The first American medal of the Olympics is a gold by...fencer Mariel Zagunis. Mariel is from my hometown of Beaverton, Oregon (as is the silver medalist) and also a student at Notre Dame. Now lets get a few more golds and beat China in the medal count!
Update: Phelps is still on track (thanks to the sizzling leg by Jason Lezak) after the US 4x100 nipped the Alain Bernard led-French. In a related story, after the race the entire French team grabbed white towels and surrendered. I hate it when people make bad French jokes but there I go.
Damn, Tyson Gay, what happend? He runs a 9.68 with wind in the Olympic Trials then drops it in the 100m semifinals. Then again there was no way he could have taken Usain Bolt. I mean that's just inhuman, no that's too gentle. What Usain Bolt did tonight is impossible, he ran below 9.7 seconds for a 100m. Good God. So far the US has done poorly in track, Tyson Gay bows out (but Walter Dix got bronze in the 100m) and two US shot putters crashed in the shot put, we need to get some golds here (although I give huge props to Shalene Flanagan in the 10k).
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Part 2 China and American politics
This is a little bit of a departure from my usual posts so if you don’t want to read my opinions on current events check back in a few days when something interesting happens to me. This post and the one below are about two things that interest me a lot: American politics and China. And just a heads up, they are pretty long, so read at your own risk.
I’ll start with China first since it’s the Olympics (on a side note, watching the opening ceremony live was sweet). In the recent months there has been a great deal of ink spilled about how to approach the Chinese given a less than stellar human rights record, the riots in Tibet, and countless other issues. At the same time, there has been a ton of ink spilled about the massive transformation that has made China increasingly prosperous to the point that it is now the second largest market for GM in the world. The question is how are we to respond to these dual realities of a rapidly growing power that may not share our values?
Well you do it carefully. For one thing, an Olympic boycott is the wrong way to do so. When I studied in Beijing three years ago people were bursting with pride then that they could hold the Olympics, it was, to the Chinese, a symbol of national pride as it showed they had arrived as a power on the world stage. And from my friends in the city now I am told that pride has only grown. The pride is in part due to nationalism. China has a long history in modern times of being subjugated by the West and they still (rightly) see themselves as lagging behind the West in development (this actually poses a dual reality where they envy the West for its current developed state and even look up to Westerners in China but are uneasy and even angry with the past actions of the West towards their country).
This nationalism is what led to the harsh reaction and outright rejection of my Chinese to Western demands during the Tibetan riots. If your country went from being a undeveloped backwater that relied on farming and crushed individual thought in the 70’s to being one of the most rapidly growing countries in the world that has lifted millions from poverty and given almost everyone a chance to make money and get ahead (and in doing so solved incredible problems) in such a short time you would be proud too. Moreover, while China is by no means a liberal democracy they have increasingly given their citizens freedom of expression and they no longer intrude on their personal lives (formerly functions such as marriage , having kids, eating, healthcare, school, and work were all controlled by your work unit and this is no more). So for the Chinese they feel increasingly free.
Hence, when we in the West think the citizens are brainwashed and the government is a bunch of thugs (to be sure there are thugs galore but due to the fractured nature of politics in China where there is a great deal of power at the lower levels and little oversight) as CNN has stated, this elicits a strong response. While the Chinese may not be free in the Western sense they are by no means brainwashed. The Chinese take the Lee Kwan Yew approach and argue for more collective “Asian rights” but this is another debate for another time.
So how do we deal with China? First, we need to understand them. I can assure you they understand us much better than we understand them. I recall a Chinese person questioning me in detail about the workings of the American political system and parties while I was in Beijing. Now ask yourself, just how much do you know about the Chinese political structure? Second, we cannot dismiss them as being brainwashed robots or the government as incompetent (you don’t grow 10% a year for close to 20 years by being incompetent). Third, we need to find ways to collectively embrace China and give them a stake in world affairs. If they are given more say in the WTO and other organizations and can help to make some of the rules they will be more inclined to constructively participate internationally. At the same time, we cannot assume that China is innocuous and must keep a strong military presence as the stick to the carrot provided by an international embrace. But the largest challenge we will face is that of resources. When we stress conservation the Chinese say why can we, the nation that uses more resources than anyone else, tell them to conserve when the mark of growing wealth is buying things? To this I have no answer except to set an example ourselves and use less, especially in the case of oil this means finding an alternative source of energy.
Shutting ourselves off from China, blaming them for outsourcing, or accusing their government of being rotten to the core are easy responses. But they do not account for nationalism and the increasing role that China plays in the world. If we are to live in peace with the Chinese, which is by no means assured, we have to accept a Chinese role in the world and work to improve our relations because Chinese clout will only continue to grow.
Further this means accepting the fact the globalization is here and that we only hurt ourselves by trying to hide from its force. Globalization poses challenges and opportunities. The sooner we accept the challenge of resource pressures, improving healthcare, and improving education the sooner we can take advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization. To paraphrase Thomas Friedman, there is a parable in Africa that says “Everyday a lion wakes up and knows that it must outrun the fastest gazelle or it will starve and everyday a gazelle wakes up and knows that it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. It doesn’t matter who you are, when the sun comes up you better be running.” I don’t know if the US is the lion or gazelle but what I do know is China is running awfully fast and the sooner we address that the better shape we’ll be in.
I’ll start with China first since it’s the Olympics (on a side note, watching the opening ceremony live was sweet). In the recent months there has been a great deal of ink spilled about how to approach the Chinese given a less than stellar human rights record, the riots in Tibet, and countless other issues. At the same time, there has been a ton of ink spilled about the massive transformation that has made China increasingly prosperous to the point that it is now the second largest market for GM in the world. The question is how are we to respond to these dual realities of a rapidly growing power that may not share our values?
Well you do it carefully. For one thing, an Olympic boycott is the wrong way to do so. When I studied in Beijing three years ago people were bursting with pride then that they could hold the Olympics, it was, to the Chinese, a symbol of national pride as it showed they had arrived as a power on the world stage. And from my friends in the city now I am told that pride has only grown. The pride is in part due to nationalism. China has a long history in modern times of being subjugated by the West and they still (rightly) see themselves as lagging behind the West in development (this actually poses a dual reality where they envy the West for its current developed state and even look up to Westerners in China but are uneasy and even angry with the past actions of the West towards their country).
This nationalism is what led to the harsh reaction and outright rejection of my Chinese to Western demands during the Tibetan riots. If your country went from being a undeveloped backwater that relied on farming and crushed individual thought in the 70’s to being one of the most rapidly growing countries in the world that has lifted millions from poverty and given almost everyone a chance to make money and get ahead (and in doing so solved incredible problems) in such a short time you would be proud too. Moreover, while China is by no means a liberal democracy they have increasingly given their citizens freedom of expression and they no longer intrude on their personal lives (formerly functions such as marriage , having kids, eating, healthcare, school, and work were all controlled by your work unit and this is no more). So for the Chinese they feel increasingly free.
Hence, when we in the West think the citizens are brainwashed and the government is a bunch of thugs (to be sure there are thugs galore but due to the fractured nature of politics in China where there is a great deal of power at the lower levels and little oversight) as CNN has stated, this elicits a strong response. While the Chinese may not be free in the Western sense they are by no means brainwashed. The Chinese take the Lee Kwan Yew approach and argue for more collective “Asian rights” but this is another debate for another time.
So how do we deal with China? First, we need to understand them. I can assure you they understand us much better than we understand them. I recall a Chinese person questioning me in detail about the workings of the American political system and parties while I was in Beijing. Now ask yourself, just how much do you know about the Chinese political structure? Second, we cannot dismiss them as being brainwashed robots or the government as incompetent (you don’t grow 10% a year for close to 20 years by being incompetent). Third, we need to find ways to collectively embrace China and give them a stake in world affairs. If they are given more say in the WTO and other organizations and can help to make some of the rules they will be more inclined to constructively participate internationally. At the same time, we cannot assume that China is innocuous and must keep a strong military presence as the stick to the carrot provided by an international embrace. But the largest challenge we will face is that of resources. When we stress conservation the Chinese say why can we, the nation that uses more resources than anyone else, tell them to conserve when the mark of growing wealth is buying things? To this I have no answer except to set an example ourselves and use less, especially in the case of oil this means finding an alternative source of energy.
Shutting ourselves off from China, blaming them for outsourcing, or accusing their government of being rotten to the core are easy responses. But they do not account for nationalism and the increasing role that China plays in the world. If we are to live in peace with the Chinese, which is by no means assured, we have to accept a Chinese role in the world and work to improve our relations because Chinese clout will only continue to grow.
Further this means accepting the fact the globalization is here and that we only hurt ourselves by trying to hide from its force. Globalization poses challenges and opportunities. The sooner we accept the challenge of resource pressures, improving healthcare, and improving education the sooner we can take advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization. To paraphrase Thomas Friedman, there is a parable in Africa that says “Everyday a lion wakes up and knows that it must outrun the fastest gazelle or it will starve and everyday a gazelle wakes up and knows that it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. It doesn’t matter who you are, when the sun comes up you better be running.” I don’t know if the US is the lion or gazelle but what I do know is China is running awfully fast and the sooner we address that the better shape we’ll be in.
Part 1: China and American politics
Changing gears, I’m now going to shift to the presidential election. I want to look at two points, why are politics so much more polarized now and how that connects to why I vote.
Going back to about 1900 the voter turnout was close to 100%. Why? Well elections were a literal party, there would be wagons to pick you up and take you to the polls then you could go have a sweet party and get liquored up with all of the supporters of your party. Moreover, since the parties controlled their candidates with iron fists you knew exactly what candidate X would do in office. Now the downside was that your vote was not secret and if you voted the wrong way (i.e. against your party) you would risk losing your job, your house, and public services the party provided for you. This meant you voted not for good ideas but for a cool party and to keep the good times rolling for yourself.
Then during the Progressive Era this was stopped and political parties weakened so that elections became centered on candidates and not the party itself. Since that time, voter turnout has begun to fall drastically. As candidates gained more freedom from party constraints they had less incentive to follow the party line. Currently, candidates are more than willing to take money from their party but more than willing to disagree with it on many issues (see Southern Democrats for an example). The downside to this was that now it became much more difficult to find what a candidate believed, in the past the party dictated the platform and if the candidate disagreed or voted against it they were gone. Now to find it you have to research and even then the candidate may not stay true to their promises.
The time associated with deciphering political positions deterred many people from doing it. As such, we have come to rely increasingly on tv for our information (hence attack ads become more effective with the little research people do, and tv is expensive so this requires more money to reach voters, which means candidates need more fundraisers to do so). The impact of low turnout has been felt among the median voters the most. Most political scientists believe the electorate looks like a bell shaped curve with most of the population falling in the middle. These people are the biggest percentage but also the least likely to be attached to a certain party or issue and therefore see less reason to go out and vote (negative ads are thus meant to keep these people away from the polls by disgusting them with both sides and this leaves mainly the hardcore supporters who turnout). See below.
Because candidates cannot count on as many median voters coming to the polls they have to play to their “base” or those on the small sides to the left and right of the curve. These are the people most likely to come out to vote (countless polls have showed this, since when you have an issue you are attached to you come out to vote while those in the middle who are less attached to issues are less likely to vote), to give money, and to work for a campaign. Since John Q candidate cannot be sure that people in the middle are coming to vote he has to spend more time with those on the wings. Thus, he moves his own positions to mirror the wings, which advantages more extreme candidates. And when in office he has less incentive to compromise issues such as abortion because he knows that if he does the people on the wings (who put him in office) will put him out of office.
This isn’t a grand conspiracy; to stay elected politicians have to use their limited time and resources on those most likely to come out to vote. As the most likely to vote have moved to the extremes, so have politicians. The downside is that this leaves out a lot of the population in the middle as politicians do not speak to the issues they are concerned with but instead concern themselves with the issues important to the wings of the party.
This explains the rise of Republicans in recent years. Republicans have relied heavily on evangelical churches to get out the vote and raise their cause. These churches are large and have much better organization than those on the left so they can get out the vote much better than the Democrats, which has led to the rise of abortion and opposition to gay marriage as major issues. This also explains the power of the NRA. By making it seem like the sky is falling they can get tons of people (on the right mostly) out to vote which means politicians have to increasingly respect their positions.
The result has led to fractured politics and the disinclination of politicians to compromise or reach across the aisle as they rely on extreme groups for continued support. Of course, these are the very things that tend to dissuade those in the middle from voting, which only continues the trend.
While I may no longer be a strong left winger like I once was (I am still a lefty though), this is part of why I vote. I figure that if only 25% of Americans graduate from a four year college, college being the institution that lets us gain the tools to better understand and research political issues, those of us who have been to college have a responsibility to vote. As for the way I vote, it’s always the Democratic ticket. I have never knowingly voted for a Republican, while you can chalk that up to me being liberal it is also since I believe that having people who are not on the extreme and consistently vote for a party is the best way to produce stronger parties and therefore bring issues important to most Americans back to the forefront.
So there you have it. If you want to decrease the polarization in politics today get out there and vote because you staying away is what they are counting on.
Well you made it to the end, thanks for reading and leave a comment so I know what you think.
Going back to about 1900 the voter turnout was close to 100%. Why? Well elections were a literal party, there would be wagons to pick you up and take you to the polls then you could go have a sweet party and get liquored up with all of the supporters of your party. Moreover, since the parties controlled their candidates with iron fists you knew exactly what candidate X would do in office. Now the downside was that your vote was not secret and if you voted the wrong way (i.e. against your party) you would risk losing your job, your house, and public services the party provided for you. This meant you voted not for good ideas but for a cool party and to keep the good times rolling for yourself.
Then during the Progressive Era this was stopped and political parties weakened so that elections became centered on candidates and not the party itself. Since that time, voter turnout has begun to fall drastically. As candidates gained more freedom from party constraints they had less incentive to follow the party line. Currently, candidates are more than willing to take money from their party but more than willing to disagree with it on many issues (see Southern Democrats for an example). The downside to this was that now it became much more difficult to find what a candidate believed, in the past the party dictated the platform and if the candidate disagreed or voted against it they were gone. Now to find it you have to research and even then the candidate may not stay true to their promises.
The time associated with deciphering political positions deterred many people from doing it. As such, we have come to rely increasingly on tv for our information (hence attack ads become more effective with the little research people do, and tv is expensive so this requires more money to reach voters, which means candidates need more fundraisers to do so). The impact of low turnout has been felt among the median voters the most. Most political scientists believe the electorate looks like a bell shaped curve with most of the population falling in the middle. These people are the biggest percentage but also the least likely to be attached to a certain party or issue and therefore see less reason to go out and vote (negative ads are thus meant to keep these people away from the polls by disgusting them with both sides and this leaves mainly the hardcore supporters who turnout). See below.
Because candidates cannot count on as many median voters coming to the polls they have to play to their “base” or those on the small sides to the left and right of the curve. These are the people most likely to come out to vote (countless polls have showed this, since when you have an issue you are attached to you come out to vote while those in the middle who are less attached to issues are less likely to vote), to give money, and to work for a campaign. Since John Q candidate cannot be sure that people in the middle are coming to vote he has to spend more time with those on the wings. Thus, he moves his own positions to mirror the wings, which advantages more extreme candidates. And when in office he has less incentive to compromise issues such as abortion because he knows that if he does the people on the wings (who put him in office) will put him out of office.
This isn’t a grand conspiracy; to stay elected politicians have to use their limited time and resources on those most likely to come out to vote. As the most likely to vote have moved to the extremes, so have politicians. The downside is that this leaves out a lot of the population in the middle as politicians do not speak to the issues they are concerned with but instead concern themselves with the issues important to the wings of the party.
This explains the rise of Republicans in recent years. Republicans have relied heavily on evangelical churches to get out the vote and raise their cause. These churches are large and have much better organization than those on the left so they can get out the vote much better than the Democrats, which has led to the rise of abortion and opposition to gay marriage as major issues. This also explains the power of the NRA. By making it seem like the sky is falling they can get tons of people (on the right mostly) out to vote which means politicians have to increasingly respect their positions.
The result has led to fractured politics and the disinclination of politicians to compromise or reach across the aisle as they rely on extreme groups for continued support. Of course, these are the very things that tend to dissuade those in the middle from voting, which only continues the trend.
While I may no longer be a strong left winger like I once was (I am still a lefty though), this is part of why I vote. I figure that if only 25% of Americans graduate from a four year college, college being the institution that lets us gain the tools to better understand and research political issues, those of us who have been to college have a responsibility to vote. As for the way I vote, it’s always the Democratic ticket. I have never knowingly voted for a Republican, while you can chalk that up to me being liberal it is also since I believe that having people who are not on the extreme and consistently vote for a party is the best way to produce stronger parties and therefore bring issues important to most Americans back to the forefront.
So there you have it. If you want to decrease the polarization in politics today get out there and vote because you staying away is what they are counting on.
Well you made it to the end, thanks for reading and leave a comment so I know what you think.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
情人節快樂!
Happy Valentine's Day that is. Today my coworker asked me this question in English, "Clint, today is a special day for Chinese people, do you know what it is?" I replied, "Um...Thursday." Well apparently that was the wrong answer and wasn't as funny to her as it was to me. Turns out, today is the Chinese Valentine's Day. Now I know.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Victory
Today I won one. I beat the heat. Of course, it may be a net loss since to do it I had to get up at 5AM. And beyond that after not running since I've come to Taiwan my form looked like crap. But I need to be more active so I'll have to make a deal with the devil and get up at 5 more often.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Two Old People
First, I was just at lunch in the company cafeteria and there is this old guy who works for the company. He is a baller. He is about 70 and still super spry and active. On top of that he has really good English and his technical vocabulary (in English) is beyond mine. But the real reason he's a baller is he has an awesome laugh and whenever he speaks English he laughs. For example, one night I had gone to dinner with him and as we walked out he commented to me that in this area (near my apartment) there were a lot of 辣妹 or "lamei" (literally means spicy sister but really means a hot chick). At first I didn't understand so he just goes "Spice Girl!" and laughs really hard.
Last night I really needed a beer considering I hadn't had any for my birthday so that meant I went to the one bar I've been to before. It's called Taiwan Beer Bar since it's attached to the Taiwan Beer Brewery and the beer is pretty cheap. Almost as good as cheap cold beers is the fact that on Friday nights they have a live cover band. So I headed over there to check things out and I was able to find myself a table. The thing was the only table open was pretty big so within a few minutes I was joined by a bunch of dudes just off of work and out for some beers.
They didn't say much to me at first but with a few beers and my Chinese we started talking and they shared their food with me. I nearly wanted to cry...Chinese food and beer. The only English they could say was "Good Friend!" and "Beer" which is good enough for me, I mean that's all you really need. Well all of a sudden this 50 year old drunk woman wants to do a cheers with me but I'm out of beer so she gives me a warm one that was at her table and half-finished and orders me to chug. And I chugged it. I thought that was the end of her as she went to the next table to have a conversation about world affairs with the guy and his girlfriend.
Then she comes back and tells me "dance!" I had no intention of dancing with a drunk 50 year old who was far from attractive so I said no thanks. Seeing a good chance for something funny to happen the dudes at the table pushed me out. Well the lady takes me to the girl she had been sitting with at the table and told me to dance with the girl. I was a little worried since the chick's boyfriend is there and I told the old lady this. After a half-hearted dance (no one else in the bar was dancing), I sat back down until the old lady dragged the girl over to me.
Well after the initial awkwardness it was all good. The guy she was with was a childhood friend of hers. And after a few jokes about the old lady, the girl actually turned out to be pretty cool. In the end, I got a number out of it so it was a pretty good night, thanks to the drunk 50 year old.
Last night I really needed a beer considering I hadn't had any for my birthday so that meant I went to the one bar I've been to before. It's called Taiwan Beer Bar since it's attached to the Taiwan Beer Brewery and the beer is pretty cheap. Almost as good as cheap cold beers is the fact that on Friday nights they have a live cover band. So I headed over there to check things out and I was able to find myself a table. The thing was the only table open was pretty big so within a few minutes I was joined by a bunch of dudes just off of work and out for some beers.
They didn't say much to me at first but with a few beers and my Chinese we started talking and they shared their food with me. I nearly wanted to cry...Chinese food and beer. The only English they could say was "Good Friend!" and "Beer" which is good enough for me, I mean that's all you really need. Well all of a sudden this 50 year old drunk woman wants to do a cheers with me but I'm out of beer so she gives me a warm one that was at her table and half-finished and orders me to chug. And I chugged it. I thought that was the end of her as she went to the next table to have a conversation about world affairs with the guy and his girlfriend.
Then she comes back and tells me "dance!" I had no intention of dancing with a drunk 50 year old who was far from attractive so I said no thanks. Seeing a good chance for something funny to happen the dudes at the table pushed me out. Well the lady takes me to the girl she had been sitting with at the table and told me to dance with the girl. I was a little worried since the chick's boyfriend is there and I told the old lady this. After a half-hearted dance (no one else in the bar was dancing), I sat back down until the old lady dragged the girl over to me.
Well after the initial awkwardness it was all good. The guy she was with was a childhood friend of hers. And after a few jokes about the old lady, the girl actually turned out to be pretty cool. In the end, I got a number out of it so it was a pretty good night, thanks to the drunk 50 year old.
Growing Up
First, I have to say congratulations to Matt and Amy on their great news. It always amazes me that people my age can get married not to mention have a kid. But that's mainly since I have the mind of a rabbit in heat. That said, its kind of sad for me to hear new like this since it truly means that I'm growing up. I mean I have a full time job, my best friend is leaving for two months with the US Coast Guard to protect our country, and Amy has one in the oven. Man, I feel old all of a sudden. Then I look around my office and see that I'm still the youngest one here, thank God!
Less related to growing up is what I brought back from Thailand...thankfully not AIDS. No, when I was at lunch with a customer we talked about music and I asked if she liked Thai or American music. Here response was both, and I asked what American music she liked. She responded "Allison Kraus." Well I have some on my ipod (ok so I have two live CD's worth) but never really listened to much beyond "Man of constant sorrow." So when I came back I started listened to all of it and its pretty awesome. So even though I still love Less Than Jake and the Dandy Warhols with a passion I have to tip my hat to bluegrass too.
Less related to growing up is what I brought back from Thailand...thankfully not AIDS. No, when I was at lunch with a customer we talked about music and I asked if she liked Thai or American music. Here response was both, and I asked what American music she liked. She responded "Allison Kraus." Well I have some on my ipod (ok so I have two live CD's worth) but never really listened to much beyond "Man of constant sorrow." So when I came back I started listened to all of it and its pretty awesome. So even though I still love Less Than Jake and the Dandy Warhols with a passion I have to tip my hat to bluegrass too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
