The Only Redhead in Taiwan

I AM NOT HAWKING ZHU ZHU PETS!

2010-03-29T07:19:00.000-07:00

So, due to the constraints of working and studying full-time, my blog has been neglected and, consequently, fallen into disrepair. I only noticed last week that I no longer owned the domain where my site was hosted.

Now, I come to learn that my site, and everything I've written has started to be used as a fodder for a site hawking Zhu Zhu Pet Babies, whatever those are.

Let it be known that I am not behind this, and recommend that, should you be in the market for a Zhu Zhu Pet Baby, you do not buy one from someone who sets up a site like this, that for some reason markets itself as both a vender of children's toys and a travel site for Taiwan. Likewise, if you are looking for information about Taiwan, don't get it here.

Finally, it’s official: Meet Mrs. Redhead. Now, off to Washington, DC.

2009-06-07T08:32:00.001-07:00

Nine months after our wedding adventure started in the Housing Registration Office in XinZhuang, we finally had a wedding ceremony. Not only was it a short, sweet ceremony and a wonderful reception with friends from all over the country and the world, but it also signaled an end to always having to explain why a married couple still needed to have a wedding.

A taste of the matrimonial extravaganza can be found here.

Now, with the wedding behind us, we are also able to focus all of our energy on our imminent move to DC. While we’re pretty sure we’ve found ourselves an apartment, we’ve still before us the task of lining up jobs. Since I’ll be starting a Master’s in International Relations, my job search, while still important, is a secondary issue – study comes first. However, Fanfan will be getting her career started, hopefully as an elementary school French/Mandarin or art teacher.

Suggestions, advice and contacts are welcome.

On Pajamas Media, the Only Redhead, and 21st-Century Conservatism...

2009-03-04T15:48:00.001-08:00

NOTE: Judging from the emails I have received regarding this post, I feel it necessary to emphasize – though it’s pretty clearly stated in the below article (It’s long, I know) – that no conclusions as to my political affiliation (which is actually none) or my philosophical bent (decidedly middle) should be read into this. If anything, this should be seen as an argument against the sort of useless conservative/liberal, left/right nomenclature to which we’ve become so accustomed.

I certainly think the lion’s share of stupid has taken refuge on the right side of the aisle, but then again plenty of “conservatives” would agree with that. I also think that there should be a healthy dose of skepticism in the infallibility of free markets, but that puts me in the company of folks like Bruce Bartlett and the Honorable Richard Posner, hardly a pair of pinko ideologues.

I’m not concerned here with whether my thoughts jive with one side or the other. I just want to be right (by way of my arguments, not simply by virtue of telling everyone else I am, which is not taken as a given these days).

You may have noticed the starboard side of this site is a little lighter as of last week. I removed the Pajamas Media ads promoting such conservative luminaries as Michelle Malkin, John H. Hinderaker and Joe the Plumber (yes, that Joe the Plumber).

No more. Pajamas Media is dropping more or less everyone in hopes of focusing all of its conservative force into PJTV. From the email we bloggers were sent several weeks ago:

As you know, last September Pajamas Media began a new initiative in Internet television called Pajamas TV. When we started with our RNC coverage from Minneapolis, we noted that we would be in a Beta Phase through the first quarter of 2009. In the last few months we have strengthened the PJTV lineup with shows covering Media Bias, Education Bias, Middle East Update, Sharia and Jihad, Powerline Report, Ask Dr. Helen, Hugh News, Poliwood, Conservatism 2.0, Economy and Finance, National Security, and others.

As the end of the first quarter approaches and we near the production phase of Pajamas TV, we will continue to build our emphasis in this area. As a result we have decided to wind down the Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network effective March 31, 2009. The PJM portal and the XPressBlogs will continue as is.

Reaction hasn't been terribly positive (mostly wondering, how are you going to get people to pay for PJTV in this economy?). The Moderate Voice has a pretty extensive rundown.

In the end, this is really no skin off my back. I wasn't paid to be on the Pajamas Media blogroll. The only money I ever received from Pajamas Media was for this article after the Taiwanese elections, but The Only Redhead in Taiwan never had enough traffic to breech the big-boy-blogger payola. That's do in large part to the fact that when one is not paid to write, he doesn't have quite the opportunities he would otherwise have to pour his time into such an endeavor because he has to work elsewhere. It's a vicious cycle of blogger poverty.

Moreover, this situation owes itself as much to where I am in life--having been picked up by Pajamas Media when I was in my early twenties--as it does to PJM's lack of "link love" for almost everything that I wrote. After all, one would think that if they picked me up, went through the trouble to sign a contract, and get me into their network, then they might actually link to some of the stuff I wrote to generate interest in their subject matter.

There is, however, a problem

The only thing that's getting under my skin is this: Joe the Plumber went to Israel on PJTV's bill. Joe the Plumber. Israel. And he wants to "Abolish the media from reporting."

I don't think even Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Keith Olbermann could come up with a parody so ridiculous if you locked them in an ivory tower with a week's supply of hippie lettuce and space cakes.

Alas, this is real, folks. Sure, I understand PJM's reasoning. Joe's a man of the people. He's a plumber (but not really). He's not some elitist media sleuth with a degree and experience who spends his days supping on arugula and other elitism legumes. He's a plumber, and he's going to tell it like it is, for the people. He's going to stand up for Israel. Give Joe your sick and your huddled masses, and he'll tell 'em how friggin' awesome America is.

At the risk of demonstrating my youthful naiveté, I have something to admit: I actually believe blogging can be a respectable, informative element of public debate. I believe it builds on the free flow of thought that started with the printing press, eighteenth century pamphleteers and coffee shops. It is the next step in the progressive widening of the aperture that shines light upon our collective knowledge. I say this knowing full well that there are a gaggle of idiots, bigots, and bunglers who promulgate their certainties on a daily basis online (some of them, for PJM). I'm quite aware that the Internet has offered succor to those who find comfort in the intellectually lazy pursuit of reading that which leaves their personal philosophy unmolested.

But for the rest of us, for the curious and the truth seeking, there is a new opportunity to learn and to challenge. I have gotten as much from writing and reading blogs as I have from any class that I ever took. I relish the constant criticism and the daily pushback I get. It makes me think, and, though I often have trouble grasping certain concepts, I'm not scared to try, even if it seems to go against even my most fundamental beliefs--say, that people are intrinsically good, or want to be, and even the worst among us can change, as can the best.

I readily admit that I don't know everything, but I strive to know as much as I can. I study constantly, I talk to people, and I write. I invite criticism, especially from those who disagree with me most. This is why Joe the Plumber, more than any of the others at Pajamas Media of whom I have a less-than-favorable view, seems like such a slap in the face to me.

I should also acknowledge that Pajamas Media contacted me, asking for my participation and ideas for Pajamas TV. This came at about the worst time possible (during Fanfan and my move back to the US), so my gripe is not that they left me in the dust, it's that they pursued Joe the Plumber, promoted him, and, I presume, paid him. Had it been almost anyone else, I would not be writing this.

As I mentioned, I am not paid to maintain this blog. During my time in Taiwan, I worked full-time as a teacher and studied Chinese on my own dime. I maintained this site because I wanted to share what I've been learning and hoped to receive feedback. If Pajamas Media, all this time, had the funds to send an unlicensed plumber to a country he likely couldn't label on a map beforehand, couldn't they have paid and collaborated with me? Or, at least, someone with more integrity than Joe?

What would William F. Buckley, Jr. say to Joe the Plumber? My guess is that he'd have some choice words for Pajamas Media for sending him to Israel, for mistaking everyman virtue in the face of superficial media hyperbole for everyday ignorance in the face of a mythical monolith, and for further reinforcing the idea that conservatism is the refuge of mindless, frothing babble, rather than a coherent political philosophy. To be clear, one does not have to have a diploma to be intelligent--though I don't know Joe's academic background, I'm guessing he doesn't have more than a bachelors, and it's probably not in social sciences--but intelligence does demand a certain measure of curiosity, honesty and, I hope, capacity for complex thought. Or as Daniel Larison (currently one of my favorite bloggers) put it:

First, this does say something important about the miserable state of the conservative blogosphere as a journalistic medium, and it also tells us something about the thorough Palinification of the right. Palin was praised and embraced because of her perceved ordinariness, and her lack of expertise was regarded by her admirers as an advantage and a desirable trait, and now we are treated to the journalistic equivalent of Palin’s qualifications for the position she sought. In journalism as in politics, standards, qualifications and expertise are now to be thrown out; average-ness, ordinariness and ignorance are to be prized as proof of one’s authenticity.

Thanks, Joe. That was very articulate.

In trying to prove it's working-man roots, the republican party ended up mocking America with the idea that we could fall for Joe the Plumber. That we were interested in sweet political nothings.

And, Pajamas Media bit (Republican Party itself was already hooked).

Conservatism at the Dawn of the 21st Century

Mr. Plumber, in many ways, is an extension of the conservative direction that Pajamas Media is forging, along with the Republican party. The "Dumb as we wanna be" crowd, as Tom Friedman would (and probably does) call them. This is certainly not true of all of the bloggers at Pajamas Media, rather it is my impression of most of the top bloggers at Pajamas Media. They espouse the kind of "dumb as we wanna be" conservatism that sees the world in black or white, Israel or Palestine, with us or against us shades that defy reality. They will, for instance, readily acknowledge that Hamas has committed war crimes, such as using ambulances to transport troops and shooting missiles from schools, but nary a peep is heard about *gasp* Israel's own alleged transgressions, like the use of white phosphorus, killing civilians waving white flags, and preventing red cross medics from attending to the injured. It's all chalked up to the nature of Israel's enemy, and any criticism of Israel as a country is to hate Jews as a people (while criticism of American policy towards Israel, especially in *gag* Europe, is anti-American). Just look at the case of Chas Freeman (President Obama's ill-fated pick for National Intelligence Council chair), I've yet to see any proof to support the claims that he is "hostile to Israel," but that lends itself for to the fact that I can differentiate between criticism of policy and outright hostility towards a people and because I realize that Israel and the US are sovereign nations whose foreign policies should not be dictated by the other (And, yes, I know some Taiwan folks don't like Freeman, and some China folks do. But I certainly doubt China/Taiwan had much to do with this controversy)

That's just one example. More recent examples abound. In debates around our current economic doldrums, the rage against earmarks comes to mind. Likewise, to suggest that government plays any roll in our economic recovery is anathema, except for the commies on the left. This betrays reality, in which government has a very important role in catalyzing free market innovation (not guiding it) by way of incentives, boosting infrastructure, and education, to name a few. Taxes and subsidies can be used quite effectively to create incentives for tech companies to build the United States a smart grid with smart houses and smart cars where energy companies compete in a free market to provide the cheapest and cleanest forms of energy. There's little doubt that the green energy market will be the "next big thing" but it will never come about as long as we are not paying the real cost of coal and gas prices are low.

The sad truth is that, as long as conservatism is guided by the voices of impassioned, albeit intellectually lazy, black-or-white-ism, then the government will be bigger and bigger. Liberals will undoubtedly continue down the path of getting government to endorse its own best biofuel, for example, (corn ethanol, anyone?) instead of using government incentives for R&D and letting the market sort out the cheapest and most efficient candidates (Sugarcane ethanol? Algae? Solar-thermal? etc. etc.).

The source of this combative, substance-free conservatism is, Patrick Ruffini argues, a lack of confidence in the values conservatism portrays:

We need to be confident, like the left is, that we are the natural governing party because our ideas are in alignment with basic American principles, and quit treating middle class, working class, or rural Americans like an interest group to be mollified by symbolic, substance-free BS.

It is indeed time for confident conservatism. "A movement self-confident in its place in American society would not have made Joe the Plumber a bigger story than he actually was," says Ruffini. Yet, instead of holding substantive debates on issues, based on facts, conservatives now tend to rely evermore heavily on the easiest weapon in their quiver: bias canard. Instead of presenting a coherent argument for the red team, they instead cry fowl of the game itself.

The Big, Bad Liberal Media

I am not denying bias, and it is an understatement to say that I disdain all of the television news networks (and I've said as much). The Good Lord knows that punditry is at best pretentious and does little to elucidate the murky waters of policy and politics. But I wouldn't insult my own intelligence by tossing it all out as a crock, hell-bent on undermining my personal ideology. Part of being an intelligent participant in any debate is being able to process conflicting perspectives--a characteristic, I might add, that is attributed to President Obama perhaps more than any politician in recent history--and a healthy level of humility, accepting that you don't have all of the answers.

Most liberals consider the news media as too dumb to report complex issues, while most conservatives see the media as too liberal. There's a big difference. A liberal will task him or herself at disproving the factual claims of a troubling story, while a conservative will try to fundamentally undermine the credibility of the organization itself, conveniently absolving him or her any responsibility to dispute the arguments made. This allows conservatives to disprove any news story from CNN, The New York Times, Keith Olbermann et al, regardless of the factual basis of the claims made, solely on the basis that the report comes from CNN, The New York Times, or Keither Olbermann.

The bias canard conveniently ignores that FOX is and has been the number one most watched news channel in America for years now and is the third most-watched basic channel. How laughable is it to watch FOX pundits on a regular basis decrying the fact that "the Mainstream Media is not reporting this!" when they are the most mainstream of media outlets.

Sure, this happens on both sides, and, sure, there are some conservatives (Daniel Larison, Andrew Sullivan, and David Frum to name a few) who do not use liberal media bias as a rebuttal to every criticism levied, whether or not they believe such a general bias exists, but they're the minority. A scant few PJM and redstate.com rely on anything but.

I should note, this tactic goes hand-in-hand with the anti-Education rhetoric of conservatives who portray all of academia as a bunch of lying lefties. It makes my skin crawl to hear the old Republican routine of passing off the criticisms of academe--without even giving the semblance of refutation, or being pushed to--as simply the detached views of blue bloods from the Ivory Towers.

Such an anti-education, anti-science dogma is particularly dangerous when most agree that in order for America to remain competitive, we need to lead the world in innovation, foremost by being the forerunner in green tech. But, conservatives still have a particular gleeful fancy for denying Climate Change. Forget the fact that there are things we know that make green energy necessary even without the threat of Climate Change: ending the importation of foreign oil that helps fund terrorism, a new market to create jobs and invigorate the economy, a free market in energy, etc. It's all just Hippie-ganda.

To be clear, raising such issues with conservatives should not imply that I think "the left" is a paradigm of enlightened discussion. While I appreciate greatly the work done at Open-Left and Talking Points Memo, for instance, I worry that they don't do enough to clarify that our current economic debate is not a war against the rich, but a fight against corruption, unchecked greed, and the idea that free markets are free of rules, regulation, and principles. They too occasionally rely on partisan snipes and generalizations, and I often worry that they believe government alone--or at least, predominantly--can fix our problems.

This is to say nothing of Crooks and Liars, a site that I read for years but now have little stomach for.

But, I think that when it comes to shallow, uninformed and self-serving proselytizing, today's conservatives have the market cornered.

My Generation: The Center-Left Nation

In general, what liberal bloggers don't do, again, is portray most issues as simple matters of fact with clear right or wrong solutions. In a strange twist of fate, "the left" has come to dominate political realism, while the right has become a hodgepodge of idealists and moralists. This truism led Jeffrey Hart, whose conservative street cred can hardly be disputed, to declare, "it seems clear to me that Obama is the conservative in the 2008 election." But FOX's hiring of alarmist whack-job Glenn Beck, and the resulting ratings spike, is perhaps the most potent signal that conservatives have lost their party.

In the 21st Century, Republicans are more concerned with defining and defying "evil" than they are with finding a strategy that works (i.e. talking to "evil"). Conservatism has bought into the idea that our country and it's success was built upon and by God, as though God himself, and not Enlightenment-based scientific innovation, gave us the technological advantages that begot our power.

At twenty-six, I might be the youngest blogger on the Pajamas Media roster. If not, I was certainly one of the youngest, which says a lot for why I don't agree with so much that is written by self-described "conservatives." I've written about the "Global Generation Gap" and it's implications for Taiwan and the world, but there are certainly applicable demonstrations here in the U.S.

For my generation, liberalism and conservatism have little to do with fiscal policy or the size of government. Most of us came of age politically when the Twin Towers fell. The debate was framed around support or opposition to the war in Iraq and, subsequently, (in my case in particular) feeling that your faith in the U.S., despite its short-comings, as being predominately a source of good in the world had been betrayed by a government that, as the years passed, tortured, killed, and snooped on people within and without the country. For us, the Republican Party has become a party that does not understand the complexity of culture and religion, the party that doesn't understand the importance of a science- and math-based education, and the party whose patriotism is based on the belief that America simply is great because it is America, rather than because it is something that we, as Americans, work and, at times, sacrifice for.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, conservatives seem to have little understanding of how intertwined our world is economically, politically, and culturally, maintaining the belief that the U.S. can do what it wants with impunity.

The reason I mention my age is because I represent what the Republican party has lost. As I noted when I wrote about how wrong I thought McCain was for president, this was not a natural turn of events. I grew up in a conservative family, in a conservative state, in the most conservative region in the US. I was taught in essence that Ronald Reagan hung the moon, and the Clintons were loathsome pond scum. Yet, over the last five years, I have found myself cringing more and more when I hear Republican talking points, and I've come to see the dreadful Democrats as the only group capable of complex thought.

Solidifying this tectonic shift, just as Kennedy and Reagan inspired a generation who still today are faithful to their ideals, so has Obama. There is plenty of research to show that people's political affiliations happen in and around their twenties and tend to last the rest of their lives, so the Republican Party should be gearing up for a generation wandering in Gehenna. The republicans and conservative media have become the representatives of old, white men.

To put it more bluntly, America is not a center-right nation. No, seriously, it's not. Realism has found a home on the left. For free markets to function, regulation and education are absolute necessities. Freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion. Government is not a monster to be vanquished, it is a beast of burden, guaranteeing education, catalyzing research, and incentivizing the creation of new, risky markets.

This does not mean that America is a nation of Democrats, though. I realize that many find the idea of post-partisanship laughable, but I don't know one person my age who cares much about which party is offering the best policy. But, I will say, many of us certainly do associate one particular party with an ideology of Christianism, anti-academia, regulation-free-markets, international ignorance, and petty nationalism. Republicans have departed from Buckley, Friedman, and Hayek, and they no longer dominate educated ideals. They deal now in shallowness, peddling ideologies of "real America," flag-pin patriotism, aversion to understanding our enemies, vilification of criticism as hatred of America (except when their candidate does it), an obsession with TelePrompTers, a mocking disdain for community service, and an inability to see past 1980.

The list goes on and on, and I've tried for a long time to challenge my growing bias. I've actively searched out low-blow, baseless, personal and nationalistic attacks from mainstream liberal candidates of the sort one sees coming from conservatives. I've even gone on conservative forums and asked for such examples. Nothing. Well, okay, I do get responses, but they are always citations of the comments section on a liberal blog or comment from Keith Olbermann. It's never, say, a factcheck.org article regarding a campaign ad or a comment from a politician that goes beyond policy dispute and attacks the person himself.

This sort of culture can change, but It's going to take a while because most of the "real" conservatives have to devote so much of their time pointing out the idiosyncrasies of the "dumb as we want to be" that they can't devote their efforts to policy issues.

So, there you have it. Pajamas Media said they look forward to working with me in the future, but, as long as they espouse vapid, 21st-century, Joe-the-Plumber conservatism, I don't think they want much to do with me, and, likewise, I don't think my generation will have much to do with them.

Otherwise, as of April Fool's, of all days, everyone get ready for PJTV!

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has had a couple of posts from young folks on how the right has lost credibility in our generation.

[Photo credit: Bullneck]

Technorati Tags: Pajamas Media,PJM,PJTV,Malkin,Powerline,conservatism,conservatives,republicans,politics,US,patriotism,Palin,Obama,Joe the Plumber,economy,Israel,Foreign Policy

Letter from the Beautiful Country.

2009-02-23T04:53:00.001-08:00

This is long overdue. For months now, I have been telling myself that I would finally sit down and detail Fanfan and my last days in and tumultuous departure from Taiwan, our first days/weeks/months in the US, the wonderment of South of the Border and the anti-evolution Creation Museum, so on and so forth. But life has stood before me in determined obstinance, demanding that I spend my time doing otherwise: working, finishing my graduate school applications, studying (I have pre-reqs to fulfil for grad school), planning our wedding, getting Fanfan settled, and all the many other demands my existence imposes upon me at present.

The "Reality Ride" at South of the Border

Still, I haven't really the time to go into much detail, other than to affirm the continuance of my cyber-existence and assure myself of my relevance here. I do hope to continue writing about our time in the US, because this has always been a site about culture, life, and perspectives, and Taiwan is just as much a part of that now as it was when we were still in Taiwan. Moreover, as Taiwan will always be an interest of mine as I continue my studies, I will continue to write about developments in my second home.

Leaving Taiwan

Leaving Taiwan in December wasn't easy. In the weeks that preceded our departure, it felt as though I became so much closer with Fanfan's family than I had ever been before. It seemed that not only had my Chinese reached a conversational level but also Fanfan's parents, knowing that we were leaving, decided to forgo the normal reticence of daily life and made a more concerted effort to talk to me, and I them.

We spent several days driving around Taiwan 拜拜-ing and delivering wedding cakes to Fanfan's aunts and uncles. Everywhere we went, Fanfan's father tried to point out everything he thought might be of interest to me, knowing now that not only was I interested in Taiwan, but I could also understand what he was saying.

He wanted to show me everything, like the rice husks in cement used to build their family's old house

and how you can slide the slats in the windows to see how the weather had eaten away at the wood

Along the way, I jokingly noted that I was happier the more I learned to speak Chinese because Fanfan's father was always ready to instruct me in anything and everything Taiwan. "I just want to make you feel like part of the family," he said in response, which served as a nice punctuation at the end of my stay in Taiwan. I had come as the mysterious foreigner boyfriend of their daughter, and I was leaving their son-in-law.

Touring Fanfan's Aunt's garden with Fanfan's parents

Learning the art of distilling

Some homemade rice wine for the road from another of Fanfan's aunts

Our departure was difficult for everyone involved, too. Fanfan spent days crying, and her parents were visibly rattled by the notion. Fanfan had left before, but this time it seemed so much more "permanent." Sure, we'd be back, but Taiwan would no longer be our center of gravity, so to speak.

To make things worse, upon arriving at the airport one December morning, the lady at the check-in counter said she could not let me on the plane without my ARC, which Fanfan had convinced me to leave at the house, being that I hadn't been asked for it before and it might prove useful in the future if Fanfan's parents needed to do something for me. We immediately called Fanfan's father who was parking the car, and he sped back to Taipei. The traffic was terrible, though, and I was restless, fearing I was going to have to buy another thousand-dollar ticket to the US, and we were going to have to make the 27-hour voyage on separate planes.

To make a long story short, I finally convinced the Cathay Pacific folks to let me go to immigrations and get proof that I was allowed to leave Taiwan, but this required me entering hastily with almost no time to say good-bye to Fanfan's mother and assure her that I would take care of Fanfan. To make things even worse, Fanfan's father was stuck on the highway, so neither Fanfan nor I could say good-bye.

In America

Seventeen hours later, we sat for nearly four hours in the cavernous belly of the Department of Homeland Security, watching all of the others from our plane from Tokyo trickle out as their files were checked. Each time, the officer, in some sort of sick miracle, just happened to pass right over Fanfan's file and doomed us to wait another twenty minutes. Asking questions was futile because they didn't give answers (claimed they didn't have them), so it wasn't until nearly three hours after everyone else who had arrived with us had left that Fanfan's name was called. She gave her fingerprint, signed her name, and we were off to try to catch our connecting flight that was scheduled to leave in twenty five minutes. Thankfully, it had been delayed another twenty minutes.

So here we are, and as you've probably gathered, we're here "for good" (meaning, at least a couple of years). I have applied for graduate programs in International Relations, and Fanfan is pursuing a teaching career. She is volunteering full time at my old elementary school to get some experience in hopes of becoming a Mandarin/French teacher once we move to Boston, D.C., or New York, and I am working as a lab tech at a pharmacy in town, spending my free time on my economics studies.

(From the Creation Museum)

I cannot for the life of me figure out how the brick of coffee fits into this whole scene.

We've also set a date for our wedding. Getting married, as a couple who is already legally married, will be the last in the series of steps in our unconventional relationship.

Fanfan, my mother, and I have also done a fair amount of cooking, trying to learn both some Asian favorites like 抓餅

and 餡餅

as wells as some Western fare like Coq au Vin

all made from scratch.

Alas, we are here, and, strangely, I find myself absolutely fascinated by the US. Part of it has to do with seeing it through Fanfan's eyes and part of it has to do with having lived so many other places that I have come to see just how peculiar this place is--at times endearingly, at others frustratingly (might I again draw your attention to the Creation Museum). While I miss Taiwan, I know that we will be back often, and I look forward to it. For now, though, I am content in trying to understand the country that I left five years ago, believing it was the paradigm of ordinary.

There are some things I will never understand about Taiwan...

2008-12-09T05:00:00.001-08:00

I've had to deal with a Hello Kitty nightmare before, but I can't imagine doing it as I'm trying to give birth...

Yes, Hello Kitty is even on the children's birth certificates. Alas, this is the culture of cute.

The China Desk sees my true colors: White, white, and white

2008-12-01T17:45:00.000-08:00

Now, for a little self-flagellation. This is from May. I didn't see it because, at the time, I was in Thailand at the East West Center's Summer Institute for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights:

The Only Redhead in Taiwan [sic!] yet another predictable "China is bad" blog by yet another expat Taiwan independence fellow traveler

You read that right. He really did name his blog "The Only Redhead in Taiwan."

Try not to laugh too hard. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

But I really can't blame you. These 21st century versions of pith helmeted 19th century Bearers of the White Man's Burden really are full of themselves, aren't they?

Note how he chose to define himself in relation to the public on Taiwan? Remember, he chose to define himself in this manner, not me.

He seems utterly oblivious of his own colossal presumption. He actually believes his narcissistic view of himself as some sort of sharp-eyed, worldly wise, infinitely patient observer of the human folly swirling around him.

For these Bearers of the White Man's Burden, everything is about them. They are the leading men in the human drama unfolding on this planet. They are the Masters of the Universe. They are the final arbiters of Eternal Verity.

The "little brown brothers" are quaint extras, local colour, to be lifted up out of backwardness by these White Knights in Shining Armor.

See:
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2000/08/white-knight-third-world-damsel-in.html

I considered taking some time out to rebut his "rebuttal" line by line, point by point. As readers of the China Desk know, I've done that with Taipei Times editorials often in the past. But that would have been a few hours taken away from learning a new aria or show tune.

Would it be worthwhile?

Not really.

Besides, readers are smart enough to make up their own minds, not on debating skill, but on objective merits.

Read "What Do You Want From Us?" Watch the video versions of "What Do You Want from Us?" posted at YouTube.

Then read the "rebuttal" by the aforementioned Bearer of the White Man's Burden, whereby he magnanimously removes the blinders from our eyes.

Ask yourself if he didn't unwittingly demonstrate precisely the point he was attempting to deny, that he and his ilk are determined to "make China wrong" and that he and his ilk "just don't get it?"

Upton Sinclair once quipped that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Permit me to paraphrase Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his self-image depends upon his not understanding it."

As some of you might remember, at the time, I had referenced some posts written by Mr. Chu at the China Desk, trying to make an argument for why I disagreed with him in hopes of starting a dialogue between two people with different perspectives on the same subject. I got emails from a lot of people saying I was wasting my time with Chu--an American whose late father was Tsing-kang Chu, a long-serving diplomat under Chiang-Kai Shek--but I figured I would try.

I didn't expect to change Mr. Chu's opinion on anything, but I supposed that if anyone was going to tell me I was wrong, it would be him. In my search for criticism in what is arguably a green-leaning English blogosphere in Taiwan, I thought I had found the most likely person to school me the hard way in the perspectives of the under-represented. I can't help but think though, that anyone who would files this site under "'China is bad' blog" and me as a "Taiwan independence fellow traveller" has trouble distinguishing anything on the spectrum between black and white.

[I'd love proof of these claims, as (1) for some time I've thought (erroneously) that I was fascinated by China and Asia in general, despite having problems with many government policies--as I do with every other country, indiscriminately, especially my own--and (2) it's news to me that being neither for or against China-Taiwan unification is pro-Independence, unless believing that the Taiwanese should be allowed to choose for themselves automatically makes me pro-Independence, which would mean that Chu doesn't believe the Taiwanese would choose to become part of China.]

Though Chu never addressed any of my arguments and only did so once that I can find when I left comments on his site, I will say--in my "magnanimity"--that I learned a lot from him and the biting comments that conspicuously started popping up on my site after my indirect correspondences with him: It was, after all, through those comments that I began to see a correlation with what I was studying at the seminar in Thailand.

Studying human rights with people from all over Asia, I was concentrating on America's role in many of these issues while also running over the comments about "expats"--who are apparently so similar one to another that they can be easily grouped together--and I got to thinking about all the people who come abroad, hoping to make things better for others, but who rarely are ever anything more than outsiders. It was then that I decided that the best thing for me to do would be to try to change what I can about how America interacts with the world, rather than lending a hand to causes in other parts of the world.

Though I already knew I would apply for graduate programs in international relations this coming January, it was there, in Thailand, that I decided that my studies would focus on American foreign policy and how the negative consequences of past exceptionalist policies--which are now arguably greater than they've ever been--can be minimized. In the end, if I tried to go anywhere else, no matter how hard I worked or how good my intentions, I would always be an outsider. Of course, in whatever I do, I look forward to travelling and working with people all over the world on the problems that transcend the borders and identities we draw around ourselves, like terrorism and climate change. This is my passion, and no one should get the wrong idea that anyone can that.

Anyhow, thank you, Bevin Chu, for doing that little bit of sorting out for me. Feel free to comment any time, send me emails, or write about me on your site, as I always need to challange my perspectives. However, I hope, next time, you'll take me to task on some of the things that I actually said, poking holes in my dogmatism, so that I can see things from your perspective. Don't be gentle, I love criticism of what I say, and I'll readily admit when I'm wrong.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the superficial, personal attacks, but I can take those with a smile too.

Have a good one! ;-)

UPDATE: I neglected to include a link to The China Desk post.

For those who may be at the Brookings CNAP seminar on Wednesday...

2008-12-01T06:17:00.001-08:00

I'll be there. Don't know if any other bloggers or other folks I may out there are going, but if you're there, please look for me and come say hello. I always go to these seminars alone, so it's always nice to run into someone I know (or meet someone new).

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at Michael's announcement.

Call for suggestions: A week traveling in southern Taiwan

2008-11-26T00:52:00.000-08:00

Fanfan and I will be leaving in about three weeks, and we won't likely be coming back to Taiwan for some time. Before we go, though, we are going to take advantage of about five or six days and take a tour of Southern Taiwan. While I've been to quite a few places in the north, I've still never been south of the Taizhong, Chiayi, Alishan area.

Kenting is obviously on our list, but I'm wondering if y'all might have some off-the-beaten path, not-so-touristy places. You might think that with my other half being native Taiwanese I'd just rely on her, but you'd be forgetting that often times people who grew up somewhere don't really pay attention to where good hotels/hostels are or what sites people from out of town (or the other side of the planet) might find interesting.

Also, if anyone were so inclined to meet up along the way and, say, show us around their stomping grounds, that would be great, too. It's always better to see a place with someone who's familiar with the lay of the land.

I'm looking for any suggestions: places to stay, things to see, etc. I'm interested in everything about Taiwan, too, so don't just tell me where the most beautiful scenery is. If there's a cultural or historic site that we should stop in and see, please let me know.

I should note that we won't have a car, so we'll be pretty restricted in that way. We can rent a scooter in different places, but that won't take us terribly far.

The Kingdom - Opening Credits

2008-11-24T17:49:00.001-08:00

I saw this movie the other night. It was worth the watch, despite my misgivings about certain political aspects. Yet, I was particularly impressed by how well-done the opening credits were, giving a timeline of the Saudi-American relationship in under four minutes and doing it quite artfully:

The Kingdom - Opening Credits | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

View of North Korea like I've never seen it.

2008-11-23T18:59:00.001-08:00

This is a travel show that I've seen a couple of times here in Taiwan called 世界第一等. If you don't speak Mandarin, you're not going to understand really anything that's being said, but, still, the access he got in North Korea is like I've never seen before. It's worth watching just for the video. In fact, I'm wondering if he was allowed to roam so "freely" (he's still got a minder and is very restricted in where he can go) because he's from Taiwan, as I'm assuming North Korea considers Taiwan a part of China. Or is it just because he's not American?

Has anyone seen a documentary of North Korea that shows so much of the country. I think the most I've ever seen was on the National Geographic documentary Inside North Korea.

This is part 1, but it doesn't actually go until the end of part 2. There are five parts. There were also two episodes. I don't know if this is just the first episode.

Why going home to America may be the death of me: the Healthcare debate.

2008-11-19T19:39:00.001-08:00

[Photo: I stopped by the "Wild Strawberry" protests last week and took some pictures. I was wearing a mask, because I've been coughing since I got sick about two weeks ago]

Wednesday morning, Fanfan and I went to Far Eastern Hospital in Banciao because with all of the hoopla over the last several months--i.e. applying for Fanfan's immigration visa, preparing my documents and writing letters for my grad school applications, studying Chinese, teaching, and ~~obsessing over~~ closely observing the presidential elections back home--I had put surgery on the back-burner. Then, last week, I realized that we only had four weeks left, so I had to get on the ball.

The reason, some of you might remember, that I need to get surgery is that cancer has been coded into my DNA through a combined lineage of peoples with the worst skin in the world--no offense to all my relatives reading; after all, it's not our fault. Having grown up on the coast of sunny South Carolina didn't help either, spending most of my summers outside at the beach or on the boat. As a French dermatologist once told me upon seeing my back, it's not a question of if, but when I will get skin cancer. Indeed, I am the only person in my direct family not to have skin cancer, being that my sister just recently had a basal cell carcinoma removed.

Yes, I use sunscreen. We all do.

Anyhow, Fanfan and I arrived at the hospital on Wednesday morning. After a quick meeting with a doctor, explaining my situation, we were sent across the hall to "make an appointment" and "get started." We were a little confused, but soon learned that they were going to take two moles off right away and make an appointment to take two more off in two weeks. Talk about no wait!

Not only had my doctor lived in the U.S. for 25 years and spoke perfect English (I mean perfect), but he had also studied International Relations at one of the schools to which I'm applying (Columbia's SIPA program). We chatted for a while as he did the surgery, and then I was on my way. The entire hospital visit lasted about an hour and cost NT$469, a little under US$15. Had I not been insured, the procedure would have cost me about US$130, small change compared to how much it would have cost in the U.S.

Moreover, yesterday, Fanfan and I both went to the doctor. Fanfan has a chronic problem with the skin peeling and getting raw on part of the palm of her hand, so she stopped by the dermatologist. I, on the other hand (no pun intended), have been coughing since I was sick last week--the air here makes it difficult to stop coughing--so I decided to go see the ENT doctor on the corner near our house. Both of our visits lasted a total of about 30 minutes and cost about $5 each.

This all brings me to my point: this will be impossible in the U.S. As excited as I am about coming home, about starting a life with Fanfan that doesn't involve keeping boxes and suitcases at hand for our next move, about studying what I love, etc., I find myself battling the creeping inquietude of being uninsured. I haven't the money to afford insurance, which means that one illness or one accident could potentially put me in debt for the rest of my life (or kill me).

Fanfan, on the other hand, will be covered by her Taiwanese insurance (a private company, not the national system).

I know what many of my fellow American's are saying right now: It sucks, but that's life. We all pay one way or another.

I'll get to that later.

Go back to Tuesday afternoon. Upon coming home from the hospital, I got back to the tasks at hand translating my transcripts from France for my grad school apps and arranging things to be sent back to the US. When I do these sorts of things, I usually either catch up on the episodes of the Daily Show/Colbert Report or watch documentaries online. In getting up to speed on our debacles in the Middle East, I recently watched No End in Sight (which I highly recommend, you can watch it here), and, yesterday, decided to watch this Frontline special on Afghanistan called "The War Briefing" (again, I highly recommend it).

It was on the Frontline site that I stumbled across another documentary called "Sick Around the World":

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

I was shocked to see that it talked about Taiwan. Here's the segment:

Now, to be clear, I've made my criticisms of the Taiwanese system before, and I know that all of the systems in the above documentary are not as perfect as they may seem.

But here's the thing: none of them leave people behind. Nobody in these countries goes broke from medical bills. No one is denied coverage if they are sick. No one can be denied for "pre-existing conditions."

Sure, they are costly programs, and in some of these places the hospitals are struggling, but does that really make them worse than our system in the United States (as people often suggest). In many cases, we spend double the amount of our GDP as other countries do, and we still have 47 million people who don't have health insurance. Even those Americans who can afford health insurance can be denied by insurance companies on the basis of their medical history and still more those who have health insurance can be denied coverage for procedures they need at the will of their provider.

A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund has been making news lately, as its findings don't seem to back up many of the claims that care in America is the best in the world:

Key Findings

More than half (54%) of U.S. patients did not get recommended care, fill prescriptions, or see a doctor when sick because of costs, versus 7 percent to 36 percent in the other countries.

About one-third of U.S. patients—the highest proportion in the survey—experienced medical errors, including delays in learning about abnormal lab test results.

Similarly, one-third of U.S. patients encountered poorly coordinated care, including medical records not available during an appointment or duplicated tests.

The U.S. stands out for patient costs, with 41 percent reporting they spent more than $1,000 on out-of-pocket costs in the past year. U.K. and Dutch patients were most protected against such costs.

Only one-quarter (26%) of U.S. and Canadian patients reported same-day access to doctors when sick, and one-fourth or more reported long waits. About half or more of Dutch (60%), New Zealand, (54%), and U.K. (48%) patients were able to get same-day appointments.

A majority of respondents across the eight countries saw room for improvement. Chronically ill adults in the U.S. were the most negative; one-third said the health care system needs a complete overhaul.

In the past two years, 59 percent of U.S. patients visited an emergency room (ER); only Canada had a higher rate (64%). In both countries, one of five patients said they went to the ER for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor if one had been available.

So, even if waits in some cases can be longer, even if the government struggles at time to fund it, is that really sufficient grounds to rule universal health care out as an option for the United States? Why is the right to health not considered a part of the "pursuit of happiness" (note: do not misread that as me assuming the government is supposed to "make us happy," that is not at all what that means). How is the right to be healthy any different than the right to an education?

At the end of the Frontline documentary, T. R. Reid brings up three elements that seem to make these other countries' healthcare systems work--setting prices, covering everyone, etc.--but I propose that there is a 4th element: the general consensus among the people that universal healthcare is a right and a necessity. At the foundation of any debate on healthcare in these countries with universal coverage is the agreement that the system itself is not in question. In other words, the debate is about how to make it work better, not whether or not it should exist.

We haven't yet gotten to that point in the U.S. In the meantime, many people are one sickness away from becoming eternally in debt. Thousands more aren't getting preventative care for diseases and conditions that will only worsen until they can no longer avoid going to the doctor, and by then the price will have multiplied exponentially. All of this is hardly better for the economy than spending government funds on universal coverage.

I ask those out there who are against universal coverage based on their economic philosophy to look at my situation. I am a hard-working, motivated, young American. I have faith that, if my health holds up, I'll be successful in the future, and I will be an asset to the struggling American economy. Yet, it would only take one avoidable illness or accident to derail all of that and potentially put me in debt for years or decades to come. It will effect my success and my ability to make money (and thus stimulate the economy).

There are thousands more like me who face this same fate. The truth is that both sides of the healthcare debate carry economic risks in their implementation. Why not default to the side that would at least risk helping the most people?

Technorati Tags: healthcare,taiwan,U.S.,government,policy,documentary,frontline,statistics,study,Sick around the world,universal healthcare,health

Old Taiwan in LIFE's new Google archive

2008-11-19T03:36:00.001-08:00

I just saw today on Lifehacker that Google is now hosting 10 million photos from America's first all-photography magazine: LIFE. Naturally, I hopped over and scoured whatever old pictures they had of Taiwan, and I found some interesting stuff.

One of the first things that struck me was the use of the fitting nomenclature used to refer to the KMT. Throughout almost all of the photos I've found, they are referred to as "Chinese Nationalists" and not Koumingtang or KMT. This terminology has been lost in more recent reporting on the party that still maintains power over the executive and legislature here in Taiwan, though such references do seem to be making a comeback.

I've also yet to see a photo that doesn't refer to the PRC as "Red China" or "Red Chinese."

It's also striking to see the number of photos of high level American officials in Taiwan, signs of a time long gone. Along the same lines, I can't find any pictures of Taiwan after 1970 (when things started going sour for the Chinese Nationalist government on the international stage). Likewise, there are also much fewer photos from China after the 1970s, but there are a few

I'd be interested in any additional information anyone might have regarding these photos. Anything that sticks out. Also, please send me any posts or comments you have on other photos you find in the archives.

Note on content: all information listed below the photos is straight from the LIFE archive. All misspellings or outdated romanizations are original. Any notes that I've made are in red. MOREOVER, some of these images contain elements of NUDITY or DEATH. Be advised.

Everyone's favorite dictators

(Front row L-R) US Amb. Patrick Hurley, Gen Chiang Kai-Shek, & Communist ldr. Mao Tse Tung; (back L, Chiang Ching-Kuo, the son of Gen. Chiang) during ill-fated US attempt to negotiate between Communist and Nationalist Chinese forces.

Location:
Chungking, China

Date taken:
1945

Photographer:
Jack Wilkes

Propaganda moves

Physcological warfare unit using colored balloons to float propaganda, incl. flag to Chinese mainland.

Location:
Quemoy [Kinmen, 金門], China

Date taken:
August 1958

Photographer:
John Dominis

And in the balloon shells...

Nationalist leaflets to be dropped on main land.

Location:
Taiwan

Date taken:
August 1958

Photographer:
John Dominis

...and by sea, cross over from the reactionaries to the progressives

Nationalist leaflets.

Location:
Taiwan

Date taken:
August 1958

Photographer:
John Dominis

"Red China" bombing Kinmen

Red Chinese artillery shells hit Red Cross symbol on roof of hospital. [While I don't remember the exact figures, Kinmen was shelled for years, sometimes on a daily basis, amounting to hundreds of thousands of shells left on the island]

Location:
Quemoy, Taiwan

Date taken:
October 1958

Photographer:
John Dominis

Example

Decapitated head of Communist guerrilla leader Ting Hsi-Shan executed by Chinese Nationalists hanging on wall in village 30 miles from Shanghai.

Location:
Tsingpu, China

Date taken:
February 1948

Photographer:
Jack Birns

Proof that there were once open spaces in Taipei

People walking through large portals.

Location:
Taipeh, Taiwan

Date taken:
1950

Photographer:
Carl Mydans

The "Coolies"

Coolies packing cart in front of a large billboards. [The billboard is for "Three Star Toothpaste," a brand that is not surprisingly no longer around]

Location:
Formosa, China

Date taken:
1950

Photographer:
Carl Mydans

Homecoming for Anti-Communist soldiers

The returning of Anti-Communist prisoners passing through city streets jammed with welcoming crowd.

Location:
Taipeh, Taiwan

Date taken:
1954

Photographer:
Joseph Scherschel

[Can someone explain this? Are these Nationalist soldiers who had been caught in the PRC and returned to Taiwan?]

Bath time

Girls nude bathing in sulphur hot baths. [I'm guessing, since this is in "Taipeh," that these women are bathing in Beitou (it's encouraging to hear how much my Chinese has improved since I took this video).]

Location:
Taipeh, China

Date taken:
March 1949

Photographer:
Jack Birns

What'll it be?

Globe in office of Chinese President Chiang Kai-Shek in Formosa.

Location:
Taiwan

Date taken:
September 1961

Photographer:
John Dominis

[I can't find any pictures of Taiwan after 1961]

Then, it all changed...

Nixon In China

Pres. Richard Nixon (L) toasting w. Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai at banquet. (Image is probably flopped) [It is]

Location:
Beijing, China

Date taken:
February 22, 1972

Photographer:
John Dominis

Technorati Tags: China,PRC,Taiwan,KMT,history,photos,images,pictures,culture,war,nixon,zhou,civil war

The little joys of being a teacher.

2008-11-08T02:02:00.000-08:00

Last night, one of my classes had their last class before moving up the next level, so it was party day. As they ran around eating food and raising hell, one of my students started scribbling on a peace of paper I had given her to draw on (her writing that was punctuated from time to time by her own fair share of hell raising). About halfway through class, she came up and handed me the letter, and it made me laugh.

Just figured I'd share it:

Dear Teacher Robert,

You are very good at teaching and you are handsome. But you are silly, too. And you are also crazy. I like to be your student. I want to be your student always.

Love,
Penny

An open letter to unsatisfied American voters

2008-11-05T04:28:00.000-08:00

[Photo Credit. 前進 means "to progress" or "to advance"]

In December, the five years that have seen me abroad far more than at home will come to an end. I'm so excited to come home with Fanfan and settle down, but I would have done anything to be home last night as I watched see the celebrations on the news and saw people soaking in the moment that should make us all proud to be Americans. Not because we elected a black man--that, in and of itself, is not important--but because we proved that someone who is qualified, no matter what he or she looks like, can become someone important, even president.

That is the America we should be proud of.

I believe all those sappy ideas we tell ourselves about America--that there is no other place on this planet where anyone can become someone and where all should be welcome. Le happy-ending américain as one of my professors in France called it. But I've been dismayed at the face we've put forward over the last eight years, to put it very lightly: the war in Iraq, extraordinary rendition, warantless wiretapping, torture, Katrina, the profiteering of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, Enron, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, pooh-poohing the Constitution, weakening an already weak U.N. (which, like it or not, we need), the Patriot Act, and the list goes on. This is not the example we are to set if we see ourselves as the "city upon a hill." With great power comes great responsibility, and part of that is holding your country to a higher standard than you do others.

While I respect McCain for disagreeing with the Bush Administration from time to time with the administration on tactics, he didn't always disagree on strategy when it mattered. He would have made a much better president than Bush in 2000, but 2008 was not his for the taking.

I know there are those of you who are worried about the results of this election. Before I say what I'm about to say, keep in mind that I grew up in a conservative family in one of the most conservative states in the Union (South Carolina). After 9/11, I remember talking about how relieved I was that President Bush (whom I had voted for) was in office because a President Gore would have just sent a brigade of therapists to Afghanistan had he been in office. The path that has brought me to where I am now started on 9/11 and, it has been long, haul. My positions are much more moderate than they once were. I pride myself on my "extreme moderation," which I think is the product of the fact that I, and the rest of my generation, came of age politically in one of the most polarized moments in American history: post-9/11. We saw some of the pure absurdity that came out of the partisan tarring and feathering.

That said, I have read literally hundreds of articles about these two candidates, their economic, foreign, and domestic policies, and their backgrounds over the last year, and I have come to the conclusion that we now have a president who--though imperfect as all people are--is one of those rare men who seems to fit perfectly the time that chooses him. I am not alone on this (obviously). Prominent Republicans from both Bushes and Reagan's administrations, from academia, and from the upper echelons of Republicandom have come out for Obama. Some of them were simply against McCain and/or Palin, but many were for Obama. Hell, Wick Allison, the former publisher and board member of the National Review, hand-picked by William F. Buckley, Jr. said, "Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan."

This was not a partisan election.

Still, a lot of you, even my best friends and family, think he was the wrong decision, and I respect your position, and I know there is the possibility that I am utterly wrong. But, now that another election has been put behind us, I hope you will take another look at President Obama once he is inaugurated and give him a chance to change your mind. I intend to hold him at his word, having learned my lesson with George Bush, and I assume you do to.

I look forward to coming home and doing my part to do what I can for my country and, thus, I believe, the world. It has become clear that what we need in the world is more convergence and cooperation because our problems stubbornly refuse to abide by the lines we draw around our countries. It is for this that I feel the best thing for me is to do my part for the world by doing my part for my country, and I can't wait.

What a great day this is for us. It truly is a great day to be an American.

Why I have come to believe that McCain is a dangerous choice for president

2008-09-14T08:24:00.001-07:00

Let me start by saying that for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics, I’ve liked John McCain. I thought he would have made a great president in 2000, until his campaign was derailed in my home state by a series of vicious push-polls and a whisper-campaign that claimed McCain had an illegitimate black child. That year, in the first election I was eligible to vote, I voted for George W. Bush anyway because, at least, he wasn’t a liberal. I remember telling someone not long after 9/11 that I was reassured that Bush was our president -- and not Gore, who, as I said at the time, would probably send Osama bin Laden to therapy instead of tracking ‘em down and “smoking ‘em out” as President Bush had promised, as he told us not to stop shopping.

That changed quickly. By 2004, I was lamenting the fact that McCain could not run again, and I voted for John Kerry (a decision for which I got a lot of flack), not because I liked Sen. Kerry, rather because I had come to believe (and still do) that President Bush’s presidency is marked by a tragic lack of understanding about the world, a penchant for opaqueness, and a cold-handed unwillingness to accept his mistakes.

Why do I mention all of this? It’s to qualify everything that I am about to write. Many people who read this site regularly know that I am going to vote for Obama, and, unlike in 2004, I’m not casting my vote for what I feel is the lesser of two evils. I’m voting for Obama because I think he is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who offers us much more than “not being Bush.” Suffice it to say, I feel that what Obama offers in judgement, vision, ingenuity, and curiosity that make a photo-negative of all that George Bush lacked.

I do not think Obama will walk on water. I know quite well that he has his short-comings, and, more importantly, I realize that voting for him is a risk. What I will show here is that both candidates present a risk, and I feel that McCain is more of a risk, but I have to make one more clarification: by no means do I consider myself an expert. I am not presenting this as a condemnation to those who will eventually, regardless of what I say, vote for John McCain. I have not seen every bit of news about McCain. I have not read all of his books.

Also, I welcome criticism, as long as it has substance.

What I will say though, is that I am a voracious consumer of news. I am confident in the time and effort I have taken to make an educated choice in this election. None of the citations that I am going to cite below are elements I searched for in order to write this – except in the instances that information was something I read in a book, in which case I tried to find something that you could read here. I have a feed reader with feeds from several hundred sites that I try to sift through every morning. As many of you know, I am in the process of applying to graduate schools for programs in international relations, and I read most of this stuff because it is what fascinates me. This is what I intend to spend the rest of my life studying, which is why I keep a list of nearly four thousand bookmarks on my del.icio.us account that are tagged by subject. Right now, I have a list of about four hundred bookmarks saved under “2008 presidential elections,” and it is largely from that that I will be pulling.

Moreover, the only reason I have time to do it today is that typhoon Sinlaku is bearing down on Taiwan right now, and while I’ve got other things to write, I can’t seem to get this out of my mind.

My reasons for writing this now owe themselves to two recent, though significant, developments. The first was sitting in awe listening to Gov. Sarah Palin give her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Not only was I certain of her talent as a speaker, but I was taken aback by the realization that the campaign as we had known it until that point had been tame. Over a period of about thirty minutes, we went back four years, to the “culture wars” of 2004 that said the liberals are the softies, the “blame America” gang, and the republicans are the patriots willing to do anything for their country.

McCain arguably got this ball rolling several weeks ago when he started claiming that Obama would rather win an election that win the (unwinable) war.

Naively, I had thought this red-state/blue-state idea sank into the quicksand of political expediency under the weight of a world of evidence: taking the focus off of bin Laden in Afganistan, cherry-picking intelligence to make a case for an invasion of Iraq, a contemptible disregard for the Constitution and our civil rights, outsourcing the war effort to private contractors like Blackwater, KBR, and Halliburton who put our soldiers and their own employees at risk, and the list goes on.

(Concerning the latter point about private contractors, there is a great documentary about the purely wasteful and dangerous practices of these companies in Iraq called Iraq for Sale [watch for free on Google video], in which, if I remember correctly, John McCain is interviewed, decrying these abuses. If I’m incorrect, then I’m thinking of the other wonderful documentary called Why We Fight, which I think you can also find on Google video.)

Yet, it turns out that this idea that the Democrats don’t have a stake in the love-for-country market seems to still hold a lot of sway, as Gov. Palin demonstrated to a standing ovation when she proclaimed that Democrats always talk about the Iraq without even mentioning the word victory.

She obviously didn’t realize that Gen. Petraeus himself stays away from the V-word.

The second reason I’ve decided to write this is what has become my precipitous loss of respect for John McCain, the man whose honor and integrity enjoys nearly universal praise. Over the last two weeks, not only has the McCain-Palin ticket released a barrage of unequivocally dishonest and disrespectful ads and statements, but they have also stood by these claims after they have been roundly rejected by fact checks (most notably from factcheck.org, the most trusted name in exposing political lies).

I can’t support this. This undermines the very image of the man many people see John McCain as being: the personification of honor. Up until the last few weeks, knowing was going to vote for Sen. Obama, I took solace in knowing that if John McCain was elected we would still be better off than we are with President Bush. Yet, what McCain has shown is that he is susceptible to the temptation of the very tactics people on both sides of the aisles have been decrying in the polarized climate left in the wake of September 11.

The Ads

Since I mentioned September 11, let’s take a look at the most recent ad from the McCain-Palin campaign, which they posted on Youtube on September 11 breaking a promise they had made with the Obama campaign to lay partisan politics aside during the day of remembrance. Not only that, again dishonoring their vows, the non-partisan watchdog factcheck.org (perhaps the single-most important website for any American voter who’s tired of lying politicians on both sides of the aisle) says that it has also found the ad playing in Denver.

Factcheck notes that McCain’s tactic here is nothing new (they’ve caught Obama doing it twice), what’s new about the ads coming out over the last few weeks is the bitterness of the attacks – which have not once been reciprocated from the Obama campaign. You see, Obama’s not innocent of stretching the truth, or probably even of flat out lying, but I haven’t found one instance of Obama attacking McCain on anything other than policy – unless, in the case of the “Celebrity” ad and Obama counter-ad, McCain attacked him first.

Here’s Factcheck’s analysis of the most recent ad:

The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.' " But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."
It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,' " But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."
The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.

Even when Obama has attacked McCain on non-policy issues, the claims in the ads are not so baseless. For instance, in Obama’s celebrity counter-ad (factchecked here), he simply points out that it’s funny for a someone who’s been all over TV (on Saturday Night Live, Letterman, Leno, and the Daily Show) numerous times to be accusing Obama of being a celebrity, along with the normal stuff about tax cuts for corporations and McCain’s cadre of lobbyists.

These ads are stupid, especially when the two candidates are trying to win a popular election. I’m not defending Obama on this one. I’m making the point that I have yet to see any evidence that he is willing to sink to the level McCain has sunk in the last two weeks, claiming that Obama wants to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners (when he wanted programs to protect children from sexual predators) and even deliberately twisting Factcheck’s findings about supposed attacks on Palin to make it seem as though spam e-mails and random bloggers’ musings about Palin were from Obama’s campaign, which they weren’t.

As you may be asking yourself, hearing me asserting that Obama has not made the same baseless and dishonorable claims that McCain-Palin is not dealing, please know that I asked myself if this is in fact the case. I went though Factcheck, Politifact, and even to various conservative forums to see if people could give me examples of personal, below-the-belt attacks from the Obama Campaign. This search rendered nothing. So, I can’t say that no such attacks have been made, but that I haven’t ever personally seen them, and I have not been able to find them. I was, however, surprised by the conservatives that essentially said in responding to my enquiries, “I’m not going to vote for Obama, but I commend him for how he’s run his campaign.”

So, there you have it. This is why I have decided to write this article. Before I get started (nope, haven’t started yet), let me reiterate the fact that I was, up until recently, ambivalent about a McCain win, because I believed in my heart of hearts that he was a good man who would not tolerate his campaign sinking to this level.

The man I once commended for his criticism of the Bush Administration’s conduct in the war on terror, for stepping up to defend John Kerry against the Swift Boat attacks and for promising, even until recently, to run a campaign of honor.

Many in the media (James Carville and Chris Matthews, for example) don’t feel that McCain is capable of this kind of politics. They say more or less than McCain must not be privy to the mud his campaign is slinging. Even if that’s the case, how is he going to run the country if he can’t run a campaign?

It’s not the case though, even Karl Rove thinks the campaign has gone too far.

I can’t say this enough: Three weeks ago, I would not have written this. Though I had my doubts, I still felt that both candidates had a lot to offer our country. However, the attacks coming from his campaign, his running mate and, now, him personally, I have come to believe he is not only a bad choice for the presidency, but also a dangerous one. Not simply because he’s attacking, but for the substance of the attacks and for his choices of late. My worries were summed up quite nicely today by the Obama campaign using a quip that alludes to another McCain’s recent comments, the sort of which is unprecedented in recent history. Here’s the Obama campaign quote:

Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

To the issues.

Experience

Many would probably think me crazy to question McCain’s experience when the conventional wisdom says his opponent has a far more worrisome lack of experience.

That’s what the conventional wisdom says.

I’ve been deliberating this over the last couple of days though. You see, I used to have great respect for McCain’s defiant position against the Bush administration in the face of what many within the Establishment knew to be true: we had gone to Iraq with too few soldiers. Reading Cobra II, State of Denial (I presume Woodward’s newest book The War Within as well) and the One Percent Doctrine, one gets a good idea of the internal debates in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in which Donald Rumsfeld -- determined to realize his dream of a smaller, sleeker military -- insisted the war could be won with a relatively small number of troops. Folks like Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and John McCain didn’t agree, and they were right.

As much as I commend McCain for his position, though, I stumbled upon a video recently that made me realize something that I had overlooked: I hadn’t gone far back enough.

John McCain was one of the advocates of this war to begin with. He gave a speech on the Senate floor on October 10, 2002, advocating that Saddam’s removal from power. Politifact (an affiliate of factcheck.org) addresses this issue with a time line, starting on September 12, 2001, in which McCain becomes more and more clear in his belief that Iraq was a part of this:

On Sept. 12, 2001, he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, where Matthews asked whether the appropriate response should be "a legal matter or a military matter."

"I think it's both," McCain replied. "As — as we stated, the — a nation has the right to defend itself, No. 1. But No. 2, these organizations could not flourish effectively unless they had the help and assistance and safe harbor of these nations. And it isn't just Afghanistan — we're talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others."

That comment was not particularly specific to Iraq. But in an Oct. 18, 2001, appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, with the nation on edge about the anthrax mailings and in the early stages of the campaign in Afganistan, McCain singled out Iraq.

After sharing his views about how events were unfolding in Afghanistan, McCain told Letterman: "I think we'll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq."

In January 2002, while touring the flight bridge of an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: "Next up: Baghdad!"

He fleshed out his views in a speech at a NATO security policy conference in Munich on Feb. 2, 2002.

"Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaida.

Now, of course, I’m not implying that Saddam wasn’t a horrible dictator or that it’s not better that he’s out of power (eternally). That’s the first point supporters of the Iraq war always want to make and, frankly, it’s absurd. No one who is against this war thinks that Saddam was anything but a ruthless despot.

He was not, however, an imminent threat to the United States, and certainly not worth us taking our focus off of Afghanistan and the search for bin Laden. Remember, 2008 has already become the deadliest month in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001.

You can read the entire speech here on McCain’s senate site.

Two quotes stick out to me in this video:

The burden is not on America to justify going to war. The burden is Saddam Hussein's, to justify why his regime should continue to exist as long as its continuing existence threatens the world.

This struck me because it’s not, as the title of the video erroneously suggests, an argument for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. It’s an argument for a preventative strike on Iraq. This is because, again, there was no imminent threat coming from Iraq to justify a pre-emptive strike. Preventive war is perhaps one of the most controversial elements of the Bush Doctrine, which Sarah Palin will never forget again (yes, I know there are many different definitions of the Bush Doctrine, but I feel confident in saying that any of McCain’s other possible picks could have answered that question more intelligently) Preventive war is dubious because it relieves the attacker of the burden of proof to support its invasion or attack. Instead of having to present tangible evidence of troops and weapons being deployed, an attack can be launch on the basis of that tangible evidence someday being possible and arguing that that deployment is probably.

The next quote is important because it presents the Bush Administration’s line that Hussein and al-Qaeda were somehow in cahoots, despite the fact that they were bitter enemies. Saddam was, after all, the epitome of the sort of secular, bloody-fisted dictators that Osama bin Laden railed against the United States for having supported. That didn’t stop McCain from making the connection:

We live in a world in which international terrorists continue to this day to plot mass murder in America. Saddam Hussein unquestionably has strong incentives to cooperate with al Qaeda. Whatever they may or may not have in common, their overwhelming hostility to America and rejection of any moral code suggest that collaboration against us would be natural.

To his credit, he was cognizant that they might not have much in common, aside from their disdain for the Western world. That was more than most people (even myself at the time).

It’s important here to clear up another myth that would exculpate for having advocated the invasion of Iraq (despite it being a distraction from our fight in Afghanistan): the idea that the decision was an intelligence failure. It was sure, in the since that the intelligence community did appear to believe that there were WMD in Iraq, and there’re demonstrably weren’t. The oft-forgotten flipside of this coin is the fact that the intelligence community also warned that an invasion of Iraq was probably not a good idea and could cause an insurgency that would destabilize the country. The Bush Administration – and apparently, McCain – for their part took the intelligence that suited their case and made it into a case for war. Every book I’ve read about this (the one’s mentioned above, for the most part) lead one to the conclusion that every single person, perhaps foremost among them being Bush, believed wholeheartedly that invading Iraq was a necessity, that Saddam needed to be taken out. They did, though, willfully twist and misrepresent their case for war.

That’s how we Southerner’s say, “They lied.”

So, McCain, with his experience and his honor, was sucked into a scheme to invade Iraq and distract us from winning the war on terror in Afghanistan. In his defense, he only had twenty years of “experience” at that time. Now, he has twenty six, which has probably made all of the difference.

You’ll see later why I say “experience.”

Ever wonder what Barack Obama said in his famous speech about Iraq? The one that has been referenced in his campaign against Hillary Clinton as well as his present run against McCain, while it has been talked about quite a bit, it’s rarely ever been detailed. Eight days before the above speech by John McCain, Barack Obama said this:

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

This is what many people have passed off as “just some speech” Obama gave in 2002. Some have also said that this speech is not that important because he was not yet a U.S. Senator, so it carried little risk for Obama. Contrarily, he was an Illinois Senator at the time and speaking against the war was a very unpopular position at the time.

This speech was prescient and stands in stark contrast to McCain’s, even with two decades of foreign policy experience. Remember at this time, we were being told that the war would cost next to nothing, would only take a couple of months at most, and would see our soldiers greeted as liberators. For Obama to say what he said was unpopular is one thing, but this all also proves that the number of years one has under his belt is not the only indicator of his ability to lead. Obama new that Saddam posed no imminent threat, that an invasion of Iraq would require a long and costly occupation, and that it would “fan the flames” of Middle Eastern anti-Americanism – thus, rendering us less safe than we were before. Mccain, needless to say, disagreed.

This is why I referred earlier to McCain’s “experience.” What is experience if your record proves you still don’t get it right. I’m not saying that McCain hasn’t ever gotten anything right. Yet, the invasion of Iraq was perhaps the most significant, game-changing decision made in the last decade, and McCain was on the wrong side of the fence. Moreover, recent events don’t vindicate McCain’s attacks on Obama’s experience. This was most evident during Obama’s trip to the middle east and Europe. Not only did the trip go off without a hitch and prove that Obama can hold his own with world leaders. It showed that he knows his policy and that Maliki likes his policy (much to the chagrin of the Bush administration, which tried to pass it off as a translation mistake).

McCain didn’t like it…

Notice Sen. McCain’s insistence that he knows Maliki and that he’s met Maliki numerous times. It’s certainly true, and McCain does it to show but it doesn’t change the fact that the two men appear to be at odds on policy.

Gov. Palin did this in her interview with Charlie Gibson, saying she had the opportunity to call Georgian president Mikheil SAAKASHVILI.

What this all comes down to is the fact history shows experience itself is not a presidential indicator (this goes for all occupations). Some of our worst presidents have been those who boasted the longest record previous to entering the White House, Richard Nixon comes to mind. Whereas, Abraham Lincoln and JFK are among history’s least “experienced” presidents. What many people have concluded from these facts is that “experience” itself is not, perhaps, as good a judge of success in a president as temperament and judgement are.

The experience issue in a double edged sword. McCain obviously has more policy experience, but what does that mean? Many people see voting for Obama as a risk, but the truth is the risks are equal. I see it as the ultimate choice about what makes you feel safe. I’ve been thinking for sometime that we have two choices when it comes to Iraq, neither of which guarantees the Iraqis or us ultimate solace from the threat of attack.

The first choice is obvious. We can “stay the course” in Iraq. This entails fighting the fight we went there to win. While this could end in a more peaceful Iraq, we don’t know when or at what costs. We also don’t know to what extent this will continue to stoke anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, as it is not pretty much roundly accepted as truth that the Iraq war as been the best recruitment advertisement for terrorist networks we could have possible offered.

Just as staying in Iraq offers no guarantees, neither does leaving. The damage has been done, and leaving a country in shambles isn’t likely to create stability in the immediate future. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are failed states, which we now well know serve as magnets for terrorist organizations can plot with relative freedom, often gaining favor with the locals by providing what the government can’t.

What I often find myself asking (myself) is why we don’t try to default towards the option that is the one we can feel better about. Bring those troops home, let them recoup, and get them back to protecting our borders. At home, let’s get back to fixing our economy, education system, and healthcare system. Abroad, let’s rebuild our national image, take on the unfair business and governmental practices that are impeding globalization, and continue the good work that George Bush has done in Africa.

Most of all, let’s take the lead in becoming the source of green technology, create thousands of green-collar jobs around the country wean ourselves off of foreign oil. Offshore drilling has some part in that, but it is not the centerpiece, as the Republicans seem preoccupied with. After all, the US Energy Information Administration says that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.” Starting an intensive campaign to create renewable energy sources, equivalent to the program to get a man on the moon, would lower gas prices significantly once the demand for oil decreases.

What I’m saying is that while nothing guarantees an end to the threats we face, the two approaches we’re being offered right now offer considerably different possible benefits.

It appears that many troops might agree with me. Obama has raised six times more money money from active-duty troops than has McCain:

Here is the study cited in the story.

But how can this be? The surge has worked, right?

First of all, it’s important to understand that, as many people have latched on to the fact that Obama said he still would not vote for the surge, that his point was two-fold, and his decision puts him in line with top military officials who also didn’t support the surge. First, he had also proposed a plan for withdrawal during the debate about the surge. His plan was not the one chosen, so no one knows how his plan would have worked. The second part of his argument is that people seem to have lost sight of what the surge was meant to accomplish. It was not meant simply to lower violence, but to create conditions to allow for political reconciliation in Iraq. This point is arguable, and I am led to believe that Obama has more ground under his feet than does McCain. I believe this for three reasons:

As Bob Woodward’s new book The War Within suggests, and the White House has confirmed, that new, secret technology is largely responsible for pin-pointing insurgents and killing them.
The magnitude of the effect the surge had is immeasurable in that the aforementioned weapons, the Anbar Awakening, and several other factors play a mitigating role in determining whether the surge deserves as much credit as McCain gives or whether another program would have succeeded as well.
Michael Ware, who is one of few Western journalists to remain almost continuously in Iraq since before the war started and doesn’t support withdrawal, says that McCain doesn’t understand the reality on the ground in Iraq.

I want to start with Ware’s claim that McCain “has no idea what’s going on in Iraq.”

What has delivered the successes we’re seeing now as – drops of eighty to ninety percent in violence – and who doesn’t welcome that? – began two years ago, or more, when the US began engaging with its enemy, the Sunni insurgency, when it started bringing in al-Qaeda, and putting htem on the US government payroll, setting them loose on hardcore al-Qaeda elements, and setting them loose on Shia militias.

Paying former Insurgents? Indeed, one of the biggest changes came when the US started paying $10 a day to former insurgents to become “temporary” allies:

Creating a New Force

Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year.

It's a controversial strategy, and Macgregor warns that it's creating a parallel military force in Iraq that is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims.

"We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."

That civil war has subsided, for now. It's diminished because of massive, internal migration, a movement of populations that has created de-facto ethnic cantons.

"Segregation works is effectively what the U.S. military is telling you," Macgregor says. "We have facilitated, whether on purpose or inadvertently, the division of the country. We are capitalizing on that now, and we are creating new militias out of Sunni insurgents. We're calling them concerned citizens and guardians. These people are not our friends, they do not like us, they do not want us in the country. Their goal is unchanged."

Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran and a former administration adviser, articulates a view that is privately shared by several former and current officers. It's not that they believe the plan isn't working. It's that they see it as a dangerous one with potentially destructive consequences.

But McCaffrey argues that at $10 a day, the gamble is worth taking.

"We can pay them that for 10 years if we had to," he says. "Better we provide an infusion of cash where we're keeping a local night watchman for us on duty than we conduct combat operation. Money isn't even a factor we ought to take into account."

The second element of this is the division that resulted from the ethnic fighting in parts of Iraq. Essentially, there are fewer people left to kill. Again, Ware brings up the “ethnic cleansing.” Talking to Think Progress, this is what Ware said about ethnic cleansing and the surge:

The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been–albeit tragic–one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital. Now, the US military says that violence has fallen by as much as 97 % over the past year, and it’s certainly true that we’re not finding the dozens of bodies on the streets tortured and mutilated, each morning, that we once were. Now, there’s a number of factors, but the cleansing of Baghdad is definitely a part of it. It’s a very simple concept: Baghdad has been divided; segregated into Sunni and Shia enclaves. The days of mixed neighborhoods are gone. They are literally protected by either Iranian backed or U.S. backed militias, who night and day guard those neighborhoods to prevent rival death squads, be they in government uniforms or be they under al-Qaeda banners - coming in and taking victims. They are also walled off — LITERALLY — by massive concrete blast barriers that the U.S. forces put in place. So, what’s happened is that the cleansing of Baghdad means there’s simply less people to kill and of those who remain, they are much harder for a death squads to get to - it’s as plain as that. […]

And it started - this segregation — was consolidated; was entrenched when the Americans started funding the Sunni militias. Now, that was done for a multitude of reasons and there are very positive benefits to that, but there are also deep costs and consequences to that. So, in very many ways, if anyone is telling you that the cleansing of Baghdad has not contributed to the fall in violence, then they either simply do not understand Baghdad or they are lying to you.

This all points out that, while the surge probably has had a positive effect on levels of violence in Iraq, it is not by any means the sole or leading factor.

And I haven’t eat touched on McCain’s experience in other conflicts. The funding of these “militias” in Iraq, for example, worries me because I know how the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan in the 1980s became al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists of the twenty-first century. McCain was one of many politicians during the eighties who lauded the “Freedom Fighters” of the mujahideen, many of whom later became the Pakistan-backed groups known as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I’m willing to let McCain slide for his support of the mujahideen against the Soviets. What’s interesting is that McCain a long history with dictators in Pakistan, and this, at least tacit, support has provided a boost for the terrorist groups – the Taliban and al-Qaeda – that they funded, as Middle East scholar Juan Cole pointed out in this long post on his site.

The first dictator was President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who got Pakistan’s nuclear project started, provided funding and training for mujahideen in Pakistan. He may have also played a large part (along with the US) in the radicalization of fighters being sent to Afghanistan, who would later become early al-Qaeda:

Firstly, the Afghan jihad against the Soviet troops. The intelligence agencies of the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan used the madrasas for radicalising the Muslim youth and motivating them to join the Afghan Mujahideen in their jihad against the Soviet troops. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) got a number of text books prepared with the help of Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia projecting Communism as anti-Islam and calling for jihad against the Communist evil in Afghanistan, had them printed in printing presses in the US and distributed to the madrasas. According to Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Associate Professor of political science at the Stockholm University:

The second dictator was General Pervez Musharraf who took power in a coup in 1999. Musharraf’s power grab nixed a plan to assassinate Osama bin Laden agreed to by his successor Nawaz Sharif:

The clandestine operation in 1999 was sponsored by the Clinton administration less than 12 months after US cruise missile strikes against Bin Laden's training camps in the country, according to the Washington Post.

In return, the newspaper said, Pakistan was promised economic aid and the lifting of sanctions imposed after it tested nuclear weapons. The assassination plan was abandoned later in 1999 when the Nawaz Sharif was ousted by the military as Pakistan's prime minister. According to the Washington Post, the plan was part of a more robust effort by the United States to get at Bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.

Musharraf, then, refused to act when it was well known that Abu Zubaidah was operating in Pakistan and only reluctantly stopped supporting the Taliban after September 11.

Before you tell me about how fragile Pakistan is and how badly we needed Musharraf to maintain some sort of stability, I know. I have mixed feelings about this.

As president, McCain would probably have no choice but to support someone like Musharraf. Speaking out against Musharraf as president would end his cooperation with the war on terror and likely further destabilize Pakistan, the country that many foreign policy experts say is far more worrisome than any other country in the region. Yet, surely the “maverick” senator in the party that seemed to be particularly unmiffed by Musharraf’s military rule could have taken a harder line.

The conclusions I’ve drawn from this are that McCain’s experience offers the same level of risk – by virtue of his judgement – that Obama’s supposed “lack of experience” does, and I’d rather take the later risk, because Obama has proven to have a good grasp of how the world works.

Taxes and the Economy

Back to present campaign lies. McCain has been touting his tax plan for quite some time, boasting that he would continue the Bush tax cuts, while his opponent would raise them. People like Romney and Giuliani recited the mantra almost foaming at the mouth during the Republican National Convention. It’s just simply not true for eighty percent of Americans. Most of us will pay lower taxes under an Obama administration.

Let’s get started:

Here’s the non-partisan Tax Policy Center’s numbers that are cited in the above video.

So many people, though, have no idea that this is true, and Obama has himself to blame for that for not drilling it into people’s heads as the Republicans have the, albeit false, idea that Obama will raise their taxes:

Here's the problem: Few voters know that Obama would cut the taxes of the vast majority of Americans by far more than McCain would. Few know Obama would guarantee everyone access to health care or that McCain's health plan might endanger coverage many already have. Few know that Obama has a coherent program to create new jobs through public investment in roads, bridges, transit, and green technologies.

The Obama campaign is apparently finally addressing this:

It gets worse, though. Under Obama, we’ll have comprehensive health care reform, make health care available for the millions who can’t afford it (like me). Yet, under McCain, not only will we pay higher taxes, many people will also pay what the McCain campaign has admitted twice “would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans”:

To do so he is proposing a major tax change that he hopes will make the insurance marketplace more competitive and less expensive in part by encouraging more people to buy health insurance on their own instead of receiving it from their employers.

The 71 percent of insured Americans who get their health coverage through their employers now enjoy a significant advantage because the money spent by employers on their health coverage is excluded from their taxable income. If employers chose to pay that share of a worker’s compensation as wages rather than benefits, the income would be taxable.

This wouldn’t necessarily only effect those with “gold-plated” policies:

health analysts point out that middle-income workers with conventional coverage could conceivably pay more in regions where insurance costs are high.

Moreover:

But make no mistake: this plan will do little or nothing for those who do not have insurance now--unless they are young and healthy--and it may well hurt a fair number of workers, especially unionized workers, who get gold-plated benefits from their employers.

It will certainly do nothing for families with members who have pre-existing conditions or children with special needs--because it makes no provision to regulate the insurers, forcing them to cover all comers at "community" rates that don't discriminate against the people who need health insurance most.

So, it essentially doesn’t address the problem faced by the millions who have no health insurance.

Health is an integral part of the “pursuit of happiness.” I believe in small government, and I certainly don’t believe it is the government’s business to make sure you are comfortable and content. Yet, the government should be required to provide the tools – education and healthcare, for example – so that everyone is able to take part in that pursuit of happiness, fail as they might.

Despite all of the evidence, McCain has continuously lied about Obama’s tax plan. Factcheck has three McCain ads that have distorted his opponents tax plan, in the most recent of which McCain asserts that Obama proposed “painful tax increases” for working families.

In speaking of the economy in general, it has been interesting to see people try to describe Obama, along with his economic advisor Austan Goolsbee. People don’t tend to know where to place him, on the right, the left, or libertarian. This team has garnered praise from conservatives and liberals alike, as well as criticism. The fact that Obama spent time at the University of Chicago, which has spawned many a conservative and neo-conservative, and Goolsbee is a professor there has had an effect on these “liberals.” They’ve become “‘University of Chicago’ Democrats.”

It’s because of this, perhaps, that George Will, the conservative commentator, had these “praiseworthy” comments for Obama’s adviser:

Economics is the only academic discipline that in recent decades has moved in the direction that America and much of the world has moved, to the right. Goolsbee no doubt has lots of dubious ideas -- he is, after all, a Democrat -- about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.

It very well may be why there are so many “Obamacans” who have drifted to Obama for economic reasons, such as the son of conservative Economic guru Milton Friedman (who is also a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, as was his father).

Palin

[This is a good video to watch as a lead-up to all of the lies in this section. I’m not posting it, because it plays automatically]

Here's I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign's slogan is "country first." It's a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.

But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

That’s conservative columnist David Frum at the National Review.

As I said before, her nomination, and her subsequent fire-tongued speech at the RNC, was what brought me to write this. Had she not had such a positive, invigorating effect for the McCain campaign, I would not be wasting my typhoon holiday writing this.

Governor Sarah Palin bring nothing to the McCain campaign. I cannot stress how strongly I feel this, and the fact that so many people are energized by the lies that the McCain-Palin campaign has been spewing, to me, is disheartening.

Before I proceed, let me remind you that until two weeks ago, I thought McCain would me a great president and would have voted for him without hesitation in 2000 and 2004.

First of all, it is no small accomplishment for anyone, man or woman, to become governor. I don’t discount her successes. It’s just that (1) I don’t think that any of her accomplishments make her ready to be president. After all, she’s been governor for less time than McCain has been running for president, and, no, she was not in government when Obama was a community organizer, she was a sports reporter.

The fact that the McCain campaign would try to compare her experience to Obama’s is laughable. It is to be noted that during the RNC when the likes of Giuliani and Palin herself mocked Obama’s work as a community organizer (the kind of thing an advocate of small government and faith based programs should laud) they were comparing Palin now to Obama as a twenty-something.

Foreign Policy

One of the most poignant and precise analyses I ever heard of why George W. Bush was so bad at foreign policy was that “he has a tragic lack of curiosity.” He never seemed to care about the world. In coming into the White House, he new next to nothing about the world outside ‘mairka. As a presidential candidate he asked his unofficial forieng policy tutor, Prince Bandar from Saudi Arabia why he kept getting briefings on North Korea, wondering why he was supposed to care about them.

Palin, to me, screams George Bush. Not only does she have no foreign policy experience (no being close to Russia and Canada doesn’t count and neither does spending two days in Kuwait), she doesn’t appear to have an interest in it. She’s never gone to see the world. Her first passport was issued in 2006, and the McCain-Palin campaign has twice revised the details about her two-night trip to Kuwait in 2007:

Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.

But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as "K-Crossing," on July 25, 2007.

Asked to clarify where she traveled in Iraq, Palin's spokeswoman, Maria Comella, confirmed that "She visited a military outpost on the other side of the Kuwait-Iraq border."

It was the second such clarification in as many weeks of the itinerary of what Palin has called "the trip of a lifetime." Earlier, the campaign acknowledged that Palin made only a refueling stop in Ireland.

To make things worse, she dug up the corpse of the Bush-Cheney lie that got us into the war in Iraq to begin with when she sent her son off to Iraq on September 11, 2008, saying “"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans." It’s been a while since we heard that one, since, well, it’s been proven to be a lie.

Spending

Let’s start with the pork and the earmarks.

Rick Davis tries to defend it all on Fox

Here’s McCain making a very good point about how the people who died in I-35W bridge collapse might have been saved if the government had invested money in existing infrastructe instead of wasting the money on “pork barrel, earmark projects” like the one his future running mate was advocating in Alaska.

via videosift.com

Of course, the bridge to nowhere wasn’t the only pork that Palin sought. Here’s a pdf from Senator Ted Stevens’ website (Stevens is the less than savory politician who made the bridge to nowhere famous). This document outlines all 39 of Governor Palin’s the earmark requests.

Here’s TPM talking about it:

Still not finished with the sloppy spending. It seems that not only did she ask for tons of earmarks, but in 19 months as governor, she’s gotten the taxpayers to pay for 312 nights at home.

That’s not spending we can believe in Sen. McCain.

The Liberal Media

McCain, who has been a media sweetheart for at least a decade – despite his complaints over the last two months – has now allowed his campaign to

The “media” is back on the opposite team, because they “did stuff to this family” that was unprecedented. Even though the McCain campaign has yet, to my knowledge, to explain what media outlets or democrats were causing the Palin family so much pain:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sent out a fundraising solicitation today that charged that "the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain."

I asked spokespeople of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee just which "Obama/Biden Democrats" they're referring to.

The response I got was that Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski erroneously attacked Palin as a supporter of Pat Buchanan.

That's it. That's the evidence.

An attack on Palin herself.

Since accepting the nomination, Gov. Palin has done all of one interview (with ABC’s Charlie Gibson), and her next interview is with Sean Hannity – who can hardly be expected to push her on the issues.

This begs the question: if she’s ready, why hide her away?

Put it is also a demonstration of just how unfair this is to all of us. We do not get the opportunity to see how Palin will react to the barrage of questions she’ll be subjected to if she is indeed the president of the free world, which she could feasibly be in a little over four months if the oldest man elected president, God forbid, were to pass.

I was amazed at how well Obama handled Bill O’Reilly’s questions recently, and I’d be interested in seeing Palin sit down with, say, Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, and see how she holds up.

Executive Experience

Palin has executive experience. That’s undeniable. However, as with my previous comments on the idea of “experience” in general, I take this with a grain of salt. Palin’s judgement in places of power shows more about what kind of president she would make than does the sheer fact that she has “executive experience.”

The issues above and below should present plenty of valid questions about Gov. Palin’s judgement.

I’d just like to note that it’s really strange of McCain to claim that part of Palin’s “executive experience” was heading up the Parent Teacher Association, which she didn’t. If she had been, though, would that really be a qualification for the White House? Yes, it may be relevant in showing that she cares about education and she’s a good parent, but (1) it’s not true and (2) that’s hardly the “executive experience” people are looking for.

NOTE: The McCain campaign’s response to Politifact for researching that issue:

“Of all the smears you could look into against Gov. Palin—that she supported Pat Buchanan (we actually ruled that False ), that she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, that her baby was really her daughter’s — you all want to investigate her career in the PTA? Don’t waste our time.”

Yet, the claim made by McCain was, after all, a lie.

Finally, let me just note that with all of the talk about “executive experience,” you’d think that the McCain-Palin campaign were switching the ticket to Palin-McCain, since by their own definition, she has more valuable experience than he does.

Note that McCain repeats several blatant lies and exaggerations in this interview.

She is not the “commander-in-chief of the Alaska Guard.”
Obama thinks Iran is a minor irritant.
Surge (talked about above)
Traveling to Kuwait
20 percent of our energy comes from Alaska
“When she was in government, Obama was a community organizer.”
Obama voted present 130 times in Illinois

Let’s go down the list:

1. She is not the commander-in-chief of the Alaska Guard

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

2. Obama never said Iran was a minor threat. McCain made an ad saying that, and factcheck debunked it:

Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet.

3. Surge above. Long story short, there is no way anyone can say the surge worked because no one knows exactly what the surge was supposed to do.

4. She traveled for two nights to Kuwait. They lied twice about where she went. She just went to Kuwait for two nights. Hardly a foreign policy qualification.

5. Twenty percent of our energy does not come from Alaska. According again to factcheck, 3.5 percent of our energy comes from Alaska:

Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

6. Already mentioned above. She was a sports reporter when he was a community organizer.

7. This the only one of the seven comments that really has any teeth, but it’s still not that great of an attack:

Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The New York Times examined the issue in December and found a mixed record: "Sometimes the 'present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support," the paper reported. "At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."

Moral Issues

Much has been made of allegations that Gov. Palin banned books. She didn’t.

However, she did ask about the hypothetical possibility of banning books, then fired the librarian who didn’t give her the response she wanted.

Wouldn’t anyone be worried about the mayor asking about banning books? Even if it’s a hypothetical, why would a major ask that?

The New York Times has an extensive five-page article out today about Palin’s penchant for censorship and secrecy in which the banning of books is talked about:

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

Another moral issue that I know is very touchy is the issue of her daughter’s pregnancy. Right off the bat, let me clear that I am not judging her daughter. I have no problem with their decision.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that Palin (like Bush) supports abstinence-only sex education. Again, let me be clear that I think abortion and pre-marital sex are wrong and dangerous, but I also think that abstinence-only sex ed and prohibition of abortions is dangerous and unrealistic. I went to a Baptist middle school and a Catholic high school, both of which offered sex-ed courses. They worked perfectly, stressing abstinence, but teaching us about what would happen how to be safe. Even at my Catholic school, we learned about contraception, only after learning the Catholic churches view of it.

Abstinence-only education is a farce, and it’s rife with double-standards:

What's galling is this: When the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, minority teenage mother growing up in some (presumably Democratic) urban area, that pregnancy becomes fodder for lectures from conservatives about bad parenting, the perils of welfare spending and so on. But when the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, white teenager from some small town in a Republican state, that pregnancy is...a celebration of the wonders of God's magnificence--and choosing life!

It’s also been proven horribly ineffective:

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

“Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active,” Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

This brings me to something that Obama said at the Saddleback forum with Rick Warren. In talking about abortion, he said there are certain issues many of us will always disagree on, like abortion and abstinence-only sex ed, but there are certain things we can always agree on, like the need to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. He has a point. We need a president who is going to support common sense initiatives like that.

Alaska Independence Party

I can’t believe this hasn’t become an issue. Did I miss a memo, or was Sarah Palin’s husband really a member of an organization that supports Alaska’s secession from the United States? Whose leader said, “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government”?

No. I didn’t miss the memo, but apparently the press did. The same party and press that railed on Michelle Obama for her statement about being proud of her country for the first time seeing her husband run for president is mum on Palin’s husband’s membership in and her close involvement with the Alaskan Independence Party, which seeks the independence of Alaska.

Where is the party of patriotism on this one? And where is the media that loves so much to ask rhetorically “Do the Obama’s love their country?”

In the end…

It’s now been two days of typhoon here in Taiwan. I’ve spent, probably, ten more hours than I had planned on this essay. As I mentioned, I’ve got plenty of other things regarding my marriage, my graduate school applications, and our move back to the United States.

That is probably a good point to note. I’m writing this, not because I think my country is a bad place. I’m writing this because I feel that my country can always be better and I’m frustrated by the people who seem to contented by the fact that United States is, in so many ways, the best. Few of us would ever doubt that there are ways that if could be better.

I will soon be bringing the love of my life back to the United States to settle down after four years and three continents together. We plan on starting our life and our family together in the United States. I want to do my part to always make sure it’s on the right track, and I’m frustrated that I’m not there right now, because I would do all that I can to get Sen. Obama elected.

I’m not there, though, so I can’t. In my frustration, though, I figured I could put this out there on the “intertubes.” Maybe other people who once respect John McCain would see this and, perhaps, change their minds and pass it on. I’ve tried to be as honest as I can be in writing this, and the only way it will be effective is if people get those close to them to read it.

What I’d like to say in closing is that there is on overriding point that encapsulates all of the points made here: the Republicans don’t deserve this win. I was willing to push this to the back of mind, believing that they had nominated perhaps the most honorable man possible to reform their party. Yet, he’s proven too weak it. It pains me to say that, but I’d be lying if I said otherwise. He’s caved to the religious right, he’s caved to the politics of fear, he’s caved to the “Washington tactics” that put winning before country.

So, now, they don’t deserve it. They controlled all three branches of government for years, and they’ve succeeded in curtailing our civil liberties; straining our military; outsourcing the effort to greedy companies that overcharged the people and put our soldiers in dangers; staining our national image and, in doing so, empowering dictators who could point to America and say “If you can do it so can I”; destroying our economy; facilitating Enron; telling a grieving nation to go shopping when they should have told us that we were going to become the leaders in renewable energies; raising an uproar over Terry Schivo; bothing Katrina; empowering China and straining democracy in Taiwan, one of the freest, most democratic countries in Asia; putting cronies in high places; and the list goes on and on.

The don’t deserve it. Not just Bush and Cheney. The whole party. They don’t deserve it. The sad truth is, though, that with their latest deceitful tactics, the might win.

Technorati Tags: McCain,Palin,Obama,politics,2008 presidential elections,lies,ads,iraq,war,war on terror,policy,tax,taxes,censorship,Alaskan Independence Party,AIP,Rove,sex,sex education,abstinence,abortion

Ma = President of a “Chinese Territory”

2008-09-05T07:42:00.001-07:00

From The Times:

“Cross-straits peace will be remembered as the most important accomplishment of my administration,” President Ma said in his first interview with a British newspaper since he swept to victory in March, becoming only the third popularly elected leader of a Chinese territory.

Videos from Anti-Ma protest

2008-09-02T07:04:00.001-07:00

I just want to preface this by saying that I was at this protest as a bystander, a non-participant. The 加油's [“add oil” is said as an expression of encouragement] you hear are more in support of a freedom to assemble and express a position in opposition to a government, any government, that is under-performing, knowing that Taiwan is one of the few places in Asia free enough for this to be possible.

I express this thought for reasons I don’t have time to go into right now. Suffice it to say that there are two reasons. First, I’m falling into a Taiwanese funk that makes me feel that both sides of this debate [the “blue” and the “green”] are rotten and inept, not worth the frustration they cause this poor, redheaded non-citizen. Second, I’ve come to see my position here not as one of influencing or encouraging any particular perspective. Rather, I’m more interested now in how my country interacts with Taiwan, and every other country -- i.e., not supporting Taiwanese independence is all fine and good, but actively countering the will of millions of people (if that is the case) is not exactly the most admirable of positions for a country supposedly so adamant about democratic proliferation.

Pictures from the “Separatist” march yesterday

2008-08-31T00:32:00.001-07:00

Lately, to be honest, I haven’t been paying a whole lot of attention to Taiwanese politics. There’s just too much going on in the American political circus right now for me to tear myself away.

Yesterday, though, after work, Fanfan and I had a couple of hours to burn before a shindig at some friends’ house, so we stopped in Ximen (西門) to see if there were any movies out that were worth our valuable time.

Much to my surprise, upon emerging from the glossy, plastic mouth of the MRT, I realized that the Anti-Ma, “seperatist” protests were taking place right across the street. So, I hopped across the street and started snapping pictures and vids of the surprisingly large number of people taking part -- estimates I saw in the Liberty Times (自由時報) downstairs put the number at 300,000.

Of course, as many of you know, I’m quite interested in generational differences here in Taiwan (and elsewhere), so it was only fitting, I thought, to be standing at a crosswalk in Ximen, watching thousands of middle-aged Taiwanese men and women marching by, while hundreds of young Taiwanese kids breaking through the procession during every green light on their way to Ximen to shop, take pictures of themselves, and all the other things that people do at Ximen.

去台灣親中國馬上倒 means more or less, “~~Leave Taiwan~~Get rid of Taiwan, kiss China, and immediately turn everything upside down.” 馬上 (literally “on the horse'”) means “immediately” or “right away.” It’s a pun that’s become quite popular since 馬 [ma3] is President Ma’s family name.

The Chinese at the bottom of this “Ma You Suck” fan says “ROC, get out of Taiwan.”

美國人的爸爸就會親中賣台 “The American’s father is just going to kiss China and sell Taiwan.” I don’t particularly understand this one. Ma’s father was from Hong Kong, right?

馬賣台得金牌 ~~“Ma sale of Taiwan merits a gold medal”~~ “Ma sells Taiwan, earns a gold medal”

Fanfan actually left and went to wander around Ximen for a little while because, she said she didn’t like the tone of a lot of the people’s chants and signs. This is probably a good example of one of them (on the left). It says: "Fuck the nine schools of thought government”

This is another example of those signs that Fanfan didn’t appreciate.

Suddenly David Reid and Darren Melrose, two other Taiwan bloggers, popped up next to me.

There were plenty of manifestations of economic woes on display.

I’ve no idea what that sign says. (I’m being told it’s the KMT oldie, “Retake the Mainland.”)

I’ve seen these trucks before. A while back, I was walking out of Taipei Main Station, and these guys made a ruckus as they moved past.

I’ll be adding videos later.

For those who want to watch Obama’s speech live…

2008-08-28T18:10:00.001-07:00

Just wanted to mention that I’ve found that the site demconvention.com offers the opportunity to watch all of the goings-on at the convention live without the inane, self-aggrandizing ramblings of the folks at CNN. You have to download to programs to watch (only takes a couple of minutes), but the quality of the video is impeccable, and, over the last two days, it has never frozen up on me.

The speech is in a little over an hour, I think, so you’ll need to get to it quick.

Marriage considerations that I hadn’t considered

2008-08-07T05:27:00.001-07:00

As you may know, Fanfan and I are trying to sort out how to go about getting married and putting an end, for the time being, to our nomadic ways by settling down in the US when I start my graduate studies.

While we’re still chin deep in USCIS literature, I just wanted to mention a conversation I found both funny and frustrating the other night.

Fanfan called me at work, as I was hectically trying to pull together lesson plans. She was asking me a question about something, I don’t remember what, and we got to talking about what we thought was the best plan for right now. I said that I reckoned we needed to get married as soon as possible, so that we could also start the immigrations process as soon as possible. This is more or less how the conversation progressed in French, which I’ll translate here:

Fanfan: Oh yeah. I was thinking that as well, but it’s the ghost month.

Me: The ghost what?

F: The ghost month.

M: And? [I knew exactly what the ghost month is, but I was praying that she would say it’s no big deal.]

Fanfan: Well, my family might not be comfortable with us getting married during the ghost month. You’re not supposed swim, have sex, get surgery done, move, travel, or get married during the ghost month.

M: …and [Giving her another chance to say, “But I don’t care.”]

F: I’m just saying, I don’t know if my family would be comfortable with it.

We pretty much left it at that. I was worried to death that we were going to have to wait an entire month to get this all started, setting everything back a month, and I was just going to have to grin and bear it in the name of cultural sensitivity.

When I came home, I mentioned that technically the marriage we’re going to be doing here in Taiwan isn’t really a marriage marriage (since we actually want to have the ceremony in the US). It’s actually just a “household registration” which counts legally as a marriage.

The ghosts smiled down upon me, and Fanfan agreed that it shouldn’t be a problem. Sure enough, her family doesn’t have a problem with it…that I know of.

False alarm…

Meet Mrs. Redhead: We’re tying the knot (if the paperwork doesn’t kill us first)

2008-08-03T06:08:00.001-07:00

THOSE OF YOU FAMILIAR WITH MARRIAGE VISA PROCEDURES PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO READ “The Process” BELOW IF YOU CAN. WE NEED ALL THE ADVICE WE CAN GET.

UPDATE: FANFAN IS NOW OFFICIALLY 毛太太 [MRS. MAO]. WE GOT MARRIED YESTERDAY, IN A LUSTRIOUS CEREMONY AT THE GRAND HALL OF THE XINZHUANG HOUSING REGISTRATION OFFICE. I’LL WRITE MORE ON THE “CEREMONY” ITSELF LATER (IT WAS QUITE FUNNY).

The Change of Heart

I’m very happy to inform you that it’s official: Fanfan and I are getting married! (That’s not the change of heart, mind you, we’ve known for some time we were going to marry each other)

She and I spoke the other night about the state of our existence, and, at one point in the conversation, she put it to me bluntly, “Aside from your Chinese studies, why are we here? What is it that we can do here that we can’t do in the US?” Her point was this: We’re both sitting here, stressed out of our minds over money because the jobs we want are much harder to find in Taiwan, and even when we find them, we won’t get hired because we’re planning on going back to the US for me to start graduate school.

The truth is, the only thing that’s been certain in our lives over these years is our relationship. It’s the stable hum around which all of the other distractions in world buzz, spin, and sputter.

Fanfan had a point. Not only that, though, I suddenly realized how much I wanted to go somewhere, knowing that I wasn’t going to leave any time soon – by that I mean years, several of them strung together, long enough to start a life for ourselves. Fanfan had flicked a switch, turned on the light, and showed me how tired I was, we were, of the stress and the uncertainty of our vagabond lifestyle. For some time now, we could take the hassles with a grin because we were young and we knew that what we were doing was important. Now, however, it feels like we’ve passed a certain threshold – that point where we seem less like a couple of dreamers trying to squeeze the sweet sap of knowledge out of the world and more like two people in their late twenties who still live with their parents, whichever continent they’re on.

We now long for that moment when we land in the United States with the knowledge that we aren’t going anywhere for a while, that the boxes we unpack and the home we make won’t be put back in a pair of suitcases to move on to the next place.

We’ve been together for about four years now, and we’ve barely spent more than one of those years on the same continent.

We’ve been very lucky; don’t get me wrong. Five years ago, I only spoke one language, and I’d never left the US. I now speak French with the remarkable Taiwanese woman I met and fell in love with. With her help, I’m approaching a working proficiency in Chinese.

I’ve been to nearly twenty countries, made lifelong friends from all corners of the world, lived abroad four times – twice in France and twice in Taiwan – and, of course, met the woman with whom I want to spend the rest of my life. Together, we’ve been to about ten countries, learned and seen things that will stay with us for the rest of our lives.

All this before my 26th birthday. I have little to complain about.

However, all this moving around has its downsides. The stress of obtaining visas and living somewhere as a foreigner is daunting enough, but, as I mentioned, we also have spent less than a year in the same place, in most cases. As soon as we land somewhere, we get a moment to catch our breath, then it’s time to start planning for the next move, while simultaneously dealing with the demands of the present: work, bills, the law (visas, residency cards, etc.), and study.

The Proposal

Fanfan and I have known for some time that we were going to get married. However, I couldn’t do it without knowing that both of our families loved and accepted each of us and our relationship. It wasn’t until we had been together for nearly three years that Fanfan and I had the chance to go home and spend time with my family. This was a big deal for me, obviously, since most of my family and friends had never met her. Any number of things could have gone wrong, especially with us living with my parents (a true test for any couple). Yet, the last night we were in Charleston, I knew that the four months couldn’t have gone better than they had, as everyone who had come over for dinner raised a glass with tears in their eyes to make a toast to new and lasting relations with the girl who, for most of my family, had for years been little more than a name that came up in conversations about me.

Leaving Charleston, I knew that it was time to get the ball rolling. I planned out how it would all work out: being a good Southern boy (1) I’d write to my parents and ask for their blessing in what I was about to do, (2) write to Fanfan’s parents asking for her hand in marriage, and (3) plan a wonderful weekend somewhere and ask Fanfan if she’d do me the honor of spending the rest of her life with me. Fanfan and my relationship has been quite stressful with constant moving and money problems (many that arise solely because we are not married), but I really wanted to give her one big moment that would totally blow her mind and she could point to and say that it was the moment we became engaged, even though the engagement itself would be no surprise.

Well, one night, some of Fanfan’s family was over, and we were all talking. At one point, Fanfan’s aunt asked her what her plans were, and as she explained that we intended to go back to the US for me to start my graduate studies, her mother blurted, “Well, you’re going to have to get married, then,” and suddenly I saw all of my well-planned intentions falling to pieces as a conversations erupted in machine gun Mandarin that I could understand but was totally unqualified to intervene in. They were diving head-first into the details of our marriage, and all I could do was think, “Wait a damn second. I’m supposed to talk to your parents first. Stop!” Though my Chinese is getting much better, I certainly couldn’t hold my own in this conversation.

So, with step two done (though I’m still in the process of writing to her parents), I set to writing to my parents and asking for their blessing, and in doing so I remembered how hard it was to write without a computer. I couldn’t just jot things down as I thought, then move them around later – a 21st-century affliction. In any case, I got my point across (I think). My parents and I spoke on Friday, and they are 100% behind us.

Though Fanfan and I are planning this together, I still plan on making that weekend proposal in the quiet of the jungle somewhere in the mountains of Taiwan (by that, I mean staying in a lodge somewhere in the pristine mountains here), or something like that. There’s still a lot here in Taiwan that I’ve yet to see, and I’m hoping maybe we can head somewhere beautiful and I can dream up something that will be meaningful for her. I’ve got to find a ring too…

The Process

UPDATE: FOR A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW, SEE THIS COMMENT BELOW. TO SUM IT UP, THE IDEAL WAY OF GETTING BACK WOULD BE TO FILE “DCF” IN SEPTEMBER, WHICH, IDEALLY, WOULD GET US BACK TO THE U.S. BY DECEMBER. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT MRS. REDHEAD CAN ENTER THE U.S. ON A TOURIST VISA, AND WE CAN FILE FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS IN THE STATES. THIS WOULD TAKE LONGER FOR HER TO WORK, WHICH COULD BE A PROBLEM.

Now, for the hitch: the marriage process. The night we decided we needed to get back to the US, we settled on Christmas as a good time to make our way home. That was before we consulted the United States’ guidelines for getting married to a non-citizen. Now, we don’t know if that will be possible.

The first issue here is trying to wrap our minds around the terminology, which seem to be little more than random letters and numbers barfed up by a dying bureaucrat in the hollows of USCIS (I mean no disrespect, of course, to the kind sages at Immigrations who will be responsible for helping us make our trip back home a success). We’ve spent days now trying to figure out the differences between an I-130 petition and an I-129 petition, a K3 visa and a CR1, and which one is best for us.

Here’s an example of the exhilarating passages we’ve been wading through:

After filing a Form I-130, the U.S. citizen files a Form I-129F with USCIS on behalf of the foreign national spouse. Upon approval of the Form I-129F, the foreign national may then seek a K-3 visa from the consulate abroad. After entering the U.S. on the K-3, the foreign national must then file a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, to obtain permanent residence in the United States.

Doesn’t get much easier than that, does it?

So this is where we stand right now. It seems that getting married in Taiwan first will be easier than getting married in the US. Our options from there are getting a K-3 visa, which will allow Fanfan to come to the US while her I-130 (and I-129f?) petition(s) are being processed. However, the problem with getting a K-3 visa is that she’ll have to apply for “adjustment of status” in the US (I-485) which, if I understand correctly costs a whopping $1,010, and I’m not talking New Taiwan dollars!

There is also the option of using “Direct Consular Filing,” but as I was told the other day at AIT, I won’t be eligible for DCF until I’ve been here for six months. Even though I was in Taiwan for 15 months the first time I was here and only left for four months, I’ve only been back for two months. Moreover, I’m not sure when my “six month” count starts, because I’m still on a visitor visa, as my work ARC is being processed.

That said, though, the woman I spoke to didn’t know for herself, and had to ask someone else. I’m not totally sure this is the case. Fanfan’s found accounts on different message boards from people who claim to have proven simply that they’ve lived here for a total of six months, and been allowed to file directly.

So what I’d like to know is if anyone out there has any advice for us:

First and foremost, is there really no way that we can file directly? I don’t quite understand why I shouldn’t be able to file directly since I can prove that I’ve been in Taiwan for a total of a year and half out of the last two years, only leaving to spend Christmas with my family and stay until my cousin’s wedding.
If I don’t qualify for DCF now, should we get married and wait for my six month mark to arrive so that we can use DCF? Or would it be better to send an I-129F petition as soon as possible?
How much money are we looking at spending on this?
What are our chances of getting home for Christmas?

I really appreciate any help you could give me. We’ve been asking all over on forums, message boards, and AIT. We’re in a little over our heads here, so we need all the help we can get.

About the pictures: A little while back, I decided to draw a picture a day for Fanfan. I wasn’t able to keep doing it on a daily basis, but I have kept it up. I draw about two a week. It’s sort of a compendium of all of our inside jokes and experiences. These are just a few that Fanfan scanned the other day.

Mr. Brownback, the kettle called…

2008-07-31T04:56:00.001-07:00

Back to my developing meme of “It’d be nice if the US didn’t do the things it decries in other countries.”

As many of you probably know, Sen. Brownback expressed his “dismay” regarding the fact that China has not followed through on many of the promises it made (which it hasn’t) in order to host the Olympics, most notably it’s intentions to spy on “its own guests.” If you didn’t know, have a look:

Now, I agree with Brownback here. It’s a shame that the PRC is so often inclined to violate the privacy of vast numbers of people. Yet, I wonder if I could direct your attention to the map below, courtesy of Privacy International [via Open-Left], titled “Map of Surveillance Societies around the world” (just tickles your heartstrings, doesn’t it?). What do you notice?

Indeed, both the United States and China are black, which signifies “Endemic surveillance societies.”

Which brings me to where I disagree with Sen. Brownback. Hit it Greenwald:

That's the same Sen. Sam Brownback who voted last year to enact the Protect America Act, which "allow[ed] for massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts. It contain[ed] virtually no protections for the U.S. end of the phone call or email, leaving decisions about the collection, mining and use of Americans' private communications up to this administration." And it's the same Sen. Brownback who also voted for this year's FISA Amendments Act, which empowers the U.S. Government to tap directly into the U.S. telecommunications systems in order to monitor international emails and telephone calls with no individual warrant required.

The idea that the U.S. can exert meaningful leverage on China's surveillance behavior is laughable for reasons wholly independent of what the U.S. Government itself does with regard to spying on its own citizens. Nonetheless, to watch U.S. Senators like Sam Brownback actually maintain a straight face while protesting China's warrantless spying on the email and telephone communications of foreigners, and lamenting that private companies feel unfairly pressured to cooperate with China's government spying out of fear of losing lucrative business opportunities, is so surreal that it's actually hard to believe one is seeing it. How many days do we have to wait before we get to read a righteous Fred Hiatt Editorial condemning China's Communist tyrants for their outrageous spying intrusions? Maybe Jay Rockefeller can co-sponsor Brownback's Senate Resolution condemning China's surveillance activities and demanding that they stop it at once.

I want to say that there is something intrinsically different in how US surveillance on suspected threats works, but I have no reason to do so other than the fact that I have faith that the US is freer than the PRC (when, after all, is a Chinese director going to put a biopic out on a sitting PRC chairman?). I’d be interested in hearing from someone as to why it’s different when the US does this sort of thing and when the Chinese do it.

If, as I presume, there is no difference – or very little – then the idea that Sen. Brownback of all people is the one to lead the crusade for justice in the PRC is indeed “laughable.” Let’s not forget that some of the suspected “terrorists” spied on in the US were peace activists and poverty relief advocates. Some of those jailed at Guantanamo Bay were picked based on hearsay from vengeful relatives, later found to have no merit.

That’s a hell of a track record.

Let me reiterate, I think what China is doing is horrible, but I find little difference in what we see our own government doing. This sort of conduct leaves a bitter taste in my mouth wherever it takes place.

Homage to the Earth god hurts the Earth….

2008-07-27T22:28:00.001-07:00

I’ve been way too busy/stressed lately to write much of anything, but taking a moment during this 颱風假 (Typhoon holiday) an article entitled “EPA shuts down ‘ghost money’ furnace at temple” caught my wandering eye:

Citing air pollution, the Taoyuan County Government’s Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) posted a notice sealing a Land God Temple’s (土地公廟) furnace that was used for burning “ghost money” on Wednesday, shocking many locals.

…

“For the Environmental Protection Administration to seal the furnace is not only hard for the villagers to accept, but how would the Land God feel about it?” he asked.

Although the temple does not have an administrative board, it represents the religious beliefs of nearly 1,000 village residents, Chang said, adding that the sudden sealing of the furnace upset villagers, as it prohibited them from practicing the traditional, everyday ritual of burning ghost money and incense.

The bureau fined the temple NT$5,000 for violating the Air Pollution Control Act (空氣污染防制法).

The bureau said a notice was posted at the temple at the beginning of the month, requiring that an administrative board be organized to maintain the temple and prevent pollution if the furnace were to remain in use. However, in the three weeks prior to Wednesday, no one took on the responsibility, forcing the EPA to seal the furnace, it said.
The bureau said that there would be even more air pollution next month with the ceremonies of the upcoming Chungyuan Festival (中元節), or Ghost Festival.

Since some ghost money contains carcinogens, people could instead celebrate using environmentally friendly alternatives, such as worshipping without incense or virtually burning incense or paper money via the Internet, bureau officials said.

So, those at the temple are burning offerings to the Land God, and the EPA is saying the environment (arguably, the scientific equivalent of the “Land God”) doesn’t particularly appreciate the pollution.

I’ve often wondered if all the ghost money being burned twice a month has any affect on the environment. Guess I have my answer.

BBC finds “first evidence” of China’s part in Darfur

2008-07-13T05:53:00.001-07:00

UPDATE: You can’t beat the title of Foreign Policy Magazine’s blog post on Sudan’s response to the ICC’s charges against President Omar Hassan al-Bashir: “Because nothing says innocence like promising more bloodshed.”

Also, the China Digital Times has some articles noting the new focus on China’s part in the Darfur conflict.

I’m not sure what to make of this. It certainly is interesting considering the ongoing fury in the comments sections at Truthdig over Robert Scheer’s article on what he views as Taiwan’s declaration of “peace on China.” The general theme of the comments seems to be that imperialism or wrongdoing on the international scene isn’t important unless the US (or another former western imperialist government) is the one with blood on its hands.

Many of the people accusing Michael Turton of martial fetishes will likely find a way to blame the story below on the US (after all, the UN wouldn’t have lost so much credibility if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq without its backing). In the end, China’s misdeeds are the result of its abuse at the hands of greedy western imperialists, pure and simple.

All sarcasm aside, I know quite well the ills the US and the west are responsible for in the world, but the idea that I’m not allowed to express concern over what other countries do (unless, ultimately, I place the brunt of the blame on the US) is a bit absurd.

From the BBC:

Panorama traced the first lorry by travelling deep into the remote deserts of West Darfur.

They found a Chinese Dong Feng army lorry in the hands of one of Darfur's rebel groups.

The BBC established through independent eyewitness testimony that the rebels had captured it from Sudanese government forces in December.

The rebels filmed a second lorry with the BBC's camera. Both vehicles had been carrying anti-aircraft guns, one a Chinese gun.

Markings showed that they were from a batch of 212 Dong Feng army lorries that the UN had traced as having arrived in Sudan after the arms embargo was put in place.

…

China has said in the past that it told Sudan's government not to use Chinese military equipment in Darfur.

…

In these attacks Darfur's civilians have been hunted not just from the ground, but from the sky.

…

The Chinese Fantan jets are believed to have been delivered to Sudan in 2003 before the current UN arms embargo was imposed on Darfur.

But the BBC has been told by two confidential sources that China is training Fantan fighter pilots.

Sudan imported a number of fighter trainers called K8s two years ago - they are designed to train pilots of fighters like Fantans.

"Clearly this is what they used to train for operations with the Fantans," said Chris Dietrich, a former member of the UN panel on Darfur.

International lawyer Ms da Silva says if China is training Fantan pilots, this represents another Chinese violation of the UN arms embargo.

…

There are strong economic ties between the China and Sudan.

China buys most of Sudan's oil and believes that what Sudan needs is good business partners, help with development and a solid peace process in Darfur, instead of confrontation and sanctions from the West.

Well, I’m off to find out how the US is responsible for Russia and China’s veto of the UN resolution for sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Scheer paints quite a rosy picture of direct flights.

2008-07-09T01:21:00.001-07:00

No longer pretending to be enemies, a condition in which they engaged in angry rhetoric while doing much business together on the side, a public love affair now has broken out across the Strait of Formosa. On Friday, there were scheduled direct flights between the mainland and its breakaway island* for the first time in 60 years, and the invasion of tourists clicking their cameras was on.

Robert Scheer, veteran journalist and author of The Pornography of Power, has published an article, strangely titled “Taiwan Declares Peace on China,” that has been posted at Truthdig, The San Francisco Chronicler and The Huffington Post.

Sheer’s basic argument is that the direct flights are a sign of growing peace in the Strait and a blow to Taiwan’s well-armed, neoconservative friends in the US who, as J. Michael Cole so nicely put it, think “international security is best served through further militarization -- greater investment in weapons, more reliance on force to solve problems and preemptive military action.”

That’s great. Don’t get me wrong. Let me stress the woeful regard I have for the truism that the only people in the US who seem to pay any attention to Taiwan are the likes of Wolfowitz, Tancredo, Bolton, etc. Hawks certainly do rule the US’ Taiwan policy, and I personally don’t really get too worked up when Taiwan doesn’t get the American weapons that it wants or that the US wants to sell them.

(I’ve been assured before that those Taiwan supporters in the US with neoconservative leanings really do love Taiwan and would do anything for it, but that has little effect on my feelings towards their policies. I’m glad they like Taiwan, but I often wonder that if their very support hurts Taiwan’s chances of gaining broader support in the US. If I knew nothing about Taiwan, I probably wouldn’t be too turned on by the fact that the three aforementioned politicos are so heavily invested in the islands well-being.)

I believe peace is possible, and I don’t think its achievement will necessitate a war. On that point, I agree with Mr. Scheer.

That said, though, I’m curious as to where exactly Scheer got the idea that war is now seen as “counterproductive” in the PRC? One of the first things China did before the start of the direct flights, if I’m not mistaken, was to “update” the 1000+ missiles it has pointing at Taiwan:

Professor Christopher Hughes, an LSE-based expert on Taiwan, thought the boost from tourism had been overestimated. His initial optimism about the thaw had also waned after conversations with mainland officials and academics. “Their way of thinking was: ‘Taiwan’s come over to our way of thinking; Ma’s going to do what we want him to,’” he said, adding that Beijing had updated its missiles opposite Taiwan. “The question is: what is Taiwan getting out of this?"

Admittedly, I don’t know what steps one takes in “updating” missiles, but it doesn’t sound like something you do if you want to demonstrate the good faith you have in the relations you’re trying to foster. How exactly does that jive with Taiwan’s supposed declaration of peace on China?

Moreover, its becoming more and more apparent that Taiwan is getting very little out of the deal. China refused to let Taiwanese airlines in on the historic transits. This, I feel, is the part that’s been left out of most of the reporting (not, as Scheer says, the fact that the neocons are going to be left in the cold). The Hong Kong-Taipei route is one of the busiest in the world. Now that some of that traffic will be redirected, Taiwanese companies aren’t being allowed any of the new business.

What the KMT is doing now is no different than the DPP’s policy to facilitate closer ties with China, aside from the fact that KMT is willing to let China dictate all of the rules, and the DPP wasn’t, as Max Hirsch commented on the East West Center’s blog:

Although typically branded a ”troublemaker” — ie, one who has antagonized Beijing and Washington — Chen also leaves behind the much quieter legacy of pushing the KMT to transform (as you mention) and allowing for a degree of cross-strait economic integration that has been unprecedented, even under KMT administrations preceding his.

While declining to dismantle (indeed, he even threw up some of his own) some of the roadblocks that have hindered cross-strait trade, Chen has presided over a massive (the largest in history) trade and investment flow across the strait, while hammering out many of the prickly details of further links for which credit will ultimately go to the KMT.

A few days ago, I sat down with a top KMT official slated for a Cabinet position under Ma. Off-the- record, the official admitted that the foundations for opening up Taiwan to Chinese tourists, and for direct air and shipping links had already been laid through years of painstaking negotiations with Beijing, initiated and conducted by the DPP-led government. I doubt that much credit will go to the DPP for this, however. Equally sad is the lost legacy of how the DPP played a role in forcing the KMT to democratize from without; indeed, the opposition party (soon to become the ruling one) was, by and large, dragged kicking and screaming into democracy; now it is also beginning to embrace the localization movement that defines the DPP: Oddly enough, ”Taiwan First” was a slogan that the KMT clung to during Ma’s presidential campaign.

Right now, it seems that China has gotten everything it wants out of the deal, and Taiwan’s gotten little, because the KMT isn’t willing to stand up and make sure that Taiwan gets its cut.

I can’t reiterate this enough. I’m not denying that the cross-strait flights are a good thing. While I certainly don’t think they they’ll be the economic boon that the KMT is claiming they will be, and I’m not alone, I have hope for moderate benefits, both financial and cultural. It’s just a shame that KMT was so ready to back down, not daring to demand the PRC compromise.

* There still appears to be very few people willing to let go of the split meme. It seems obvious to me that a group fleeing to an island during a civil war is fundamentally different from a group of people seceding from a certain union.

Notes on Pew’s Global Attitudes Project

2008-07-08T23:59:00.001-07:00

I came across the 2008 version of Pew’s Global Attitudes Project. The report lays out a lot of interesting statistics, as one might hope a 150-page document would.

Before I start, I wondered if I might make one suggestion: if you’re going to make a graph depicting positive and negative attitudes, it would probably be better to use gray to stand for the latter and not the former.

But, hey, it’s your study, Pew

. You do what you want.

Global Economy

Take a look at the following three graphs:

Several things struck me here. First, obviously, malaise is the word of the day in much of the world. A majority in many countries see their economies either worsening or remaining the same, with only an astounding 5% in Japan thinking their economy will improve.

While the US respondents in the first graph show a fairly balanced view of their future – with about a third in each category – I would never have expected to find the US at the bottom of the list when it comes to positive views of international trade. As Emmanuel said at International Political Economy Zone:

So let me get this straight: US GDP in Q1 2008 would have been nearly nothing had it not been for the contributions of net exports, yet America is the least trade-friendly country in this sample? Given current trends, it's certainly plausible that the trade sceptics already outnumber the pro-trade set. Just in time for the 2008 elections, too--it will be very interesting to see how this sort of sentiment will manifest itself come election time. The world awaits what the US has in store for it..

It wasn’t just the Nervous Nellies in the US that surprised me the most in the second graph. It was the fact that, in light of the US views, the French views were so positive. I spent a lot of time* when I lived in France, and thereafter, debating the particularity of the French when it comes to their perspectives on la mondialisation.

Two studies come to mind on the subject. One international poll asked participants in several countries to say the first word that comes to mind when they heard the word globalization. While the majority of people in other countries described global trade in positive terms like, commerce, prosperity, etc., the majority of French respondents had a singularly different view: peur [fear].

The second study was a European study in which interviewees were simply asked whether or not they had a positive or negative view of international trade. While most countries managed above sixty percent positive views, France stood out in that it posed a mirror image of the countries around it, with only about 35 percent of the population viewing globalization favorably.

(I can now find neither of these studies, so take it with a grain of salt.)

Now, what we’re seeing above is twice as many French people saying that their growing economic ties in the international community are “very good” for the country, with only fifteen percent in the US agreeing.

Politics

This one shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone:

However, I do find these interesting:

Right off the bat, does it worry anyone that there are more people in Japan who claim to be following the US election “very closely/somewhat closely” than in the US? I’m assuming it has something to do with the fact that the coverage in Japan couldn’t possibly be the incessant dribble that it is in the US (pessimist? No…), so maybe they just haven’t turned off their TVs yet.

Notice, the only two countries where McCain had a lead at the time of the survey** were Jordan and the US, and it’s not much of a lead either. This caught my eye, particularly, because I’m one who thinks that right now world opinion – while certainly not the deciding factor – should be an important consideration when voting for our next president.

Moreover, it shows a considerable disconnect between the US and the outside world. This might be expected, but I wonder if other surveys in the eighties or nineties would have shown the international community leaning so far towards one candidate.

Views of China and the US

I hope a lot of Americans and Chinese will see these graphs (which they won’t) and ponder the messages therein. In both the US and China, one key idea has been lost in the translation of the news from the moment it transpires to the moment it shows up on the television: they don’t hate you.

While I feel that this misunderstanding raises its ugly head more often in China than in the US, there is certainly a common thread among many Americans in the belief that protests and attacks on American policy and practice automatically denote a consuming disdain for everything that is “America.” This belief has become particularly hard to dispel over the last eight years, as it’s been used by many of our politicians to pit us against the world. While the foundation of this claim is weakening, there are still many in the US who see criticism of US policy as criticism of what it is to be American.

This is all to say that suffocated somewhere beneath all of the media hoopla is the truism that the political entity that is “America” and the culture that is “American” are not one in the same, intertwined as they may be.

I found this particularly frustrating when listening to this interview on NPR with Johns-Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami. I agree with Dr. Ajami that anti-Americanism is not nearly as widely held a belief as many would think, but, at the same time, noting the long lines of people waiting to come to the US isn’t a sufficient refutation of that position. I was dying for someone to call up and say, “Wait, people saying their view of the US is more negative than positive doesn’t really say much about anti-Americanism. People around the world are very frustrated with many of the US’ policies, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t want to come to live, work, or travel. That doesn’t suggest anything about their view of Americans, or all that is America, for that matter.”

Moreover, regarding those people who really do hate Americans, it’s important to remember that minds can be changed. Some of my best friends from my time abroad are people who, at first, didn’t want to associate with me at all. I can’t begin to explain how uplifting it is to hear someone say that, just by being myself, I changed someone’s whole perspective on the US.

In China, there also seems to be this very idea that the display of disdain for the PRC’s policies is tantamount to a blanket condemnation of the Chinese people themselves (paging Jack Cafferty and all of the citizens of France). Yet, as you can see in the last graph, in all five of the countries, the Chinese people are far more popular than their government.

Lamenting the general lack of nuance in viewing world opinion is probably a waste of time, but I for one look longingly towards the day that disagreement on policy issues is taken a lot less emotionally and discussed over brimming bowl of unicorn soup, a smooth pint of ogre ale, and a nice hand-rolled WMD cigar.

* I had a lot of time on my hands, because my classmates were often busy blocking our campus in what I saw was the most backwards way to protest what you saw as someone trying to rob you of your future (that is, by depriving yourself of the one thing that might lead you to a better future: your education)

** Obama’s had a consistent lead in the polls since mid-April

Technorati Tags: statistics,reference,China,US,anti-americanism,globalization,trade,2008presidential elections,Obama,McCain,Pew

Un autre Français mord la poussière

2008-07-08T00:43:00.001-07:00

Anyone who’s lived abroad knows that there’s one thing most people don’t ever get used to: always having to say goodbye, either because someone else is moving on or because you yourself must get along to the next stop in your journey.

This is no different.

In the spring of 2004, I was wandering the streets of Angers, France with my good friend Will who was visiting me during his studies in Belgium. We were both spending the Spring of our junior year in Europe, seeking cultural expansion.

I had only recently arrived there, so Will, having studied in Angers the summer before, had taken it upon himself to show me a thing or two about the city (which might be a laughable concept to anyone familiar with Will’s propensity to, well, be Will). We spent hours wandering the narrow streets of Angers, talking about life in Europe and periodically stopping for a beer or coffee.

As we made our way back to the bus stop to head to my host family’s house in the suburbs, Will stopped mid-sentence staring at a scrappy, mop-headed fellow who quickly returned Will’s gaze as a smile crept across his face.

“Holy shit!” they yelled in salutation.

I soon learned that the scraggly man before me was none other than Antoine Moreau – the Antoine Moreau.

Upon coming home after his time in Angers the summer before, Will had oft described Antoine to me as something of an avant-garde musician, Beat poet, and leader of a rag tag gang of philosopher artists who wandered the streets of Angers until the wee hours of the morning, drinking absinthe and howling at the moon.

…or something like that.

Well, Antoine and I became pretty good friends during the rest of my stay in Angers. We spent hours every week chatting over Belgian beers at Falstaff’s, the closest thing I ever had to a bar like Cheer’s. It was at Falstaff’s that I became a disciple of the Hops n’ Barley Method of Language Acquisition – that is, the idea that a couple pints o’ brew makes you fluent in any language you’re presently wasting your money on in a university.

Probably more than anyone, Antoine (and Duvel?) is responsible for my being able to speak French. He was a professor at the university where I was studying, though he wasn’t my professor, and early on I asked him to correct me whenever I made mistakes, even if it meant interrupting me mid-sentence. He’s remained faithful to that promise to this day.

Being a professor in France has its other perks, too, I guess. Not long after I met him, Antoine started spending a lot of time with the lovely Yu-Ting, one of his students. Things blossomed, and about six months or so later, Antoine found himself in Taiwan.

At almost the same time, I was moving to Paris after finishing my studies in the US to be with the Fanfan, who was a classmate of mine in Angers. So, Antoine and I didn’t see each other for some time, but one of the first things Fanfan and I did upon moving to Taiwan a year later was to call Antoine and Yu-ting.

Over the last two years here, Antoine, Yu-ting, Fanfan, and I have had some great times, but Antoine, Yu-ting, and their four cats have decided to move back to France and get married (bâtards!).

Now, Fanfan and I – still reeling from the loss of Guillaume and Céline – have had to say goodbye to Antoine, who is leaving a month before Yu-ting to get things ready for their four cats.*

So, another friend has bitten the dust. As I write this, Antoine is somewhere above, I don’t know, Kazakhstan? The group of friends that Fanfan and I hold so close seems to be disintegrating. Sure, we’ve got plenty of dear friends here, and life will go on, but Antoine and, soon, Yu-ting will be sorely missed.

* I can kind of understand one cat, but, really, who has four cats?

Why I always feel compelled to qualify criticisms of China….

2008-07-05T01:15:00.001-07:00

Whenever I write articles critical of China, there comes a point, usually when I’m almost finished, that I run into a wall. Scrawled across the wall is the taunting graffiti of my conscience that begs the question:

…and the US?

Nearly every criticism I level against China regarding its abuses of civil liberties or its demands that the world play by its rules (or they’ll boycott your movies and/or products) force me to acknowledge that the US often does quite the same thing, to some extent. The double standards the American government often demands of the international community are becoming worrisome to many of us, and some of the Bush administration’s less-than-savory attempts to fight terrorism have generated substantial indignation both in- and outside of the US.

Obviously, the level of dissent in the US vastly outweighs that found in China, and, while the government has attempted at times to silence certain individuals, I know of know instances where the government has descended upon a group of protesters with force or silenced and intimidated grieving parents after, say, a natural disaster.

What really gets under my skin, though, is that the present administration’s penchant for authoritarian-style tactics in fighting for freedom is undermining the US’ credibility around the world in trying to resolve disasters like Darfur, Burma, etc. The “One Percent Doctrine” might help root out some terrorists (though we’ve never been given proof that it has), but it also does a lot to tarnish the image of the US, which in turn leads to more people willing to participate in “terrorist” actions and cripples the US in its diplomatic forays.

Oh, and we created a new failed state, which is great for fomenting terrorism.

That said, you can imagine my glee in reading that the current tactics being implemented in Guantanamo Bay, the beach resort from hell, were actually lifted straight out of a study on Chinese torture of captured American soldiers during the Korean War.

In case you didn’t catch that, I’ll let Scott Shane take it from here [all emphasis mine]:

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

I mention this for two reasons. First, as a disclaimer. Nearly every article I write about China usually includes something along the lines of me acknowledging that the US is responsible for egregious offenses and that I view neither China or the US as “evil places.” This is no different. I am not villainizing the US here, nor China in other places.

Second, it’s to emphasize the deleterious effects that the Administrations cavalier methods have had on the US’ soft power. The platform from which we once spoke, imperfect as it may have been, when declaring our opposition to human rights abuses and injustice around the world has been hatcheted by our own actions since 9-11. Allowing the world to look us right in the eye and ask, “Who are you to talk to me about abuse? How was it different when you did it?”

If Obama isn’t the change we want, his supporters might be.

2008-06-28T22:18:00.001-07:00

UPDATE: While the purpose of this article is to highlight what I see as a fundamentally different and important aspect of Obama’s campaign and his “base.” I should note, though, that part of my enthusiasm was based on a misunderstanding of the actual FISA issue. I could easily leave the article as it is without mentioning this, but I think it’s important to note that I now think what Obama did was exactly what I’ve been wanting our president to do for eight years now: compromise. The bipartisan bill, in fact, does not give immunity to companies in the way I had once thought, and it does hold the executive more accountable for its actions. I appreciate those of you who took the time to contact me and fill me in.

It’s funny, even by proving that he is, after all, not the first American messiah, but a politician, he has shown the uniqueness of his campaign. So many Obama supporters are furious about his stance on the recent FISA bill and the immunity it provides to telecom companies that they’ve taken to organizing themselves on Obama’s website, my.BarackObama.com.

The group is here, and in only the last couple of days it’s attracted several thousand members. I signed up this morning, and I’ve gotten about two dozen emails (that go out to all members of the group) already. The debate, from what I’ve seen, is passionate but measured. People are not simply ranting about how horrible Obama is for supporting the new bill -- however tepidly -- rather they are discussing their responsibility, as his supporters, to make sure he keeps his promises. They are talking about what should be done, how to organize, etc. in hopes of getting Obama to change his position.

This is pretty significant, I think. For one thing, as one of the emails said

This discussion is taking place on servers [Barack Obama] owns, and through a system his web designers and programers enabled. I don't have the stomach to find out, but I bet there is no place on McCain's web site where McCain supporters could discuss the uselessness of $5K tax credit to someone with a cronic illness who just lost his job and his health insurance. So, the fact that this discussion takes place on Obama's dime is a sign of something new. We want and deserve more, but it's worth remembering.

Unlike the above writer, I’ve been to the McCain website, and I actually can’t find any forum like that which exists on the Obama site.

I think the fact that Obama has forums for his supporters is on thing, but the fact that they can unify and publicly display their discontent for one of his stances (opening him up to possible attacks on his base, or whatever it is that politicos find important) is groundbreaking. Most politicians wouldn’t risk such a public backlash from their most devoted supporters if they could stop it (i.e. deleting the group from the server), and it says a lot that Obama hasn’t done that.

It says even more, though, that such a large number of people are saying, they think Obama is a great candidate, and it’s their responsibility to make sure he continues to be. Thus far, every commenter I’ve seen who suggests that the FISA campaign will hurt Obama and that “we” need to do everything “we” can to win in November is met with several rebuttals to the effect that not pressuring Obama solely for political expediency would be a guarantee that the political environment we’ve gotten so used to will never change.

I’ve been pretty let down by Obama in the last couple of weeks, but seeing as many of his supporters feel that they have a responsibility to “keep ‘em honest” has given me some reassurance.

Piracy as a public service in China

2008-06-25T04:14:00.001-07:00

I’ve heard plenty of reasons as to why piracy is so commonplace in China. The most oft-suggested theory is that piracy is accepted in China due to the fact that copying art was a highly-regarded form of, well, art in China for quite some time, perhaps it still is.

Apparently, there’s a subtle joke about this in the new movie Kung Fu Panda, as Andrew Leonard noted recently:

Finally, he comes to a painting depicting an ancient exploit by kung fu heroes. He exclaims: "I've only seen paintings of this painting!"

My kids laughed, as did most of the theater, just because the line sounds funny all by itself, without any context other than that delivered by Jack Black's voice. But taken in the context of classical Chinese painting, it's an even better inside joke. For many centuries of Chinese industry, the great paintings of the past were faithfully copied by the great painters of each successive age. The earliest versions of many of these classics have been lost to the ravages of time -- we know them only through their reproductions.

Yet those reproductions are not regarded as mere copies, but as masterworks in their own right. Indeed, there is even a theory that the supposed Chinese lack of respect for copyright can be connected to the classical Chinese reverence for copying. "I've only seen paintings of these paintings" is a joke written by someone who knows what they're joking about, and it is not the only such gem in "Kung Fu Panda."

I tend, though, to draw a line between pirating software and movies and copying paintings. The latter requires extensive training, while the former requires a computer and some spare time.

Well, okay, maybe it requires a little more than that to pirate the latest season of Lost. At least, that’s what I find myself wondering after listening to this story on NPR today about various aspects of DVD piracy in China.

My first thought (and I assume the thought of anyone else reading this who has lived in Asia) was that the idea of people being in the dark about this is kind of funny. Piracy of television shows and movies is the norm. Just go to tudou.com and search The Office, for example.

At the beginning of the story Laura Sydell visits a student named Yao who is a big fan of Lost. Yao says that he likes “American culture” and that he would like to “live that lifestyle.” He also says that Chinese shows are “pretentious.”

(Side note: Why does the American media always get people with strange voices to dub over people speaking in foreign langauges? This seems to happen quite often: while you hear the person speaking the background, someone with a nerdy voice and a fairly strong accent says the English version of what’s being said in the foreign language. Couldn’t they just as easily translate the quotation, then get a native speaker to read it? Does the accent add effect?)

Later in the interview, when Yao is asked about the governments censorship of the Internet, he says that he doesn’t care that he can’t look up information on Taiwan or Tibet. However, if the government were to do something to curb his ability to download of Lost, there would be trouble:

"If they tried to stop those Web sites ..."

He interrupts himself.

"What if we all started to boycott all Chinese shows?" he asks. "That would be a huge loss — and we think this is our right. We have the right to choose what we want to watch."

Sydell also goes and talks to two of the people responsible for the voluminous pirated files available for download. It was quite interesting to hear about the process of getting the shows from American TV to Chinese downloading websites:

Download the original file from (I’m assuming) an American file sharing client. This, he says he can do within ten minutes of the show’s closing credits on American TV.
Search for a close-captioning script of the show.
Translate. “We’re not just making subtitles,” he says, “We’re making better subtitles.” As an example, he shows that instead of just translating the name of Robert E. Lee in an episode of Heroes, he also provides a footnote saying who Lee was.

This is the part of the interview I found the most interesting, though:

Han says there are about 200 translators who work in his group. They're located all over China.

Liang Liang organizes the group and helps make sure each new show has translators assigned. Among the translated shows posted on their Web site, YYeTs.net, are American Idol, Prison Break, Gossip Girls, Survivor, The Moment of Truth and Battlestar Galactica.

Liang, Han and all the other translators are volunteers. The group even puts its own money into maintaining the site.

"We are a nonprofit organization," says Han. "To some extent, what we do is a kind of bridge for two different cultures."

Although they would not give me their real names or meet me at their homes, Han and Liang say they don't think they are doing anything illegal.

In fact, they could face fines if caught. But the chances of getting caught are slim.

I never even considered the possibility of this being such an organized operation, mostly because some of translations are quite shoddy. I’m amazed to find that this is a network of hundreds of translators who see themselves as providing a service for humanity.

Fiat tempts the Dragon.

2008-06-20T21:23:00.001-07:00

Continuing the theme of governments and corporations torturing themselves over which direction they have to walk in order not to have the wrath of Chinese nationalism directed towards them, Fiat has apologized for this ad:

Pretty outrageous isn’t it?

Sure, it’s a stupid idea for any company that hopes to boost its business in China to have anything to do with (1) Richard Gere, Tibetan Independence supporter for more than two decades, and (2) Tibet, the flashpoint for ire directed towards China in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Yet, does anything in the commercial actually merit an apology from Fiat? I’ve been trying to think of an analogous hypothetical in the US. The first thing that popped into my head was the funny image of Noam Chomsky driving a Boston Whaler through the flooded streets of post-Katrina New Orleans? Sean Penn? No, that’s quite the same -- too blatantly political, not to mention that Penn and Chomsky are both Americans.

I think it’d be funny to have a contest to think up a publicity scenario that would raise the same response from the US government, which includes neither inane criticism from groups*, as with the protests to the infamous Sicilian jihadist Rachel Ray’s Dunkin Donuts ad, nor personal objections for philosophical reasons to any given commercial. In what case would/has the US Government or the general population in the US object(ed) to a commercial for shear nationalistic reasons?

In the case of Fiat, though, they at least didn’t stop running the ad, so the apology wasn’t total acquiescence to the whims of the Chinese offense police. The damage, however, may already have been done, and Fiat will be paying the price.

The Tibet flap does not bode well for Fiat’s business in China, where it has a joint venture with local producer Chery Automobile to build 175,000 of its own-brand and Alfa Romeo cars in China from next year.

The Delta was meant to build the underperforming franchise outside Italy, where it sells about 80 per cent of its cars.

Which is quite different from the way Dior recently handled Sharon Stone’s recent comments on the Karmic catalyst for the Sichuan earthquake.

Christian Dior, the French fashion brand, has become the latest global company to learn a hard lesson about the danger of offending Chinese sensitivities.

Facing the possibility of a boycott of its products, the luxury company said Thursday that it had dropped the American actress Sharon Stone from its advertising in China after she suggested last week that the recent earthquakes in Sichuan Province were karmic retribution for how Beijing treated Tibet.

To be clear, my argument here is not that China should just sit down and take whatever the world throws at it, nor is it to say that all criticism of China is at all credible (after all, even the Dalai Lama himself isn’t even advocating Tibetan independence). It’s to say that China’s belief that it can dictate the image of China that the world sees, down to every minute detail, is absurd. Moreover, I think that China should be offended that the world sees it as a fragile Ming Vase.

If it wants to be the world player it sees in the mirror, then it’s going to have to thicken its skin a bit and deal with criticism at least with the minimal level of decorum that the Bush Administration has displayed over the last eight years. For instance, I don’t know of a movie that the administration has pulled due to an actors political statements. The same can’t be said for Stone’s newest film. The same can’t be said for films in China.

The PRC won’t change its policy towards the outside world, though, until companies and countries stop kowtowing to China as the “decider” of all that is offensive.

* in this case, ultra-conservative bloggers.

Myths and realities of China’s 21st-century digital war

2008-06-16T04:40:00.001-07:00

The questions kept coming. Kay barely had a chance to touch his lunch. Card asked, “You told us about the U.S. intelligence service. Who do you think runs a really good intelligence service?”

”In my experience, it was not the British or the Israelis, despite their reputation,” [David] Kay said. MI6 and Mossad were legends in the intelligence world, but Kay said he was not always impressed with the usefulness of their product. “In my judgement, the best one is the Chinese.”

“Yeah, they’re always trying to steal our technical secrets,” Bush said.
- State of Denial, Bob Woodward

It’s a frightening concept: a nation that might have more hackers than other countries have citizens, working ceaselessly to burrow their way into the most hallowed digital recesses of foreign governments’ databases. Millions of diligent code-slingers, the “Geek Brigade,” in small dark rooms littered with computer parts and food wrappers click-clacking on keyboards and chipping away at 1’s and 0’s as the ramparts of our cyber defenses fall away and China moves towards a position of “electronic dominance.”

It’s a scene that’s easily conjured and, perhaps, even more quickly accepted. Along with math and science, unmatched technical savvy is pretty much expected of Asians. But are the Chinese really employing armies of stealthy cyber soldiers?

There certainly is no shortage of accusations, most recently with the allegations that a several US congressmen’s computers have been breached. The evidence seems to be pretty straight forward: several computers are hacked, the information taken is regarding “apparently” regarding Chinese dissidents, and following one of the attacks someone in a car with plates registered to Chinese officials was supposedly seen outside of the house of a Chinese dissident taking pictures.

The list goes on and on. There’s the allegations that Chinese hackers caused the blackout of 2003. There also numerous alleged attacks on governments large and small: Britain, the US, Germany and the great state of Pennsylvania to name a few.

It doesn’t stop with hacking. Just consider where most of the parts for our computers are produced. Ever heard of a kill switch? Essentially, it’s a tiny number of transistors on a chip that make remote access, reprogramming, and shut down commands possible, and the shear magnitude of transistors found on every chip makes these kill switches nearly impossible to detect:

Dean Collins, deputy director of DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office and program manager for the Trust in IC initiative... notes that many defense contractors rely heavily on field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)—a kind of generic chip that can be customized through software... "If you make a mistake on an FPGA, hey, you just reprogram it," says Collins. "That's the good news. The bad news is that if you put the FPGA in a military system, someone else can reprogram it."

Almost all FPGAs are now made at foundries outside the United States, about 80 percent of them in Taiwan. Defense contractors have no good way of guaranteeing that these economical chips haven't been tampered with. Building a kill switch into an FPGA could mean embedding as few as 1000 transistors within its many hundreds of millions. "You could do a lot of very interesting things with those extra transistors," Collins says.

Then there are the spies and the allegations of laptop copying.

There is no doubt that China is spying on the US to an extent that demands attention. Hell, it’s real enough for the US to integrate Macs into systems “to make them harder to hack.” Indeed, some would say, and did, that the level of espionage is reminiscent of the good old days, during the Cold War.

In light of all this, Benjamin Friedman at the Cato Institute brings up some good questions, in reference to this widely-cited article, about what might happen when you have a bona fide, undeniable security threat from a country like China (e.g. it makes it really easy to blame them for everything).

But anyone can see dodgy sourcing. Harris’ blackout scoop comes from the former president of something called the Cyber Security Industry Alliance who claims that he heard it from intelligence sources. In support of this contractor’s claim, the article quotes a bunch of federal officials paid to combat cyber-threats. They say, essentially, “Yes, it’s possible the Chinese did this, but we can’t say more.” Technical details aren’t included. It’s a secret, we’re told. The article only briefly discusses the very plausible explanations for both blackouts that don’t involve Chinese hackers. In the 2003 case, at least, that multi-causal story is backed by extensive investigations on the public record.

Another problem is the article’s uncritical acceptance of the claim that the Chinese government employs a hacker militia to attack US websites. No evidence is offered beyond the assertions of an intelligence official employed to combat cyber-threats, a security contractor who works for such officials, and one consultant / analyst. No doubt there are lots of Chinese hackers breaking into US networks. After all, there are lots of Chinese. But why should we believe that these hackers are agents of the Chinese state rather than bored teenagers in Internet cafés? However malicious its intent, why would the Chinese government want to outsource its espionage to a bunch of underemployed programmers?

The story also reports on several Chinese efforts to steal information from US corporate executives and government officials. These stories are plausible – but two caveats could have been highlighted. First, our military and intelligence agencies almost certainly hack into Chinese networks and steal information. Second, there is no official claim in this story or elsewhere, despite all the sound and fury, that Chinese hackers have broken into classified US networks and gathered useful information.

In light of this, I went back to some of the articles I’ve read over the last year. Many of the cases do seem quite convincing, especially those emanating from the Pentagon and the German government. I noticed, though, in some cases that I, personally, had mistaken the hacking by one person, in the case of Pennsylvania, as an accusation of Chinese government action. Several other articles site “unnamed sources” or “intelligence officials,” in little, if anything, else. Even Congressman Smith from the first article stipulates that “"This doesn't absolutely prove Beijing was behind the attack. But it raises very serious concern that it was,” and of course the Chinese government is demanding some proof.

Which all has me asking, what do these allegations that don’t prove Beijing’s part in the attacks do to the character of the country or group making the claims. A part of me feels that all it does is push China in a direction we wouldn’t want them to go, under the assumption that no matter what they do, they’ll still be blamed for these attacks.

Again, there is a lot of evidence that leads one to believe that China is doing this, but very little of it is released to the public, aside from shadowy unnamed sources.

What’s always important to remember, though, is that every other country is likely to do its damndest to reciprocate. I have little doubt the the US hacks anywhere it can into Chinese government computer systems on a regular basis.

Technorati Tags: China,hacking,hackers,cyber war,war

The world according to Taiwan

2008-06-14T19:50:00.000-07:00

I just saw this at Oxymoron. It's pretty funny, in an unfortunate way. Steve took the liberty of translating the whole thing, so take a look at the explanations here. The Chien Ming Wang note couldn't be more pertinent, not only because it's true, but because it was mentioned here in an article about Taiwanese students not knowing enough about the world.

Some notes:

Vitas is Badass: I've actually heard of him because they used to show commercials here all the time when, I think, he was going to have a concert here. Then, I saw this video of a Taiwanese musician (whose CD became, this week, the first Chinese-language album I've ever bought) who did his own version of this Vitas standard:

*

*

Evil Empire: Based on my experiences in Taiwan, I find the "Evil Empire" label a bit of a stretch. I get the impression that Taiwanese view the US at worst with ambivalence and at best with utter fascination. I've never felt that Taiwanese people follow the war on terror at all. So the idea that Taiwanese are "skeptical about 'spreading Democracy in the Middle East' especially when they think it’s all about oil and war profiteering" is a stretch because it implies that the average Taiwanese person keeps up with the war in Iraq. I'm not saying the argument can't be made about the US, but that it seems unlikely that a lot of Taiwanese are making it.

Porn Everywhere: Nearly every non-Japanese Asian person I've ever talked to about this sees Japan as a land where demented sexual practices flourish. Japanese seem to be regarded by a lot of people as kinky sex-addicts.

The War on Terror, Taiwan, and President Ma (Part 2)

2008-06-12T23:27:00.000-07:00

[Part one]

On April 25, 2001, ABC television ran an interview with Bush about his first 100 days. The interviewer, Charles Gibson, asked Bush whether the U.S. had an obligation to defend Taiwan.
"Yes, we do. And the Chinese must understand that,"Bush replied.
"And you would..."
"Yes, I would."
"With the full force of the American military?"
"Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
It was one of the strongest statements the U.S. had made about the delicate issue of Taiwan. The Chinese were very upset.
Condoleezza Rice called Brent Scowcroft, who had had her job under Bush's father, and asked him to come see the president. Scowcroft met privately with Bush and Rice.
How do we get out of this? Bush essentially asked.
After listening to Scowcroft, Bush asked him to go on a secret mission to China to meet with President Jiang Zemin and explain U.S. policy. Scowcroft, who was going to China on private business, agreed to talk with Jiang on the president's behalf. He told the Chinese leader that Bush's policy was to defend Taiwan if the island was attacked unprovoked, but if the Taiwanese took action to change the status quo on their own, the united States would not defend them. Jiang and Bush seemed satisfied, and Scowcroft's secret mission never became public.

- Bob Woodward, State of Denial

Q Mr. President, George Gedda of AP. Given the sensitivity of the issue, do you believe the referendum planned by the Taiwanese on March 20th should be cancelled?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Someone needs to interpret that.

Let me tell you what I've just told the Premier on this issue. The United States government's policy is one China, based upon the three communiqus [sic] and the Taiwan Relations Act. We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo. And the comments and actions* made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose.

- The White House, 2003

So, Chen Shui Bian, provocateur extraordinaire, has fulfilled his term as the democratically elected "Taiwan leader," and a part of me is happy to see the change. I haven't hidden my opinions on Chen and the DPP's shortcomings of recent, and I'm quite optimistic about the Ma administration may hold.

That said, part of the reason I'm happy to see a change isn't exactly because I believe that Chen was all the less than savory things he was accused of being (corrupt, provocative, divisive, etc.), but that he seemed to play into that trap. I often got the impression that Chen's reflexive reaction to criticism showed a lack of maturity. He seemed to sink to the level of his opponents, rather than rising above them. I'm thinking of instances when, for example, he told people that if they love China so much, nobody's going to stop them from swimming there.

However, something very important was brought up in a great article by Jonathan Adams at Thirsty Ghosts about this "Flawed Patriot." The point that struck me is Adams' assertion that Chen's openness to critical opposition will be a considerable part of his legacy:

History will likely be more kind to Chen. Though deeply flawed, he presided over a critical period of maturation for Taiwan's young democracy. This was the fruit of a long process begun by the DPP and other activists more than twenty years ago.

Under his watch, Taiwan scrapped the National Assembly -- one of the last major institutions of the authoritarian past. Taiwanese people gained the right of referendum in 2003, and the right to approve constitutional revisions in 2005.

Chen's contribution to democracy included strong support for freedom of expression and an independent judiciary. His government accepted the scrutiny of the press and courts to an unprecedented degree in Taiwan's history.

The island's media -- recently ranked Asia's freest by the US non-governmental organization Freedom House [ORIT: I've noted before what I see as the downside of this freedom] –- broadcast relentless criticisms of Chen, much of it deserved. For example, some TV stations ran 'round-the-clock, clearly partisan coverage of anti-Chen protests in the fall of 2006, without interference from Chen's government.

Taiwan's judiciary remains a work in progress, but Chen's government by and large submitted itself to the rule of law. Ironically, this was part of his downfall: independent prosecutors traced corruption back to his own top aides and relatives; Chen himself may be charged after leaving office.

I wasn't here before Chen, so I never would have noticed the difference. Yet, the fact that Chen conducted himself in that way, no matter his other flaws, should say a lot for Taiwan he has left in his wake, and it will hopefully make Ma's job a lot harder, because a president, especially a KMT president, needs the "encouragement" of a skeptical public. We saw in the US what an unquestioning populace, myself included, can be led into.

As a side note, there's another legacy Chen leaves behind that happens to be the very thing that most people believe lost Hsieh the election: China-Taiwan economic relations. It's this part of Chen's presidency that the KMT did a magnificent job of downplaying. The fact that Chen actually did a lot to advance China and Taiwan's economic ties has been written about at great length, but what's interesting is a comment by Max Hirsch (also a contributor to Thirsty Ghosts) that I came across recently on the East-West Center's blog:

Although typically branded a ”troublemaker” — ie, one who has antagonized Beijing and Washington — Chen also leaves behind the much quieter legacy of pushing the KMT to transform (as you mention) and allowing for a degree of cross-strait economic integration that has been unprecedented, even under KMT administrations preceding his.

While declining to dismantle (indeed, he even threw up some of his own) some of the roadblocks that have hindered cross-strait trade, Chen has presided over a massive (the largest in history) trade and investment flow across the strait, while hammering out many of the prickly details of further links for which credit will ultimately go to the KMT.

A few days ago, I sat down with a top KMT official slated for a Cabinet position under Ma. Off-the-record, the official admitted that the foundations for opening up Taiwan to Chinese tourists, and for direct air and shipping links had already been laid through years of painstaking negotiations with Beijing, initiated and conducted by the DPP-led government. I doubt that much credit will go to the DPP for this, however. Equally sad is the lost legacy of how the DPP played a role in forcing the KMT to democratize from without; indeed, the opposition party (soon to become the ruling one) was, by and large, dragged kicking and screaming into democracy; now it is also beginning to embrace the localization movement that defines the DPP: Oddly enough, ”Taiwan First” was a slogan that the KMT clung to during Ma’s presidential campaign.

Yes, cross-strait ties appear to be in an upswing as Ma chooses rhetoric and stances that are more palatable to Beijing. However, it bears reminding that behind the prospect of that relaxation of cross-strait relations and resumption of more official talks is the critical and intricate groundwork laid by the DPP. In the case of tourism, for example, virtually all that’s left is for Ma and Hu to sign on the dotted line. When Ma does sign, he will do so from the position of a party and government that is increasingly Taiwan-centric and democratic for reasons that have much to do with the DPP.

A troubled 8-year presidency? Indeed. And certainly, sometimes needlessly rocky relations with the US and China contributed to Chen’s troubled tenure. However, to boil down his legacies and those of the DPP to antagonization is an unsophisticated perspective in summing up this changing-of-the-guard milestone in Taiwan’s history.

It's off-the-record, so take it with a grain of salt. But, in the end, Chen's election and the US' opportunity to support Taiwan's burgeoning democracy became an inconvenience, as I noted in part one. It was just plain bad timing on Taiwan's part. I've never seen this mentioned in an article about Taiwan or about Chen. The US' swift change in policy is usually attributed to Chen's provocative statements, nary a mention of 9-11.

What's done is done. On to Ma...

Just before Ma's inauguration, when I had intended to write about this, I was going to mention that this change in the executive, which one could argue the US almost campaigned for, was a great opportunity for the United States to make a significant shift in it's policy towards the island. It had gotten the candidate it wanted, "the moderate," and should seize the moment. What I had envisioned was a symbolic step -- such as letting Ma visit the US or opening up new, direct, high-level communications -- that would show to China that the US was not going to let China define the boundaries of the discussion. If China had a problem, the US could offer three-party meetings, taking on the role of facilitator.

Just, something, I thought.

The unlikely reality of such a meeting, though, was soon met with the reality that nothing, at least for now, was going to change. This became evident when Ma's request to visit the United States was refused:

Washington has denied a request by president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to visit the US before his inauguration on May 20, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young said yesterday.
Shortly after his victory in the March 22 presidential election, Ma said he intended to visit the US before he takes office “to improve bilateral ties.”

A visit “wasn’t needed,” Young said at his semi-annual press conference. “Frankly, it [the visit] was not necessary because we are engaged [at] a number of levels.”

This reminds me of another thing the White House official mentioned to us at the breakfast meeting I mentioned in part one.

"Why is it so important to have official meetings with Taiwanese officials when we're already having high-level, unofficial meetings with them," goes an argument. "It's just a change in symbolism if you make them official. Why is it worth the hassle?"

That symbolism, though, is exactly the point. It's all symbolic. Of course Ma's visit "wasn't needed." This is the 21st century, after all. Ma could have saved himself the trouble and skyped Bush. That way they could have gotten all of their bases covered without the jet-lag and the spewing of fossil fuels into the stratosphere.

No such luck. It doesn't appear that much is changing in the Taiwan-China-US relationship. Sure, Taiwan has sent it's first high level representative in decades to have officials talks with the Chinese and the Straits are probably as peaceful as they've been in decades, which is great. Really, it's great. I can't say that enough. But, it's all done on China's terms, and turf, which doesn't seem to bother the current administration in the US. After all, it let's them focus on finding out how to make Iraq look pretty so McCain can win in November.

* The "actions" there, I'm assuming, was the decision to hold a democratic referendum.

The War on Terror, Taiwan, and President Ma (Part 1)

2008-06-12T03:01:00.000-07:00

One of the most bittersweet truisms vis-a-vis the world order we strive to better is the way that our interactions ripple throughout the system, catalyzing any number of reactions, both foreseen and unforeseen, intended and unintended. The results of one people's actions run the gamut from serendipitous to catastrophic. Revolutions spill not only across borders but into the minds of people much further afield, in time or space, and an economic downturn in one country may give spark or momentum, by virtue of the vacuum it creates, to a scientific and cultural renaissance on another continent.

In previous centuries, when people and news moved at a horse's gallop and the only satellite that orbited the earth was giant hunk of rock, we rarely -- if ever -- trifled ourselves with the foreign consequences that may arise from our local affairs. Yet, now that, for example, a person may avenge or acknowledge you personally within a day's travel from anywhere in the world for what you may not even know you've done to or for him, the luxury of our ignorance is no longer.

We are becoming acutely aware of the various results of our actions. Pollution in China is seen in a new light when – as the New York Times reported in 2006 and again in 2008 – researchers in California, Oregon and Washington track a cloud of particulate from coal mines in China as it traverses Korea and the Pacific Ocean to settle in unprecedented quantities on filters in Lake Tahoe, California. Pollution in China, at once, becomes pollution from China, and the prospect of the particulate lodging in the tissue of my lungs gives it a wholly new sense of urgency. Likewise, the failings of a government in eastern Africa are no longer a remote or distinct problem once we consider the facility with which those who harbor ill-will towards us can slip in and out, often endearing themselves to the people of the country, with money and false hope, filling a void left by the broken government.

Likewise, then, the atrocities of September 11 were no different. They were the product of numerous actions and reactions and would themselves be a factor in many more. Rarely, though does the scope of our present conflict ever look beyond the binary of the West and the Middle East.

I, too, gave very little thought to this prospect until I attended a breakfast meeting in December, at which several other Taiwan bloggers were present, to hear a former White House policy analyst talk about his experiences in epicenter of American politics.

At one point, he mentioned the tension in the White House when, if I remember correctly, President Chen made "provocative" comments about his support for a referendum on Taiwanese independence in 2002.

“Simply put," said Chen in a speech Chen gave via video-link to Taiwanese nationals in Japan, "with Taiwan and China on each side of the [Taiwan] Strait, each side is a country. This needs to be clear..”

Having been bolstered, first, by the Bush Administration's view that the US had been neither tough enough on China nor attentive enough to the concerns of the Taiwanese government and, second, by the loss of diplomatic recognition by Nauru to China, Chen declared that Taiwan would “go its own way.”

This, to put it lightly, did not fly with Beijing, and it couldn't have come at a worse time for the United States. While the Bush Administration had indeed come into office looking to strengthen ties with Taiwan and to hold the Chinese government's feet to the fire, the game had quickly changed when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked and the nation took to mounting its war on terror. By August of 2002, the US was already fighting in Afghanistan and months into the planning for the following spring's invasion* of Iraq.

Apparently, upon being informed of Chen's remarks someone in the Bush Administration asked in frustration if Chen knew what he was doing. Did Chen know how inopportune a moment he had chosen to ruffle China's feathers?

The answer of course was, no, probably not. Chen didn't know how bad a moment this was for the United States because the United States didn't talk to him.

It was hearing our breakfast guest talk about this, specifically in the context of 9-11 and Iraq, that the attacks' profound effect on Taiwanese democratization became apparent to me. Nevertheless, what was to happen with Taiwan would be one in a series of reminders that the “crusade” against al-Qaeda would not be carried out in isolation, that history had a way of resurrecting itself no matter how deep we buried it, and that adding cold water to the cauldron without extinguishing the fire only delayed the inevitability of boiling water.

The US – either explicitly, or through the habit it developed – would try to do the latter with Taiwan and China. As we focused more manpower and resources on the wars in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, we tried frantically to assuage anyone else who so inconvenienced us as to continue with their own affairs knowing full well that their doing so was not in the best interests of the United States.

This was particularly detrimental to Taiwan, whose democracy was still only in it's sixth year and showing the glaring symptoms of its imperfection. Still, as the pressure grew in the Taiwan Strait, so did the possibility of confrontation, and the US chose to pour more water in the pot.

I don't intend to place the blame for Taiwan's democratic stagnation on American foreign policy, nor do I mean to insinuate that the KMT's recent win signifies a step backward per se. I do, however, wish to acknowledge that the US decision to placate the PRC to the detriment and isolation of the Chen Administration certainly played a significant role in pushing Chen to adopt the "diehard" stances he was later seen as embodying. There is little doubt that things could have been considerably different in Taiwan had the US not all but forgotten it in the turmoil of the last six years, shifting from a policy of political support to constant damage control.

This is not an argument for outright support of Taiwanese independence for the purpose of spiting the PRC. It is a plea for the United States, as long as it deems it necessary to participate in Taiwan-China relations, to take a just and realistic approach to dealing with the two sides. Demanding both sides show mutual respect to each other and to the rules, however ambiguous, that were put in place to frame the debate.

It's all fine and good to remind Taiwan that moves towards de jure independence are changes in the status quo, but only if you're equally mindful of the changes taking place when only one side of the Strait is threatening to invade the other.

Yet, the changes in the United states policy we saw after 9-11 often meant doing quite the opposite and siding with China on issue after issue, not due to any common interests, but for sustenance of a requisite calm in the region. We knew Taiwan had no designs on invading China, while the growing number of missiles pointed at the island said otherwise of the lengths to which China was willing to go.

Alas, it was only Taiwan who had changed the status quo. Blame and provocation were aspersions cast only on the Chen administration.

This argument, of course, would be vehemently refused by the PRC, saying the it was right to silence Chen, separatist that he was. Ironically, though, the US' handling of the situation should be met with indignity in China, being that the impetus for such actions by the US could easily lead one to believe that the American government simply doesn't see China as the mature player that it now sees itself to be. The US, essentially, is cooperating with China on Taiwan because it sees China as irrational and impetuous. China is a "Ming Vase," as Michael Turton put it recently, that must be coddled and mollified, lest it shatter.

What exactly the US gets out of this is very little, as it doesn't even necessarily guarantee that China won't attack Taiwan (as unlikely as I find such a proposition to be). In fact, one of the PRC's most stalwart supporters, France, as Turton also noted, can't even secure the promise that it won't be on the receiving end of economic abuse as a result of Chinese nationalism.

I've noted before France's seemingly unquestioning support of China, and I do think there is an important lesson to be learned from the results of France's actions:

One could hardly name a nation that has supported China more strongly, calling repeatedly for an end to the weapons embargo imposed after Tiananmen [ORIT: though already allegedly selling weapons to China despite said embargo] and touting its special relationship with China. It was French recognition of the PRC in 1964 that triggered the avalanche of recognition culminating in Nixon's visit and UN entry. And what does France get for its service to the Dragon Throne? A couple of protests and BAM! you have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people! Maybe the US ought to try this approach next time some Parisian criticizes McDonalds, instead of treating France like a friend and ally with whom we sometimes have differences.**

Some of you might think: See? If we be nice to China, we won't be boycotted. But that is exactly the kind of blackmail that China wants westerners to submit to: the cringing submission of the abused wife who hopes that if she is just works harder to make her husband happy, he won't smack her around, whereas the reality is that he smacks her because she abases herself before him. Shameful that Ambassador Randt [ORIT: here] has argued that the US ought to make submission to this kind of emotional blackmail US policy. There may be reasonable positions to take against selling F-16s to the US, but "the feelings of the Chinese people" are not among them.

It's worthing noting, aside from the footnote at the bottom of this post, the marked facility around the world in protesting French actions. While there were protests in London and the relay had to moved to a secret location in San Francisco for security concerns, the Chinese seem to have focused their resentment on la République. Likewise, the French certainly weren't the only ones to protest the US move to invade Iraq, but they quickly became more or less the sole addressee of American disdain.

Michael has a point, though.

The US needs to take new look at its policy towards China and Taiwan (this is where Ma comes in) and start challenging China to act like its a mature power, which would start with stronger demands for the dismantling of the nearly 1000+ missiles ready to lob across the Strait.

Of course, the Bush Administration has done so much to soil the US reputation that this is going to be a lot harder than it might otherwise have been. After all, how is the administration responsible for Iraq supposed to suggest what other countries should and shouldn't do militarily?

* but not for the subsequent insurgency.

** Yeah, I know what you're thinking: Remember those idiotic protests against France in the US when they wouldn't support a war that is now almost universally viewed as a colossal mistake? Remember pouring out wine in the streets? Remember "freedom fries"?

Yes, and I'm not going to defend that. Yet, I do think there is a considerable difference between protesting what was, at the time, seen as not backing the fight against the people who killed three thousand Americans and protesting against someone for les manifestations against your Olympic torch run.

Speaking of not reading certain blogs...

2008-06-10T06:29:00.000-07:00

I got a comment a while back from another blogger, to whom I mean no criticism here, expressing the belief that blogs are the last place anyone should go for reasonable discourse on political issues. Indeed, at times it's hard not to agree, seeing as so many political blogs spew little more than partisan trash meant to defame, discredit, and villainize the "other side," though nary a critical word be heard about their guys' shortcomings. Some of the trash I've seen on sites like Redstate.com and Crooks and Liars, for instance, makes me cringe.

I mention these two sites, because they're not just voices in the wilderness, rather they see substantial daily traffic. I used to read both of them on a daily basis, too, but had to stop.

Now, I read Open-Left, for example, to get a perspective on liberal politics in the US. This site's long articles, full of statistics and links aren't exactly the stuff that gets your blood pumping (like, say, a video of Bill O'Reilly mis-characterizing Bill Moyers). Open-Left is magnificently boring and full of information, but it gets about a third of the traffic that Crooks and Liars does.

So, yeah, often it does seem that the internet has given a voice to those who refuse to accept that their lopsided political persuasion is anything but impeccable. I agree. In fact, the comment that inspired this post doesn't really say anything that I disagree with. It's what, to me, is implied by the belief that one shouldn get their news, at least on sensitive subjects like politics, from forms of personalized new media, i.e. blogs or Wikipedia, that bothers me. Knowing what I know about the commenter, I doubt he believes this, but his comment led me to this conclusion.

I believe that information should come from as many sources as possible. Wikipedia is not right. I know. I was once reading an entry on Buddhism, when the sight reloaded and the lengthy article had been replaced by one sentence that read "Travis is a bitch." In the time it took me to click "reload" the entire article had been restored. Another time, reading the entry on globalization, I noticed someone had entered phrases throughout the entry saying things like "WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT GLOBALIZATION????" and "BLAH..... BLAH..... BLAH..... BLAH." This too was quickly fixed.

This doesn't mean Wikipedia is useless (no matter what Steven Colbert says). Far from it. It gives you a good idea of the different debates and sides regarding a certain subject, as well as usually providing copious links to sources at the bottom of each page. It should certainly under no circumstances be one's only source of information.

The same goes for blogs. It takes a long time to whittle the list of blogs you read down to a trustworthy few*. It's taken me years to make the list I have, and, during the process, I've added and deleted hundreds of blogs.

Conversely, the problem these days, I think is that so few people seem to keep in mind the fact that the traditional media we hold so dearly is still written by people, who can and do make mistakes, sometimes serious. I think, for instance, there have been enough mis-characterizations of Taiwan and its politics in the international media to lead many people, no matter their political beliefs on the subject, to see that sometimes journalists don't know well enough what they're talking about. In other cases, of course, the journalists are just plain making it up.

Everything we see and read falls (far) short of any standard of absolute truth. Just look at the blog Regret the Error, a blog devoted solely to searching out and linking to retractions in the press, since most organizations publish these retractions in a corner, tucked away from anything you actually want to read.

Here are four examples I read yesterday:

Clinton's "dividing love" for her country:
In a June 7 transcript of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s concession speech, The Associated Press erroneously reported one word in the transcription. The New York senator said she has “a deep and abiding love for our country.” She used the word “abiding,” not dividing.
David Gest's herpes:
In The Independent Extra on 18 March 2008, we incorrectly suggested that David Gest had alleged that Liza Minnelli gave him herpes. Mr Gest has told us, which we accept, that he did not make any such allegation and that he has never had the disease. We apologise to Mr Gest for any embarrassment or distress caused by this mistake.
Wife not mother:
A photo caption on the front page of yesterday’s Spectator incorrectly said that John Lee was describing the death of his mother from a C. diff infection. In fact, he was telling a Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital meeting about the death of his wife. We apologize for the error.
Ozzy Osborne's health (this one's a doozy):
OUR February 21 report of the BRIT Awards headed “Ozzy’s Freak Show” reported that Ozzy Osbourne had thrown the BRIT Awards into chaos after he suffered a health scare, toppling over twice, just before the Awards ceremony.

We claimed that BRITS bosses held emergency talks about whether to send the Prince of Darkness to hospital and suggested that Ozzy may have had to withdraw at the last minute from presenting the Awards with his family.

We also claimed that as a result of his health scare Ozzy had to be ferried around in an electric buggy.

We now accept that such allegations are completely untrue. We are happy to make clear that Ozzy was fit and well, did not suffer a health scare and that there was no question of Ozzy having to go to hospital or being unfit to fulfil the engagement.

We apologise to Ozzy and his family for any embarrassment or distress caused by our article. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Ozzy’s legal costs and substantial damages, which Ozzy will donate to the Sharon Osbourne Colon Cancer Program.

This isn't all about defending blogs, and certainly not about defending this site. I know I make mistakes. I make them as honestly as I can, at least. Nor is this article about maligning newspapers and television. Rather, it's about recognizing the reader's responsibility, which is first to remember that he or she is reading something by a person who can make mistakes and second to keep in mind that there are numerous perspectives on every issue that are not and cannot be encapsulated in every article. Moreover, the latter suggests that many sources are better than one, and in the end it is the reader's duty to decide where he stands after looking at the arguments.

The question of course is, "It's all fine and good to expect everyone to be scrutinizing readers. I'll tell that to my boss. I'll get him to let me off at noon every day and, why not, get him to send me back to college. Right? What do those who don't have all day to waste in front of the computer searching for the Truth do?"

That's a good question.

* By "few," I mean relatively few, considering the number of blogs out there. I have 97 feeds in my google reader right now, for instance.

Ba Jia Jiang and organized crime in Taiwan.

2008-06-09T22:38:00.000-07:00

Thanks to one Tim Maddog, I´m gaining a better understanding of what it was I saw during the boisterous parades that took place over a couple of days last week. For one, I´m happy to announce that I can toss out the idiotic ¨Firework-o-rama¨ and the unsavory ¨Firework-gasm¨ as descriptors for the event, as it now appears that it was in fact a parade of the 八家將 [ba jia jiang or the Eight Generals].

Tim sent me a long piece here with info about the event:

Naturally, their origin is disputed. There are many folk tales explaining the origin of Ba Jia Jiang, often revolving around a god’s military generals and plague expulsion. It is generally accepted that they have over 100 years of history and their origin is usually associated with the God of Plague Expulsion—‘Wu Fu Da Di’ This would imply that only Wu Fu Da Di Temples would have Ba Jia Jiang, but it seems that Wu Fu Da Di is related very closely, and intricately, to the origin and evolution of other gods and temples in Taiwan.

Ba Jia Jiang are protectors. They keep the evil spirits at bay or chase them down and deal with them. It is common knowledge that they are not permitted to smile; the fans they carry with characters written on them are to protect themselves from whatever demons may be floating around. They protect both the spirit mediums and the audience from darker spirits.

For all the useful information in the article, it doesn´t shed any light on why this parade was taking place. Walking around, trying to read as much as I could of the writing on the altar and the floats, I gathered it had to do with the military in some way, but I still don´t quite understand why it was taking place when it was, the symbolism of it all, and the identity of the numerous other figures in the parade (the three giant puppets at which someone kept throwing ¨bai bai¨ money, for example*).

One interesting point that the author makes, though, is that these eight generals are now ¨often associated with gangs, drugs and delinquent youth,¨ a phenomenon which is apparently the subject of much sociological research in Taiwan.

Along those lines, I was able to dig up an article that talks about these gangs from 2003. The most striking part of the article describes some of the self-inflicted violence that comes with membership in the group and seems to be brought upon by a sort of euphoric, religious fervor. Throwing knives in the air to let them fall on one´s own head, self-flagellation, etc. are part of the game, because, hey, let´s face it, anyone can beat the snot out of someone else.

"Hitting other people and making them bleed is not unusual. But the question is, `Do you dare do it to yourself?'"

The theme of high school drop-outs and small-town kids ¨with not much to do¨ that we´re used to in the US and Europe (and everywhere else, perhaps) seems to be one of the driving forces behind the Eight Generals:

"I like to go to Tachia's Chenglan Temple to practice the Eight Generals performance. It's a lot of fun. We follow all the different gods as we tour around Taiwan. ... The greatest thing about being part of an Eight Generals group is that you can get red envelopes along the way. We split the money among group members. I became more confident, because as long as I am a member of the Eight Generals, nobody dares bully me," one junior high school student was quoted as saying in a study of Eight Generals teenagers conducted by the National Taiwan Normal University.
"We emphasize honor. Our performance must stand out. And as for fights, we can only win, not lose. We support each other. If one of us is in trouble, all of us will help. None of us is chicken shit. Anyone asks for trouble, only one thing will happen -- death," said a 15-year-old, drop-out quoted in the research.

The aspect that one might say defines the Eight Generals from other gangs is ¨gray area between god and human, between acting and magic...between real gangsters and the police¨ that the group inhabits. Because of this strange brew of god and adolescent boy, the Eight Generals supposedly operate unhindered by the public:

The reason. First, because they would say, "I'm of the gods." And second, these gods are violent. Eight Generals groups have been linked to a number of brutal killings of teenagers, but, despite this, Chang cannot help but find this a fascinating teenage phenomenon.

* This seems to explain a bit more about it. The explanation of General Fan as being short and fat leads me to believe he was the general in front of the three other giant generals. That I mentioned in the first post.

法國台客: Their departure and charity....

2008-06-09T20:44:00.000-07:00

This morning, on a plane bound for Borneo, Taiwan lost two of its most colorful figures. Sure, they were French, but they were more Taiwanese, and proud of it, than many born and bred Taiwanese folk -- not an altogether uncommon occurrence among foreigners living abroad.

Fanfan and I met Guillaume and Céline about a year and a half ago, and we've been friends ever since. Not only are these two some of the friendliest, down-to-earth people we've ever met, but they're also brilliant. Both of them speak Chinese with formidable facility (arguably, at times, better than they speak French). Céline spent months writing a Chinese-French dictionary, and, after attaining a functional command of Chinese, Guillaume worked as a computer technician (or something of the sort) in an office with few, if any, other non-Taiwanese employees. Guillaume also got his black belt in karate over the years he was here.

Last night, I asked Guillaume what he'd miss about Taiwan.

"Rien," was his response, after thinking for a second, and I believed it. Their decision to leave Taiwan was the result of a long, difficult, back-and-forth debate weighing the importance of their future with the fact that Taiwan was their home. Starting a career and a family, in the end, didn't mesh with a perpetual stay in Taiwan.

They went out with a bang, though, as one has to do when leaving home, right? After a night of superfluous alcohol consumption with the dozens who had come to say their goodbyes, Guillaume decided to try his luck at walking on a tall florescent lamp.

Gravity won that one and, just for good measure, made sure he hit the ground hard enough not to forget it....well, had he not landed on his head.

When I later asked why it was necessary at the time to try to scale the lamp (in the background of the picture to the right) Guillaume explained that there were two footprint stickers about half way up which seemed, at the time, to cry out, "I bet you're too scared to try to climb up and put your feet on me." He then expressed a desire for someone to change stickers on the offending lamp to a more convenient hand-print shape, as the challenge they posed could have been easily met without blood being drawn.

Alas, anyone who's been with a group of drunk people at three in the morning know that melodrama is never in short supply. I didn't get a good look at the wound, but I never got the impression that it was near bad enough to go to the hospital. Fortunately, I wasn't in charge, because we all got quite a good laugh from the sight of our motley cortège making its way to the hospital.

In the end, we were told, at the hospital that Guillaume would have to stay for six hours for observations, which I assumed was to make sure he didn't have a concussion.

Though these two frogs are leaving Taiwan, they're not leaving Asia, not by a long shot. For the next year, Guillaume and Céline will be traveling around Asia and blogging too -- mostly in French, but they have kicked it off with posts in English and French.

Moreover, in hopes of doing something meaningful, the two were able to get some financial support from a French company that has given the supplies and the funds to teach about water purification as they travel. The program is called "water box."

We'll certainly be missing these two as they make their way around Asia. Friends like Guillaume and Céline don't come along too often, and, as most expats can sympathize, they never seem to stay in the same country long enough. But we look forward to hearing of their adventures.

Bon voyage!