On Stupidity and Elections

It's a common refrain, but I've been hearing it more and more of late from the American politics people at my Ph.D. program: American voters are stupid. They make poor decisions, they support parties and politicians who manifestly do not advance agendas that would help them. They elected Bush. What's the matter with Kansas, anyway?

And of course, the common response to these points is to throw one's hands in the air and shrug.

Now, I can certainly appreciate the frustration. I think certain voters have been making idiotic statements about how it was the Democrats that were ruining the country for the past eight years (nevermind that Republicans controlled all branches of government). However, I can't go along with the idea that Americans are dumb (at least when it comes to voting). There are a lot of smart people out there, certainly smarter than me in their own areas of expertise, and definitely more knowledgeable about the matters that affect their lives directly.

So, I want to claim that Americans are dumb, I have to include myself in that measure. The more I get into this Ph.D. program, the more I am convinced that people don't know all that much more about the consequences of political decisions. Sure, I may know more than the average person about the debates, facts, and theories surrounding a political question. But that doesn't mean that I necessarily know more about who will ulimately make a better president, whether a particular decision will turn out for the best.

It's like forecasting the weather. Sure, it helps a lot to have more information. But that doesn't mean you're going to be right. And so I'm wary of painting other Americans as stupid without recognizing my own limitations.

Primary Colors

I’m an Obama supporter, but only lately come to the game. Up until the whole gas tax thing, I was perfectly fine with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination. But that move (and the whole combined ticket thing) solidified my sense that Clinton panders too much and is greedy for power, rather than the public good.

And Saturday’s shenanigan’s demonstrated that amply. I can certainly understand why Clinton’s doing what she’s doing. But having Democratic Party members shouting “McCain in ‘08” is just plain bad for the party and the prospects for a real renunciation of the many mistakes made during the Bush years.

So, here’s a message for all the Clinton supporters (who also read this blog – surely a hefty number). First, this nomination contest is an internal election for a private organization. The DNC doesn’t need to count your vote if you didn’t follow their rules. There was no vote fraud, no manipulation. You knew going into primary booth that your vote wouldn’t count. You gambled that the state party could stand up to the DNC, and you lost. This is an apt time to use the Chinese phrase “huo gai”, or “You deserve it.” In 2000, people went to the ballot box thinking that it would. That makes this an entirely different ballgame.

Second, this whole talk about “reassigning” votes. You’re assuming that people who voted for Clinton support Clinton, and the DNC is undermining the will of the voters by giving Obama a higher percentage than he deserves. That’s only partly correct, but you’re forgetting a cardinal rule of elections. Elections are contests between the people on the ballots. So in Michigan, a vote cast for Clinton was not a vote against Obama. To have that, he would need to actually have been on the ballot. After all, the will of the voter could easily have been “Well, I can’t vote for my candidate, so I might as well vote for Clinton.”

Now, of course in Florida, Obama was on the ballot. But then, it wasn’t an even contest. From all the elections that my organization has looked at internationally, there emerges a simple rule. When you can’t campaign, name recognition wins. And at the time, that clearly went in Clinton’s favor.

Democratic elections (small “d” ones) are hard. They require a lot of different elements to be balanced and respected: campaign time, equitable access to fundraising, equitable positioning on the ballot, etc. You can’t pick and choose the way the Clinton people are doing and still proclaim yourself on the side of democratic elections. It then just becomes a means to obtain power, and that’s exactly why Clinton turned me off.

Political Reading

Since I'm completely checked out at work (even though I shouldn't be), I wanted to share some great political articles I've been reading. I often pick these up from www.aldaily.com.

Thunder from Tibet - An excellent article on the protests and violence in Tibet in March.

Obama on Zionism and Hamas
- Obama's thoughts on Israel and the U.S. in the Middle East more generally.

Confessions of a Sweatshop Inspector - Great look at the methods of ensuring corporate social responsibility.

Not meaning to bum-rush China...

but this particular happening came up during my morning crawl through comic news. It's not terribly surprising, but I'm always astonished how wholesale copying can be now, at least James Fry and the Stephen Glass and the like made stuff up--this is like that Opal Mehta nonsense with Mad Libs plagiarism. Not exactly lazier, I guess, since printing and layout is resource consuming. But damn. It reminds me that I have a friend who was based in Hong Kong for a while, as a lawyer, and looking to work in China specifically with intellectual property, but didn't stay for, amongst other reasons, the complete lack of IP law/enforcement/basis of trying that specialization in China right now.

But in the midst of all this pent-up bad Chinaness, I wanted to point to a Slate piece (which I can't find right now, but I will) that put should put some of their development in context (which, I'm sorry, I can't resist, is not something the Chinese media is every involved in doing). Namely that while the process of modernizing China is inarguably flawed , this is an undertaking that has dragged the largest mass of humanity out of poverty ever. The scale doesn't excuse the Reign of Terror style of politics that has often emerged, but likewise it's an achievement on its own merits.

Actually, I mostly think that economic development, Communism (not that they're really so Communist anymore) did force the leveling of gender rights in China. I doubt it's equal, much as it isn't in the U.S., but given the extremely male-centric culture there's been a lot down for women's rights by China. Whether this will progress into a leadership and advocacy role when the economic gains by such moves aren't so obvious (or even develop into self-awareness of it) is in question. Imagine if the Edison Chen stupidness had provoked a discussion about the obviously skeevy at best(consenting adults aside) fact that a popular and influential male star took advantage of his position over more than half a dozen women, and will likely be the only one with a career after.

Or if instead of responding to the U.S. State Department's annual list of human rights violations, China responded with not a relatively week list of America's own, but statistics about the millions they can raise out of poverty? I mean, when Chinese achievements aren't "scientists" scraping off the Intel logo off microchips.

Oops, sorry, can't help it.

It's all so stupid

I was planning to write a big post about Tibet this week, but now that I'm sitting down and writing it, it just seems like such a lame thing to do. The whole situation is just so weird and bad. Early in March, some Tibetans were arrested for a peaceful protests around Lhasa. On March 14th, violent ethnic riots erupt. Ethnic Tibetans were the main instigators of the violence, smashing Han and Hui stores and killing a few people.

Pretty bad, right? The thing is, that's not even the beginning. A few western media outlets picked up the story; several quoted sources (free Tibet groups), falsely blaming ethnic Chinese people for the violence. CNN and several French and German sites stupidly used cropped images of police arrests (the Tibetan rioters in the back ground were cut out), and images of police brutality from India and Nepal, which were attributed in the stories to China. Many of the western media outlets focused on China's history of brutality in the region, glossed over the fact that Tibetans were the instigators in this most recent violent outburst, and generally stuck to their talking points about China, human rights, and Tibet.

Now the fun begins. Overseas Chinese students-- the only mainlanders with access to western media stories because China at that moment was in total media blackout--were outraged at the shoddy reporting in western media and began a wide internet protest campaign. This website was created, among others.

The free Tibet folks, seeing an opportunity to grab the media spotlight, staged protests during China's Olympic tour in Europe and USA. They were violent, and they seemed to go out of their way to alienate by attacking elderly and disabled torch bearers. Western media outlets dropped the ball again by highlighting the protesters and "ominous-looking" Chinese security, and by deciding not to interview Chinese relay participants.

This has only increased Chinese outrage against the media, and western media in general. There have been violent blockades of the French chain, Carrefour, in China. Videos like this are easy to find.

There's so much going on here: hack journalism, angry nationalism, politics (come on, backing out of the opening ceremony is such a lame pointless move), oh yeah, and there is also the issue of oppression, which, while being constantly shoved to the front, often falls back out of sight.

Where to begin?

Senioritis

As I'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed in June, I've completely checked out of work. Instead, my days are filled with surfing of weird and interesting stories on the web. Sadly, the ones that have captured my attention are the whole Mormon splinter group cult thing, the related issue of forced marriage, the pro-Tibet/pro-China protests, and (on a lighter note) trying to figure out if it's a good idea to build a Tivo (doesn't look like it. Hey, NYC people - what are the cable providers up there?).

Being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to discuss the pro-Tibet/pro-China issue. I've already talked about the limitations on having a rational discussion about the situation in Tibet: no reliable information. But what's really surprised me are the pro-China protesters in the U.S. Granted, it seems like many of them are from China (the interviews have lots of foreign students, but I think that's just of function of it being San Fran). However, I can't help feeling a touch of sadness over the fact that they still believe the PRC line, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For example:

The Olympics shouldn't be political. Please - they've always been political. If they weren't political, then China shouldn't be using it to showcase its global emergence. The entire route was specifically designed TO BE political, like stamping PRC sovereignty over Tibet and Xinjiang.

Support for the PRC. I can certainly understand that people want to support their culture, etc. But, the pro-Chinese demonstrators go further. They support the PRC government. At least with many of the Arabs I know, they are proud of coming from a long culture, but recognize and denounce the human rights abuses, corruption, and general venality of political leaders in the Middle East. The pro-Chinese protestors don't display any of this self-reflection. Granted, some of this is probably just reaction to a perceived outsider critique of China. But honestly, this quote from a student? "The Chinese people are very peaceful. They wouldn’t do what they are accused of.” Come on, man. The Chinese have been doing that to others and to each other for thousands of years. Where's the rational perspective?

China has been helping Tibet. Similar to the last point. Fine, China invests a lot in Tibet. But looking at this purely from an economic perspective is idiotic. It's about politics and power: who gets the money, can Tibetans practice their religious beliefs, what about the side effects of a depressed economy for a certain group of people and second class status in their own territory (like drug use)? I understand that people in China don't get the information to acknowledge these issues. But pro-Chinese in the U.S.? In the wake of the riots, it's impossible to believe that they were carried out by a small "clique" of individuals. Those were massive, widespread, and expressed great frustration with the economic and especially cultural degradation by the PRC. At the least, there needs to be some sense of humility about this, that economic investment hasn't been particularly successful, and that Beijing has given something of a raw deal to minorities.

Ah, that was cathartic. Now, if only the pro-China protestors would read this.

Tibet and Taiwan

Some of this is coming a little late, but hey, I was hiking through mud while carrying a debilitating stomach bug.

Anyway, one of the obvious big pieces of news are the riots in Tibet. I can't add any additional analysis to what's already out there, but one question floating in the blogosphere did pique my interest. Namely, can you have a meaningful dialogue with the opposing side given the restrictions on information? I think it's clearly impossible with the rabid bloggers that have been unleashed on the Chinese side. However, I hold out hope that other Chinese netizens are willing to acknowledge that things in Tibet have not gone well for Tibetans, that their history is filtered, and that they don't have access to all the resources that people in the West do.

This is probably a fool's hope. But, I do wish that the Chinese government would recognize that democracy and free speech/press is typically a moderating force. With increased dialogue on the issues comes (ideally) increased respect for the other side. Now, they probably recognize this and want to stir up nationalism. But ultimately that's a failed policy. The anti-Japanese riots several years back are a clear indication of this: eventually you lose control, and that is ultimately constricting on the government's freedom of action.

Now, Taiwan. Obviously, I'm disappointed with the result. But this is a good time for the DPP to take stock and institute the internal reforms that people have been grumbling about for at least two years. However, even beyond this, I'm more disappointed with the analysis coming out of the State Department. They love the fact that the KMT won, and they should. But I don't think they realize the extent of Taiwanese nationalism - the feeling among Taiwanese that they should decide the country's future and no one else. None of this "the 1.3 billion Chinese will decide" crap: that's clearly not in keeping with international law.

But the fact that this feeling is widespread and strongly felt is an issue for the U.S. This election didn't change the political sentiment on this issue: it just kicked it down the road a bit. The U.S. still has to find a way to meaningfully resolve the Taiwan Strait issue in such a way that it doesn't allow China to threaten more U.S. interests. Even more, the U.S. needs to find a moral, democratic solution to the tensions. Economic inducements only go so far, and you only need to look to Tibet to see that.

We don't want no european decadence!*

Eliot Spitzer has taken a tumble and, at least before the financial business this week, the NY media engines has revelled in a having a new topic outside of the Democractic primary campaigns--a nice break I actually. Curiously, I was more surprised (shock is too strong) than coworkers and the like about the situation. I don't think of myself as a prude (so I guess the real shock to me is the realization that I'm not the go-to cynic in every conversation--there was a time I'd have laid bets on that certainty) but no one seemed terribly surprised. Mind you , it could certainly be that one of those reflexive "Oh, that always happens things. Aren't they always?" Which is obviously not true, or else, well or else there'd be more stories. But there aren't, because I don't live in Rhode Island.

So anyway, it's nice and all that some quarters are taking this opportunity to talk about the true effects of prostitution. The results in Sweden of the legalization of selling sex combined with the criminalization of buying sex on trafficking, and prostitution rates in general being especially interesting. Some of the commentary touched upon this article by the inestimable Martha Nussbaum, which if you read, you will see focuses greatly on prostitution an how the laws and enforcement reflect other things, but begins with the trope of the American among sophisticated Europeans wondering about American prudery. Why for are we lingering on the prurient when there is so much more to discuss?

Well, beyond the fact that we in New York are one of the few cities with vibrant enough daily papers to have the need to for some tabloid fare, so obviously there's inches to fill, he was the freakin' attorney general elected on a reform campaign. Not by a little bit. It is possible that the reaction is less about the sex, then about the hypocrisy. Also, the sheer stupidness of a former prosecutor laying out the trail that he did. Not all laws are moral, but breaking the law usually isn't. **

Also in the past week, there was also the release of Funny Games by Michel Haneke. I think the AV Club lays out the most generous and informative take on it. I'm pretty sympathetic to these sorts of art stunts, and after seeing Cache (which I consider one of the finest films I've ever seen), I have a great deal of respect for the director, with a generosity of spirit I don't think I'd extend to either Lars Von Trier (pretentious European provocateur) or the genre related if not intellectually (or only disingenuously) torture porn and ultraviolence these days. Maybe Oldboy gets a pass, but god I hate locked room stories. Long exposition aside, a comment mentioned the fact that even if the movie were a success in the manner Haneke intends, that is as an indictment of the audience as complicit in violence in our culture, he'd probably think that we as Americans liked it because of the torture. So to the continent that created this and other insightful fare like Irreversibleah I say back off. We get it. You aren't that smart. Or we don't, like everyone else. This business is only slightly more annoying than the Americans don't have passports cliche.

But in the interests of equal time, I say it has been fascinating to see the likes Naomi Watts promoting arthouse fare on Leno and the like. And follow it on to Funny Games review itself, but alright. Maybe we don't get it.

*I don't actually care about European decadence.

** Edited to fix stupidity.

Annoying Politics

I’m still working my way through Bioshock, so more on that and a response to Duvall’s post later. It’s engrossing, although I’m not sure that it quite reaches the level of “games as art.” Nevertheless, it’s an interesting exploration of Objectivism and where it all falls apart. Question: do gamers generally find Objectivism more appealing?

Anyway, this post is about the ’08 Election. A couple sound bites/positions have annoyed me to an unusual degree, and I thought I’d rant here.

Flip-Flopping – We all remember this: Bush supporters who lambasted Kerry for being a flip-flopper on his Iraq War vote. Granted, it was a politically brilliant sound bite (for Bush).

Fast forward four years, and many of those same Republican supporters are being asked about Romney and his flip-flopping. Perhaps it's the media echo chamber, but the majority of responses from Romney supporters have been “He flipped the right way, so I’m fine with that.”

Which of course means that going back on your opinion is not the horrible thing that Bush makes it to be. These guys don't care about flip flopping: they care about ideological agreement. What gets me is that they just can't admit that. It strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps self-deluding/denial.

Barack “Hussein” Obama – This has been in the news more recently. Slate had an article about it, where Republicans were calling attention to Obama’s middle name and essentially saying “We’re not trying to send a political message. We’re just calling him by his name.”

Sure. And Fox News was a model of journalistic ethics when it ran the madrassa issue (I’ve been to Obama's school, by the way. It’s gorgeous.). The issue I have with this is that it taps into something ultimately nasty and destructive in American politics (or really all politics) - the need to exclude what's different. It's exactly why we've been so unsuccessful in the War on Terror: the U.S. simply cannot work with or deal with individuals when they cast them as an undifferentiated, sometimes incomprehensible group.

And when you stoop to calling out a candidate's name because you want to draw negative associations with Islam, you appeal to and empower those instincts. I'm glad John McCain rebuked that radio talk show host. But I only expect more of this from the 527s as the campaign progresses.

Anyway, for something a little more fun, check out this blog.

This is why blogs exist

I want share the fact that every time I see a wil.i.am produced video supporting Obama, I want to change sides. God, they're like Apple commercials or something.

I have half a mind to start a facebook group called "wil.i.am made me switch" except it would increase my involvement in facebook beyond my accepted copyright-infringing board game playing.

I won't sully this virtual ground of intellectual discourse and items of marginal interest by actually linking to the videos, you can find it if yourselves if you like. Dipdive or some shit.

Intelligence

Enough has been said about the latest National Intelligence Estimate's findings on Iran in the media, and there's enough in there to cast lots of (deserved) doubt on Bush's policies. But the biggest issue for me is not that Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons: I still suspect that they are pushing for some kind of nuclear program. Rather, it's that Bush's past positions make it incredibly difficult to pursue the only remaining policy option with international support: work through the IAEA.

Ahmadinejad is correct: Iran has a right to use nuclear power for energy, and Tehran's rationale for pursuing nuclear energy makes a certain economic sense. But he's wrong in a critical way: Iran cannot pursue nuclear power unless it declares its production sites and allows international inspectors unfettered access to those sites. This was always been the sticking point for me. Tehran could have gotten nuclear power through the existing international system. But why didn't it? If their intentions were peaceful, there's nothing stopping them.

But unfortunately, Bush has made hay about taking a "strong" stand against Tehran, which has forced it to eschew the carrot side of any negotiations. The U.S. could easily and clearly have said, "We respect your right to nuclear power, but you have to comply with existing international rules." Instead, the threats of war have muddled the message and American credibility, and this latest NIE report casts a further cloud over the President's objectives. It's made it much harder now to work with the IAEA and other countries to find a solution to this mess, and that clearly hurts the American position both right now and in the longer term.

Good Riddance

I'm not a religious man, but Thank God.

For whatever reason, the flouting of the rule of law has become a real issue for me, such that I was considering not voting for any candidates in the last election because they all supported some legislation stripping FISA of any oversight power. That, combined with the frankly disgraceful search to find some kind of legal justification for the conduct at Guantanamo, black sites, and Abu Ghraib, makes me really glad to see the major architects of these policies kicked out.

They serve the law. You forget that, and you forget the idea
of justice.

Now there was an interesting discussion on Gonzales' resignation yesterday on the NewsHour. However, what really got to me was the comments of a conservative legal theorist - and the general lack of remorse by anyone within the administration or its supporters about Gonzales' blatantly inappropriate actions. The commentator was arguing that Gonzales should be supported for really reorienting the Justice Department on an "anti-terrorism" footing and essentially blaming the Democrats for dragging Gonzales' name through the mud.

This misses several things:

1. You don't want your Justice Department to be on an anti-terrorism footing. That's for the military to handle. It involves pre-emption. It involves lack of evidence. It is not a judicial process: it's a mode of war. And while investigation into terrorist cells is necessary, the procedures to do that should be kept under the rule of law for fear of damaging civil liberties. After all, what will you do in the absence of these protections? Offer reparations to victims of government abuse? There have been no reports of that happening. Provide apologies? From this administration? And that is the exact problem. The role of war is political: it seeks political ends for political purposes. The role of law is social and systemic. It is meant to be above politics and provide a framework for participation. Once you start confusing that, as Gonzales, Yoo, and others have done, you've completely missed the point of the law.
2. Many Republicans were calling for Gonzales to step down, and many Republican appointees were contradicting Gonzales' statements.
3. The anti-terrorism bit, even if valid, wouldn't apply to the firing of U.S. Attorneys. What does that have to do with anti-terrorism? If the firing offenses weren't conduct or performance-related, then what was the issue? Anti-terrorism doesn't cover this scandal, and no one should feel any sympathy for Gonzales screwing himself over in his testimony.

This all goes to the separation of the political and the legal. Gonzales and all the "loyal Bushies" (Goodling, etc.) made the mistake of thinking they serve the President. They don't. They serve at the pleasure of the President. But they serve the law. You forget that, and you forget the idea of justice.

In the Incubator

So, I've been mulling this issue over for some time, so this post is a little dated. Anyway, Washington, DC recently bid farewell to another scion of spin. I had once been asked why politics in the U.S. was so polarized. At the time, I (naively) said it could be the collapse of the Cold War consensus, or perhaps the fact that, with the proliferation of interactive communications technology, the ability to disseminate and enforce message has increased dramatically. That has led to a hardening of political identities, as pundits have been quick (kind of) in using the new media. And of course, there's Penny Arcade's take.

But now I understand the error of my ways. It's not some grand sociological or demographic shift. It comes down purely to the country-dividing and, indeed, soul-corrupting anti-Christ that is Karl Rove. And I must admit that the slew of biographies that have recently emerged have been a fascinating look into his personality, particularly this piece in the Atlantic. The explicitly divisive nature of his politics and strategy, and the impact that has had on the country, is astounding.


All of which makes me wonder why really hard-core conservative Republicans feel that it's the Democrats who are splitting the nation. And not just in hallmark issues like Iraq. No, I'm (or actually, they are) talking about No Child Left Behind and tax cuts. Those bills were pretty much steamrolled over any opposition or, really, meaningful discussion and debate, and it's astounding to me that they feel that there is no room to compromise or just talk things over.


While obviously partisanship has long predated Rove, I think what gets to me is not that the level of partisanship, but the nature this time around. This administration has a curious unwillingness to face the realities of their policies and politics more generally, and it's amazing that they can keep claiming victory when all the signs point to...well, not victory at least. And for that, we can thank Rove, who has been a master of tactical political surprise, even as he leads the nation and the President down to partisan hell. And it's that inability to admit mistakes which, I think, fuels this feeling among the conservative base that it's everyone else's fault. Which is surprising since so many Republicans talk about personal values, responsibility, and owning up to your faults.

Anyway, I really, REALLY want to be able to blame everything on Rove. But that would be wrong. Well, inaccurate more than wrong. It's not completely his fault, but I am not sad to see him go.

Big Brother is Watching...

Running off various conversations and perusing Boingboing, I've been wondering about the scope of privacy with all the new technology that is emerging. And the debate is getting shrill on both sides. You have people who don't ever want their pictures taken and posted, even if they are in a public setting. And you have others who contend that this first group are a bunch of wackos who don't understand technology and its penetration. And of course, tied up in all this is something of the debate over open source, DRM, Google scholar, and copyrights.

I don't have any clear answers on this, only a few observations. First, I'd love to see how Japan handles it. Second, I have to admit that the shrillness on the pro-tech, pro-open source side (for extreme lack of a better description) seems to me more galling than the other anti-tech side, if only because they've already accepted the increased influence of technology, but don't really understand why people get squeemish about it. It's that lack of empathy to a pretty understandable human reaction that I find disturbing.

Third, the pro-tech side seems to feel like measures to opt-out of programs like Google Streetview are sufficient. If you have the ability to get out of these things, then you shouldn't really complain. But I don't think that's enough. In basic photography, it's considered good etiquette that, if you take someone's picture (where they are clearly identifiable), you should ask them if it's okay for you to use it. Now, there's some question as to whether you do this before or after taking the shot, etc., but you are using someone else's image, which they may or may not be cool with. Simply as a respect matter, it's a nice thing to do.

The issue with opting out when you start discussing advanced technology is one of knowledge and accessibility. When shooting a movie or a photo, you can usually make immediate contact with the individuals to ask them for permission. At the very least, it is easier to make a good faith effort, because people are more likely to notice what you're doing. But with these other techs, it's difficult to know when you're online. In the same way that the recent Supreme Court case on gender discrimination was horribly decided, it seems galling that someone be reasonably expected to know when their images or identity are placed on something as vast as the internet and take legal and moral responsibility.

And this goes to an interesting question, not simply between the rights to property versus religion versus speech, but what we mean by public and private. Can we meaningfully "switch hats?" Do different protocols apply when we, say, run to the shops versus when we make political speech? To a certain extent, yes, in that political speech is governed by the first amendment, whereas running to the shops is governed by property. But to any observer, figuring out what is public and what is private is difficult to know, the moreso when you have the boundary of advanced technology taking the place of meetings and interactions between individuals.

In the end, my political sensibilities fire up. There is certainly a danger on the anti-tech side of too much privacy, of an inability to disclose anything for fear of embarrassment. This applies especially, I think, to government action and oversight, and you'll find no one more supportive of monitoring of public actions and roles. But, in the impulse to "democratize" (again, so not the right word) that is given by the Internet, the push against monolithic controls and eavesdropping which is such a common refrain amongst "Web 2.0 or 3.0"-ers must be tempered with the knowledge that "Big Brother" is not always a single organ. There can be just as much tyranny of the group, or just simply lots of individuals, as there is tyranny by one body. Just as there is a chilling effect when one group takes it upon itself to interfere excessively with other peoples' business, we have to be concerned about the stifling of expression and creativity if everyone is watching everyone else, particularly in public spaces. We watch celebrities because we are attracted to their public personas, but at the same time, most of us know enough not to want to have to constantly be putting up those personas. That's an issue that requires much more thought than is presented by the polarized debate.

Human Rights in the United States

Another edition of China’s not-so-hotly-anticipated "Human Rights Record of the United States" was released early this month. The release was given its customary and cursory acknowledgment by the Washington Post, among other news papers, websites, and news aggregators. As is mentioned in all of these media sources, the release is based almost totally on U.S.-based media reports, press releases, and Human Rights organizations (many of which have been frequently criticized in Chinese media and censored), and as in the case of earlier such reports, everything is surprisingly and responsibly cited and documented with thorough in text citations.

Is there anything especially revealing inside the report? Nothing in particular. The folks at the Chinese State Department clearly busied themselves with internet search engines for several weeks, mining U.S. and international media sites for negative press about the United States. Since so much of the material came from U.S. media sources, no United States resident would find any of the information here to be fresh or new.

The Iraq War and the War on Terror was a goldmine of information for this year’s report with a year of news on secret prisons and mistreated detainees. It provided a great springboard to jump into some of China’s favorite foreign policy themes: violations of sovereignty, interfering in other country’s affairs, and hegemonism. There was also mention of the increase of U.S. internal surveillance and incursions on peoples’ rights to privacy.

Some reoccurring themes that have appeared in the last few reports such as U.S. high crime rates, racial discrimination, high rates of incarceration, sexual discrimination, police brutality, high rates of poverty, and poor healthcare coverage, return again this year.

In contrast the U.S. report on human rights in China focuses more on issues that Americans associate with human rights, addressing mostly judicial concerns including unfair trials, detainment, torture during police detainment, freedom of speech, religion, and movement, and also on things such as human trafficking. It is a long long dry read in spite of its thoroughness. Things that do not show up include crime, access to healthcare, and poverty statistics.

So what do you think about China’s criticism of the U.S.’s human right’s record? In some regards it reveals an approach to human rights very different one from the west—i.e. a focus on social stability over individual freedoms. Or is it just poor spirited tit-for-tat where they just wrote down everything they could find in the newspaper?

Surging

I'm divided on Bush's new plan. 20,000 is far too small a number to support a sustained counter-insurgency campaign. ~160k has always been too small for the post-"kinetic operations" (a.k.a. combat - don't you love DOD euphemisms?) mission in Iraq. Yet, parts of his predictions are correct, that if the U.S. leaves, certain areas in Iraq will become a haven for terrorists (but it's an open question whether they will be Iraqi, regional, or international ones), and there will certainly be a civil war (if it isn't there already). If the U.S. withdraws, Iran, I think, will be less overt about making a bomb, since the U.S. military will be freed up to launch strikes and insertions without fear of Iranian escalation of the Iraqi insurgency.

And there is of course the moral aspect, that the U.S. really does owe the Iraqis a stable, functioning government. But, a 20k temporary troop increase is not the answer. If the U.S. were actually committed to this war, a draft is the answer, but I have my doubts that even that would help things at this late juncture without political solutions and engagement. And, believe me, Iraqi politics is a nightmare, to say nothing of the region.

Two things Bush said get to me:

"We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny."

That would be great, except the Administration cut off all non-security-related funding in Iraq last year. Congress had to earmark additional funds for these activities, not the federal administration.

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."

If Bush was referring to Maliki and other Iraqi politicians' obstructions, fine. But if Abu Ghraib was considered a restriction, I'm terrified. Beyond that, though, I don't think Bush has gotten the necessary support from Maliki. There is a reason that he and others have used and protected certain aspects of the insurgency, and that has to do with their own political power base (which is fragmented partly because of its horrendously complicated electoral system). But given the threats that Bush outlined about Iran, terrorism, et al, and the inherent weakness of the Iraqi government, I am extremely skeptical that Iraqi officials feel any kind of meaningful pressure to share oil wealth, quell the insurgency, and halt Iranian and Syrian support in a way that would not be shoving a resolution down the throats of the other sectarian groups.

Well, good luck to Petraeus, who has done an excellent job thus far, but is probably overmatched by the situation on the ground right now.

Watch Your Mail

The President can open your mail without a warrant, or so says a Presidential signing statement that explicitly contravenes what the legislation says.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003508676_mail04.html

Thank you, Congressman Waxman, for not putting up with this crap. Just how much power does this President think the Constitution grants him? Nixon's imperial presidency has nothing on this man.