Having talked about a number of negative events in the world news recently, I’d like to balance things a bit with some brief comments on two mostly positive events that have taken place in the past week or so in north Africa.
A few days ago, the Tunisian people succeeded in driving out the country’s long-time dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Ben Ali’s regime was corrupt and oppressive; his family blatantly enriched itself at public expense, and opponents of the government faced imprisonment and torture. The Internet police that the government used to crack down on dissident bloggers were as pervasive and technologically savvy as China’s. However, as a stable, pro-Western regime in one of the most prosperous African countries, Ben Ali’s Tunisia received relatively little pressure from the US and other Western countries to reform. It took street protest powered by the country’s educated youth to bring down Ben Ali, which they did with surprising swiftness, though not without bloodshed. The overthrowing of a dictator is always something to celebrate, and I’m glad to see it happened in Tunisia, a country I have a particular interest in (despite never having visited), due to my childhood fascination with ancient Carthage, located near Tunis, the modern capital. Unfortunately what’s not clear at the moment is what sort of government will replace Ben Ali’s, as most of those left in charge after his departure were his cronies, and the organized opposition is weak and divided after decades of oppression. A period of chaos is probably to be expected, but I hope Tunisia can eventually form a stable, relatively liberal government that respects the right to free speech.
Also in the past week, Southern Sudan completed its referendum on independence. Getting through the vote without any major problems is in and of itself a major accomplishment. Furthermore, it is probable that Southern Sudan has voted for independence, rectifying yet another idiotic early 20th century boundary drawing exercise by the British (Iraq being another classic example). Northern and Southern Sudan were never compatible and it never made sense for them to be part of the same country, which is why there has been almost constant conflict between the two regions for Sudan’s entire existence. Separating the two is the only logical thing to do However, in this situation there are still potential problems, some quite serious. One is the border region of Abyei, a region more sedentary residents are kin to people in Southern Sudan and want to be part of expected future state but which is also a traditional grazing area for nomadic Arab people aligned with the north. Another issue is the division of oil revenues, as most of the oil is in the south, but all the pipelines run through the north. Then there is the extreme poverty of the south, and its potential for internal dissension (the main unifying force being a desire for independence). All of these problems could potential lead to widespread conflict. Hopefully they can all be overcome or at least minimized, and what will be the world’s newest nation can become firmly established, incidentally showing once again the possibility of legitimate, peaceful separation from a larger nation, despite the efforts of countries such as China, Russia and Indonesia to deny that such a thing can be permitted.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Gabrielle Giffords, heated rhetoric, and guns
The big news from the US the past few days has been the shooting of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The greatest tragedy was the six deaths (personally I found that of the nine-year-old girl most affecting, though any death like this is a great tragedy), and these victims should not be forgotten (nor should the people who leaped to stop the shooter or help the wounded), but the serious wound suffered by Giffords herself is almost as terrible a tragedy as the deaths, and it is natural that as a political figure and the apparent target she is receiving the most attention. However, in many commentaries on the incident, discussion has focused on broader topics, such as whether heated political rhetoric is directly or indirectly to blame.
From what we know so far of the assassin, it doesn’t appear that the connection between heated political rhetoric and the shooting is very direct. As this writer points out, many past assassins in the US have had motivations quite different from what might have been expected. I don’t agree with his implication that both sides of American politics are equally guilty of using violent imagery in their rhetoric – far, far more of it comes from the right wing, as Paul Krugman argues in his piece on the subject (though of course he is a liberal, so conservatives will no doubt just dismiss him as biased), but I agree that there is probably not a direct connection between the recent use of gun-related imagery by right-wing figures and the actions of this particular deranged individual. However, this does not mean that those public figures shouldn’t be receiving flak for their irresponsible talk. Even if they are not responsible for setting off this particular lunatic, they might be responsible for the next (in fact, there’s already been one case of a violent Glenn Beck fan taking his words too much to heart, though he was stopped before anyone was killed). And whatever Loughner’s political views (indications are they were all over the place, as might be expected from someone so clearly mentally ill), violence-tinged rhetoric might have at least encouraged him to think violence towards politicians was acceptable.
On the other hand, at least all of the major right-wing figures and organizations condemned the attack (while denying they shared any blame for it), and no one publicly praised the shooter (though since I avoided reading any comment boards, I can’t be sure that some more warped individuals might not have done so). This is a noticeable contrast to Pakistan, where a number of radicals and conservative religious organizations openly celebrated the assassination of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer. Perhaps there is some hope for the US yet (though if it ever does reach the state Pakistan is in now with respect to political climate, we can pretty much write it off as hopeless). Still, from some of the bizarre statements of a few on the right (such as claiming that Loughner was a liberal because he liked the Communist Manifesto – even though he also like Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand), it may be too much to hope for a real cooling down of the rhetoric. Also, as pointed out in this article from Slate, Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for denouncing the idea of collective guilt and asserting that only the individuals who commit crimes should be held responsible for them, as she herself holds Muslims collectively responsible for the September 11 attacks, as shown be her opposition to any mosque being built near the WTC site, no matter which Muslims build it.
Another debate which the shooting has re-energized is the one over gun control. Amazing numbers of people still try to argue that incidents like this don’t show a need for more gun control. Some right wingers bizarrely have gone so far as to claim that if Arizona’s gun laws were less restrictive the incident could have been prevented, even though it’s almost impossible to have less restrictive gun laws than Arizona, where someone as obviously disturbed as Loughner could buy a particularly deadly gun. More sensible commentators have focused on that gun, noting that there is no rational reason why a gun that can shoot over 30 rounds without reloading should be available to the general public. This contrasts with the tired argument which I saw a few pro-gun people trot out again, that crazy people like Loughner are the problem, not the weapons they use, and that they can still kill with knives or clubs. Yes, but they wouldn’t be able to kill nearly as many people. In this particular case, if he had only had a knife, the attacker might have been tackled before he could do more than wound anyone, if that. The issue of potentially dangerous mentally ill people also has to be address, but any rational person can see that making it much harder to get a hold of guns that can kill many people quickly would at least reduce the body count. If the members of Congress can manage to think logically and lose their fear of the NRA for once, maybe this incident can lead to more rational gun laws in the US.
From what we know so far of the assassin, it doesn’t appear that the connection between heated political rhetoric and the shooting is very direct. As this writer points out, many past assassins in the US have had motivations quite different from what might have been expected. I don’t agree with his implication that both sides of American politics are equally guilty of using violent imagery in their rhetoric – far, far more of it comes from the right wing, as Paul Krugman argues in his piece on the subject (though of course he is a liberal, so conservatives will no doubt just dismiss him as biased), but I agree that there is probably not a direct connection between the recent use of gun-related imagery by right-wing figures and the actions of this particular deranged individual. However, this does not mean that those public figures shouldn’t be receiving flak for their irresponsible talk. Even if they are not responsible for setting off this particular lunatic, they might be responsible for the next (in fact, there’s already been one case of a violent Glenn Beck fan taking his words too much to heart, though he was stopped before anyone was killed). And whatever Loughner’s political views (indications are they were all over the place, as might be expected from someone so clearly mentally ill), violence-tinged rhetoric might have at least encouraged him to think violence towards politicians was acceptable.
On the other hand, at least all of the major right-wing figures and organizations condemned the attack (while denying they shared any blame for it), and no one publicly praised the shooter (though since I avoided reading any comment boards, I can’t be sure that some more warped individuals might not have done so). This is a noticeable contrast to Pakistan, where a number of radicals and conservative religious organizations openly celebrated the assassination of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer. Perhaps there is some hope for the US yet (though if it ever does reach the state Pakistan is in now with respect to political climate, we can pretty much write it off as hopeless). Still, from some of the bizarre statements of a few on the right (such as claiming that Loughner was a liberal because he liked the Communist Manifesto – even though he also like Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand), it may be too much to hope for a real cooling down of the rhetoric. Also, as pointed out in this article from Slate, Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for denouncing the idea of collective guilt and asserting that only the individuals who commit crimes should be held responsible for them, as she herself holds Muslims collectively responsible for the September 11 attacks, as shown be her opposition to any mosque being built near the WTC site, no matter which Muslims build it.
Another debate which the shooting has re-energized is the one over gun control. Amazing numbers of people still try to argue that incidents like this don’t show a need for more gun control. Some right wingers bizarrely have gone so far as to claim that if Arizona’s gun laws were less restrictive the incident could have been prevented, even though it’s almost impossible to have less restrictive gun laws than Arizona, where someone as obviously disturbed as Loughner could buy a particularly deadly gun. More sensible commentators have focused on that gun, noting that there is no rational reason why a gun that can shoot over 30 rounds without reloading should be available to the general public. This contrasts with the tired argument which I saw a few pro-gun people trot out again, that crazy people like Loughner are the problem, not the weapons they use, and that they can still kill with knives or clubs. Yes, but they wouldn’t be able to kill nearly as many people. In this particular case, if he had only had a knife, the attacker might have been tackled before he could do more than wound anyone, if that. The issue of potentially dangerous mentally ill people also has to be address, but any rational person can see that making it much harder to get a hold of guns that can kill many people quickly would at least reduce the body count. If the members of Congress can manage to think logically and lose their fear of the NRA for once, maybe this incident can lead to more rational gun laws in the US.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The State of the World
A lot has been happening around the world as we enter 2011. Many of the notable events of the past few weeks, unfortunately, have not only been bad in and of themselves, but are negative signs for the future.
One crisis that's been dominating international news for some time now is the situation in Ivory Coast (or Côte d'Ivoire, to use the official French name). The incumbent President, Laurent Gbagbo, is still refusing to accept that he lost the recent election to Alassane Ouattara. He and his supporters in the Constitutional Council used reports of violence and intimidation in regions that favored Ouattara to invalidate votes from those regions. While it is certainly possible that there really were problems in those areas, they are unlikely to have been any worse than similar problems in areas dominated by Gbagbo. Independent observers agreed that the elections were substantially fair, and the country's election commission declared Ouattara the winner by a large margin. Notably, before and immediately after the election, Gbagbo and his campaign preemptively complained about problems in three pro-Ouattara regions, seemingly with an eye to declaring votes from those regions invalid. While this alone doesn't prove that their complaints weren't valid, what gives it away is that when the results had actually been tallied by the election commission, Gbagbo's supporters on the Constitutional Council had to belatedly add a fourth region to the three they had originally said had problems, because if they had only invalidated votes from those three regions, Ouattara would have still had more votes.
But while it is blatantly obvious that Ouattara won the election, it's still not clear that he will be able to take power without major violence breaking out, whether in the form of civil war or intervention by Ivory Coast's neighbors to force Gbagbo out. What's more, this whole mess, as at least one commentary I read pointed out, shows that once more the US and other Western powers have foolishly treated the simple act of having elections as a panacea for a deeply divided country. Elections are good in principle, but if the underlying divisions aren't addressed, they won't solve anything. Indeed, they may even exacerbate the problem. Granted, there is no simple solution to deep ethnic or religious divisions like those that plague many countries, but the international community has to recognize that in situations like this, elections alone aren't enough. For now, we can only hope that Gbagbo cedes power soon and without a violent struggle, and that Ouattara has the sense to conciliate Gbagbo's supporters once he is in charge.
Another reason for pessimism about the future of human rights and freedom of speech in Russia came with the conviction of former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, already in prison for alleged tax evasion, on charges of stealing oil from his own company, clearly exaggerated if not made up entirely, especially since by some accounts the amount he was accused of stealing exceeded his company's production (and it isn't as if his customers didn't receive any oil), and his earlier conviction was for evading taxes on oil profits (which came from selling the oil he supposedly stole). Whatever Khodorkovsky may really have been guilty of (and there probably aren't many rich Russian businessmen who are completely clean), virtually all neutral observers agree the real reason he is in prison is because he challenged Putin by funding his opponents and opposition media. Even before the judge handed down his ruling (much of which simply copied prosecutors' arguments), Putin publicly stated his opinion that "a thief should be in prison", earning a rebuke from current President Medvedev (though the final judgment led most to believe it's still Putin who's calling the shots) and causing one critic to remark that Putin himself is the biggest thief, as he essentially stole Khodorkovsky's whole company. But as farcical as the whole spectacle was, it's still a sign that not only is the more authoritarian Putin in charge, but Russia has a long ways to go in terms of respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Of course Russia is hardly the only country to have wrongfully convicted someone recently. A number of other recent cases didn't get nearly as much attention (I didn't know about them myself until the last couple of days), but are just as disturbing, if not more so. Unsurprisingly China, now the only country to be keeping a Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison, is one of the guilty countries, recently sentencing three Tibetan writers to prison terms of three to four years for "inciting activities to split the nation" (in other words, legitimate expression of opinion in favor of their people's freedom from Chinese colonial rule). Worse yet, China also sentenced a young Uighur woman to death in a secret trial for supposed involvement in the riots in Urumqi, when by some accounts she was merely a bystander, and the real reason she was chosen to have an example made of her was because her grandfather was a freedom fighter.
But such behavior from China, while terrible, is to be expected. However, even supposedly democratic India had a recent case of a questionable and seemingly politically motivated conviction. As related in this article from the Washington Post, pediatrician Binayak Sen is a long-time activist who has worked for years to help refugees from civil conflict and those displaced by government land seizures. He was recently sentenced to life in prison for supposedly aiding Marxist rebels, even though he is dedicated to non-violence. Many found the accusations less than credible, including a former attorney general, who called the ruling "shocking". As the article notes, Sen has been imprisoned by the Indian government in spite of widespread support before: "In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea." Even if it is true that Sen gave some moral support to Marxist rebels (which though unlikely would be somewhat understandable as from his perspective they may seem better than the government, despite their violent behavior), the sentence was clearly excessive, especially in light of all the good he has done. That a country like India would still have this kind of blatant injustice going on is disturbing, to say the least.
Other recent news items illustrate the continuing problem of Muslim extremism, and bode ill for the countries they took place in. Before going into specifics, however, let me note again that religious extremism -- even violent religious extremism -- is not limited to Islam. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism also suffer from this problem, and extremists from these religions cause severe problems in some countries. It's also worth pointing out that historically speaking, Islam is not more extremist or violent than Christianity, for example. In fact, a millennium ago, it was in many senses notably more enlightened. However, it is also an unfortunate fact that today violent Muslim extremism is a more widespread problem than similar problems in other religions.
One recent tragedy took place in Egypt, where a bombing (by some accounts a car bombing, though the government said it was a suicide bombing) outside a Coptic Christian church killed over a score of people (21 in the initial attack, though more died later from their injuries) and injured nearly a hundred. This is not the first instance of violence being directed at Christians in Egypt over the past few years, though it is the worst in terms of fatalities. Muslim extremists inside and outside Egypt have been agitating against Christians for some time, and while the Christians may not have been totally innocent in some of the previous clashes, a murderous attack like this one is completely indefensible by any standards.
Unfortunately, Egypt's authoritarian government, already well known for its ruthless suppression of any opposition, has shown little real interest in the plight of the Christians (who make up somewhere around 10% of the population, though estimates vary widely), and has in some cases directly oppressed them, such as when it slaughtered all of the country's pigs (which formed the livelihood of many Christian families) in an absurd overreaction to the "swine flu" scare. What's more, Egyptian law is biased against Christians in a number of ways; for instance, it is legal to convert from Christianity to Islam but not the other way around. Ironically, the Coptic Christians' history in Egypt goes back well before Islam even existed. The Coptic church split off from the Eastern Orthodox church in the mid-5th century under the Eastern Roman (also known as Byzantine) Empire. The Coptic language, still used in services though not as a daily language, is descended from ancient Egyptian. Of course even if the Copts, as they are known, had only recently appeared in Egypt, their rights would be equally deserving of protection, but their historical presence in the country makes the attempts of radical Islamists to destroy them or drive them out even more reprehensible, if that is possible. The Egyptian government's neglect of this issue is just another reason (if one was needed, considering their brutality towards dissidents) the US should rethink its massive expenditures in their favor (only Israel receives more in military aid than Egypt). In any case, this bombing, the ethnic and religious tension behind it, and the government's unwillingness or inability to do anything about it are not a good portent for Egypt's future.
The recent atrocity perpetrated by Muslim extremists in Pakistan, while less serious in terms of its toll in human lives, may be an even worse sign for the future of its country. Salmaan Taseer, the governor of the Pakistani province of Punjab, was assassinated by a police officer assigned to guard him. Taseer, while a Muslim, was an outspoken defender of secular values and religious freedom. Most notably, he was the most prominent politician to speak out strongly against Pakistan's absurd blasphemy law, which has been used frequently by reactionary Muslims to persecute religious minorities, and most recently has resulted in a Christian woman receiving the death sentence because some Muslim women, some of whom apparently held a grudge against her, claimed she had blasphemed Muhammad. Apparently, Taseer's assassin was angry at his defense of the convicted woman and his criticism of the blasphemy law. What's even more disturbing is that a substantial number of similarly deranged people openly praised the assassin, though he was also condemned by many. Some hope the assassination will cause more people to stand up against extremism, but many fear that it will have the opposite effect, as even fewer will dare to speak out against the lunatic fringe that increasingly dominates discussion of religious issues in Pakistan (come to think of it, it's like a more extreme, more violent version of the US, where the lunatic fringe also gets far more attention than it should). This is certainly not a good sign for the future, especially considering Pakistan's size and strategic importance. Though there is no simple way to do it, the US, as Pakistan's main ally, should do its best to push Pakistan away from extremism, and particularly encourage it to do away with the abusive blasphemy law.
I have to hope that all of the above events are not signs of worst to come as well as tragedies in their right. It's difficult to be very optimistic, considering the deeply ingrained nature of the problems behind them. But there is still some hope. If these events help motivate more liberal and moderate people to take stronger action, then maybe things will improve in the long run in all of these places.
One crisis that's been dominating international news for some time now is the situation in Ivory Coast (or Côte d'Ivoire, to use the official French name). The incumbent President, Laurent Gbagbo, is still refusing to accept that he lost the recent election to Alassane Ouattara. He and his supporters in the Constitutional Council used reports of violence and intimidation in regions that favored Ouattara to invalidate votes from those regions. While it is certainly possible that there really were problems in those areas, they are unlikely to have been any worse than similar problems in areas dominated by Gbagbo. Independent observers agreed that the elections were substantially fair, and the country's election commission declared Ouattara the winner by a large margin. Notably, before and immediately after the election, Gbagbo and his campaign preemptively complained about problems in three pro-Ouattara regions, seemingly with an eye to declaring votes from those regions invalid. While this alone doesn't prove that their complaints weren't valid, what gives it away is that when the results had actually been tallied by the election commission, Gbagbo's supporters on the Constitutional Council had to belatedly add a fourth region to the three they had originally said had problems, because if they had only invalidated votes from those three regions, Ouattara would have still had more votes.
But while it is blatantly obvious that Ouattara won the election, it's still not clear that he will be able to take power without major violence breaking out, whether in the form of civil war or intervention by Ivory Coast's neighbors to force Gbagbo out. What's more, this whole mess, as at least one commentary I read pointed out, shows that once more the US and other Western powers have foolishly treated the simple act of having elections as a panacea for a deeply divided country. Elections are good in principle, but if the underlying divisions aren't addressed, they won't solve anything. Indeed, they may even exacerbate the problem. Granted, there is no simple solution to deep ethnic or religious divisions like those that plague many countries, but the international community has to recognize that in situations like this, elections alone aren't enough. For now, we can only hope that Gbagbo cedes power soon and without a violent struggle, and that Ouattara has the sense to conciliate Gbagbo's supporters once he is in charge.
Another reason for pessimism about the future of human rights and freedom of speech in Russia came with the conviction of former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, already in prison for alleged tax evasion, on charges of stealing oil from his own company, clearly exaggerated if not made up entirely, especially since by some accounts the amount he was accused of stealing exceeded his company's production (and it isn't as if his customers didn't receive any oil), and his earlier conviction was for evading taxes on oil profits (which came from selling the oil he supposedly stole). Whatever Khodorkovsky may really have been guilty of (and there probably aren't many rich Russian businessmen who are completely clean), virtually all neutral observers agree the real reason he is in prison is because he challenged Putin by funding his opponents and opposition media. Even before the judge handed down his ruling (much of which simply copied prosecutors' arguments), Putin publicly stated his opinion that "a thief should be in prison", earning a rebuke from current President Medvedev (though the final judgment led most to believe it's still Putin who's calling the shots) and causing one critic to remark that Putin himself is the biggest thief, as he essentially stole Khodorkovsky's whole company. But as farcical as the whole spectacle was, it's still a sign that not only is the more authoritarian Putin in charge, but Russia has a long ways to go in terms of respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Of course Russia is hardly the only country to have wrongfully convicted someone recently. A number of other recent cases didn't get nearly as much attention (I didn't know about them myself until the last couple of days), but are just as disturbing, if not more so. Unsurprisingly China, now the only country to be keeping a Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison, is one of the guilty countries, recently sentencing three Tibetan writers to prison terms of three to four years for "inciting activities to split the nation" (in other words, legitimate expression of opinion in favor of their people's freedom from Chinese colonial rule). Worse yet, China also sentenced a young Uighur woman to death in a secret trial for supposed involvement in the riots in Urumqi, when by some accounts she was merely a bystander, and the real reason she was chosen to have an example made of her was because her grandfather was a freedom fighter.
But such behavior from China, while terrible, is to be expected. However, even supposedly democratic India had a recent case of a questionable and seemingly politically motivated conviction. As related in this article from the Washington Post, pediatrician Binayak Sen is a long-time activist who has worked for years to help refugees from civil conflict and those displaced by government land seizures. He was recently sentenced to life in prison for supposedly aiding Marxist rebels, even though he is dedicated to non-violence. Many found the accusations less than credible, including a former attorney general, who called the ruling "shocking". As the article notes, Sen has been imprisoned by the Indian government in spite of widespread support before: "In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea." Even if it is true that Sen gave some moral support to Marxist rebels (which though unlikely would be somewhat understandable as from his perspective they may seem better than the government, despite their violent behavior), the sentence was clearly excessive, especially in light of all the good he has done. That a country like India would still have this kind of blatant injustice going on is disturbing, to say the least.
Other recent news items illustrate the continuing problem of Muslim extremism, and bode ill for the countries they took place in. Before going into specifics, however, let me note again that religious extremism -- even violent religious extremism -- is not limited to Islam. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism also suffer from this problem, and extremists from these religions cause severe problems in some countries. It's also worth pointing out that historically speaking, Islam is not more extremist or violent than Christianity, for example. In fact, a millennium ago, it was in many senses notably more enlightened. However, it is also an unfortunate fact that today violent Muslim extremism is a more widespread problem than similar problems in other religions.
One recent tragedy took place in Egypt, where a bombing (by some accounts a car bombing, though the government said it was a suicide bombing) outside a Coptic Christian church killed over a score of people (21 in the initial attack, though more died later from their injuries) and injured nearly a hundred. This is not the first instance of violence being directed at Christians in Egypt over the past few years, though it is the worst in terms of fatalities. Muslim extremists inside and outside Egypt have been agitating against Christians for some time, and while the Christians may not have been totally innocent in some of the previous clashes, a murderous attack like this one is completely indefensible by any standards.
Unfortunately, Egypt's authoritarian government, already well known for its ruthless suppression of any opposition, has shown little real interest in the plight of the Christians (who make up somewhere around 10% of the population, though estimates vary widely), and has in some cases directly oppressed them, such as when it slaughtered all of the country's pigs (which formed the livelihood of many Christian families) in an absurd overreaction to the "swine flu" scare. What's more, Egyptian law is biased against Christians in a number of ways; for instance, it is legal to convert from Christianity to Islam but not the other way around. Ironically, the Coptic Christians' history in Egypt goes back well before Islam even existed. The Coptic church split off from the Eastern Orthodox church in the mid-5th century under the Eastern Roman (also known as Byzantine) Empire. The Coptic language, still used in services though not as a daily language, is descended from ancient Egyptian. Of course even if the Copts, as they are known, had only recently appeared in Egypt, their rights would be equally deserving of protection, but their historical presence in the country makes the attempts of radical Islamists to destroy them or drive them out even more reprehensible, if that is possible. The Egyptian government's neglect of this issue is just another reason (if one was needed, considering their brutality towards dissidents) the US should rethink its massive expenditures in their favor (only Israel receives more in military aid than Egypt). In any case, this bombing, the ethnic and religious tension behind it, and the government's unwillingness or inability to do anything about it are not a good portent for Egypt's future.
The recent atrocity perpetrated by Muslim extremists in Pakistan, while less serious in terms of its toll in human lives, may be an even worse sign for the future of its country. Salmaan Taseer, the governor of the Pakistani province of Punjab, was assassinated by a police officer assigned to guard him. Taseer, while a Muslim, was an outspoken defender of secular values and religious freedom. Most notably, he was the most prominent politician to speak out strongly against Pakistan's absurd blasphemy law, which has been used frequently by reactionary Muslims to persecute religious minorities, and most recently has resulted in a Christian woman receiving the death sentence because some Muslim women, some of whom apparently held a grudge against her, claimed she had blasphemed Muhammad. Apparently, Taseer's assassin was angry at his defense of the convicted woman and his criticism of the blasphemy law. What's even more disturbing is that a substantial number of similarly deranged people openly praised the assassin, though he was also condemned by many. Some hope the assassination will cause more people to stand up against extremism, but many fear that it will have the opposite effect, as even fewer will dare to speak out against the lunatic fringe that increasingly dominates discussion of religious issues in Pakistan (come to think of it, it's like a more extreme, more violent version of the US, where the lunatic fringe also gets far more attention than it should). This is certainly not a good sign for the future, especially considering Pakistan's size and strategic importance. Though there is no simple way to do it, the US, as Pakistan's main ally, should do its best to push Pakistan away from extremism, and particularly encourage it to do away with the abusive blasphemy law.
I have to hope that all of the above events are not signs of worst to come as well as tragedies in their right. It's difficult to be very optimistic, considering the deeply ingrained nature of the problems behind them. But there is still some hope. If these events help motivate more liberal and moderate people to take stronger action, then maybe things will improve in the long run in all of these places.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Bad Bargains, Moral Bankruptcy and Negotiating with Blackmailers
Even though it's now pretty much a done deal and much of the relevant ground I've been over before, I'd like to comment a little on the tax plan that President Obama and the Republican leadership came up with. There are two major questions here. One is whether the deal in of itself is a good one; the second is whether it would have been better to have no deal at all than to have the one we ended up with. The answer to the first question, taking both the good and bad parts of the plan into consideration, is no. The answer to the second question is maybe, depending at least in part on how the passage of the tax plan ultimately affects several other key measures.
The centerpiece of the tax plan is the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As I have said before, there is no sense in extending the tax cuts for earners in the highest income bracket. They don't need the money, most of them won't spend it anyway but will save it (meaning it won't stimulate the economy), and allowing them to continue to pay lower taxes increase the budget deficit by a large amount (far more than many of the programs the conservatives want to cut). The assertion that higher taxes would hurt many small businesses is wrong, as few fall into this category (and many that do are law partnerships, private medical clinics and so forth), and in any case if a small business has a need for an additional employee, they aren't going to refrain from hiring one just because they are paying slightly more in taxes. The Republican refrain that no one should have their taxes raised in a recession is just a nonsensical sound bite, one which attempts to imply, aside from the questionable economic arguments mentioned above, that everyone is suffering equally and we don't want to see anyone hurt by more taxes, like someone who makes half a million dollars a year is really going to suffer because they have to pay twenty thousand dollars more in taxes. It's also worth reiterating that even had tax rates for the highest income bracket gone up, they would have still been under 40% (as compared to the current rate of a little over 35%), which is not very high compared either to other countries or past tax rates in the US.
However, as bad as the Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the relatively well-off is, this isn't the worst part of the tax plan. That "honor" has to go to the estate tax. The estate tax had also been cut temporarily, but without this bill it would have gone back to the old rate, which if I recall the numbers correctly was 55% on estates of more than US$1 million. But the Republicans insisted on cutting it drastically, making the rate 35% on individual estates of US$5 million, or US$10 million for married couples. This will benefit a very tiny percentage of Americans, and it won't even be the people who actually earned the money, but their heirs. I know if I was going to inherit $US2 million I wouldn't complain if I had to give up half of it. Sure, a million dollars may not be what it once was, but it's still a pretty decent sum, especially if you don't have to earn it yourself. So why on Earth should we do this tiny percentage of wealthy people's children a favor when it'll add substantially to the deficit? It's absurd. This once again shows that the Republicans really are the party of the rich, or at least of the selfish rich (quite a few wealthy people have said they should pay higher taxes, whether income or estate taxes).
Then there was the temporary payroll tax cut. Obama apparently supported this idea as a stimulus measure that would benefit a much wider segment of the population than the Republicans' cuts for the rich, but it has its problems too. The payroll tax pays for Social Security, which for the time being is in the black. But having made the cut, there is a danger the Republicans will try to make it permanent (by once again crying tax increase if the Democrats try to allow it to go back to the original rate, just as they've done this year with the income tax rates). If that happens, Social Security will not remain solvent for nearly as long as it would have, and the Republicans will have an excuse to try to cut or privatize it (when the best way to boost Social Security in the long term is to increase the payroll tax -- not by raising the rates, but by raising the ceiling, since it is currently only taken out of the first US$100,000 in salary). If this doesn't happen, fine. But if it does, the payroll tax cut will also turn out to be a big negative.
Perhaps the only significant positive in the deal is the extension of unemployment benefits. Allowing them to expire would leave a lot of people with no income at all, and despite right wing assertions to the contrary, most of them are not just freeloaders who won't go out and look for work (though of course there are some people like that), as most businesses simply aren't hiring. Giving those out of work some money to spend will also stimulate the economy (more than lower taxes for a few wealthy people will), besides allowing them to put food on the table.
I seem to recall that there are also a few tax incentives for alternative energy and things of that sort in the bill, though I don't know the specifics. If so, that's a good thing. But given its bad parts, I can't say that the deal sounds like a good one overall. If there were no other considerations, I'd say it'd be better to let everyone's taxes go back to the old rates, which at least would cut the deficit by a large amount (or rather keep it from getting bigger, as past budget projections have assumed that all the cuts would expire). It's worth noting that keeping income tax rates the same won't stimulate the economy either, as people aren't getting more money, just keeping the same amount as before. The only substantial stimulus will be from the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.
As I stated earlier, given that this deal was overall more bad than good, does that mean Obama and the Democrats would have been better off rejecting it in its entirety? If the only things at stake were what the tax plan itself covered, I would have said yes. I would certainly prefer not to sacrifice those who are living on unemployment benefits (as I implied in the previous paragraph, letting taxes go back to the old rates for everybody would not necessarily be a bad thing), but considering the long term problems that this deal may cause, problems that will eventually affect everyone, that might have been the better choice if they were the only people to be sacrificed to the Republicans' intransigence. But aside from blocking any tax deal that didn't favor the wealthy, the Republicans -- even the few supposedly more moderate ones -- had pledged to block all legislation in the Senate until the tax plan was passed. This meant that a number of very important measures were in danger of not getting through. When I started writing this just after the tax deal was passed, it was still not certain which of them would make it. Now votes have been taken on two of them, with a third due to voted on any time now.
The first of these measures was the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". This was something that should have been done a long time ago, and with the Pentagon having completed a study showing that repeal shouldn't cause any major problems, there was no longer any excuse for waiting, especially since the law would probably get overturned in the courts sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, there was still substantial Republican opposition, led by the increasingly erratic John McCain (even those who are disappointed in Obama's performance should be happy McCain didn't end up as US President), even though he once said he'd support repeal if the military leadership was in favor (apparently he has decided since that even if a majority of the military leadership, including the very top officials, are in favor, that isn't good enough; the entire leadership has to approve). But even worse, if the Republicans had continued to block all measures because of a lack of an agreement on taxes, repeal would have depended on the next Congress, where it would probably have failed. So one positive of the tax agreement was that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" has now been approved.
The second major measure was the Dream Act. This would have provided a path to citizenship for young people who were brought to the US illegally by their parents when they were children if they went to college or joined the military. To put this into perspective, many of these people were toddlers or preschoolers when they came to the US, so they have no memory of any other home. Some of them were not even aware until they were nearly grown that they weren't American citizens. And yet the vast majority of Republicans voted against this bill. One idiotic member of the House from Texas (Barton, if I recall correctly) made some statement about not "rewarding criminals". Only someone too stupid to understand the type of situation the bill covered, or, more likely, someone completely morally bankrupt, without the least shred of decency, could call someone who was brought to the US (the vast majority of them had no choice in the matter) as a child -- and as I said, in many cases at an age where they weren't even aware of what was happening -- a "criminal". Even calling their parents "criminals", while technically accurate, is a sign of perverted moral sense, as it seeks to put people who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the same category as murderers and rapists (not much different from 19th century England, where a father could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread for his children -- as if such a person was the same as a criminal who committed robbery and assault out of pure greed). But to call the children "criminals" is beyond disgusting.
Yet, unbelievably, the Dream Act didn't pass (actually it won a clear majority, but as usual, its Republican opponents were filibustering it, and there weren't quite enough votes to overcome the filibuster). Frankly, in my opinion, this is worse than if "don't ask, don't tell" hadn't been repealed. Gays in the military were being deprived of their careers, which is bad enough, but the young people covered by the Dream Act are in danger of losing their homes and getting deported to countries that in many cases they have little or no memory of. This is a terrible injustice, and Obama's agreeing to a bad bargain on taxes didn't avert it. So that's one more strike against the tax deal.
The third major measure is the ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Again, there is no reason not to pass this and many reasons to do so, not least of which is without ratification, there will no longer be an arms control agreement between the world's biggest nuclear powers. The agreement that has been signed is by pretty universal consensus among experts and US military leaders, a good one from the US's perspective. In a misguided attempt to win over Republican opponents, Obama even agreed to spend more on upgrading the US's nuclear arsenal (once again, when it comes to things like this, the deficit doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans). One laughable complaint is that under the treaty the US will have to cut more than the Russians, because it has more weapons to begin with. That's like a situation where two people are pointing guns at each other, and the one with ten shots on his gun (as compared to, say, seven for the other guy) is reluctant to agree that both reduce the number of bullets they have loaded to four each. Both sides can still kill each other many times over, so who cares? In any case, this seems to have a good chance of passing, which would be a point in favor of the tax plan which cleared the way for it.
Of course one big problem with judging the merits of Obama's deal with the Republicans by the success or failure of other measures is that essentially the Republicans (who ironically criticize anyone who negotiates with "terrorists") are being rewarded for committing blackmail. Like other such situations, such as kidnappings for ransom, whether or not it is ever wise to give in is debatable. However, if Obama was going to submit to Republican blackmail, he should at least have fought for a better deal. Either he should have gotten a better tax deal, or he should have asked for a commitment from the Republican leadership not to support filibusters on any of the above three measures. As it turns out, at least one and quite possibly two of them will pass anyway, but considering the importance of the one that didn't, and the fact that even those that did pass might well not have, a bargain with the Republicans that didn't include such a commitment was not a good deal. Some say the mere ability of Obama and the Republicans to come to an agreement on anything is a positive development is a good thing, and there is something to that argument. But if all their agreements favor the Republicans this much, it might be just as well to not to make one in the first place. If the arms treaty is ratified, that combined with the end of "don't ask, don't tell" might just barely make the whole thing worthwhile, but not by a large margin. We'll have to hope Obama learns to bargain harder once the new, more right-wing Congress comes in.
The centerpiece of the tax plan is the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As I have said before, there is no sense in extending the tax cuts for earners in the highest income bracket. They don't need the money, most of them won't spend it anyway but will save it (meaning it won't stimulate the economy), and allowing them to continue to pay lower taxes increase the budget deficit by a large amount (far more than many of the programs the conservatives want to cut). The assertion that higher taxes would hurt many small businesses is wrong, as few fall into this category (and many that do are law partnerships, private medical clinics and so forth), and in any case if a small business has a need for an additional employee, they aren't going to refrain from hiring one just because they are paying slightly more in taxes. The Republican refrain that no one should have their taxes raised in a recession is just a nonsensical sound bite, one which attempts to imply, aside from the questionable economic arguments mentioned above, that everyone is suffering equally and we don't want to see anyone hurt by more taxes, like someone who makes half a million dollars a year is really going to suffer because they have to pay twenty thousand dollars more in taxes. It's also worth reiterating that even had tax rates for the highest income bracket gone up, they would have still been under 40% (as compared to the current rate of a little over 35%), which is not very high compared either to other countries or past tax rates in the US.
However, as bad as the Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the relatively well-off is, this isn't the worst part of the tax plan. That "honor" has to go to the estate tax. The estate tax had also been cut temporarily, but without this bill it would have gone back to the old rate, which if I recall the numbers correctly was 55% on estates of more than US$1 million. But the Republicans insisted on cutting it drastically, making the rate 35% on individual estates of US$5 million, or US$10 million for married couples. This will benefit a very tiny percentage of Americans, and it won't even be the people who actually earned the money, but their heirs. I know if I was going to inherit $US2 million I wouldn't complain if I had to give up half of it. Sure, a million dollars may not be what it once was, but it's still a pretty decent sum, especially if you don't have to earn it yourself. So why on Earth should we do this tiny percentage of wealthy people's children a favor when it'll add substantially to the deficit? It's absurd. This once again shows that the Republicans really are the party of the rich, or at least of the selfish rich (quite a few wealthy people have said they should pay higher taxes, whether income or estate taxes).
Then there was the temporary payroll tax cut. Obama apparently supported this idea as a stimulus measure that would benefit a much wider segment of the population than the Republicans' cuts for the rich, but it has its problems too. The payroll tax pays for Social Security, which for the time being is in the black. But having made the cut, there is a danger the Republicans will try to make it permanent (by once again crying tax increase if the Democrats try to allow it to go back to the original rate, just as they've done this year with the income tax rates). If that happens, Social Security will not remain solvent for nearly as long as it would have, and the Republicans will have an excuse to try to cut or privatize it (when the best way to boost Social Security in the long term is to increase the payroll tax -- not by raising the rates, but by raising the ceiling, since it is currently only taken out of the first US$100,000 in salary). If this doesn't happen, fine. But if it does, the payroll tax cut will also turn out to be a big negative.
Perhaps the only significant positive in the deal is the extension of unemployment benefits. Allowing them to expire would leave a lot of people with no income at all, and despite right wing assertions to the contrary, most of them are not just freeloaders who won't go out and look for work (though of course there are some people like that), as most businesses simply aren't hiring. Giving those out of work some money to spend will also stimulate the economy (more than lower taxes for a few wealthy people will), besides allowing them to put food on the table.
I seem to recall that there are also a few tax incentives for alternative energy and things of that sort in the bill, though I don't know the specifics. If so, that's a good thing. But given its bad parts, I can't say that the deal sounds like a good one overall. If there were no other considerations, I'd say it'd be better to let everyone's taxes go back to the old rates, which at least would cut the deficit by a large amount (or rather keep it from getting bigger, as past budget projections have assumed that all the cuts would expire). It's worth noting that keeping income tax rates the same won't stimulate the economy either, as people aren't getting more money, just keeping the same amount as before. The only substantial stimulus will be from the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.
As I stated earlier, given that this deal was overall more bad than good, does that mean Obama and the Democrats would have been better off rejecting it in its entirety? If the only things at stake were what the tax plan itself covered, I would have said yes. I would certainly prefer not to sacrifice those who are living on unemployment benefits (as I implied in the previous paragraph, letting taxes go back to the old rates for everybody would not necessarily be a bad thing), but considering the long term problems that this deal may cause, problems that will eventually affect everyone, that might have been the better choice if they were the only people to be sacrificed to the Republicans' intransigence. But aside from blocking any tax deal that didn't favor the wealthy, the Republicans -- even the few supposedly more moderate ones -- had pledged to block all legislation in the Senate until the tax plan was passed. This meant that a number of very important measures were in danger of not getting through. When I started writing this just after the tax deal was passed, it was still not certain which of them would make it. Now votes have been taken on two of them, with a third due to voted on any time now.
The first of these measures was the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". This was something that should have been done a long time ago, and with the Pentagon having completed a study showing that repeal shouldn't cause any major problems, there was no longer any excuse for waiting, especially since the law would probably get overturned in the courts sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, there was still substantial Republican opposition, led by the increasingly erratic John McCain (even those who are disappointed in Obama's performance should be happy McCain didn't end up as US President), even though he once said he'd support repeal if the military leadership was in favor (apparently he has decided since that even if a majority of the military leadership, including the very top officials, are in favor, that isn't good enough; the entire leadership has to approve). But even worse, if the Republicans had continued to block all measures because of a lack of an agreement on taxes, repeal would have depended on the next Congress, where it would probably have failed. So one positive of the tax agreement was that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" has now been approved.
The second major measure was the Dream Act. This would have provided a path to citizenship for young people who were brought to the US illegally by their parents when they were children if they went to college or joined the military. To put this into perspective, many of these people were toddlers or preschoolers when they came to the US, so they have no memory of any other home. Some of them were not even aware until they were nearly grown that they weren't American citizens. And yet the vast majority of Republicans voted against this bill. One idiotic member of the House from Texas (Barton, if I recall correctly) made some statement about not "rewarding criminals". Only someone too stupid to understand the type of situation the bill covered, or, more likely, someone completely morally bankrupt, without the least shred of decency, could call someone who was brought to the US (the vast majority of them had no choice in the matter) as a child -- and as I said, in many cases at an age where they weren't even aware of what was happening -- a "criminal". Even calling their parents "criminals", while technically accurate, is a sign of perverted moral sense, as it seeks to put people who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the same category as murderers and rapists (not much different from 19th century England, where a father could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread for his children -- as if such a person was the same as a criminal who committed robbery and assault out of pure greed). But to call the children "criminals" is beyond disgusting.
Yet, unbelievably, the Dream Act didn't pass (actually it won a clear majority, but as usual, its Republican opponents were filibustering it, and there weren't quite enough votes to overcome the filibuster). Frankly, in my opinion, this is worse than if "don't ask, don't tell" hadn't been repealed. Gays in the military were being deprived of their careers, which is bad enough, but the young people covered by the Dream Act are in danger of losing their homes and getting deported to countries that in many cases they have little or no memory of. This is a terrible injustice, and Obama's agreeing to a bad bargain on taxes didn't avert it. So that's one more strike against the tax deal.
The third major measure is the ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Again, there is no reason not to pass this and many reasons to do so, not least of which is without ratification, there will no longer be an arms control agreement between the world's biggest nuclear powers. The agreement that has been signed is by pretty universal consensus among experts and US military leaders, a good one from the US's perspective. In a misguided attempt to win over Republican opponents, Obama even agreed to spend more on upgrading the US's nuclear arsenal (once again, when it comes to things like this, the deficit doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans). One laughable complaint is that under the treaty the US will have to cut more than the Russians, because it has more weapons to begin with. That's like a situation where two people are pointing guns at each other, and the one with ten shots on his gun (as compared to, say, seven for the other guy) is reluctant to agree that both reduce the number of bullets they have loaded to four each. Both sides can still kill each other many times over, so who cares? In any case, this seems to have a good chance of passing, which would be a point in favor of the tax plan which cleared the way for it.
Of course one big problem with judging the merits of Obama's deal with the Republicans by the success or failure of other measures is that essentially the Republicans (who ironically criticize anyone who negotiates with "terrorists") are being rewarded for committing blackmail. Like other such situations, such as kidnappings for ransom, whether or not it is ever wise to give in is debatable. However, if Obama was going to submit to Republican blackmail, he should at least have fought for a better deal. Either he should have gotten a better tax deal, or he should have asked for a commitment from the Republican leadership not to support filibusters on any of the above three measures. As it turns out, at least one and quite possibly two of them will pass anyway, but considering the importance of the one that didn't, and the fact that even those that did pass might well not have, a bargain with the Republicans that didn't include such a commitment was not a good deal. Some say the mere ability of Obama and the Republicans to come to an agreement on anything is a positive development is a good thing, and there is something to that argument. But if all their agreements favor the Republicans this much, it might be just as well to not to make one in the first place. If the arms treaty is ratified, that combined with the end of "don't ask, don't tell" might just barely make the whole thing worthwhile, but not by a large margin. We'll have to hope Obama learns to bargain harder once the new, more right-wing Congress comes in.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
What I've Been Reading – 2010, Part 5
As I've gone through quite a few books since I last talked about what I've been reading, this time I'm only going to talk briefly about each book. I'm also skipping over some short stories and non-fiction I've read in the same period, even though much of it was good (e.g., Greg Egan's hard sci-fi short stories).
Fear of Flying by Erica Jong
This novel focusing on the theme of female sexual desire was a huge seller when it came out. It was notable for being the first well-known novel by a woman to talk about sex from the female perspective (books like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Fanny Hill were of course written by men). As one might expect, sex is the dominant topic, though a lot of it is fantasies. While there is a fair amount of actual sex, there isn't as much as one might think (there's probably at least as much – certainly more variety – in Dhalgren, which is not mainly about sex) and as Erica Jong herself points out in the forward, it's usually somewhat disappointing. The novel also briefly touches on a theme of Flaubert's Madame Bovary, namely the difficulty people have in conveying their real feelings with words. Another interesting point is that the narrator's life has many points in common with Erica Jong's own, making the novel semi-autobiographical.
Fanny Hill by John Cleland
Reading Fear of Flying reminded me that I had a copy of John Cleland's Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure that I had glanced at but not actually read, so I decided to read through it. This 19th century work is famous (okay, infamous) for its graphic depictions of sex, and its reputation in this regard is fairly well justified, though of course there are much more graphic descriptions out there nowadays. There is of course a lot of sex, though interestingly Fanny Hill is really more of a mistress to successive men than a sex worker who receives many customers. In certain ways Cleland succeeds in showing a certain sympathy for his female protagonist, at least for his time, though in other ways his work reflects a purely male and sometimes sexist perspective. Also, despite depicting positively, or at least not particularly negatively, a wide variety of sexual practices, including lesbian sex, group sex, and sado-masochism, there is an extremely venomous attack on gay male sex, reflecting the extreme homophobia of the times.
More Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber
The last two collections of stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Swords and Ice Magic and The Knight and Knave of Swords, are notable for being somewhat bleaker than previous stories (both Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser undergo significant suffering), being set mostly away from the city of Lankhmar (the main setting for many previous stories) and containing a few explicit depictions of sex (though sex was always clearly a major motivation for the characters, it wasn't explicitly depicted in earlier books – there was supposedly a sex scene in The Swords of Lankhmar which the publisher asked Leiber to cut out). Otherwise the stories are as entertaining as always.
Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress
A futuristic science fiction novel in which geneticists have found a way to modify the genes of embryos so that the children they grow into do not need sleep and become super-intelligent partly as a result. The obvious superiority of the Sleepless causes resentment and hatred among the rest of the population (the Sleepers), resulting in conflicts and eventually causing many of the Sleepless to flee to a separate sanctuary they have created, at first on Earth but later in near-Earth orbital space. The main theme of the novel is the question of balance between the rights of the individual and their obligations to the society, or, as Kress explained it, between an Ayn Rand-type philosophy (which she said she ultimately found to be neither workable nor morally admirable, a sentiment I completely agree with) and the more communal societies depicted by Ursula LeGuin. Though I'm dubious about certain parts of the premise (I don't think eliminating the need for sleep would have such a dramatic effect on people) and I disagree with the arguments against secession made in the last part of the novel, the novel is interesting and the point that Americans in particular often resent intelligence, if perhaps slightly exaggerated, is nevertheless well taken.
Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Only slightly less famous than its predecessor Alice in Wonderland, this cleverly told tale includes Carroll's famous poem "Jabberwocky" and a tale which is structured like an elaborate game of chess.
Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut
This is another brilliantly cynical novel from Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's style is unique and quite different from what I normally prefer, but he does it very well. It helps, of course, that I share a lot of his cynicism. I especially appreciate his mockery of things like patriotism, capitalism, and the type of history taught in schools. However, despite his liberal outlook, Vonnegut is not at all politically correct (not that that problematic term even existed at the time), so some liberals might have trouble with him as well (not me, however). Like a few of the other Vonnegut novels I've read, it's also metafictional, not only in that Kilgore Trout, one of the main characters (and a recurring character in a number of Vonnegut's novels), is a science fiction writer, but because Vonnegut himself appears in the novel.
Iron Council by China Mieville
This is the third of China Mieville's fantasy novels set in the fictional world of Bas-Lag. The most prominent power in Bas-Lag is the city of New Crobuzon, a huge, cosmopolitan and oppressive place a little like a more deadly fantasy version of Charles Dickens' London (Mieville's Bas-Lag novels are often characterized as steampunk, reflecting the type of technology prevalent in them). New Crobuzon was the setting of the first Bas-Lag novel, Perdido Street Station, and much of Iron Council is also set there (the second novel, The Scar, is set elsewhere, but New Crobuzon still plays a major role). The government of New Crobuzon, though supposedly a parliamentary democracy, is ruthless and authoritarian, and much of this novel focuses on resistance to it from dissident elements inside and outside the city, once again resembling somewhat the struggle of 19th century laboring classes against unfeeling bosses and rulers, including the major divisions among the dissident groups themselves, though here the authorities are more powerful and sinister (Mieville calls his world "an early industrial capitalist world of a fairly grubby, police statey kind"). While most of the main characters are human, Mieville's world contains a fantastic array of strange and often unpleasant creatures, though some are friendly or at least able to interact peacefully with humans (indeed, one of the main characters in Perdido Street Station is a khepri, a being with a human body but a head that resembles a giant insect). Even among the latter, there are some of extremely unusual appearance, thanks to New Crobuzon's punishment factories, which remake convicted criminals in bizarre and often unpleasant ways, such as making them part machine, attaching useless appendages to them, and so forth. The resulting creatures, called Remade, are looked down and discriminated against by everyone else, even the lower classes. There is also plenty of magic (here called thaumaturgy), which often takes nastily destructive forms. Another point that shouldn't really be worthy of note but still is somewhat unusual in much literature today is that two of the the main protagonists are gay (actually bisexual in one case), though this probably shouldn't surprise readers of the first book, in which the two chief protagonists are in a relationship which, though heterosexual, is even less conventional, as one is human and the other is khepri. I highly recommend the Bas-Lag novels, though with the caveat that Mieville doesn't seem to believe in truly happy endings; at best, the worst evils may be averted and some of the protagonists may survive after having won an incomplete victory over the various forces of evil.
The Red Queen by Margaret Drabble
Margaret Drabble's The Red Queen is a mix of historical and modern fiction, with a dash of metafiction thrown in. The first half of the book is narrated by Lady Hyegyong, an actual historical figure who was born in 18th century Korea. As a child, she was selected to be the bride of the Crown Prince, and she survived intrigues, scandals, and the execution of her husband at the hand of his own father to see her son and grandson take the throne. She wrote four memoirs of her life, which I unfortunately haven't read (in fact I hadn't heard of her before – I must confess that I know less of Korea's history than I do of most other countries in the region), but which sound fascinating. In The Red Queen, however, she is relating her fictional fifth memoir in modern times, even though (as she mentions several times) she is long dead. Thus she mixes her narrative of her youth with very modern interpretations of the events. The second part of the book focuses on the woman that Lady Hyegyong calls her "ghostly envoy", the modern doctor who is in a sense possessed by her, having become fascinated after reading a translation of her memoirs while on the way to Seoul for a conference (a fascination shared by Drabble herself, who in a sense is Lady Hyegyong's real "ghostly envoy"). This part of the book obviously doesn't contain events to compare with those in Lady Hyegyong's life, but nevertheless there is one fairly dramatic and unexpected (despite some foreshadowing) occurrence towards the end. Interestingly, both the protagonists consider themselves to be rationalists and thus not big believers in the supernatural, and yet one is dead and the other is watched over not only by the first but also by guardian spirits. Despite this supernatural element, the book focuses more on psychology and human relations as well as Korean culture, making it very much a modern novel. Drabble herself makes an appearance in the last few pages of this unusual but very readable book.
The Stand by Stephen King
The Stand is one of Stephen King's longest and most epic novels, though it is not as massive as his Dark Tower series (actually the only other work by him I've read). The basic premise of the book is similar to that of George Stewart's Earth Abides, in which a plague wipes out most of humanity (and apparently King has said Stewart's book was an inspiration), though they take the idea in completely different directions. Though the first part of the book reads like post-apocalyptic science fiction, the supernatural soon makes an appearance (unsurprising, given that it's Stephen King), and the book becomes an epic struggle between good and evil (King was also inspired by The Lord of the Rings, a big influence on both this book and the Dark Tower books). This makes it a bit hard to characterize in terms of genre; it is sci-fi, horror and fantasy all in one. The horror elements come mainly from the very unpleasant symptoms of the superflu early in the book, the massive number of corpses scattered around in the subsequent part, and the diabolically nasty antagonist in the last half, but they are not overwhelming, so the book is enjoyable enough for those who aren't big fans of horror (like me). Having read this and the Dark Tower series, I can tell that King listens to a lot of classic rock, as a number of different songs are referenced in both works and one of the protagonists in this one is a R&B-influenced rock singer; he's a fan of Richard Adams and Watership Down, which is mentioned in both works; he often uses his home state of Maine as a setting (parts of both works take place there, though relatively brief parts overall); and he likes creating links between his various works (there are a number of connections not only between these two books but also with other novels he's written). In some ways the book hangs together better than the Dark Tower, which is a bit unwieldy in places, though even here there are certain inconsistencies and implausible moments (the former perhaps increased by King's frequent revisions – in the paperback edition that I read, the date of the story was changed somewhat from that in the original edition). But it is certainly an entertaining read, and it is understandable that, as King notes in his forward to the revised edition of the first Dark Tower novel, The Stand is the favorite of many of his readers, with only the Dark Tower rivaling it in the passionate devotion of its fans.
Fear of Flying by Erica Jong
This novel focusing on the theme of female sexual desire was a huge seller when it came out. It was notable for being the first well-known novel by a woman to talk about sex from the female perspective (books like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Fanny Hill were of course written by men). As one might expect, sex is the dominant topic, though a lot of it is fantasies. While there is a fair amount of actual sex, there isn't as much as one might think (there's probably at least as much – certainly more variety – in Dhalgren, which is not mainly about sex) and as Erica Jong herself points out in the forward, it's usually somewhat disappointing. The novel also briefly touches on a theme of Flaubert's Madame Bovary, namely the difficulty people have in conveying their real feelings with words. Another interesting point is that the narrator's life has many points in common with Erica Jong's own, making the novel semi-autobiographical.
Fanny Hill by John Cleland
Reading Fear of Flying reminded me that I had a copy of John Cleland's Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure that I had glanced at but not actually read, so I decided to read through it. This 19th century work is famous (okay, infamous) for its graphic depictions of sex, and its reputation in this regard is fairly well justified, though of course there are much more graphic descriptions out there nowadays. There is of course a lot of sex, though interestingly Fanny Hill is really more of a mistress to successive men than a sex worker who receives many customers. In certain ways Cleland succeeds in showing a certain sympathy for his female protagonist, at least for his time, though in other ways his work reflects a purely male and sometimes sexist perspective. Also, despite depicting positively, or at least not particularly negatively, a wide variety of sexual practices, including lesbian sex, group sex, and sado-masochism, there is an extremely venomous attack on gay male sex, reflecting the extreme homophobia of the times.
More Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber
The last two collections of stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Swords and Ice Magic and The Knight and Knave of Swords, are notable for being somewhat bleaker than previous stories (both Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser undergo significant suffering), being set mostly away from the city of Lankhmar (the main setting for many previous stories) and containing a few explicit depictions of sex (though sex was always clearly a major motivation for the characters, it wasn't explicitly depicted in earlier books – there was supposedly a sex scene in The Swords of Lankhmar which the publisher asked Leiber to cut out). Otherwise the stories are as entertaining as always.
Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress
A futuristic science fiction novel in which geneticists have found a way to modify the genes of embryos so that the children they grow into do not need sleep and become super-intelligent partly as a result. The obvious superiority of the Sleepless causes resentment and hatred among the rest of the population (the Sleepers), resulting in conflicts and eventually causing many of the Sleepless to flee to a separate sanctuary they have created, at first on Earth but later in near-Earth orbital space. The main theme of the novel is the question of balance between the rights of the individual and their obligations to the society, or, as Kress explained it, between an Ayn Rand-type philosophy (which she said she ultimately found to be neither workable nor morally admirable, a sentiment I completely agree with) and the more communal societies depicted by Ursula LeGuin. Though I'm dubious about certain parts of the premise (I don't think eliminating the need for sleep would have such a dramatic effect on people) and I disagree with the arguments against secession made in the last part of the novel, the novel is interesting and the point that Americans in particular often resent intelligence, if perhaps slightly exaggerated, is nevertheless well taken.
Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Only slightly less famous than its predecessor Alice in Wonderland, this cleverly told tale includes Carroll's famous poem "Jabberwocky" and a tale which is structured like an elaborate game of chess.
Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut
This is another brilliantly cynical novel from Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's style is unique and quite different from what I normally prefer, but he does it very well. It helps, of course, that I share a lot of his cynicism. I especially appreciate his mockery of things like patriotism, capitalism, and the type of history taught in schools. However, despite his liberal outlook, Vonnegut is not at all politically correct (not that that problematic term even existed at the time), so some liberals might have trouble with him as well (not me, however). Like a few of the other Vonnegut novels I've read, it's also metafictional, not only in that Kilgore Trout, one of the main characters (and a recurring character in a number of Vonnegut's novels), is a science fiction writer, but because Vonnegut himself appears in the novel.
Iron Council by China Mieville
This is the third of China Mieville's fantasy novels set in the fictional world of Bas-Lag. The most prominent power in Bas-Lag is the city of New Crobuzon, a huge, cosmopolitan and oppressive place a little like a more deadly fantasy version of Charles Dickens' London (Mieville's Bas-Lag novels are often characterized as steampunk, reflecting the type of technology prevalent in them). New Crobuzon was the setting of the first Bas-Lag novel, Perdido Street Station, and much of Iron Council is also set there (the second novel, The Scar, is set elsewhere, but New Crobuzon still plays a major role). The government of New Crobuzon, though supposedly a parliamentary democracy, is ruthless and authoritarian, and much of this novel focuses on resistance to it from dissident elements inside and outside the city, once again resembling somewhat the struggle of 19th century laboring classes against unfeeling bosses and rulers, including the major divisions among the dissident groups themselves, though here the authorities are more powerful and sinister (Mieville calls his world "an early industrial capitalist world of a fairly grubby, police statey kind"). While most of the main characters are human, Mieville's world contains a fantastic array of strange and often unpleasant creatures, though some are friendly or at least able to interact peacefully with humans (indeed, one of the main characters in Perdido Street Station is a khepri, a being with a human body but a head that resembles a giant insect). Even among the latter, there are some of extremely unusual appearance, thanks to New Crobuzon's punishment factories, which remake convicted criminals in bizarre and often unpleasant ways, such as making them part machine, attaching useless appendages to them, and so forth. The resulting creatures, called Remade, are looked down and discriminated against by everyone else, even the lower classes. There is also plenty of magic (here called thaumaturgy), which often takes nastily destructive forms. Another point that shouldn't really be worthy of note but still is somewhat unusual in much literature today is that two of the the main protagonists are gay (actually bisexual in one case), though this probably shouldn't surprise readers of the first book, in which the two chief protagonists are in a relationship which, though heterosexual, is even less conventional, as one is human and the other is khepri. I highly recommend the Bas-Lag novels, though with the caveat that Mieville doesn't seem to believe in truly happy endings; at best, the worst evils may be averted and some of the protagonists may survive after having won an incomplete victory over the various forces of evil.
The Red Queen by Margaret Drabble
Margaret Drabble's The Red Queen is a mix of historical and modern fiction, with a dash of metafiction thrown in. The first half of the book is narrated by Lady Hyegyong, an actual historical figure who was born in 18th century Korea. As a child, she was selected to be the bride of the Crown Prince, and she survived intrigues, scandals, and the execution of her husband at the hand of his own father to see her son and grandson take the throne. She wrote four memoirs of her life, which I unfortunately haven't read (in fact I hadn't heard of her before – I must confess that I know less of Korea's history than I do of most other countries in the region), but which sound fascinating. In The Red Queen, however, she is relating her fictional fifth memoir in modern times, even though (as she mentions several times) she is long dead. Thus she mixes her narrative of her youth with very modern interpretations of the events. The second part of the book focuses on the woman that Lady Hyegyong calls her "ghostly envoy", the modern doctor who is in a sense possessed by her, having become fascinated after reading a translation of her memoirs while on the way to Seoul for a conference (a fascination shared by Drabble herself, who in a sense is Lady Hyegyong's real "ghostly envoy"). This part of the book obviously doesn't contain events to compare with those in Lady Hyegyong's life, but nevertheless there is one fairly dramatic and unexpected (despite some foreshadowing) occurrence towards the end. Interestingly, both the protagonists consider themselves to be rationalists and thus not big believers in the supernatural, and yet one is dead and the other is watched over not only by the first but also by guardian spirits. Despite this supernatural element, the book focuses more on psychology and human relations as well as Korean culture, making it very much a modern novel. Drabble herself makes an appearance in the last few pages of this unusual but very readable book.
The Stand by Stephen King
The Stand is one of Stephen King's longest and most epic novels, though it is not as massive as his Dark Tower series (actually the only other work by him I've read). The basic premise of the book is similar to that of George Stewart's Earth Abides, in which a plague wipes out most of humanity (and apparently King has said Stewart's book was an inspiration), though they take the idea in completely different directions. Though the first part of the book reads like post-apocalyptic science fiction, the supernatural soon makes an appearance (unsurprising, given that it's Stephen King), and the book becomes an epic struggle between good and evil (King was also inspired by The Lord of the Rings, a big influence on both this book and the Dark Tower books). This makes it a bit hard to characterize in terms of genre; it is sci-fi, horror and fantasy all in one. The horror elements come mainly from the very unpleasant symptoms of the superflu early in the book, the massive number of corpses scattered around in the subsequent part, and the diabolically nasty antagonist in the last half, but they are not overwhelming, so the book is enjoyable enough for those who aren't big fans of horror (like me). Having read this and the Dark Tower series, I can tell that King listens to a lot of classic rock, as a number of different songs are referenced in both works and one of the protagonists in this one is a R&B-influenced rock singer; he's a fan of Richard Adams and Watership Down, which is mentioned in both works; he often uses his home state of Maine as a setting (parts of both works take place there, though relatively brief parts overall); and he likes creating links between his various works (there are a number of connections not only between these two books but also with other novels he's written). In some ways the book hangs together better than the Dark Tower, which is a bit unwieldy in places, though even here there are certain inconsistencies and implausible moments (the former perhaps increased by King's frequent revisions – in the paperback edition that I read, the date of the story was changed somewhat from that in the original edition). But it is certainly an entertaining read, and it is understandable that, as King notes in his forward to the revised edition of the first Dark Tower novel, The Stand is the favorite of many of his readers, with only the Dark Tower rivaling it in the passionate devotion of its fans.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Congratulations to Liu Xiaobo (and a comment on WikiLeaks)
As most people who follow the news should be aware, this year's Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, who is currently being imprisoned by his government. China's hysterical reaction to the award simply helps prove to everyone with sense that they are still an oppressive authoritarian regime. They call Liu a criminal, when everyone knows his "crime" was only to openly call for a more open and democratic society. They put his wife and other relatives and friends under house arrest and prevent a long list of dissidents and relatives of dissidents from leaving the country in an effort to ensure that none of them can go to the award ceremony to accept the prize on Liu's behalf. This has only ensured that this will be the first time since Nazi Germany prevented 1935 recipient Carl von Ossietzky from traveling to accept the prize that the prize will not actually be given out at the ceremony. In other words, China has just ensured that they will be compared to the Nazis -- not entirely inappropriate in this case.
The most absurd thing though has been China's efforts to prevent other nations from attending the award ceremony. The majority of those invited (44 out of 65) have ignored China's threats and blandishments and official accepted invitations, but a number of countries have actually gone along (of course China, having no compunctions about telling outright lies in the interest of propaganda, claims that "the vast majority" of nations will not attend. Most of the 18 countries other than China that have said they are not attending are other authoritarian states, though there are one or two exceptions, such as the Philippines. Of course some countries had excuses which seemingly are unrelated to China, but one has to be dubious about them (if I were a Filipino, for instance, I would be strongly criticizing my government's kowtowing to China, no matter what lame excuse they offer).
It is also interesting to note that China seems genuinely incapable of believing that a prominent group like the Nobel committee could act independently of the government of the country where it is based (Norway). This is further evidence of their blinkered authoritarian mindset. Just because they make sure that any significant groups in China are under the control of the government, or at least unable to act publicly in a way blatantly contrary to its policies, they assume that the situation must be the same in all countries. Even if a group seems completely independent of the government, they assume the government must control it behind the scenes, because that's what they do with Chinese "non-governmental" organizations and such. Therefore, they persist in blaming the Norwegian government for the Nobel committee's selection, even though the government was not involved (though they no doubt agree with it, if they are sensible).
A few people may point to the irony that as Liu is being awarded the Nobel, many democratic governments are relentlessly pursuing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for what many argue is an exercise of free speech. There is indeed a certain degree of irony here, but aside from the fact that bad behavior by some nations does not in the remotest degree excuse similar or worse behavior by others, there are certain differences between Liu and Assange. Many of the attacks on Assange do indeed strike me as illegitimate persecution (as for claiming he is the equivalent of people like Osama bin Laden, that is beyond ridiculous), and WikiLeaks has done much that is good (they won an award from Amnesty International for exposing extrajudicial killings in Kenya). The way governments have tried to block WikiLeaks and many companies have cut ties to it (often under government pressure) before it or Assange have been convicted of any crime also violates due process. I have seen little evidence that anyone has come to any physical harm because of WikiLeaks' release of classified US cables or other documents, and in many ways the US has been asking for something like this to happen by classifying huge numbers of documents as secret even when they don't need to be, and giving huge numbers of people top security clearance, as pointed out in this article and this one.
However, I have mixed feelings about the publication of communications which, if not private in the usual sense (if close to a million people are allowed to access them, they aren’t all that private), are nevertheless sensitive in certain ways, and could potentially cause harm, if only in the form of hurt feelings (not entirely insignificant when we are talking about foreign leaders). For one thing, foreign officials who are mentioned by name candidly speaking about their own or other governments are much less likely to speak honestly to US officials in the future. WikiLeaks, with the help of some of the mainstream media it works with, has made an effort to redact the names of many sources and agents, but some critics claim they haven't done a sufficient job and have exposed some people. It's true that they offered to cooperate with the US government in making redactions, but were refused. Nevertheless, it is better to err on the side of caution in a case like this, and it's not clear that WikiLeaks has done so. Then there's the excuse given for Assange's arrest, namely the sexual assault he is accused of in Sweden. I haven't heard enough of the supposed details to know what to make of this, but it seems the sex may have been consensual and there was no force involved, though he is accused of refusing to use a condom when asked to do so, which, while not as bad as what most people think of as sexual assault, is still not good (if it is true). In a nutshell, there is some room for argument about the morality of Assange's actions, while there is nothing remotely immoral about Liu's, not to mention the degree of repression in Liu's case, extending even to his family members and friends, is greater, at least at this point.
Finally, no matter how hypocritical Western governments may be sometimes, that is absolutely no excuse for China and similar regimes to behave even worse. For a country like China to point to abuses or human rights violations committed by Western democracies whenever its human rights record is criticized is like someone saying "See, you beat your dog, so it's okay for me to beat my children." In the end, China's treatment of people like Liu Xiaobo is indefensible, no matter how they try to change the subject. We can only hope that one day those in charge will realize that they can't control their people's minds completely. Perhaps the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo will help bring that day closer.
The most absurd thing though has been China's efforts to prevent other nations from attending the award ceremony. The majority of those invited (44 out of 65) have ignored China's threats and blandishments and official accepted invitations, but a number of countries have actually gone along (of course China, having no compunctions about telling outright lies in the interest of propaganda, claims that "the vast majority" of nations will not attend. Most of the 18 countries other than China that have said they are not attending are other authoritarian states, though there are one or two exceptions, such as the Philippines. Of course some countries had excuses which seemingly are unrelated to China, but one has to be dubious about them (if I were a Filipino, for instance, I would be strongly criticizing my government's kowtowing to China, no matter what lame excuse they offer).
It is also interesting to note that China seems genuinely incapable of believing that a prominent group like the Nobel committee could act independently of the government of the country where it is based (Norway). This is further evidence of their blinkered authoritarian mindset. Just because they make sure that any significant groups in China are under the control of the government, or at least unable to act publicly in a way blatantly contrary to its policies, they assume that the situation must be the same in all countries. Even if a group seems completely independent of the government, they assume the government must control it behind the scenes, because that's what they do with Chinese "non-governmental" organizations and such. Therefore, they persist in blaming the Norwegian government for the Nobel committee's selection, even though the government was not involved (though they no doubt agree with it, if they are sensible).
A few people may point to the irony that as Liu is being awarded the Nobel, many democratic governments are relentlessly pursuing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for what many argue is an exercise of free speech. There is indeed a certain degree of irony here, but aside from the fact that bad behavior by some nations does not in the remotest degree excuse similar or worse behavior by others, there are certain differences between Liu and Assange. Many of the attacks on Assange do indeed strike me as illegitimate persecution (as for claiming he is the equivalent of people like Osama bin Laden, that is beyond ridiculous), and WikiLeaks has done much that is good (they won an award from Amnesty International for exposing extrajudicial killings in Kenya). The way governments have tried to block WikiLeaks and many companies have cut ties to it (often under government pressure) before it or Assange have been convicted of any crime also violates due process. I have seen little evidence that anyone has come to any physical harm because of WikiLeaks' release of classified US cables or other documents, and in many ways the US has been asking for something like this to happen by classifying huge numbers of documents as secret even when they don't need to be, and giving huge numbers of people top security clearance, as pointed out in this article and this one.
However, I have mixed feelings about the publication of communications which, if not private in the usual sense (if close to a million people are allowed to access them, they aren’t all that private), are nevertheless sensitive in certain ways, and could potentially cause harm, if only in the form of hurt feelings (not entirely insignificant when we are talking about foreign leaders). For one thing, foreign officials who are mentioned by name candidly speaking about their own or other governments are much less likely to speak honestly to US officials in the future. WikiLeaks, with the help of some of the mainstream media it works with, has made an effort to redact the names of many sources and agents, but some critics claim they haven't done a sufficient job and have exposed some people. It's true that they offered to cooperate with the US government in making redactions, but were refused. Nevertheless, it is better to err on the side of caution in a case like this, and it's not clear that WikiLeaks has done so. Then there's the excuse given for Assange's arrest, namely the sexual assault he is accused of in Sweden. I haven't heard enough of the supposed details to know what to make of this, but it seems the sex may have been consensual and there was no force involved, though he is accused of refusing to use a condom when asked to do so, which, while not as bad as what most people think of as sexual assault, is still not good (if it is true). In a nutshell, there is some room for argument about the morality of Assange's actions, while there is nothing remotely immoral about Liu's, not to mention the degree of repression in Liu's case, extending even to his family members and friends, is greater, at least at this point.
Finally, no matter how hypocritical Western governments may be sometimes, that is absolutely no excuse for China and similar regimes to behave even worse. For a country like China to point to abuses or human rights violations committed by Western democracies whenever its human rights record is criticized is like someone saying "See, you beat your dog, so it's okay for me to beat my children." In the end, China's treatment of people like Liu Xiaobo is indefensible, no matter how they try to change the subject. We can only hope that one day those in charge will realize that they can't control their people's minds completely. Perhaps the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo will help bring that day closer.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
A Blog Post for the Sake of Making a Blog Post
For the past week or so, I've been thinking that I need to post something on my blog. Not so much because there was something specific I wanted to talk about (though there are always things to talk about), but simply because I have only made one post this month, and I'd like to be a bit more consistent (usually I manage three posts a month, occasionally only two or as many as four). But up until last week I was busy working on my paper on Taiwanese aboriginal songwriter BaLiwakes, which I presented at a conference that was held in Taidong last week celebrating the hundredth anniversary of his birth (I suppose I could just post the paper itself, but it's in Chinese and anyway I still plan to eventually start a blog devoted specifically to music, which would be a more appropriate place for it). Since returning from Taidong I have been occupied with several translation jobs. Actually it's not true that I didn't have anything to post about; I'd like to do at least a cursory survey of the many books I've read since my last post on my recent reading, but that would take too long. So here it is, the end of the month, and all I can do is this little place filling post.
I suppose I could comment on the recent elections in Taiwan (they took place this past weekend), but as my only other post this month was on election results (in the US in that case), I don't really want to talk about them at length. Still, in the absence of any other quick topic coming to mind, a brief overview of them can serve. The election was for the mayors of the major urban centers of Taiwan (Taipei, Xinbei City [as Taipei County is soon to be rather pointlessly renamed], Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung), city councilors in those locations, and neighborhood heads (in Taiwan the smallest administrative division is the li, which is essentially a neighborhood). The results were mixed, with the DPP winning only two of the big races as opposed to three for the ruling KMT, including losses by their two heavyweight candidates in Taipei and Xinbei, which despite generally leaning toward the KMT (particularly true of Taipei) were considered to potential DPP gains. On the other hand, their candidate in Taichung came closer than expected, and they won easily in Tainan and Kaohsiung (the latter was particularly a relief, as the KMT candidate had the gall to criticize the incumbent mayor for inviting the Dalai Lama and allowing a film about Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer to be shown at a city government-sponsored film festival). They also elected the same number of city councilors as the KMT (130) and actually received a substantially higher share of the popular vote.
Results were mixed in other ways. A number of the worst candidates in the city council races lost, but a fair number got in (in our area a candidate with known gang ties running as an independent took the third of three seats after a massive advertising campaign that exceeded those of all other candidates in the area). None of the Green party candidates for city council came close to winning, but on the plus side they got more votes than in the past, and our local Green party candidate managed 7.5% of the vote, not too bad considering unlike the above-mentioned gangster-type (or to a slightly lesser extent the KMT and DPP candidates) he didn't have billboards, campaign flags, banners or ads on buses all over the place. He actually got almost half as many votes as the KMT candidate squeezed out by the gang-connected independent candidate (the other winners being another KMT candidate and a DPP candidate) and far outdistanced the other independent candidate (who didn't advertise much either, though he had a few flags up). So while there's still probably a long way to go before Taiwan starts electing candidates with little money but real principles like those of the Green party and a few independent candidates (not the gang-connected ones, obviously), maybe it'll happen someday.
A final interesting point about these elections is that some, particularly in the DPP, believe that the shooting the day before the election of the son of former KMT leader Lien Chan may have influenced the results in the KMT's favor (Lien Shengwen was shot in the face while campaigning for a KMT candidate; he was not injured as seriously as might be expected but a bystander was killed). Whether this is true or not is hard to say for certain, but since the KMT has often claimed the pre-election shooting of then-President Chen Shuibian in 2004 influenced that election in his favor, it's not unreasonable for the DPP to make the same claim.
Looks like the above summary of the Taiwanese election will have to serve as the main theme of my second post for this month. Hopefully I can make up for my slacking next month, and also get in one or two posts that aren't related to elections (three in a row is a bit much).
I suppose I could comment on the recent elections in Taiwan (they took place this past weekend), but as my only other post this month was on election results (in the US in that case), I don't really want to talk about them at length. Still, in the absence of any other quick topic coming to mind, a brief overview of them can serve. The election was for the mayors of the major urban centers of Taiwan (Taipei, Xinbei City [as Taipei County is soon to be rather pointlessly renamed], Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung), city councilors in those locations, and neighborhood heads (in Taiwan the smallest administrative division is the li, which is essentially a neighborhood). The results were mixed, with the DPP winning only two of the big races as opposed to three for the ruling KMT, including losses by their two heavyweight candidates in Taipei and Xinbei, which despite generally leaning toward the KMT (particularly true of Taipei) were considered to potential DPP gains. On the other hand, their candidate in Taichung came closer than expected, and they won easily in Tainan and Kaohsiung (the latter was particularly a relief, as the KMT candidate had the gall to criticize the incumbent mayor for inviting the Dalai Lama and allowing a film about Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer to be shown at a city government-sponsored film festival). They also elected the same number of city councilors as the KMT (130) and actually received a substantially higher share of the popular vote.
Results were mixed in other ways. A number of the worst candidates in the city council races lost, but a fair number got in (in our area a candidate with known gang ties running as an independent took the third of three seats after a massive advertising campaign that exceeded those of all other candidates in the area). None of the Green party candidates for city council came close to winning, but on the plus side they got more votes than in the past, and our local Green party candidate managed 7.5% of the vote, not too bad considering unlike the above-mentioned gangster-type (or to a slightly lesser extent the KMT and DPP candidates) he didn't have billboards, campaign flags, banners or ads on buses all over the place. He actually got almost half as many votes as the KMT candidate squeezed out by the gang-connected independent candidate (the other winners being another KMT candidate and a DPP candidate) and far outdistanced the other independent candidate (who didn't advertise much either, though he had a few flags up). So while there's still probably a long way to go before Taiwan starts electing candidates with little money but real principles like those of the Green party and a few independent candidates (not the gang-connected ones, obviously), maybe it'll happen someday.
A final interesting point about these elections is that some, particularly in the DPP, believe that the shooting the day before the election of the son of former KMT leader Lien Chan may have influenced the results in the KMT's favor (Lien Shengwen was shot in the face while campaigning for a KMT candidate; he was not injured as seriously as might be expected but a bystander was killed). Whether this is true or not is hard to say for certain, but since the KMT has often claimed the pre-election shooting of then-President Chen Shuibian in 2004 influenced that election in his favor, it's not unreasonable for the DPP to make the same claim.
Looks like the above summary of the Taiwanese election will have to serve as the main theme of my second post for this month. Hopefully I can make up for my slacking next month, and also get in one or two posts that aren't related to elections (three in a row is a bit much).
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
2010 Election Recap
I've been intending to do a recap of the US election for the past couple of weeks, but I was too busy doing a paper on a completely different topic (the songs of a Taiwanese aboriginal songwriter named Baliwakes). It shouldn't surprise anyone that my general feeling about the election is one of disgust, similar to seeing Israel elect a Likud government or seeing La Pen come in second in a French presidential election. Not that the Democrats are all that great; a lot of them are blatantly self-interested and have taken foolish positions (such as opposing a public option or a carbon tax). But the Republican candidates were in almost every case clearly worse, at least in terms of their stated positions on key issues like the environment, budgetary policy, health care, and so forth, and in many places around the US people still elected them. The elections were widely seen as a referendum on Obama's policies (though exit polls shows votes didn't necessarily prefer the Republicans' policies by any significant margin) or his perceived failure to improve the economy. But his policies, while far from perfect, have not been that bad, though he sometimes compromised on their implementation so much that the results were mixed, and as for the economy, only the ignorant could have expected any president to turn it around completely in a space of two years, considering the state it was in when he was elected. But then the ignorant are unfortunately fairly numerous, in the US as elsewhere.
Still, this result was expected, and it could have been worse. Not only did the Republicans fail to win control of the Senate, but some of their most extreme candidates lost. O'Donnell was expected to lose (that even a sizable minority voted for her is bad enough) but Buck in Colorado, Angle in Nevada and Fiorina in California all were close or even ahead in pre-election polls. As bad as the overall results were, it's consoling to note that the candidates I specifically named in my previous post as ones who shouldn't be elected as senators were not actually elected. But even in the Senate, there were some bad results -- how Wisconsin voters could pick Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold is beyond me. And one or two of the winning Democrats aren't all that great either -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia took a gun to the carbon cap and trade bill in an ad, sucking up to both the NRA and the coal industry in one stroke (though the Republican would no doubt have been still worse).
In Texas, the results were even more overwhelmingly bad than they were nationwide. Not one of the candidates I voted for came even close to winning. I ended up voting for Bill White for governor, which I regret, not only because he lost by a substantial margin, but also because I still think in principle it's better to vote for the candidate you agree with most (in this case Deb Shafto) even if they have no chance of winning. At least the Green candidate for comptroller got over 5% of the vote, guaranteeing the Green Party a place on the ballot next time (I know this will not make all Democrats happy, as they think -- rightly in most cases -- that Greens will take votes from Democrats, but I think people should have as many choices as possible). For that matter, as I noted in my pre-election post, it would have been a great day if even one of the candidates I voted for won. In other words, that they all lost is what I expected.
California, as has happened in the past, showed a bizarre mix of relatively sensible votes and considerably less sensible ones. They rejected the Republican CEO candidates for senator and governor, as well as an attempt by oil interests to block implementation of a law addressing climate change, but they also foolishly rejected the legalization of marijuana (a drug that is overall less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco). They got rid of the ridiculous, gridlock-inducing requirement that budgets be passed by a two-thirds majority in the legislature, but added a new one requiring the same supermajority for adding new fees, which added to the same absurdly high bar that was already in place for increasing taxes proves that Californians, like other Americans, also like to vote for calorie-free chocolate cake (see the link to Kinsley's piece below).
Nationally, what remains to be seen is how Obama will deal with the constraints placed on him by the Republican control of the House and their bigger minority in the Senate. Considering the Republicans' record over the past two years, I'm not too optimistic about the chance of anything much good getting done. Their rhetoric since the election hasn't given me any more hope. For example, we've already had self-appointed tea bag Republican Senate leader Jim DeMint claim that the deficit can be cut without touching Social Security or defense, as "hundreds of billions of dollars" can be saved by cutting "waste" elsewhere. One has to wonder if he is knowingly spouting nonsense, has a very odd definition of waste, or is actually unaware of the real numbers in the budgets he's been voting on over the last six years (the total for all non-defense discretionary spending is only $530 billion dollars, so to save hundreds of billions out of that you'd have to cut nearly everything). But at the least I hope Obama can find ways to get it across to the public that the Republicans are the ones standing in the way of finding real solutions to problems, solutions that benefit the majority, not a privileged few.
Here are some interesting links from the past few weeks that relating closely or distantly to the American political situation:
U.S. is not greatest country ever by Michael Kinsley
I Still Love Obama. Love. Love. Love. by Curtis Sittenfeld
Mugged by the Moralizers by Paul Krugman
We Are All Juan Williams: Associating minorities with crime is irrational, unjust, and completely normal. by Shankar Vedantam
Still, this result was expected, and it could have been worse. Not only did the Republicans fail to win control of the Senate, but some of their most extreme candidates lost. O'Donnell was expected to lose (that even a sizable minority voted for her is bad enough) but Buck in Colorado, Angle in Nevada and Fiorina in California all were close or even ahead in pre-election polls. As bad as the overall results were, it's consoling to note that the candidates I specifically named in my previous post as ones who shouldn't be elected as senators were not actually elected. But even in the Senate, there were some bad results -- how Wisconsin voters could pick Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold is beyond me. And one or two of the winning Democrats aren't all that great either -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia took a gun to the carbon cap and trade bill in an ad, sucking up to both the NRA and the coal industry in one stroke (though the Republican would no doubt have been still worse).
In Texas, the results were even more overwhelmingly bad than they were nationwide. Not one of the candidates I voted for came even close to winning. I ended up voting for Bill White for governor, which I regret, not only because he lost by a substantial margin, but also because I still think in principle it's better to vote for the candidate you agree with most (in this case Deb Shafto) even if they have no chance of winning. At least the Green candidate for comptroller got over 5% of the vote, guaranteeing the Green Party a place on the ballot next time (I know this will not make all Democrats happy, as they think -- rightly in most cases -- that Greens will take votes from Democrats, but I think people should have as many choices as possible). For that matter, as I noted in my pre-election post, it would have been a great day if even one of the candidates I voted for won. In other words, that they all lost is what I expected.
California, as has happened in the past, showed a bizarre mix of relatively sensible votes and considerably less sensible ones. They rejected the Republican CEO candidates for senator and governor, as well as an attempt by oil interests to block implementation of a law addressing climate change, but they also foolishly rejected the legalization of marijuana (a drug that is overall less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco). They got rid of the ridiculous, gridlock-inducing requirement that budgets be passed by a two-thirds majority in the legislature, but added a new one requiring the same supermajority for adding new fees, which added to the same absurdly high bar that was already in place for increasing taxes proves that Californians, like other Americans, also like to vote for calorie-free chocolate cake (see the link to Kinsley's piece below).
Nationally, what remains to be seen is how Obama will deal with the constraints placed on him by the Republican control of the House and their bigger minority in the Senate. Considering the Republicans' record over the past two years, I'm not too optimistic about the chance of anything much good getting done. Their rhetoric since the election hasn't given me any more hope. For example, we've already had self-appointed tea bag Republican Senate leader Jim DeMint claim that the deficit can be cut without touching Social Security or defense, as "hundreds of billions of dollars" can be saved by cutting "waste" elsewhere. One has to wonder if he is knowingly spouting nonsense, has a very odd definition of waste, or is actually unaware of the real numbers in the budgets he's been voting on over the last six years (the total for all non-defense discretionary spending is only $530 billion dollars, so to save hundreds of billions out of that you'd have to cut nearly everything). But at the least I hope Obama can find ways to get it across to the public that the Republicans are the ones standing in the way of finding real solutions to problems, solutions that benefit the majority, not a privileged few.
Here are some interesting links from the past few weeks that relating closely or distantly to the American political situation:
U.S. is not greatest country ever by Michael Kinsley
I Still Love Obama. Love. Love. Love. by Curtis Sittenfeld
Mugged by the Moralizers by Paul Krugman
We Are All Juan Williams: Associating minorities with crime is irrational, unjust, and completely normal. by Shankar Vedantam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
