Problems with NATO and Russia in a post-Cold War world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571096.stm

This is not about an expansionist [Russia] with an ideology bent on world domination, but a major power eager to establish a sphere of interest in its own backyard and jealously guarding what it sees as the approaches towards its own frontiers - what Russians have traditionally called the "near abroad."

- Jonathan Marcus, BBC

History can really help us understand this recent Russia-Georgia conflict, but we should try to avoid false comparisons. Russia has changed a lot since its Soviet days, and their invasion of Georgia is not like Czechoslovakia, despite what some politicians and journalists claim. However, post-Cold War NATO hasn't changed much - obviously it's goal is still to contain/defeat Russia. If NATO really cared about Western stability and security, of which Russia is a key element, they would have tried to bring her into the fold rather than exclude her. As Secretary of Defense Gates said, it is not in America's or Russia's interests to have our relationship sour, yet why does each nation continue to jeopardize the fragile partnership with provocations and poor diplomacy? We have cooperated on nuclear disarmament and security, but not much else (and each side still has plenty of warheads to destroy the world 5 times over). Now that the War on Terror and oil money have empowered Putin's people to roll back freedoms and assume a more aggressive defense strategy, how will we respond? We did nothing over their "disproportionate use of force" and atrocities in Chechnya, and I bet NATO would rather see the Georgia situation swept under the rug (even at high cost to the Georgians) than be forced to take a hard line with Russia over a poor, obscure country that most Americans couldn't locate on a map.

But we should remember cause and effect. Typical of the greedy West: After the Soviet collapse, we were licking our chops to snatch up as many former Iron Curtain nations as possible. But we shouldn't provoke a wounded beast, especially when that beast still has very sharp teeth (the #2 military in the world). After the shame of the Soviet defeat and the virtual collapse of their economic and military systems, Moscow probably wasn't too thrilled about opportunistic Western "meddling" in their former satellite states. Especially after the "Orange and Rose Revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, where Western-backed shady leaders replaced the old Russia-backed shady leaders, Russia is seeing its former sphere of influence rapidly contracting. Clearly it is wrong for Moscow to censor/imprison/murder dissidents and journalists, centralize power, and meddle in the politics of neighboring sovereign nations, but world events have almost compelled them to take a more hardline approach to domestic security and foreign policy, especially during the Bush years. We claim that our forces in Asia are there to keep the peace and fight Islamic terrorism, but how can Russia be sure? Venezuela and China recently went on spending sprees for more modern military hardware, such as fighter planes and missiles. Is it for defense or aggression? It's impossible for outsiders to know, and plenty of right wing Americans are concerned. So from Russia's point of view, they almost have no choice but to assert themselves more forcefully in Central Asia. They already lost Eastern Europe to the West. Stalin was apathetic or in denial about the German forces massing on Russia's border in 1941, and it almost cost him Moscow. I am sure Putin and Medvedev (who are corrupt but definitely not in Stalin's league), will be a lot more proactive concerning the buildup of American forces, aircraft, and missiles around them.

Maybe NATO would have tried to tighten the stranglehold on a weakened Russia even more, if not for the fact that they are a top 5 oil producer and supply 25% of Europe's energy. And they will use that as leverage if they need to, as was the case in 2006 when they cut off westbound natural gas exports over a price dispute with pro-West, anti-Moscow Ukraine. Unfortunately Europe's gas is fed through pipelines crossing Ukraine, so they were caught in the fracas and had to plead with both sides to compromise and turn the spigots back on. So fortunately or not, the energy situation provides a good stability check between Russia, Europe, and the US. The more we need each other, the less likely we will try to scam and threaten each other. Though Europe needs Russia a whole lot more than vice versa (especially with the rise of Asian and Middle Eastern trading alternatives for Russia), and our economic fate is clearly tied to Europe's.

As Noam Chomsky said - America has to choose between hegemony or survival. We can't have both, so either we treat nations fairly and keep the peace, or we try to dominate the globe and risk catastrophic war. It's not enough for us to have won the Cold War, but now we seek to fill the Soviet power vacuum in the region too? Let's also remember the lessons of Versailles: it will come back to haunt us if we overly punish and shame a defeated empire. Many Russians are not happy with their homeland's loss of prestige, and some have even become nostalgic for the Soviet days when they commanded fear and respect. Even younger Russians tend to think positively about the USSR. The last thing we need is a nationalistic Russia with a chip on its shoulder and reverting to Soviet ways. I know that Moscow controls its media and people, but the vast majority of Russians are supporting Moscow over the Georgia war. They feel that President Mikhail Saakashvili brought the invasion onto Georgia by his incursion into South Ossetia and violating the fragile balance. After some small clashes on August 7, Saakashvili asked the Ossetian paramilitaries to cease hostilities and "give peace and dialogue a chance", but just 5 hours later Georgian forces fired artillery and started to send troops into the region, killing some civilians.

And unlike McCain and his former Georgia lobbyist staffers, I don't think the Tiblisi regime is worth defending at the cost of angering Russia further. Their leader Saakashvili is progressive but no saint. He's not a Moscow stooge or a kleptocrat (though he is building a lavish new presidential palace for a very poor nation), but he's not George Washington either. He is a Western-educated lawyer, and only came to power by betraying his political mentor and convincing him to step down amidst scandal. Since he took office in 2003, Saakashvili has modernized the economy somewhat and increased foreign investment, but critics say he sold the country on the cheap to outside interests. He also curbed some freedoms and violently cracked down on protests against him just this winter. As a PR damage control stunt, he offered to hold snap elections against opposition party rivals to see if the people really wanted him out. He won the vote to stay in power (52% vs. his nearest competitor at 25%). Some international monitors concluded that the election was more or less fair, but others faulted them for accepting things at face value and not investigating the many allegations of fraud. But in the words of LBJ, it's clear that Saakashvili is "our SOB" and we want him to stay, despite the fact that half of the nation disapproves of him. Maybe there's no one better in Georgia, but that's why it's Georgia. I hope we would learn the lessons of Saddam and Musharraf, and be wary of allying ourselves with questionable characters just for modest strategic gains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7174343.stm

For Saakashvili and Ukraine's Victor Yuschenko to be elected to power was a big slap in the face to Moscow, though maybe they had it coming (and still that's no excuse to poison Yuschenko). But it's the equivalent of an anti-immigrant extremist (some might say racist) like Tom Tancredo winning the US presidency - so how would Mexico react to that? Saakashvili was elected on a platform of defiance against Russia, increased relations with the West (for democratic and economic modernization), and reclaiming the Ossetia and Abkhazia breakaway regions, so I guess he thought he was carrying out the will of his people. But that is in violation of a 1992 agreement between Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia to preserve peace and semi-autonomy in the region. Parts of Central Asia are very multi-ethnic and plagued by similar problems as the Balkans. Georgia has clashed with its minorities for over 100 years. Order was maintained under the Soviets, but old habits returned with an independent Georgia, and over 1,000 people died during fighting in 1992 and 2004. Under threat by Tiblisi and treated as second-class citizens due to their ethnicity, of course the Ossetians and Abkhazians would turn to Russia for aid, as Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro did during the Cold War, when menaced by what they saw as Western imperialism. And Moscow seems more than happy to help and make life difficult for Tiblisi, though they officially deny providing any military support to the rebels.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

So in a sense, Georgia provoked this excessive Russian meddling in their affairs. I do not think that Moscow would have felt so threatend by a gradual Georgian re-alignment with the West, while still maintaining some basic relations with Russia. But simply dismissing Russia and pledging to join NATO can only invite a hostile reaction from Moscow. Russia is an important historical patron and partner in the region, so her presence can't simply be ignored (or replaced by America/NATO), despite her sometimes negative influence throughout history. It's clear that former Warsaw Pact nations have not fully forgotten or forgiven past Russian tyranny, which may complicate relations today. As nations like Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary make plans for their futures, it's no surprise that they now prefer to look west instead of east. Russia could have done a much better job addressing its harsh treatment of her satellite states and healing old wounds, so it shouldn't surprise them when their former subjects are seeking partnerships with Russia's competitors. France and Britain have done well to rehabilitate and improve relations with many of their former colonies, and despite some lingering distrust and injustice, both former colonizer and colonized now profit from robust trade, travel, and other exchanges. Therefore, both Georgia and Russia could learn a lot from history and save themselves some future headaches. Russia is notorious for poor diplomatic tact and sensitivity (example: Khruschev slamming his shoe at the UN and proclaiming "We will bury you!"), but they really dropped the ball on reaching out and mending fences with the former Warsaw Pact. Georgia has every right to strengthen ties with the West and lobby for NATO admission, but the manner in which they do so can either reassure or provoke Russia. They are a small country that can't afford to have such powerful enemies on their doorstep. Russia has already crippled their weak economy with trade sanctions, and now this current incursion has decimated their meager military infrastructure and compromised their ability to govern.

Both sides screwed up, and now they find themselves in quite a mess. What America can do about it is another mess, which I can't really address here without writing 3 more pages. But Russia had the propaganda advantage last week, and they pissed it away with poor communication and excessive violence. There is strong evidence to show that Georgia violated the treaty, attacked Ossetia not as last resort, and civilians were killed. But Russia didn't lobby the international community and allow media access in Ossetia to validate its case for intervention. Many Georgians were actually quite angry at their leader for inviting this Russian retaliation. This was a totally asymmetrical war, even worse than Israel-Hizbullah, and Georgia's defense couldn't hold for even an afternoon. Russia's excessive destruction of a weakling foe (plus some atrocities in all likelihood) was probably meant to send a message that they still run things in these parts, and chop the defiant Saakashvili down to size. But the horrible manner in which they did it actually galvanized support for politically compromised Saakashvili from shocked foreigners and nationalistic Georgians outraged at the razing of their homeland. Of course it wasn't like Ivan the Terrible beheadding every Georgian he could find, but enough damage was done to make global opinion label Georgia as the victim and Russia the aggressor. Medvedev's faux cease-fire was also a bad blow to their credibility and PR campaign. Georgia was not, and will never be, a military or political threat to Moscow. Russia could have halted its advance after it retook Ossetia and surrounding areas, delivered humanitarian aid to gain local support, and hooked up with opposition leaders in Tiblisi to attempt to overthrow Saakashvili. Then they could have made a legitimate case that they were just responding defensively, while also turning the Georgians against their controversial leader. Now Georgia can lobby the UN and NATO that they might require Western peacekeepers in their territory, to balance the Russian troops in Ossetia and deter future aggression. I am sure that Washington would be more than happy to set up more bases in Central Asia, but probably won't since it will only escalate tensions with Moscow. But Russia screwed up royally as usual, and now they are the goats. Like the Israelis in Lebanon, you can't bomb bridges and hospitals, and then claim that you're trying to keep the peace.

But try telling Russians on the street that they are to blame for all this, and you might end up in the hospital. They heavily support their government in this conflict, so obviously something is getting lost in translation. In conflicts like this, there is rarely a "good guy", but Russia is not 100% to blame. The Russians do have a point that they did not fire first, and they have a right to enforce the 1992 agreement to defend Russian citizens and defenseless Ossetians under attack by Georgian forces. And their meddling in the separatist regions is just supporting independence for oppressed minority groups, as Bush did for Kosovo (despite Russian protest). But we know that the truth is not, and can never be, so plain and innocent.

THE MISSILE SHIELD

Of course we want to help former Soviet nations like Georgia modernize, democratize, and open up their markets to us (the US, France, and Russia are bitter rivals for arms sales), but most importantly their real estate on Russia's front yard is so precious. Do you really think we give a crap about Poland and Bulgaria because they're nice people? Like Turkey, Ceaucescu Romania, and Pakistan during the Cold War, we allied ourselves with unstable yahoos because of their strategic locations. Under the auspices of the War on Terror, we've planted troops and airbases in at least 3 former-Soviet central Asian 'Stans in addition to many Middle Eastern nations. For petty cash and propping up a few dictators, we can protect our energy investments and keep an eye on the Muslims and Russians simultaneously; it's a good deal.

The biggest afront to Russia is the missile defense shield. The USSR went bankrupt trying to have its bloated, in most cases delapidated, military keep pace with American advancements, and some argue that Reagan's selling of the Star Wars program helped convince the Kremlin that the show was over. All Russia had left was her nuclear deterrent, and if America could neutralize that asset (even though our billion-dollar system couldn't shoot down a seagull), then they had no choice but to accept defeat peacefully, or end human history with nuclear war. Thank goodness they chose the former. No matter what BS comes out of Washington, we can't fool anyone that the proposed missile interceptors in Eastern Europe are for defense against Iran. No way. There are only two nations in the world with nukes on hair-trigger alert: Russia and the US. Not even China or Pakistan, and North Korea can't even miniaturize its primitive bomb for missile delivery anyway. So only Russia and the US have the arrogant temerity to believe that we deserve the ability to destroy cities (or whole countries) immediately and without provocation, and that will somehow keep the peace. Yes that is a scary reality, but amazingly it's something that humanity has lived with for 50 years. Of course other nuclear nations don't profess to want or need first-strike capability, and prefer to keep their arsenals as passive deterrence.

The Czechs have already committed to the missile shield with us, but Poland has been more hesitant. Nothing has materialized from years of negotiations, maybe over concerns that their neighbor Russia might be offended, and the costs may outweigh the meager benefits. We claim that the shield is intended for rogue states (namely Iran) and definitely not Russia, but less than a week after the Russian invasion of Georgia, panicked Polish leaders are signing on the dotted line with Condi Rice. So I guess it's just coincidence that they suddenly had a change of heart? Give me a break. If other nations like China and Iran want to fire missiles at neighbors, they need time to prep their missiles and go through the appropriate protocols. It's possible that our satellites and other intel can detect that activity in time to mount a preventive response. Then there is no need for an interceptor shield. And I hate to break it to the Czechs and Poles, but NATO and the missile shield won't protect them from Iran or Russia anyway. The shield is obviously meant to neutralize missiles before they reach more high-valued targets in Western Europe and North America. The shorter the missile flight, the harder it is to shoot it down. If Iran (or Russia) were stupid enough to waste their first-strike on insignificant Krakow or Prague (and then suffer nuclear anihilation by NATO in response), then in all likelihood our interceptors won't be able to stop them. Plus many nuclear warheads are built to detonate above a city for maximum damage (like Hiroshima), not to actually strike the ground. What if the bombs detonate before the interceptor reaches them? And even in the Pentagon's best test-runs, the shield was only able to stop 50% of bogeys, so in practice it will probably drop to 20% at most (but you only need one missile to get through for the whole shield to fail its purpose). Plus the shield will do nothing if Russia ever invades "the old-fashioned way" with armored columns and attack aircraft, as they did in Georgia.

So we're sorry Poland and Czech, but really we're just using you for your real estate, to protect the "real Europeans" we care about. What's sad is that some Poles interviewed on the street say that they're happy to hear the news and they'll feel safer against Russia now (no mention of Iran of course). But I guess in times of crisis, some humans prefer to take comfort in illusions. Other Poles echoed my view that this shield is a bad idea, because for whatever possible defensive advantage it may give them, it's not worth the provocation to Russia. Moscow knows that this missile shield is designed with them in mind, so their hostility is understandable and not irrational/aggressive. Actually we are the aggressors, trying to force this down Eastern Europe's throats or bribe/scare them into agreement. It's not like it was their idea, and they were screaming for years to protect them against evil Iran or Russia. Many of those nations buy oil and gas from Iran and Russia! Why would they attack their best customers outside of Asia? And if the tables were turned, how would we feel if Russia builds a big base for attack submarines in Cuba, and claims that it's meant to stop drug smuggling in the Caribbean? No one likes to be played for a fool, especially the Bear.

I know some politicians have offered to placate Russia by offering to base some of the missile shield installations within her borders. But that does no good at all. Russia isn't worried about Iranian missiles aimed at them, and they have their own defenses. If we really wanted to reassure Russia and offer parity, then we would permit them to place their bases and interceptor missiles in North America. You have to balance the playing field if you want a clean, fair game. Honestly, the best defense against a nuclear attack is a good line of communication, not a military response, as we saw during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If America really cared about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, Russian missiles, or whatever, then they would expand dialogue with hostile nations instead of encircling, namecalling, and stonewalling them. If America really cared to prevent nuclear war, then we would take our missiles off hair-trigger alert, dismantle some of our huge arsenal, and convince Russia to do the same. Can anyone in the Pentagon explain to us why it is better for global stability that we are able to destroy any target on Earth at the flip of a switch?

IS NATO STILL RELEVANT?

So what is the NATO security alliance really worth? I can almost guarantee that the Western powers will not stick their necks out for the recently accepted Eastern European members, risking nuclear war with Russia if she somehow decides to become belligerent with her neighbors. The developed nations did not come to Poland or Czech's aid when Hitler and Stalin annexed them, and the stakes were a lot lower then in a pre-nuclear world. Nor did they come to their aid during their Cold War uprisings. The West has been petrified of confronting Russia directly militarily, and now their oil leverage complicates matters. I know that in theory, an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all, but can you imagine a US or UK leader trying to persuade the voters that they have a duty to fight Russia just because she invaded Estonia?

What has NATO really done for us since the fall of the USSR? They have presided over botched peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and were ultimately unable to stop former Yugoslavians from slaughtering 100,000s of each other. In fact, the NATO bombing campaign over Serbia actually accelerated ethnic cleansing for a while until Milosevic capitulated. In the NATO charter, they have the "right" to engage in military operations without the approval of the UN Security Council. After 9/11, as we all know NATO forces went to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and apprehend/destroy Al Qaeda leadership. But since then, few NATO allies have stepped to the plate and really committed to counterinsurgency and anti-Taleban operations. The US, UK, and Canada have borne the brunt of costs and casualties (notwithstanding the French who lost 10 soldiers this week). If the other nations don't want to leave their bunkers to help stabilize one of the 5 poorest nations on Earth, then how can we count on them to come to our aid in a more serious security crisis?

Can someone give me an honest, rational explanation why America's collective security should involve Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania, who were admitted to NATO in 2004, after Poland, Hungary, and Czech in 1999? Croatia and Albania are slated to join soon, and an "offer" has been made to Ukraine and the now-famous Georgia. But basically Russia pulls the strings for Georgia's membership, because they are inelligible to join NATO as long as they have unresolved territorial disputes within their borders, such as the South Ossetia situation. I know that most of the recently added nations are semi-functional democracies and eager trade partners, but why should we have to devote American blood and money to defend them? We have very little in common, and half of those states are borderline Third World. Actually if anything, Eastern Europe and Central Asia should forge more economic pacts with the West (which will naturally help stability and development), not military ones. But if the EU is not rushing to admit nations that aren't quite ready yet, why is NATO in such a hurry? Europe today is the most cooperating and peaceful its ever been since the invention of the sword, but new problems and hard feelings from past tensions still exist. It's quite possible that even NATO allies may have serious tensions with each other in the future, as the competition for resources intensifies and other problems worsen (immigration, terrorism, climate change, etc.). Then what is America supposed to do? If we expand NATO to 20-30 members (it stands at 26 now), that is too many for America to stick its neck out every time there is trouble.

It is a pain in the ass to be the world's policeman, especially when we don't really know what we're doing and may not even be able to stop some of the "crooks". We have our hands full with Iraq, we couldn't stop North Korea and Iran from maturing their nuclear programs, and we can't (or don't care to) intervene in the humanitarian crises in Sudan, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. And even when we put boots on the ground to "keep the peace", we failed miserably in Southeast Asia in the 1970s, Lebanon/Iran in the 1980s, and Rwanda in the 1990s. So how the hell are we supposed to stop Russia, China, and other powers from menacing their neighbors? Stuck in Iraq and having lost so much international credibility because of it, everyone knows our condemnations and threats are hollow. It's a lose-lose proposition. I am not saying that isolationism is the answer, but we can't keep wading knee-deep in other people's messes. We have to clean up our own house first. I know in this globalized world we are all interconnected, and regional conflicts can cause massive socioeconomic disruptions overseas, but I would hope that we could adopt a more preventative, inclusive foreign policy rather than the current costly, divisive, and reactive one. For sure, the answer is not dividing up the world into spheres of influence, resuming arms races, and forming pacts to obtain strategic advantages, which happened in the years leading up to WWI and during the Cold War. When will we ever learn?

Russia and Georgia made quite a mess of things last week, and we have become centrally involved because of our alliance with Georgia and our insistence on installing an inflammatory missile shield in Eastern Europe. Either we will intervene and make things worse, or our credibility as "world's policeman" will suffer worse because we were too impotent or undiplomatic to convince Russia to change her behavior. Or maybe in some feat of diplomatic genius, we will improve our dialogue with Moscow and come to an equitable compromise, but I doubt it. "Compromise" is often not in Washington's vocabulary. But before we sink deeper into the NATO and Russia pit, we should remember how we got here. If America wasn't so insanely greedy to expand our presence in Russia's backyard, and admit many former Soviet nations into our club to take advantage of their territory, maybe Russia wouldn't feel so cornered and forced to respond to crises so harshly. If we value our security and the security of our NATO partners, then we must also value the security of Russia, Iran, and other competing interests. When our opponents feel safe and trust us, then there is no reason for them to endanger us. If we don't want Russia to keep bullying its neighbors, then we need to stop bullying in that region too. We can't keep trying to create a world where we hold all the cards, and the "left out" countries just have to accept their lot. Based on these arguments, maybe a good first step towards that goal of achieving a fairer, safer world is to cancel the missile shield and disband NATO.

This is what Ron Paul had to say about the matter on the House floor this spring:
Ron Paul: Disband NATO
April 1, 2008 in News by Eric Garris | 44 comments

This is Ron Paul's statement before the US House of Representatives on House Resolution 997, "expressing the strong support of the House of Representatives for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine."

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state. This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US, in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of "exporting democracy" has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.

NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The "modernization" of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.

Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

---------

http://www.forbes.com/2000/11/02/1102atg.html

This is an interesting piece in Forbes from 2000, when W was running against Gore for the White House.

With an estimated annual budget of $1.56 billion, the U.S. shouldered about 29% of NATO's operating budget in 1999, or about $452 million. Each of the member nations pays into NATO based on its gross domestic product, making the U.S. the biggest single contributor. That fund pays for NATO's basic day-to-day operations like staffing and communications, and will presumably pay for NATO's new headquarters, a 557,000-square-foot complex in Brussels. But when an American plane drops a bomb under NATO auspices, its cost is borne by American taxpayers out of the defense budget, not by NATO.

Especially now that the Iraq War has strained our military so much, it doesn't make sense for the US to be NATO's chief financial and military contributor. We are the de facto primary intercessor if an ally needs help, and the more backwards Eastern European nations we admit into NATO, the more we will have to cover their asses if trouble happens. Actually if we want to reform NATO, the US and UK should pay zero, and actually the small, defenseless, minimally-contributing members to the east should pay the most into the system, like "protection money" to the mob! They're the ones on the front lines, they need our expertise and technology to modernize their armies, and they'll cry to us for help in times of crisis, so why should they pay the least yet get the most benefits/protection? It's not like Lithuania is helping make America safer or catching Osama.

--------

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/13-Aug-2008/Disband-NATO

Granted that this op-ed came from Pakistan, but at least that country has the courage and conviction to impeach a corrupt leader who doesn't respect the constitution, unlike Americans.

Russia-Georgia conflict

What do you think of the recent conflict? I think the US is in no position to criticize Russia being an "intimidator" and using "disproportionate force", since basically we and Israel have done the same thing to Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon this decade. After the Iraq War, I think we've opened up Pandora's Box and set a dangerous precedent of violating territorial sovereignty "to defend our people". Columbia did it in Ecuador to kill the FARC leader, and now Russia did it to Georgia, even if Georgia fired the first shots. Plus we have a double-standard regarding sepratist regions after East Timor, Chechnya, and Bush endorsing Kosovo independence too enthusiastically. It's only ok to declare independence if you are pro-Western. And for the US and Poles to agree to the missile shield at this time is very poor diplomacy. It only makes Russia more paranoid and aggressive to spread its influence on its neighbors before the US/NATO get them. If we back Russia into a corner, she will do something bad. It's an old story. And Russia has the oil leverage to bring Europe down, and us with them. What can we do to Russia? Empty threats and ineffective sanctions? We can't even get a second-rate nation like Iran to behave!

Some funny user comments on BBC:

I actually feel sorry for the Russians.

As the US and UK have proved when they use force unilaterally its of course for the good of the world. Now Russia have used it, its detrimental to world peace and a naked act of agression.

Georgia caused much of this mess, have been shown to create extensive damage in the region and they inflicted the first blow. But in the US view they`re the victims.

If the US is really the policemen of the world, he's on the 'take'.

Dave, Manchester, UK

all US Presidents since Korean War in 50s used to say that US will protect with all its power any US citizen in any part of the world. It's their favorite sentence. It was the reason of US invasion to Somali, Guatemala, Panama, Serbia, Korea, Vietnam etc

Russia did the same in S.Osetia. We protect our citizens.

US have dozen Presidents proclaimed this principle. Russia has first President proclaims this principle.
It's up to USA how to react on this with its Policy of Double Standards

alec b, Moscow, Russia

The USA is very provocative and continually tries to move further East direction Russia. It is using its economic power and money to convince former Soviet small states to let the US install missile systems on their territory. Of course, Russia feels somewhat threatened but the US does not care if this ratchets up world tension. Why, because the US is only interested in its self and not in maintaining stability in the region and in the world. New Russian missiles in Cuba and Venezuela?

Hendrik Mahr, Frankfurt

In fact Joseph Stalin was born (in Gori of all places that Republicans show so much concern for) to an Ossetian father and Georgian mother. With such infamous offspring from a Georgian-Ossetian marriage, shouldn't we all be praying that they separate into independent states as soon as possible.

[desnol], London, United Kingdom

Spanish slant eyes

I guess this is why America still has a leg up on Europe in terms of race relations and sensitivity. Despite all our problems and our horrible past, Europe can be more backwards - and the worst part is they don't even see the problem.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/basketball/news?slug=ro-spain081308&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Like, how the hell would that company Seur think that the Spanish bball team making slant eyes would generate more business for them? People in marketing are either the smartest or dumbest employees of a company! I guess they're a courier like DHL and want to show they're "international", but maybe the Spanish could have dressed in Mandarin costumes or something? And it's no excuse for the Spaniards who play in the US, because I'm sure they got some "cultural sensitivity" training so they wouldn't say something bad against blacks and get a beat down from a guy like Artest. But still Calderon couldn't believe what the fuss was about. I agree that the media are blowing it out of proportion (it's not like they were hanging nooses like Jena), but you have to issue an immediate apology and not insist it was no big deal. It's the same thing as the Danes and their derogatory Mohamed cartoons.

Personally, I am not offended by the pic because there are plenty of worse things going on (people are being killed because of their race in places like Myanmar and Sudan). Sure the nationalist Chinese are running with this, and they relish every opportunity to play the victim. But for those clueless morons who can't figure out what the fuss is about, what if the Olympics were in Nigeria, and the team painted their faces black and puffed up their lips? Would they think that is harmless? But then the sad part - I read further into the article and it seems Spanish fans did do something like that to a black Formula 1 driver! Well the fans will always be stupid, and in European soccer there is a history of racism against black/Muslim/Turk/etc. players. The problem is so endemic that star player Thierry Henry even leads an "anti-racism" campaign for UEFA. Spain's soccer team got a lot of praise after winning the Euro Championship this summer, but their current coach was recorded calling Henry a "negro de mierda" in a previous match, yet he wasn't sacked (imagine if Phil Jackson or another American coach did that). Strangely, Europeans pay out big contracts to non-white foreigners to come from their home nations, play soccer, and make them money, yet some ignorant fans still make monkey gestures at them.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/specials/sportsman/2005/11/29/thierry.henry/index.html

I do think that some Americans and others get "too sensitive" on the topic of race, which makes honest, open discussion and reconciliation more difficult. But I guess it'd rather err on the side of caution rather than offend people accidentally with pointless jokes that do no good to anyone.

Obama courting Evangelicals

Describing why some white blue-collar rural voters in states like Pennsylvania might hestitate to support Obama or have faith in the Federal Government, spoken at a SF fundraiser, first published on the Huffington Post blog, April 2008:

"It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Barack Obama

-----------

Obama targeting Evangelical voters, from NPR, August 2008:

"When working as a community organizer with other churches, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed," Obama said.

"Their efforts to show Obama to be a religious man are not subtle," said Steve Waldman, the founder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, a Web site dedicated to spirituality. Waldman said Obama's emphasis on faith is even more aggressive than that of President Bush, but that it's not entirely aimed at religious voters.
"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic," Waldman said.

The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist. "Let me just point out all the things that, when Republicans do them, your colleagues in the media are all over them for exploiting religion, and yet when Obama does it, it's considered refreshing, and he's competitive," Bauer said.

-----------

I find this sort of pandering to a specific voter demographic, whether religious or otherwise, to be contrary to Obama's message of unity and universal inclusion. How about the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, Mormons, Atheists, Santerians, etc.? All American votes count and all are equal, right? Where is the talk of securing 70% of the Sunni or Agnostic vote? I know previous Democrats have shied away from discussing religion and their personal faith (maybe to their political peril), and Obama is one of those "special" candidates who doesn't easily fit a political mold. But in comparison, religion plays a much smaller role in McCain's campaign. Yes it's true that if Obama manages to secure at least 25-30% of the white Evangelical vote, he will pretty much lock up the election. McCain only has 60% of their votes, versus George W. Bush's >70% in 2004. And even if this recent "faith offensive" is not totally aimed at religious voters, but instead meant to dispel misperceptions that Obama is elitist (and/or Muslim), it's pretty darn sad for Obama and America if he has to engage in such public displays of Christianity to convince people he's "one of them".

One of the few things I like about the Democratic Party is they don't shove religion down your throat, and don't consider it a prerequisite to being American. Maybe it's because they're too "politically correct" and fear offending people, as Obama said in his celebrated speech on religion and politics in June. But I also think it comes from a sense of humility, respect for personal privacy, and maybe the realization that religion won't solve or even help with many pressing matters of government, so why bother opening such a dogmatic, divisive Pandora's Box? Many progressives endorse a woman's right to choose (not pro-abortion, but legally permitting the procedure if a person decides to) and same sex unions (more Americans committing to relationships with each other and strengthening the family/home can only do our country good). Yes some "anti-religion" Dems go overboard with removing religious content in public spaces, but many Dems who are religious tend to keep it to themselves. Religion (especially Protestant Christianity, of which Evangelicals belong) is inherently a private relationship between a person and his/her creator, and doesn't have to be publicized and institutionalized. Sure your preacher acts as the intermediary between you and your maker, and you may enjoy worshipping in the context of a congregation. But for Obama to get up on his "pulpit" and often spout scripture like he was Reverend MLK Jr. concerns me, especially because he didn't before the Iowa Caucuses. I suppose the feedback he's getting from advisors and the public is that it's working. The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne said that Obama's speech on religion and politics in June in was the greatest by a Democrat since JFK. But maybe a problem with American politics is that we inject religion much more than anyone else in the developed world. We don't have to be "secularism Nazis" like the Turks, but I think it would help the political discourse and electoral process to tone it down a notch.

Obama grew up without religion in his life, and may have joined Trinity Church in Chicago for its social-political connections, according to The New Yorker. As a community organizer, he only targeted South Side churches because those were the easiest conduits by which to contact and mobilize local black voters. He wasn't "drawn" to church by faith alone. So maybe his god did touch him, and now he is a real believer and agent of his will. Kudos to him. That has NOTHING to do with the job of President of the USA, except for being an attractive addition to your resume when you court skeptical Christian voters. His explicit displays of religion are also peculiar, especially considering his statment above about rural whites. Not long ago in April, he made the argument (if I'm interpreting it correctly) that rural whites are frustrated from decades of decline and being ignored by Washington. They feel the government has failed them with countless unmet promises of better jobs returning, so they are bitter and blame global trade, immigrants, and others not like them for their predicament. They also "cling to guns or religion" as a way of coping with their situations. So in essence, Obama was saying that rural whites (many of them are Evangelicals) medicate themselves with their religion, yet now he is invoking those same sentiments to profess his kinship with them. He implicitly mocked rural whites for using Jesus to make them feel better about their problems (which doesn't really solve anything or address the root causes of their economic situations), but now he is saying that he draws his strength from Jesus, and is inspired by him to try to help those same people.

However, those voters may not be easily won over. On his website, Obama clearly states that he supports a woman's right to choose, access to birth control, and stem cell research, which may be at odds with many Evangelicals. For same sex unions, his positions are less clearly defined. He has said several times that marriage should be between a man and a woman, though he does support same-sex civil unions and equality under the law. He also denounced the "discriminatory" proposition in the CA ballot to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, of which McCain supports. But just by being a Democrat, I don't know if the "defense of marriage" Evangelicals will hear him out. Though clearly many Christians take more into account than just their religious views when they vote ("It's the economy, stupid!").

So I guess it's ok to do whatever it takes to win, even speaking from both sides of your mouth. That's not much "change" from the Washington status quo. In addition, Obama first vowed to take public campaign financing if McCain followed suit (after all, he is above all that lobbyist influence and special-interest money, right?). Deep in financial trouble at the time, McCain went public, but Obama changed his mind because he knew he could raise more money privately (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=5201819&page=1). The Obama and McCain camps supposedly agreed to a series of debates prior to the 3 official presidential debates, but depending on who you ask, either Obama or McCain reneged on that commitment too (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debates). Obama also used to denounce immunity for telecoms who helped Bush spy on Americans without warrants, but ended up voting for the FISA bill in the end, much to the chargrin of many liberal supporters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/20080702/tc_cnet/830110784399828987). I know McCain has done his share of "flip-flopping" too, and has said some really stupid things about energy policy just to score PR points with cash-strapped voters (he thinks that expanded US drilling will actually make gas fall below $4/gallon, but by the time we tap those new fields, gas may be $6!).

But I expected "The One" to hold himself to higher standards.

Election 2008: Issues
Evangelicals Up For Grabs? Candidates Court Voters
by Mara Liasson

Listen Now [7 min 45 sec] add to playlist

"We believe that more Americans of faith, including evangelicals and modern mainline Protestants and modern conservative Catholics, will give Senator Obama a hard look."
Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama campaign
Morning Edition, August 7, 2008 · On Aug. 16, Barack Obama and John McCain will appear together at Rick Warren's Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, Calif. Joint appearances by the presumed nominees of the major parties are rare, and this one shows that both parties are working hard to court the votes of white evangelical Christians.

This year, there's been a role reversal in the competition for those voters. Now, it's the Democrat who is comfortable quoting Scripture and talking openly about his beliefs. "When working as a community organizer with other churches, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed," Obama said.

John McCain is more reluctant to talk about his own faith. And he has had rocky relations with religious conservatives. But McCain is a believer, and he has a powerful story about the time his own faith was tested — when he was being tortured as a prisoner of war. One Christmas morning, he was allowed out of his cell for a few moments. As he stood alone in the prison courtyard, one of the Vietnamese guards — who had shown some small kindness to McCain in the past — walked up to him. "Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt," McCain said. "We stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away. To me, that was faith: a faith that unites and never divides, a faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. It is the faith that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the faith I would die to defend."

'Mainstream' Man Of Faith

That story is often about all the Arizona senator will say about his faith, much to the chagrin of his evangelical supporters. Obama, however, is making an all-out push to court religious voters. The Illinois senator has promised to expand President Bush's faith-based initiative. During the primaries, the senator distributed leaflets with headings like "Committed Christian" and "Called to Christ."

"Their efforts to show Obama to be a religious man are not subtle," said Steve Waldman, the founder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, a Web site dedicated to spirituality. Waldman said Obama's emphasis on faith is even more aggressive than that of President Bush, but that it's not entirely aimed at religious voters.

"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic," Waldman said.

The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist. "Let me just point out all the things that, when Republicans do them, your colleagues in the media are all over them for exploiting religion, and yet when Obama does it, it's considered refreshing, and he's competitive," Bauer said.

A Volatile Mix

Religion and politics can be a combustible mix. For McCain, it has sometimes been an exploding cigar. This year, McCain accepted the endorsement of fundamentalist pastors Rod Parsley and John Hagee. But McCain had to reject their endorsements after it was discovered that Parsley had called Islam evil, and after Hagee said the Holocaust was part of God's plan for the Jews. "I didn't attend their church for 20 years, and I'm not a member of their church. I received their endorsement, which did not mean that I endorsed their views. But the comments made most recently by Pastor Hagee are just too much," McCain said in a statement at the time.

In that statement, McCain was reminding voters about the 20 years Obama spent in a Chicago church led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose many controversial remarks included accusations that the government created the AIDS epidemic to kill blacks. Obama had to cut his ties to Wright, saying the minister's comments "were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

Closing The Gap

The Wright episode planted seeds of doubt about Obama in the minds of many voters, and the rejection of Hagee and Parsley reopened the old wounds between McCain and evangelicals. But Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader, says McCain still has a good chance with those voters. "What I hear a lot from Southern Baptist pastors and lay people ... is a variation of this sort of theme: 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, but I'll take a third class fireman over a first class arsonist.' And when it comes to the issue of life, when it comes to the issue of marriage, they perceive Barack Obama as a first class arsonist," Land said.

Land thinks that, in the end, evangelicals will vote for McCain. But Bauer worries about something else: McCain needs a committed army of volunteers — the kind President Bush found in the evangelical community four years ago. Bauer said he sends out an e-mail to a quarter-million Christian activists every day.

"I've noticed in the feedback from my own daily reports, that if I go back three months ago, there was a large number of people saying, 'Gary, there's just no way I can do this.' And now people are saying, 'We've got to elect him,' and 'How do I volunteer?' So that gap is going to close, too. But whether it closes quickly enough over the next hundred days remains to be seen," Bauer said.

A 'Humble' Outreach

In 2004, President Bush got 78 percent of the evangelical vote. John Kerry got only 22 percent. Right now, Waldman said, polls show McCain has about 60 percent — about 10 points behind where Bush was at this point in 2004; Obama has about 25 percent, a little better than where Kerry ended up. "What the polls are showing in terms of evangelicals is that John McCain has lost a bunch of them compared to George Bush, but that Barack Obama has not yet gotten them. … He has an opportunity that Democrats haven't had in a long time, but he has not yet succeeded in bringing them over," Waldman said.

At least some of these voters are up for grabs. And in the next few weeks, Obama will be stepping up his efforts to get them. He'll launch a new outreach project aimed at younger evangelicals with community service projects, house parties and Christian rock concerts. "We're pretty humble in this outreach. We certainly don't plan on winning outright the evangelical vote … but we do believe that more Americans of faith, including evangelicals and modern mainline Protestants and modern conservative Catholics, will give Senator Obama a hard look and will end up supporting him," said Joshua DuBois, Obama's national director of religious affairs.

No one expects Obama to even get half the evangelical vote. But just breaking 30 percent would be a kind of miracle for a Democrat. The last Democrat to do so was Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist who got 32 percent of the white evangelical vote. It may not be a coincidence that he was also the last Democrat elected president.

Related NPR Stories
July 8, 2008
Evangelical Leader Discusses Candidates
July 7, 2008
Evangelicals Take a Second Look at Obama
July 28, 2008
Evangelicals Eye Presidential Race

China's rise and the Olympics

Disclaimer: The following commentary is by no means anti-Chinese. Like most countries, the problem is the system and members of government, not the average people just trying to get by. Many Chinese have improved their standard of living and are optimistic for the future. The majority are not oppressed by their leaders to the degree of North Korea or Myanmar, but autocracy and injustices do exist that are not becoming of a burgeoning and aspiring "superpower". I believe that the Beijing government deserves it's share of credit for China's economic success, as well as blame for the country's many lingering and worsening sociopolitical problems, of which the Olympics may play a role.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11848192
http://www.newsweek.com/id/148997
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90408961

------- PART 1: CHINA'S EVOLUTION -------

These Olympic Games have placed China in the spotlight (and under the microscope) like never before. I know it's impossible to tackle such a huge topic with my limited knowledge and time (plus most major news services have been heavily covering the "Rise of China" storyline for the last two years, not to mention many PhD students like Andu!), but I wanted to at least start a conversation and see what people think. China's collective psychology regarding the Games, ever-evolving perceptions of their history/national identity, and dealing with the growing pains of their rapid economic rise is complex and fascinating, as the links above describe. You PolSci grad students are better suited to chime in here, though I guess they're too busy doing real research, instead of responding to my sophomoric emails!

These Summer Games are supposedly China's time in the spotlight, and their biggest opportunity to show the world that they have arrived. Economically, we already know this to be true, yet China is not yet the slayer of the West that some xenophobes envision. Its GDP is #2 in the world (though smaller than the combined EU I think), but still just 55% of America's and not expected to equal ours any time soon. I know their huge population works against them for some economic metrics, but their per capita GDP ($5,500 in 2003) is just ranked #122 worldwide, in between Peru and Swaziland, so clearly many Chinese have not yet arrived. But after their inclusion in the WTO in 2001 (despite rampant corruption, poor environmental/worker protections, currency devaluation, and other unfair trade practices), their growth has soared as the West's thirst for cheap, mass-manufactured goods has risen in parallel.

In terms of macroeconomics and global development, China is a major success story, especially considering how far she had to pick herself up from the disaster of the Cultural Revolution. China seems very hungry for outside respect and recognition. But great nations don't need to convince anyone that they're great; it should be obvious based on their behavior and accomplishments. China has the wealth and military might (relatively, for Asia standards) for sure, but not the political maturity. A great nation doesn't cut lucrative deals with Myanmar and Sudan, then forego their international responsibilities by as those states commit all sorts of mayhem on their own people. Though some experts feel that China has responded to the Olympics publicity and international pressure, drastically adjusting its dealings with Khartoum this year (see reference 1 at end). A great nation doesn't ethnically cleanse its minority provinces, and try to convince the world that the Dalai Lama is actually a villain. A great nation doesn't profit from rampant counterfeiting and exporting of tainted products. A great nation doesn't censor its people, force foreign internet service providers to rat out dissidents, jail them without cause, and sell their organs on the black market. A great nation should let the people decide their laws and leaders, instead of an inner circle of Communist Party elites (who don't even believe in communism anymore, and appoint their corrupt, incompetent cronies to key posts in provincial government).

However, the problem is that other prominent nations of the last 50 years have committed all those misdeeds too and worse (well, maybe not the organs part). Europe and the US often criticize China for the very things that they used to do (or may still be doing). I know that Europe especially has learned a great deal from WWII and the dissolution of their overseas empires, and are often leading the way in terms of fair diplomacy, social welfare, and environmentalism. But Russia and the US are still thumbing their noses at legitimate criticism (often from each other), and engaging in some of the same self-destructive Cold War ideologies and tendencies. So it's hard for the teapot to call the kettle black and guilt-trip China into behaving better, which is unfortunate, because there are several Third World conflicts where their economic relationships could be useful leverage.

As the Newsweek article describes, China has a major chip on their shoulder after nearly a century of "humiliating" history with the West and Japan. The Chinese Empire, once so advanced and the envy of the world, fell apart from the inside. Tens of millions of Chinese perished during WWII, and many other millions died due to civil conflicts, famines, disasters, and mismanagement from Beijing. Finally their time to shine has come, and they'll be damned if they allow protesters or critics to rain on their glorious parade (though some rain to clear the Beijing skies would be welcomed!). It seems that the more outside criticism that China receives, the more stubbornly intransigent and anti-progressive they become. Though that is the case with most nations and regimes. When under attack by foreign critics, people circle the wagons and cling to their nationalism, while their repressive governments find their grip on power conveniently augmented. So I guess protesting China during the Olympics may be a double-edged sword, or even counter-productive if the goal is social reform.

To enhance our understanding, we have to consider China in the context of her leaders, whose #1 priority is political control of 1.3B people (who are mostly poor and rural). The Western powers were more scared of the Soviet Union than Nazi Germany in the 1930s, because the prospect of Bolshevism spreading was much scarier than fascist National Socialism. Workers vastly outnumber the powerful elites in every industrialized country, so they were deathly scared of a "proletarian revolt". Yet China has managed to keep relative control of its workers with the help of, and in spite of, Marxism. Now "Mao is dead", his social visions dismantled, and China has totally moved past communist ideology as their social glue. I guess witnessing the USSR's failed attempt to compete economically with the West encouraged China's leaders to modernize and adopt a market economy. However, they have skillfully managed to enact these changes without significantly expanding personal freedoms and political rights. A traditionally Confucian society with a history of deference to authority would appear to be a prime candidate to embrace centralized socialist rule. But some Chinese observed that their Confucian traditions failed them in the face of Western competition and colonialism, so some adjustments and innovations had to be made. Clearly the primitive, agrarian China of the 1970s couldn't survive on Marxist ideology alone, especially as their population growth outpaced their economic development. So instead, their leaders embarked on a massive social engineering experiment, as a means of helping China modernize and extending their grip on power. The "one child" policy took effect, social safety nets were dismantled, and a market economy emerged. So capitalism and nationalism have replaced Maoism in China's social fabric. Now their ethos is making as much money as possible, and increase glory and influence for China (hopefully through peaceful, economic means).

But a free market and reduced public services means that some people, or many people, will be left behind. Most Chinese cannot afford cars or the fancy new products that their factories produce, not to mention basic lodging and health care in the cities. Their modernized economy has saved millions of Chinese from starvation and other suffering, but thousands of workers have been sacrificed at the altar of capitalism during huge mining or construction disasters, not to mention unhealthy working conditions in their massive factories. Their traditional agrarian way of life is threatened by the mass exodus of young, temporary laborers to the urban centers. People were displaced left and right to make way for massive public works projects, such as the disappointing Three Gorges Dam. Yes the government has reduced or eliminated food shortages, droughts, and flooding, but their economy has also poisoned their skies and water table, and their social engineering may come to haunt them when the ratio of young workers to retirees becomes unsustainable, and too many poor men can't find brides. Many older Chinese actually lament all the recent growth and change (2). They yearn from the "old days" of real socialism when people weren't fixated on consumption, and there was work and health care for all (albeit low quality). For the generation that grew up with the Little Red Book as their bible, this massive shift doesn't make sense. But they can't deny that the free market has done for China what Mao never could.

But if the previous political economy models hold true, China's prosperity will eventually lead to expanded freedoms and democratic reforms. Though we will see how the ruling party reacts to that movement in a post-Tiananmen Internet age. In addition, with huge wealth gains and sustained autocratic leadership comes China's aspirations to restore their imperial glory. But some of China's economic practices are creating a lot of bad karma overseas, and there's a thin line between trade and exploitation, or even soft colonialism. After the US and UK's major loss of international goodwill due to its handling of the War on Terror, China should heed that warning and realize that their actions do carry consequences. Negative perceptions can be very bad for business. Already they have made waves or caused friction with their worldwide shopping spree (legal but gaudy) of natural resources and foreign companies, or uncompetitive trade practices like devaluing their currency in order to make their exports artificially cheap (but maybe that time is over, since inflation is finally catching up with them). Chinese immigrants have spread across the globe, and many have succeeded financially, working hard and often out-competing local businesses (3). They also tend to sell Chinese-made products and hire other Chinese instead of local goods/workers, so their commercial gains aren't really shared with their neighbors. The Chinese can do business as they like and have every right to be unapologetic, but as we all know, disproportionate success (even if honest) can often breed resentment and jealousy. Sinophobic backlash is common from the US to Australia, which also makes the Chinese more defiant and jingoistic, especially those who are aware of their racist history with the West, like during the Gold Rush and Chinese Exclusion Act.

In a recent special for the Discovery Channel, Ted Koppel visited China and observed that 80% of Chinese think favorably of their government, mostly out of appreciation for the large standard of living gains during their economic boom, as well as nationalistic pride for China's return to world power status (4). Well, a government with an 80% approval rating is either unbelievably wonderful or really screwed up. Saddam and Kim Jong Il got very high marks from their people too, but you can easily question the validity and credibility of such data. On the other hand, "near perfect" nations like Singapore, Switzerland, and Sweden don't even enjoy 80% approval ratings for their leaders. Iceland seems to be the exception, with a very happy populace and 83% government approval rating (from a recent Capacent Gallup poll). Speaking of happiness index, China was ranked #76 worldwide by the New Economics Foundation (they defined their happiness metric as 50% life expectancy + 50% life satisfaction survey), well below those other nations, and even war-torn Sri Lanka and impoverished Guatemala (5). So the Chinese aren't happy about something, but tend to not blame the government. I attribute this to censorship and propaganda, along with an underlying sentiment among average Chinese that they desperately want to be proud of their nation, even to the point of delusion. Chinese children don't learn anything negative about China (but I guess that can be said of any nation), and all the hard times were the fault of foreigners. Speaking badly of the government is a crime, just like in Iran or Turkey. Chinese media is heavily controlled, though Internet bloggers are trying their best to offer alternative viewpoints to the official Party Line. I think the information is available if the Chinese really care to find out. But maybe many of them are content to support their government 100%, and actually believe that Tibet and Taiwan belong to them. Just as long as they are making a decent wage, maybe they are content with an autocratic government and few channels for political redress. But of course there are still dissenters who have made their case to Beijing and won at times, or at least made headlines (6). Their system can't sustain itself indefinitely. With more commerce and wealth comes more exchange of ideas and demand for improvements.

------- PART II: CHINA AND THE GAMES --------

So with China's recent history as the backdrop, we can see how the Olympics situation may become problematic. China's economic growth has made them the darling of Asia and globalization, yet also resented, if not outright loathed, in many places for perceived or real uncompetitive, brusque commercial practices (not to mention human rights abuses). The Chinese people and government are quite nationalistic, and a lot is riding on these games. They fear that insurgents, dissidents, and critics will spoil their glorious moment of triumph, so then they clamp down even harder, thereby giving those same critics more ammunition and validation. They want and need these games to go off without a hitch, and their athletes to sweep up many medals. It seems that the Chinese are using the Games as an opportunity to show off how impressive and mighty their nation and people have become (similar to the Nazi Games of 1936, but of course I don't equate the two countries). But that very attitude of flaunting success and "Middle Kingdom" ethnocentrism is what partially inspires Sinophobic sentiments aross the globe.

Welcoming the world to your Olympic Games should be a great honor and huge responsibility for the host nation, and the IOC should not dangle that privilege as "reward" for a developing state or prosperous city. Hosting the Olympics should not be a right of passage to show that a city/society has made the big time, yet at times it has been exactly that (Hitler's Berlin in 1936 to show they had recovered from WWI and Versailles, Tokyo and Seoul hosting in the 1980s to demonstrate the rise of Asia). Well, the IOC is definitely NOT the UN, and economic/publicity motives seem to drive Olympic decisions much more than the "good of sport" and international goodwill.

Their innovative stadiums and public works projects in preparation for the Olympics are impressive and deserve praise, but a nation is truly weak if it relies on festivals and edifices to prove its prowess. China arrogantly belies that these Games will be the "best ever". The ATHLETES and the COMPETITION make the Olympics great, not the host nation and their propaganda. The Olympics will go on with or without China, and even poorer, smaller places like Rio or Jakarta could put on a decent Games if given the chance. Even if their prediction comes true, do they expect everyone to suddenly sing China's praises and overlook her many other faults, just because they put on a good show for three weeks? All their problems will still be around after the Closing Ceremony, and in fact some problems have worsened while the nation was fixated with the Olympics for the last seven years.

In the face of foreign criticism, China claims that the Olympics should be apolitical, and I tend to agree. But if they expect to use these Olympics as an opportunity to ameliorate their image and announce their arrival on the world stage, then their objectives are purely nationalistic - and therefore political. Of course their primary goals are to win as many medals as possible (their sports system is also a major source of nationalism), and make sure the Games proceed smoothly and visitors have a positive experience. That sounds fine and fairly ubiquitous, but one problem with nationalism is that it breeds competition, superiority, and often requires an "enemy" to make sense. China seems to have many enemies to choose from when politically convenient.

There's always the ill will from decades of Western exploitation and colonial humiliation (Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, etc.). After the People's Revolution, the decadent and capitalistic "dogs" were still the enemy, but then Nixon reached out to Mao and later Deng Xiaopeng started to move the country towards a market-based economy. Then it was Tibet, Taiwan, Vietnam, the USSR, and/or India. Sometimes Chinese politicians invoked past WWII scars and lashed out at Japan for its indifference or denial over atrocities like Nanking. They must have a particular sense of rivalry versus Japan. The perpetrator of much WWII carnage in Asia recovered from the war quicker than the victims, and got its "revenge" against the West by rising to economic dominance in the auto and electronics industries. And they did it faster and better than China. Now of course China's GDP has surpassed Japan's on the strength of its cheap renminbi, endless labor force, and massive manufacturing sector. Maybe they get the last laugh, though the quality of life differences in the two nations are like night and day. I suppose leading up to the Olympic games, the enemy has now shifted to Tibet supporters and the critical Western media, who are ostensibly bitter at China's success and hesitant to give her due respect on the world stage.

But getting back to the actual Games... of course every nations tries to impress and showcase its assets to the world during highly publicized events. Yes China employed some talented people to construct amazing creations like the new airport, Bird's Nest, and Water Cube (and they finished on time and within budget, unlike struggling Athens), but a stadium is just a place where people sit and watch athletes run around. It won't help China at all during the next socioeconomic crisis or natural disaster. Would they rather have a really fancy stadium that will go mostly unused after August, or maybe they could have spent some of those millions on enforcing safer building codes, so their shoddy Sichuan schools didn't crush scores of only children in a hail of concrete? I know with a quake that strong, some structures will fall and some people will die, but their public schools seemed to topple at a higher rate than neighboring private structures (7).

Any schmuck can build a fancy monument. Saddam and the two Kim dictators of North Korea had their slaves build huge palaces and statues to their glory, but it didn't convince anyone on the outside to think of them any better. Robert Mugabe spent millions on his birthday party, while his people starved and inflation soared (their treasury recently printed ten billion notes, which can't even buy bread). And let us not forget that thousands of poor Chinese were forcibly evicted or saw their livelihoods affected in order to make room for the new airport, transit systems, stadiums, and the "greater good and glory of China". That is partially why the UK's Amnesty International proclaimed in a recent study that human rights have actually declined in China because of the Olympics, versus the IOC's expectations to the contrary. In addition, an investigation suggests that several workers died during the rushed construction of the Bird's Nest, but the government denies this (8). Well, China is still blessed with is an endless supply of expendable rural laborers, just like the "glory days" of old when their imperial dynasties were supported literally by the blood and sweat of the peasantry.

How glorious is a nation that needs to censor/monitor/revoke visas of foreign journalists, suppress/assault dissenters, and shut down auto traffic and factories so the air during the Games has a slight chance of being breathable? And through all this, the IOC has been totally complicit (or at least neutral), because despite the bad PR and compromising of their "values", they know they will make mountains of cash on these Games. And sometimes controversy is good because it generates more attention, and therefore more revenues. But how about all the "unsightly" lower-class individuals like homeless, migrants, and prostitutes who were herded from Beijing and out of sight from the tourists? They are just hiding and stacking their problems in the closet while the guests are over, in order to present the false impression that all is well in their perfect, happy family. Probably most host cities have implemented similar "clean up" projects prior to the Games, but China has taken it to a new level. I know that terrorism is an unfortunate modern reality that all major international event planners must deal with, but does that give them the right to randomly pat-down visitors and make it so complicated for totally non-threatening people to obtain travel visas (9,10)? Are they playing host or jailer?

If hosting the Games is like inviting the world to your home, some nations have very strange hospitality habits indeed. If Nazi Germany and the USSR have hosted previous Games, then we can't really use the argument that China isn't qualified to host based on her poor human rights record and lack of freedoms. But still, China not only wants to convince the world that she deserves to host the Games, but also that she should be taken seriously as a world power and global player. Yet leading up to these Games, China has sometimes behaved like a second-rate banana republic rather than one of the five most powerful nations on Earth. Violently suppressing revolts in Tibet and attempting to demonize the Dalai Lama, sending pro-China thugs overseas to fight against Torch Rally protesters, and clamping down on journalists/Internet access are just a few of their recent transgressions. The tragic Sichuan earthquake forced Beijing to increase media and aid worker freedoms in their country (and the mostly positive PR from their response to help the survivors was worth it), but I doubt those expanded freedoms will persist.

Self-assured nations don't have to forcibly project their power and authority wherever they go, but can accomplish their objectives quietly through dialog and negotiation. That is true power. Only insecure leaders and governments feel the need to pick fights or pull off political stunts to remind the world that they are relevant (hostility and arrogance over Taiwan and Tibet, buying and spying for military technology, border disputes with neighbors, Falun Gong, using the War on Terror as an excuse to clamp down on Muslim minorities, who are mostly not actual security threats). China is not all evil or all good, like any other state. Though if pro-China groups declared war on the Torch Rally protesters and Western media, then that means Beijing actually feels threatened by them. How can they expect us to take them seriously as a world power if they act so childish and tempermental in the face of puny Richard Gere and laughable CNN? Even if some prominent Americans make ludicrous comments and Sinophobic Congressmen irrationally block Chinese companies from purchasing US holdings, the Middle Kingdom is not exactly persecuted by the West. After all, they still have permanent veto power on the Security Council, Most Favorable Nation trade status with the US and others, and billions of T-bonds in the bank that they could ruin us with if they ever decide to collect. Their economy is still growing by double-digits while the West is in recession, and no one in Asia can seriously threaten them militarily. The Chinese government is often schizophrenic in this regard, playing both victim and bully simultaneously.

In closing (thank you for reading this far), "Noblesse oblige" is an old French proverb meaning that nobility are obligated to act like nobility, especially when situations tempt you to compromise your values or take an undignified shortcut. Forget for now that many nobles throughout history have behaved lower than pond scum, but the intended meaning of the proverb has some validity. If China wants the accolades and respect that she thinks she deserves as a legit world power, then she should act like one, plain and simple. Then I guarantee she will obtain what she desires. Despite all her pressing problems, the sky is the limit for the Middle Kingdom, and only China can keep China down (their government at least). We'll see how these Olympics and the near future play out for them, especially with rising resource costs, an aging population, and manufacturing competition from smaller, cheaper nations. Great nations and peoples show their true greatness in the face of daunting challenges. Will this be China's "Greatest Generation", or will they fade like their empire of the past?

------- REFERENCES --------

(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93293361
(2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89253125
(3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93143915
(4) http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/koppel/highlights/highlights.html
(5) http://www.socyberty.com/Sociology/World-Happiness-Rankings.116999
(6) http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/news/248218.php
(7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7400524.stm
(8) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article3216569.ece
(9) http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-31-voa17.cfm?rss=sports
(10) http://www.visabureau.com/worldwide/news/23-07-2008/china-increases-visa-and-security-measures-for-olympics.aspx

Quality of life, part 2

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this particular topic as well so I hesitate to respond without structuring a response; I suppose I could take a "devil's advocate" approach and attempt to offer hope by way of rejoinder but I think I'd fail to demonstrate an appropriately personal tone with such a choice; I'm therefore going to try to respond "Tim-style", i.e. personally and with some links to articles from well-respected publications which broach the subject in an even-handed fashion.


http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11792366&fsrc=RSS
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11791539&fsrc=RSS



(If nothing else check out the second link - there's a pretty cool drawing)


I can't speak to anyone else's expectations but I know I had high hopes when I was in high school: I had amassed an academic record which I thought to be "par excellence", I was beginning to come of age, and the future (from a economic/cultural/political standpoint) was bright. My assumption was that I would excel in college just as I had in high school and ultimately find my way to (what is, objectively, modest) prosperity.


Certainly things turned out differently. I never anticipated that at 27 years of age I'd be living with my parents and dealing with a terminal illness but, low and behold, that is now reality. I failed to get admission to any of the schools I applied to for college. I spent the first year after I graduated unemployed thanks to (a) a telecom industry implosion, (b) a dot-com bubble bursting, and (c) a bad undergraduate experience and spent the last 3 1/2 years working for IBM. Although IBM was a sought-after employer at our college career fairs the company has been a little less than fair: I saw my salary raised an entire 2.4% (which is less than inflation was during the same period), observed the company's practice of paying local new hires (from San Jose State and Santa Clara University) nearly $5K more than I make (even though I have five years of industry experience and an engineering degree from Cal), and watched a colleague get promoted before I did despite working 10 hour days (the rub was the colleague was promoted posthumously). I took a look at my college's salary survey from last year (http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/EECS.stm) and my present salary is about 7% below the mean and average for *new* graduates (I would cautiously venture to say that that the mean and median salary for UCB EECS graduates with five years of working experience is ~$90,000). Needless to say that, as a result of my geographically-insensitive salary, I've been living at home, commuting approximately 130 miles a day, and saving every penny with the hope that I can (some day) afford a lifestyle which was more or less implicit when I decided to spend the prime of my life to study math, physics, and CS rather than the female student body. I've racked up more than $5K in medical bills (out-of-pocket cost, and I'm insured through Empire and Kaiser!) each of the last three years and still don't have much to show for it than a stalemate with respect to test results (i.e. tumor marker present but tumor-free imaging tests), to say nothing of the fact that my voice was damaged by surgery and may never be recovered.


From my vantage point the opportunities which are available to me (and, implicitly, to us) are limited: one can continue in a dead-end job, attempt to change employers (which, as I'm finding out, is just as difficult as finding a job in the first place), or return to school for an advanced degree which may ultimately prove to be as useful (towards the ends of employment) as the degree one already has. Changing employers might also mean moving (which is, for the most part, true of attending a graduate school as well) so there's a trade-off there as well (new surroundings & a displacement from the habit of comfort v/s cost of renting & loss of easy access to a healthy lifestyle at home).


I certainly have some of the same anxieties with regards to any one of a number of "securities" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/are-you-secure_b_160.html) but I suppose I'm more optimistic with respect to the future. Politics (like many other things) is a pendulum which invariably swings to-and-fro from extreme to extreme; if the last seven years have been the height of irresponsibility, recklessness, and hopelessness then there are only better things to come. I think the last decade has afforded a certain perspective, which is that none of us can count on the government or a paternal employer to ensure our future; as such, it definitely behooves us to learn as much as we can about managing our finances and investments in order to ensure a retirement for ourselves. Our country, although decadent, is renowned for innovation so I'm sure we'll find a way to overcome our challenges in the years to come.


The most important thing is not to give up; life, after all, is not about running from challenges. While being born in another time may have meant economic/cultural/political security wishing to have been born in another time does no good whatsoever. Consider that those best equipped to face the toughest challenges are not those who close their eyes and coast along; rather, those of us who are truly gifted (not just by nature but by nurture as well) must believe that we are the ones who are best-equipped to triumph and (accordingly) act decisively and with purpose, even if the scope of our responsibility appears to be small (i.e. raising a family, working a corporate job, living within the context of a consumption-based society, etc.) I think there's definitely a lot more to life than a rat race but definitely not if you've given up and decided that everything you've been taught and everything you've learned was a waste of effort; if nothing else it should be clear that such an attitude is a slap in the face to the parents, teachers, coaches who invested time and effort into your potential.


[An aside: I hate to make a religious reference but in the Bhagwad Gita (one of the holiest of texts for Hindus) the incarnation of God (Krishna) tells Arjun (the hero) that he must act - no abdication of responsibilities will change the timeless realities of a duty to selflessly act for collective betterment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita); the "tone" of the email really reminded me of the story so I felt like I should mention it.]


PS: I cut a bunch of stuff about college and work which was really just abysmal but I can send those things in another email; perhaps the tone would have been scattered and too depressing had I included those parts? They all make for great stories (like watching a dead guy get promoted before you do) but only if you go for that sort of thing... = /


--------

Thanks for writing and sharing your perspective, R. I am glad you are still optimistic despite some of the hardships you've had to face in the last few years. Yes those articles were quite interesting and echo a lot of what this email group and the nation as a whole have been feeling. It is strange how Americans are pessimistic about the federal government and economy in general, though closer to home they tend to be supportive of their local reps and satisfied with their life. Yes, maybe the media are dwelling too much on gloom and doom, and this recession is mostly psychological (but tell that to the people who just got foreclosed). Just because this recession isn't totally following traditional patterns (unemployment is still low, relatively, but what about under-employment?) doesn't mean it's any less severe. After recalculations, growth was negative in Q4 2007, and the GDP doesn't take into account inflation, a weak dollar, and the housing crisis. But I don't put much stock in such surveys that ask broad, qualitative questions, and it's always useful to determine their feelings relative to what. I am satisfied with my life compared to a day laborer, but of course there are many things that I wish could be easier. I disapprove of the job performance of our president and Congress, though our situation is still a lot better than say, China or Iraq. I do think that our economic health is not as good now compared to when many of us started college in 1998ish, due to inflation, resource shortages, the housing/finance situation, stagnating wages, and a widening wealth gap.

Unlike other Americans, I don't blame foreigners for our current economic funk. In fact, I commend the Asian nations for bringing millions of their people out of poverty (relatively), and the EU for working together and providing an alternative sociopolitical system to the American model (despite some similarities). As your article said, cheap Asian goods have given lower-income Americans access to previously-unaffordable products that potentially improve their quality of life (but also tempts them to over-spend on Wal-crap), and economic growth doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. But if other nations (China and the oil-producers in particular) are getting rich partially from scams and unfair trade practices, then that must be dealt with. Though that's not to say that the West doesn't employ its share of damaging protectionist policies and trade scams too, in order to profit at the expense of the poor.

Bottom line, we are to blame for the current mess, pure and simple. And the next president won't be able to fix it much, despite all the campaign rhetoric. There are natural boom and bust cycles, and it's funny how the Economist noted that some young people like us never even realized that downturns are normal, because we've been lucky to never live through bad times until now (we were a bit young to be directly affected by the last Bush recession of 1991-2). There are measures that the Fed and others can take to lessen the swings of the economic cycle, like in Europe. But no one seems to want to be a "party pooper" and plan for a rainy day during the boom times. We're too drunk on money to realize that the more we're growing, the harder we may fall later. Personally, I would much rather have a smoother economic cycle rather than huge booms followed by huge busts. Sometimes it's good to save a little and put the breaks on an economy that's too hot. Increased stability, security, and predictability are worth missing out on huge profits, and besides, the top 1% capitalize most on economic booms anyway. Plus the global War on Terror has cost Americans over a trillion dollars (including the higher cost of crude) that could have been used to shore up Social Security, improve public services, invest in green tech, or give tax/health care rebates. In his first term, Bush took our budget surplus and gave it away to the rich as tax breaks on capital gains and inheritance. And his recent economic stimulus package hasn't made much of a dent (many economists believe that such measures are just political gimmicks that don't fix anything), yet cost America more billions in future debt and less trust in the dollar.

To be honest, part of me wishes I was a baby boomer for how cheap and easy they had it in some areas. I know nostalgia is a rose-colored lens, but back then the family was truly the center of the world instead of the job. Happiness maybe took more precedence than ambition and accomplishment. Maybe they didn't have the BMW and big screen, but they could pay the rent, eat well, and go to Disneyland. We didn't have all the distractions of the "multitasking age" to take away from what is truly important, personal relationships. I feel more at home with '60s and '70s culture than the faster-paced and greedy '80s, '90s, and today. I'd gladly give up the Internet and HDTV! But as you said, it does no good to wish for the impossible. I do fault the baby boomers for getting rich by selling America's future down the river. We are struggling because of THEM, not globalization. They lived so decadently and irresponsibly, but did so in an era when sustainability was not really an urgent concern. So in a sense, I guess I shouldn't wish to be them, because they are the root of many of our current problems. So if those xenophobic politicians really want to find fault for our current recession, they should stop targeting Mexicans and Asians, and point the finger at themselves and their generation instead. The baby boomers pioneered comfortable but wasteful suburban living (to get away from all the colored people in the overcrowded cities), and the "soccer mom culture" added huge family vehicles to the already long American commute. Partly influenced by big auto, oil, and construction, the suburban living model is now dominant, more or less permanent, and basically incompatible with public transit, energy conservation, and other sustainability concerns.

Under baby boomer leadership, the Fortune 500 companies got filthy rich but engaged in all sorts of fraud and scams to make cheap bucks in the market (S&L scandal, Dot-Bomb, backdating stock options, creative accounting to hide losses, and now the subprime fiasco). Republican presidents gradually chipped away at many forms of economic regulation and oversight, increasing the chances of private sector abuse and excess (not to mention government corruption). The boomers also dismantled the paternal employer structure and made layoffs, mergers, union-busting, and other cost-cutting measures chic (fewer Americans are getting health coverage from their employers too). Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good", and efficiency is even better for Wall Street! But above all, the baby boomers left their stamp on American culture by making over-consumption not only acceptable, but attractive (dare I say necessary?). Buy more than you need, and buy it on credit! What are we going to do now that easy, cheap credit is drying up? Fashionable materialism is the new "baseball and apple pie", and there's more to buy than ever before - but does all that crap really make our lives any richer? It definitely makes our bank accounts poorer. But the problem is that our "robust economy" (and global trade) is almost dependent on Americans over-consuming to sustain growth. Actually cost-cutting measures by many American families are contributing to this recession, but thank goodness the weak dollar is making exports increase.

From the Economist: Between 2002 and 2006 the incomes of 99% rose by an average of 1% a year in real terms, while those of the top 1% rose by 11% a year; three-quarters of the economic gains during Mr Bush's presidency went to that top 1%. The baby boomers also disseminated the "me first" mentality that ironically leads to great innovation/accomplishment but also great injustice/greed. Who cares what happens to everyone else as long as I get mine! The rich robber barons of the Guilded Age used to be reviled for their greed (until they invested in philanthropy at the ends of their careers to rewrite their checkered legacies, like Carnegie and Rockefeller), but now CEOs and billionaire moguls are worshiped like deities. Devils have become role models (not that all of the mega-rich are devils, but you get my metaphor), and we would emulate them if we could. The Economist did reference that side study suggesting that our currently huge wealth gap (below) is inaccurate, because the things rich people buy have inflated much more than the things poor people buy. While this may be true, the rich don't HAVE to go to the day spa and country club. Of course luxury items inflate more than basic essentials (because of scarcity and fewer customers that can afford them), especially due to increased cheap imports from Asia. If the rich choose to continue to live decadently and waste more money on more expensive cars, clothes, furnishings, etc., no one should feel sorry for them. Actually that is a strong sign that the wealth gap is actually larger than the numbers suggest, because even in a bad economy the rich still feel comfortable to spend frivolously on overpriced goods/services, while the poor are cutting costs for basics like gasoline, rent, medicine, and food.



While I tend to agree with you that life is not about running from challenges, I am starting to question all the knee-jerk assumptions about Puritan work ethic, perseverence, and whatnot that we were indoctrinated with while growing up here. Preachers, nobles, and propagandists told the peasants, slaves, and proletariats all sorts of BS to keep them docile and productive. In some cases, life NEEDS to be about running from challenges. Many immigrant groups came to America precisely because they were running away from challenges, especially European Jews in the 1930s (running away actually improved their chances of survival). And it wasn't all sunshine and smiles when they arrived of course; they traded in a set of bad challenges for a new set that was fortunately more tolerable. Look at illegal immigrants and their situations. So yes, some people are leaving the mad-expensive Golden State and Eastern Seaboard for cheaper lifestyles elsewhere - maybe even overseas. Maybe they will need to change careers and it will be hard on their kids, but obviously they gave it a lot of thought and decided that this was best. Maybe they have "given up" and fled like cowards from adversity, or maybe they actually woke up, while the rest of us continue to stubbornly toil towards an early grave in the rat race. Each case is different, but bottom line, maybe it's not our place to judge people based on how they handle their challenges. Elvis said "walk a mile in my shoes" before you judge him. It is not "heroic" to force yourself and your loved ones to suffer through a losing situation. I am not saying that I am giving up and all is lost for people like us, but there has to be a line, and there's no shame in a carefully planned and rational retreat. Only an arrogant asshole like Hitler would keep sending poor young men to certain death at Stalingrad just because he refused to acknowledge the obvious.

I also don't approve of the guilt trip of "not wanting to let my parents/teachers/mentors down" with my life performance. I used to believe in that crap rather strongly when I was younger, and part of me still does (Asian brainwashing). But I really think if people love us (unconditionally), then they just want us to be happy. Of course if we're happy being a drug addict or some other self-destructive lifestyle, then maybe an intervention is warranted. I am sure they want us to realize or maximize our potential, but really - how can anyone know what that is? Even expert athlete scouts get it wrong on top college prospects. And the game of life is much more complicated than the game of football. How the hell would our parents or our teachers know what career or important life decisions will work out best for us? I know we should listen to them when we're young because we don't know shit and they can help us avoid mistakes. But I would hope that our mentors and loved ones don't have a set life path in mind for us to follow, and we will only disappoint them if we deviate (I do know many families like this though, and it strains their relationships a lot). They are not us; they don't understand us and don't know what we go through. Their lives were different, so really their advice may have little utility for us now. We can respect their viewpoints, but ultimately we have to make the call. And if that becomes a "slap in the face" to them, then so be it. We are their children, not an "investment" like a 30-year fixed T-bond. Yes they contributed a lot of resources and love to help give us a good start on life, but we have no obligation to provide them with a good rate of return (nice house, impressive job, lots of grandkids). We just do what makes sense and we do the best we can, and the rest is out of our hands. And it seems these days, more and more of our economic health is out of our hands.

So of course I don't know the magic formula for understanding life and one's role in it, but I think it is of utmost importance to think for oneself and make decisions accordingly, not beholden to other influences. Sure we can choose to take religion, family, work, teachers, media, etc. if they are trustworthy and important to us, but we shouldn't just blindly follow someone else's formula. The way I see it, with costs rising and wages/promotions not keeping up, the equation doesn't calculate in our favor. So either we need to make drastic changes to balance the equation, or we need to write a new equation. And many Americans have, by shedding this tired, cliched existence and trying something different. It's a risk to take the road less traveled, but sometimes it pays off.

The language that you use, like "best equipped to triumph" sounds Darwinistic, and that is probably deliberate. I would prefer a world where people are not "in it to win it". Life doesn't have to be a competition, and winning means different things to different people (and winning often means that many others "lost"). I don't want to win at another's expense, but I know I already have. I don't believe that everything I've accomplished and everything I've been taught has been a wasted effort; in fact we find out who we are through such experiences. And actually those lessons and experiences have partially shaped our views of the world and led us to write what we have in these emails. What I know for sure is that I don't want to let work or study define me. I want the people who love me to define me. The 10 most important experiences of my life have not occurred in an office, lab, or classroom. I do think that education is valuable and work is necessary, but they don't have to be the focus of one's existence. As Einstein said, don't let education get in the way of your learning. I fear that a lot of wealthy and upper-middle class baby boomer families do groom their kids to "win the game of life" at all costs. They win because they invest in the right places and follow the formula. They "learn the test", just like taking a SAT prep class makes you more able to ace that specific test, but not necessarily smarter or better equipped to succeed in college. I know most parents do love their kids and want them to have a good life, but some also want to live vicariously through them and bask in their accomplishments ("that's my boy!"). That is not what parenting should be about. They are actually doing a disservice to them in my view, and screwing the world over by adding another selfish, ambitious, take-no-prisoners prick to the already fragile mix. Really, why would anyone WANT to be an i-banker workaholic, corporate lawyer whore, or cosmetic surgeon sellout? Those jobs suck, have long hours, and drain the humanity from you. The only thing you get out of it are the huge ego trip and paycheck.

I know in this modern life, educated people have to learn to invest to survive. But I have been resistant for reasons that should be obvious from the tone of my economics-related emails. In "real jobs", you actually contribute labor, adding value to something or delivering some sort of discovery/service/product. Brokers and bankers just move numbers around on a screen to make money on the backs of others. They just transfer wealth from one place to another, buying and selling people (as Martin Sheen said in "Wall Street"), and not caring about the consequences (which may be severe and far-reaching). Of course profitable investing still takes skill and brains, so I acknowledge their talents. I'm being simplistic and I guess we all have IRAs/401(k)s so I'm a hypocrite too, but I do despise that kind of work. I guess it's necessary to capitalism, but we also get fraud and speculation, fueled by insane greed and traders trying to make more, more, more by taking shortcuts, breaking the law, or ignoring better judgment. I don't care if I'm not rich, but I want to make my money in an honest, dignified manner, and I want to EARN what I make, not by taking shortcuts or making an educated guess (a.k.a. gambling) on the market, which is what 70% of investing is, even for the pros. So yeah, I guess I'm risk-averse. I know I am being extremist here and not all of the investing world is evil, though I wish real labor could be rewarded better versus capital investment. But what am I smoking? :)

--------

Oh, forgot to mention that I am trying to be optimistic about the future though, even if the negative trend doesn't seem to be reversing any time soon. As you said, I try to believe in human goodness, common sense, and ingenuity to work our way out of problems. If we survived the Cold War and avoided nuclear holocaust, then maybe we can survive this economy. America is great because we are adaptable and resilient, and we do accomplish a lot of good and amazing feats when the chips are down. I just worry that the bad momentum will be hard to sway, because we really need to re-equilibrate this system that is too greedy, too inhumane, and too volatile. Like the Matrix, people are really indoctrinated in this unsustainable way of life, and may fight to preserve it (deceived by corporate and government propaganda and whatnot), even at great personal and global cost. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

So it will take a lot of dedication, discipline, moderation, and compromise from citizens and leaders alike. We are running out of time to get it right too, especially considering the growing resource wars, overpopulation, and climate change problems. Some of us believe that Obama is one of those "once in a century" leaders who may be able to accomplish the improbable, but time will tell. I know that he is expecting us to do our part. I am trying, but as you all know, it's damn hard at times.

-----------

Sorry for another addendum, but I am scatter-brained and this is such a huge topic we're tackling. Regarding "toughing it out" and keeping on trucking in the game, I am all for that if there was somehow a better guarantee of future success and security. But of course I know that nothing is certain but death and taxes. For college, you know that if you take the right classes and get passing grades, you will emerge with a degree. But college is far from the real world, as we know. In the working world, you have no idea if you best efforts will even pay off (and in fact, may hurt you in strange ways!). So much is out of our control that moronic butt-kissers get rewarded and dedicated, talented team players get ignored and burnt out, projects die or get reborn, and corporate goals change on a whim. And even if you cut back spending and save diligently, there's no guarantee that will be enough for a home down payment, college tuition for your kids, medical bills, and retirement. I guess life has always been this uncertain, but with our social safety net crumbling, costs of living rising, and the consequences of bad luck/mistakes growing, there is much less room for error and fewer people who will get your back.

So to me, toughing it out for the sake of toughness is limiting, if not stupid. I would like some reassurances that our efforts will not go to waste, but I know I'm dreaming. Only your loved ones will say at your funeral, "He worked hard and played by the rules. Even though he never got a break, we are still proud of him." The rest of the world will say, "He busted his ass for nothing and now he's dead". If effort is reward enough, then more power to you. But I don't want to waste my age 30-50 years chasing a rainbow that may never come. But if I don't have a choice or don't have any better options, then I might as well keep on keeping on as Mark said.

Quality of Life

Now that we're all "adults" and have to fend for ourselves in the "real world", I was thinking about the American Dream and what opportunities are available for people like us. I address you guys since we had fairly similar upbringings.

As far as I can tell, all of us did what was expected of us by our parents, teachers, and mentors. We studied hard, mostly stayed out of trouble (or avoided Johnny Law at least), did fine in college, and maybe even pursued additional education/credentials. Growing up, I think there was the assumption that if we jumped through those hoops, we would be "entitled" to some job security, summer holidays, the picket fence, station wagon + 2.5 kids, and comfortable retirement. Maybe some of us expected to conquer the world and have the mansion, stock options, and Benz, but at minimum I think we considered ourselves middle class. But I guess that is really an antiquated myth and nothing is guaranteed. I mean... I know we weren't Paris Hilton, but we grew up mostly without want or worry. Our parents provided for us and we hit the real world with a lot of advantages vs. other people. It's not like we're recent immigrants having to battle culture shock, language barrier, green card paperwork, and support relatives back home.

But for most of us, rent is kicking our ass (and it's not like we live luxuriously; many of us in old, small apts or just renting a room) and saving is pretty hard considering the rising costs of basic living essentials, car/student loan payments, etc. Maybe we can move farther away for cheaper rent, but then commute is a killer. We come home fairly drained, maybe getting a simple meal together and watching TV for a bit before bed and repeating the cycle. Maybe some of us have to study at night or attend evening classes to try to better our situations. I can't imagine how much time proper parenting would require on top of our current commitments. I know we're lucky that we don't have to work 3 minimum-wage jobs to even hope to make ends meet, but that's what education supposedly bought us - though what has it really gotten us so far? I know we're still young and our earning power will increase with time, but really - do you expect your salaries to increase 10% annually and get promoted on a regular basis, without some major luck, achievements, or extra education? Some white-collar salaries aren't even keeping up with inflation, even though worker productivity and business efficiency have steadily climbed since the 1980's. Though operating costs and employee benefits have also become much more expensive.

Our career counselors in high school basically told us to find something we enjoy, study that in college, and we'll be fine. Great in theory. But if we don't have a medical degree, JD, software engineer, or MBA/finance, how the heck are we supposed to save up a nest egg for a small house or even a condo ($500,000+ in some parts of the US), and future tuition for our kids (probably will be 50% higher than our day)? Some of our high-achieving friends already have homes and nice cars, but it's not easy street for professionals either; they have huge school debt and may work grueling hours to earn the bucks (they don't throw money at you for nothing). And the extra time/stress you need for higher degrees takes away from your personal life, and you may not even be able to start thinking about spouse/family until you're balding and need Viagra. There isn't enough time for everything. Many scientists and engineers don't make great money either, unless they have 10 years experience or become managers (it also depends a lot on Wall St. and the company/institution you decide to peg your future to). I guess some of us may happen to excel in a niche talent (dunk a basketball, entertainment, art, etc.), so we can be well compensated for a more recreational career. Of course I'm being cynical, and plenty of people make a good living in other jobs like accounting or retail. Even less-educated folks can do well in construction, real estate, etc. But it's a riskier proposition, and many more fail than succeed.

Like those "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" books, I guess we can't count on salary to provide for us and our loved ones. The theory goes that we should invest in real estate, bonds, and the market too, but when do we have the time to learn those skills or the capital necessary for substantial investing? Instead we have to place our money and trust with a corrupt mutual fund manager and pay the annual "account maintenance fee", even if we're losing money. Plus plenty of people lose their shirts playing with fire and not knowing what they're doing. Or others just get lucky with high-risk speculation, or being at Google at the right time (but how many other startups failed and their millions of options worth zilch?). Then there are those who were honest and worked hard, yet saw their 401(k)'s dissolve at Enron or Worldcom. The Baby Boomers in CA were so lucky and saw the Dow quadruple and home prices rise 3X during their mid-to-late careers when they actually had job security and money to invest. No wonder why all of our folks are getting their homes remodeled, buying luxury cars, and taking more vacations now. Well, they earned it. Though I doubt any of us are expecting the Dow to similarly reach 48,000 and homes to appreciate so much in our lifetimes.

The frustrating part is I hate thinking about all this money and job stuff, but we almost have no choice. If you're not improving, you're falling behind (or so it feels). I just want to be left alone and make an honest living not beholden to anything or anyone (isn't that freedom and liberty?). I was this close to living in a hut in Africa for F sakes. I still wear clothes from the '90s, and I LIKE it that way. I don't need much. Unfortunately I wasted a lot of money after my dad died, as an immature, self-destructive way of dealing with my grief, which I regret a lot. I also spent too much on my wedding, but my excuse was the missus had expensive tastes haha. However, now I would like a small, safe 2BR/2BA cottage a decent distance from work, with a small garden and a dog running around. So far, I can only afford that in East Palo Alto or the bad part of Oakland/Hayward (which are not close to work either). I would like to provide for my wife so maybe she doesn't have to work full time if she doesn't want to, or maybe can raise our kids instead of relying on the TV babysitter. I would like to pursue side interests and do other things with my life besides work, eat, and sleep. Most days I just put my head down and get through it, but I guess I felt like venting now. I know I am just being a whining baby and should sack it up like everyone else (plus I don't have it that bad), but I bet you guys feel similarly sometimes. Our lives have challenges, but it could be a lot worse. Though we supposedly did "everything right" in our childhoods and now we are supposed to reap the rewards of a more comfortable adult existence, right? But one challenge just seems to lead to a new, larger one.

So I really wish someone would have better prepared us for this reality. I guess there's no way a suburban parent or underpaid public employee could have predicted $5 gas and the effects of globalization when we were kids, but still. Or maybe you guys knew it all along and I was the only naive one? I almost wish someone told us to forget about finding a job that we like and just get proficient at boring, marketable skills. Now I understand why my doctor relatives force their kids to go to medical school (if they can get accepted), because they think it gives them a good shot at a better life over most other careers (though it takes a lot of sacrifice too). I guess it seems that we don't have access to the time or resources that we thought we would as part of the white-collar middle class existence. Our American existence is greedier, more expensive, more complicated, faster, and more unstable than when we were in high school, and the trend won't reverse any time soon. And we're not even at the point yet when a sibling may get in deep debt, we have to care for our kids AND aging parents, and we're always one car accident or medical crisis away from fiancial ruin. We also have our own retirements to worry about. Well, somehow in Western Europe most "common folk" like us get paid less in their jobs, yet enjoy free or very cheap health care/university/pension, more vacation and a higher quality of life. Their societies aren't falling apart and their companies aren't kaput either.

All in all, I'd hope that we're happy and comfortable with our living situations. I know many people have it much harder than us. But supposedly we did everything "right" in our youth and got a head start in the rat race. I am sure many of our parents were able to afford a mortgage for a small home after 5 years of working or so. I don't think that will be the case for us, though of course the world is very different now. Work sucks, but I guess there are some redeeming and enjoyable aspects of it. And once in a while, we can save up for a vacation or new toy. But is that all there is to it?