James Prescott
Rethinking China
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.
China Disproving Libertarianism?
Its finals, so no time for a long post But I saw this post by Francis Fukuyama, and I had to comment. Now I know Fukuyama has taken some hits because of his overly optimistic view of the future in “The End of History” and because of his neocon past. However, this is an interesting view of China that I had never seen before, and I think it should be shared with the agora.
The underlying assumption in libertarianism is that more government is bad, and local governments are better than state and national governments because the people would have more direct control. As a practical corollary to that, it was assumed that all of the human right violations in China stems from action authorized by Beijing; that it was the large national government that was trampling the right of the peasants that had little to no direct oversight.
However Fukuyama suggests that it is the local governments that initiate the harmful initiatives that curtail human rights, and it is the central government that wants it to stop but lacks the power to make that happen. It is almost like a twisted version of a libertarian paradise. The central government is too weak to coerce the state and local governments, but instead of freedom flourishing, it flounders.
Right now I don’t have the time or the research to make an argument on this one way or the other, but I thought it would be an interesting thought to start a day with.
The Story of the Pennsylvania Primary
I admit it. I have Kerry disease. I admit I am flip-flopping. I have no idea who will come out. Every time I feel like I get confidence on one position, something changes.
Per CNN, Hillary won by an expected 10% of the popular vote, or about 215,500 votes at the time of this post. In and of itself, not a big deal, considering Obama’s pledged delegate lead.
However, per RealClearPolitics count (and sorry if the info changes by the time you check, they will probably update soon), Hillary will still be down about 284,000 votes, which is less than 1% of the vote. If you include the Florida votes, Hillary is ahead.
Again, let’s go through the remaining states. Hillary will lose, and lose big in North Carolina, but will probably win huge in WV and Kentucky. I think that combination will essentially cancel itself out. Hillary will lose in Oregon, but by single digits, but Hillary should win in Puerto Rico by a comparable amount, so she will lose some ground. However, the amount of more votes counted will mean that while the total deficit Hillary will face might be 300 or 400,000 votes, the amount of votes counted will mean that the difference between the two on the popular vote will be less than 1%…probably. (Although, note, all of this could be thrown out with timely support by Gore or Edwards).
That leaves the May 20th primary in Indiana and the June 3rd Primaries of South Dakota and Montana as the states that might determine who the nominee is. According to RealClearPolitics, Hillary has a 2.2% lead, although the differences from the component polls show that that prediction is hardly set in stone. Who knows what Montana and South Dakota would vote for.
Here is my point though. These are the three states that are left that are legitimate battle ground states. However, all three states have voted consistently for Republican presidents in recent history, and by generally large margins (Indiana, South Dakota, Montana). Indiana and Montana have open primaries.
This means, that if the Republican Party in Indiana and Montana really wanted to throw a wrench in the Democratic primary, they could go out and vote for Hillary, win her those states and decrease the overall popular vote lead Obama has, if not totally erase it. Indiana had 1.5 Million Republican voters in the last election, and 266,000 in Montana (of approximately 450,000 total). It would take 15% of the people who voted Republican in those states last year to come out and vote for Hillary and to totally erase Obama’s popular vote lead. And then, it becomes a question of do you base the nomination on an incomplete computation of delegates or the popular vote, which leads to an active convention.
The next couple of months should be fun to watch.
Beating Obama: How McCain wins the Election
It has been a little over a month and a half since McCain clinched the Republican nomination. He has been doing the stereotypical candidates things by going on an international tour, a national tour solidifying his underlying story, and making key pop culture appearances (see American Idol Gives Back). McCain has made some gains against the Democratic nominees, mostly due to their continued primary season. Now that McCain has rested, it is time to get back on the offensive.
I stated before that Hillary still has a chance to pull it out. Now I think that Hillary will ultimately lose, although I still believe she will take the issue into June and at further cost to the Democrats. How extensive that damage will be I do not know. Either way, McCain needs to start targeting Obama. But McCain needs to learn from Hillary’s loss. McCain needs to differentiate himself and play the experience card, but unlike Hillary he must not be glib and condescending when he does it.
The strength of Obama is the public perception that he is a unique brand of politician. As a platform, I maintain that the Obama candidacy is too liberal for most people, but the general electorate is willing to look past that to get the candidate they perceive to be the better leader. Combine that perception with the Democrats’ promise to provide universal health care and to pull out of Iraq, and you have the true thrust of Obama’s appeal. Everything else is details. If McCain can eliminate these views, he wins.
1) Nationalized Health Care: The Republicans have been beating the drum of why nationalized health care is a bad idea, and many of those arguments I agree with. But in addition to those arguments, McCain needs to specifically explain in simple terms why Obama’s overall economic policy, especially as it relates to nationalized health care, is unattainable. Billy Joe has promised me that he will eventually post a detailed argument as to the deficiencies of Obama’s platform, but briefly, the tax increases that Obama proposes are no where near sufficient to pay for any sort of nationalized health care, much less all of his other “national priorities.”
Hate nationalized health care or love it, not being able to pay for your goals seems to be a problem. McCain needs to jump on this to emphasize that Obama is out of touch and does not know how to run a government or that Obama knew he couldn’t deliver on his promises and was merely trying to get elected. Either one speaks to Obama not being “a special candidate” and limits his effectiveness in arguing health care, which has been a loser for the Republicans up to this point.
2) Obama the Sociologist: I swear if I have to hear Obama talk about what the American people want one more time I am going to punch a hole in a wall. Obama doesn’t get to speak for the US yet…he has to win that in the election, or am I wrong? While those that are Obamaniacs are probably not annoyed by this, for those of us who don’t enjoy getting lectured at it is infuriating. Odds are, as the campaign continues, Obama will continue to lecture. Combine this with his previous “elitist” gaffes and Obama is going to begin to grate on nerves.
McCain needs to come out and say something along the lines of “I am not going to tell you what you think or why you think it. You know yourself better than I do. I will tell you what I think and why I think it. I’ll answer any question, and I won’t tell people why the question is unimportant. I might not agree with you, but I’ll never discount you.”
3) McCain the Economist: McCain made the mistake of saying that he doesn’t understand economics. The thing is, most people don’t get economics either. Based on Obama’s background, I have no reason to expect that Obama has any understanding about economics. During his tenure in Senate, Obama has passed no economic based regulation, which further confirms a dearth of economic experience. McCain may not be an expert, but neither is Obama, and making the economy a draw would be a solid beginning.
4) Iraq: This is a more complex issue, because I think that it is harder to determine what people “want?”
Is the war unpopular? Obviously. Would most people rather be there? You bet’cha. Do they want us to leave right away as soon as President Bush is shown the door? Some people very much so. But the majority? I honestly don’t know. As was reported in the New York Observer in March, people believe the war would be better run by McCain than by Obama. Whether that position changes over the next few months is highly possible. However, I think a metered position by McCain where he takes a wait and see approach as opposed to a blanket promise of withdrawal without due consideration would be the better way to go.
While this may or may not guarantee a November win for McCain it would at least compel Obama to alter his approach and “play off his game.” Again, a year ago this presidential election was supposed to be a slam dunk. Now it’s a race. Imagine what another few months could bring.
Forget Boycott…Play
Now some people are suggesting that we should boycott the Olympics as a means to somehow punish the Chinese or to convince them to Free Tibet or improve their human rights conditions. Even today, protestors littered the streets of London attempting to interfere with the torch ceremony in an attempt to discredit the Chinese and bring attention to the Tibetan problem. The thought is that by withholding our dollars and our attention we somehow take away something the Chinese government is seeking to obtain from the Olympics and thus can convince them to change their ways. That type of thinking I find silly. The Chinese are not looking for money or American approval; they want global legitimacy and they want to win in the medal count.
The legitimacy comes from a well run Olympics, and we have no effect on that. Profit is going to be secondary; so long as they run a well run Olympics with minimal turbulence, the Chinese are going to get that legitimacy. In fact, a United States boycott would arguably lend credibility.
Where the US can do some damage, where we can really hurt the Chinese, is to beat them where it counts. The Chinese want to knock the US out of their place of medal supremacy, and have even entered into an alliance with the Russians to make that happen. The countries that win the most medals are those that have the most economic and political clout, and its one way to gauge strength. China wants the title and they will do anything to get it. They started by importing the East German “coaches” that created the massive beasts that swam for the East German “women’s” swimming team, and this alliance is just another step in that direction.
China is targeting the US in swimming and track. Well I don’t know about track, but they are more than welcome to try in swimming. While it could be that the Chinese are hiding their swimmers to lull the rest of the world into quiet complacency, on the men’s side the Chinese better have Aquaman. Michael Phelps dominates his sport unlike any other athlete that I have ever seen…and I grew up in Chicago during the Jordan era. In a sport where specialization is the key, Phelps has world records in four separate events, and is ranked in the top three in eight.
Each country is only allowed to take two swimmers per race for the Olympics. The American guys are so dominant in the sport, their top two are all within striking distance of the medals, if their rankings from last year holds up. The Chinese, on the other hand, only have five people in the top twenty and none of them are in the top three. We’ll smoke them there. The guys will pick up anywhere from 20 to 24 medals out of a possible 48. The women are a little weaker in terms of the rest of the world, but will do something comparable. In short, barring catastrophe, we’ll have approximately 40 medals or so in swimming before we even do any other sport. China will be lucky to crack double digits. Based on this sport alone, we should establish the sort of medal dominance that will prevent the Chinese from achieving their goal.
So let’s not run from the Olympics; they are already getting our dollars and by boycotting they will have our attention. If we want to punish them, if we want to deny them something that they value, let’s go and compete with them and beat them. Our presence will hurt them more than our absence will.
Nader now Barr?
Those that express dissatisfaction with the two party system and cheered when Ralph Nader entered the race again might have a new hero in Bob Barr. For those interested in Bob Barr, his information is here. Long story short, he is a Christian libertarian who has criticized Bush for the war and Patriot Act and also went after Clinton back in the day. He has advocated against same sex marriage, state rights, and practioners (is that the right phrase?) of Wicca in the military. He lost his seat in Georgia when his district was split. Now the question becomes, if he runs, does he offset Nader’s effect on the Democratic ticket?
While it is possible that Barr might seek Ron Paul’s endorsement, I personally find it unlikely that he will gain the active public support of the Paulettes.
Clinton’s Tax Returns – The Legend Continues
After the totally ridiculous conversation we had about charitable giving and tax returns, I thought I would follow up with the release of Clinton’s tax returns. Long story short, the Clintons has made $109 million, approximate 9.5% going to charity and 31% to taxes.
I couldn’t find the actual returns for Hillary Clinton as the .pdfs had not been attached yet, but I have perused the Obama returns. Regarding charities, I thought it might be interesting to see what he contributed. His 2006 return was incomplete, or at least the one I saw was, because it didn’t include all of the supporting statements. However, in 2005, Obama contributed 25,000 to the Illinois Reading Counsel, 20,000 to the Rochelle Lee Fund (another literacy program), 5000 to his church, and 16,000 to CARE (an organization that addresses poverty). The remaining 11,315 was to assorted other charities.
I was able to pull up the Clinton Family Foundation’s 990 for 2006, and last year they donated $1,270,900 to many charities for variable amounts. The charities were: The Mikva Challenge (in honor of former Clinton advisor and is dedicated to encourage high school kids to be active in the political process); Wellstone Action (an organization dedicated to “progressive social change”); American Nurses Foundation; Shakespeare Theatre Company; the School of American Ballet; $75k to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund; Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (supporting fallen military heroes and their families); Pulaski Heights Baptist Church; Central Arkansas Library System; The National Bureau of Asian Research; Clinton Birthplace Foundation; University of Arkansas Foundation; Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation; Georgetown University; Immanual Baptist Church; Thea Foundation (dedicated to Arts and youth); Vital Voices Global Partnership (dedicated to promoting female leadership globally); American University; Wellsley College; WNYC (New York Public Radio); University of Arkansas – Clinton School; and three more pages of groups that I am now to lazy to record. But there were a lot.
This all probably means bupkus. But still. Its more of what we pursued earlier.
UPDATE: Just for full disclosure, this site is claiming that there is $18 million unaccounted for between the summary found on CNN as to how they made their money and how much was actually reported on their tax return. This means the information is floating around there somewhere, CNN was just too lazy or thought it was unimportant to put up. I could go find out where the difference is coming from but I am also too lazy.
Clinton’s Tax Returns – The Legend Continues
After the totally ridiculous conversation we had about charitable giving and tax returns, I thought I would follow up with the release of Clinton’s tax returns. Long story short, the Clintons has made $109 million, approximate 9.5% going to charity and 31% to taxes.
I couldn’t find the actual returns for Hillary Clinton as the .pdfs had not been attached yet, but I have perused the Obama returns. Regarding charities, I thought it might be interesting to see what he contributed. His 2006 return was incomplete, or at least the one I saw was, because it didn’t include all of the supporting statements. However, in 2005, Obama contributed 25,000 to the Illinois Reading Counsel, 20,000 to the Rochelle Lee Fund (another literacy program), 5000 to his church, and 16,000 to CARE (an organization that addresses poverty). The remaining 11,315 was to assorted other charities.
I was able to pull up the Clinton Family Foundation’s 990 for 2006, and last year they donated $1,270,900 to many charities for variable amounts. The charities were: The Mikva Challenge (in honor of former Clinton advisor and is dedicated to encourage high school kids to be active in the political process); Wellstone Action (an organization dedicated to “progressive social change”); American Nurses Foundation; Shakespeare Theatre Company; the School of American Ballet; $75k to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund; Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (supporting fallen military heroes and their families); Pulaski Heights Baptist Church; Central Arkansas Library System; The National Bureau of Asian Research; Clinton Birthplace Foundation; University of Arkansas Foundation; Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation; Georgetown University; Immanual Baptist Church; Thea Foundation (dedicated to Arts and youth); Vital Voices Global Partnership (dedicated to promoting female leadership globally); American University; Wellsley College; WNYC (New York Public Radio); University of Arkansas – Clinton School; and three more pages of groups that I am now to lazy to record. But there were a lot.
This all probably means bupkus. But still. Its more of what we pursued earlier.
UPDATE: Just for full disclosure, this site is claiming that there is $18 million unaccounted for between the summary found on CNN as to how they made their money and how much was actually reported on their tax return. This means the information is floating around there somewhere, CNN was just too lazy or thought it was unimportant to put up. I could go find out where the difference is coming from but I am also too lazy.
Clinton’s Tax Returns – The Legend Continues
After the totally ridiculous conversation we had about charitable giving and tax returns, I thought I would follow up with the release of Clinton’s tax returns. Long story short, the Clintons has made $109 million, approximate 9.5% going to charity and 31% to taxes.
I couldn’t find the actual returns for Hillary Clinton as the .pdfs had not been attached yet, but I have perused the Obama returns. Regarding charities, I thought it might be interesting to see what he contributed. His 2006 return was incomplete, or at least the one I saw was, because it didn’t include all of the supporting statements. However, in 2005, Obama contributed 25,000 to the Illinois Reading Counsel, 20,000 to the Rochelle Lee Fund (another literacy program), 5000 to his church, and 16,000 to CARE (an organization that addresses poverty). The remaining 11,315 was to assorted other charities.
I was able to pull up the Clinton Family Foundation’s 990 for 2006, and last year they donated $1,270,900 to many charities for variable amounts. The charities were: The Mikva Challenge (in honor of former Clinton advisor and is dedicated to encourage high school kids to be active in the political process); Wellstone Action (an organization dedicated to “progressive social change”); American Nurses Foundation; Shakespeare Theatre Company; the School of American Ballet; $75k to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund; Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (supporting fallen military heroes and their families); Pulaski Heights Baptist Church; Central Arkansas Library System; The National Bureau of Asian Research; Clinton Birthplace Foundation; University of Arkansas Foundation; Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation; Georgetown University; Immanual Baptist Church; Thea Foundation (dedicated to Arts and youth); Vital Voices Global Partnership (dedicated to promoting female leadership globally); American University; Wellsley College; WNYC (New York Public Radio); University of Arkansas – Clinton School; and three more pages of groups that I am now to lazy to record. But there were a lot.
This all probably means bupkus. But still. Its more of what we pursued earlier.
UPDATE: Just for full disclosure, this site is claiming that there is $18 million unaccounted for between the summary found on CNN as to how they made their money and how much was actually reported on their tax return. This means the information is floating around there somewhere, CNN was just too lazy or thought it was unimportant to put up. I could go find out where the difference is coming from but I am also too lazy.
In Honor of Opening Day
I sent this out in an email, in honor of opening day. I was asked by several members to post on Urbanagora. I had to edit the original content so it was appropriate for the family setting that is Urbanagora. Anyway, here are a few reasons why hope for the Cubs springs eternal:
1) Bruce Froemming, that tool (as well as several adjuectives that didn’t make it through the edit) has finally retired. He has found new and interesting ways to screw the cubs from when he stole Pappas’ perfect game to when he threw Lou out last year. Finally, we will be able to play all ofour games this season without Froemming figuring out a way to screw us.
2) The Cardinals still suck. I don’t care if LaRussa passed law school, that doesn’t make him a genius. Being in law school right now proves to me that genius and law school do not necessarily always go together.
3) Dusty Baker is coaching the Reds. That means their entirepitching staff will be on the DL by June.
4) Ned Yost still can’t coach. And since Prince Fielder hasn’t eatenmeat in 4 months, ,and he is still a large man, he will probably kill and eat five of his teammates by June.
5) We are in the same division as the Pirates.
6) Hunter Pence needs a fake ID to get into a bar. The rest ofthe Astros can use their AARP membership.
7) Eric Byrnes is still a tool, and that is contagious.
8) Johan Santana is now on the Mets, which means he will be hurt by May. (See Martinez, Pedro).
9) Ted Lilly doesn’t have to compete anymore with JasonKend all…Lilly can eat all of the babies he wants and doesn’t have to share.
10) This is the year Rich Hill finally becomes Dick Mountain.
11) Carlos Zambrano es fantastico.
12) 30 teams enter the Fukudome; only one team will leave. And they wear blue.
13) The Cubs brought back the solid blue jerseys.
14) Mark DeRosa still has 5 o’clock shadow. Constantly. I think he was born with it.
15) Ryan Theriot is still scrappy. But now he has a shiv.
16) Cause the toxicity of toolery that is “Red Sox Nation” will wipe out the Eastern seaboard.
17) Cause most commentators on ESPN couldn’t spell their network ifyou spotted them the ESP.
18) Jay Marriotti head will triple in size…but it won’t be because of HGH, but his ego.
19) Lou Fricking Pinella.
20) Brian Roberts will burn down Baltimore, giving Angelos no choice but to trade the second baseman. Angelos will do it while Theriot holds him at shiv point and Lilly threatens to eat Angelos’grandchild.