UK elections and other news

The recent UK parliamentary election had an interesting result; the first hung Parliament, as they are called, since 1974. This means that no party got a majority of the seats, so either there will be a minority government or a coalition government. The Conservatives got the most seats, but even they are well-short of a majority, and so they are now trying to make a deal with the third-place Liberal Democrats. If that doesn't work out, the Conservatives might try to form a minority government, or the Liberal Democrats might join forces with second-place Labour, though the two would also need the support of several small parties such as the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties in order to reach a majority.

Having read through a (admittedly very cursory) summary of the main parties' positions on key issues (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8669043.stm), I have to say that I think it's regrettable that the Liberal Democrats didn't do as well as pre-election polls seemed to indicate they might, as they seem fairly progressive on many issues, being better than Labour on at least a few. That they are generally closer to Labour politically has been pointed out in a number of articles on the results, which is one reason their negotiations with the Conservatives will be difficult. Apparently a leader of the Scottish nationalists has already urged the Liberal Democrats to join with them, Labour, the Welsh nationalists, and the Irish nationalist parties in a "progressive coalition" rather than joining the Conservatives, though Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg has said that as the winner of the most votes and most seats, the Conservatives should have the first opportunity at forming a government.

As for the Conservatives, while their leader David Cameron seems to be fairly moderate on a number of issues and as a whole they seem better than the US's Republican party, they are still too far to the right on some issues for me to be eager to see them in charge. There were even a number of their candidates for MP who are climate change deniers, though I don't know how many of those got elected. The biggest hindrance to their making a deal with the Liberal Democrats is that the latter may insist on substantial moves towards electoral reform. They want a radical change in the way MPs are elected, one that not coincidentally would mean more seats for them -- but it's a reasonable position for them to take, as under the current system, the smaller parties, including the Liberal Democrats, end up with proportionately far fewer seats then their percentages of the total votes. Many Conservatives, on the other hand, oppose changing the current system, which is more favorable to them. Labour, on the other hand, has expressed greater willingness to support electoral reform, though the system they prefer is different from the one favored by the Liberal Democrats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8644480.stm).

I'd probably most like to see a progressive coalition like the one mentioned above, though one problem would be that either the unpopular Gordon Brown would remain as prime minister, or (more likely, given the news that he is quitting as Labour leader) there would be a prime minister (i.e., the new Labour leader) who had not actually been running for the position in the election. There's also the fact that the governor of the Bank of England is rumored to have remarked privately just before the election that whichever party ends up in charge will in the long run end up out of power for many years into the future, as it will be forced to take many steps that are sure to be unpopular. If this is the case, perhaps it would be better if the Conservatives end up in charge after all.

In other election news, the Philippines have held a presidential election in which it looks like the winner is Benigno Aquino III, the son of the recently deceased former President Corazon Aquino and her assassinated husband Benigno Aquino, Jr. As there were a number of candidates, Aquino probably will not end up with a majority, but the latest count shows him well ahead of the second-place vote-getter, former President Joseph Estrada. While I know too little about the younger Aquino to be able to guess how he is likely to perform, his mother, while not perfect, was one of the better and perhaps more importantly cleaner leaders the Philippines has had (Estrada was removed from office over corruption, and outgoing President Gloria Arroyo also faces accusations of corruption, as well as of vote-rigging in the previous presidential election), so one might hope that he will also be okay, or at least better than the other candidates would have been.

Another major news item is that US President Obama has announced that he is nominating Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. In a number of ways she seems like a good choice, as she is apparently liberal (though little is known of her views on a number of major issues) but also capable of building consensuses by reaching out to conservatives. She is also known to be highly intelligent and capable. I have read a criticism of her from the left for her failure to win the recent big case on corporate political speech before the Supreme Court (though I have some doubts about how much she deserves the blame for that), and another on her handling of military recruiters at Harvard when she was dean of the law school there (basically she tried to bar them from campus due to the military's discriminatory policies towards gays and lesbians, which the writer argued was bad as despite its flaws the military still is the defender of the nation -- an argument I have limited sympathy for but can understand). We'll see what else conservative opponents may manage to dredge up, but for now she seems like a decent selection.

Arizona, Immigrants, and More

As most people in the US and many outside of it know, the US state of Arizona recently passed a law under which local law enforcement officials would have to check the immigration status of people if they had reason to believe they were in the US illegally, or something to that effect. This law has stirred up yet another debate on the topic of immigration and how to deal with the large number of illegal immigrants to the US. It has also conveniently brought up another issue on which the right wing element in the US can attempt to bash Obama and other Democratic leaders.

I have not read the text of the law itself, though the key provisions have been quoted or at least described in a number of news reports. The other day Arizona passed a further revision to the law, in part aimed at countering some of the criticisms. For instance, the law now states that police cannot use race in determining whether to check someone's immigration status, supposedly eliminating the possibility of racial profiling (but does anyone seriously believe this provision will mean that Hispanics won't be checked far more often than anyone else?). Also, supposedly police are only supposed to check someone's immigration status if that person has been stopped for another possible violation of the law. This is certainly better than allowing spot checks of anyone they feel like hassling, but as traffic violations and even violations of local ordinances qualify, people can still be checked if they are stopped for speeding or littering or other minor things.

So what's wrong with having the police checking immigration status? Lots of things. As many critics have pointed out, the police have plenty to do already, and they really don't need to be dealing with immigration matters when they could be out dealing with serious crimes (it's odd how conservatives generally believe in being tough on crime and yet support things that make it harder for the police to their jobs). Also, illegal immigrants will be much more reluctant to deal with the police in any way, so they won't report crimes or be willing to act as witnesses. Theoretically, they should be safe to do so under the modified law if they themselves are not being investigated, but they could hardly be blamed for not counting on that.

Oddly enough (or perhaps not so oddly), among the political figures who have criticized the Arizona law are Jeb Bush (W.'s brother and the former governor of Florida) and Karl Rove, people who I rarely agree with on anything. Another normally idiotic politician, Texas Governor Rick Perry, didn't directly criticize it, simply saying it wasn't right for Texas. But perhaps it is not entirely strange that this group doesn't endorse the Arizona approach, as they are all part of what might be called the Bush circle, and immigration was one of the very few areas where W. was actually pretty sensible. Most of the rest of the right-wing crowd, however, is all gung-ho for any draconian measures against illegal immigrants. On the plus side, a lot of religious groups, including some evangelical Christians, are opposing the law and calling for more progressive immigration reform (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100505/us_time/08599198632000).

There is a particularly irony to the hostility toward illegal immigrants from Mexico in a state like Arizona, because Arizona, along with California, Texas, and New Mexico, once belonged to Mexico, so in a sense Mexicans, if not other Hispanic immigrants, could say they have a right to live in these places based on history. Of course most Americans would see it otherwise; after all, we stole these places from Mexico fair and square, and it was a long time ago. But it is ironic nevertheless.

More seriously, a lot of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is absurd and overblown. The wild claims by people like Lou Dobbs that illegal immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, or the idea that illegal immigrants are just hanging around taking advantage of public services and not contributing anything to the society are completely divorced from reality. Most illegal immigrants have to work hard for very little pay, and anyone who would exclude illegal immigrants from vital medical services or education is seriously lacking in conscience. Even granted that their parents have done something illegal (though nothing like assaulting or robbing someone, and only out of a desire to find a better life for themselves and their children), how can anyone seriously advocate keeping the children of illegal immigrants out of school, or depriving their mothers of maternity services (I can't say for certain that there have been serious political moves to go that far, but I know I have seen comments to this effect from some of the more rabidly xenophobic people on the Internet -- particularly ironic, as a lot of the same people are anti-abortion)?

Of course, hostility to immigrants is hardly a new thing in the US, despite the fact that the country is largely an immigrant nation. Early Americans railed against German settlers, in the 19th century there was profound hostility towards Chinese immigrants and to a lesser degree Irish immigrants, in the early 20th century it was immigrants from eastern and southern Europe (and still the Chinese) who were the targets of anti-immigrant rhetoric. But all these people have since become vital parts of the American population, and have contributed a great deal to the country, as have many Hispanic immigrants as well (not to mention those Hispanic people whose ancestors were living in Texas et al even before the white settlers came).

Some (for instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html) have also pointed out that there is a subtle racist undercurrent to a lot of the hostility among the right-wing toward not only illegal immigrants but also Obama. While I think this is sometimes exaggerated -- that is to say, I don't think most tea partiers are overtly racist, and not all are even subconsciously racist (I am aware that the group does include some blacks and Hispanics); there is certainly an "us-versus-them" element to all of their rhetoric. "Take America Back"? From whom? Liberals, minorities, gays, young people, "socialists", non-English speakers, immigrants, and environmentalists? Whoever it is, they have as much right to America as the tea set (I should probably just refuse to use the "tea" name to refer to these people -- it's putting me off tea, which I like to drink). Unfortunately, xenophobia and other forms of "us-versus-themism" have a long history, not only in America but among humanity as a whole (even today, most countries are still probably worse than the US in this regard). To a large degree, it's part of human nature. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to overcome it, and things like this Arizona law are a step in the wrong direction.

Update: On a somewhat related topic, the news of the attempted bombing in Times Square in New York has also given rise to absurd rhetoric. On argument is about whether the suspected bomber, as a US citizen, should be allowed his constitutional rights. Aside from the fact that in this particular case the suspect has continued to cooperate even after he was read his Miranda rights (at a somewhat delayed point in time), why shouldn't he get the same treatment that murderers, rapists and serial killers get? What's the use of having constitutional rights at all if they can be suspended freely? Aren't a lot of these people saying the bombing suspect shouldn't be granted his rights under the Constitution the same people who are so paranoid about government power. To give him credit, even the normally ridiculous Glenn Beck stated that as the suspect is an American citizen, he should be treated as such. But unfortunately many of his fellow right wingers don't seem to agree that the Constitution they claim to love so much should be respected. [Update: Unfortunately, even Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder is now talking about pushing for an exception to Miranda rights for suspects involved in foreign terrorism. This is unnecessary, as there is already an exception in cases involving immediate threats to public safety, and further erosion of constitutional rights for the sake of fighting terrorism will be ultimately self-defeating -- as was the case with the so-called Patriot Act.]

In addition, there has been talk in Congress of a law to strip citizenship from anyone who is actively involved with terrorist organizations. As many law experts point out, such a law probably wouldn't be upheld by the Supreme Court (though with this court I don't know how they can be sure). But that it would even be seriously proposed is bad enough. For one thing, it is so broadly worded that anyone in any way shape or form represents an organization officially considered a terrorist organization, such as Hamas (say as a lawyer, lobbyist, or negotiator) or gives money to them (possibly even indirectly, such as through a charity run by such a group) could lose their citizenship. Some extremists might say they deserve to, but imagine how many Irish-Americans, for instance, could have lost citizenship in the latter 20th century under such a law for support to the IRA? And what about American terrorist groups? If people who write a check to a Hamas-run charity should lose their citizenship, then why shouldn't people like Terry Nichols (convicted of assisting with the Oklahoma City bombing) lose their citizenship? For that matter, should people like that be deprived of their constitutional rights when arrested? Or is it only in cases of foreign terrorism that the Constitution should be tossed in the garbage? But while this proposed law to involuntarily strip citizenship from people is unlikely to survive a challenge even if it passed, it's worth taking note of which congresspeople publicly support it (including supposed moderates like Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown).

Obama and the Space Program, Revisited

The other day President Barack Obama made a major speech at Cape Canaveral regarding his space plan. His choice of venue was important, as Cape Canaveral is where the Apollo missions were launched in the 1960s and 1970s and the space shuttles are launched today. It is home to tens of thousands of people with jobs connected to the space program, many of whom are understandably concerned that Obama's plan will cost them their jobs. Obama's plan has also received public criticism from three Apollo astronauts, moon walkers Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, though he has also received public support from Armstrong's Apollo 11 colleague and fellow moon walker Buzz Aldrin. His speech was intended to further explain and defend his plan, elaborate on his vision for space, and reassure space industry workers about their future.

As I stated in my earlier piece on this topic, I have some reservations about Obama's space plan. The biggest issue was the cancellation of the Constellation program, which was to develop a new heavy booster and space capsule for a return to the Moon. I can sympathize with the view of Armstrong and his colleagues that the cancellation of Constellation without anything specific to replace it seems like an abandonment of the US crewed space program. But the other side of that argument is that Constellation was underfunded and way behind schedule, so without a very large funding increase there was little chance of it getting Americans back to the Moon anytime soon. Of course what I'd most like to have seen would have been just such a large increase in funding. However, even though as I have argued previously, funding for space exploration is about the best investment the government can be making, especially as even if it were doubled it would be a small fraction of the budget, in the current economic and political climate a funding increase large enough to rescue Constellation was highly unlikely. As it is, Obama's budget does call for an overall increase in NASA's budget, so it isn't like he is starving the space program as a whole. Among other things, he is extending the lifetime of the International Space Station, unquestionable a good step if we want to get sufficient use out of it, especially considering how much it cost and how long it took to build it.

I didn't hear or read Obama's entire speech, but the parts that were quoted certainly sounded good. He said that he is strongly behind space exploration, and that he expects to see humans not only visit an asteroid but also go to Mars in his lifetime. Since I also want to live to see these things happen, and he is older than I am, if he is right that would certainly be reassuring. Of course, while I still generally think Obama is doing a reasonably decent job in most areas, at least compared with most recent presidents, there is often a noticeable gap between his rhetoric and his actions (not surprising, as such a gap is almost always present in politics). But if he sincerely believes that his space plan (which does have many good points, not least that it involves serious rethinking of the US approach to space) will really lead to exploration of Mars in his lifetime -- and I have no particular reason to doubt that he at least hopes that is the case -- then that is all to the good.

But despite the good points of his plan and his positive speech, the obvious flaw that remains is a lack of clear major medium-term (as in the next decade or so) goals for NASA in terms of human spaceflight, at least as far as I am aware. Even before Obama mentioned it in his speech, I had heard about the idea of sending humans to land on a near-Earth asteroid, but as far as I know the proposed time-line for such a mission is very vague, and what launch vehicle would be used is uncertain. Obama did mention that he was including funding for a new heavy launch vehicle (though it isn't clear why this would be better than the one being developed under the Constellation plan), and that the Orion crew capsule from Constellation would be retained, though modified to serve, at least initially, as an escape vehicle for the International Space Station, with the potential to be adapted for other missions. The idea that private ventures in space should be encouraged is good (at least up to a point; I wouldn't want to see space be turned into a place for unrestrained capitalist exploitation either), as is the idea that NASA should be working on solid long term "building blocks" for space exploration, rather than just short-term results. But specific medium-term goals are necessary as well, and clear plans for achieving them. Hopefully Obama's plan can be modified to include these things as well.

Recent World Events, Part 2

Here I am continuing my comments on some of the major events that have been happening in the world. For my observations on Kyrgyzstan, Karzai of Afghanistan, and the plane crash that killed the Polish leaders, see my previous entry.

A major news item from the United States was that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he was retiring. For those of us who prefer to see an open, progressive USA, this is sad news, as Stevens was probably the best remaining justice, and certainly one whose influence went beyond simply being another "liberal" vote (even though he was a Republican, back in the days when Republican didn't always mean far right-wing ultra-conservative). For a good overview of his role on the court, see this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041003077.html

Though it is a shame to lose Stevens (especially as Scalia [!] will now be senior justice...), his decision is not all that surprising, given that he is 90 years old. In some ways, it's just as well that he is resigning now, when Obama is president and the Democrats still have a sizable majority in the Senate. In fact, it is not unlikely that Stevens took that into consideration, as despite his Republican origins, he no doubt does not want to be replaced by the type of judge who would get in if the Republicans were in power. The last judge to retire, David Souter, certainly timed his resignation that way, as he had previously made clear he wanted to leave the court but waited until Obama was in office before doing so. Looked at this way, while it's too bad to see Stevens go, it is certainly better that he leaves while there is a chance of getting a replacement that is at least almost as good. This is a topic that we're likely to see again when Obama nominates a replacement.

From a lifetime appointment to a powerful position in the world's best known democracy (not that I'm necessarily criticizing the non-elected nature of the Supreme Court; there are many advantages to having at least one part of the government that doesn't have to worry about re-election) I now want to move on to elections in countries not so well known for their democratic nature. Sudan is having its first (supposedly) multiparty elections recently, but as might be expected in a country where the president has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, there have been a few problems. The major opposition parties, citing the ruling party's obstructions to their campaigning and other problems, withdrew from the elections, except in the independence-minded south, where the main opposition party dominates. This means that Sudanese president Bashir isn't facing any major opponents, not that any opponents would have stood much chance anyway, given not only that the campaigning was not free and fair, but the elections themselves are likely to be fraud-ridden. But perhaps if the turnout is low or the few remaining opposition candidates (whether for president or parliament) get a significant number of votes, Bashir will be damaged by his obvious lack of a mandate (not that he'll have much of one regardless, given the problems with the elections). The remaining election-related question in Sudan is whether the referendum on independence for the south will go ahead next year as planned, and whether Bashir and his party will accept the results.

Of all the international news reports I saw in the week prior to the election, one that stuck out was from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. Their English-language news reports are superficially indistinguishable from those of other news agencies, and even on content they are not always notably different -- if the article is about something that has no bearing on China's political interests or reputation. Sudan, however, is a country that China has major investments in, and its government receives substantial Chinese support (much like other pariah governments in Myanmar [Burma], North Korea, and Zimbabwe). So the article was basically about how Sudan's government spokesman stated that the country was looking forward to "free and fair" elections. The only reference to any controversy or dispute about the fairness of the elections was also in a quote from the Sudanese spokesman, who said that some parties might be having problems, but that the problems were their own, and there were no problems with the elections. The report did not even explain the background to this remark. So someone who read only Xinhua might not even be aware that the opposition parties had pulled out of the election (since "problems" could mean anything), much less that there was any serious doubt over whether the elections were free and fair (unless the Sudanese government's frequent assertions of fairness raised their suspicions). But then we should expect something like that from China, which after all has never had national elections itself (under the PRC; the one time national elections were held under the Republic of China in the early 20th century the results were not ultimately honored).

Sri Lanka, a country which has a longer history of democracy, also held elections recently. Unfortunately, it provides a good example of why democracy itself is not always a good thing. As those with a minimal knowledge of the country know, it is divided between a Sinhalese Buddhist majority and a Tamil Hindu minority. As many Tamils felt discriminated against, a Tamil rebel group known as the Tamil Tigers rose up in the Tamil-populated north and fought a decades-long civil war with the government, for a long time controlling a de facto independent state in the north. A number of years ago, there was a cease fire and the government began negotiating with the rebels. The negotiations were far from a conclusion, however, when the tsunami struck, killing tens of thousands, including large numbers in the Tamil regions. Unlike in Aceh in Indonesia, the only area worse hit, the tsunami made the political situation worse rather than better. Just before I visited Sri Lanka in 2005, a year after the tsunami (I saw destroyed houses and people living in tents from the train, even though I only went to the less hard-hit southwest), there was a presidential election. The candidate of the ruling party, which had been negotiating with the Tamil Tigers, was being opposed by the much more hawkish and Sinhalese-chauvinist prime minister Rajapaksa. I remember at the time hoping that Rajapaksa would lose and being less than thrilled to hear he had won, though he had still not taken office when I was there. As I had feared, he ended up tearing up the cease fire and restarting the war, which the Sri Lankan government eventually won, though not without considerable effort. The Tamil Tiger leadership was virtually wiped out, and all their territory returned to government control.

The Tamil Tigers were not exactly noble freedom fighters; they pioneered the use of suicide bombers (though they did mainly target military and political figures), and they killed and otherwise oppressed any in their territory who didn't toe the Tiger line. They also made a number of foolish strategic moves, like enforcing a boycott of the 2005 election by the Tamils in the north, which ensured that the less-friendly Rajapaksa won. But the Sri Lankan government, while never failing to call the Tigers terrorists, was also guilty of egregious human rights violations. Early on in the war, there was incident where eight Tamils working for local NGOs in the east were found shot to death. Though both sides blamed the other, the town in question was under government control at the time, so they have to be considered the more likely suspect. The government would often round up young Tamil men from refugee camps in the war zone, and in many instances their families would never see from them again. The Sri Lankan military also continued to indiscriminately shell the war zone, killing many civilians, even after it said it would not (it denied doing so, but many witnesses, including doctors working in the area, confirmed that the government forces were clearly responsible). Several eyewitness accounts from within the military itself say that Tamil Tiger leaders were shot after surrendering. Even after the war ended, large numbers of Tamil civilians were essentially imprisoned in refugee camps for months.

Though the Tamil Tigers received much international criticism for their human rights violations, which they deserved, the government was also criticized by many, despite the tendency of other governments and international organizations to go relatively easy on their fellow governments in these types of conflicts. Even the UN, which almost never seems to criticize its member states, criticized the Sri Lankan government for a number of human rights violations (of course it probably helps that Sri Lanka is small -- they never criticize China, for instance, even though it is just as bad). Sri Lanka, of course, strongly rejected all the criticism. Absurdly enough, the government has a human rights commissioner whose job doesn't seem to be watching out for human rights violations, as one might expect, but vigorously defending the government's human rights record.

After the government defeated the Tigers, Rajapaksa called an early presidential election to capitalize on his popularity with the Sinhalese majority in the aftermath of the war. Somewhat ironically, his chief opponent, Fonseka, had been the head of the army and also was credited with the victory. Indeed their falling out was partly due to a dispute over who should get credit. But Fonseka at least took positions slightly more favorable to the Tamils and other minorities, and even hinted that some of the accusations of human rights violations might be true. After an election filled with violence (a majority blamed on Rajapaksa's supporters) and wild accusations, particularly by government-controlled media attacking Fonseka's reputation, Rajapaksa won an easy victory, in large part because he took positions less favorable to the minorities and because he continued to strongly defend the military against any accusations of human rights violations. Not long after the election, he had Fonseka arrested.

In the recent parliamentary elections, not only did the Sri Lankan electorate fail to punish Rajapaksa's party for their violations of human rights, violent campaigning methods, or corruption, but they gave them an overwhelming win. Whether this should be blamed on an uneducated electorate, the ruling party's dominance of the media, or the natural prejudices and flaws of humanity is hard to say. Probably all three, but unfortunately prejudice and ethnocentrism were certainly a factor. To at least some extent, Sri Lanka has to be seen as an example of the dangers of democracy, in that a majority can use its greater electoral power to ride roughshod over the rights of minority, and more generally in the fact that people will often vote for a candidate or party that any semi-objective outsider can see has major problems. Another recent example of this is the relative success (winning over 15% of the vote) of the openly anti-Jewish and anti-Roma far right party in the Hungarian elections.

A somewhat similar situation applies in a country which I pay particular attention to, as I have spent more time there than any other country other than the US and Taiwan, namely Thailand. As any who have been paying attention to world events recently should know, Thailand has been paralyzed by protests by a group called the Red Shirts, for the identifying color they wear. Thousands of protesters belonging to this group have taken over areas in Bangkok that I have spent a great deal of time in. Their main base in recent weeks has been in the central shopping area near Central World Plaza and Siam Square, an area where I frequently shop for music. On most recent trips I have stayed in one of the cheap hotels on a soi (alley) very close to this area. A couple of weeks ago, the Red Shirts also occupied the Democracy Monument area, very close to the backpacker center at Khao San Road, an area where I stayed on all my early trips and one which I still frequent. Fighting broke out when the military tried to clear the protesters from the area, and a number of people were killed. According to some reports, there was fighting on Khao San Road itself, though I imagine most of it was on the much bigger Rachadamnoen Road that Democracy Monument is on. Though the Red Shirts retreated from Democracy Monument after the clash (even though the military had failed to force them out), they remain in the central shopping district. As it has been throughout their protests, the Red Shirts' stated goal is to force the current government out of power.

This is not the first time in recent years that Bangkok has been paralyzed by protests. A few years ago, another group called the Yellow Shirts seized the international airport in order to force the government that was in power at that time to resign. The current government, however, is from the opposite side of Thailand's political divide, just as the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts are on opposite sides (there is now another pro-government group called the Pink Shirts, who I would think overlap in membership with the currently inactive Yellow Shirts). Basically, the Yellow (and Pink) Shirts and those they support represent the country's elite: the wealthy and the middle class of Bangkok, the military leadership (to some degree, at least), and the royalists (all, or at least most, Thais revere the current king, but the Yellow/Pink Shirt faction emphasizes this much more strongly). The Red Shirts represent mainly the rural poor and the working classes. They also more strongly emphasize democracy, whereas some of their opponents have even called to an end to full democracy in Thailand, instead advocating an election process that openly favors the elites.

On a number of points, I have to sympathize with the Red Shirts. The elitist attitude of many on the other side, for example, is a definite negative, and there is no question that the workers and rural people of Thailand need someone who will truly look out for their interests. Also, while I respect King Bhumipol himself, I find the excessive monarchism of the Yellow and Pink Shirts excessive. However, the Red Shirts have one major problem which prevents me from sympathizing with them too much. This problem is the fact that they are in large part acting as proxies for the man who in many ways is ultimately responsible for Thailand's political crisis over the last several years, former Prime Minister Thaksin.

Thaksin was in a political sense one of Thailand's most successful prime ministers, as he was able to stay in office longer than in any other prime minister in recent times and to enact many measures while retaining high popularity. But he had many problems, first and foremost being that he was clearly an autocrat at heart, with very little tolerance for dissent or criticism. He took many different measures to silence critical voices, some more blatant than others. For the most part he wasn't able to use force against critics, because there are still many restraints on a prime minister's power in Thailand, but I suspect he would have if he had been in a position to do so. Certainly he had little respect for human rights. Aside from his disdain for freedom of expression, he instituted a "war on drugs" that essentially gave the police license to kill any small-time drug dealers they could get their hands, something that was made worse by the fact that some police themselves were probably involved in the drug trade, giving them incentive to simply kill any small-time operators who might give them away. Then there was his poor handling of the Muslim region in the south, which led to the current festering insurrection, and the subsequent human rights abuses committed by his government in the region. Thaksin was also quite friendly to the thoroughly reprehensible military dictatorship in neighboring Burma (Myanmar). Even the measures which gave him his popularity among the poor were often less than praiseworthy. Some probably did bring real benefits to those who needed it, but many were little more than large-scale vote buying, a practice already common among politicians in Thailand but perfected by Thaksin and his allies.

Thaksin was forced out of power by a military coup, as the military elite had become dissatisfied with his leadership. This occurred when he was outside of the country, and since then he has remained in exile. He hasn't accepted his fate, however, but has continued to stir up his supporters inside the country. At the same time, he has been convicted of corruption in abstentia for a number of actions taken while he was in power which benefited his family and the large corporation they owned. His political party was disbanded, but his supporters formed a new party which was able to win an election (helped by the post-coup government's mismanagement). I was in Thailand at the time of the election, and though I know I shouldn't judge by appearances, to me the head of the pro-Thaksin party had a sleazy, slightly reptilian appearance (though that's an insult to reptiles, which I'm generally fond of). So I wasn't entirely surprised to learn that he played a significant role in a violent, oppressive crackdown on left-wing students in the 1970s. It was this prime minister and, after he was forced to resign by the courts, his successor (who happened to be related to Thaksin by marriage) that the Yellow Shirt protests targeted. Eventually their party was disbanded by the courts and the current government came into power. Now it's the turn of the pro-Thaksin faction to use massive street protests to overturn the government.

As I said, there are many negatives to both parties to this dispute. While my view of the current prime minister is not too unfavorable, it is true that he came to power in a manner that could be seen as less than democratic, and it is also true that many of his supporters are elitist and are not interested in the problems of the poor. But the Red Shirts remain tied to Thaksin, who funds them and speaks to their gatherings by satellite phone. As long as the Red Shirts are involved with Thaksin and act like they are out to restore him (while some of their leaders have occasionally made statements asserting independence from Thaksin, signs with his picture are everywhere, and as I said he remains deeply involved in supporting them), I can't say that I wish them success. Furthermore, it is questionable whether most of the politicians on the pro-Thaksin side are really interested in helping Thailand's poor (the same goes for Thaksin himself, who seems to me to care mainly about Thaksin). Some of their protest methods, like the unsanitary and extremely wasteful dumping of their own blood on key sites, are also a turn off. So how do I hope this is resolved? A new election might be the ideal solution, if it weren't for the substantial chance that a pro-Thaksin government might get in again. If a moderate group that could bridge the gap between the two sides appeared, that would be best, but the chance of that are slim. So for now we'll just have to wait and see.

This concludes my overview of recent world events. No doubt there are some aspects to all of them that I have missed, but I don't think additional information would be likely to change my views in most cases, except maybe to give me an even more negative impression of the various parties involved. But while much of what is going on in the world is somewhat depressing, it is still interesting to observe, and I will continue to pay attention to what's going on as much as possible.

Update: Another even more recent world news item has been the earthquake in...well, the media reported it as occurring in "western China". As soon as I saw that headline, I suspected that it was not in fact in China proper, but in one of the non-Chinese territories occupied by China. A look at the report should that I was right, as the earthquake actually took place in Tibet. Not Tibet as China defines it, but a part of Tibet that has been incorporated into another province. Of course, since China does, unfortunately for the people there, control the area, it is somewhat understandable that the media tends to refer to it as China. Nevertheless, it would be preferable if they said Tibet (an analogy might be drawn with events taking place in 19th century Krakow or Warsaw -- though the area was then ruled by Russia, it was still Poland). To her credit, US House Speaker Pelosi's condolence message referred to "the people of China and Tibet".

Recent World Events, Part 1

I'd like to take a little time to comment on some recent world events, as a lot has been happening lately. So much in fact that I probably won't be able to give any one event the attention it may deserve. Instead I'll just offer a few thoughts on each that come to mind.

One major event that may already be fading from the minds of many in Taiwan and the US, assuming they were ever aware of it at all, is the recent revolution in Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps I am being a bit cynical (me, cynical? no way!), as at least on many online news sites the unrest and the overthrow of the country's president Kurmanbek Bakiyev made major headlines, and even now it still gets a fair amount of attention (in part because the situation is still not settled). However, I have a suspicion that even if the news was featured on the TV newscasts that most people get their news from, it probably just registered as more violence in some country they'd never heard of. Even now, I doubt that more than a small percentage of people in either the US or Taiwan could find Kyrgyzstan on a map, and many probably couldn't even come close. Admittedly even I (hey, not only I am I not cynical, I'm modest as well!) occasionally have trouble keeping Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan straight (though I did spell them all correctly without looking them up!). But that doesn't mean these places are unimportant or that we shouldn't pay attention to them.

In the case of Kyrgyzstan, the obvious significance to the US is the fact that it is leasing an airbase there that it uses to support its troops in Afghanistan. This base briefly made the news last year, as Bakiyev, encouraged by Russia, threatened to throw the Americans out of it and only relented when they agreed to drastically increase the rent they paid. But being overly pragmatic in this regard, i.e., focusing solely on the base as its only major practical interest in Kyrgyzstan, may conversely turn out hurt the US, as comments by the opposition at the time of Bakiyev's overthrow show that they took note of the Americans' failure to put any real pressure on Bakiyev to be more democratic, instead solely concerning themselves with making sure the base remained available to them. This is yet another example of how it pays to show genuine support for democracy and human rights (particularly the latter, though why democracy is actually much less important than civil rights is a topic for another day).

It was already fairly evident that Bakiyev needed some pushing in the human rights department, as various incidents such as the murder of a leading opposition journalist showed that he was rather lacking in that regard. Ironically, he himself came to power on a wave of popular support, but like many similar leaders in developing countries, he seems to have degenerated into an autocrat. The reason this kind of corruption is more obvious in the developing world is explained by Lord Acton's famous statement that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It isn't that leaders in the developed world are necessarily better people or that those in the developing world are worse, but that in most developed countries there checks against leaders' power, while in the developing world their power is often virtually absolute. Bakiyev wasn't even necessarily the worst in his region. Turkmenistan's recently deceased president created a cult of personality so absurd that the days of the week were renamed after him and members of his family. Some years ago the leader of Uzbekistan bloodily suppressed protests against him, killing an unknown number of civilians (soon afterward he went on a state visit to China, which congratulated him for its handling of the affair). Even Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev, who is a little less blatantly autocratic, has shown no sign of letting any real opposition challenge him or of paying more than lip service to human rights, democracy or anti-corruption efforts (he also shows no sign of planning to relinquish the position he has held since his country became independent 19 years ago).

Of course the situation in Kyrgyzstan isn't resolved yet, as Bakiyev hasn't resigned but has only fled to a part of the country where he retains more support. While he doesn't seem to have enough support to launch a civil war to reclaim power, the fact that he is free and still holding onto his claim to the presidency will make things difficult for the new government. As for the latter, based on a few quotes from an interview she gave a reporter, the new interim president Roza Otunbayeva seems fairly sensible. Of course a few quotes isn't much to go on, and given enough time in power she may end up like Bakiyev.

Speaking of problematic presidents in Central Asia, Karzai, the president of Kyrgyzstan's neighbor Afghanistan, has also made the news for some rather idiotic remarks recently. After being forced into a runoff because the independent, foreign-dominated election commission threw out huge numbers of obviously fraudulent votes for him and his international backers (including the main one, the US) pressured him to accept this (though in the end the runoff didn't take place as his challenger withdrew), he recently tried to replace the foreign members of the commission. When the legislature blocked him, he evidently became a bit unhinged, as earlier this month he claimed that foreigners had committed fraud in the election (a rather amazing claim, when it obviously was his supporters that did so), and that if the lawmakers didn't go along with his attempts to stuff the election commission with his supporters he would consider joining the Taliban. Considering that he would not be where he is without the support of the US and other countries, and his government is still highly dependent on the US both financially and militarily, these comments were odd to say the least. Also oddly, US senior officials have recently played down the dispute. One can only hope that this is because Karzai privately apologized and said it wouldn't happen again, but I haven't heard anything to this effect. The bright side is the Afghan legislature's defiance of Karzai's efforts, which perhaps is not altogether surprising considering the famously independent nature of the Afghans.

Another major news story, of course, was the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, along with many other major political figures and Poland's top military officers in a plane crash. There is little to be said about the incident itself, other than it was tragic (though not necessarily more or less tragic than an accident killing a hundred less powerful people) and that it may have significant effects on Poland's political scene. But what was ironic, as indeed many reports pointed out, was that they were traveling to Russia to commemorate the massacre at Katyn of 20,000 (!) Polish military officers and intellectuals by the Soviets in 1940.

As reports on the plane crash reminded us, the Katyn massacre was a major sore point in Russian-Polish relations for many years. It wasn't until Gorbachev's day, a half century after the event, that the Soviet Union even admitted that it had been responsible, and it seems that many Russians even now don't believe it happened. Of course there are always people who because of their own particular prejudices refuse to believe in historical events that are well documented, such as those that deny the Holocaust ever happened. It's even worse when, like was the case with the Soviet Union, the government actively pushes a false view of a historical event for propaganda reasons. Unfortunately this sort of thing is all too common, whether it is Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide, Japanese playing down of the Nanjing massacre or the use of "comfort women" in WWII, or Chinese denial of the Tiananmen massacre or their mistreatment of Tibetans. Some credit must be given to Putin (who is otherwise an undemocratic autocrat and nationalist) for attending a ceremony at Katyn with the Polish prime minister before this plane crash. There is no excuse for a nation failing to admit to the crimes it committed in the past; it is only after such a full admission of fault that a healing process has hope of beginning. With some effort on Russia's part, this plane crash will be the last tragedy associated with the Katyn massacre to trouble Polish-Russian relations. [Update: For a look at the incident from the hopeful angle, see this piece by Polish-born former US Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100415/wl_time/08599198193000]

There are still a number of recent world events that I want to comment on, but as this entry is already fairly lengthy, I will split my observations into two parts, and discuss the other events in the second part. Stay tuned.

What I've Been Reading - 2010, part 1

Having done a post on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species after reading it a few months back, I'd been thinking it'd be interesting to jot down a few thoughts about some novels and other books I've been reading. I intended to start doing so earlier in the year, so here I'm going to go back to a few that I read in January or thereabouts and work my way up to the present.

Sometime in January I finished reading a trilogy of fantasy books called the Bitterbynde by an Australian author named Cecilia Dart-Thronton. The individual books are entitled The Ill-Made Mute, The Lady of the Sorrows, and The Battle of Evernight. They stand out from a lot of other fantasy books in that they are more directly based on English and Celtic mythology, and even more notably due to Dart-Thornton's prose. The latter might be described as elegant or florid, depending on your perspective, but it is fairly impressive either way. I'll have to admit that she used a fair amount of vocabulary that was unfamiliar to me (my vocabulary is not as huge as some people's, but it's certainly well above average). The same can be said of her descriptive passages, in which she vividly describes natural scenes, the clothing of the characters, or even the food at feasts. I'll admit to mixed feelings about this element. On the one hand, I admire her ability to describe things so colorfully, especially since I find descriptive writing particularly hard, and these passages certainly help the reader to envision the scene. On the other hand, at times there was a little bit too much of it for my personal taste, such that I'd be in hurry for her to finish and get on with the story. Nevertheless, it is this kind of thing that made her books stand out.

The story takes place in a land that humans share with various spirits known as wights, which fall into two categories: seelie (friendly) and unseelie (hostile). The land was also in the past subject to visits from fairy folk known as the Faerun, who live in a land that exists in a sort of parallel dimension which can only be entered through certain gates, but the gates are now shut and the Faerun have not been seen in centuries. This relationship between the world of fairy and the human world is based on medieval myths, and also bears a strong resemblance to the fairy world described in Tolkien's "Smith of Wootton Major". In fact, given both Dart-Thornton's use of mythology and her prose, I'd be inclined to guess that Tolkien would have liked her books. A careful reader will also note that Dart-Thornton, aside from being inspired by writers like Tolkien, is a fan of classic rock bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.

I won't go into the plot here, except to say it is filled with twists and turns. To some degree, it's a standard romantic fantasy, but it's told in a more interesting manner than most. The main character, though generally a clever person, does occasionally make some unaccountably foolish decisions that seem in part mainly designed to keep the story exciting, though I'll grant that clever people can sometimes do foolish things (I do myself frequently enough). Overall the plot is not all that original, though some of the twists are unexpected; the book is still essentially escapist fantasy, though generally an enjoyable one. Another point is that the ending of the trilogy as published is a bit vague, such that the reader can't be entirely sure there's a happy ending. She published a long final chapter giving a more concrete ending to the book on her website.

Another interesting thing about these books is how they got published. According to her own account, Dart-Thornton had written the entire thing but had not shown it to anyone except one close friend, due to an aversion to criticism. She sent a small part of her work to an online writier's workshop run by a sci-fi/fantasy publisher that gave editor's choice awards every month. She won two straight awards and then received a message from one of the editors, who told her that she shouldn't be with the workshop, because her work was publishable. He then gave her contact info for a literary agent in New York, who immediately signed her up. Then a few weeks later, Time Warner bought the rights to all her books for a six-figure advance. Certainly few authors have such sudden success.

After finishing the Bitterbynde trilogy, I read Gentlemen of the Road by Michael Chabon, a well-known modern author. This particular novel is a historical novel set in the 10th century CE in the Caucasus region, more specifically the kingdom of the Khazars. Chabon says his working title was Jews with Swords, which tended to evoke odd images in the minds of most who heard it due to most people's stereotypes of Jews. The main characters in actual fact remind me of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, though other obvious inspirations are Alexander Dumas and Michael Moorcock. It's essentially an adventure tale, but a well-told one with interesting plot twists and surprises. Slightly annoying to me personally is more than one key element in the story resembles some vague story ideas I had myself for a fantasy-type novel. But I suppose the ideas aren't entirely original in any case, and it's irrelevant unless I actually write something. Anyway, I certainly recommend this one for an enjoyable quick read that has more substance than the average tale of its sort.

On our way to the US in February, I started reading The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. This was originally published as four books, The Shadow of the Torturer, The Claw of the Conciliator, The Sword of the Lictor, and The Citadel of the Autarch. I only had the first of these, but I was able to find The Claw of the Conciliator at Half Price Books. Finding the last two proved more trouble. I did see a copy of the third book but not the fourth, until I found an omnibus edition entitled Sword and Citadel which included both (the first two books have also been republished as Shadow and Claw) at a used bookstore in Denton. The sales clerk commented particularly on this book out of all the books I bought on that occasion; she said she loved Wolfe's books and had turned much of her family onto his work. She also claimed that his books didn't last long in secondhand bookstores because they are always bought quickly (perhaps not entirely true, as a few of them were available on separate trips to Half Price, but they did seem to be less common than one might expect).

So, having got a hold of the entire Book of the New Sun, I proceeded to read all of it (I did read a few other things between volumes, like Arthur Conan Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles, but I'm not going to attempt to cover those here). It is without doubt a much more complicated book than many of its genre. The exact genre itself is not immediately obvious; the protagonist, Severian, belongs to a medieval-style guild and carries a sword, the city he lives in resembles a large, ramshackle medieval city, there are hints of sorcery and other supernatural powers, and the soldiers of the ruler wear armor and are often mounted. All this resembles fantasy, but then the spear-like weapons some soldiers carry turn out to be energy weapons, there are references to fliers and energy pistols, and also to creatures known as cacogens that come from beyond the Urth (as the planet is known). So it soon becomes apparent that the book is actually a tale of Earth in the far distant future, and that it is what is sometimes known as science fantasy, a mix of science fiction and fantasy (another example, but more fantasy oriented, is the Dying Earth books of Jack Vance which Gary Gygax derived the magic system for Dungeons and Dragons from).

The tale is told in the form of a memoir by the main character, Severian. As the story begins, he is of all things an apprentice of a guild known euphemistically as the Order of the Seekers for Truth and Penitence, but more accurately as the guild of torturers. Having been raised as an orphan to perform such a grim job, Severian does have at times a somewhat callous disregard for human suffering, but ultimately his humane side wins through. As a narrator, Severian has a tendency to jump around somewhat in his tale, and he may not be completely reliable in his retelling of it. There is more than a little allegory present in the tale, and there are also clear echoes of Christianity, most obviously in the Conciliator, a prophet of centuries past who was supposedly sent by the Increate (i.e., the Creator), had healing powers, and is expected to come again bringing the New Sun, which will renew the world. Severian itself seems to have a mysterious connection with the Conciliator that becomes apparent as the story unfolds.

The Book of the New Sun is not what is known as hard sci-fi and so some elements of the tale are not entirely in accordance with our current understanding of science. Much is left unexplained in Severian's account, and the reader is forced to guess at the meaning of many things he mentions. Wolfe's use of language is interesting; he presents the book as a translation into present-day English of Severian's memoir from the distant future. He uses obscure words to "translate" Severian's terms for many of the creatures and objects of his words, such as "destrier" for the horse-like (but actually alien) creatures some soldiers ride or "optimates" (from the ancient Roman political grouping) as a term of respect similar to "sir". One use of language I found particularly interesting was his way of describing nightfall; he speaks of the horizon rising to cover the sun or the Urth (Earth) turning its face away from the sun. This is of course a more accurate way of describing what actual happens than our "the sun sets" or "the sun sinks beneath the horizon", though it takes some getting used to.

Because of the relative complexity and depth of The Book of the New Sun, a number of other writers have apparently published books interpreting it in depth, something rather unusual for science fiction. While I'm not sure that I could see myself actually buying a book of that sort, it might be interesting to read one. While there may be other novels more worth of in depth interpretation, The Book of the New Sun does seem more worthy of such attention than some others (The DaVinci Code comes to mind). In any case, it is worth checking out for anyone who enjoys a book with a bit of substance to it.

Over much of March, my bedtime reading was the Dhammapada, a Buddhist scripture traditionally ascribed to Siddhartha Gautama (aka the Buddha) himself. It is a part of the Khuddaka Nikaya, one of the five collections in the Sutta Pitaka, which is one of the three divisions of the Tipitaka ("three baskets") of the Pali Canon, the collection of Theravada Buddhist scriptures (the entire Pali Canon could fill a bookshelf), though apparently many of the Dhammapada's verses appear elsewhere in the canon. It is unlikely that it actually goes back as far as Gautama himself, though it is probably fairly early. It is one of the best known Theravada scriptures and is highly regarded by some (it was one of the first Pali texts to receive attention from European academics), though others consider it to be full of cliches, pointing out that many of its aphorisms are not specific to Buddhism. Of course the same might be said of verses in the scriptures of other religions, and in some ways the presence of more general philosophical and moral injunctions may support the view that it is particularly early if not actually the work of Siddhartha Gautama himself, as later writings would tend to be more orthodox and specific to Buddhism. I will not for now pronounce in any detail my own views as to the merits of the Dhammapada, as if I did so I might feel compelled to compare it to other religious scriptures and philosophical works I've read over the past few years, including a smattering of other Buddhist scriptures, selections from the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran (Qur'an), much of the Bible, the Analects of Confucius, Plato's Republic, and the Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching), and that would be a lot of work as well as opening up a whole new set of issues to discuss. I may change my mind in the future about getting into the thorny topic of comparative religion and philosophy, but for now I'll just say the Dhammapada was interesting, though also effective as a soporific (as most of the other religious and philosophical works mentioned above have been).

With that, I conclude my review of much of my recent reading. I may do this again in a month or two if I decide some of the books I read merit similar treatment (and if I can be bothered). Whether or not I do further entries like this or not, you can be sure I'll still be doing plenty of reading. So many books to read, so little time....

Independence, Secession, and More

The other day on signing out of a hotmail account, I was as usual taken to the MSN website. Like Yahoo and similar sites, on the front page there are a number of featured "news" stories. I put that in quotations because, on the Taiwan version of the MSN site at least, these stories are for the most part are completely inane and pointless, or even worse than pointless. Many are along the lines of "celebrity A and celebrity B have broken up/started dating/been seeing eating dinner together" or "celebrity C cries as she talks about her dead father" or "celebrity D wears outfit which shows lots of cleavage" (not that I have any objection to cleavage; it's simply that something like this is about as far from newsworthy as it is possible to get). Then there is absurdly unscientific nonsense like which astrological signs are most likely to have affairs. But while one of the "headlines" the other day was also not really newsworthy, it at least was something that could give rise to further discussion, even if only be virtue of its absurdity.

The news item in question said that a Chinese celebrity had claimed that several Taiwanese celebrities were pro-Taiwan independence, and the latter had angrily denied it, with at least one threatening legal action. Now the first thing that struck me as absurd was the reaction of the Taiwanese stars. I can understand being unhappy at someone saying something false about me, but the strength of my reaction would depend on what it was. In this case, it would be somewhat like having someone say I liked Ma Yingjeou (or, for that matter, Chen Shuibian). I would be annoyed simply because it wasn't true, and it would be a definite mischaracterization of my political views. However, I wouldn't threaten to sue anyone over it. I wouldn't even threaten to sue anyone who said I liked George W. Bush, though I might be tempted.

To be sure, a person's political inclinations are often an important part of who they are, as they say something about the person's principles and philosophy of life. But still, it is absurd to react to a false statement about your political views as if you had been accused of murder, domestic violence or other reprehensible behavior. It's even more absurd in this case, as being "pro-Taiwan independence" is the position anyone rational, relatively unbiased, and in possession of a modicum of relevant facts should take. I won't go into a full recitation of the arguments on this issue here as they deserve a separate essay (I may have one already written somewhere), but simply put, Taiwan is already a de facto independent state (which is why I don't really like the term "pro-independence", as it implies advocating becoming independent rather than just acknowledging an existing reality) and its historical ties to China are far more tenuous than the Chinese government and other pro-unification types would have everyone believe. Aside from this, I support the principle of self-determination, at least for regions of viable size with substantial cultural and/or historic reasons for claiming a separate identity.

This topic in turn reminds me of the fact that at the time of my recent trip to Texas, one of the major news items was the Republican and Democratic primary elections for governor of Texas, and the fact that both current governor Rick Perry and another Republican candidate (the one some news analysts called the "tea party" candidate) made statements that were generally interpreted as being in favor of Texas's secession from the US. Given what I have just said about self-determination, it might be thought that I looked favorably on these statements, but the contrary is the case. Am I being contradictory? No, as my objection is not to the idea that Texas could break away from the US, but the reasons that people like Perry tend to cite as justification for such a move.

The problem is that extreme right-wing politicians and their followers oppose the US federal government because of things like health care reform, measures to protect the environment, taxes, same sex marriage, and other issues like these. As I have stated elsewhere, the US needs health care reform, including a public option if not single payer; moves to regulate carbon emissions and to promote clean energy are even more vital, not only for the US but the world as a whole; taxes are necessary to reduce the deficit, pay for necessary government programs (and many if not most are necessary), and to promote other initiatives (e.g., gas taxes to promote energy conservation); and allowing same-sex marriage is simply a matter of justice. So if people like Perry want to leave the US in order to avoid having these things "forced" on them, then of course I will oppose them. If, on the other hand, a US state wanted to leave the US in order to more easily accomplish reforms of this sort, then I would support them, particularly if there were additional historical or cultural reasons for the state in question to become independent (such as in the case of Hawaii).

A good analogy would be the American Civil War in the 19th century and the period leading up to it. The Chinese like to cite this as an analogy for their opposition to separatism though they of course ignore the fact that Taiwan has already been separate from China for a long time, and places like Tibet and East Turkestan were forcibly incorporated territories, more analogous to the Southwest US, Native American lands or Hawaii than to the southern US states, which originally joined the US voluntarily. They say that their "anti-separatism" is like Lincoln's refusal to let the South secede. While this is not really true for the reasons mentioned, I will also say that Lincoln was in the wrong in his denial of the right of states to secede. However, the South was also wrong, because their reason for seceding was because they wanted to maintain slavery. Some now try to claim that the Civil War was not really about slavery, but about states' rights, economic power and so forth. But while there were certainly other factors involved, slavery was clearly the main cause of the conflict. The "right" that the southern states were most interested in was their "right" to legalized slavery. This is proven by the endless disputes over slavery that preceded the war, and the fact that they opposed Lincoln and the Republicans because they were considered abolitionists. So to claim that the Civil War was not about slavery is obviously nonsense.

Likewise, when southerners like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace ran as third-party candidates in presidential elections in the mid-20th century, while they were running under the banner of "states' rights", the right that they were particularly concerned with was the "right" to segregate blacks from whites. No government has the right to maintain oppressive systems like slavery and segregation, so to claim independence in order to do so is obviously not acceptable. Likewise, I don't support the right of a state like Texas to secede in order to avoid obviously progressive measures. As I stated above, I do support its right to secede in principle, as long as it is doing so for good reasons. While someone like Rick Perry is almost certainly never going to have a good reason for supporting Texan independence, if someday some politician does call for secession for a good reason, then I'll certainly give their ideas consideration. And if someone says I'm pro-secession with regard to Texas, while it wouldn't be true now, I wouldn't sue them for saying it.

Secular Reasons

The other day I saw an interesting opinion piece on the NY Times website entitled "Are There Secular Reasons?" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/). For those who can't be bothered to click on the link (or in case the link goes dead), I'll try to summarize the argument made by the writer, Stanley Fish, who is in turn summarizing arguments made by professor of law Steven Smith in his book The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse. To begin with, Fish talks about the effort of secular thinkers to separate religiously-based reasoning from purely secular reasoning, and to establish the latter as the sole basis for organizing a society. He then goes on to talk about Smith's thesis that in fact it is impossible to make any sort of value judgments on the basis of secular reasoning alone, as secular thought is only capable of collecting and analyzing data, but not of deciding what to do with it, without importing non-secular concepts and value judgments. Smith asks how "could one squeeze moral values or judgments about justice . . . out of brute empirical facts?" As Smith and Fish in turn point out, a number of people have made similar arguments in the past. In addition to the thinkers they mention, the arguments made by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man fall along the same lines. For that matter, even my own first post on this blog acknowledges the fact that it is impossible to make wholly objective judgments about anything, a point which is related to the one being made here.

Though I think Smith and Fish, like others before them, make some very good points, ultimately I don't agree that it is impossible to make any moral judgments based on secular reasoning alone, or at least, it is only necessary to include one concept that is arguably from "the suspect realm of contested substantive values". That concept is that it is better to be happy than it is to be unhappy. Even this can be said to have an empirical basis, at least in that if you did a study in which you asked people to give their own (admittedly subjective) answer to this question, the answers would be overwhelmingly positive, and all sorts of studies have already shown that happy people are healthier and live longer. In any case, if we, to use Smith's terminology, "smuggle in" this one concept, virtually everything else on which modern liberal philosophy is based can be argued from this basis without resorting to much vaguer ideas like "freedom" or "equality" (though these can also be supported by arguments starting from the concept that "happiness is good").

If we accept that it is better to be happy than unhappy, then the next question we have to ask is what kind of society is most conducive to individual happiness? It might seem at first glance that one in which everyone is completely free to pursue whatever makes them as individuals happy would be ideal. But if everyone is free to pursue their own happiness at the expense of others, many conflicts will result, and so everyone will in the end not be happy, except possibly those few who through great fortune or skill always end up on top. Even these individuals will always be under threat from others if their luck takes a bad turn, so it is questionable whether their happiness will be that secure. So if complete unfettered individualism isn't the ideal basis for a society, than what is?

A simple answer is a society that follows what we call the golden rule, i.e., we should treat others as we want to be treated. If everyone is pleasant to everyone else, ultimately everyone will be happier. It might be added that it is in the end to the advantage of those who are more fortunate to give up a little to ensure the happiness of those less fortunate, as again it has been demonstrated by all sorts of studies as well as by much of human history that societies with too large a gap between the advantaged and the disadvantage are at risk for all sorts of problems and conflicts, which again will result in less happiness for all. Furthermore, it can also be argued that restrictions on behavior beyond those necessary to prevent people from strongly hindering the happiness of others (as in the golden rule) reduce happiness for many and create further conflicts. So both equality and freedom, at least in a general sense, can be argued to be good simply from our starting proposition.

Admittedly the above is extremely simplified, and the fact that no one can be completely objective will complicate any detailed arguments. But my point is one can argue the good of a modern liberal society from secular reasoning alone, assisted by at most one "imported" value judgment. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that the argument of Smith et al gives rise to the question of what they think value judgments and society's rules in general should be based on. If values from religion, then what religion? On what basis is that particular value judgment to be made? Ultimately this argument simply leads us in circles. If, on the other hand, we simply start from the goal of trying to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people, then we can argue all the other details from there, using purely secular reasoning. While this does not necessarily mean that there is no truth in religion or that religion might not be meaningful for the soul (assuming we have them, which is another argument altogether), it does mean that society can and indeed should be founded on a secular basis.