Archive for May, 2008

A federal appeals court ruled recently that the United States discriminates against the blind and those with limited vision because its paper currency is all the same size regardless of a bill’s value. This could mean that the dollar bill and its 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 dollar counterparts will be getting a completely new design.

The new design will incorporate features that help visually impaired people distinguish more easily between the different bank notes. This can be achieved through different sizes for different bills, various colors, and imprints that can be felt to distinguish the value of the currency.

The European Union’s Euro banknotes already incorporate designs to help the visually impaired. As the Euro increases in value, so does the size of the banknote. So the 5 Euro banknote is the smallest and the 500 Euro banknote is the largest. The Euros also alternate in color with each monetary increment (5, 10, 20, 50, etc)–going from “cool” colors to “warm” colors. The smaller currencies also have a metal strip that can be easily felt and all currencies have special ink on the denomination numbers so that sensitive fingers can feel the difference between the other ink.

I hope that the United States will incorporate some of the designs of the Euro, so that all people will be able to handle their own money (currently, many blind people rely on others to tell them the denomination of the dollars they handle). Although it will be a difficult transition for the United States to switch to currency with new bank note designs (vending machines, wallets, cash registers), I think it will be a great statement about the United States’ commitment to equality for the disabled.

Even the matter-of-fact YouTube summary of this video is funny: “A press conference by Gary Kasparov is interrupted by a flying penis.”

Can any of our Russian-speaking readers translate Kasparov’s reaction?

When most Americans think about China, they probably think of a strong central government that dominates its persecuted, downtrodden people. They think of a country of walls, from the Great Wall to the Google Firewall. They believe that these structures imprison the citizens, physically and mentally, and make them either unwilling or unwitting pawns of a corrupt, possibly evil, totalitarian government. And Americans believe that only if Chinese citizens could be exposed to freedom of speech, assembly, etc., that they would cast out the government and pretty much become like us.

Maybe the above is an oversimplication and Americans are more nuanced than that, but I admit that it is what I thought to an extent. While I never thought that a few Baywatch videos and an mp3 player would be sufficient to lead to the next Chinese Revolution, I thought that given the knowledge of what they were “missing,” the tools to bring about reform, and the chance execute their plan, Chinese citizens would overturn a government that I thought was corrupt and acted counter to what their people wanted.

However, that perception started to change about two months ago, when the latest Tibet flare up took place. At the U of I, there are a lot of LLMs, or foreign nationals who come to the US to study law. Shortly after the reports of the Tibetan incidents filtered their way back to the US, a Chinese LLM sent an email to the school supporting the Chinese government, calling the Tibetans cowards and war mongers, and labeling Western media as either fools or liars.

While I was not necessarily surprised that a Chinese national did not condemn the government, I was surprised by the passion of the unsolicited support extended by her. She lived in the United States, which meant she was fully exposed to all the benefits that could be found here in comparison to mainland China. Yet she questions the Western media, which despite its many failings, I would never consider less free than China’s. Ultimately, the whole exchange led me to question whether exposure to Western ideas would lead to regime change in China. Maybe the Chinese citizens were not hapless victims, but rather willing participants in their own subjugation.

As the month progressed, there were other pieces of evidence that led me to change my mind on China. Francis Fukuyama’s column, which I referenced on this blog last month, at least led me to believe that the most offensive governmental actions were not always initiated by the strong central government, but was decentralized to other agencies.

Further, there was the Duke counterprotest to a Free Tibet demonstration. As you can see in the YouTube video attached, this was not a small gathering. The sheer number of people in the counterprotest, and the fact that they resided in the U.S. provided further evidence that maybe there is not that large of a divide between the Chinese government and its people, and if there is, that “good ol’ fashioned American living” would be sufficient to expose it.

I am not trying to say that the Chinese counterprotesters arguments are totally without merit, or that the Western Media always gets the story right. The latter proposition is downright laughable. But if the Chinese citizenry were really the downtrodden masses that we are led to believe they are, and if exposure to Western ideals would be sufficient to get them to condemn their government, the counterprotests in the US would not have happened at all, much less with the passion that the participants displayed.

So for the past two weeks I have sought out individuals who are better acquainted with the issue than I am, in that they have actually been to China and have talked to the people there. The comments have been consistent. The culture is group oriented, highly nationalistic, and that people in China feel that they have been wronged and denied their place in the global hierarchy. As a result, the Chinese citizens are more likely to accept the government’s actions so long as it furthers the overall goal of obtaining the recognition the people feels their country deserves.

Now these observations are hardly empirical evidence, but I do think the combination is sufficient to compel us to question our underlying assumptions on China. If one billion people can’t be ignored, they certainly can’t be assumed away either. Assuming that the Chinese will simply transform to another bastion of Western values is foolhardy and dangerous considering that this is a people with goals that extend beyond being the happy trader.

Google is at it again—shaping the world as usual. Google-Maps has a new feature called “Street View”, where the computer user can see a 360 degree view of the street in selected areas. (check out the Google instructions on youtube and try taking a look at San Francisco, CA)

This feature would allow people who cannot travel to certain destinations to finally get a glimpse of what places actually look like. I thought these images would be great to show to my disabled mother, as she cannot travel and has always dreamed of going to foreign destinations—especially to Paris, France.

But, unfortunately, “Street View” might not be available in Europe like it is in the United States. European Union officials are saying that the street view images captured by Google might violate privacy laws. Europeans are afraid of being captured on camera while doing certain acts—like entering an adult store or urinating in public—and then being broadcast to the entire world through the Google-Maps website. Google says that the photographs of the streets are no different than artists snapping pictures on busy streets—why the different treatment for Google? To quell these fears, Google has adopted a face-smudging technique so that individuals cannot be identified in its photos.

I hope Europe ultimately allows “Street View” images of all its cities—especially of it’s most renowned and gorgeous ones. Already seeing what “Street View” can do for San Francisco gets me excited about other places I can virtually “visit”.

Gotta bill hours, but here’s a thread to discuss today’s big news. I’m ashamed of this, but I’m torn. I’m completely supportive of gay rights, but part of me wishes this could have waited until after the election. I intend to post at some point on how the gay rights movement has botched this cause from the beginning, in a discussion of “pragmatic progressivism.”