As most of you will have noticed by now, the Chinese power establishment is furiously angry over the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiao Bo.
Alice Poon, a respected author and commentator in Hong Kong, has posted in her blog a translation of a letter from a Hong Kong professor to his mainland students. "Mainland", in this context, refers to mainland China, which is very different from Hong Kong in some very important ways. The HK Chinese, after 100 years of British rule, are left with some very stubborn western-style ideas about things like democracy and freedom of expression, ideas which the Chinese Communist Party does not view with any significant degree of favor.
Alice Poon's blog entry is here. This is a rare inside look at what is still, for the most part, a closed society.
And I think, dear friends, that I am simply going to let you read it for yourselves, without any further commentary from your favorite gwai loh.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Obama Sides With Bankers - Will Not Ban Foreclosures
In another display of just what a shameless corporate lackey he truly is, President Obama has refused to institute a temporary moratorium on foreclosures.
After one million foreclosures last year, the USA is currently on track for 1.2 million foreclosures in 2010. Recently, it came to light that tens of thousands of these foreclosures are not legitimate. Even some banks have instituted a voluntary and temporary moratorium on their own foreclosures.
But our beloved President, the man who promised us "Change You Can Believe In", has refused to do anything about a temporary moratorium while the confusion over legitimacy is investigated.
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd said last week, "American families should not have to worry about losing their homes to sloppy bureaucratic mismanagement or fraud". This seems like a reasonable statement. But Obama remains unconvinced, offering instead a weak and whining excuse that "there are a number of unintended consequences".
Think about this, my friends. Our President has decided that it is better to have American families fraudulently evicted from their homes, than to have investors temporarily unable to recoup their investment.
Excuse me, but, the last time I checked, the concept of "investment" carried with it the idea of risk. You risk your capital in hopes of earning a profit. The greater the risk, the greater the expected return, if the investment goes well. A mortgage is not like that.
I am hard pressed to say which is more appalling in this action, (or rather refusal to act), by the administration. On the one hand we have the utter craven cowardice of the President's decision. And on the other hand we have the shamelessly brazen pandering to bankers and other corporate interests.
Story at BBC News here
After one million foreclosures last year, the USA is currently on track for 1.2 million foreclosures in 2010. Recently, it came to light that tens of thousands of these foreclosures are not legitimate. Even some banks have instituted a voluntary and temporary moratorium on their own foreclosures.
But our beloved President, the man who promised us "Change You Can Believe In", has refused to do anything about a temporary moratorium while the confusion over legitimacy is investigated.
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd said last week, "American families should not have to worry about losing their homes to sloppy bureaucratic mismanagement or fraud". This seems like a reasonable statement. But Obama remains unconvinced, offering instead a weak and whining excuse that "there are a number of unintended consequences".
Think about this, my friends. Our President has decided that it is better to have American families fraudulently evicted from their homes, than to have investors temporarily unable to recoup their investment.
Excuse me, but, the last time I checked, the concept of "investment" carried with it the idea of risk. You risk your capital in hopes of earning a profit. The greater the risk, the greater the expected return, if the investment goes well. A mortgage is not like that.
I am hard pressed to say which is more appalling in this action, (or rather refusal to act), by the administration. On the one hand we have the utter craven cowardice of the President's decision. And on the other hand we have the shamelessly brazen pandering to bankers and other corporate interests.
Story at BBC News here
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Divisive Nature of Election Season Discourse
It is an unfortunate truth of the season that Progressives are not of one mind at the moment.
The root of the problem lies with the party loyalists. They strive desperately to justify the actions of the Democrats. They quickly breeze past all the broken promises by Obama. They trumpet the empty accomplishment of the so-called "Health-Care Reform" and "Financial Reform" bills as though they actually reformed something. They refuse to even respond to comments and questions about the uglier issues like death squads, the Patriot Act, Guantonomo, signing statements, and the death of Habeas Corpus.
They say things like "Well, it took Bush 8 years to break things, you don't think the Democrats can fix everything in 2 years, do you?". Of course, this ignores that the Democrats haven't fixed anything in 2 years, or even made more than a half-hard pretense of trying. Mostly because they were too damn busy selling us out to the corporations and pandering to the rich.
And when all else fails, the Party Loyalists trot out that tired old false sympathy ploy. "Possum, I'm not any happier with the Democrats than you are, but golly jeepers, we can't let those nasty old Republicans get back in office!!!!!!111111oneoneone"
I know the Republicans. I was once a Republican myself, back in the dawn of time, though all gods great and small bear witness, I am not proud of the fact.
Though voting for the lesser of two evils is often necessary, I loathe being forced into that position, as my mother loathed it when I was a small boy. This is not a new situation for American voters.
The truth of the matter is, dear friends, that the two-party system is broken, hopelessly and completely broken. And yet the shambling zombie corpse of the system staggers on, driven by precisely the sort of thinking that these Democratic Party Loyalists so blindly adhere to. They are obsessed with the idea that there only two choices.
It's called boolean logic, (though there are other meanings to that phrase). The concept is that there are only two states possible; on or off, zero or one, yes or no, true or false, Democrat or Republican.
"Third party?!?", they shriek in tones of horror, as though you'd just confessed to an unhealthy carnal passion for sheep, "but that's just throwing your vote away!"
And this is if they're being generous. More often you get the line that "a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for the Republicans!", an accusation almost as insulting as it is unjustified.
Perhaps worst of all is the religious zealotry with which these party loyalists attack any Progressive who dares to question the logic of the party line. Logic be damned! Facts be damned! Qualms of conscience and moral considerations be damned! Heil Demokraten! Barak Obama ist Der Sieg! Those who doubt are heretics and must be punished! You're either with us, or you're against us!
Frankly, at least in style, these Democratic Party Loyalists start sounding very much like Republicans.
The root of the problem lies with the party loyalists. They strive desperately to justify the actions of the Democrats. They quickly breeze past all the broken promises by Obama. They trumpet the empty accomplishment of the so-called "Health-Care Reform" and "Financial Reform" bills as though they actually reformed something. They refuse to even respond to comments and questions about the uglier issues like death squads, the Patriot Act, Guantonomo, signing statements, and the death of Habeas Corpus.They say things like "Well, it took Bush 8 years to break things, you don't think the Democrats can fix everything in 2 years, do you?". Of course, this ignores that the Democrats haven't fixed anything in 2 years, or even made more than a half-hard pretense of trying. Mostly because they were too damn busy selling us out to the corporations and pandering to the rich.
And when all else fails, the Party Loyalists trot out that tired old false sympathy ploy. "Possum, I'm not any happier with the Democrats than you are, but golly jeepers, we can't let those nasty old Republicans get back in office!!!!!!111111oneoneone"
I know the Republicans. I was once a Republican myself, back in the dawn of time, though all gods great and small bear witness, I am not proud of the fact.
Though voting for the lesser of two evils is often necessary, I loathe being forced into that position, as my mother loathed it when I was a small boy. This is not a new situation for American voters.
The truth of the matter is, dear friends, that the two-party system is broken, hopelessly and completely broken. And yet the shambling zombie corpse of the system staggers on, driven by precisely the sort of thinking that these Democratic Party Loyalists so blindly adhere to. They are obsessed with the idea that there only two choices.
It's called boolean logic, (though there are other meanings to that phrase). The concept is that there are only two states possible; on or off, zero or one, yes or no, true or false, Democrat or Republican.
"Third party?!?", they shriek in tones of horror, as though you'd just confessed to an unhealthy carnal passion for sheep, "but that's just throwing your vote away!"
And this is if they're being generous. More often you get the line that "a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for the Republicans!", an accusation almost as insulting as it is unjustified.
Perhaps worst of all is the religious zealotry with which these party loyalists attack any Progressive who dares to question the logic of the party line. Logic be damned! Facts be damned! Qualms of conscience and moral considerations be damned! Heil Demokraten! Barak Obama ist Der Sieg! Those who doubt are heretics and must be punished! You're either with us, or you're against us!
Frankly, at least in style, these Democratic Party Loyalists start sounding very much like Republicans.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
China, Japan, and Precedent
For the first time since last month's fishing boat incident in the Japanese Senkaku islands, the Prime Ministers of China and Japan have held a face-to-face meeting. Apparently there was agreement of restoring relations, but little else.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was quoted in Chinese state media as stressing that the islands, which the Chinese call Diaoyu, "have been Chinese since ancient times", a claim which neatly ignores reality for the past 100+ years.
Japan's Naoto Kan commented that "It is important to mutually respect shared rules of the international community, including those of transactions of raw materials and trade in order to deepen the mutually interdependent relations between Asia and Europe and to achieve mutual growth. It is imperative for related countries and regions to take responsible actions to strengthen trust and to establish a foundation for peace and stability."
While I could always be mistaken, I think that's a very polite Japanese way of saying, "Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on."
China's aggressive belligerence in the Senkaku Islands of the East China Sea is part of the same strategy demonstrated in the Spratly and Paracel Islands of the South China Sea. Chinese claims in both areas rest entirely upon largely-imaginary "have been Chinese since ancient times" arguments. Chinese claims in both areas are really about extensive gas and oil deposits on the nearby sea floor, not a few marginally-habitable islands. Fishing rights are a consideration, but a secondary one.
Now, on to the business of precedent. In law, international law or any other kind, precedent is worshiped like a tiny god.
It is worth noting that the Chinese claims of "Chinese since ancient times" which are heard in the China Sea disputes, are very similar to the "God gave it to us 3000 years ago" claims which are Israel's only real claim to Occupied Palestine. If one of those claims is agreed to by the international community, this will greatly strengthen the other claim, because it will establish precedent.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was quoted in Chinese state media as stressing that the islands, which the Chinese call Diaoyu, "have been Chinese since ancient times", a claim which neatly ignores reality for the past 100+ years.
Japan's Naoto Kan commented that "It is important to mutually respect shared rules of the international community, including those of transactions of raw materials and trade in order to deepen the mutually interdependent relations between Asia and Europe and to achieve mutual growth. It is imperative for related countries and regions to take responsible actions to strengthen trust and to establish a foundation for peace and stability."
While I could always be mistaken, I think that's a very polite Japanese way of saying, "Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on."
China's aggressive belligerence in the Senkaku Islands of the East China Sea is part of the same strategy demonstrated in the Spratly and Paracel Islands of the South China Sea. Chinese claims in both areas rest entirely upon largely-imaginary "have been Chinese since ancient times" arguments. Chinese claims in both areas are really about extensive gas and oil deposits on the nearby sea floor, not a few marginally-habitable islands. Fishing rights are a consideration, but a secondary one.
Now, on to the business of precedent. In law, international law or any other kind, precedent is worshiped like a tiny god.
It is worth noting that the Chinese claims of "Chinese since ancient times" which are heard in the China Sea disputes, are very similar to the "God gave it to us 3000 years ago" claims which are Israel's only real claim to Occupied Palestine. If one of those claims is agreed to by the international community, this will greatly strengthen the other claim, because it will establish precedent.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Israeli Settlers Burn Another Mosque
For the fourth time this year, Israeli settlers have vandalized and burned a mosque in the Occupied West Bank.
The mosque, in the Palestinian town of Beit Fajjar, was apparently vandalized and set ablaze around 0300 Monday morning. This small Palestinian town, near Bethlehem, is adjacent to a huge illegal Israeli settlement. Graffitti in Hebrew was sprayed upon the walls of the mosque, several copies of the Koran were singled out to be burned or partially burned, and photographs show large smoking pits in the floor, obviously from the use of incendiaries.
The Israeli Army has promised to investigate, saying ""We see this incident in a very severe manner. We will do the utmost to find these lawbreakers and bring them to court".
While this sounds impressive, the other three mosque burnings this year have followed a similar pattern, and produced similar statements from Army and Police. But not one suspect has ever been arrested.
A report by Amnesty International says that "impunity remains the norm" for settlers accused of attacks on Palestinians.
The mosque, in the Palestinian town of Beit Fajjar, was apparently vandalized and set ablaze around 0300 Monday morning. This small Palestinian town, near Bethlehem, is adjacent to a huge illegal Israeli settlement. Graffitti in Hebrew was sprayed upon the walls of the mosque, several copies of the Koran were singled out to be burned or partially burned, and photographs show large smoking pits in the floor, obviously from the use of incendiaries.
The Israeli Army has promised to investigate, saying ""We see this incident in a very severe manner. We will do the utmost to find these lawbreakers and bring them to court".
While this sounds impressive, the other three mosque burnings this year have followed a similar pattern, and produced similar statements from Army and Police. But not one suspect has ever been arrested.
A report by Amnesty International says that "impunity remains the norm" for settlers accused of attacks on Palestinians.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Siege of Jerusalem
Today, October 2nd, marks the anniversary of the end of the siege of Jerusalem in 1187 AD.
On this day, Balian of Ibelin handed over the keys of the Tower of David to a Kurdish general named Salah ad-din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, (but known to most of us as Saladin). This marked the formal surrender of the city, which the Crusaders had themselves taken by siege 80 years before, a siege that ended in bloody sack and pillage.
In that year of 1187, Jerusalem had been doomed since July, when the Crusaders suffered catastrophic defeat at the Horns of Hattin, mostly through grossly inept leadership. Over the next sixty days, Saladin snapped up a handful of smaller cities in the region, including Acre, Beirut, Jaffa, and Sidon. Only Tyre seemed securely in the hands of the Christians.
Balian of Ibelin, the last Christian noble of any reputation left alive and free, asked Saladin for free passage from Tyre to Jerusalem and back, in order to retrieve his wife. Saladin agreed, on condition that Balian not make war against him, and that he remain in Jerusalem only for one day. Balian agreed to these terms, and then when he arrived in Jerusalem broke his word and took charge of the defense of the city.
In two weeks of siege, Saladin breached the walls of the city, somewhere near the Mount of Olives, and placed his flag upon the walls of the city. Not wishing to visit further destruction upon the city, Saladin then opened negotiations with the Crusaders for terms of surrender. After some negotiation, during which Saladin reportedly lowered his demands three times, an agreement was struck and the keys of the Tower of David were handed over, on this day, October 2nd.
This, in turn, would lead to the preaching of the Third Crusade, in an attempt to recover Jerusalem for the Christians, but that is another story for another day. This is, after all, the 21st century and not the 12th.
So, what is the point, other than confirming that Possum is a history geek?
Jerusalem is a very, very old city. The site has been inhabited at least since 4000 BC. In 1800 BC, the Canaanites built the first wall, and called the city Jebus. It was not until around 1000 BC, three millennia after people started living there, that the Hebrews under their King David conquered the city and renamed it Jerusalem. And that was three millennia ago.
Jerusalem has been besieged and fought over again and again. Jerusalem has been sacked again and again. Jerusalem has seen riots and slaughters and bloodshed unimaginable in the modern context.
Viewed against the backdrop of that history, today's struggle between Israelis and Palestinians seems almost inevitable. The idea of "peace negotiations" seems almost laughably ridiculous. The idea of a "One State Solution" seems like a ludicrously naive pipe dream.
Make no mistake, dear reader, my sympathy for the cause of Palestinian statehood remains firm. But my hopes of realistically seeing a peaceful solution to the situation are in pieces on the ground. If anything, the prospects for war in the Middle East seem greater now than they have been at any time in the last 35 years.
On this day, Balian of Ibelin handed over the keys of the Tower of David to a Kurdish general named Salah ad-din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, (but known to most of us as Saladin). This marked the formal surrender of the city, which the Crusaders had themselves taken by siege 80 years before, a siege that ended in bloody sack and pillage.
In that year of 1187, Jerusalem had been doomed since July, when the Crusaders suffered catastrophic defeat at the Horns of Hattin, mostly through grossly inept leadership. Over the next sixty days, Saladin snapped up a handful of smaller cities in the region, including Acre, Beirut, Jaffa, and Sidon. Only Tyre seemed securely in the hands of the Christians.
Balian of Ibelin, the last Christian noble of any reputation left alive and free, asked Saladin for free passage from Tyre to Jerusalem and back, in order to retrieve his wife. Saladin agreed, on condition that Balian not make war against him, and that he remain in Jerusalem only for one day. Balian agreed to these terms, and then when he arrived in Jerusalem broke his word and took charge of the defense of the city.
In two weeks of siege, Saladin breached the walls of the city, somewhere near the Mount of Olives, and placed his flag upon the walls of the city. Not wishing to visit further destruction upon the city, Saladin then opened negotiations with the Crusaders for terms of surrender. After some negotiation, during which Saladin reportedly lowered his demands three times, an agreement was struck and the keys of the Tower of David were handed over, on this day, October 2nd.
This, in turn, would lead to the preaching of the Third Crusade, in an attempt to recover Jerusalem for the Christians, but that is another story for another day. This is, after all, the 21st century and not the 12th.
So, what is the point, other than confirming that Possum is a history geek?
Jerusalem is a very, very old city. The site has been inhabited at least since 4000 BC. In 1800 BC, the Canaanites built the first wall, and called the city Jebus. It was not until around 1000 BC, three millennia after people started living there, that the Hebrews under their King David conquered the city and renamed it Jerusalem. And that was three millennia ago.
Jerusalem has been besieged and fought over again and again. Jerusalem has been sacked again and again. Jerusalem has seen riots and slaughters and bloodshed unimaginable in the modern context.
Viewed against the backdrop of that history, today's struggle between Israelis and Palestinians seems almost inevitable. The idea of "peace negotiations" seems almost laughably ridiculous. The idea of a "One State Solution" seems like a ludicrously naive pipe dream.
Make no mistake, dear reader, my sympathy for the cause of Palestinian statehood remains firm. But my hopes of realistically seeing a peaceful solution to the situation are in pieces on the ground. If anything, the prospects for war in the Middle East seem greater now than they have been at any time in the last 35 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
