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of or endorsement by the Information Professionals Association. During this episode, Doug Wilbur discussed propaganda, information warfare, and strategic optimism–emphasizing society's capability for problem-solving. He defined propaganda as any communication intended to influence behavior in the propagandist's favor, distinguishing it from persuasion. Wilbur concluded the Vietnamese were the most successful propagandists, effectively delegitimizing the South Vietnamese government as a US puppet, which made the 1968 Tet Offensive a psychological victory despite military defeat. He explained that communism relies on a messianic eschatology, promising a utopian future. Wilbur also addressed modern threats, noting that AI increases the vulnerability of open societies to personalized disinformation, compounding the challenge of combating propaganda due to people relying on fast-thinking heuristics. Recording Date: 6 Feb 2026 Research Question: Doug Wilbur suggests an interested student or researcher examine what are the Chinese telling external audiences and what effect is it having? Resources: Blurring the Source: Information Laundering and the Cognitive Architecture of Modern Propaganda by Doug Wilbur Finding the Signal within the Noise: What Information Warriors Need to Know About Human Pattern Recognitionby Doug Wilbur Warfare of Position: When the Decisive Struggle Precedes the First Shot by Doug Wilbur Viet Cong: The Organization of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam by Douglas Pike Link to full show notes and resources Guest Bio: Douglas S Wilbur, Ph.D. (University of Missouri, School of Journalism, 2019), is a communication scientist who specializes in propaganda, information warfare and strategic communication. He is also a retired U.S. Army Information Operations Officer with four deployments. He works full-time in the information technology industry but is an adjunct professor of Marketing at the University of Maryland Global Campus. About: The Information Professionals Association (IPA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring the role of information activities, such as influence and cognitive security, within the national security sector and helping to bridge the divide between operations and research. Its goal is to increase interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars and practitioners and policymakers with an interest in this domain. For more information, please contact us at communications@information-professionals.org. Or, connect directly with The Cognitive Crucible podcast host, John Bicknell, on LinkedIn. Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, 1) IPA earns from qualifying purchases, 2) IPA gets commissions for purchases made through links in this post.

What does courage look like under fire? In captivity? In command? In service? This edition of Long Blue Leadership was recorded on location at the U.S. Air Force Academy's 33rd National Character and Leadership Symposium. We've explored these questions with our guests and captured the conversations for you. Ted Robertson, Multimedia and Podcast Specialist for the Air Force Academy Association and Foundation, hosts this special episode featuring voices shaped by combat, crises and lifelong service. Their message to cadets is clear: Leadership is earned through character, and character is forged in hard moments. - Seg. 1: Lt. Col. Mark George and C1C Jaime Snyder, officer and NCLS cadet director, respectively, set the stage for this year's NCLS and for the podcast. - Seg. 2: Senior Master Sgt. (Ret.) Israel "DT" Del Toro on courage in times of crisis. - Seg. 3: Task Force Hope developer and facilitator Maj. Tara Holmes on preparing future leaders to handle crisis before it happens. - Seg. 4: Former POW Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Edward Mechenbier '64, on leading in circumstances out of your control. - Seg. 5: Annapolis grad and Vietnam-era aviator, Capt. (Ret.) J. Charles Plumb on how character breeds courage. All of our guest's lives and careers reflect the reality of this year's theme through combat, crisis and service.     CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LINE PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Ted Robertson | Producer and Editor:  Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org   Ryan Hall | Director:  Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org  Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor:  Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer:  Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org      ALL PAST LBL EPISODES  |  ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS     FULL TRANSCRIPT OUR SPEAKERS:  - Host, Ted Robertson, Multimedia and Podcast Specialist, United States Air Force Academy Association and Foundation  - Seg. 1: C1C Jaime Snyder, NCLS Cadet Director; Lt. Col. Mark George, NCLS Officer  - Seg. 2: Senior Master Sargent Israel Del Toro  - Seg. 3: Maj. Tara Holmes, Task Force Hope  - Seg. 4: Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Edward Mechenbier '64  - Seg. 5: Capt. (Ret.) J. Charles Plumb   Ted Robertson 0:00 Welcome to Long Blue Line Podcast Network coverage of the 33rd annual National Character and Leadership Symposium. I'm Ted Robertson, multimedia and podcast specialist for the Air Force Academy Association & Foundation, coming to you from Polaris Hall located here at the United States Air Force Academy. This year's symposium centers on the theme Courage to Lead in the Profession of Arms: Combat and Crisis-tested Character, where attendees and cadets will explore how courage in all its forms shapes leaders when uncertainty, fear and consequence are real. Our coverage will start with the Center for Character and Leadership Development's Lt. Col. Mark George and NCLS director, Cadet 1st Class Jaime Snyder. They'll set the stage not only for NCLS, but for today's coverage. Then we'll talk with four key leaders speaking at the symposium, including Senior Master Sgt. (Ret.) Israel Del Torro on keeping courageous during times of crisis. We'll also talk with Task Force Hope developer and facilitator, Maj. Tara Holmes, on preparing leaders to handle crisis before it happens. Then, former POW, Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Edward Mechenbier, USAFA Class of '64, on leading in circumstances out of your control. And finally, Annapolis grad and Vietnam-era aviator, Capt. (Ret.) J. Charles Plumb, on how character breeds courage. All of our guests' lives and careers reflect the reality of this year's theme through combat, crisis and service. So I want to bring in our first two guests to help, as I said, frame the discussion today. We're going to dig in to learn what this is all about and sort of the “why” behind it. Cadet Jaime Snyder, 2026 NCLS director. Cadet Snyder, you've helped lead the organizing of the National Character and Leadership Symposium — 33rd year for this, as you know, and part of that work, you've trained cadets and permanent party. I'm going to ask you to explain permanent party, all of which helps strengthen your own public speaking and leadership communication skills. You want to kind of expound on that a bit? C1C Jaime Snyder 2:20 Yes, sir. So a part of my role being in NCLS is to, one, provide the guidance, the support and resources on the cadet side to succeed. But what really makes NCLS special is that we integrate permanent party with cadets. So oftentimes me, in supporting and training permanent party, is giving them cadet perspective, because while they're over here and the Center for Character and Leadership Development, we're over there in the Cadet Wing, and I can be the mediator between both parties. Ted Robertson 2:46 Let's talk a little bit about permanent party. What does that term mean? Who does that describe? C1C Jaime Snyder 2:52 Oh yes. Permanent party describes the civilian and military faculty that works in the Center for Character and Leadership Development that assists with the execution of NCLS — the National Character and Leadership Symposium. Ted Robertson 3:05 How big is the team behind this event every year? C1C Jaime Snyder 3:08 It's kind of complex where we'll get search cadets. We'll get a large number of volunteers, approximately around 300 from the Cadet Wing. Internal staff consists of 50 cadets who work it throughout the entire year, and around 50 staff members who are permanent party who work in the Center for Character and Leadership Development. Ted Robertson 3:29 I want to bring in next Lt. Col. Mark George, who is the experiential and training division chief and NCLS program director, the very fortunate man that gets to work for some incredibly talented cadets. Col. Mark George 3:43 That is absolutely true. Thanks to for having us on. Cadet Snyder has done an outstanding job leading this team. I came into this a little bit late. You know, we've had some reorganization here at the Academy, and after some shuffling, I got the honor and the privilege to take over NCLS while the planning was well underway. So my job was to just make sure this train kept rolling, that people had the resources that they needed, the top cover they needed. And as Jamie said, he was training me as a permanent party member to make sure that I had the cadet perspective. And then, you know, we were moving this ball forward as we got to this event. Ted Robertson 4:23 So coming up in the podcast we'll get to the sort of “why” and what's at the core of NCLS. Colonel, let's start with you. What is National Character and Leadership Symposium designed to do for cadets?   Col. Mark George 4:38 Sure. The National Character and Leadership Symposium — NCLS — is designed to bring exemplars that embody the core values and the traits that we want cadets to have when they become leaders on Day 1 and inspire them to a lifetime of service.   Ted Robertson 4:57 Cadet Snyder?   C1C Jaime Snyder 4:59 We definitely see at USAFA, there is a clear correlation with NCLS and character development. One thing we want cadets to get out of NCLS is to further develop leaders of character who are going to join the fight in the Air Force and Space Force, and that's why I see the epitome of NCLS as it's an opportunity to hear people's perspectives as well as learn from it and apply it to their daily lives. Ted Robertson 5:24 Gentlemen, this year's theme focuses on the courage to lead in the profession of arms. Cadet Snyder, we'll start with you. How did that theme come together, and why is it especially relevant for cadets right now? C1C Jaime Snyder 5:40 With our current structure at USAFA, we've had some implement of change. We recognize that the future war conflict is more prevalent than ever, and that it's important for the cadets to understand that we're changing the way we approach training, as well as what we're learning in curriculum. So this NCLS was an incredible opportunity to discuss courage when leading in the profession of arms, but furthermore, courage and crises-tested character. Which is what we're trying to further push along with what we do in training as well as what we teach in leadership. Ted Robertson 6:15 You make good decisions when your character is strong. You make those decisions with integrity when your character is intact and it's strong. Would you agree with that, Colonel? Col. Mark George 6:25 Absolutely. And I think Cadet Snyder hit the nail on the head that we really want the cadets to understand that the environments that they're stepping into are going to require that courage to do hard things. In my day, like we didn't necessarily think about the fight in that way. You know, we were kind of stovepiped in. And these cadets, whatever environment they may be stepping into, the next conflict is going to require a lot, a high demand of them, and their character is their foundation for that. Ted Robertson 6:59 One of the things you can say about this event is that it brings together voices from combat, crisis, athletics, academia and industry. How intentional is that mix, Cadet Snyder, and what do cadets gain from hearing such different perspectives on leadership and character? C1C Jaime Snyder 7:18 I think by hearing different perspectives, you get to see how universal courage is. When we say courage, it's not just one thing, it's also moral, social, spiritual. And by looking at different versions of courage, you can understand that there's different ways to actually apply courage. Understanding that courage is not the absence of fear, also knowing that courage is not simply being a confident individual. That it's more complex than you may define courage, and so you can then apply it that way — by looking at different perspectives. Ted Robertson 7:53 Colonel, I'll address this one to you as well. Col. Mark George 7:56 Sure. Courage — we're talking about courage here, and there's a heavy focus on the combat side with this year's speakers. The thing that sticks out to me is that courage always involves a decision to do the hard thing. And that's what all of our speakers brought this year. They're showing how in different environments, whether it's in a prison cell in Hanoi or up on the Space Station or — there's a hard decision and the right thing is sometimes pretty obvious, but it doesn't mean it's easy. It does not mean it's easy to do. And so courage always involves a decision to do the right thing. Ted Robertson 8:39 Cadet Snyder? C1C Jaime Snyder 8:40 What he said I find to be very true — understanding that courage is not simply doing something physical, but also in a leadership role, especially — we're talking to cadets who are going to soon be commissioned officers. It's important to know that you need to make the right decision on and off the battlefield. Ted Robertson 8:58 So from your perspective as a cadet — and this one is just for you, Cadet Snyder — what does it mean to help shape an event like NCLS while you're still developing as a leader yourself? C1C Jaime Snyder 9:10 What I've seen through NCLS is taking the time to relax. Don't focus on the future and focus where you're at right now, and that's character development. So don't let the pursuit of tomorrow diminish the joy today. We all have this aspiration to graduate, throw our hats in the air, Thunderbirds fly over. But right now it's important to focus on character development as that's going to be important as future officers. Ted Robertson 9:35 That makes 1,000% very clear sense. But I do want to ask you, less than 100 days from the day you toss your hat — you're giving me a big smile right now — talk about how that feels right now for you. C1C Jaime Snyder 9:47 It's incredible, and a part of it is less daunting, because I can say this institution has really prepared me to commission, and so it's more liberating than daunting for me. Ted Robertson 9:58 Col. George, I'm going to direct this one straight to you, and this is an ask of you from the leadership perspective: How do we events Like NCLS fit into the broader effort to intentionally develop leaders of character here at the Academy. Col. Mark George 10:14 So I get the honor of leading the experiential and training division in the Center for Character and Leadership Development. So we're all about creating experiences and those opportunities for cadets to have different types of environments where they'll learn about character. And right now, NCLS is an opportunity to listen to where people's character was tested, how they overcame it. And then we also have different events that we try to put the cadets in where we'll actually test their character. And that could be on the challenge tower, it could be through our character labs where we're having discussions. NCLS is a huge part of that, because the planning cycle is so long. Ted Robertson 10:59 Cadet Snyder? C1C Jaime Snyder 11:00 Yes, sir. One thing I wanted to add on to that is with NCLS, one thing that makes this event the most unique experience that I've had is the fact that we get to engage in meaningful dialog. This isn't a brief. This is an experience for everyone who attends. I've had the opportunity to talk to Col. George's son, who aspires to possibly come to the Air Force Academy. So I don't want to say this is just for cadets, but it's also a promotion tool. And understand that what we do at NCLS is very important. And anyone who wants to attend can come and see what we're doing and how important it is.   Col. Mark George 11:33 I want to thank you for that, by the way. He looks up to you, and that meant a lot.   Ted Robertson 11:37 That's pretty visionary stuff. That's touching the next generation. That's fantastic. All right, this is for you both. When cadets look back on NCLS years from now, what do you hope they're going to remember feeling or being challenged to do differently?   C1C Jaime Snyder 11:56 There is a very strong human component to NCLS, and with that, there's a human experience. Understanding that we're getting speakers and we'll see their bios that they're incredible. They have incredible stories of making the right decision when tensions were high, and getting to hear their stories and understand that they ultimately were no different than we are. Some of them were Air Force Academy graduates. Some graduated from the Naval Academy, West Point, other colleges, but they were young, 20-year-old people like we were as cadets. And so getting to understand where they're coming from, human experience is vital to NCLS, and how do we grow and understand where they're coming from? Ted Robertson 12:38 Col. George? Col. Mark George 12:39 Yeah, I think what I would want the cadets to remember is how these speakers made them feel. You're right, you won't remember every nugget of wisdom that was said. I just had the opportunity to talk with Gen. Scott Miller, and he was an incredible leader. And I feel like everything he was saying was gold. I wish I'd been able to write it down. But he really makes you feel like you understand just how important your role is going to be as a young leader. And when you come away as second lieutenants from this place, you've had incredible opportunities and now you're stepping out in the real world. I would think I want the cadets to remember that like, “Hey, what I do matters, and how I lead is very important to getting this mission done.”   Ted Robertson 13:24 Lt. Col. Mark George and C1C Jaime Snyder, officer and cadet in charge of the 33rd NCLS. Congratulations on the event. Well done, and thank you for spending time here with us on the podcast today. Hearing from both the cadet perspective and the senior leadership behind NCLS makes one thing very clear: This symposium is intentionally designed not just to inspire but to prepare future leaders for moments when character will be tested. And that brings me to my first featured guest, a man whose life story embodies what combat and crisis-tested character truly means. Israel “DT” Del Toro, welcome to the podcast. It's an honor to be with you here at the National Character and Leadership Symposium. Senior Master Sgt. (Ret.) Israel Del Toro 14:18 Thank you, Ted. Thanks for having me. Good to see you again.   Ted Robertson 14:21 Yes, it's not the first time we've gotten to spend some time together. Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 14:24 It's always great to talk to people, try and spread the word of the whole spark and the promise of my dad. Ted Robertson 14:30 The spark and the promises are the two things that really stood out to me about that interview — your heart and your soul man, from a very, very early age. Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 14:39 You know, losing my dad at 12, and then a year and a half later, losing my mom to a drunk driver, and being the oldest, you know, having to now kind of step up to be, like, the parent figure to my younger siblings. It was challenging.   Ted Robertson 14:55 Out of all of that, you wound up as a retired — you are currently a retired senior master sergeant. You took responsibility for your siblings, as you say, after you were orphaned as a teenager, and ultimately in the service combat-wounded airmen, and you survived catastrophic injuries against incredible odds, and that did not keep you down. One of the things that you did was you became an Invictus Games gold medalist. You're now a national speaker, and you talk a lot about resilience and purpose.   Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 15:27 Yes, sir. Yeah, Invictus, I won gold in shot put. It was pretty awesome. You know, everyone was just going nuts. Ted Robertson 15:37 You kind of make me feel like that was a soul-feeding, motivating time for you.   Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 15:42 It was. At that time, I was probably one of the senior guys, kind of. Obviously, I was one of the senior guys, wounded guys on the team, and so a lot of people looked up to me. And sometimes I wish — people would say, “Man, it's great. You're such trailblazer.” You're sometimes like, “Man, I just want to be one of the guys. I just, I just want to be No. 10.” You know, everything's all done, and no one's focusing everything on me. But it's a burden that I'm willing to carry on to try and continue to help people.   Ted Robertson 16:19 I want to linger here in your background a bit, because it's more than just impressive. I think impressive is pretty trite to describe what your background is. Let's start with before the Air Force and before combat, and just how your life demanded responsibility at such a young age. And what I want to ask is, how did stepping up for your family shape the leader that you became? Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 16:40 Well, I contribute that totally to my dad. I truly do. My dad was there. My dad, you know, I went everywhere with my dad. My dad — you know, he came from Mexico to this country, and he gave up a lot. You know, my family in Mexico is very wealthy, their ranchers and all that. He came here with nothing. And he always used to tell me, he's like, “Don't ever be envious of someone that's successful. Learn from them. Ask them questions.” He also used to tell me, “If you don't succeed, it's no one else's fault by yourself. Don't blame where you came from, where you grew up from, the situation. It is only your fault.” So my dad always had told me these little lessons and obviously the last lesson he gave me the night before he passed: Always take care of your family. And that just stayed with me, that kind of continued to shape me all throughout my life, all through my journey, at a young age to teenager to young adult to the military and to now, to this day, that really guided me to who I am. Now, it's like, I always hear people say, “Oh, man, I don't know if I can do it.” I was like, “Yeah, you can. You Just never know. You weren't ever put in that situation” I always believe — you always hear the fight or flight. “What are you gonna do?” I just fight, and I continue to fight. I just don't see the flight in me. And, you know, being the promise of take care of your family. Yes, I tell people, that originated with my family — my brothers and sisters. But throughout time it has evolved to now anyone I see that's having a hard time that needs maybe to hear a story or read a book or hear a journey to help them find that spark, because I see them now as my family. I see that as my family, as my mission now.   Ted Robertson 18:50 Let's stay with spark for a minute. It's just one of my favorite things that you've ever talked about. You're down, you've been badly burned, you're worried about whether you're going to survive, and a medic is helping you out, and he does something for you. He says something to you.   Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 19:07 Yeah, you know, the medic — I always like to say, you know, yes, I'm Air Force. Those guys were Army, and we bust each other's chops. But, we're all brothers and sisters, and we're down range, you know? We take care of each other, we tell stories, we talk about our family. So these guys knew what had happened in my past with my family. So when I'm, you know, laying there, after I coordinate getting air, and I started the adrenaline going down, I started getting scared. I was having a hard time breathing, and I just wanted to lay down and sleep. The medic came and reminded me, “DT, remember what you promised your son, that you'll never let him grow without his dad. Fight for your son. You got to fight for your son.” And he's just making me yell it. You use anything you can to keep your guy motivated, to help that spark go, keep going. And that's what he did. He found that spark to keep me going, to keep me fighting until that medevac came and to get me on that helicopter, to the FOB, to the hospital, and then to eventually San Antonio. Ted Robertson 20:24 After that injury, that's when the fight shifted. You had to get off the battlefield. You had to get that out of your head. You had to start battling for your recovery. So what did courage look like when progress seemed like it was slow and at one point nothing was guaranteed? Israel Del Toro 20:46 Yeah, it, you know, when he had a shift from now being on the battlefield to now a different kind of battle and your recovery, your way of life — it's difficult because you have people telling you this is what your life's going to be. You know, being told that you're never going to walk again. You got to be in a hospital for another year and a half, respirator for the rest of your life and your military career is pretty much over. You know, I like to say there's two choices again: Who you're going to be? Are you going to take the easy path, which is, I'm going to sit in a chair, accept what they say, hate life, you know, curse the world. Are you going to take the hard path where I want to fight? I'm going to show you I can do this. I'm going to prove that I still have value, and I want to come out of this ahead and show not only my son but the rest of the world. You stay positive, you find that spark, you will come out ahead. Ted Robertson 21:48 All right, last question on your background, because we're going to roll all this into why you're here and what messages you want to share with the cadets and the attendees that are here. You did something I don't think most human beings would even think about after that ordeal that you had been through all those years, everything. You reenlisted, and it wasn't just a medical milestone. It wasn't because you could, it was a conscious decision. So what internal commitment had to come first for you to make that decision. Israel Del Toro 22:22 You know, I guess it was, for me it was I loved my job. I knew I could teach, I could be prepare these next guys to [be] the next generation operators. Ted Robertson 22:38 You've never stopped being committed. You've never stopped. So it brings you to NCLS. This is the 33rd year for NCLS, and when you speak to cadets here, what message do you want them to take away with them? Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 22:53 I guess my message more is about that when you're in the military, no matter whatever happens to you, you still have a role to play. Even when I got hurt, did I miss being with my teammates? Yes, but now refocusing, OK, I'm here in this hospital, and I see all these wounded guys here as I guess I'm wounded also, but in my head is like I was still NCO in the Air Force. I still have a job to do. Yes, I'm hurt, I'm wounded, but the job of a leader is, no matter where you're at, is you try and take care of your troops. You try and make things better for them, even if you never see any of the benefits — that is your role. And so that's kind of what I want to leave with these guys that, you know, you're going to always have  challenges throughout your career, but you've always got to remember it's not about you, it's about the guys under you to take care of you. You know, I had a group of cadets yesterday and they were just asking me about leadership. So you know what? The best way to be a great leader is to earn the respect of yourtroops. If you demand it, you're not a leader, but when you earned the respect and they'll die for you, that is the greatest feeling. You know, I gave an example of one of the best moments I had after my injury, is after I got hurt, they sent my replacement, and he comes in and obviously introduce him to the scout team, to the Army company, individuals in leadership, and then the SF team, and all these guys I'm supporting. And the guy comes in like, “Hey, I'm here to replace DT.” And all of them, “You can't replace DT.” And I told that was the best moment that that's the best moment of respect, because I had Army guys saying, “He's our guy.” And that's the thing I told them, it's like, when you get to that moment when your guys say, “Nah, he's our guy,” I was like, “He can't replace him.” That is where you've truly earned the respect of your troops.   Ted Robertson 25:21 Israel, the only word that I can pull out of myself right now for your journey to describe it as “remarkable,” and you continue to give of yourself, and that's a wonderful thing. Your opportunity for a couple of final thoughts here, before we close out.   Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 25:38 Final thoughts, man, putting me on the spot, aren't you. I guess my final thoughts would be, you can't do it on your own. I'm not here right now, because I did it my own. I did it. I'm never gonna say that I did. I had friends, I had family, I had my wife that were by my side all throughout my journey to medical individuals. And I had those dark times, and I'm going down that spot, that rabbit hole, they were there to pull me out of it. So I think it's like, you know, don't try and do it on your own. We all need help. You know, the goal is, don't be prideful. There's a reason pride is one of the seven deadly sins. But, you know, ask for help, ask for advice. It's not going to hurt you. If anything, it will make you stronger and better. That's parting thoughts for the individuals listening to this. Ted Robertson 26:53 Perfect. Israel “DT” Del Toro, what a privilege to sit with you again. Want to say thank you from all of us for your service and continuing to lead by the example, which is a very rich and broad and deep example. Your story reminds us, and should remind us, that courage doesn't end with just survival. It always continues in service to others. Israel, thank you for being here.   Senior Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro 27:18 Thanks, Ted. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me again.   Ted Robertson 27:21 Israel's story reminds us that crisis and moral injury don't always arrive on a schedule, and that leaders are often expected to navigate those moments without ever having been taught how. That's where our next conversation takes us: into the intentional work of preparing leaders before crisis arrives. Maj. Tara Holmes, welcome to the podcast. It's great to have you with us as part of the National Character and Leadership Symposium.   Maj. Tara Holmes  27:46 Thanks for having me; glad to be here.   Ted Robertson 27:48 You are currently deputy chief of staff here at Headquarters USAFA. You are formerly chief of cadet development for CCLD, the Center for Character and Leadership development. By way of background, you flew.   Maj. Tara Holmes  28:01 So I am a B-52 electronic warfare officer by trade, and then moved over into white jets. So instructed in the in the T-1 and I've kind of been in education and training for, I'd say, since about 2017.   Ted Robertson  28:19 You also hold a Doctorate in Business and Management, and you are an AETC master instructor. I will let you explain AETC.   Maj. Tara Holmes  28:27 Air Education Training Command, that's one of the that's our majcom that's responsible for education and training, and they have a pathway to become a master instructor. So I finished the qualifications for that while I was in white jets and working over at Squadron Officer School.   Ted Robertson  28:46 So let's talk about your work with Task Force Hope. We'll talk about what Task Force Hope is, but you are and have been a developer and facilitator of Task Force Hope, which is a crisis and moral injury leadership workshop.   Maj. Tara Holmes  29:01 Task Force Hope is about providing immediately useful tools to our workshop participants to prepare them to lead through crisis, whether that is no-kidding combat related, or whether that's crisis on the home front, going through stuff in life that's really hard. We work through a series of key concepts and exercises, through storytelling and participant engagement that hopefully provides our participants some self-awareness and some tools to recover as it deals with their relationships.   Ted Robertson  29:39 We talked about this. There's a lot of nuance in what you're teaching these people. There's discernment in it. Who should you talk to, who you should trust with information that you want to share? Because ultimately, some of this becomes a pressure release valve, right?   Maj. Tara Holmes  29:52 Yeah, so one of the key concepts that we talk about is worthiness, right? I think often people feel pressure to not share what they're going through because they don't think their problems are worthy of attention, whether theirs or someone else's. That's one thing that we spend a lot of time on. And like you said, you know, who to who to share with, and at what level, some people are more free with sharing than others, and that's OK. So we work through some frameworks that help illustrate how people can kind of work through those levels, or gain some self-awareness and some clarity around where they fall. Something that is a, you know, deep seated secret for you, maybe something that somebody else is willing to openly share, they just don't see it as that big of a deal. So it's definitely about self-awareness and learning some tools to help relieve some of the pressure and drain on our batteries, as it were, that comes from holding these things in.   Ted Robertson  30:52 People who are attending the workshop are going to learn some things that they may not realize are draining their batteries. You're teaching them to discern what those are, and to be careful to try to avoid those. It sounds like an example to me of things that we don't realize we do, that drains us, right, instead of energizes us.   Maj. Tara Holmes  31:10 So we use the kind of metaphor of a smartphone, right? So there are things that drain us, that are big, that we're taking a lot of energy to conceal the hard things that we're dealing with in our life. But then there's, like, the pesky background apps, there's the things that are always running in the background of our lives that drain our energy without us really even noticing it. You know, so for me as an officer, but also as a mom and a spouse, some of the things that are always draining my batteries are my to-do list, the laundry app, maybe social media apps. Sometimes I've probably spend way too much time reading the news these days. That's kind of always on for me. We have these big things that are draining our batteries, but then we have these like small things that are constantly going on, right? So Task Force Hope is about recognizing what those things are for us and then making a commitment to ourselves to make this space and time to recover.   Ted Robertson  32:09 So that brings us to a really unique place. You kind of function at the intersection of character, leadership and development pretty much every day. So how do you define character when you're responsible for shaping it across an entire Cadet Wing.   Maj. Tara Holmes  32:24 To me, character is the essence of who they are. It is how you show up day after day. It's the habits that you have. That's why, when you do something out of character, people are able to say that. You know, we talk about building character strengths as building blocks towards certain virtues. And virtues is really excellence of character. So it's easy to talk about how to be an excellent athlete, or how to be an excellent academic, right? And that's one of our core values, is being excellent. Well, how do you have excellent character? It's really about leveraging your character strengths in a way that can lead you to be more virtuous, and that's the goal.   Ted Robertson  33:05 You've served, both operationally and as an instructor. Tell me how those things shape the way you think about preparing leaders not just to perform but to endure.   Maj. Tara Holmes  33:19 What comes to mind is the importance of training and building those habits. We're, you know, in the previous question, we talked about it in terms of character. You know, you can, you can use any kind of training. It's about building readiness, right? And being able to build those habits so that when you are faced with a challenge, you have a way to work through the challenge, right? That really came out for me, both operationally and as an instructor. So operationally, you rely on your training to get your job done, and then as an instructor, you're helping others build those habits so that one day when your students are faced with challenges, they can rely on their training as well.   Ted Robertson  34:01 We've talked a bit about your experiences and how they shape the way you think about preparing leaders, not just to perform but to endure. And now let's bring it right down to the direct connection between Task Force Hope and why you are here talking about this program to attendees at NCLS. When we talk about Task Force Hope, it's a program that is really designed to prepare leaders to navigate crisis and recover from both emotional and moral injury. What can you tell me about a gap that a workshop like this fills, that traditional leadership education sometimes or often misses?   Maj. Tara Holmes  34:38 Task Force Hope is preventative in nature. It's training to prevent people from letting their burdens get the best of them so that they can show up. They have the tools to show up fully charged when stuff hits the van. And not only that they do that for themselves, but then they can help their teammates or their subordinates also get there. It's self-awareness, because we all perform self-care differently, and what you need to recharge your batteries is different from the way that I would do it. So it's being intentional and having some tools to be able to identify what works for you and then how to make space in your life, and building that commitment to yourself, to make that space so that the next time that you face a crisis, you're not facing it at 10%, you're full up, you're ready to go. So it's that sustained self-care, if that's what you want to call it. And it's important to say that you know, in a 75-minute session, we're really doing our best to provide exposure to key concepts and these tools. What we hope is that people walk out with the start of something. It's not it's not the end of their work to be done.   Ted Robertson  35:54 How often do you hear the question, “Why didn't I hear this earlier in my career?”   Maj. Tara Holmes  36:00 Every workshop. Last year, after the workshop, we had a 1970-something graduate say that exact thing. For me personally, I had four people say something, you know, “Hey, I was a cadet here in '90-something, '80-something, 2000-something. And, you know, I really wish that I would have had this earlier.” So that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to bring it as early as we can.   Ted Robertson  36:26 OK, so our last question of our visit, if cadets take just one lesson from Task Force Hope and NCLs this year, what is your hope for that lesson to be?   Maj. Tara Holmes  36:39 My hope is that they're worth it. No problem is too big or too small to be dealt with, and like we talked about earlier, I think often people keep things to themselves because they feel like they shouldn't bother others, or there's their supervisors or their teammates with what's going on in their lives. And that's a drain. Like, that's a drain on the system. It eats up your energy, right? But our cadets are worth it. Whatever they're dealing with, big or small, is worthy of being addressed. I hope that's the takeaway, and that we all deal with things, right? We don't always know what other people are dealing with.   Ted Robertson  37:22 Maj. Holmes. Thank you for the work you're doing to prepare future leaders, not just to lead in moments of clarity, but to stand firm in moments of crisis. We appreciate you being here.   Maj. Tara Holmes  37:32 Thanks, Ted.   Ted Robertson  37:33 That focus on preservation, resilience and moral courage brings us to our next conversation, one shaped by combat, captivity and a life of service under the most demanding conditions. Coming up next, my conversation with Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Edward Mechenbier. Gen. Mechenbier, welcome to the podcast. It is a huge honor having you here, sir.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier 37:56 I hope you feel that way in a half hour so well,   Ted Robertson  37:59 Well, the conversation does promise to be interesting, because your life is… interesting. That was a pregnant pause, sir.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier 38:07 Yeah, I've enjoyed it. It's different.   Ted Robertson  38:11 Just to sort of frame things, you retired as a major general, and what year was that, sir,   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier 38:15 2004   Ted Robertson  38:16 And you were USAFA Class of '64. You're a Vietnam-era pilot, having flown F-4s, you were shot down on your 113th combat mission, but that was you also your 80th over North Vietnam. OK, prisoner of war. Then for almost those entire six years following that, being shot down. You come with 3,600 flying hours across lots of different aircraft.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  38:42 I was privileged fly either for primary capability or for familiarization with 43 different airplanes.   Ted Robertson  38:49 And now you describe yourself as a lifelong advocate for veterans and public service.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  38:56 Well, yeah, I mean, I go to a couple prisons in Ohio, and “work with” is probably overstating my role. Veterans who are incarcerated for long periods of time. But my role is just to go there, spend some time, shoot the breeze with them, no agenda, no desired learning objective and let them know that somebody outside knows that they're there.   Ted Robertson  39:19 What I want to do is spend some time in your background. All right, I want to start with combat and captivity and how that tests leadership in its most extreme forms. And this is in course in keeping with the theme of NCLS here, what did character mean to you when circumstances were entirely beyond your control?   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  39:38 The Vietnamese kept us in small groups of one and two or three guys. I mean, we never really until near the end and later on when we got a little organization. But it got very down, very personal, when at one time, I was in a cell with four guys, three Class of 1964 Air Force Academy graduates and one poor Oklahoma State University graduate, and amongst the four of us, we had a senior ranking officer. And of course, you got the same rank, you go alphabetical. And so we made Ron Bliss the senior ranking officer in our room. We had a communication system. We had guidelines that, you know, which were basically consistent with the code of conduct. You know, name, rank, serial number, date of birth, don't answer further questions. Keep faith with your fellow positions. That was the key. Keep faith. Never do anything that you'd be embarrassed to tell somebody you did.   Ted Robertson  40:34 What you're explaining is how different leadership looks, and even how you describe it, how different it is from command. So now it comes down to trust and accountability and courage, and how do those show up in those conditions?   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  40:51 It was really a matter of, we always knew we were still in the fight. That was one thing that was with us, and so you just kind of conducted yourself with, OK, I'm not going to let myself be used. Now, we also knew that the more you resisted pushed back, the less likely they were to make you go meet an antiwar delegation or write a confession or do something else like that. So they tend to pick on, if you will, the low-hanging fruit or the easier guy to get to. So we always wanted to set the bar just a little bit out of their reach.   Ted Robertson  41:25 All right, having gone through all of that, it really can change people quite profoundly. So when you look back at it, what leadership lessons stayed with you long after you got out of captivity?   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  41:39 In the movie Return of Honor. Capt. Mike McGrath, Navy guy, describes the guys in their ability to resist torture and do things. And that's what you learn. Everybody's got a breaking point. If mine's here and somebody else's is there, that doesn't make me better or worse than them. So you learn to appreciate the talents and the weaknesses. If you know the foibles, the cracks in everybody around you and not to exploit them, but to understand them, and then to be the kind of leader that that they need.   Ted Robertson  42:12 Sir, one of the recurring themes when you're discussing leadership with leaders right is knowing something about each of your people so that you can relate to them in a way that that works for them and motivates them.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  42:23 Yeah. Mark Welch, who's also a graduate and he is a chief of staff of the Air Force, always had a saying: “If you don't know what's going on, it's because you didn't ask.”   Ted Robertson  42:32 Now we're going to roll all that into your long journey between captivity and your visit here to NCLS this year. When you're speaking to the cadets at this year's event, what's your main hope? What do you hope they understand about courage before they even ever face combat?   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  42:54 Well, courage is a reaction to a clear and present threat. Nobody knows how they're gonna — know he's gonna say, OK, I'm gonna go to Vietnam and I want to get shot down, and when the Vietnamese capture me, I'm going to give them a middle finger and I'm going to be the meanest bad ass and hardest-to-break prisoner. Yeah, it's how you respond to the to the immediate perception of bodily harm or being used or something else like that. So courage is, yeah, it just happens. It's not something that you can put in a package and say, “OK, I've got courage.” It's how you respond to the situation, because you might respond quite differently than what you think.   Ted Robertson  43:35 And I have to say, you presented your story and you delivered your message in kind of a unique way. You drew from some contemporary references, specifically three clips from a movie that you like, that I was curious. How did you sum up your entire life in three movie clips from Madagascar? How did you do that?   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  43:57 Well, the three movie clips — when I watched the movie, I was looking at it, I have got two favorite movies. Madagascar is one, and the other is a Kelsey Grammer movie, Down Periscope. I mean, I think that is a perfect study in in leadership. But in the movie Madagascar, the premise was penguins can't fly, but yet it opens up with them applying resource, innovation imagination, and they eventually get this airplane to fly. OK, great. Success. Well, like everything else in life, things go wrong, and you got to have, No. 1, a backup plan, an exit ramp or a control mechanism for the disaster that's pending. So that's the second movie clip we saw. And then the third one was towards the end of the movie, when the crash landing has happened and the skipper asks for an accounting, and he's told that all passengers are accounted for, except two. And he says, that's the number I can live with. And the message there is, you go through life — you're going to have successes, but you're going to have failures, and failure has a cost, and it's not always pleasant, but that's OK, because that's life.   Ted Robertson  45:15 How do you explain how leaders can prepare themselves morally and mentally for moments they can't predict or control.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  45:25 Watch movies like Madagascar and Down Periscope. You know, there's a breadth of unintentional, if you will, guidance on how to be a leader, if you know where to look or if you're looking for it. I mean, that's part of the whole progress program at the Academy. Nobody's going to say, OK, here's a scenario, lead these resources to a proper conclusion. It's kind of like, OK, here's the situation. What do we do? What can we do? What can't we do? It's like, in my presentation, I talk about being able to run across a pasture in nine seconds, in 10 seconds, but if the bull can do it, you're in trouble. So you got to realign your thinking, you got to realign your goals and you got to realign the application of resources. So that's the leadership part, right there. It's a realization of what you can and what you can't do. It's a realization of what you, your people, your resources, can and can't do. It's a realization of what the technology you have at your disposal to do your mission can and can't do. So it's all about workarounds and being flexible. And then the other thing is, we live in a world that just seems to be everything's got a prescription and a protocol on exactly how to do everything. Doesn't work that way. You got to be able to go left and right. You got to be able to be a little imaginative.   Ted Robertson  46:42 What parting thought did you leave the cadets with?   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  46:45 That failure is part of life. It's not death. And I'm part of an organization called American 300 — we go around and talk to young enlisted people and all the services to get them to understand that failure is a learning opportunity. It's not a dagger in the heart, and don't be afraid or ashamed to try, because if you don't, you'll never know what your true potential is. So with the cadets, we close with that last part from the movie Madagascar that basically said, OK, success comes with a price. Be aware and accept it.   Ted Robertson  47:23 All right, we've got to close it out here, but recap, if you would one more time that message that you want cadets to leave here with from having heard you speak.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  47:32 You are now a living, breathing, viable, productive part of our United States Air Force. You bring talents that are unique. Apply them, but understand that they're all very transitory, and you have part of a larger community. If you stick with a community rather than the “I did,” “I want,” I have,” you'll go a long way.   Ted Robertson  47:54 All right, and stepping outside of that very briefly for your final thoughts, what would you like to leave listeners with today.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  48:01 Be proud of the young men and women who are in our military now, not just those at the Air Force Academy. You know, our whole military structure has changed over the years. You know, it's a dynamic world. You got to be flexible and embrace change. We're so reluctant to change. Change is fine, except when you try to change me, is the old saying, but we all have to change. We have to be part of the world in which we live.     Ted Robertson  48:26 Gen. Mechenbier, I want to thank you from all of us for being here sharing those leadership lessons of yours and a lifetime of service that will continue to shape others — future leaders — for a very, very long time to come. We appreciate you very much.   Maj. Gen. Edward Mechenbier  48:43 Thank you much.   Ted Robertson  48:44 Our final conversation brings us to leadership at the strategic level, where decisions affect institutions, alliances and the nation itself. Capt. Charles Plumb, welcome to the podcast today, sir.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  48:56 Thanks, Ted. Appreciate being here.   Ted Robertson  48:59 It is a privilege to have you. You retired as a Navy captain in 1991 and you have not slowed down, not one inch since. We're going to talk a little bit about the work that you're doing in some very interesting spaces. And what informs all of that. Naval Academy, Class of '64.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  49:15 Yep, the Great Class of '64.     Ted Robertson  49:17 The great —that's how you express class pride?   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  49:20 Everybody knows the Great Class of '64.   Ted Robertson  49:23 So you are an Annapolis man.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  49:25 I am, in fact.   Ted Robertson  49:26 No doubt. And a pilot. You flew F-4 Phantoms, and you are a Vietnam-era pilot. You spent most of your time over North Vietnam. Sometimes you got sent to South Vietnam, depending on what was going on. But you said that you have flown 74 combat missions.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  49:45 Actually 74 and a half, Ted. I have one more takeoff and I have landings.   Ted Robertson  49:50 We should remember that, because it's a very important part of your life we haven't talked about yet. Since you got out of captivity, and then you retired a few years later, you became a published author and a speaker, and as such, you have been to every state, several countries, 5,000 presentations you've delivered in the leadership and character development space. Is there any reason you should not be here at NCLS?   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  50:24 Well, I appreciate that. You know, this is a great symposium, and I'm really proud to contribute to it.   Ted Robertson  50:32 Captain, you are a former POW.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  50:36 Yes, I was shot down on my 75th mission and captured, tortured and spent the next 2,103 days in communist prison camps.   Ted Robertson  50:49 You said you got moved around a lot.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  50:52 We did. I was in six different camps, and some of those camps more than once. We never really understood why. We kind of suspected that they wanted to try to deny any fraternization with their guards, and they wanted to keep us on our toes, because they recognized that being military guys, we were going to have leadership, and we were going to have organization and community and we were going to organize, to fight them, and they didn't want that. So they moved us around and kind of shuffled us up, which didn't work. We always had a military organization in every camp that I ever went to.   Ted Robertson  51:31 You found ways to support each other. You found ways to have a leadership structure, even in captivity.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  51:39 We were all fighter pilots or air crews and most of us were we, you know, we had 10 Air Force Academy grads from '64 in five Naval Academy grads from '64 and so we had in a lot of other academy grads. I don't remember how many, but probably 70 total academy grads. And so, you know, we were, we were dedicated. We were lifers. We were, you know, we were very focused guys, which helped out a lot that we knew a lot about military leadership.   Ted Robertson  52:11 You grew up in the Midwest, and you married a Midwestern girl.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  52:15 I did, my high school sweetheart the day after I graduated from Annapolis, we got married in the chapel, and my buddies were holding up their swords as we came out of the chapel. So it was a beautiful day.   Ted Robertson  52:27 Let's go back to how you found your way to the Naval Academy.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  52:32 I was a farm kid from Kansas. Never seen the ocean, never been out of the four states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri. Never been in an airplane, and I needed an education. Found that the Naval Academy offered me an education.   Ted Robertson  52:50 Outside of Air Force Academy circles, you probably already know that we think of, you know, salty sea dog sailors when we think of people going in the Navy, but you chose aviation.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  53:02 I did. As a kid, I would see these Piper Cubs fly over and I was fascinated by flight, and wondered if I'd ever be able to ride in an airplane. That was my thought when I was a kid. I didn't have any hopes of ever being a pilot, you know, let alone a fighter pilot. That was, I was out of the realm. Nobody, as I grew up, ever told me that I could do that, or I should do that, or, you know, it would be a hope of mine to ever pilot an airplane. But I went to the Naval Academy and found out that was one of the options, and I took advantage of that option.   Ted Robertson  53:43 Yeah, and it led you, of course, to over North Vietnam, and the rest is that part of your history   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  53:51 Launched on the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk on my wife's birthday, the 5th of November, wave goodbye to her, and promised her I'd be back in eight months. I didn't make it.   Ted Robertson  54:04 Hard. Very hard story to hear. Let's talk about all of that informing your presentation now, again, 5,000 of these delivered in the leadership and character development space, but you talk a lot about, in your presentation — and you keynoted here at NCLS — the mental game side of this, the integrity, the choices that you have to make, and character that sort of frames all of that.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  54:38 My message to the cadets, and really to most of my audiences, is around challenge and adversity. And I tell the cadets that they work awfully hard trying to get a degree. They study, they go to computers, they read books all to get a degree. And what I point out to them is that more important than the degree that they will get from the Air Force Academy is a character that they build while they are here. That the integrity first, you know, is part of their motto. And if, in fact, they can learn and live that integrity, if they can learn and live the commitment that they have, if they can learn in and live these kind of ethereal things, the things that you can't measure, things you can't define, the things that, you know, that crop up in your in your mind, in the back of your mind, are more important than the lessons they learn from a computer. And so that's kind of my message.   Ted Robertson  55:49 You know, we're in a leadership laboratory here. The art and the science is character development. And you're talking about a kind of character that leads people to make good decisions and make those decisions with integrity in mind. How did that play into your captivity and getting you through that?   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  56:09 You know, of course, I studied leadership at the Naval Academy, and I think that my period of experience more than teaching me anything, it validated what I had learned. And the whole idea — and I love the fact that this is called, you know, the Character and Leadership Symposium, because lots of times you see leadership without character, that's a negative kind of leadership. And if a leader does not have character, he doesn't last very long, and he's not very effective. And so if you can keep your character up front, the leadership can follow easily. And that's pretty much what we had in the prison camps. Several of the qualities of leadership that I promote are the things that almost came natural in a prison camp. First of all, we had to find a focus, a reason. We had to find, you know — and that was developed by our leadership in the prison camp. Return with honor — that was our motto, return with honor. And we all rallied around that.   Ted Robertson  57:22 So all of that said, you're standing here in front of a really big group of people as a keynote speaker, lot of cadets, mostly cadets, yeah.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  57:31 Now there were cadets. I'm speaking on a panel with Ed Mechenbier, my good buddy, and we're on a panel with mostly cadets. The first presentation, the keynote was by invitation only. So there were a number of civilians in the audience, number of cadets. There were Naval Academy midshipmen in my audience today. And we had ROTC people, and, you know, from all over the country. So it was quite a wide audience.   Ted Robertson  58:04 Quite a wide audience. And so if we were just focusing on what you leave with cadets, what do you want them to take away from their experience today?   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  58:15 I hope they understand my message, that more important than the degree that they graduate with, is the character that they graduate with, and the importance of the integrity that that they learned here, because that was vital in the prison camp, is integrity. We had to have each other's back, and when we when we finally were released, we refused to be released until all the sick, injured and enlisted men had gone home, and it was a question of integrity, is a question that this is the right thing to do. It's not the easy thing to do. Largely, the integrity thing to do is not the easiest thing to do, and that's what I wanted to leave with the cadets. In addition, I want them to know that regardless of what situation they're in, they still have a choice, and their choice is the way they respond to the surrounding adversity situation that they're in.   Ted Robertson  59:21 An Annapolis grad of '64, Midwest kid from Kansas who makes it into the cockpit, and like you said, 74 and a half flights, then some time in captivity, then to a published author with thousands of presentations all over the country, and some in in other countries. What final thoughts would you like to leave today, sir?   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  59:47 Well, you know, I think I've already told you, you know, you're a great interviewer, Ted, and I appreciate your questions. I think, finally, this whole idea of self-determination and I think that we all, and not just the cadets, but graduates and families and business people, families. You know that we all have choices, and sometimes when we deny the choice and give up that ability to make our life better for ourselves. And you know, we do it sometimes even when we're not even thinking about it. It's just automatic to blame somebody else for the problem, and in doing so, we give away that choice.   Ted Robertson  1:00:34 Don't give away the choice. Yeah, build that character and stick by your integrity all the time. Capt. J. Charles Plumb, what a privilege it is to meet you, sir. Glad that you're here at NCLs and keynoting like you are, and I do hope that our paths cross again.   Capt. J. Charles Plumb  1:00:52 Ted, thank you very much. I appreciate your willingness to tell my story. Thanks for that.   Ted Robertson  1:00:57 You're welcome, sir. Thank you. Ted Robertson Close As we've heard throughout these conversations, courage isn't a single moment. It's a lifelong practice, from cadets just beginning their journey to leaders shaped by combat and crisis to senior commanders responsible for forces and futures. Character is tested when certainty disappears and it's revealed by how we choose to lead. That's the challenge of the National Character and Leadership Symposium, and it's a challenge that extends far beyond these walls. I'm Ted Robertson, thank you for joining me for our Long Blue Line Podcast Network coverage of the 33rd National Character and Leadership Symposium. This podcast was recorded on Saturday, Feb. 21, 2026.         The Long Blue Line Podcast Network is presented by the U.S. Air Force Academy Association & Foundation      

Hawaiʻi Chief Energy Officer Mark Glick discusses what oil supply disruptions due to the Iran war mean for Hawaiʻi; Devaki Murch and Steven George share their experiences as Vietnamese children brought to the United States for adoption as part of Operation Babylift

Design in Ho Chi Minh is on the up: we speak with one designer who is using the city’s signature restaurant stools as a canvas. Plus: Nic Monisse and Grace Charlton pick highlights of The Monocle 100 from the March issue. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode 3216 of the Vietnam Veteran News Podcast will feature a story about the role of Germans in the French Foreign Legion. The story is titled: The .Forgotten German Veterans of Việt Nam. It appeared on the Vietnamese website and … Continue reading → The post Episode 3216 –  Germans in Indochina: Between Legend and Archive first appeared on Vietnam Veteran News.

A new effort has launched to provide support to Southeast Asian communities across the state navigating detainment and deportation. "The Southeast Asian Defense Response Project" is a collaboration of four different organizations: ManForward, Southeast Asian Freedom Network (SEAFN), Immigration Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM), and Transforming Generations. They report that 2025 marked “the highest level of Hmong and Lao deportations in the last 15 years." Minnesota is home to some of the largest concentrations of various Southeast Asian groups, including Hmong, Lao, Karen, Vietnamese and Cambodian, among others. Xay Yang, executive director of Transforming Generations, shared more about the project with host Nina Moini.If you or someone you know is in a dangerous situation with a partner, there is a 24-hour statewide domestic and sexual violence hotline. You can call Minnesota Day One at (866) 223-1111 or text (612) 399-9995. You can also call or text the Hmong Family Strengthening Helpline at (877) 740-4292.For SEAFN's 24/7 immigration assistance available in Hmong, Khmer, Vietnamese and Lao, call 1-(800) 251-1083. ILCM's intake line can also be reached at 1-(800) 223-1368.

What does Vietnam need to do to break into top 20 economies?This is one of the central topics that host Hảo Trần and Mr. Tony Ngo will explore in Episode 378 of the Vietnam Innovators (English edition) podcast this week.With more than 20 years of experience in finance and entrepreneurship, Tony Ngo is the Co-Founder of 20in20 Partners, a Vietnam-focused advisory and institutional investment platform. There, he works closely with industry leaders and long-term investors to implement high-impact projects across multiple sectors, contributing to sustainable economic growth.He is also the Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Everest Education, an education organization committed to empowering Vietnamese learners in an increasingly globalized world. Drawing on his expertise in corporate governance, business strategy, and product development, Tony Ngo continues to drive growth, enhance educational quality, and create long-term value within the education ecosystem he helps build.---Listen to this episode on YoutubeAnd explore many amazing articles about the pioneers at: https://vietcetera.com/vn/bo-suu-tap/vietnam-innovatorFeel free to leave any questions or invitations for business cooperation at hello@vni-digest.com

When Is the Best Time of year to Visit Vietnam?It sounds simple… but this might be the most misunderstood question I get.Vietnam isn't one climate. It's three distinct regions — North, Central and South — each with their own weather patterns, typhoon seasons, rice harvest colours, humidity swings and “why didn't anyone tell me that?” moments.In this episode of One Question at a Time, I break it down clearly and practically: • The best months for Northern Vietnam — including when the rice terraces turn golden yellow (Instagram magic) and when they're lush green • What to know about typhoon season and how it affects Central Vietnam • When the South shines (and when it steams) • Why “a few bad weather days” are almost normal — and how good trip design works around them • How fixed-date tours handle weather changes • What families can do on unexpected rainy days in places like Hoi An or HanoiThere isn't one perfect time to visit Vietnam.There is, however, a perfect time for you — depending on where you're going, what you want to experience, and how flexible you're prepared to be.This episode gives you the clarity to choose your dates wisely — and avoid planning the wrong region at the wrong time.If you're sweating over finding the one set of dates that will magically cover every base, it might be time to let that idea go — and instead lean into flexibility, aim for the best possible window, and embrace what the Vietnamese do so well… go with the flow.For a month by month guide you might like to check out our blog here – https://www.whataboutvietnam.com/blogpost/a-monthly-travel-guide-to-your-best-experiences-in-vietnam   The best way to connect with me is not via text, it is through the website www.whataboutvietnam.com website and email.Follow on your favourite pod channel, email directly to whataboutvietnam@gmail.com Keep abreast of news on our social pages on FB, IG,LinkedIn and TikTokLet me design your #customised #private tour of Vietnam - See our Travel ServicesDo you need a #Dental Procedure? Why not find out what's possible through our Dental and #Cosmetic Medical partner Worldwide Beauty Hospital. Mention #whataboutvietnam to receive 5% discount at Worldwide Beauty Hospital

The Vietnam War was a tragedy for both the United States and Vietnam. Yet for the Vietnamese, it was also a stunning victory: they defeated the world’s wealthiest nation and its most powerful military. How did they do it? In this gripping episode, we sit down with James Bradley, bestselling author of Flags of Our Fathers, to explore that very question. Drawing on a decade of research and hundreds of interviews with U.S. Marines, Viet Cong snipers, Vietnamese soldiers, political leaders, and civilians on both sides, Bradley offers a deeply human account of what really happened. Through firsthand stories and hard-earned insights, we examine the strategy, resilience, and will that enable a smaller, less-equipped nation to prevail—echoing the timeless story of David and Goliath. This episode challenges what we think we know about the war and reveals how the Vietnamese people achieved one of the most consequential upsets of the twentieth century.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the celebration of Lunar New Year of the Fire Horse

Send a textHỏa Lò Prison was first built during the French Colonial era between 1886 and 1901 in the French Quarter of Hanoi, Vietnam's capital city. During this time, Vietnam was part of French Indochina, a group of French colonial territories in Southeast Asia which was eventually dissolved in the 1950s. As well as various Vietnamese regions, French Indochina consisted of Cambodia, Laos and Guangzhouwan. The city of Hanoi remained the area's capital between 1902 and 1945.Upon first being built, Hỏa Lò Prison was dubbed ‘Maison Centrale' or ‘Central House', and was established to hold Vietnamese revolutionaries and political dissidents, particularly those campaigning for Vietnamese independence. The prison had a grisly reputation from the start: prisoners were known to be subject to torture and brutal interrogation tactics, before finally facing execution. The name ‘Hỏa Lò' emerged some time afterwards, roughly translating to ‘stove', ‘fire kiln' or ‘fiery furnace', and came from the fact that the surrounding neighbourhood was filled with stores selling wood and coal-fire stoves.Support the show

In Man in a Hurry: Murray MacLehose and Colonial Autonomy in Hong Kong (Hong Kong UP, 2024), Ray Yep explores the latest available archival materials and re-examines MacLehose's pivotal governorship in Hong Kong (1971–1982). MacLehose arrived in the challenging 1970s, when there were expectations for social reforms, uneasiness in the relationship between Hong Kong and London, and the 1997 factor looming large. The governor successfully carried out various social reforms and he also handled various major issues, including the anti-corruption campaign, the Vietnamese refugee crisis, and the granting of land lease of the New Territories beyond 1997. Yep unveils the tension and bargaining between the British government and explains how interest of the colony could be asserted, defended, and negotiated. This book is an important study of Hong Kong's ‘golden years' when the city's economy took off. It is a significant contribution to our understanding of how local autonomy was defined. Ray Yep is research director of the Hong Kong History Centre, University of Bristol. Lucas Tse is Examination Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Man in a Hurry: Murray MacLehose and Colonial Autonomy in Hong Kong (Hong Kong UP, 2024), Ray Yep explores the latest available archival materials and re-examines MacLehose's pivotal governorship in Hong Kong (1971–1982). MacLehose arrived in the challenging 1970s, when there were expectations for social reforms, uneasiness in the relationship between Hong Kong and London, and the 1997 factor looming large. The governor successfully carried out various social reforms and he also handled various major issues, including the anti-corruption campaign, the Vietnamese refugee crisis, and the granting of land lease of the New Territories beyond 1997. Yep unveils the tension and bargaining between the British government and explains how interest of the colony could be asserted, defended, and negotiated. This book is an important study of Hong Kong's ‘golden years' when the city's economy took off. It is a significant contribution to our understanding of how local autonomy was defined. Ray Yep is research director of the Hong Kong History Centre, University of Bristol. Lucas Tse is Examination Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In this first episode from Vietnam, Laura and Carrie land in Ho Chi Minh City (aka Saigon) and step straight into the chaos — jet lagged, wide-eyed, and trying to cross streets filled with rivers of motorbikes. They explore its contradictions: honking traffic and quiet hidden alleyways, glass skyscrapers and corrugated tin rooftops. These are their first impressions of Vietnam — loud, complicated, and unforgettable.Then we travel to the Cu Chi Tunnels, a 250-kilometer underground network used by Vietnamese soldiers during the Vietnam War (or the American War, depending on your perspective.) Standing where history actually happened makes the conflict feel real and complex. We learn about French colonialism, Cold War politics, Agent Orange, unexploded bombs, and the lasting impact of war that continues today. We crawl into tunnel entrances, watch propaganda films in a dirt-walled bunker, and confront what it feels like to be an American visitor in a place shaped by that history.This episode is part travel diary, part history lesson, and part personal reflection — and just the beginning of our Vietnam journey.Musical Credits:Get Away In La, by Western Youths, Revolution Fever by Klaatu Verada Necktie, Music provided by: Slipstream Music Xanadon't by Mystery Mammal is licensed under a Attribution License. Black Hawk City Fly-Over.wav by djfinski  License: Attribution 3.0 Whispers in the Trees by Greg Kirkelie is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.  My Native Land by Le Chaos Entre 2 Chaises is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International License. Support the showWant to support the podcast? Go to Laura's Patreon site to see photos from the episode, maps of places she talks about and you can become a patron too!Follow the show on instagram or facebook. Buy any of these products that I fully stand behind- and I'll earn a commission. Buy cute sustainable bags at: https://torrain.org/ Use Promo code: TRAVELALONG to get 15% off. Buy matcha at: https://mantramatcha.com/ Use Promo code: TRAVELALONG to get 15% off. Buy sustainably produced coffee: https://www.afueracoffee.com/ Enter promo code: TRAVELALONG for 15% off. Flowers by Cedric Galke x Fachhochschule Dortmund is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International License.

Part of the reason my guest, French filmmaker Boris Lojkine, has been so amazingly successful with his films, most recently SOULEYMANE'S STORY (2024), is his humility and understanding of how to portray people not like himself.Instead of making a "Parisian film about a middle age couple in the crisis of existential bullshit" -- his words -- he has made feature films that depict the life of an immigrant. Paris was the setting for his latest film, but he wanted it to come across as a foreign ZIP code.This was all borne out of his roots as a documentarian, and I am simply in awe of his story. And the fact that he eschews all social media. You're living the dream, Boris.In this episode, Boris and I discuss:why he's gone beyond most French filmmakers to show France from the outside;how he got his start in filmmaking as a philosophy teaching, making two documentaries in Vietnam;how narrative films can lose the reality of documentaries;the reason immigration factors into so many of his stories;if he's the right person to tell an immigrants' story;telling the story of female protagonists in his films;how Sean Baker helped him get distribution;if he's disappointed that his previous films aren't available for streaming;what led him to create SOULEYMANE'S STORY and the risks he took in making the film;the documentary feeling in his films and how he handles actors;does he see it as a compliment that other people are making films with similar stories?what's next for him and how filmmakers should be more adventurous.Boris' Indie Film Highlights: I ONLY REST IN THE STORM (2025) dir. by Pedro Pinho; A POET (2025) dir. by Simón Mesa SotoMemorable Quotes:"I started to make documentary films because my ex-wife was making documentary films and I saw how she was doing and I thought, okay, I will try to do my my own films too.""I wanted to make films abroad. I was not interested in making a Parisian film about a middle age couple in the crisis of existential bullshit.""There is the question of legitimacy and sometimes people, usually young people, younger people than younger than I am from, from another generation, they ask me, what's your legitimacy? And now I answer my legitimacy is zero. But because my legitimacy is zero, I have to work more.""I have to listen, and I think the most important thing in my work is not to direct, but to listen.""I was talking with a Congolese director. And my neighbor in the restaurant, he told me, oh, you are Boris. I watched your film yesterday and it's an incredible film. Let me talk to my friend Sean Baker, and he talked to his friend Sean Baker, who made a tweet. And the week after, we had a distributor, you know, sometimes you just have to eat Vietnamese in a restaurant."Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/first-time-go/exclusive-content

In Man in a Hurry: Murray MacLehose and Colonial Autonomy in Hong Kong (Hong Kong UP, 2024), Ray Yep explores the latest available archival materials and re-examines MacLehose's pivotal governorship in Hong Kong (1971–1982). MacLehose arrived in the challenging 1970s, when there were expectations for social reforms, uneasiness in the relationship between Hong Kong and London, and the 1997 factor looming large. The governor successfully carried out various social reforms and he also handled various major issues, including the anti-corruption campaign, the Vietnamese refugee crisis, and the granting of land lease of the New Territories beyond 1997. Yep unveils the tension and bargaining between the British government and explains how interest of the colony could be asserted, defended, and negotiated. This book is an important study of Hong Kong's ‘golden years' when the city's economy took off. It is a significant contribution to our understanding of how local autonomy was defined. Ray Yep is research director of the Hong Kong History Centre, University of Bristol. Lucas Tse is Examination Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

In Man in a Hurry: Murray MacLehose and Colonial Autonomy in Hong Kong (Hong Kong UP, 2024), Ray Yep explores the latest available archival materials and re-examines MacLehose's pivotal governorship in Hong Kong (1971–1982). MacLehose arrived in the challenging 1970s, when there were expectations for social reforms, uneasiness in the relationship between Hong Kong and London, and the 1997 factor looming large. The governor successfully carried out various social reforms and he also handled various major issues, including the anti-corruption campaign, the Vietnamese refugee crisis, and the granting of land lease of the New Territories beyond 1997. Yep unveils the tension and bargaining between the British government and explains how interest of the colony could be asserted, defended, and negotiated. This book is an important study of Hong Kong's ‘golden years' when the city's economy took off. It is a significant contribution to our understanding of how local autonomy was defined. Ray Yep is research director of the Hong Kong History Centre, University of Bristol. Lucas Tse is Examination Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Where Y'Eat: Food Lovers Find a Master Class in Vietnamese Flavor at Tet Festival

Today we are talking about chapter 23 of the Sunbearer Trials by Aiden Thomas.The Patreon version of this episode contains ~10 minutes of bonus content about Teo's poor, tired wings, Jessie's newfound love of dates (the fruit), our love of Vietnamese food, Our Flag Means Death, and irl piracy.Here are all the deets on the zine! Here's the Storygraph readalong for The Sunbearer TrialsAnd here's the one for Celestial Monsters!Please consider joining our Patreon and/or sticker club! You can now give subscriptions as gifts as well!Find your hosts upon the internet:Check out Lark's art, his website, and his instagramFollow Jessie on instagram and BlueskyFollow the pod on Instagram and Bluesky!Send us your Cozy Corner content here

Across the globe, more than one billion people are celebrating Lunar New Year — ushering in the Year of the Fire Horse with good food and good company.We discuss local celebrations including the upcoming San Diego Tết Festival, featuring traditional performances and cultural activities.Also, we sit down with two restaurateurs to learn about the culinary traditions of Lunar New Year from a Vietnamese and Chinese perspective.Guests:Tri Luu, board director and chair of partnerships, Vietnamese American Youth AllianceVan Nguyen, 2025 Miss Vietnam San Diego pageant queenKim Phan, owner of Kingfisher, Crab Hut and Phở Gà Go restaurantsAllen Chan, owner of Jasmine Seafood Restaurant

In a heartfelt conversation in this episode, author Quế Mai shared her inspiring journey as a writer and the powerful themes explored in her novel, DUST CHILD. The discussion illuminated the significance of reclaiming narratives that have long been silenced, particularly the stories of Vietnamese women during and after the Vietnam War.Quế Mai's passion for storytelling was ignited in her childhood in Vietnam, where her family's poverty during the American trade embargo. Despite being discouraged from pursuing a writing career due to danger and financial instability, and after a successful career in business, she returned to her writing aspirations, feeling a strong calling to tell the stories of Vietnam from the Vietnamese perspective, countering the often one-dimensional narratives presented in Western literature.In her quest to document the experiences of Vietnamese affected by the war, Quế Mai drew from interviews with Vietnamese and Americans and their stories of regret, loss, and hope. In DUST CHILD she aimed to capture the complexities of love, sacrifice, and the deep scars left by war, especially from the viewpoint of women who were too often overlooked in historical accounts.The novel's central characters, two sisters, embody the diverse experiences of women during the war. Quế Mai noted how their contrasting personalities reflect the multifaceted nature of resilience and survival. One sister is dreamy and romantic, while the other is pragmatic and fiercely independent. Through their lives, the author illustrates how the war affected women differently, yet profoundly, showcasing their strength and vulnerability.Quế Mai's writing style blends poetic elements with prose, aiming to evoke the Vietnamese spirit in her storytelling. She shared that her upbringing in a culture steeped in poetry greatly influenced her writing approach. The result is a narrative that resonates emotionally, inviting readers to engage deeply with the characters and their journeys.As a Vietnamese woman writing in English, Quế Mai faced unique challenges, including overcoming language barriers and cultural differences. However, her dedication to conveying authenticity drove her to refine her craft, ensuring that her characters' voices were genuine reflections of their experiences. She emphasized the importance of understanding the cultural context when representing characters from different backgrounds, as seen in her portrayal of Dan, an American veteran.Quế Mai's DUST CHILD is more than just a novel; it is a heartfelt tribute to the women of Vietnam and an exploration of the lasting impact of war on families and communities. Through her journey as a writer, she emphasizes the importance of reclaiming narratives and recognizing the humanity in every story. As we reflect on her insights, we are reminded of the power of storytelling in bridging cultures and healing wounds.

For more of my latest content, subscribe to my YouTube channel, Dark Asia with Megan and join our awesome community. Your support means everything, and I can't wait to share more Asian cases with you! On Other Platforms: • TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@darkasiawithmegan • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/darkasiawithmegan • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/darkasiameganlee Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tâm is the first listener-suggested guest, thanks to regular listener, Brandon Coleman. Tâm is an entertaining and interesting guest that has an in-depth story and many insights to share about life in Saigon, which can be seen by the length of this episode. Born in Texas to Vietnamese refugees, Tâm moved to Saigon after a stint in Singapore. Here in Saigon she worked at an international branding agency but soon started creating Vietnamese-Mexican dishes and hosting dinners out of her apartment, creating a closed-door restaurant named Saigonita. Soon Saigonita appeared in Vice Munchies and was profiled in Saigoneer so she decided to quit her corporate career to pursue her passion in food. Since then, she's been interviewed by publications in Vietnam, Singapore, the US, Italy, France; and has given a TEDx Talk. She is currently getting to more deeply know her roots and explore Vietnam's culinary scene through travels around the country.-------------------Theme music composed by Lewis Wright.Main Cover Art designed by Niall Mackay and Le Nguyen.Episode art designed by Niall Mackay, with pictures supplied by guests and used with permission."Send me a message!"Support the show

Episode Summary:In this episode of Explaining History, Nick returns to the grim realities of the Vietnam War through the eyes of one of the 20th century's most formidable journalists: Martha Gellhorn.Drawing on Philip Knightley's The First Casualty, we explore how Gellhorn—a veteran of the Spanish Civil War and D-Day—exposed the "hearts and minds" strategy as a hollow lie. While American generals bragged about "zapping Charlie Cong," Gellhorn visited the hospitals and refugee camps, documenting the civilian carnage inflicted by US firepower.Nick delves into the racialized hatred that fueled the war, examining how the dehumanization of the Vietnamese people ("dinks," "gooks") led to a culture of normalized depravity where ears were taken as trophies and massacres were dismissed as "turkey shoots." We also discuss how the US military learned from the PR disasters of Vietnam to create the sanitized "embedded" journalism of the Gulf Wars.Plus: A reminder for history students! Our American History Masterclass (1945-74) is this Sunday, February 15th. Join us for a deep dive into the Cold War, Civil Rights, and Vietnam.Key Topics:Martha Gellhorn: The reporter who refused to look away from civilian suffering.Dehumanization: How racism became a "patriotic virtue" in Vietnam.The Myth of Hearts and Minds: The disconnect between official rhetoric and the reality of napalm.Managing the Media: Why newspapers refused to print the truth about American atrocities.Books Mentioned:The First Casualty by Philip KnightleyDispatches by Michael HerrMaoism: A Global History by Julia LovellExplaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Remastered edition: re‑edited and shortened for clarity and pace.A cargo aircraft built for tanks, not toddlers. A city collapsing in April 1975. And a young Air Force medic from Flint who boarded anyway.In this Radio Free Flint interview, Flint‑born Air Force hero Sgt. Phillip Wise recounts the harrowing crash of an Air Force transport plane loaded with hundreds of orphaned Vietnamese‑American babies, his survival in the cargo hold, and his decades‑long quest to honor the lost and the rescued.Wise traces his journey from Flint Southwestern High School to the U.S. Air Force, where he served as a senior medical technician on aeromedical missions across Southeast Asia. When President Gerald Ford authorized Operation Babylift to evacuate Vietnamese orphans, Wise's unit transitioned from the DC-9 Nightingale to the massive C-5A Galaxy to move hundreds of children in a single flight.Fifteen minutes after takeoff from Saigon, the rear cargo doors failed. The aircraft rapidly decompressed. Hydraulics were crippled. The crew fought to return to Tan Son Nhut Air Base before the C-5A crash-landed in rice fields outside the city.The disaster became one of the most devastating aviation accidents of the Vietnam War.Wise survived the cargo compartment impact and later received the Airman's Medal for heroism. He reflects on rescue efforts, months of recovery, reunions with now-adult adoptees, and the complicated legacy of Operation Babylift—heroism, loss, identity, and the ethics of wartime evacuation.This is a firsthand account of the 1975 Operation Babylift crash, told by a Michigan veteran who lived through one of the final tragedies of the Vietnam War.Sgt. Wise wrote the book "Fragile Delivery: Operation Babylift" which sheds light on the Boeing C-5A crash. His writing sheds light on the doomed flight, the brave men and women involved in Operation Babylift, and one man's story of near-impossible survival in the horrifying shadow of death as the plane split violently apart in swampy rice paddies.Sgt Wise was the only crew on the cargo area of the plane to survive the tragic plane crash. Wise told the Flint Journal, "The doctors thought I would be a vegetable. They thought I wouldn't be able to see out of my left eye or to walk,” the Flint resident and decorated veteran said. “I came through with 20-20 vision. I became a mailman. I missed one day in 13 years."The U.S. Air Force bestowed upon Phillip Wise a medal for his heroism for his part in the military operation to rescue these children.  Phillip Wise is part of a veterans group Peaceful Warriors who speak across Michigan and the US about their role in helpThe Mitten Channel is a network of podcasts.  

How does emotion shape the landscape of public intellectual debate? In Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past (Harvard UP, 2025), Hang Tu proposes emotion as a new critical framework to approach a post-Mao cultural controversy. As it entered a period of market reform, China did not turn away from revolutionary sentiments. Rather, the post-Mao period experienced a surge of emotionally charged debates about red legacies, ranging from the anguished denunciations of Maoist violence to the elegiac remembrances of socialist egalitarianism. Sentimental Republic chronicles forty years (1978–2018) of bitter cultural wars about the Maoist past. It analyzes how the four major intellectual clusters in contemporary China—liberals, the Left, cultural conservatives, and nationalists—debated Mao's revolutionary legacies in light of the postsocialist transition. Should the Chinese condemn revolutionary violence and “bid farewell to socialism”? Or would a return to revolution foster alternative visions of China's future path? Tu probes the nexus of literature, thought, and memory, bringing to light the dynamic moral sentiments and emotional excess at work in these post-Mao ideological contentions. By analyzing how rival intellectual camps stirred up melancholy, guilt, anger, and resentment, Tu argues that the polemics surrounding the country's past cannot be properly understood without reading the emotional trajectories of the post-Mao intelligentsia. Hang Tu is Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore and Deputy Director of the CCKF–NUS Southeast Asia Center for Chinese Studies. A scholar of Chinese literature and thought, his research focuses on the cultural politics of emotion in modern and contemporary China. His work has appeared in Critical Inquiry, The Journal of Asian Studies, Modern Intellectual History, MCLC, and Prism. Camellia (Linh) Pham is a PhD student in Comparative Literature at Harvard University. Her research focuses on modern Vietnamese literature, socialist realism, and literary translation across French, Vietnamese, Chinese, and English. She can be reached at cpham@g.harvard.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

SPONSORS: - Sponsored by Pepsi. Go try Pepsi Zero Sugar today. Let Your Taste Decide. - Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/BEARS. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. - Get 10% off your first month of BlueChew Gold with code BEARS at https://bluechew.com - Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial and start selling today at https://shopify.com/bears - Sponsored by BetterHelp. BetterHelp makes it easy to get matched online with a qualified therapist. Sign up and get 10% off at https://BetterHelp.com/bears - Head to https://factormeals.com/bears50off and use code bears50off to get 50 percent off and free breakfast for a year. - Get up to 55% off at https://Babbel.com/BEARS. This week on Two Bears, One Cave, Tom Segura and Bert Kreischer spiral gloriously through brand loyalty, fast-food hot takes, donuts, Super Bowl commercials, health scares, and the kind of brutally honest conversations only best friends can have. The Bears break down why Pepsi Zero Sugar might actually be better than Coke Zero, debate McDonald's fries vs. literally everyone else, and revisit classic brand wars like Burger King vs. McDonald's and Dunkin' vs. Krispy Kreme. From Blooming Onion horror stories to why you should never order seafood at a steakhouse, this episode is packed with food takes that will absolutely start arguments. Bert also opens up about his recent blood clot scare, panic attacks, medications, and how the experience completely shifted his perspective on health, mortality, and gratitude. The guys also talk sleep apnea machines, Benadryl addictions, Mounjaro side effects, testosterone confusion, and why medical advice somehow never agrees ever. Plus: donut shop conspiracies in Los Angeles, Cambodian vs. Vietnamese sandwich excellence, Krispy Kreme's wild history, Instagram's “fatties eating” algorithm, tracking down Ari Shaffir in the jungle, and why the 2 Bears 5K might literally save lives. 2 Bears, 1 Cave Ep. 324 https://tomsegura.com/tour https://www.bertbertbert.com/tour https://store.ymhstudios.com Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:00:06 - Brand Wars 00:07:07 - Weight Loss Drugs 00:14:58 - Pepsi Challenge 00:22:40 - I Bought A Donut Shop 00:39:22 - Coin Pusher 00:40:54 - 2 Bears 5K Is Back! 00:45:13 - Bert's Blood Clot 00:49:38 - Where In The World Is Ari Shaffir? 00:54:39 - Black Appreciation 01:00:41 - Wrap Up Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The world's okayest morning radio show offers you the entire broadcast from today with none of the music and limited commercials. Try to enjoy!

In January 2016, a coffee date between three glamorous Indonesian gal pals turned deadly – when Mirna Salihin, a wealthy and beautiful newlywed, took a sip of a Vietnamese iced coffee that had been laced with a lethal dose of cyanide. The culprit? Her ex-bestie Jessica Wongso. The motive? A toxic case of the green eyed monster: with revenge served ice cold.At least, that's how the Indonesian courts said it went down. But was it really that simple? A bungled trial, dodgy test results and a crooked legal system meant that many now believe Jessica Wongso could be innocent – no matter how guilty her smile. But what do we think? Join us as we explore the case that divided Indonesia... and left a pretty bitter taste in our mouths.Watch this episode on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/yc7jH8nWB4k--Patreon - Ad-free & Bonus EpisodesYouTube - Full-length Video EpisodesTikTok / InstagramSources and more available on redhandedpodcast.com

When school friends Jessica Wongso and Mirna Salihin caught up for coffee in Jakarta's upscale Olivier Cafe in January 2016, it was supposed to be a friendly get together. Then, moments after taking a sip from her Vietnamese iced coffee, Mirna collapsed and died. What unravelled was one of Indonesia's most controversial murder trials with the question on everyone's lips - did Jessica Wongso poison Mirna with cyanide?---Casefile Archives is a series of special bonus releases revisiting the earliest years of the show. The re-run episodes have been completely edited, polished, re-recorded and freshly produced from start to finish to match our current production standards. They are not complete rewrites - our goal wasn't to alter the cases or reshape the writing, but to preserve the original storytelling while giving the production the refinement it didn't have when we started the show back in 2016. Where appropriate, updates have been added, but the core structure and storytelling remain faithful to the originals. Because of this, these re-releases may sound a little different to our recent episodes, but they allow us to bring some of the earliest episodes up to the technical quality listeners expect today.---Narration – Anonymous HostResearch & writing – Elsha McGillProduction & music – Mike MigasAudio editing – Anthony TelferSign up for Casefile Premium:Apple PremiumSpotify PremiumPatreonFor all credits and sources, please visit https://casefilepodcast.com/casefile-archives-4-mirna-salihin Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.