Thoughts on the Japan Tragedy
Image courtesy of al Jazeera
Needless to say, I'm horrified by the tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Walking through my school building today I spoke to several of my Japanese classmates, all of whom thankfully reporting that their families and friends were safe. I could still see that the event had struck them deeply, as well it should. It is difficult as an outsider to see devastation on a large scale; much more so when it is your people who are affected.
The death toll from the disaster is not yet known and will not be finalized for some time, but we can rest assured that it will be significantly lower than in similar disasters such as the Beichen earthquake that struck Sichuan Province, China in 2008. This is not to minimize the significance of the disaster but rather to point out that little things people take for granted- a functioning, clean government and well-regulated building codes- save many lives in a crisis. In fact, comparing how different countries absorb natural disasters is a telling sign of development- much more so than numbers of Starbucks or shiny new airport terminals. I hope if a silver lining emerges from this tragedy it is that governments in developing countries lying atop fault lines redouble their efforts to enforce building regulations, rebuild tottering bridges, and ensure that the disaster response mechanisms are well-prepared.
A Few Comments on Libya
I think I saw the guy on the left working the door at a nightclub once.
It looks like the most likely outcome at this point in Libya is a protracted stalemate between government forces and the opposition, which will take the form of a civil war. Obviously, this will be a humanitarian catastrophe and many Libyans will die. Should Gaddafi regain the upper hand in the battle, a possibility given that he is still able to sell oil to fund his military crackdown, then a brutal reprisal will also follow. There are really no good solutions for Libya now; this isn't Tahrir Square in Egypt, it is far worse.
It's only natural to want and expect the United States to intervene in the conflict by providing military support to the Libyan opposition. Nobody wants to stand by and watch a lot of innocent people die, but at the moment a military intervention by the US or NATO would be a serious mistake for several reasons.
First, whatever happens in Libya is likely to have little effect on American national security. According to this chart, Libya isn't even one of the top fifteen oil exporters to the United States, so while events in the country may affect global oil prices they don't constitute a grave threat to the American economy like, say, a similar situation in Saudi Arabia would. Libya's importance to the US isn't zero- Gaddafi was considered something of an ally in recent years on the counter-terrorism issue- but any outcome in the civil war will not change American grand strategy for the region.
Secondly, any intervention would have costs. First, mobilizing troops to invade Libya and repel Gaddafi's forces would incur high financial costs at a time when the US military is least able to afford them. I personally don't approve of the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan but since neither will end anytime soon compounding them with a Libya operation would be highly irresponsible. Then there's the issue of human costs. For every US intervention like that of Kosovo in which no American lives are lost, there are five Somalias. Would an American be willing to sacrifice his or her daughter to the Libyan civil war? This is only considering death, not physical and mental injuries that scar veterans, quietly, long after their war-time experience ends.
Third, a US intervention would play into Gaddafi's hands by allowing him to paint the opposition as a foreign conspiracy. He's been doing this anyway, bizarrely blaming the protests on drug-crazed al Qaeda converts and claiming fatuously that all Libyans love him. But the opposition has its legitimacy from being a wholly domestic force. A U.S. intervention would rob the movement of its credibility.
Finally, there's simply no reason to think that pushing Gaddafi out would be a net positive for the U.S. in either the short or the long term. Libya lacks a civil society on par with Egypt's and it is not known who would have the capacity to govern should Gaddafi exit the scene. Any Libyan leader would be faced with the same chessboard conditions that Gaddafi faced- a fractious, tribal society without any pluralistic constituency. From the U.S. point of view, the best option for Libya would be a stable government that cooperates on issues like nuclear proliferation, anti-terrorism, and regional peace. As clownishly villainous as he may be, Gaddafi in recent years behaved as well as an American might expect.
This doesn't mean that the US should support Gaddafi unconditionally and for good reason President Obama has called on him to step down. It would be wonderful to see Gaddafi removed from power, a civil war averted, and a new Libya born with a decent, representative government. The Libyans have certainly put up with enough tyranny. Yet whatever happens there simply won't be a time when U.S. invasion will do any good.
Beyond Borders
The first job I ever had- aside from a regrettable stint as a camp counselor- was working at a Borders bookstore in Palo Alto, California. This was in the summer of 1999, the year I graduated from high school. The sole objective of the summer as decreed from my parents? Get A Job. And so I went looking.
I was at the Borders one day when I saw an ad that spoke to me: 'You spend all of your time at bookstores. Why not work for one?'. Why not, indeed? I applied and was called in the next day for an interview. After unnecessarily trying to impress the middle-aged store manager of my bookstore bona fides ('actually, A Farewell to Arms is a better representative of Hemingway's minimalist style than The Sun Also Rises') I got the job on the spot.
Photo by Flickr user futantgeneration
The Palo Alto Borders was one of the nicer ones around, but it was not without controversy. The store had bought and renovated a beloved old movie theater that had gone out of business and the Palo Altans- never one to miss an opportunity to grandstand- declared the chain bookstore an abomination. In addition, the rise of Borders and Barnes & Noble were considered a threat to the independent bookstores in the area, especially a popular Menlo Park shop called Kepler's. Before the ubiquity of online alternatives like Amazon, big box chain retailers were the bete noir of civic-minded citizens across the nation's cities and college towns. Borders was indicative of the trend- it lacked soul and character, no matter how many musical performances or schoolkid readings the store organized.
But for a bookish kid chomping at the bit to go to college, Borders was the perfect place to work. My fellow employees that summer ranged from a Stanford grad student who moonlighted as a dot-com entrepreneur, a middle-aged New Yorker who had once played drums in a local punk band and had none of his original teeth ('lost 'em all in bar fights and hockey games'), an ex-con once hauled away by the police for violating his parole, and an HR manager who never talked- ever. On my breaks I would wander the aisles of the store, always removing my name tag so that customers wouldn't disturb me, and pick up books like a lawnmower scooping up blades of grass. I'd sit in a corner and gaze at titles I could barely read and couldn't understand.
Borders also had an extensive music section and in an era when Mp3s were still a novelty I gleefully used my employee discount to augment my CD collection. My partner in crime for this endeavor was a tall, black colleague ten years my senior whose knowledge of classic rock knew no bounds. Before closing time he would ask me if I had a certain Bob Dylan, Velvet Underground, or Grateful Dead album and when I said I didn't, he'd say "it's so great" in a soft, reverential tone which almost subconsciously would induce me to buy it. The stack of CDs in my room grew so large that my parents began wondering out loud whether there was anything else I might like to spend my money on.
The Borders in Palo Alto, in theory, was identical to the Borders' in San Mateo, in San Diego, in New York, in London, in Melbourne. That's the whole point of a chain, really. But the Palo Alto store was the setting for many of my most cherished teenage memories. There was the morose anarchist who taught me how to make cappuccinos and mochas ('and this is for the yuppie fucks who need chocolate in their coffee') There was the time sitting First Daughter Chelsea Clinton walked in with two well-built bodyguards in tow, calmly rejecting the one Borders employee with the cojones to ask her out on a date. There was the customer who commandeered our in-store PA system and pretended, with convincing accuracy, to be a commercial pilot ('we'll be taking things up to 30,000 and making a left right around Denver'). There was the time that I successfully persuaded my 21-year old colleague to buy me a six-pack of Coronas, only to realize that I had nowhere to hide it in my home.
Whenever I'm back in the Bay Area I make a point to stop in to the Palo Alto Borders, as it's a convenient place to loiter while waiting for friends. None of the people I worked with are still there, and the CDs- which once occupied a massive chunk of the ground floor- are mostly gone, swallowed by the all-powerful iTunes. But just as I did when I was 18, I walk through the aisles, picking out books that draw my attention, and find a comfortable place to sit and read. For all I know, Chelsea Clinton could walk in and I'd not notice.
So it is with sadness that I read the other day that Borders filed for bankruptcy and plans to close many of their stores. I have no idea if the Palo Alto one will survive, but something tell me that it'll eventually go, too. One day I'll walk down University Avenue and see that what was once Borders had since become a clothing shop, or maybe an office building. I wonder if the same Palo Alto folks who raged when Borders came would feel vindicated by its departure. I doubt it- because there's nothing good about a bookstore closing, about a little slice of culture and of memory- for me anyway- washed away forever.
The Reagan Centennial
The New York Times reminds us that Ronald Reagan would be celebrating his 100th birthday this year, and that the occasion promises to be celebrated lavishly. It is for things like this that I'm delighted I don't own a TV set. I think being forced to watch Fox News during a Reagan love fest would about as much fun as taking Xanax and watching a Lawrence Welk marathon.
So what is it about Reagan, after all, that gets the Right into such a tizzy? The mere mention of his name sends conservatives into spasms of joy. Even Jesus wouldn't have a chance against Reagan in a fantasy Republican primary, and in real primaries, Republicans fall over themselves trying to claim Reagan's legacy. I recall some years ago some wanted to replace Franklin Roosevelt's image on the dime with that of Reagan, a movement that only lost momentum when Reagan's widow Nancy inconveniently stated that he admired FDR and wouldn't have wanted to replace him.
To me there are three main reasons why Reagan is so revered by the Right:
1. The Cold War. It is an article of faith among Republicans that Reagan is responsible for winning the Cold War. This is typically never challenged, and whenever some nebbish academic points out the Soviet Union's floundering economy and the reforms of Gorbachev likely had more to do with the fall of the USSR than anything else, he is quickly rebuked. For many conservatives believe that Reagan won the Cold War because he told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. This is akin to thinking that your computer started working only after you yelled at it.
Anyway, here in America we tend to give ourselves principal agency in every event that happens around the world. That the Soviet Union collapsed is largely due to factors related to the Soviet Union, but since Reagan happened to be the US president when the Evil Empire began its descent into the ash heap of history, he gets the credit.
2. The demographic shift. Reagan took office when the vast bulk of Baby Boomers were moving into their thirties and beginning to acquire the trappings of responsibility: a marriage, a mortgage, kids, and careers. Many of the same hippies and dropouts and radicals Reagan railed against as governor of California* in the late 1960s grew up, moved to the suburbs, and began voting Republican. Reagan's comment that 'you've seen one tree, you've seen them all' resonated with a group of people who suddenly found the concept of conservation a dreary vestige of the '70s. Really, who gives a shit about trees when you can have four fax machines in your office and one in your DeLorean?
3. Who else do they have? Reagan also benefits from the decidedly lackluster set of Republican presidents that preceded and succeeded him. Let's consider the following group: Dwight Eisenhower would be a liberal by today's standards. Richard Nixon was a crook, Gerald Ford was in office for about five minutes, George Bush the elder had the charisma of a starfish, and his boy came very close to ruining the world. Not exactly a deep bench. Go back earlier, and you have Hoover (the whole Great Depression thing) and then Calvin Coolidge, of whom Reagan reportedly kept a bust in the Oval Office. Alas, the only people alive who are old enough to remember Coolidge were too young to care about politics then, anyway. By contrast, the Democratic roster of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton comes across like a political murderer's row.
Reagan was no doubt a skilled politician. He had the looks, the charisma, and the manner for the job- as befitted a former actor. He had the good fortune to come into office when the prime American adversary was enduring fatal internal convulsions. He also took advantage of a demographic situation in which the largest sector of the population was beginning to settle down, leading to increasing voter conservatism.In addition, Reagan also was able to follow Jimmy Carter, a president whose tenure was marked by a sluggish economy, foreign policy crises, and intra-party strife. He took office in an era when many Americans simply wanted their president to succeed- the national mood was exhausted by the failures, scandals, wars, and assassinations that marked the previous few presidential administrations.
So inevitably, the less savory aspects of Reagan's presidency seem to have been tidily swept under the rug. The suddenly stagnant middle-class real income growth. The soaring deficits. The abhorrent, disgusting policy in Latin America, culminating with the blatantly criminal Iran Contra scandal. The recriminalization of pot. And more.
But none of this matters, because Ronald Reagan's role in the Republican narrative is far too critical for an objective analysis to intrude. I just hope that when his 150th birthday rolls around, historians will have revised his legacy downward where it belongs.
* My uncle once told me anstory about Reagan. In the '60s, my uncle was participating in a political rally at Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley on a day in which Reagan- in his capacity as Governor of California- was convening a meeting of the UC Board of Regents in a nearby building. When the assembled students gathered word of Reagan's proximity, they began chanting "Fuck Reagan!" in unison. To their surprise, Reagan himself leaned out of the building and flipped all of the students off.
I do think this story humanizes him much more than any other anecdote I ever heard.
Egypt On Fire
Like everyone else, I've been following the situation in Egypt with great interest, and from a novel source: this excellent live feed from al Jazeera's English language station. For people looking to get a deeper look at what's happening in Egypt, al Jazeera is my recommendation.
A few of my fellow laowai bloggers have already begun wondering whether China could see a similar situation. Clearly, the government has this in mind- the Party has begun censoring information about the protests on state media, indicating that they don't want Chinese dissidents to get any ideas. Is any sort of "people power movement" imminent in China?
The short answer is no, and rather than explain in a lengthy way here I'll simply refer you to the four links above.
Amy Chua and the ‘Chinese’ Model of Parenting
I'm only the millionth person to comment on this story, but I thought I'd comment a bit on Amy Chua's now infamous Wall Street Journal article entitled 'Why Chinese Mothers are Superior'. For those of you who haven't read it yet, Chua describes her uncompromising, dictatorial motherhood model and explains how her children ended up better off as a result. Western parents who coddle their children, consider their feelings, compromise with them, or allow them personal autonomy raise kids who accept mediocrity in their lives. In the op-ed, Chua comes across as brash and unapologetic.
So she's a horrible bitch, right? I'll admit that this was my first thought, as well as disappointment that a writer I had admired (Chua's book World on Fire is excellent) would publish something like this. But wait- let's take a look at the cover of her new book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, and read the subtitle. What does it say?
This is the story about a mother, two daughters, and two dogs. This was supposed to be the story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones. But instead it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen year-old
This blurb doesn't seem to jive with the WSJ article. Was this intentional? Chua says that the article was edited without her oversight:
"I was very surprised," she says. "The Journal basically strung together the most controversial sections of the book. And I had no idea they'd put that kind of a title on it. But the worst thing was, they didn't even hint that the book is about a journey, and that the person at beginning of the book is different from the person at the end -- that I get my comeuppance and retreat from this very strict Chinese parenting model."
While the Journal article was unquestionably good for sales and awareness of the book, which has already hit #7 on Amazon and is only headed upward, it has been painful for Chua. "I've gotten scary messages. Death threats. All from people who haven't yet read the book," she says. "And while it's ultimately my responsibility -- my strict Chinese mom told me 'never blame other people for your problems!' -- the one-sided nature of the excerpt has really led to some major misconceptions about what the book says, and about what I really believe
This doesn't exonerate Chua from the draconian parenting methods she initially employed, but I do think she deserves credit for grappling with such a personal issue in the public sphere. Plus, her editorial does raise some uncomfortable questions. Do 'Western' parents coddle their children too much? Do we allow our children, who may not know any better, too much autonomy in making important decisions? Should we emphasize the value of repetition and memorization more?
In high-school, at a Chinese-American friend's house, her immigrant mother asked me if I played any instruments. I replied that I played piano until age 12 but quit because I didn't like it. She looked at me with amazement and said that all 12 year olds, including her daughter, want to quit. But she didn't let her.
I remember feeling upset at this implication that my parents had somehow failed me. In truth, they tried very hard to get me to reconsider. They said that I would someday wish I hadn't quit, that someday I would see the utility in all the hard work I put in practicing. They were right, of course, and they knew that they were right. But I'm not sure that relenting was a mistake. There are lessons that cannot be dictated, that must be absorbed through personal experience. This is one of them. When I was 18, I knew that I should have kept it up, but I never blamed my parents for letting me quit. I would have never understood the consequences of my action otherwise.
This reasoning doesn't apply to everything, of course, but ultimately successful adults have to be able to make judgments based on their own reasoning and experience. I'm not arguing that children raised by "Chinese" parents can't do this, but that knowing how to bounce back is just as valuable a skill as math and violin.
The Arizona Shooting
Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that there's nothing intelligent to say about a massacre, but you have to try, don't you? This was a targeted political assassination, long-planned, and I don't think you can view this event in isolation from the coarsening political climate around the country.
But again, we have the situation where a clearly insane person was able to obtain a gun without difficulty and murder six other individuals while wounding 19 others. One of my Facebook friends wrote that he hoped this shooting wouldn't lead to further restrictions on guns. Further restrictions? The assassin in this case was deemed too mentally unfit to attend a community college yet passed a gun purchase background check. Why do we take such great pains to license people to drive cars while allowing anyone over a certain age who doesn't have a criminal record to buy a gun?
The reason, of course, is that a significant percentage of Americans willfully misinterpret the 2nd Amendment and believe it grants them the right to arm themselves at will without restriction. These people, represented by organizations such as the National Rifle Association, fight any act of legislation that they deem to be restrictive of gun use. And they've won. Democrats don't push back on gun control anymore. They've essentially ceded the issue in an attempt to attract more rural voters to their side.
A possible solution: why not make the purchase of guns a process one must apply for, complete with interviews, so that only determined and sound-minded people would bother? Why not make the purchase of guns akin to, say, obtaining a drivers' license? Therefore those Americans who want to own guns badly enough will be able to do so, but that people like Jared Lee Loughner would be turned away once it was determined that he was not the sort of person to trust with a firearm.
Sadly, such a proposal in the American context is altogether too modest to consider.
Quote of the Day
From the Twitter feed of Blake Hounshell:
'(Julian) Assange: 'I believe that history will be separated into pre and post-cablegate phases'.
Hmmm. Hounshell's hashtag- #delusionsofgrandeur- pretty much sums it up.
Wikileaks and Me
A few days ago students in my Masters program- at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University- received the following e-mail from administrators:
Hi students,
We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.
Regards,
Office of Career Services
This writer from the Morningside Post found the insinuation that we'll damage our careers by commenting on the Wikileaks scandal offensive. Even Democracy Now! picked up the story. I do find the story a little ridiculous. I wonder if in five years someone will get this e-mail:
Dear so and so,
We've reviewed your application to work for the Department of State and have decided we can't offer you the position you seek. Although you're eminently qualified and talented and we'd love to have you under ordinary circumstances, the fact that you referred to Julian Assange as a 'douchebag' in a Facebook post dated December 1, 2010 and wrote three pithy paragraphs evincing skepticism of the ultimate significance of Wikileaks means that you'll never get a security clearance and you'll never work for Uncle Sam. Don't even think about the Peace Corps, loser!
Sincerely,
Foggy Bottom
Who knows? I could be wrong. But it seems ridiculous to me that it's damaging to write about a current event that is on the front page of the newspaper every day. It isn't as if Private Bradley Manning leaked the cables to SIPA students!
UPDATE: Here's The Huffington Post with more, including this quote from one of my classmates:
"They seem to be unable to make the distinction between having an opinion and having a contractual obligation to keep a secret," said Hugh Sansom, a masters student from New York.
Students were taken aback by the email, said Sansom, who described his non-American classmates — nearly half of this year's incoming class at Columbia speaks a native language other than English — as "amused and surprised."
Exactly.
Wikileaks and You
Since the Wikileaks release of some of the over quarter million diplomatic cables from the US Department of State, I've struggled to sort out my thoughts on the issue. My initial response was condemnation- how could an organization be so irresponsible to place people's lives in danger? Another response was ridicule- why did Julian Assange risk his life and that of others in order to release what basically amounts to embarrassing, but non-revelatory, bits of diplomatic communication? What did he think he was going to accomplish?
At the same time, the cable leak raises some uncomfortable questions. Would I be more supportive if the leaks occurred under a Bush, rather than Obama, Administration? What if Bradley Manning had leaked the information to accredited journalists rather than Assange?
To be honest, I don't know the answer to these questions. One of my criticisms of recent US foreign policy was its lack of transparency, dating from the Bush era lies about Iraq and the unlawful detention practices associated with the bogus 'war on terror'. Obama's reluctance to reform these trappings of a security-industrial state have been inadequate and disappointing.
Then again it seems perverse to expect all diplomatic activity to be conducted in the open. None of the revelations thus far have been more than just embarrassing- did anyone think the US would have a more positive appraisal of Russian democracy?- but the need for diplomats to speak candidly with their governments is obvious.
What effect will these leaks have? I doubt Assange would be happy to hear this, but the likeliest effect of the info dump is increased secrecy. Diplomats will now be aware that their missives are potential targets for dissemination and will take steps to conceal them further. This will raise the costs of communication but will ultimately have little effect on how the US conducts its business around the world.
One wonders if Assange believes that the crux of American power- something he is reported to view as malevolent- is its moral authority, and that the release of sensitive materials will undermine this authority and thus American power. The source of American power is actually pretty simple- money and guns- and no amount of leaking will change that.