Friday, December 30, 2005

Little Trouble in Big China

[singing, to the tune of Mr. Rogers]
It’s an unusual day in the neighborhood,
The Chinese press got up and stood.
Would you believe?
Would you believe?


The BBC is reporting a story that hasn’t been picked up by CNN, the Post, the NYTimes (I broke down and checked the site, for the first time since “Times Select” started scamming people), the Boston Globe, or Reuters.

The story’s lead paragraph states,

“[a]bout 100 journalists from one of China's most progressive newspapers, the
Beijing News, have walked out to protest against their editor's sacking.”

I’m sure the reporters who walked off the job are very politically savvy people—journalists tend to be, and journalists in China have no choice but to be. Which makes the decision to walk out, and leave the paper so publicly in the lurch is remarkable.

It’s unlikely that many of these reporters are going to get jobs with other newspapers—since ‘news’ is largely government controlled, so other newspapers aren’t going to hire ‘rabble-rousing’ reporters to cover the vanilla Chinese news.

Apparently, the story wasn’t covered by any of the newspapers in China (likely because it wasn’t deemed newsworthy by the government censors). In spite of this (or because of it) I’m guessing that about 100 million Chinese will know about it by the end of the day. Why? Because China has the most efficient grapevine the world has ever seen. I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before, but, as an example, a teacher can do or say something at the beginning of a class period and through the miracles of txt messaging, have students who weren’t in the class make reference to it as he walks into the hallway at the end of the period.

Compound that simple example with the idea that the people who walked out were reporters. People who, by nature of their profession must be, 1. excellent networkers and, 2. excellent communicators. It probably doesn’t hurt that most of them are also young and highly computer-literate.

Unfortunately for China, and for the CCP, this comes as another in a recent string of calamities and disasters that are undoubtedly casting doubt on the veneration and single-minded devotion the Party would like to see people hold it in.

As we get closer to 2008 it seems that the government and Party are, along with peasant and workers groups, moving towards the type of situation China suffered the last time China received the type of media attention that is slowly gravitating towards it now. Let’s hope for China’s sake (and our own… “made in where?”) that a means to avert confrontation is found.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Stick it to the....Students!!

In what might be the greatest political move in Minnesota since a Republican tried to run for State Senator from a different district, and was legally barred from appearing on a ballot, Saint Paul City Councilman Jay Benanev is trying to recoup the city's losses from those free-loading colleges.

At a time when budgets are tight, it makes sense to look for new sources of revenue, but it seems to me that charging schools for their students is an age-discriminating way to target those in the population who are least likely to vote in local elections.

Let's think about what David Laird, President of the Minnesota Private College Council calls, "the whole equation."

Benanev's ward includes Hamline and St. Thomas--both are schools that have large off-campus populations. St. Thomas has an undergraduate student body of 5,236 of which 61% live off campus. Hamline is smaller, at 1,872 with 55% living off-campus. So, by some quick math, at just these two schools, 4,223 students will be paying twice for the expensive services the city offers.

The two schools in St. Paul that have the highest rates of on-campus undergrads are Macalester and Bethel, at 69% and 75%, repsectively. All of these are higher than St. Kate's (36%) or Concordia, (24%). This doesn't include any of the community colleges, or the Saint Paul Campus of the University of Minnesota--all of which have lower on-campus totals yet.

What's on the other side of this ledger? Students who are, per dollar earned, huge contributors to the economy of St. Paul. They do their grocery shopping and clothes buying in St. Paul . They study at local coffee shops and hang out on Grand Avenue bars (helping maintain local business and generating sales tax revenue). They provide high-skill, low-cost labor for businesses and non-profits throughout St. Paul helping to maintain it as one of the most livable cities in America.

And most of them do it from apartments and rented rooms around the city. On Grand and Summit, on Selby, or in Mac-Groveland. They pay rent and through their landlords, property tax. They pay income tax, and they pay sales tax.

Mr. Benanev, why are you limitting yourself to just colleges in town? Why not tax all the businesses in St. Paul $25 per customer? If the problem here is really recouping the city's lost income, I think we could start with the amount the city has to spend maintaining roads, and paying transit police for people who's only goal is to (brazenly, I might add) come into the great city of St. Paul, and give it nothing more than a few hours of their time and a few dollars in exchange for simple products sold through local retailers.

Let's add another step. St. Paul should have toll booths set up at every road-entrance to the city. There should be a $2.50 toll for the priviledge of entering Minnesota's Capitol City. What a great idea. Then the taxes would only be on those heretical people who dare live outside St. Paul, or those wayward souls ungrateful enough to leave the city.

C'mon Councilman Benanev, I think there are some much better options than taxing the college students.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Home from the Holidays

After ten days in the not-so-frozen north, I'm back in the District and I have to say its good to be home.

Don't get me wrong, it was good seeing friends and family for the last 10 days--especially friends who were in town from even farther away than I was. But at the same time, it's nice to be back in a town where I don't need to drive, where I can walk around the corner at 830 at night and get a 12 pack and a 2 liter of coke, and also where I can turn the other direction and get a fantastic pecan pie for less than $10.

On the down side, I'm fairly sure that the downstairs neighbors cooked something for dinner tonight that involved a wet dog. At least that's the only explaination for the wet-dog-&-cooking-food smell eminating up through our laundry room on the first floor and bathroom on the second floor.

I did have a chance to do and learn a few interesting things while I was at home.
First, I read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas". It's a good read, and an excellent political analysis of one means of winning elections and an electorate in the U.S. In fact, it's the first cogent strategic and tactical analysis of Conservative strategy I've read. Imagine, it's taken only 20 years to come up with it. And Democrats wonder why they lose elections.

Second, I learned that my friends are smarter than everyone else. I'm serious. I have proof. On two seperate nights, in two unrelated locations, in two different formats, my friends won rounds of bar-trivia (questionable scoring at Keegan's notwithstanding). If that isn't proof that they're smarter than everyone else, I'm not sure what is.

Third, jamon serrano is nearly as delicious in Minneapolis as it is in Spain.

Fourth, cell phones, voice mail and email may make communicating more convenient, more efficient, and less time-consuming, but that doesn't mean they necessarily make it easier or more successful.

There were probably a couple more, but I've lost them in the distractions of the TV. QUIET flickering box, you derail my train of thought!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you. Those of you I didn't get a chance to see or talk to this weekend, please know you are in my thoughts often, and I wish you every happiness and success!

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

AU, Reprised

There was a big meeting in Asia Recently. I'm not talking about the WTO--though that was a big meeting too. The meeting I'm talking about was a bit south-west of Hong Kong, in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur. It was a meeting of the Asian Nations and it was held to try and figure out where the region is heading and where it would like to head.

News is coming out today of an interesting, if needed, outgrowth of the session: a new regional organization that will stretch from Japan to India to Australia.

According to the author at the Washington Post,

"The formation of the new group, decided at the first East Asian Summit, marked an attempt to respond to a conviction among Asian leaders that their region requires a stronger independent voice in world affairs and a new forum without the leading role the United States has played since World War II."
In a sense, this is an important step for the region as a whole. As I wrote last week, the quest for some sort of "Asian Union" might be out of the question for a while, but there need to be forums for Asian countries to get together and discuss--multilaterally--their concerns. The challenge facing any associations in the region, whether the U.S. (or Russia) participates, is how to give the organization enough teeth to be a legitimate forum for not only airing concerns, but resolving them; but also keeping the meetings from being "gang up on the year's bad-guy country" punching bag exercises.

Without some delicate and artful arrangement, any of the Asian Associations (ASEAN, ASEAN + 3, this new organization-to-be-named-later) will serve only to further separate and segregate member-countries instead of bringing them closer together.

Here's my first-blush take: the first few meetings will involve countries coming together the rebuke Japan over it's lack of full atonement for the abominable acts committed by it's military throughout Asia during World War Two. As China's regional hegemony and market-power grow, it will shift over 2 to 3 years to being a forum for Asia to band together in ways to channel Chinese growth away from their own economic interests and attempt to push China into direct competition with developed economies instead of those of much of S and SE Asia. At about this time, China will decide the organization served it purpose and walk away/retool it's mission to be more China-friendly, and there goes the idea of parity, cooperation, and equality throughout the region.

Guided by Voices

In case you didn't know, I'm in Minnesota. On Vacation. In December. And it's great--snow on the ground and cold. It gives me incentive to stay inside, watch the news, and do what I enjoy: pick things apart.

One of the news channels had on a few people this morning talking about Bush's admission that he had authorized the NSA to tap phones within the U.S. The only two I heard speak were the LA Times Washington correspondant Mark Mazzetti, and some guy who used to be assoc. deputy Attorney General.

The former Assoc. AG made an interesting statement that needs to be clarified and laid bare quickly, before people allow it to become part of "common knowledge." He said he agreed with the Vice President that in times of War, the President has wider lattitudes in his use of power.

I recognize that this is inevitable and at times even desirable. There's a problem here though; the Constitution doesn't delegate to the president the discression to determine when he needs greater powers. Remarkably, in a system that provides a division of power, and "checks and balances", there is another branch, and only one other branch, that has the authority to grant the president greater powers. It also happens to be the only branch of the government with the power to declare war.

Almost equally remarkable, it requires an ACT of congress, not just its recent tactic of rolling over and playing dead, to declare war or to grant the President extraordinary powers.

Neither of these has happened in the U.S. since...hmmm... 1941. Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, the last time the United States Congress authorized a president to use extraordinary powers was World War Two. A war that ended nearly 10 months before our sitting president was born.

The assertion that the United States is at war is false. I'm sure there are those of you out there who will argue that I'm being disloyal to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who are there fighting in conditions that look remarkably like....a war.

I mean no disrespect to those who go where the political leadership demand, to fight battles over places most would never have otherwise seen. But that doesn't mean that I believe the president has the authority to declare he needs more powers, and then, when he doesn't get them fast enough, usurp them.

Quite to the contrary, I believe it was our current President, who, after having piloted a fighter onto an aircraft carrier, declared victory from the deck, and then flew John Wayne-like, "off into the sunset"--while most of our troops remain bogged down in Iraq fighting and dieing, spending yet another Christmas half-way around the world.

What amazes me most is that this president still has any support. It's not a question of party or politics. It is a question of honesty. It is a question of integrity. It is a question of faithfully upholding and protecting the constitution of the United States. There is serious doubt he has actually maintained the high standards his office should and does require of its incumbant.

He has recently announced that some of the intelligence that led him to Iraq was faulty--but that he would have gone anyway. This means he didn't care WHAT the intelligence said, he knew what he was going to do, and let the facts (or what some like to call "reality") be damned.

This is the president who continues to claim that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States because of links to terrorism. This is completely untrue. Hussein's only ties to terrorism were in Palestine--whose only target is Israel. The idea that there were links and connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda has been completely disproven--yet it is repeated by administration officials as high as the President and Vice President on a regular basis.

He is a president who insists on fighting wars in two countries, with minimal assistance from our allies and former friends, but at the same insists that the United States cannot continue to a free country unless we give the wealthiest 1% of our citizens tax-cuts of more than 1 trillion dollars. (If you're reading this blog, you're not getting any of the tax-cut, by the way.)

He is a president who appointed people to positions of vital importance to hundreds of thousands--and made sure that the only qualification these people had was loyalty to himself. Rather than find people qualified in disaster management, planning or preparedness, he selected a life-long friend, and followed him with a man who ran horse-shows.

He is a president who has systematically discreditted the U.S. before our allies and the rest of the world. He has reduced our ability to bring others to support our positions, and he was pushed away allies and friends when simple things could have been done to hold them close.

He is a president who himmed, hawwed, hedged and dodged for over a year on banning the use of torture by agents of the U.S. anywhere in the world. And it was only because of a passionate crusade by one of the last remaining principaled politicians that he did so--thank you John McCain.

He is a president who may have lost the U.S. the support even of Poland through use of morally questionable and international-law-faux-pas "secret prisons" in other countries. Now when Poland is willing to say to a country, "We might be better off with other allies," you know you've crossed a line.

Rounding up to the nearest whole integer, I can find zero measures by which the United States is stronger or more secure than it was when, nearly 5 years ago, we innaugurated this president. China holds nearly 1 Trillion dollars of U.S. debt, and the amount skyrockets with each quarter. The U.S. is bogged down in conflicts around the world, while real challenges and threats exist elsewhere. Americans from coast to coast are working longer and earning less than they have in decades. Funding for public schools, college education, and the programs that make America a land of opportunity and an example to the world have been heavily hit by caterwaul ideas brought straight from the Texas state-house into your house.

I know there are smart people out there who disagree with me; please tell me 2 things: 1. In what way is the U.S. better off now than it was January 20th, 2001 at 11:59 p.m., and 2. How does this president still have the support of anyone other than his wife?

One Reactor, Two Reactor, Three Reactor, Fore!?

Avid readers of the sections of the newspaper that are only going to affect our lives if government is made "small enough to drown in a bathtub" will already know that North Korea has launched its newest gambit in it's cataclysmic game of Russian Roulette.

Sure, North Korea is a bit rough around the edges, but it has to have some degree of sophistication--how else would it be getting the resources and know-how to re-start two of it's reactors, not to mention BUILD a new, more technologically capable one. One surprising element of the announcement isn't that the North Koreans are exposing their lemming-like cliff-diving urges, but that Japan had such a strident response.

The normally staid and reserved Japanese Foreign Ministry came out with such a searing criticism.

"It is going to be suicidal for North Korea to pursue that course. This is going to undermine the whole rationale of six-party talks."
While the Japanese tend not to be overly fond of North Korea's regime, they don't often come out and talk of something as suicidal. It may be a normal way to describe a really stupid 4th and short play-call on Monday morning, but not Japan's Foreign Ministry.

There's something more interesting happening in North Korea than just new reactor construction however, and this hasn't drawn nearly the same kind of Foreign Ministry response from the international community.

And it might be much more important for the long term growth, happiness, and international integration of North Korea into the international community: A GOLF COURSE.

While I admire the confidence of a country whose economy isn't conducted in cash or currency to try and develop a tourist trade, I have a question that is a bit more of a challenge to answer: between building nuclear plants and golf courses, where is North Korea getting the money? They don't really produce good for export (I mean, why export when you don't use money), they don't have tourism to bring in money (2 flights a week from Beijing), when the rare North Korean is allowed out of the country...say to the U.S. for a major meeting...when they go shopping they bring home aspirin, not Gucci. None of these are signs of a country in any way capable of financing these projects.

So what gives? Where is the money coming from?

When I left China--granted, 2.5 years ago--one of the major causes of concern in Jilin province was the influx of heroin into the province. Heroin? What? Isn't that all down in the golden triangle, thousands of miles to the south or in Afghanistan? Well, it used to be. Many of the provincial authorities in Jilin are much more concerned with the influx of heroin from North Korea. A combination of rising affluence and growing displacement have led to large increases in drug addiction China's North East in the past few years. And almost all of the drugs, apparently, are coming from North Korea.

Which leads to the next question: Why is China seemingly so complacent on North Korea's burgeoning drug-trade, when it is the Chinese themselves who are paying for the consequences? The last time China was well-known for it's opium dens-- the 19th century--it was because foreign businessmen (Americans and Brits, mostly) kept bringing in opium and selling it to Chinese. Get a Chinese talking about it at the right time, and you can just see the anger rise as the indignity of it wells up.

So is drug importation by "poor-neighbor" Asians better than by rich barbarian Anglos? The short answer is probably, "yes. no." Clearly, short answers aren't going to work.

My guess is that the drug trade in North East China is A. under close government and/or military scrutiny; B. providing huge profits for the units (or commanders) involved; C. is seen by the Chinese as the only life-line North Korea's starving people and decayed regime have before collapsing into a chaos that would be worse for North Korea than the present situation, and disasterous for China.

As always, China's self interests are served by the policies they pursue. A collapsed North Korea will send refugees pouring across the border into parts of China that are not economically prepared to deal with an influx of millions of moderate- to low-skilled workers; the region already has enough of those in the form of the people that haven't already fled south as intra-Chinese economic migrants.

A few drug addicted/AIDS infected Chinese as a result of the North Korean drug-trade seems a small price to pay in order to buy time to try and find other means of getting North Korea to be less of a "problem child" and more of a rule-follower on the international stage.

Which still hasn't answered the question: How can North Korea afford construction at 3 reactors AND a golf course (I mean, even if Tiger doesn't design it, it probably wont come cheap)??? Without any basis for fact, here's my guess: N. Korea's pouring almost everything it has into the reactors. On the international bargaining stage it has created, the reactors (or threat of them) is all that's left for NK. The Golf Course then? Actually, it's answered in the story...funny what I get from reading past the first paragraph...
Even as he spars with the United States over nuclear weapons, President Kim Jong Il has handed two areas totaling 800 square miles to South Korean businessmen on the gamble that allowing foreigners to frolic on the beach, play golf and open factories will generate hard currency without undermining the rest of his self-proclaimed "socialist paradise."
But even politically this is a gamble. If it succeeds, Kim Jong Il has created a precedent of basically granting rights to foreign companies to come in and profit without paying much for the territory they need (can you say Manhattan?). If it fails, (as I'm guessing it will because who wants to volunteer to become a hostage?), it means MAJOR setbacks for North Korea's quest to earn hard currency and legitimize it's governement.


Saturday, December 17, 2005

It's not if you win or lose...

...it's how many internet sites you can keep under wraps.

At least thats the thrust of this Washington Post piece about recent Chinese cyber-unrest in the wake of the shooting of protesters earlier this month.

I'm generally not a big fan of the Post's international reporting, but this piece is really well done. It covers many sides of the challenges and opportunities presented to the Chinese by the internet. Not strangely, it also leads with echos of protesters and dissidents past: veiling protests as commentaries about historical events.

What struck me as most powerful, though, was the brilliant simplicity of one of the protest memes. No coordinated attack, not a polished message. Just a direct message, sometimes cleverly delivered, sometimes without frills. In it's simplest form:

I Know.

Because, really, if you held power in a regime that maintained its position by restricting access to information, what would be more frightening?

As the Post story reminds us, the Chinese are excellent censors. The government hires hundreds of people to monitor chat rooms, blogs, bulletin boards, and numerous other means of sharing ideas. This isn't what makes the censorship effective. Most of us usually forget this.

Most censorship is self-imposed. By publishers, or companies, but most often by the writers themselves. Why do they censor themselves? Like most countries, China has laws prohibiting the publication of "state secrets." Unlike U.S. law though, Chinese law is (intentionally?) vague on exactly what is a state secret. And usually its not something one finds out until a story has been published, and someone in a position of authority decides he didn't like the story.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China, a U.S. government policy shop has a pretty good summation of the way state secrets work, here.

"Chinese laws require that anyone intending to disclose information relating to state secrets, national security, or the nation's leaders must get prior government authorization. The law then defines these terms to encompass all forms of information pertaining to politics, economics, and society. The government therefore has the right to censor any information on these topics, and anyone who publishes such information without prior authorization has violated the law, regardless of the actual contents of their writings (see, for example, the case of Zheng Enchong, discussed below)."
I wonder if anyone in the CCP has had conversations with Alexandr Solzhenitzen, Vaclav Havel, or Nelson Mandela about the effectiveness of censorship.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

The Shots heard round the world

Last year there were over 74,000 protests in China. Last week there was one that made news. It made news because the local authorities decided it would be a good idea to break up the protest--by shooting into the crowd.

For however bad it will make me seem, I think the fallout from this incident is going to be far larger than simply shooting between 3 and 20 farmers and fishermen.

Because it's gone from being an event to being a cause. And it's championed by "Chinese Intellectuals." In most of the western world we don't think much about an open letter to the government signed by....University professors, or writers, or even Nobel Laureates. When it happens in China it's a big deal. Especially when it's not just signed and delivered. No, this time it was signed and posted online. For the world to see.

Not only did these intellectuals call for an investigation into what happened, and punishments for those who made the decision to fire into the crowd--both of which are pushing the envelope of "OK behavior" in the world's fastest growing economy. No, they took it a step further.

They draw parallels between the shootings last week and the way the government dealt with another mass-uprising a few years ago in Tiananmen square. In case you don't remember what happened then, here's a refresher picture.

There aren't any really good analogies to U.S. political life. I guess the closest would be describing some action of a modern administration as similar to the way Native Americans were systematically exterminated. The big difference of course being that a U.S. government and U.S. citizens are aware that it happened. Not necessarily the case for Chinese about 1989.

Most likely what will happen is that the Chinese government will crack down on those who published the letter, and then after they have been sufficiently castigated, steps will be taken to punish the perpetrators of the shooting.

Even this, though, isn't the likely end of the story. Beijing is hosting the summer olympics in 2008. The Chinese are all particularly excited for that to happen. But those who are dissatisfied with the way things work in China are just as excited. Because when the olympics start, China is going to be overrun with journalists. It'll be next-to-impossible to keep an eye on all of them. But more significant than that, the country is going to be inundated with tourists. From the U.S., from Europe, from Japan and South Korea. From all over the world. And the people with the money to afford a trip to China for the Olympics are the same kind of people who will pack their digital cameras, digital video cameras, camera phones, and all the other tricks of the tourism trade. My guess is that there will be serious upheval around China in the month preceeding and following the Olympics, because there will be too many foreigners beaming too many images to the rest of the world for Beijing to keep it under wraps.

Even if that doesn't happen, it'll be an interesting year for Chinese. I'm only hoping that the government can find ways to let people participate in decision-making enough that there wont have to be riots and protests--and shootings--just to make the point that some of the people involved in governing aren't doing a very good job.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Hopes of an AU

Some people look to Europe and the fledgling EU as an example of how formerly adversarial nations can put common interests and the good of their people ahead of old rivalries. On of the regions of the world where this is frequently grafted to is Pacific Asia. Many people hope or believe it is possible for the powers of Japan, Korea, and China to begin moving towards and economic union similar to the EU.

I'm not so hopeful. I haven't been for quite a while, but it didn't come together for me until I read this piece in the Washington Post today. It's one of many recent articles talking about Chinese capitalists exporting business from China to lower-wage parts of the world in search of competative advantage.

There seem to be several reasons why the EU was so successful.

  1. It was begun as a very focused, narrow agreement by small countries on the continent: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxumburg. Not the types of places that have a reputation as threatening or dangerous to their neighbors.
  2. It evolved in a geographic region where countries' priorities were relatively similar and the economic, political, and social institutions of the various countries were already fairly similar, fairly transparent, and fairly integrated; in many ways the EU is both formalizing pre-existing informal ties, and facilitating the deepening and broadening of those ties.
  3. Rule of law was generally applied, more or less uniformly across the countries, and could be used as a starting point for negotiating on points of difference.
  4. Last, and perhaps most significant, even the largest economic powers in the EU; Germany, France, and England, were 220 lb men in a 160 lb arena. They carry more clout, but are in the same realm of magnitude.
The reasons I'm not optimistic about the emergence of an Pacific-Asia Union type of arrangement are almost the same items in reverse.
  1. 1. The countries with the most to gain by beginning a similar arrangement have much larger barriers to conquer: Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand strike me as the most likely to have the incentive to develop a Benelux-style arrangement, but they would have major issues of developmental difference, divergent legal systems, and markedly different political regimes to navigate in doing so.
  2. 2. It would be an effort to bridge countries whose interests are presently seen more as competing than complementing or converging.
  3. 3. The concept of law and justice in most Asian countries is still based more on who you know than what a polity has determined to be appropriate conduct and proper remuneration for a deviation from standards. (ie, there isn't much in the way of a "modern" criminal justice system.)
  4. 4. The lack of parity, both developmentally, economically, and in population, lead me to believe that any Pacific-Asia arrangement is bound to fail. Using terms similar to those above, in the grapefruit league of Asian economies Japan, South Korea, and the island of Taiwan have jumped into the Major Leagues with some all-star years, and some .220 seasons. But there's this up-and-comer in AAA right now, China, who is working on learning all the signs. And once he can, the other three are going to be bumped out of the starting lineup.
Pulling away from what is probably a stretched metaphor, what incentive do Asia's existing powerhouses (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan) have to encourage an economic arrangement that further aids China's goal of economic growth, unless it benefits them to the same degree? Further, what chance does any Pacific-Asia economic organization have without the participation of China?

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Good Cop, Bad Cop

*Author's note: This was supposed to go up yesterday, but I typed the wrong email address...again.

It looks like we're back at the old (not-so) Merry-go-Round.

Yesterday the AP reporting that the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea reiterated it's assertion that North Korea is a "Criminal Regime," and using that assertion as a means to refuse lifting sanctions against the North.

I was starting to bristle at yet another political SNAFU by the present administration, but then there was rapid comment by South Korea's chief negotiator to the six party talks, "It's not desirable to publicly characterize the other side."

Now I feel OK because I'm pretty sure it's a means of applying pressure on North Korea as the talks continue... but doing it in a way that is face-losing and shame causing (not necessarily good things).

What makes me think so? If the Ambassador is making a statement that bold and direct, it was language that went through channels to the Secretary of State, and was likely cleared by the President. Whatever we think of the Administration, they are good at coordinating message. The sec-state likely bounced the idea off of Christopher Hill, the lead U.S. negotiator at the talks.

My guess is this is a case of the U.S. and South Korea playing "good cop, bad cop" on North Korea.

At least I hope so.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

The Cowardly Lions?

Sorry for the absenteeism lately. Been working about 12+ hours a day for a couple weeks getting ready for a big event next weekend. I hope to be back here more regularly after that.

There is a great piece in the Washington Post this morning by Michael Gurion. In it he talks of the diminishing presence of young men at college campuses throughout the country. How women have overtaken men, not only in numbers on college campuses, but also in terms of academic success at all levels; getting better grades, having fewer discipline issues, and generally attaining higher levels of eduction.

Some consider this a triumph of the women's movement--which in many regards it is. Women (and girls) succeeding can and should only be seen as movement towards a better quality of life for everyone.

Women succeeding is certainly a great thing. Men failing is not a great thing, and anyone who believes it to be is in for a very unpleasant future.

One of the goals of the women's movement was to make it acceptable for women to develop an identity for themselves outside of the their nuclear family; to alter the way the world judged and percieved them. This has fundamentally altered the way men and women interact and deal with each other--in many ways for the better.

There has been, I think, an unintended consequence. Men have seen the world change around them, and seen women's roles as expanding, but there hasn't been an equivalent expansion (until recently) of what socially acceptable roles for men are. Add to this the simultaneous proliferation of children being raised without fathers or father-figures, the surge in gangs across the country over the past 25 years, the impact of globalization on low-skill and low-wage jobs, and the declining presence of social organizations like church-groups or bowling leagues (for lack of a better example) and men are left to grapple with significant challenges to their traditional identities without the same degree of social connection they have had in the past.

I think of men of my grandparents' generation. A man's identity was based in a few places: his work, his church, his family, his neighborhood. One of my grandfathers worked at a meat-packing plant in a blue-collar suburb of St. Paul for much of his life. Later he worked as a warehouse manager. Both of these jobs were low-skill, but neither was low wage. He certainly didn't get rich, but with my grandmother also working, they usually had enough. He was active in his church, and was active in many community groups.

He was paid enough for his work that he was able to feel pride in what he did. Many will view this as a silly "feel good" issue, part of some hippy-based ideology that people have to feel good about what they do. It's more significant than that. Men often derive a large part of their identity from the work they do--and how that work is percieved by others. In our society, much of how we believe work to be percieved is based on pay. If a man believes his work is not valued, he is less likely to believe he has something to contribute. As Gurion points out, men without college degrees are more likely to join the marriage-pool late, or not at all. I believe much of that to be related to the fact that if men don't feel they are being valued, they'll feel they have little to offer. Especially with men-women dynamics changing, a man that earns less than a woman (especially significantly less) will feel he has little to offer her, and will be less willing to marry. Further, a feeling of inadequacy can cause a lot of mental/emotional stress. This isn't good for society generally. (This is my own train of logic here, so any corroboration or contradiction would be appreciated).

It's been a while since I've written, so I'm overreaching here and losing the thread, but I guess I'm trying to say something has to happen soon to help develop a sense of identity and purpose for young men, or we're going to end up with a generation of under-educated, under-motivated, over-entitled young men (and I went to high school and college with many guys like this). Then we're going to have a much larger and longer-term problem to sort out. What people often forget (or overlook) is that there is an element of a lion in most men: we want to be big an powerful and catered to. And when we don't get what we want, we play video games or rob liquor stores.

UPDATE: After I wrote this, I checked out my friend Delobius's blog. As usual, the people I know are better at saying what I'm getting at than I am. Here's what he had to say about being in Iraq, and why he'd go back.


"The last, and probably least important on a day-to-day basis when you're there, is participation in something larger than yourself. When you're there, it's often just daily drudgery, trying to get to the next day so you're one day closer to leaving; but in retrospect, even a support troop like myself can feel pride at being a part of the greatest army of the greatest nation on Earth, and for having a small impact on the country of Iraq - hopefully for the better."