[Advice for China] Reviewing newspaper editorials (3)

Advice for China

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

TO: President Hu Jintao

SUBJECT: The Arab Spring

Dear President Hu: You asked for our assessment of the Arab Spring. Our conclusion is that the revolutions in the Arab world contain some important lessons for the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, because what this contagion reveals is something very new about of how revolutions unfold in the 21st century and something very old about why they explode.

Let’s start with the new. Sometime around the year 2000, the world achieved a very high level of connectivity, virtually flattening the global economic playing field. This web of connectivity was built on the diffusion of personal computers, fiber-optic cable, the Internet and Web servers. What this platform did was to make Boston and Beijing or Detroit and Damascus next-door neighbors. It brought some two billion people into a global conversation.

Well, sir, while we were focused on the U.S. recession, we went from a connected world to a “hyperconnected world.” It has connected Boston, Beijing and now Baotou in inner Mongolia. This deeper penetration of connectivity is built on smarter cellphones, wireless bandwidth and social networks. This new platform for connectivity, being so cheap and mobile, is bringing another two billion people into the conversation from more and more remote areas.

To put it in Middle Eastern terms, sir, this new platform has connected Detroit and Damascus and Dara’a. Where is Dara’a, you ask? Dara’a is the small Syrian border town where the uprising in Syria began and whose residents have been pumping out video, Twitter feeds and Facebook postings of regime atrocities ever since.

The point, sir, is the world is now hyperconnected, and there is no such thing as “local” anymore. Everything now flows instantly from the most remote corners of any country onto this global platform where it gets shared. What the laptop plus the Internet plus the search engine did for Web pages was enable anyone with connectivity to find anything that interests them and what the cellphone plus the Internet plus Facebook are doing is enabling anyone to find anyone who interests them — and then coordinate with them and share grievances and aspirations.

The days when Arab dictators could take over the state-run TV and radio and shut off all information to their people are over. The Syrians can’t shut off their cellphone networks now any more than they can shut off their electricity grids.

Sir, think about this: Syria has banned all foreign networks, like CNN and the BBC, but if you go to YouTube and type in “Dara’a” you will see the most vivid up-to-date video of the Syrian regime’s crackdown — all shot with cellphones or flip-cams by Syrians and then uploaded to YouTube or to newly created Web sites like Sham News Network. Nothing stays hidden anymore.

The second trend we see in the Arab Spring is a manifestation of “Carlson’s Law,” posited by Curtis Carlson, the C.E.O. of SRI International, in Silicon Valley, which states that: “In a world where so many people now have access to education and cheap tools of innovation, innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but dumb.” As a result, says Carlson, the sweet spot for innovation today is “moving down,” closer to the people, not up, because all the people together are smarter than anyone alone and all the people now have the tools to invent and collaborate.

The regime of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was just too dumb and slow to manage the unrest. The Tahrir revolutionaries were smart but chaotic, and without leadership. Therefore, the role of leaders today — of companies and countries — is to inspire, empower, enable and then edit and meld all that innovation coming from the bottom up. But that requires more freedom for the bottom. Do you see what I mean, sir?

But this is not about technology alone. As the Russian historian Leon Aron has noted, the Arab uprisings closely resemble the Russian democratic revolution of 1991 in one key respect: They were both not so much about freedom or food as about “dignity.” They each grew out of a deep desire by people to run their own lives and to be treated as “citizens” — with both obligations and rights that the state cannot just give and take by whim.

If you want to know what brings about revolutions, it is not G.D.P. rising or falling, says Aron, “it is the quest for dignity.” We always exaggerate people’s quest for G.D.P. and undervalue their quest for ideals. “Dignity before bread” was the slogan of the Tunisian revolution. “The spark that lights the fuse is always the quest for dignity,” said Aron. “Today’s technology just makes the fire much more difficult to put out.”

We need to keep that in mind in China, sir. We should be proud of the rising standard of living that we have delivered for our people. Many of them appreciate that. But it is not the only thing in their lives — and at some point it won’t be the most important thing. Do you see what I mean, sir?

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________

             It was an interesting article about what stance China should take in the hyper-connected global society. I absolutely agree with the fact that China needs to work on a lot of things, especially the citizens’ quality of life. Despite the incessant advice from many analysts and the international society, China doesn’t even bother to budge for change. It is a sad thing that only the size and quantity of China’s economy are growing.

             So what is the fundamental problem that exists in China? The answer is “quality”. Of course, major economic indicators such as GDP and economic growth have been steadily uprising for the past several years. It is an undeniable fact that China has become an influential economic force. However, the dark side of China’s society is being concealed under the glorious and magnificent achievement it has made. Individual freedom is constantly encroached upon without any reluctance, the judicial system is ineffective, and minorities are marginalized.

            Let’s first look at the individual rights. Freedom of speech, religion and expression are restricted in all circumstances. What an absurd idea to restrict what we say in the press when we need transparent and diverse opinions to be reflected! Also where is the justification for regulating my conviction on a certain religion? Members who are involved in politics for example, are officially required to be atheists. Being religious can limit their economic prospects regardless of his or her ability and aptitude. In addition, the government tries to maintain control over not only religious content, but also leadership choices.

             Next, the judicial system is highly ineffective. The concept such as independent judiciary system, rule of law, and due process are nowhere to be seen. Thus, citizens are always subject to unjust treatment of laws which is definitely against human rights.

             Lastly, the social discrimination on minorities and weaker members of society is another major issue. Minorities such as Tibetans are forced to stay in the low social status. They are not given the chance to even attempt to climb up the social ladder. Workers who have less power than entrepreneurs are denied the right to form independent labor unions to assert their rights. One child policy only allows the rich people to have babies as many as they want while poor people are restricted on their rights to have babies.

             With this in mind, I felt three things in this article. To begin with, I realized that what China is doing now will strangle its future. As the article says, the role of leaders today is to inspire and encourage all bottom-up innovation. However, China is exactly following the other way around. Creative ideas and innovation are continuously repressed by the Chinese regime, and citizens aren’t fully living up to their potentials. If this kind of situation persists, China will fall way behind the global competition in a few decades.

             Furthermore, China should take responsibility in the global society. China’s government and its citizens are very proud of being one of the major superpowers in the world. However, I believe being a “superpower” requires more than high GDP and economic growth. The ultimate purpose of economic growth is to allow citizens to enjoy a higher standard of living. If the increased wealth isn’t used for improving the quality of life and human rights, China would become a fat guy who doesn’t have any content inside his brain. Also, this article reminded me of another responsibility China should take: protecting the environment. It was very irresponsible of China to actually refuse to fully participate in the process of reducing CO2 emissions in the Copenhagen conference. Unless these responsibilities are taken, China does not deserve to be a superpower.

             Finally, I was amazed to see how much the “citizen power” had grown up. Even several decades ago, citizens were lethargic about the oppression of tyrannical regimes. Many people were not educated and they didn’t even have the slightest notion of what freedom and rights mean for them. However, for the past few years, many people were enlightened and the fire for enthusiasm for freedom has gone ablaze. What’s more, the rapid development internet, personal computers and social networking sites enabled many people all over the world to participate in the global conversation. Let’s take the Arab spring in Libya, Sudan and Tunisia for example. People in those countries were no longer the citizens several years ago. Now, they were able to post vivid images, videos and information on sites such YouTube and Facebook. Protests have become more systematic owing to the active communication in the internet. Arab dictators were very much startled by such strong waves of commotion. The power of the citizens made me feel that China is no exception; it is no longer able to take over the media and restrict citizens’ rights just like before.

[How a democracy works] Reviewing newspaper editorials (2)

How a Democracy Works

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=How%20a%20democracy%20works&st=cse)

President Obama, who has spent two and a half years not delivering on his promise to fix immigration, gave a speech in El Paso last month and cloaked his failure in tough statistics — this many new border agents, that much fencing, these thousands of deportations.

As for the other parts of reform — where millions of immigrants get right with the law and get on with becoming Americans, where workers are better protected — he threw up his hands. He said immigration advocates “wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”

O.K., so maybe it isn’t. But there is a lot President Obama can and should do, using the discretion and authority granted to the executive branch and its agencies to make the system work better:

¶Mr. Obama can bolster public safety by pulling the plug on Secure Communities, a program that sends fingerprints of everyone booked by state or local police to Department of Homeland Security databases to be checked for immigration violations. It was supposed to focus on dangerous felons, but the heavy majority of those it catches are noncriminals or minor offenders — more than 30 percent have no convictions for anything.

The president should listen to the many law enforcement professionals and local officials, like the governors of New York and Illinois, who want nothing to do with Secure Communities. They say it endangers the public by catching the wrong people and stifling community cooperation with law enforcement.

¶The president can push much harder against the noxious anti-immigrant laws proliferating in the national free-for-all. The administration sued to stop Arizona’s radical scheme. But Utah, Alabama, Indiana and Georgia are trying to do the same thing.

¶He can grant relief from deportation to young people who would have qualified for the Dream Act, a filibustered bill that grants legal status to the innocent undocumented who enter college or the military. He can do the same for workers who would qualify for the Power Act, a stalled bill that seeks to prevent employers from using the threat of deportation and immigration raids to retaliate against employees who press for their rights on the job.

¶He can resist Republican lawmakers who want mandatory nationwide use of E-Verify, a flawed hiring database, which would likely lead to thousands of Americans losing their job because of data errors. A December report by the Government Accountability Office warned that E-Verify is plagued by inaccurate records and vulnerable to identity theft and employer fraud.

¶He can order the citizenship agency to keep families intact by making it easier for illegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to fix their status without having to leave the country. Many already qualify for green cards but are afraid to risk getting stuck abroad under too-strict laws that could bar their re-entry.

¶He can bolster the civil rights division of the Department of Justice and give the Department of Labor more tools to strengthen protections for all workers and the authority to combat labor trafficking. Such authority now lies with Homeland Security, which means many immigrants are too frightened to speak up when their rights are abused.

As President Obama said in El Paso, the United States needs to address “the real human toll of a broken immigration system.” There’s work to do, Mr. President.

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                  Immigration issue is rising on the surface once again. President Obama gave a speech in El Paso last month about immigration reform. Arizona was in the middle of a contention when it passed the bill that forced illegal immigrates to give up everything and leave the nation. Other states such as Utah, Alabama and Georgia are trying to do the same thing. On one side of the debate, people claim that illegal immigrants deserve to receive equal treatment just like others. On the other side of the debate, people assert that the potential harms are so big that harsher regulation is necessary.

             A problem arises because potential harms and benefits conflict with each other. This is why it is so difficult to satisfy all the people involved in the immigration issue. Let’s first look at the harms of illegal immigrants. There are potential dangers of terrorism and unrest from illegal immigrants. Most of the illegal drugs such as cocaine are imported through illegal immigrants. Homemade bombs and terrorist weapons are also transported via the body of illegal immigrants. This is why the government is trying to closely examine every foreigner who steps into the airport. Also, it is said that illegal immigrants take away the work of low-class workmen. Since illegal immigrants are much cheaper in labor, lowly skilled working men lose the place to stand.

             There are also benefits. Unlike the economical harms stated above, the economical benefits we can reap from immigrants are inconceivable. As more people pursue improved quality of living and demand higher wages, not many people are willing to work for dangerous or low-paying jobs. However, such jobs are necessary for the society as a whole. Take for example nannies. Since most of the couples now work at the same time, the nurturing of their children had to be done by someone. Illegal immigrants have done their job decently. Why are illegal immigrants better than ordinary Americans? It’s because illegal immigrants have more positive incentive to work harder. Most of them come to America in the hope of earning more money and leading a better life. Therefore, productivity of illegal immigrants in low-skill sectors is often higher than that of American counterparts. What’s more think about the secondary effect. Illegal immigrants allow mothers who would otherwise be in the house to nurture their children to pursue other productive works in society. This will lead to increased labor supply of high-skilled women in the labor force.

             So is a there solvent immigration policy that can balance the harms and the benefits? I believe there are some ways, although it is a matter of question as to how the government will make those ways come true.

             To begin with, the Obama administration has to stabilize the political process. The complicated evaluation and discussion process in the Parliamentary system make it very difficult for a sound policy to be passed right away. Because of that time lag, even when a sound policy is passed, it loses effectiveness when it is actually implemented. The Republicans are taking a very tough stance regarding the immigration issue. There are little sings of cooperation between the two parties. Whenever the immigration issue comes up to the table, the question is whether the Democrats are able to find some Republicans who can partner with them and cooperate. Unless there is some mutual concessions and cooperation, nothing can be done before we even see the effects of a certain policy.

             Furthermore, the current supervising system should be reformed. States such Arizona has passed a local law that mandates suspicious immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and that police verify the legal status of individuals during the course of traffic stops or other law-enforcement actions. However, this policy can be very discriminatory towards certain races or people. It raises some doubts such as ‘what is the clear standard for the reasonable suspicion?’, ‘can racial profiling be avoided?’ and ‘can it be justified to violate upon people’s individual rights?’ These questions should be explained by the government lucidly before we proceed into any other implementations. The government can change the law by only checking the identification in public places where there is a clear need for it. Also, the government can create a new supervising center that manages immigration issues in a more transparent way. It can introduce education programs for illegal immigrants who can be Americans but don’t know how to do so. The counseling program can be another good way to prevent immigrants from being frightened to speak up when their rights are abused.

[As housing goes, so goes the economy] Reviewing newspaper editorials (1)

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/opinion/25wed1.html)

As Housing Goes, So Goes the Economy

Published: May 24, 2011

The Great Recession began with the bursting of the housing bubble. Today, nearly two years after the recession officially ended, the housing market is still in trouble.

At times, it has looked as if things were improving, like last year’s jump in sales because of a temporary homebuyer’s tax credit or the recent rise in new-home sales from near-record lows. But, over all, sales and construction have been flat for two years, while prices, driven down by foreclosures, are plumbing new depths.

Even a recent drop in foreclosure filings isn’t a reason for optimism. April was the seventh straight decline in monthly filings — which include notices of default, auction and bank repossessions — according to RealtyTrac, a real estate data provider. But the decline appears to be largely the result of banks slowing the foreclosure process in order to keep properties off the market until prices recover. The catch is that prices are unlikely to recover as long as millions of foreclosures are imminent.

This isn’t just bad news for homeowners. Selling and building of houses are one of the economy’s most powerful engines. Until the market recovers, the entire recovery is imperiled. Falling home equity dents consumer confidence, making things even worse.

Since the problems in housing are not self-curing, a government fix is in order. But the Obama administration’s main antiforeclosure effort has fallen far short of its goal to modify three million to four million troubled loans.

Its basic flaw is that participation by the banks is voluntary. Most have joined the program but face no real pressure to meet its goals. Another big problem is that banks often do not own the troubled loans; rather, they service the loans for investors who own them. As servicers — in charge of collecting payments and managing defaults — banks can make more from fees and charges on defaulted loans than on modifications. Not surprisingly, defaults proceed and modifications lag. Banks win. Homeowners and investors lose. The economy suffers.

That does not have to be the end of the story. In a recent hearing in a Senate banking subcommittee, witnesses proposed new laws and regulations to change loan-servicing standards in ways that would prevent banks from putting their interests above those of everyone else.

For starters, various government guidelines on loan servicing would be replaced with tough national standards. Among the new rules, homeowners would be evaluated for loan modifications before any foreclosure — or foreclosure-related fee — is initiated. The bank analysis used to approve or reject modifications would be standardized and public, and failure by the bank to offer a modification when the analysis indicates one is warranted would be grounds for blocking any attempt to foreclose.

National servicing standards could succeed where antiforeclosure programs have failed, namely, in compelling banks to help clean up the mess they did so much to create.

In the Senate, Democrats Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Sherrod Brown of Ohio have introduced bills to establish standards. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can also impose servicing rules. The Obama administration should champion national standards, and Congress and regulators should act — soon.

 _______________________________________________________________________________

             There have been positive signs of recovery in the American economy after the bursting of the housing bubble. Foreclosure rates which were soaring in 2008 have been relatively low. Employment rate is steadily rising. Now it is high time that the U.S administration completely fix the problem.

             However, the path to recovery seems very rugged. The innate flaws in the American economy aren’t being fully addressed by the Obama administration. What’s more, investment credit on U.S is very shaky. Even when housing conditions improve just as explained in the article, without the support of other economic factors, sustainable recovery is unlikely. So what are the specific problems in the current status quo?

             First, unemployment rate is still at an all time high. Analysts are cautious about the vibrant news reports about the possibility of quick recovery. They call the current situation of America as the ‘jobless recovery’. They worry the basis for recovery is too weak to sustain further economic growth or stability. It is good to hear that some of the major economic indicators such as GDP are improving. However, unemployment remains at 9% unlike the vow president Obama has made in the early 2011. Soaring unemployment rates will considerably reduce disposable incomes for consumers and thereby decrease spending and saving. Consumption and saving are major engines that drive the economy forward. Without those two components, it is unlikely for the U.S economy to have bright future.

             Second, twin deficit is strangling the U.S economy. Budget issues at the federal level are also contributing to the slowdown of the economy. The Federal Reserve announced several months ago that it is going to focus more on fighting against inflation. Inevitably, large federal budget cuts have been made and they are choking the economy with no space for growth. Especially major government plans such as health care plan is expected to tighten the budget even more. Trade deficit is almost reaching $500 billion dollars. Trade especially with China and India are pushing widening the deficit and pushing down Treasury yields.

             Third, the global economic situation is aggravating. The natural disaster in Japan is having bigger economic repercussions on the global oil and raw material prices than expected. The sovereign debt crisis in Greece is once again becoming a major tumor that has to be cut out immediately. The surging doubt and investor disbelief were the major factors that contributed to the fall of New York stock prices for five consecutive weeks.

             So are there solutions to these problems? Is it impossible to resolve these issues? Absolutely, there are some ways to alleviate or even get rid of the problem in the status quo.

             To begin with, hypocrisy in government policy should not be seen. Obama administration promised its citizens to push down the unemployment rate to a considerable level, giving hope to many of the people. However, not only was the policy ineffective but also contradictory. While private firms have added over 1.7million jobs in the past 12 months, the government has laid off nearly half a million over the same period. This kind of contradictory policy made it almost impossible for the policy to succeed. Unless the promises made match the real policies, tangible results will have no place to stand.

             Moreover, the U.S administration should view the economy in a more long-term perspective. What I think is that the government is only focusing on myopic perspectives of the economy. I guess it is partly because of the upcoming election in 2012. He definitely needs populist policies to attract more voters. However, that is not the case for the current U.S economy. Resorting to extremely tight fiscal policies just for the sake of making consumers feel good due to lowered prices does more harm than good. They should try to fix the fundamental problems in the U.S economy throughout the long term. Heavy dependence on finance industries, extreme vulnerability on global markets, and high unemployment rates are the problems that the government should address. If they don’t prepare for the future now, it will be a total recipe for disaster in the days to come. 

"The Body" first 30 pages: Reading Journal

Reading Journal <Different Seasons> “The body” first 30 pages

           Considering the number of pages, the first 30 pages didn’t even reach the rising action. Still, owing to the detailed explanation of the setting and characters, I was able to have a slightest guess about the overall atmosphere and flow of the story. I got two main impressions.

           To begin with, the four main characters created a very bizarre atmosphere. In most of the stories where kids lead the plot, there is at least one kid who brightens up the atmosphere. For example, “Tam Sawyer and his adventures” is one of the naughtiest stories that I have ever read. Even in that novel, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Fin are both vibrant and zealous adventurers and make the story more interesting. However, in the first 30 pages of “The body”, the four main characters create an ambience that is rather gloomy and horrifying. Teddy is simply a crazy guy who likes to make problems. Chris is always harassed by his drunken father. All these elements contribute to the horrifying atmosphere of the story.

           Next, I could easily empathize with the characters in the metafiction within this story which was “Stud City”. It was because this novel reminded me of my cousin sister’s personal experience. After my cousin’s father divorced with his wife, a new stepmother came into my cousin’s house. She definitely displayed vanity and extravagance just like the woman who appears in the novel “Necklace” by Maupassant. Thus, my cousin had no choice but to detest her new stepmother who was constantly exerting an insidious influence on her family. The discord that happens in Chico’s family is very similar to the experience of my poor cousin sister. This kind of personal experience, although not direct, enabled me to understand the feelings of the characters more profoundly as if I had become a real character in the novel.

           Only 30 pages don’t suggest much about the theme or the main events. However, they definitely established the basic atmosphere of the story. I am very looking forward to what is lying ahead of the four naughty boys during their adventure.

Metafiction Chain Writing (ver 1)

 My heart was still pounding. I couldn't believe she sat next to me. I couldn't concentrate on the movie. All I could feel was the warmth and equanimity from my dear Bess. After a hour or two, it was time for all the camping students to leave the theater.
 We drove to the campsite where we slept ate durin the camp. At dawn, I heard my phone ring and took it to my ear. "Meet you at the entrance!" She hung up. Why would Bess try to see me at 3:00? The reason did not matter anyone. My brain stopped to function properly and I stepped out of my room.
 I ran down to the entrance as fast as I could. Gasping for breath, I looked around to see if Bess came.  But nobody was there. It was already 3:05. My heart was pounding crazy, out of control. I was throbbing but also worrying about how I should act if she wants to be my girlfriend. At that moment, someone was waiting over to me from the basecamp.
 It was her! With a pounding heart and reddened face, I watched the 'someone' carefully. Huh? That 'someone' with  name tag 'Bess'was not the none who made my heart beat. She was the not the one with a sparkling eyes and glittering-cherry tinted lips. In front of me, there was a girl with glasses which made her eyes invisible and I could see a bunch of pimples in her face.

"Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" Movie v.s. Book

             One of the biggest joys of watching a book-based film is comparing the context of the original book to the movie. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are maybe the best examples. However, the movie “Shawshank Redemption” was more interesting than the other book-based movies considering the vividness and liveliness. So what are the differences between the book and the film? What did I learn from both of them?

             To being with, the movie included dramatic elements in the content. This created a more touching atmosphere for the audience. Brooks, for example, killed himself after he was allowed to be rehabilitated in society because he was institutionalized. This part of the mo

vie is completely different from the book. However, this newly added element clearly sent the message to the viewers that prison is a cold-hearted place which deprives the lives of prisoners by making them institutionalized and thereby unable to blend into society once they are released. Also, in the movie, when Norton, the warden, saw the rock hammer inside the bible, he was motionless with his mouth aghast. Parts of the movie like this made the overall story much more interesting because we could understand how Andy was able to get away with the entire regular prison search. Additionally, such scenes had the effect of making audiences satisfied because characters such as Norton, who was the root of evil, was eventually punished.

             Next, the movie was more effective in conveying the theme of the story. I believe this is because the movie is able to depict the story more graphically and vividly. The malicious facial expression of Norton, for instance, strengthened the symbol of hypocrisy and disgrace. In addition, the brutality of the prison environment was well portrayed by graphic scenes of unrelenting violence. If it were not for such scenes, the overall atmosphere of the movie might have been dull.

             What did I feel from this movie? I once again strongly understood the importance of hope. The word “hope” has only 4 syllables but has enormous influence on our lives. Hope makes every moment of our life worthwhile. In this movie, for example, hope gives the inmates in Shawshank the will to live. In the letter addressed to Red, Andy writes that “hope is good thing”. I certainly agree with this statement because hope makes my everyday routine enjoyable and pleasurable. For instance, we endeavor on our studies till midnight with the hope of rejoicing sweet rest after the mid-term exam and achieving my dreams in the future. The proverb, “Dreaming a happy thing” clearly illustrates the point that craving and hoping for our future dreams make us smile.

             To conclude, “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption” became one of my favorite movies. Not only was the plot of the story concrete but also I could feel equanimity and warmth oozing out from me. I guess this was owing to the concept of hope which gave my life value. I strongly suggest this movie to those who want to find meaning in their lives.