Editor's Note: Yes, I know the opening ceremonies have already occurred in Beijing. However, they have yet to air on television in the United States. Hence, to most people, they have yet to transpire.
In a matter of hours, the Olympics will officially kick off here in America. As per usual, viewers will be deluged by the scenes of pageantry, camaraderie and egalitarianism that the Olympics are hypothetically said to represent. Amidst soothing oration from Bob Costas detailing the harmonious spirit that pervades the game, viewers will be treated to an evening of pomp and circumstance, replete with the artificial symbols the Chinese officials will undoubtedly utilize to emphasize the sanctimony and collectivity of the Olympic ideal.
As one watches this orgy of lofty symbolism and rhetoric of justice and equality, let's not forget how China has transformed itself into a city purportedly worthy of hosting the Olympics. This metamorphosis has come by systemic discrimination, environmental degradation, and a fundamental disregard for human dignity. Here are just a few examples of China's wanton rejection of the human rights that are supposedly endemic to the Olympic spirit:
1. China has been engaged in a systematic and brutal repression of Tibet since the former invaded in 1949. More than 6,000 Tibetan monasteries have been destroyed in the last 58 years, with only a few to be rebuilt. Numerous internal reports have also detailed the despicable abuse the PRC has perpetuated on the women and children of Tibet, a practice which included a 1994 death of a Tibetan nun reportedly due to beating at the hands of guards.
The Chinese government has implemented a policy that amounts to cultural genocide in Tibet. From importing thousands of ethnic Chinese into the Tibetan lands, to forbidding the Tibetans to practice their religion, the Beijing has made a concerted effort to stifle the symbols and practices that define Tibetan cultural.
2. The Chinese government is a frequent practitioner of arbitrary detention. Though it sounds somewhat benign, arbitrary detention actually entails labor camps and imprisonment for long periods of time. According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the People's Republic of China (PRC) utilizes these nefarious forms of detention "for political and cultural rehabilitation." PRC estimates, which are likely to be on the low end, say that there are than 100,000 people in the "re-education camps."
3. Dissidents in China are treated with an iron fist, and are often imprisoned, or even murdered, simply for exercising their fundamental right as a human being to liberty and dignity. The list of activists persecuted simply for pursuing reparations, or fair treatment for the downtrodden and poor are too many to list in this space. However, here a are merely a few of these courageous folks who have been subjected to heinous treatment, simply for campaigning for justice
Housing rights activist Ye Guozhu has been detained, and tortured via electric shock batons, simply for protesting the spate of forced evictions that the government instituted to free up space for Olympic construction.
Activist Hu Jia was recently sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison for "inciting subversion." What exactly did Hu do that was subversive? He participated in a European Union parliamentary hearing on how China has failed to live up to their human rights promises. He also was cited for "giving interviews to foreign media outlets", according to Amnesty International.
Doesn't it seem farcical that a government that imprisons citizens for speaking to foreign media outlets is allowed the right to host the most prestigious athletic competition in the world?
4. Censorship is rampant in the PRC of 2008. Sites from amnesty.org (the official website of Amnesty International) to the BBC are censored by the state. Information, no matter how factually correct it may be, is constantly taken away from the upwards of 250 million Internet users on the Mainland. Though this is hardly as egregious as some of the other abuses, censorship is nevertheless antithetical to the Olympic spirit.
5. And last, but surely not least, is the despicable manner that the PRC has dealt with the Falun Gong sect. The government continues to persecute and torture those Falun Gong members as the latter attempts to worship in peace and tranquility. Bu Dongwei, a Falun Gong practicing, was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison simply for having Falun Gong literature in his possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, freedom of religion, association, speech and information are thoroughly vitiated in China. The violations listed above are but a mere few of what is a veritable compendium that the Chinese government has compiled, even after they promised improvements after being awarded the Olympics in 2001. In fact, Amnesty International reports that on an aggregate level, the human rights situation in China has actually deteriorated since they were given the Olympics.
Given this, one must take tonight's ceremony for what it truly is: a despotic, autocratic regime putting on an elaborate ruse designed to convince the world that they have even a modicum of respect for human rights and social justice.
The IOC was fooled by the PRC's promises that they would modify their intransigent behavior. I hope that when you watch the gallantry and pomp of tonight's Opening Ceremony, you won't be utterly fooled like they were.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Lesson of the Oil Drilling Debate
Officially, Congress is on a five week recess.
And yet, inside the decorous chambers, insurgent House Republicans remain, pledging to stay ensconced within the chamber until they sufficiently embarrass House Democrats, or force them come to back into session.
Gleeful reports emanate daily from conservative publications imploring these "true Americans" to fight on, no matter the cost. For the first time during this political season, it even appears that the GOP has an issue that may catalyze the electorate in their favor. And boy have they attempted to capitalize on it, facts be damned!
In fact, the fervor with which these lawmakers have shown during the nascent debate leads one to believe they consider it almost their own Alamo.
But instead of protecting Americans from Santa Anna's army, these "patriots" fulsomely claim to be protecting all of America from the cripple of gas prices. According to this claque of Republicans, the continental oil drilling that they presently remain in Washington to support is both the panacea and the last bastion that we have against the rising tide of astronomical energy prices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what exactly has inspired these Republicans to eschew their beloved vacations, and stay instead to advocate for continental oil drilling?
Given their propensity for 2 day work weeks while in the majority, it certainly can't be a pure love of legislating.
As aforementioned, their commandant George W. Bush has deserted them in favor of a luxury box at the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, so he obviously can't be the forerunner of this protest. Incessant campaigning on behalf of drilling also prevents days of valuable campaigning in battleground districts.
And nevertheless, the Republicans remain, despite the litany of risks because they are buoyed by a tide of public opinion in favor of drilling. Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from a majority to even as much as 70 percent of Americans support the idea of expanding drilling on the continental shelf.
It appears that the public sentiment, for once, is the sole ferment that led to the Republicans putting on this fanciful, although ultimately inconsequential protest.
The title of the post references a pivotal lesson to be gleaned from this debate, and this specifically arises from these public opinion polls:
The public still has not learned their lesson about the deceit of the Republicans, even after 8 years of Bush rule.
Amazingly, after all of the tomfoolery and deceit that has been evinced by the Bush Administration, and their Congressional lackeys, the public still manages to fall for their scams. Inexplicably, the public has yet to realize that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican policies. That the party itself is bankrupt of ideas has mysteriously yet to dawn on the majority of Americans.
As most experts note, offshore drilling will not produce tangible economic results for 15 years, at the very earliest, and yet the GOP can mount a successful public relations campaign by focusing on that illusory solution. They can only do so because the public, who is normally blase, or even disdainful towards politics as a whole, is foolish and complicit enough to endorse their piecemeal, ineffectual solution. Even after 8 years of lost wages, decreasing public services and a drastic heightening of societal inequality, the electorate as a whole still cannot see through the duplicity of Republican policies.
The propensity of voters to fall the canard the Republicans are currently shamelessly selling has been a hallmark of the Bush years, and it has in large part, led to the troublesome situation in which we now face. As Thomas Frank so eloquently put it in What's the Matter with Kansas? voters responded to having their jobs outsourced to the third world by fervently promising to endorse a cut in corporate tax rate.
And, on and on it goes for these dimwitted souls, who torpedo any sort of reform that would require a mere modicum of sacrifice with their uninformed decisions which are all too susceptible to the soundbite political messages espoused by the Republicans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, politicians foremost goals are to keep their jobs, not to propagate necessary and beneficial policies upon our society. Because of this, public pressure is often perversely successful at dictating public policy, irrespective of the long term consequences that policy may cause.
Barack Obama has already started to crack under the increasing pressure, as evidenced by his recent shift towards a limited endorsement of off shore drilling. Expect Congressional Democrats, who have hitherto resisted the heat, to eventually cave as well, if the concerted pressure from the Republicans, who purport to speak for the public, continues.
If that were to occur, those of us who have the perspicacity to see that offshore drilling is a fool's errand at best, and an environmental disaster in waiting at worst, will end up yet again forced to deal with the consequences of the misinformed majority.
That being the case, it got me to wondering: Is there any way to make a political efficacy test a prerequisite for voting??
And yet, inside the decorous chambers, insurgent House Republicans remain, pledging to stay ensconced within the chamber until they sufficiently embarrass House Democrats, or force them come to back into session.
Gleeful reports emanate daily from conservative publications imploring these "true Americans" to fight on, no matter the cost. For the first time during this political season, it even appears that the GOP has an issue that may catalyze the electorate in their favor. And boy have they attempted to capitalize on it, facts be damned!
In fact, the fervor with which these lawmakers have shown during the nascent debate leads one to believe they consider it almost their own Alamo.
But instead of protecting Americans from Santa Anna's army, these "patriots" fulsomely claim to be protecting all of America from the cripple of gas prices. According to this claque of Republicans, the continental oil drilling that they presently remain in Washington to support is both the panacea and the last bastion that we have against the rising tide of astronomical energy prices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what exactly has inspired these Republicans to eschew their beloved vacations, and stay instead to advocate for continental oil drilling?
Given their propensity for 2 day work weeks while in the majority, it certainly can't be a pure love of legislating.
As aforementioned, their commandant George W. Bush has deserted them in favor of a luxury box at the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, so he obviously can't be the forerunner of this protest. Incessant campaigning on behalf of drilling also prevents days of valuable campaigning in battleground districts.
And nevertheless, the Republicans remain, despite the litany of risks because they are buoyed by a tide of public opinion in favor of drilling. Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from a majority to even as much as 70 percent of Americans support the idea of expanding drilling on the continental shelf.
It appears that the public sentiment, for once, is the sole ferment that led to the Republicans putting on this fanciful, although ultimately inconsequential protest.
The title of the post references a pivotal lesson to be gleaned from this debate, and this specifically arises from these public opinion polls:
The public still has not learned their lesson about the deceit of the Republicans, even after 8 years of Bush rule.
Amazingly, after all of the tomfoolery and deceit that has been evinced by the Bush Administration, and their Congressional lackeys, the public still manages to fall for their scams. Inexplicably, the public has yet to realize that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican policies. That the party itself is bankrupt of ideas has mysteriously yet to dawn on the majority of Americans.
As most experts note, offshore drilling will not produce tangible economic results for 15 years, at the very earliest, and yet the GOP can mount a successful public relations campaign by focusing on that illusory solution. They can only do so because the public, who is normally blase, or even disdainful towards politics as a whole, is foolish and complicit enough to endorse their piecemeal, ineffectual solution. Even after 8 years of lost wages, decreasing public services and a drastic heightening of societal inequality, the electorate as a whole still cannot see through the duplicity of Republican policies.
The propensity of voters to fall the canard the Republicans are currently shamelessly selling has been a hallmark of the Bush years, and it has in large part, led to the troublesome situation in which we now face. As Thomas Frank so eloquently put it in What's the Matter with Kansas? voters responded to having their jobs outsourced to the third world by fervently promising to endorse a cut in corporate tax rate.
And, on and on it goes for these dimwitted souls, who torpedo any sort of reform that would require a mere modicum of sacrifice with their uninformed decisions which are all too susceptible to the soundbite political messages espoused by the Republicans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, politicians foremost goals are to keep their jobs, not to propagate necessary and beneficial policies upon our society. Because of this, public pressure is often perversely successful at dictating public policy, irrespective of the long term consequences that policy may cause.
Barack Obama has already started to crack under the increasing pressure, as evidenced by his recent shift towards a limited endorsement of off shore drilling. Expect Congressional Democrats, who have hitherto resisted the heat, to eventually cave as well, if the concerted pressure from the Republicans, who purport to speak for the public, continues.
If that were to occur, those of us who have the perspicacity to see that offshore drilling is a fool's errand at best, and an environmental disaster in waiting at worst, will end up yet again forced to deal with the consequences of the misinformed majority.
That being the case, it got me to wondering: Is there any way to make a political efficacy test a prerequisite for voting??
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Yet Again, David Brooks Willfully Ignores Reality to Criticize Barack Obama
In Tuesday's New York Times, columnist David Brooks decides to tackle the question of why Barack Obama is not, in an apparent shock to Brooks, winning in a landslide. In probing why Obama's lead over John McCain has slowly dwindled, but remained intact, Brooks comes up with the following theory:
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
"And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner.... There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart...As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded."Brooks continues along this path of argument for another dozen paragraphs until his summation, in which he indicates that Obama should be winning in a "landslide", but that voters are preventing the what he deems as "to be expected" from transpiring, because they are resolutely wary of him "as a sojourner."
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)