Sunday, February 28, 2010

US trip

We just got back to Taiwan from a long trip in the US, our first in several years. On this trip, we spent all our time in Dallas, unlike previous trips on which we also went to New York and sometimes other places. Things hadn't changed a lot in the old neighborhood, though while we were there something unusual for Dallas did happen; it snowed heavily, with snow falling pretty much for an entire day, so that by the end of the day there was around a foot (about 30 cm) of snow on the ground, a record for Dallas. Snow is not completely unknown in Dallas, as it snows about once a year or so (at least that's what I recall), but usually it's a light dusting. The most snowfall in a winter was one year when I was in elementary school; if I remember right, close to two feet of snow fell over that winter. That record still stands as of now, since the total snowfall this winter is still a couple of inches less. But the heaviest snowfall in one day that year was about 7 or 8 inches (18 to 20 cm), so it was far less than the daily total we experienced during our visit (only one previous daily snowfall came close). In any case, the snow was a big contrast to Taiwan, where it only rarely snows at all, and then only on the tops of a few mountains in very small amounts. I've never seen snow in Taiwan, and it had been years since I'd seen it up close anywhere.

Other than enjoying the snow, we spent our time visiting with family, going to bookstores, and eating at fast food restaurants that Taiwan doesn't have (as well as a few non-fast food restaurants, with the Olive Garden and Franky's being standouts). It was a pretty good visit, though as usual there were plenty of things that I would have like to have done that I didn't get around to doing. Regardless, now that I'm back in Taiwan, I have to get back into to the rhythm of things here. As is often the case after a trip to the US from Taiwan, coming back has reminded me again of the contrasts between the two countries. Though I don't really think the effect these differences have on me are strong enough to call culture shock, as I generally adjust to new environments fairly easily (except where it comes to food, an area where I tend to be more set in my ways), they are interesting to observe.

The most immediately obvious difference between the US and Taiwan is the fact that the US is much less crowded. Though it's the third most populous country in the world, the US is far less densely populated than Taiwan, which is one of the world's most densely populated nations. Everything in the US seems very spread out, and though the roads are often packed with cars, you rarely see crowds like those in Taiwan. An exception to this is New York, which resembles many major Asian cities in its concentration of people, but as I said, we didn't go there this trip. Another contrast is the people. The US has far more variety when it comes to races, with whites, blacks, Hispanics and people of Asian ancestry all being frequently seen in many places. Another less positive characteristic of the US population is that they are much more likely to be overweight. These are the most immediately apparent differences, though there are of course many more. Bill Bryson was able to write an entire book's worth of newspaper columns about differences between the US and the UK (I'm a Stranger Here Myself), and those two countries are not as different as the US and Taiwan.

Since I'm on the subject of our US trip, I will also mention my trip to the DPS office. I was hoping to get a new driver's license (my old one having expired years ago), but I couldn't even join the long lines of people waiting to take the tests because I didn't have proof of my Social Security number (having lost my SS card a long time ago). What, one might ask, does your Social Security number have to do with getting a driver's license, given that you have other documents to prove your identity? My guess is that it's another absurd anti-illegal immigrant measure. Since illegal immigrants will not have Social Security numbers, requiring proof of one will make it difficult for them to get a license. Assuming that this is the reason for this requirement, what will it accomplish? Will they be so disappointed in their inability to obtain a driver's license that they'll just go back to their country of origin? No, they'll just drive without licenses. That's sure a useful accomplishment. Though I may be wrong about the reason behind this particular rule, it remains true that there are some pretty absurd anti-illegal immigrant measures in places like Texas. Of course Taiwan doesn't really treat immigrants any better; in fact it makes it even harder to immigrate legal in the first place.

Anyway, enough rambling. Now that I'm back in Taiwan, I've got to get back to my Taiwan schedule. Hopefully it'll still allow me time to post entries here occasionally. With a little extra time and effort, some of them should even be a bit more coherent and interesting than this one....

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The Dalai Lama and US-China Relations

As those who have been paying attention to the news know, US President Barack Obama recently met with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. While Obama should be commended for going through with the meeting in the face of the usual vociferous Chinese protests, it is regrettable that like previous presidents he kept the meeting low-key. While viewed from a purely pragmatic point of view (and despite efforts by the lunatic fringe on the right to portray him as a wild-eyed leftist, Obama is clearly a pragmatist), this approach might seem best, in the long run making such efforts to accommodate the Chinese simply encourages them to continue not only oppressing the Tibetans but also to try to dictate to the rest of the world what their relations to the Tibetans will be.

As I explained in a previous article, Tibet is essentially a colonial territory of China, subjected to the same kind of old-fashioned imperialist exploitation that many parts of the world were subjected to by the Europeans in the past. Since the Chinese consider themselves to have been victims of imperialism in the past, most of them refuse to recognize that they are also imperialists, but an objective examination of the history and current status of places such as Tibet and East Turkestan can only lead to that conclusion. Therefore, for the Chinese to claim that meetings between the Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of the Tibetan nation, and foreign leaders constitutes interference in their internal affairs, is about equivalent to the British loudly denouncing any foreign leader who met Mahatma Gandhi in the days before India became independent (I don't know if how the British actually reacted to any such meetings, if any ever took place, but I imagine few would now consider such objections reasonable). In fact, the Dalai Lama is even more clearly deserving of the right to meet foreign leaders as an equal. Not only is his position as a religious leader of followers of Tibetan Buddhism roughly analogous to that of the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church, but in his youth he was the political leader of Tibet when it was still an independent country, and remains the head of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Even if we accepted that the affairs of a colonial territory could be considered the "internal affairs" of the imperial occupying power, human rights considerations would still demand that foreign leaders meet the Dalai Lama regardless of Chinese objections. To make another analogy, imagine that in the days of apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela had been in exile outside of South Africa rather than a prisoner inside it. Would Western leaders have refused to meet with him or even made special efforts to keep any meetings low-key just because the government of South Africa objected? Considering the strong opposition to apartheid in the West, it seems unlikely. While the ways in which the Chinese are oppressing the Tibetans and their culture are different from the way the white rulers of South Africa oppressed the blacks, the oppression is just as bad, and the place that the Dalai Lama holds in the hearts of Tibetans is similar to that Nelson Mandela held among black South Africans (not to mention the formal positions that the Dalai Lama holds, something which Mandela did not have before the end of apartheid).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the world's countries seem to be too afraid of China to openly defy it, at least not to the extent of treating a meeting between their leaders and the Dalai Lama just like they would a meeting with any foreign leader. While I recognize the desire of the US and other countries to get China's cooperation on many issues, I am of the opinion that respect for human rights, anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, and self-respect on the part of democratic nations demand that China not be allowed to dictate how they treat a leader such as the Dalai Lama.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Constellation and the Future of the US Space Program

Not long ago, Obama released his latest budget proposal. As was pointed out in a number of news articles, the budget included a small increase in funding in NASA, but eliminated all funding for the Constellation program which would have returned humans to the Moon. This was a disappointment, as long-term human missions to the Moon and Mars would be a very big step for human progress and would inspire younger generations to study science and engineering. In fact, there is very little that the US government could spend money on that would provide greater value in terms of an investment in the future, especially considering how little money is actually spent on space compared to all the other things the US government spends money on (an issue I addressed in a previous post). The lack of a major investment in NASA is certainly a disappointment, one which Obama has to be held responsible for. I don't even really consider the huge deficits he has to deal with much of an excuse, considering how many other things he could cut (unfortunately one of the best things to cut, the military, was one he left untouched), the option of raising taxes, and the relative minor sums involved.

Nevertheless, there were good arguments for rethinking Constellation, at least as it was being run. While Dubya's call for NASA to put plans in place to return to the Moon was a good thing, the problem was he didn't follow it up by calling for Congress to actual fund the plan properly. As a result, Constellation was way behind schedule and NASA had only been able to keep it going by taking funding from other important programs. While the original idea was that humans would be back on the Moon by 2020, at the current state of the program, the actual date would have been more like 2028, if that. So the only way to rescue the program would have been by dramatically increasing NASA's budget. While this would have been what I would have really preferred, I'm not entirely surprised that Obama didn't go for this option giving the current budget situation.

A positive aspect of Obama's NASA budget is that it calls for a serious rethinking of NASA's role, funds a number of important science programs and helps promote private industry in space. While I generally prefer public programs, I have no objections to the idea of private industry becoming more involved in space, as long as it is properly regulated, not with tons of red tape, but with a suitable regard for safety and appropriate restrictions on the exploitation of resources. If private companies can start sending people into Earth orbit and even to the Moon, that would be great, as long as they are reasonably safe (not perfectly safe, as that is impossible) and they are not permitted to exploit space resources without restriction -- no unrestrained strip mining on the Moon for private benefit, for instance. But there is still a need for a robust government space program, especially for major efforts like putting humans on Mars. Hopefully, if he can succeed in getting the federal budget under control, Obama will take a more forward-looking approach to space and fund a more ambitious human (and robotic) exploration effort.

Update - Here's an interesting article discussing future goals for NASA: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_sc/us_sci_nasa_future;_ylt=Aq_JVsoa78mqsfOTK3mhbzhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NDAzMjdkBHBvcwM1BHNlYwNNd19WaXRhbGl0eQRzbGsDZm9ybmFzYW5vZWFz
The emphasis on developing new rocket technology is definitely a good idea, but I also agree with those quoted in the article who think that it would be best if there was a clear goal to shoot for.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.