The following is the first part of a lengthy review of a nonfiction book I read recently. I originally was going to post all of it at once, but due to its length I decided it made more sense to split it up.
At the time I published my previous blog post on books I’ve read recently I was just finishing another book, one that I think is worth its own separate post. It is a memoir by a writer who at the time it was published was still in his thirties, but had already had a fairly interesting life and also had a somewhat unusual family background, which much of the book focuses on. The book covers a lot of ground, both topically and geographically. The author spends time in Asia and Africa as well as various parts of the United States. He talks about the history of his family and his own struggles with the issues of identity and race, while touching on a multitude of other topics, such as poverty, colonialism, and politics. The writer reveals much about his own evolution as a socially-conscious individual, through a borderline delinquent phase in his late teens when he got into drugs and partying and more militant activist phase in college before becoming a community worker and gradually coming to terms with his own identity. At the same time, he shows himself adept at conveying other people’s points of view as well. The book is quite well written, being literary and yet engaging, flowing much like a novel.
At the time it was first published in 1995, despite its virtues and some generally positive reviews in newspapers like the New York Times, the book didn’t exactly shoot to the top of the best seller lists. It sold a little under 10,000 copies, and eventually went out of print. However, it was republished in 2004 and became a best seller, garnering rave reviews. It has since been translated into more than two dozen languages. The audio book version won the author a Grammy for Best Spoken Word Album in 2006, and in 2011 Time Magazine ranked the book among the 100 top non-fiction books in English since 1923. What happened to suddenly bring all this attention to the book? At this time it was first published, the author was preparing to run for public office for the first time. In 2004, when it was republished, he was running to become the first black US Senator since Reconstruction and had made a landmark speech at that year’s Democratic National Convention, resulting in enormous media attention that catapulted his book into the bestseller lists. The writer won the Senate election later that year and four years later he would go on to even bigger things. The author, of course, is Barack Obama, currently President of the United States, and the book is Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
As mentioned above, the book is quite engaging and well-written in its own right, but of course the later career of the author adds another layer of interest to it. Though most of the time when reading I was not consciously thinking of it, it was always at the back of my mind, and so every once in a while I’d have to shake my head in amazement at the fact that the writer who relates that he ran around barefoot catching crickets and engaging in kite battles with Indonesian kids in Jakarta (or Djakarta as he calls it), was laughed at on his first day of school back in Hawaii because of his funny name, got into booze, pot and blow (cocaine) in his final years of high school, became a straight-laced but emotionally isolated (almost to the point of misanthropy) student in New York, worked at organizing some of the poorer black communities in Chicago with varying degrees of success, and went on a fascinating trip to Kenya where he met numerous members of an incredibly complex family and learned about a fascinating family history that was about as far removed from anything American as could be, that the person who was relating all these things would someday go on to heights that even he himself obviously didn’t even begin to anticipate at the time.
Of course I could also hardly help but note elements of the tale that related to what I knew of Obama already. For instance, he talks about the time his father visited him, his mother and his maternal grandparents in Hawaii when he was ten years old, which was the only time he actually met his father after his first two years of life (which he seemingly had no memory of). His father was invited to talk to Obama’s class, and another teacher brought his class along to listen. Obama says he was thoroughly embarrassed to have his father there, but as it turned out both his teachers and his classmates were very impressed by his father. This incident and others make it clear that Barack Obama Sr. was a very charismatic speaker as well as being very intelligent, characteristics that his son clearly inherited. Likewise, his mother’s liberal attitudes clearly had an effect on his own political thinking. The emotional distance he tended to maintain from others through much of his life is still apparent in his cool, detached manner as President. Finally, his thoughtful internal debates about various issues fit well with both his intelligent grasp of issues and his occasional indecisiveness. He doesn’t spend a great deal of time talking about politics as such in the book, but it comes up at times in the section on his community organizing work in Chicago. At one point he makes the interesting remark that “in politics, like religion, power lay in certainty – and that one man’s certainty always threatened another’s.” He goes on to remark that he himself was “a heretic”, because he was so full of doubts. His talk of the power of certainty in politics immediately brought to mind today’s extremists in the Republican party, who at least act like they are totally certain that their ridiculous positions are correct, and I have to wonder if part of his difficulty in overcoming such opposition as president is that he still lacks that certainty – though I have to say, I like Obama all the better for having the intellectual honesty to admit to doubts about difficult issues.
I also found myself thinking what Obama’s opponents might try to make of the book. Of course there is nothing that supports the most loony claims about Obama, such as the assertion that he was born in Kenya or that he is a Muslim. The book makes it clear that the first was impossible (not only did Obama’s parents meet in Hawaii, but there is no indication that Obama’s mother ever even visited Kenya). As for the second claim, while Obama’s grandfather made a conscious decision to convert to Islam and his older brother did the same at the end of the book, Obama’s father didn’t seem to be a practicing Muslim, much less Obama himself, who didn’t even know much about his father and his family through much of his life. His stepfather Lolo, his mother’s second husband, was a Muslim, but as Obama said, “Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.” He was clearly not a fundamentalist.
It is true that Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia; he also attended a Catholic one. As for how much this affected his thinking at the time, this passage makes it clear: “In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. My mother wasn’t overly concerned. ‘Be respectful,’ she’d said. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and thirty brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside.” Passages like these show that Obama was basically an agnostic, at least at the time he first started working in Chicago. It is only at the very end of the Chicago section that he first listens to a sermon by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who he had met some time earlier as part of his community work, and is strongly moved by it (in fact, he says that Wright’s sermon on that occasion was titled “The Audacity of Hope”, which Obama went on to use as the title of his second book). Interestingly enough, though he was moved to tears by the sermon, one sentence reveals that even on this occasion he continued to doubt and question: “And if a part of me continued to feel that this Sunday communion sometimes simplified our condition, that it could sometimes disguise or suppress the very real conflicts around us and would fulfill its promise only through action, I also felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams”.
Another assertion that some on the right have made about Obama, apparently based in part on this book, is that he hates white people. He does make clear that there was a period in his life where he very strongly identified himself as black, to the extent that he came across as fairly militant. But he also makes clear that this was in part because he felt insecure about himself, so he engaged in somewhat exaggerated posturing in an effort to prove himself to others. He mentions an incident in college where an older black friend came down on him because he made a negative remark about another black student who acted white. Obama later realizes he made fun of his white-acting classmate because he was essentially lying about himself by trying to act blacker than he was. In a sense it is merely the mirror image of an incident he relates from the time he first started going to school in Hawaii as a ten year old, a story in which he also unflinchingly paints himself in a negative light. There was only one other black student in his class at the time, a girl, and while they initially avoided each other one day they end up chasing each other around and falling on the ground together. A group of other children started to tease them, saying Obama was the girl’s boyfriend. His reaction was to deny it hotly and push her away to prove it. So when he was ten he still wanted to deny any connection to black people, while by the time he was a young man, he had gone to the opposite extreme and was trying to make himself as black as possible. It is clear that he ultimately felt neither attitude was right. So while there were times in his life where his attitude to white people might have been characterized as negative (though he never actually hated them – after all, he was raised by his white relatives, and despite some of the mixed feelings about them typical of adolescents, it’s clear he never hated them), that was not how he felt in later years, and it is absurd to hold his past ideas against him. I myself held some rather absurd political beliefs in high school (basically jingoistic Reaganite conservatism), so I know well that these things change as you learn more about the world.
It is nevertheless true that even at the time he was writing Obama clearly identified himself with blacks more than whites. He is even mildly critical of those of mixed ancestry who refuse to think of themselves as black, such as his college classmate Joyce and his half-brother Mark, whereas I sympathize more with their points of view. But Obama also makes clear that he is no black nationalist. In Chicago, he meets and even becomes almost friends with a black nationalist who he calls Rafiq (most people other than his members of his families are identifies by pseudonyms). But in the pages where he (very incisively) discusses black nationalism in detail, he makes clear that he doesn’t agree with much of it, and he also finds it ineffective. And in the end, he learns to reconcile himself not only to his African ancestry but to his white ancestry as well. While it seems to me that at times he exaggerates the importance of race and white dominance of American society and culture, I’ll also admit that this is easy for me to say, since even my experience as a minority in Asia are not quite the same as his as a black person in America (since Asian people – with some exceptions – tend to treat people of European ancestry well).
Interestingly, as revealing as the book is about Obama’s personal foibles, whether his occasional sullenness or rebellion as a boy, his experimentation with drugs, his self-centeredness as a young man, or his doubts and insecurities as he engaged in community work, there is one thing he says very little about, and that is his romantic or sexual relationships. The only specific reference to a girlfriend is when he tells his half-sister Auma about a white girlfriend he had in New York who he ended up breaking up with in part due to her inability to fully relate to the black experience (my impression is that he was asking too much of her, but he still had a fairly strong black consciousness at the time). In concluding this story, he also mentions that “there are several black ladies who’ve broken my heart just as good.” Other than this one fairly brief passage, there is nothing in the book about girlfriends, dates or anything along those lines. However, it is unlikely that he was being circumspect just because he might go into politics someday, considering all the other things he did write about (he remarks in his preface to the 2004 edition that “certain passages have proven to be inconvenient politically, the grist for pundit commentary and opposition research”). More likely, he avoided talking about his romantic relationships because of his wife, who he had met and married by the time he was writing the book. I would not be surprised if she would have frowned on any dwelling on his past loves that was not strictly relevant to the main theme of his book.
One general impression I got from the book was that at least at the time he wrote it, Obama’s political thinking was somewhat more radical that his actions in office have tended to be. He makes strong arguments about the flaws in our current system and the damage it causes to the disadvantaged, whether in the US or elsewhere (see the long quotation below). His sympathy for the poor and downtrodden is clear throughout. On the other hand, even his more radical opinions – and none are really all that radical, at least to sensible, well-informed people – are stated thoughtfully and without heat. What’s more, the section on his work in Chicago also shows that even as a young man, he preferred to work somewhat behind the scenes (despite his ability to give inspiring speeches), to choose his battles, and to use persuasion to achieve consensus, rather than dragging people along unwillingly. This I think explains much of his presidency, for better and for worse. Despite the hysterical ravings of the extreme right, Obama is simply not an extremist or a rabble-rousing populist prepared to trample over the opposition to achieve radical change. If anything, he is too mild and not sufficiently willing to forcefully push through needed measures.
In part 2, which I'll post in a few days, I will talk about Obama's father, his Kenyan family, and his trip to Kenya.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Bad news and idiocy in Taiwan and the US
Here in Taiwan over the past few months there have been more and more signs that the country is going backward under the current government. One example I have mentioned in previous post was the cutting down of old trees at a middle school in order to build a parking garage. But there are many examples of this type of push for "development" regardless of the environmental and human costs. In Danshui a group of the worst anti-environmental legislators and city councilors turned out in person to support a vote to build a bridge across the river which will threaten the local ecology and ruin the town's famous sunsets, not to mention bringing yet more automobiles to pollute the air and jam the roads. Also in Danshui, the government wants to confiscate land along the coast to build a housing development, despite environmental problems, opposition from the land owners and the fact that the previously built housing development is still half empty. Of course supporters of such projects constantly repeat the usual rhetoric about the "benefits" of development, but the question is who really will benefit? In most cases it will be a small minority of people (some no doubt friends of the politicians pushing these projects). The majority will see little in terms of economic benefits and will lose much more in terms of quality of life.
In Taipei, the city government has been pushing "urban renewal", and riding roughshod over any opposition. Last year in the Shilin district, a majority of the residents in one block voted to participate in one such project but one family, who owned a building there that they'd lived in for decades, declined. The private developer who had the contract was still allowed to go ahead. Despite the support of substantial number of activists, the family's home was forcibly torn down. More recently, the city decided to develop a neighborhood in the center of the city occupied mainly by families brought over from China by the KMT. The land technically had never belonged to them nor were their houses technically legal, but they had lived there for half a century and the government had provided utilities and assigned house numbers, treating their residences just like legal ones. But when the government suddenly decided to take the land back, they were forced out. What's more, many of the activists and supporters who tried to block the destruction were treated very roughly by the police. This has also become an uncomfortably common situation, as this news item about another protest shows. While in the latter case the Interior Minister promised an investigation, these incidents show that many of Taiwan's police are still stuck in a martial law mentality, where their job was oppress the people rather than serve them.
Most recently, Taiwan has been embroiled in a dispute with the Philippines. A Taiwanese fisherman was shot and killed by the Philippine coast guard, who apparently fired over fifty rounds at his boat. It is possible that the Taiwanese boat was illegally fishing in Philippine waters, but there is really no excuse for such a disproportionate use of force. Considering the criminal activities that a substantial proportion of police in the Philippines engage in, including extortion and murder, perhaps it is not a surprise that there are some loose cannons in the coast guard as well. The Philippine government response has not been satisfactory either. Aquino, the Philippine president, even said the matter would be dealt with under the "one China" policy, a slap in the face to Taiwan's sovereignty much like the time not long ago when the Philippines repatriated a number of Taiwanese arrested for Internet fraud (I think it was) and "repatriated" them, not to Taiwan, but to China. And in a sign that things will probably not improve there soon, people like the absurd Imelda Marcos (widow of the country's former corrupt dictator and well-known collector of shoes) won reelection to their legislature.
But in Taiwan this incident has given rise to as much idiocy as in the Philippines. The government has rather pointlessly threatened to freeze all importation of workers from the Philippines, even to the extent of not renewing the contracts of those already here, no matter how attached some of them may be to their employers. Worse yet, some numbskulls among the public have decided to blame the Filipinos here for their government's actions. There was one news story about vendors in a market putting up signs saying they wouldn't sell to Filipinos, reports of people cursing and shouting at Filipinos (or people they thought were Filipinos) in public, and at least one report of a Filipino being physically attacked. Such stupidity is at least as inexcusable as the actions of the Philippine coast guard, if not more so. It's as bad as the random acts of violence in the US in the wake of 9/11 targeting Muslims (or people the perpetrators were stupid enough to take for Muslims). The one positive thing is that many Taiwanese have expressed disgust at such attitudes, though it's hard to tell what the attitude of the majority is.
Some politicians in Taiwan have even called on the government to ask China to help put pressure on the Philippines. This idea is so unaccountably moronic it's hard to believe anyone could suggest it with a straight face. It's a bit like if a pig were having a dispute with a sheep, and decided to ask the wolf next door to help it out. Of course some of the extremists who have made such suggestions actually want Taiwan to be taken over by China, but it's hard to believe that anyone else would seriously listen to them. I also wonder where all these people railing against the Philippines on this occasion were when China has done things like detain a Taiwanese citizen without cause for several weeks, as happened not too long ago. Granted, no one died in that case and he was eventually released, but the outrage was still considerably more muted than one might expect, given the reaction to this incident. Could it be that because the Philippines seems like an easier target?
In the US, not too long ago there was the Senate's failure to pass expanded background checks or do anything else in the way of gun control. In the meantime, not only does gun violence continue to regularly make headlines, but things like this also happen (it's appalling that there's actually a company out there marketing guns to young children). While there's some hope of an immigration reform bill passing, from what I recall reading the current version has some notable flaws, such as tying the path to citizenship for undocumented Americans to "progress" on border security.
Also, the Obama administration seems to suddenly be besieged by scandals and controversies, though one of them seems to have been basically manufactured by the Republicans. I refer to the brouhaha about the incident in Benghazi last year. For one thing, it's not entirely clear what the Republicans are accusing the administration of doing. They have spent months harping on the talking points used in the days after the incident, as if they indicate a sinister attempt to mislead the American people. What's seems far more likely is that there was still genuine uncertainty about what had happened. The anti-Muslim YouTube video had in fact sparked riots in Egypt that day, and I believe there actually were some protests in Benghazi as well [Edit: According to this summary of events, there were no protests in Benghazi that day, but the attack that night began with gunfire and "sounds of chanting", which in the confusion, together with the attack on the US embassy in Cairo during protests that day, might have led to the idea that the attackers were protestors] so it is not surprising that many in the US government believed the attack on the consulate was a result of these protests getting out of control. The whole sequence of events was very confused, and it should surprise no one that for a few days there was considerable debate in the government about the incident, and some people went on TV with explanations that didn't fit what had actually happened. And it's not as if everyone suddenly obtains and absorbs the real facts as soon as they are available. There were people high up in the Bush administration (including Cheney, if I recall correctly) saying that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to al-Qaeda months after it had been conclusively proven that he did not. In the case of Benghazi it only took a week or so for the Obama administration to settle on what seems to be the correct explanation of events.
More serious are the implications that the administration deliberately allowed the attack to take place by failing to provide proper security or take action to stop the attackers. This is of course ridiculous. First of all, an incident like this couldn't possibly be politically beneficial to the administration. Some talked about a failure to call in air power at the time of the attack. Aside from the question of what good it would have done once the attackers were inside the building, the military has said nothing was in range to do any good and no one has proved otherwise. A plane was sent to help evacuate the staff. A special forces team in Tripoli would not have made it in time to help (the review board that investigated the incident did not fault the military response). The failure to respond to requests for better security prior to the attack were regrettable, but I would suspect that many embassies and consulates in troubled areas could use more security than they are getting. The State Department only has so much money to spend on security measures, so there is a constant need to weigh risks and make hard choices about how much can be done. The only thing that could ensure that all such requests would get fulfilled would be more money in the State Department's security budget. Guess who's responsible for keeping such funds at minimal levels? Some of these same Republicans railing against the administration now.
The news that the IRS apparently targeted tea party groups for investigation, on the other hand, seems to be a real scandal rather than Republican hot air. As Jon Stewart pointed out, it suddenly provides the conspiracy freaks on the right with real evidence that they are not merely paranoid fantasists. However, there are a few things that are worth pointing out. First of all, the IRS is an independent agency and at the time these investigations took place it was actually headed by a Bush appointee. Of course, to the general public the President is responsible for everything the government does, and to a certain degree he does have to take responsibility. But no one person can possible fully control the entire federal government or even know what all parts of it are doing, especially essential autonomous parts like the IRS. This doesn't fully absolve Obama, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Furthermore, my initial reaction to the news was to wonder why these groups are able to claim tax exempt status in the first place. After all, as a number of stories mentioned, groups claiming tax exempt status can engage in political activity but must be “primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare”. Does anyone seriously believe that the primary purpose of any of these groups – or liberal groups like MoveOn, whose petitions I sign myself from time to time – is anything other than political advocacy? I suppose one could argue that political activity could be part of promoting social welfare, but since not all political activity promotes social welfare, there would have to be more detailed rules to clarify matters. Perhaps all these groups should lose their tax exempt status. Of course there is no excusing selective application of the rules, which is the real problem here (though it seems one directive did refer to groups advocating both limiting and expanding government, which in the latter case would include many liberal groups). If the rules were applied fairly, even many right wingers should approve, as long as they are being consistent. [Edit: It seems that at least a few liberal groups did receive the same extra scrutiny that these tea party groups supposedly got. Progress Texas, a group that I have signed a number of petitions from, issued a statement saying they received extra vetting, and that they had no problem with it. I would not be surprised if a closer investigation shows that conservative groups did not actually receive disproportionate scrutiny, especially considering, as some commenters have observed, many of these groups are openly anti-tax, an attitude that the IRS is bound to pay a little extra attention to].
As for the Justice Department's seizure of AP reporters' phone records, I'm still not sure what to make of that one. The government claims the leak they were investigating was a serious one that endangered national security and American lives, but I didn't see a clear explanation of how it did so. In any case, the response seems disproportionate, much like the government's treatment of Bradley Manning. At this point at least, it looks like the government was in the wrong, though again I don't know how much Obama himself can be held responsible.
Overall, things seem to be in something of a mess in both Taiwan and the US lately. It would be nice to see some improvement in the coming weeks and months, but being cynically inclined, I find it hard to be very optimistic.
In Taipei, the city government has been pushing "urban renewal", and riding roughshod over any opposition. Last year in the Shilin district, a majority of the residents in one block voted to participate in one such project but one family, who owned a building there that they'd lived in for decades, declined. The private developer who had the contract was still allowed to go ahead. Despite the support of substantial number of activists, the family's home was forcibly torn down. More recently, the city decided to develop a neighborhood in the center of the city occupied mainly by families brought over from China by the KMT. The land technically had never belonged to them nor were their houses technically legal, but they had lived there for half a century and the government had provided utilities and assigned house numbers, treating their residences just like legal ones. But when the government suddenly decided to take the land back, they were forced out. What's more, many of the activists and supporters who tried to block the destruction were treated very roughly by the police. This has also become an uncomfortably common situation, as this news item about another protest shows. While in the latter case the Interior Minister promised an investigation, these incidents show that many of Taiwan's police are still stuck in a martial law mentality, where their job was oppress the people rather than serve them.
Most recently, Taiwan has been embroiled in a dispute with the Philippines. A Taiwanese fisherman was shot and killed by the Philippine coast guard, who apparently fired over fifty rounds at his boat. It is possible that the Taiwanese boat was illegally fishing in Philippine waters, but there is really no excuse for such a disproportionate use of force. Considering the criminal activities that a substantial proportion of police in the Philippines engage in, including extortion and murder, perhaps it is not a surprise that there are some loose cannons in the coast guard as well. The Philippine government response has not been satisfactory either. Aquino, the Philippine president, even said the matter would be dealt with under the "one China" policy, a slap in the face to Taiwan's sovereignty much like the time not long ago when the Philippines repatriated a number of Taiwanese arrested for Internet fraud (I think it was) and "repatriated" them, not to Taiwan, but to China. And in a sign that things will probably not improve there soon, people like the absurd Imelda Marcos (widow of the country's former corrupt dictator and well-known collector of shoes) won reelection to their legislature.
But in Taiwan this incident has given rise to as much idiocy as in the Philippines. The government has rather pointlessly threatened to freeze all importation of workers from the Philippines, even to the extent of not renewing the contracts of those already here, no matter how attached some of them may be to their employers. Worse yet, some numbskulls among the public have decided to blame the Filipinos here for their government's actions. There was one news story about vendors in a market putting up signs saying they wouldn't sell to Filipinos, reports of people cursing and shouting at Filipinos (or people they thought were Filipinos) in public, and at least one report of a Filipino being physically attacked. Such stupidity is at least as inexcusable as the actions of the Philippine coast guard, if not more so. It's as bad as the random acts of violence in the US in the wake of 9/11 targeting Muslims (or people the perpetrators were stupid enough to take for Muslims). The one positive thing is that many Taiwanese have expressed disgust at such attitudes, though it's hard to tell what the attitude of the majority is.
Some politicians in Taiwan have even called on the government to ask China to help put pressure on the Philippines. This idea is so unaccountably moronic it's hard to believe anyone could suggest it with a straight face. It's a bit like if a pig were having a dispute with a sheep, and decided to ask the wolf next door to help it out. Of course some of the extremists who have made such suggestions actually want Taiwan to be taken over by China, but it's hard to believe that anyone else would seriously listen to them. I also wonder where all these people railing against the Philippines on this occasion were when China has done things like detain a Taiwanese citizen without cause for several weeks, as happened not too long ago. Granted, no one died in that case and he was eventually released, but the outrage was still considerably more muted than one might expect, given the reaction to this incident. Could it be that because the Philippines seems like an easier target?
In the US, not too long ago there was the Senate's failure to pass expanded background checks or do anything else in the way of gun control. In the meantime, not only does gun violence continue to regularly make headlines, but things like this also happen (it's appalling that there's actually a company out there marketing guns to young children). While there's some hope of an immigration reform bill passing, from what I recall reading the current version has some notable flaws, such as tying the path to citizenship for undocumented Americans to "progress" on border security.
Also, the Obama administration seems to suddenly be besieged by scandals and controversies, though one of them seems to have been basically manufactured by the Republicans. I refer to the brouhaha about the incident in Benghazi last year. For one thing, it's not entirely clear what the Republicans are accusing the administration of doing. They have spent months harping on the talking points used in the days after the incident, as if they indicate a sinister attempt to mislead the American people. What's seems far more likely is that there was still genuine uncertainty about what had happened. The anti-Muslim YouTube video had in fact sparked riots in Egypt that day, and I believe there actually were some protests in Benghazi as well [Edit: According to this summary of events, there were no protests in Benghazi that day, but the attack that night began with gunfire and "sounds of chanting", which in the confusion, together with the attack on the US embassy in Cairo during protests that day, might have led to the idea that the attackers were protestors] so it is not surprising that many in the US government believed the attack on the consulate was a result of these protests getting out of control. The whole sequence of events was very confused, and it should surprise no one that for a few days there was considerable debate in the government about the incident, and some people went on TV with explanations that didn't fit what had actually happened. And it's not as if everyone suddenly obtains and absorbs the real facts as soon as they are available. There were people high up in the Bush administration (including Cheney, if I recall correctly) saying that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to al-Qaeda months after it had been conclusively proven that he did not. In the case of Benghazi it only took a week or so for the Obama administration to settle on what seems to be the correct explanation of events.
More serious are the implications that the administration deliberately allowed the attack to take place by failing to provide proper security or take action to stop the attackers. This is of course ridiculous. First of all, an incident like this couldn't possibly be politically beneficial to the administration. Some talked about a failure to call in air power at the time of the attack. Aside from the question of what good it would have done once the attackers were inside the building, the military has said nothing was in range to do any good and no one has proved otherwise. A plane was sent to help evacuate the staff. A special forces team in Tripoli would not have made it in time to help (the review board that investigated the incident did not fault the military response). The failure to respond to requests for better security prior to the attack were regrettable, but I would suspect that many embassies and consulates in troubled areas could use more security than they are getting. The State Department only has so much money to spend on security measures, so there is a constant need to weigh risks and make hard choices about how much can be done. The only thing that could ensure that all such requests would get fulfilled would be more money in the State Department's security budget. Guess who's responsible for keeping such funds at minimal levels? Some of these same Republicans railing against the administration now.
The news that the IRS apparently targeted tea party groups for investigation, on the other hand, seems to be a real scandal rather than Republican hot air. As Jon Stewart pointed out, it suddenly provides the conspiracy freaks on the right with real evidence that they are not merely paranoid fantasists. However, there are a few things that are worth pointing out. First of all, the IRS is an independent agency and at the time these investigations took place it was actually headed by a Bush appointee. Of course, to the general public the President is responsible for everything the government does, and to a certain degree he does have to take responsibility. But no one person can possible fully control the entire federal government or even know what all parts of it are doing, especially essential autonomous parts like the IRS. This doesn't fully absolve Obama, but it's worth keeping in mind.
Furthermore, my initial reaction to the news was to wonder why these groups are able to claim tax exempt status in the first place. After all, as a number of stories mentioned, groups claiming tax exempt status can engage in political activity but must be “primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare”. Does anyone seriously believe that the primary purpose of any of these groups – or liberal groups like MoveOn, whose petitions I sign myself from time to time – is anything other than political advocacy? I suppose one could argue that political activity could be part of promoting social welfare, but since not all political activity promotes social welfare, there would have to be more detailed rules to clarify matters. Perhaps all these groups should lose their tax exempt status. Of course there is no excusing selective application of the rules, which is the real problem here (though it seems one directive did refer to groups advocating both limiting and expanding government, which in the latter case would include many liberal groups). If the rules were applied fairly, even many right wingers should approve, as long as they are being consistent. [Edit: It seems that at least a few liberal groups did receive the same extra scrutiny that these tea party groups supposedly got. Progress Texas, a group that I have signed a number of petitions from, issued a statement saying they received extra vetting, and that they had no problem with it. I would not be surprised if a closer investigation shows that conservative groups did not actually receive disproportionate scrutiny, especially considering, as some commenters have observed, many of these groups are openly anti-tax, an attitude that the IRS is bound to pay a little extra attention to].
As for the Justice Department's seizure of AP reporters' phone records, I'm still not sure what to make of that one. The government claims the leak they were investigating was a serious one that endangered national security and American lives, but I didn't see a clear explanation of how it did so. In any case, the response seems disproportionate, much like the government's treatment of Bradley Manning. At this point at least, it looks like the government was in the wrong, though again I don't know how much Obama himself can be held responsible.
Overall, things seem to be in something of a mess in both Taiwan and the US lately. It would be nice to see some improvement in the coming weeks and months, but being cynically inclined, I find it hard to be very optimistic.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Links to Articles on Current Issues
I intended to post something I was writing about an interesting non-fiction book I read recently, but as I had a lot to say about the book, I haven't had time to finish my commentary on it yet. Instead, here are links to some interesting articles on various topics, interspersed with occasional commentary.
Much of the news from Burma/Myanmar recently has been somewhat disturbing, such as this article about the connection between militant Buddhist monks and attacks on Muslims. Along with anti-Tamil and anti-Hindu rhetoric from some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, this is further evidence that Buddhism is not immune to violent religious chauvinism. On the plus side, at least Aung San Suu Kyi did address the issue, though despite what she says about her limited power to fix things, I would like to see her say and do more, including challenging anti-Rohingya prejudice. Elsewhere in the Southeast Asian region, China continues its aggressive imperialism in the South China Sea region, and activists are doing their best to see that big Western companies accept their share of the responsibility for the criminal disaster in Bangladesh (though I would also love to see the local owners and managers go to jail, especially the ones who ordered workers to go to work in an obviously unsafe building or lose a month's pay).
Climate change and the environment are of course issues that won't go away anytime soon (in fact, they'll be a matter for concern as long as human civilization exists). Here's an interesting recent commentary on climate change, specifically rising sea levels and another one on environmental problems faced by China. In addition, here are two articles by George Monbiot from last year about the Rio Earth Summit 2012, one on why we should be talking about sustainability, not "sustained growth", and another basically despairing of further multilateral government efforts to protect the world's environment.
I mentioned briefly in my last post that the new Pope Francis, while saying some good things, looks like he may still be a disappointment on some issues, such as the Vatican's ridiculous effort to make US nuns conform to conservative Catholic positions rather than focusing on social issues, despite some initial hopes otherwise. (For an extreme example of the ridiculous hardline the Catholic church takes on issues such as abortion, one need look no further than the case of the nun Margaret McBride who was excommunicated for involvement in an abortion to save a woman's life. Even given that she was later reinstated, she never should have been excommunicated in the first place, especially when we consider that countless priests who were found to be guilty of sexual abuse of minors were merely transferred, and not excommunicated). Despite this, some still hold out hope that Francis may prove flexible on issues such as priestly celibacy and liberation theology.
Debate continues on NASA's plans to send humans to an asteroid, with some asserting it might be more difficult than going to Mars, and Congress questioning the plan. While Mars would be my first choice, I think the asteroid mission sounds interesting, and if it's true, as NASA chief Charles Bolden implies, that it is cheaper than going back to the Moon or to Mars, than I'd certainly rather see them do that than nothing. Of course I'd even more like to see NASA's budget get tripled so they can do all three things, but that is not likely to happen. However, at a minimum, it should be increased enough to restore the budget for planetary science to the level of previous years.
In other US news, the Republicans have been trying to claim Obama deliberately caused recent flight delays in the US by having the FAA furlough air traffic controllers, when in truth the sequester left the FAA with no choice. But then as a Republican and a Democrat in a panel discussion at Columbia University agreed, US politics is broken. It's worth noting that the Republican (former Congressman Joe Scarborough) criticized his own party's failure to vote for failing to vote for expanded background checks on guns ("Who can be against that?") and said he'd be willing to support a stimulus plan that focused on rebuilding infrastructure and on science (both good ideas), though he claimed Obama's stimulus was ineffective (it wasn't, though it could have been much better).
Finally, a bit of political comedy. This Bloom County comic from the 1980s is a reminder that, unfortunately, the gun issue has been with us for a long time now. And the other day on the Daily Show Jon Stewart did an excellent bit on how right wing commentators on Fox seem to have little regard for the Constitution's Bill of Rights – except for the Second Amendment. Among numerous absurd comments, one that stood out was Ann Coulter's assertion that the Boston bomber's wife should go to jail just for wearing a hijab. Why do Americans give people like that a platform to spout their rhetoric on national TV?
Much of the news from Burma/Myanmar recently has been somewhat disturbing, such as this article about the connection between militant Buddhist monks and attacks on Muslims. Along with anti-Tamil and anti-Hindu rhetoric from some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, this is further evidence that Buddhism is not immune to violent religious chauvinism. On the plus side, at least Aung San Suu Kyi did address the issue, though despite what she says about her limited power to fix things, I would like to see her say and do more, including challenging anti-Rohingya prejudice. Elsewhere in the Southeast Asian region, China continues its aggressive imperialism in the South China Sea region, and activists are doing their best to see that big Western companies accept their share of the responsibility for the criminal disaster in Bangladesh (though I would also love to see the local owners and managers go to jail, especially the ones who ordered workers to go to work in an obviously unsafe building or lose a month's pay).
Climate change and the environment are of course issues that won't go away anytime soon (in fact, they'll be a matter for concern as long as human civilization exists). Here's an interesting recent commentary on climate change, specifically rising sea levels and another one on environmental problems faced by China. In addition, here are two articles by George Monbiot from last year about the Rio Earth Summit 2012, one on why we should be talking about sustainability, not "sustained growth", and another basically despairing of further multilateral government efforts to protect the world's environment.
I mentioned briefly in my last post that the new Pope Francis, while saying some good things, looks like he may still be a disappointment on some issues, such as the Vatican's ridiculous effort to make US nuns conform to conservative Catholic positions rather than focusing on social issues, despite some initial hopes otherwise. (For an extreme example of the ridiculous hardline the Catholic church takes on issues such as abortion, one need look no further than the case of the nun Margaret McBride who was excommunicated for involvement in an abortion to save a woman's life. Even given that she was later reinstated, she never should have been excommunicated in the first place, especially when we consider that countless priests who were found to be guilty of sexual abuse of minors were merely transferred, and not excommunicated). Despite this, some still hold out hope that Francis may prove flexible on issues such as priestly celibacy and liberation theology.
Debate continues on NASA's plans to send humans to an asteroid, with some asserting it might be more difficult than going to Mars, and Congress questioning the plan. While Mars would be my first choice, I think the asteroid mission sounds interesting, and if it's true, as NASA chief Charles Bolden implies, that it is cheaper than going back to the Moon or to Mars, than I'd certainly rather see them do that than nothing. Of course I'd even more like to see NASA's budget get tripled so they can do all three things, but that is not likely to happen. However, at a minimum, it should be increased enough to restore the budget for planetary science to the level of previous years.
In other US news, the Republicans have been trying to claim Obama deliberately caused recent flight delays in the US by having the FAA furlough air traffic controllers, when in truth the sequester left the FAA with no choice. But then as a Republican and a Democrat in a panel discussion at Columbia University agreed, US politics is broken. It's worth noting that the Republican (former Congressman Joe Scarborough) criticized his own party's failure to vote for failing to vote for expanded background checks on guns ("Who can be against that?") and said he'd be willing to support a stimulus plan that focused on rebuilding infrastructure and on science (both good ideas), though he claimed Obama's stimulus was ineffective (it wasn't, though it could have been much better).
Finally, a bit of political comedy. This Bloom County comic from the 1980s is a reminder that, unfortunately, the gun issue has been with us for a long time now. And the other day on the Daily Show Jon Stewart did an excellent bit on how right wing commentators on Fox seem to have little regard for the Constitution's Bill of Rights – except for the Second Amendment. Among numerous absurd comments, one that stood out was Ann Coulter's assertion that the Boston bomber's wife should go to jail just for wearing a hijab. Why do Americans give people like that a platform to spout their rhetoric on national TV?
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Topical Music: Songs about Current Issues
Since this post touches on both music and current affairs, I'm cross-posting it both here and in my other blog.
While many – perhaps even most – rock and pop songs deal with topics like personal relationships, there are also quite a few that are about issues relating to politics and society. Several recent news topics reminded me of a few of these songs.
The recent death of Margaret Thatcher inevitably made me and many other people think of the Elvis Costello song “Tramp the Dirt Down”. In this song, Costello declared that he looked forward to Thatcher's death so that he could stand on her grave and as the title says, tramp the dirt down. A pretty vicious song, but considering Thatcher’s friendship with the murderous Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet, her opposition to putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid, and many of her policies in Britain, it’s easy to understand Costello’s attitude. I just wonder if he’ll follow through.
A major news topic from the United States is the debate over gun control. While I’ve covered this issue in more detail elsewhere (both seriously and ironically), there are several songs which to a certain degree express some of my own thinking on guns. One is Queen’s “Put Out the Fire”, from their 1981 album Hot Space. One of my favorite parts is the verse where Brian May, the writer of the song, turns an old pro-gun cliché on its head: “You know a gun never killed nobody/You can ask anyone/People get shot by people/People with guns”. Tracy Chapman talks about inner city youth with guns in her excellent song “Bang Bang Bang”. And of course there’s the Lynyrd Skynyrd song “Saturday Night Special”, about the gun of the same name that “Ain't no good for nothin' / But put a man six feet in a hole”. Somewhat more indirectly related to the debate is Sting’s song “I Hung My Head” (also covered by Johnny Cash), about a man who accidentally shoots someone – something that happens with appalling frequency in the US – and is hung for it. Incidentally, it has occurred to me that the main reason George Harrison survived his encounter with a homicidally insane "fan" and John Lennon did not is George lived in the UK, where it isn't nearly as easy to get a gun.
The environment is always an issue, and there are numerous songs about it as well. One that came to mind recently was Joni Mitchell’s classic “Big Yellow Taxi” (“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”). It seemed particularly applicable to a controversy at a local school in Taiwan, over the opposition of environmental groups and many students and faculty, the administration pushed through a ridiculous plan to cut down a bunch of old-growth trees in order to build a swimming pool and, you guessed it, a parking lot, or rather a parking garage (not to serve the students – this is a junior high school – or even the faculty, but to make money for the school…because, after all, the main purpose of a public school is to bring in money, right?). I also heard an interesting song dealing with climate change called “Disappearing”. It’s by a musician from Vancouver named Simon Collins (who just happens to be the son of a certain famous British drummer and singer).
Then there was the election of a new Pope, one who despite displaying a refreshing approach still looks like he may be disappointing on some issues. If there’s one song I think of when I think of the Catholic Church, it’s “The Vatican Rag” by the inimitable Tom Lehrer. It may be almost 50 years old, but like so many of Lehrer’s songs, it’s timeless. It was even covered by the great Marty Feldman, best known for his role in Young Frankenstein.
While many – perhaps even most – rock and pop songs deal with topics like personal relationships, there are also quite a few that are about issues relating to politics and society. Several recent news topics reminded me of a few of these songs.
The recent death of Margaret Thatcher inevitably made me and many other people think of the Elvis Costello song “Tramp the Dirt Down”. In this song, Costello declared that he looked forward to Thatcher's death so that he could stand on her grave and as the title says, tramp the dirt down. A pretty vicious song, but considering Thatcher’s friendship with the murderous Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet, her opposition to putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid, and many of her policies in Britain, it’s easy to understand Costello’s attitude. I just wonder if he’ll follow through.
A major news topic from the United States is the debate over gun control. While I’ve covered this issue in more detail elsewhere (both seriously and ironically), there are several songs which to a certain degree express some of my own thinking on guns. One is Queen’s “Put Out the Fire”, from their 1981 album Hot Space. One of my favorite parts is the verse where Brian May, the writer of the song, turns an old pro-gun cliché on its head: “You know a gun never killed nobody/You can ask anyone/People get shot by people/People with guns”. Tracy Chapman talks about inner city youth with guns in her excellent song “Bang Bang Bang”. And of course there’s the Lynyrd Skynyrd song “Saturday Night Special”, about the gun of the same name that “Ain't no good for nothin' / But put a man six feet in a hole”. Somewhat more indirectly related to the debate is Sting’s song “I Hung My Head” (also covered by Johnny Cash), about a man who accidentally shoots someone – something that happens with appalling frequency in the US – and is hung for it. Incidentally, it has occurred to me that the main reason George Harrison survived his encounter with a homicidally insane "fan" and John Lennon did not is George lived in the UK, where it isn't nearly as easy to get a gun.
The environment is always an issue, and there are numerous songs about it as well. One that came to mind recently was Joni Mitchell’s classic “Big Yellow Taxi” (“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”). It seemed particularly applicable to a controversy at a local school in Taiwan, over the opposition of environmental groups and many students and faculty, the administration pushed through a ridiculous plan to cut down a bunch of old-growth trees in order to build a swimming pool and, you guessed it, a parking lot, or rather a parking garage (not to serve the students – this is a junior high school – or even the faculty, but to make money for the school…because, after all, the main purpose of a public school is to bring in money, right?). I also heard an interesting song dealing with climate change called “Disappearing”. It’s by a musician from Vancouver named Simon Collins (who just happens to be the son of a certain famous British drummer and singer).
Then there was the election of a new Pope, one who despite displaying a refreshing approach still looks like he may be disappointing on some issues. If there’s one song I think of when I think of the Catholic Church, it’s “The Vatican Rag” by the inimitable Tom Lehrer. It may be almost 50 years old, but like so many of Lehrer’s songs, it’s timeless. It was even covered by the great Marty Feldman, best known for his role in Young Frankenstein.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
What I've Been Reading: November 2012 to March 2013
Over the past few months I haven't gotten quite as much reading done as I might normally like, in part because I haven't been able to devote all my commuting time to reading like I did in the past. However, I have still managed to read quite a few books in the five months since I last did a post on the subject. Several of these books I thought were excellent and even the ones I had somewhat more mixed opinions about had their share of good points. But though some of these books deserve an in-depth analysis, I have a lot of other things to work on at the moment, so I have limited myself to brief comments on each.
Acacia: The War with the Mein by David Anthony Durham
This was a decent fantasy epic, but not really exceptional. I thought it was much better than the Dark Elf trilogy and it had fairly good characterization (also one of the strong points of Durham’s historical novel on Hannibal of Carthage, which I read a few years ago), but it somehow didn’t feel real much of the time, whereas the best novels, regardless of genre, always do. The story was sufficiently gripping, with at least one surprising plot twist, and I liked how he made use of his knowledge of the conflict between Rome and Carthage to introduce a version of the Roman corvus into the story at one point. But while I enjoyed the book well enough, I probably won’t go out of my way to get the sequel, though I might pick it up if I see it at a bargain price.
Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne
While Jules Verne is often seen as one of the first science fiction authors, and some of his books certainly do belong in the genre, Around the World in Eighty Days is a travel story rather than science fiction. It has the same sort of distinct 19th century feel that a Sherlock Holmes story has, and it moves along at a good pace, keeping the reader’s interest as protagonist Phileas Fogg races around the world on a bet. The descriptions of the various locations Fogg and his servant Passepartout travel through are quite interesting in that some places seem to have changed little since Verne’s day, whereas others are very different (unfortunately, the jungles of India have far less in the way of wildlife than they did even a century ago). As for colonial attitudes, while there are occasional stereotypes, Verne on the whole seems to display a fairly liberal attitude for his time, making a number of critical remarks about the actions of the British in places such as China (of course, criticizing the British may have come somewhat easier for Verne, as he was French himself). Fans of Farrokh Bulsara may note that the Parsis (or Parsees as the name is spelled here) of India are mentioned favorably and one is a major character.
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
This is a classic novel dealing with the difficulties faced by African-Americans in a very racist America in the period following World War II. Ellison’s prose is highly literary without being unreadable. The protagonist, who is never named, is a highly intelligent, well-read young man (unlike the protagonist of his friend Richard Wright's novel Native Son), but despite his great potential, he finds obstacles wherever he turns. It seems that Ellison deliberately put his protagonist into as many different kinds of situations and environments as possible, ranging from the rural South to New York City and from school to factory work to activism, but the only episode that seems slightly incongruous is the electroshock treatment he undergoes in the factory hospital. Overall, the reader comes away with a much greater appreciation of how terrible the problems black Americans had to deal with in those days were.
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
This is an excellent post-apocalyptic novel that is told through the eyes of a character who calls himself Snowman. Parts of it take place in the “present”, that is to say after the disaster – the nature of which is revealed in bits and pieces – and parts of it are Snowman’s reminiscences about the time leading up to the apocalypse, beginning with his childhood, when he was known as Jimmy (it is in these parts that we are introduced to Crake and Oryx). The post-apocalypse parts brought to mind novels like Earth Abides and The Road, while the parts about the pre-disaster society reminded me in some ways of Olivia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. The picture Atwood paints is not very pretty (and it is made even less so when the reader realizes that many of the things she describes actually exist in the real world), but the story is compelling and thought-provoking. Immediately after reading it I bought a used copy of a more recent Atwood novel that apparently shares the same background setting. It will probably be some time before I get around to reading it, but based on this one, I’ll be looking forward to it.
The Death of the Necromancer by Martha Wells
At first glance this looked it might be a generic fantasy novel, but actually it was very good. Two things in particular set it apart: good characterization and an interesting, very realistic setting (apparently Wells studied anthropology, which may have helped her when it came to world design). The world is not a typical fantasy world; the city is lit by gas lamps and weapons include not only swords but pistols as well. It bears some resemblance to the London of Charles Dickens (though for some reason it also brought to mind Italian cities like Venice), except for the existence of sorcery and fairy beings known as fay (the former plays a very large role in the story, while the latter are mostly background). There are even a pair of characters who bear a little resemblance to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The plot is complicated but interesting, keeping the reader’s attention through all the twists and turns. While a few elements of the story could be guessed at (for example, it was not hard to predict that Valiarde and Ronsarde would get thrown together in some way), there were also quite a few surprises. The combination of the well-drawn characters and the detailed setting make this one of the most realistic fantasies I’ve read, on par with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Gideon’s Wall, and China Miéville’s novels.
A Case of Conscience by James Blish
An interesting novel about a Jesuit priest who, in his capacity as a biologist, is a member of a team of scientists sent to investigate a world inhabited by intelligent, reptilian aliens. Their society seems perfect, but the protagonist starts to wonder if it’s all a set-up. I had some difficulty with some aspects of the story; for example, two of the other scientists strike me as rather unscientific, not so much in their biases and prejudices, but in their anti-intellectual attitudes. Also, the protagonist seems not to believe in evolution, which seems rather improbable for a biologist (and for all its faults, I don’t think even the Catholic Church denies the reality of evolution). Nevertheless, the philosophical questions the novel poses are interesting, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether the protagonist’s ideas about the aliens are actually correct. As a side note, it was an interesting coincidence that just after I finished this novel, the Catholic Church chose a Jesuit to be Pope, the first ever to hold the position.
Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku
In this book, physicist and futurist Michio Kaku makes predictions about developments that will take place in the 21st century in fields such as computers, medicine, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, energy, and space travel, as well as changes that will take place in our concepts of wealth and in our society in general. Not surprisingly, many of the possible future inventions and advances he discusses are amazing, and it will be interesting to find out how many of them we will live to see. My initial impression was that Kaku was perhaps a little too positive, as he seemed to neglect the possible negative consequence of some of the developments he talks about; for instance he doesn’t talk much about the privacy issues that might arise from further advances in computers, and he seems at times to assume that people will make the best possible use of some of the new technologies. However, he does mention a number of negatives, such as why climate change is a serious issue and the major difficulties that we face in the fields of artificial intelligence and space travel, and he does at times point out how negative aspects of human nature may result in misuse of technology (for example in the case of nuclear power). Of course some of his predictions will no doubt turn out to be either too optimistic or too pessimistic. How close to reality his picture of life in 2100 will turn out to be is something that at least some of the children alive today will have a chance to discover.
Acacia: The War with the Mein by David Anthony Durham
This was a decent fantasy epic, but not really exceptional. I thought it was much better than the Dark Elf trilogy and it had fairly good characterization (also one of the strong points of Durham’s historical novel on Hannibal of Carthage, which I read a few years ago), but it somehow didn’t feel real much of the time, whereas the best novels, regardless of genre, always do. The story was sufficiently gripping, with at least one surprising plot twist, and I liked how he made use of his knowledge of the conflict between Rome and Carthage to introduce a version of the Roman corvus into the story at one point. But while I enjoyed the book well enough, I probably won’t go out of my way to get the sequel, though I might pick it up if I see it at a bargain price.
Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne
While Jules Verne is often seen as one of the first science fiction authors, and some of his books certainly do belong in the genre, Around the World in Eighty Days is a travel story rather than science fiction. It has the same sort of distinct 19th century feel that a Sherlock Holmes story has, and it moves along at a good pace, keeping the reader’s interest as protagonist Phileas Fogg races around the world on a bet. The descriptions of the various locations Fogg and his servant Passepartout travel through are quite interesting in that some places seem to have changed little since Verne’s day, whereas others are very different (unfortunately, the jungles of India have far less in the way of wildlife than they did even a century ago). As for colonial attitudes, while there are occasional stereotypes, Verne on the whole seems to display a fairly liberal attitude for his time, making a number of critical remarks about the actions of the British in places such as China (of course, criticizing the British may have come somewhat easier for Verne, as he was French himself). Fans of Farrokh Bulsara may note that the Parsis (or Parsees as the name is spelled here) of India are mentioned favorably and one is a major character.
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
This is a classic novel dealing with the difficulties faced by African-Americans in a very racist America in the period following World War II. Ellison’s prose is highly literary without being unreadable. The protagonist, who is never named, is a highly intelligent, well-read young man (unlike the protagonist of his friend Richard Wright's novel Native Son), but despite his great potential, he finds obstacles wherever he turns. It seems that Ellison deliberately put his protagonist into as many different kinds of situations and environments as possible, ranging from the rural South to New York City and from school to factory work to activism, but the only episode that seems slightly incongruous is the electroshock treatment he undergoes in the factory hospital. Overall, the reader comes away with a much greater appreciation of how terrible the problems black Americans had to deal with in those days were.
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
This is an excellent post-apocalyptic novel that is told through the eyes of a character who calls himself Snowman. Parts of it take place in the “present”, that is to say after the disaster – the nature of which is revealed in bits and pieces – and parts of it are Snowman’s reminiscences about the time leading up to the apocalypse, beginning with his childhood, when he was known as Jimmy (it is in these parts that we are introduced to Crake and Oryx). The post-apocalypse parts brought to mind novels like Earth Abides and The Road, while the parts about the pre-disaster society reminded me in some ways of Olivia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. The picture Atwood paints is not very pretty (and it is made even less so when the reader realizes that many of the things she describes actually exist in the real world), but the story is compelling and thought-provoking. Immediately after reading it I bought a used copy of a more recent Atwood novel that apparently shares the same background setting. It will probably be some time before I get around to reading it, but based on this one, I’ll be looking forward to it.
The Death of the Necromancer by Martha Wells
At first glance this looked it might be a generic fantasy novel, but actually it was very good. Two things in particular set it apart: good characterization and an interesting, very realistic setting (apparently Wells studied anthropology, which may have helped her when it came to world design). The world is not a typical fantasy world; the city is lit by gas lamps and weapons include not only swords but pistols as well. It bears some resemblance to the London of Charles Dickens (though for some reason it also brought to mind Italian cities like Venice), except for the existence of sorcery and fairy beings known as fay (the former plays a very large role in the story, while the latter are mostly background). There are even a pair of characters who bear a little resemblance to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The plot is complicated but interesting, keeping the reader’s attention through all the twists and turns. While a few elements of the story could be guessed at (for example, it was not hard to predict that Valiarde and Ronsarde would get thrown together in some way), there were also quite a few surprises. The combination of the well-drawn characters and the detailed setting make this one of the most realistic fantasies I’ve read, on par with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Gideon’s Wall, and China Miéville’s novels.
A Case of Conscience by James Blish
An interesting novel about a Jesuit priest who, in his capacity as a biologist, is a member of a team of scientists sent to investigate a world inhabited by intelligent, reptilian aliens. Their society seems perfect, but the protagonist starts to wonder if it’s all a set-up. I had some difficulty with some aspects of the story; for example, two of the other scientists strike me as rather unscientific, not so much in their biases and prejudices, but in their anti-intellectual attitudes. Also, the protagonist seems not to believe in evolution, which seems rather improbable for a biologist (and for all its faults, I don’t think even the Catholic Church denies the reality of evolution). Nevertheless, the philosophical questions the novel poses are interesting, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether the protagonist’s ideas about the aliens are actually correct. As a side note, it was an interesting coincidence that just after I finished this novel, the Catholic Church chose a Jesuit to be Pope, the first ever to hold the position.
Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku
In this book, physicist and futurist Michio Kaku makes predictions about developments that will take place in the 21st century in fields such as computers, medicine, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, energy, and space travel, as well as changes that will take place in our concepts of wealth and in our society in general. Not surprisingly, many of the possible future inventions and advances he discusses are amazing, and it will be interesting to find out how many of them we will live to see. My initial impression was that Kaku was perhaps a little too positive, as he seemed to neglect the possible negative consequence of some of the developments he talks about; for instance he doesn’t talk much about the privacy issues that might arise from further advances in computers, and he seems at times to assume that people will make the best possible use of some of the new technologies. However, he does mention a number of negatives, such as why climate change is a serious issue and the major difficulties that we face in the fields of artificial intelligence and space travel, and he does at times point out how negative aspects of human nature may result in misuse of technology (for example in the case of nuclear power). Of course some of his predictions will no doubt turn out to be either too optimistic or too pessimistic. How close to reality his picture of life in 2100 will turn out to be is something that at least some of the children alive today will have a chance to discover.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Hugo Chávez: Champion of the Poor or Megalomaniacal Autocrat?
The death of Hugo Chávez, the long-time president of Venezuela, last week gave rise to many retrospectives on his life and discussions of his legacy. Those two articles from the BBC touch on the widely contrasting views that critics and supporters of Chávez have had over the years. His supporters and followers viewed him as a champion of the poor and downtrodden, as well as one of the few leaders with the backbone to stand up to the mighty United States. His opponents and critics claimed he was a demagogue and a autocrat with tendencies toward megalomania and paranoia, particularly with respect to the US. So which was the truth? While I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about Chávez's record, my own impression, based on what I do know, is that both his supporters and critics were right, at least to some degree.
I have no doubt that many of Chávez's policies did help the poor of Venezuela, and that they amounted to more than just handing out oil money. Any significant improvement in the situation of the disadvantaged in a country such as Venezuela is worth celebrating, and Chávez's achievements in areas such as health and education should be recognized. My sympathy for many of his Venezuelan critics, a fairly large proportion of whom belong to the entrenched upper classes who have controlled far too much of the country's wealth and power for generations, is limited, as for some of them their hostility toward Chávez seems to be based primarily on narrow self-interest, much like many of the Cuban exiles who hate Castro (while Castro's Cuba is clearly an oppressive dictatorship, it's worth remembering that the Cuba of Batista was as well, and social inequality under Batista was far worse). Even if Chávez was a dictator, if he could be seen as a mostly benevolent one who brought equality and social development and ran roughshod over the rule of law only to the extent necessary to get things done, that would be a clear improvement on the right wing dictatorships that dominated South America in the past.
Unfortunately, while Chávez did make substantial progress on social development, income disparity and social inequality remain high in Venezuela, and it is not clear that all of the still limited improvements in the lot of the poor will prove lasting. Then there is the matter of Chávez's methods. It is human nature for people to want heroes, and so to the extent that Chávez did help the disadvantaged people of his country, it's somewhat understandable that many of them practically worshiped him. In addition, to the extent that Chávez faced opposition from entrenched interests who could manipulate a corrupt system, some bending of the rules to get things accomplished would also be understandable. But Chávez seemed to actively encourage the personality cult around him, which is not the same thing as simply accepting that some people would overdo their adulation of him, and his efforts to muzzle critics seemed to go well beyond steamrolling through intransigent opposition in order to improve the society, though as far as I know direct repression of the sort seen under people like Pinochet, Castro, or the Argentine junta has been relatively uncommon. Likewise, some of his nationalizations seemed motivated as much by opportunism as a genuine desire to ensure that the people of Venezuela got a fair share of the profits from their nation's resources. So while Chávez's record domestically certainly has to be considered better than those of most earlier right-wing South American leaders, it was far from unequivocally positive.
The other aspect of Chávez's record, of course, is his foreign policy, especially his relations with the United States. Probably the most notable feature of Chávez's foreign policy was his outspoken opposition to the United States and its policies, not only in Latin America but all over the world. There is of course nothing wrong with opposing US foreign policy, whether it is excessive reliance on military force, hypocritical and inconsistent rhetoric on human rights, or economic bullying in the service of American multinationals. But like many critics of America, including many of those in the West who defend him, Chávez did not merely oppose American policies because they were clearly unjust, but because they were American; worse yet, he indiscriminately sided with the enemies of the US, no matter who they were. Not only was he friendly with nations such as Iran, Libya, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and especially Cuba, he also spoke in defense of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him. Despite his frequent criticism of US imperialism, he was friendly with China, which exercises an even more naked form of imperialism, though for the moment it lacks the ability to project power worldwide. While American policy toward many of these countries may be inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, it doesn't follow that those countries are not themselves highly flawed; in most cases they are (or, in the case of Libya under Gaddafi, were) brutal dictatorships, so being friendly with them doesn't win Chávez any points in my book. Furthermore, many of Chávez's criticisms of the US were delusional nonsense, like saying the US marines caused the Haitian earthquake. I would love to see a leader who is outspoken in his criticism of the US if that criticism is rational and equally applied to other nations who deserve criticism for their bad behavior. But Chávez seemed less interested in being on the side of justice than being on whatever side the US wasn't.
So I have to say that despite Chávez's real accomplishments, the overall picture is decidedly mixed. Both his defenders and detractors seem at least partially correct in their views of him, though they both conveniently ignore the other side. My own impression of him leans toward the negative due to some of his frankly unhinged statements, though it is tempered by the improvements that he made in the lives of at least some Venezuelans and by limited sympathy for the main targets of his ranting. What his long-term legacy will be remains to be seen.
For another (largely negative) look at Chávez, see this commentary. The writer's comments on the other leftist leaders in Latin America are also interesting, though I take issue with his backhanded complimenting of José Mujica and especially his dismissal of Uruguay's moves toward legalizing marijuana, which are in fact very forward looking and worth imitating by other nations.
I have no doubt that many of Chávez's policies did help the poor of Venezuela, and that they amounted to more than just handing out oil money. Any significant improvement in the situation of the disadvantaged in a country such as Venezuela is worth celebrating, and Chávez's achievements in areas such as health and education should be recognized. My sympathy for many of his Venezuelan critics, a fairly large proportion of whom belong to the entrenched upper classes who have controlled far too much of the country's wealth and power for generations, is limited, as for some of them their hostility toward Chávez seems to be based primarily on narrow self-interest, much like many of the Cuban exiles who hate Castro (while Castro's Cuba is clearly an oppressive dictatorship, it's worth remembering that the Cuba of Batista was as well, and social inequality under Batista was far worse). Even if Chávez was a dictator, if he could be seen as a mostly benevolent one who brought equality and social development and ran roughshod over the rule of law only to the extent necessary to get things done, that would be a clear improvement on the right wing dictatorships that dominated South America in the past.
Unfortunately, while Chávez did make substantial progress on social development, income disparity and social inequality remain high in Venezuela, and it is not clear that all of the still limited improvements in the lot of the poor will prove lasting. Then there is the matter of Chávez's methods. It is human nature for people to want heroes, and so to the extent that Chávez did help the disadvantaged people of his country, it's somewhat understandable that many of them practically worshiped him. In addition, to the extent that Chávez faced opposition from entrenched interests who could manipulate a corrupt system, some bending of the rules to get things accomplished would also be understandable. But Chávez seemed to actively encourage the personality cult around him, which is not the same thing as simply accepting that some people would overdo their adulation of him, and his efforts to muzzle critics seemed to go well beyond steamrolling through intransigent opposition in order to improve the society, though as far as I know direct repression of the sort seen under people like Pinochet, Castro, or the Argentine junta has been relatively uncommon. Likewise, some of his nationalizations seemed motivated as much by opportunism as a genuine desire to ensure that the people of Venezuela got a fair share of the profits from their nation's resources. So while Chávez's record domestically certainly has to be considered better than those of most earlier right-wing South American leaders, it was far from unequivocally positive.
The other aspect of Chávez's record, of course, is his foreign policy, especially his relations with the United States. Probably the most notable feature of Chávez's foreign policy was his outspoken opposition to the United States and its policies, not only in Latin America but all over the world. There is of course nothing wrong with opposing US foreign policy, whether it is excessive reliance on military force, hypocritical and inconsistent rhetoric on human rights, or economic bullying in the service of American multinationals. But like many critics of America, including many of those in the West who defend him, Chávez did not merely oppose American policies because they were clearly unjust, but because they were American; worse yet, he indiscriminately sided with the enemies of the US, no matter who they were. Not only was he friendly with nations such as Iran, Libya, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and especially Cuba, he also spoke in defense of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him. Despite his frequent criticism of US imperialism, he was friendly with China, which exercises an even more naked form of imperialism, though for the moment it lacks the ability to project power worldwide. While American policy toward many of these countries may be inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, it doesn't follow that those countries are not themselves highly flawed; in most cases they are (or, in the case of Libya under Gaddafi, were) brutal dictatorships, so being friendly with them doesn't win Chávez any points in my book. Furthermore, many of Chávez's criticisms of the US were delusional nonsense, like saying the US marines caused the Haitian earthquake. I would love to see a leader who is outspoken in his criticism of the US if that criticism is rational and equally applied to other nations who deserve criticism for their bad behavior. But Chávez seemed less interested in being on the side of justice than being on whatever side the US wasn't.
So I have to say that despite Chávez's real accomplishments, the overall picture is decidedly mixed. Both his defenders and detractors seem at least partially correct in their views of him, though they both conveniently ignore the other side. My own impression of him leans toward the negative due to some of his frankly unhinged statements, though it is tempered by the improvements that he made in the lives of at least some Venezuelans and by limited sympathy for the main targets of his ranting. What his long-term legacy will be remains to be seen.
For another (largely negative) look at Chávez, see this commentary. The writer's comments on the other leftist leaders in Latin America are also interesting, though I take issue with his backhanded complimenting of José Mujica and especially his dismissal of Uruguay's moves toward legalizing marijuana, which are in fact very forward looking and worth imitating by other nations.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Governmental foolishness
I read the other day that the Taiwanese government had recently floated the idea of an energy tax. Of course an energy tax would be an excellent idea, as it would be a tool to reduce energy consumption and restrain pollution caused by the use of energy. If it were in the form of a carbon tax that would be even better, as it would then target the use of fossil fuels, the worst (and yet most common) form of energy. But unfortunately, the business-friendly KMT caucus in the Legislative Yuan opposed the idea, and the government is now saying that the “time is not right.” Of course given that next year is an election year for many local governments, the time will probably not be “right” then either. As one expert said in the news report I read, with that kind of attitude the time will never be right.
Taiwanese government officials also made themselves look foolish in the past few days when a team of international experts came to examine Taiwan’s adherence to two UN human rights that it ratified several years ago. They repeatedly referred to protections enshrined in law, rather than talking about the actual situation (even China has provisions in its constitution that protect individual rights; it just doesn’t put them into practice). Despite clear evidence to the contrary, they claimed that forced confessions don’t happen in Taiwan now. Apparently the international experts weren’t impressed with a lot of the government’s assertions.
Of course the US has similar foolishness in its government. Even the Obama administration hems and haws far too much about things like real measures to deal with climate change. But the worst idiocy is still in Congress, particularly the House. Aside from the resistance to common-sense gun control and the delays in renewing the Violence Against Women Act, the persistence of the Republicans in insisting on draconian cuts to social programs (but not the bloated defense budget) and no increases in taxes as their “plan” to replace the budget sequester is sheer insanity. Even more incredibly, they are trying to portray the sequester as Obama’s doing, even though it was Congress that passed it, and only as a compromise to prevent the Republicans from causing the US to renege on its debts. Twice in the past few weeks I have received mailings from senior House Republican Pete Sessions in which he referred to “the President’s sequester”, even though Sessions himself is more responsible for the existence of the sequester than Obama is. But considering that one of these mailings featured a constituent survey with questions so laughably loaded that they were like textbook examples of biased survey questions, perhaps his transparent efforts to shift responsibility onto Obama are not too surprising.
Taiwanese government officials also made themselves look foolish in the past few days when a team of international experts came to examine Taiwan’s adherence to two UN human rights that it ratified several years ago. They repeatedly referred to protections enshrined in law, rather than talking about the actual situation (even China has provisions in its constitution that protect individual rights; it just doesn’t put them into practice). Despite clear evidence to the contrary, they claimed that forced confessions don’t happen in Taiwan now. Apparently the international experts weren’t impressed with a lot of the government’s assertions.
Of course the US has similar foolishness in its government. Even the Obama administration hems and haws far too much about things like real measures to deal with climate change. But the worst idiocy is still in Congress, particularly the House. Aside from the resistance to common-sense gun control and the delays in renewing the Violence Against Women Act, the persistence of the Republicans in insisting on draconian cuts to social programs (but not the bloated defense budget) and no increases in taxes as their “plan” to replace the budget sequester is sheer insanity. Even more incredibly, they are trying to portray the sequester as Obama’s doing, even though it was Congress that passed it, and only as a compromise to prevent the Republicans from causing the US to renege on its debts. Twice in the past few weeks I have received mailings from senior House Republican Pete Sessions in which he referred to “the President’s sequester”, even though Sessions himself is more responsible for the existence of the sequester than Obama is. But considering that one of these mailings featured a constituent survey with questions so laughably loaded that they were like textbook examples of biased survey questions, perhaps his transparent efforts to shift responsibility onto Obama are not too surprising.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Current Events – February 2013
Perhaps the biggest international news event of the past few days was Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement that he will abdicate the papacy at the end of this month, making him the first pope to resign since the Middle Ages. His reasons for resigning – an inability to cope with the demands of his position due to his advanced age and failing health – are reasonable enough, and apparently his predecessor John Paul II also considered resigning for similar reasons. Whether the Pope’s abdication is a good thing or a bad thing depends to a large degree on who is elected as his successor. While as far as I know Joseph Ratzinger (as he was once known) may be a nice person personally, his positions on issues like contraception and homosexuality are centuries out of date, to the great detriment of Catholic societies around the world. Of course such outmoded thinking is not at all rare among the Catholic Church leadership, so it is not unlikely that his successor will be similarly stuck in a time warp. Even a more progressive Pope may find it difficult to make real changes. Another interesting though ridiculously petty conflict that may arise in the election of a new Pope is the possibility that the Italians may try to retake the Papacy. Due to the long papacy of the Polish-born John Paul II, it is now often forgotten that he and the German-born Benedict XVI were the first non-Italian popes since the Middle Ages, and it seems that some Italians in the leadership would like to see this reversed. On the other hand, there are other church leaders who advocate the selection of the first ever non-European pope. Though I personally don’t really much care who is Pope, I am still curious, and the world in general would certainly be better off with a Pope who can move the Catholic Church away from the outdated stances it holds on many issues.
Another international news item from the past few weeks is the French intervention in Mali. While Western military intervention in developing countries is problematic for a number of reasons, I can’t say I’m sorry to see the radical groups chased out of Mali’s major cities, and it seems most of those cities’ residents think likewise. Aside from their implementation of a violent form of “justice” that occasional caused the populace to riot against them, their destruction of historical sites in places like Timbuktu was a crime against all humanity like similar acts by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. However, once they are driven out, Western powers really need to rethink their approach in places like Africa by helping to improve governance rather than selling weapons and providing military training to corrupt regimes (even those with a democratic veneer), as pointed out in this opinion piece. This brings to mind something that US congressman Alan Grayson wrote about foreign policy following one of the presidential debates last fall. While I have mixed feelings about Grayson – I agree with him on most issues, he's intelligent and entertaining to read, and he loves rock music, but he also strikes me as somewhat egotistical and often goes overboard in his rhetoric – he makes some excellent points about the mentality governing foreign policy discussions in the US. If the US and the rest of the developed world really want to see substantial change in places like Mali, Libya, and Afghanistan, they really need to rethink their approach and start doing more to address the problems that lie at the root of the conflicts in the world.
One topic that has never come up in my blog is sports. This is because, though I was a sports fan as a kid, I long ago lost interest in sports. There is so much else that is more meaningful or more entertaining or both. However, I can’t resist commenting on the IOC’s idiotic decision to drop wrestling as an Olympic sport. Now I might be slightly biased because I was on the wrestling team in high school, but I can’t comprehend how you can have the Olympics without wrestling. Not only has it always been part of the modern games, but it was one of the main sports in the ancient Greek Olympics. Getting rid of wrestling is like getting rid of sprinting. Worse yet, this was done to make room for golf. Golf?!? You must be kidding me. Even aside from my dislike of the harm golf does to the environment, the idea that it is a better Olympic sport than wrestling is absurd. But as the article in the link above indicates, the real reason behind this decision is probably money and outright corruption in the IOC. I suppose for Taiwan the change might be a good thing, as the country has at least one very talented golfer who might win a medal. But that would be a bad reason to applaud a stupid decision. I haven’t really watched the Olympics in years, but things like this make me even more convinced that I’m not missing much.
Another international news item from the past few weeks is the French intervention in Mali. While Western military intervention in developing countries is problematic for a number of reasons, I can’t say I’m sorry to see the radical groups chased out of Mali’s major cities, and it seems most of those cities’ residents think likewise. Aside from their implementation of a violent form of “justice” that occasional caused the populace to riot against them, their destruction of historical sites in places like Timbuktu was a crime against all humanity like similar acts by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. However, once they are driven out, Western powers really need to rethink their approach in places like Africa by helping to improve governance rather than selling weapons and providing military training to corrupt regimes (even those with a democratic veneer), as pointed out in this opinion piece. This brings to mind something that US congressman Alan Grayson wrote about foreign policy following one of the presidential debates last fall. While I have mixed feelings about Grayson – I agree with him on most issues, he's intelligent and entertaining to read, and he loves rock music, but he also strikes me as somewhat egotistical and often goes overboard in his rhetoric – he makes some excellent points about the mentality governing foreign policy discussions in the US. If the US and the rest of the developed world really want to see substantial change in places like Mali, Libya, and Afghanistan, they really need to rethink their approach and start doing more to address the problems that lie at the root of the conflicts in the world.
One topic that has never come up in my blog is sports. This is because, though I was a sports fan as a kid, I long ago lost interest in sports. There is so much else that is more meaningful or more entertaining or both. However, I can’t resist commenting on the IOC’s idiotic decision to drop wrestling as an Olympic sport. Now I might be slightly biased because I was on the wrestling team in high school, but I can’t comprehend how you can have the Olympics without wrestling. Not only has it always been part of the modern games, but it was one of the main sports in the ancient Greek Olympics. Getting rid of wrestling is like getting rid of sprinting. Worse yet, this was done to make room for golf. Golf?!? You must be kidding me. Even aside from my dislike of the harm golf does to the environment, the idea that it is a better Olympic sport than wrestling is absurd. But as the article in the link above indicates, the real reason behind this decision is probably money and outright corruption in the IOC. I suppose for Taiwan the change might be a good thing, as the country has at least one very talented golfer who might win a medal. But that would be a bad reason to applaud a stupid decision. I haven’t really watched the Olympics in years, but things like this make me even more convinced that I’m not missing much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
