Sunset on Authoritarianism

(West lake in Hangzhou at sunset)

China is the most interesting country I have ever lived in (I can only really claim to have lived in two countries, but it is also the most interesting country I have visited) For a relatively well off American like myself one day ZhongGuo fells like the freest country in the world; the bars close hours after after daylight arrives, and only because everyone has finally gone home, you can smoke anywhere, travel is cheap and easy, getting a job (for someone with chinese and English language skills) or starting a business takes minimum effort. The majority of people in the cities are incredibly open and polite, including the police.
Other times the facade of freedom falls apart in a matter of minutes. Your friend gets a phone call from the Bank of China, they want to speak with you and ask that you bring your passport, you wonder how they know your with her when they call. You stay with a host family in Tibet and the Army comes in at 1AM to kick you out of the SAR, it turns out that permit you ignored wasn't quite the formality you thought it was. Your friend gets deported and you don't; there is no explanation for the differing and arbitrary treatment.
You hear about the censored internet but a google search of Tienanmen Square yields a plethora of accurate information. The next day you mention Taiwan to your Chinese friend and it becomes clear that he thinks it is a provence just like ShanDong or SiChuan, to make this clear he wasn't like a Saudi who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, he actually did not know that there was a controversy over Taiwanese sovereignty.
I or any other person who lives in a city in China can live and work anywhere in the country, but people from rural villages are not afforded the same rights of free movement. Of course only a very small segment of the population gets too make any relevant political decisions. And dissenters often disappear and only occasionally turn up ever again.
Up until now the Chinese populace, especially in urban areas has tacitly accepted this regime. And with good reason, the Chinese government has held legitimacy over the past 30 years by promising economic growth and (very slowly) opening up to the rest of the world. This has helped to lift over 300 million people out of poverty and starvation. The short term gains from democracy did not outweigh the costs economic loss and personal harm. However, economic growth is quickly turning stagnant, and the rising middle class will not accept this rule with increasing unemployment, especially among college graduates. I'm told by people in China now that pro-democracy petitions are circulating among young urban professionals at a pace faster than the government can quietly deal with them. I put the odds at a new Tienanmen moment within 2 years at 1 to 3, these odds will only increase if growth does not pickup. The call for democracy is closing in on the Communist Party, and unless they take extraordinary action to stop it now, it will soon be too late. I hope they fail.

Gay marriage: an obvious solution

I have always felt that a simple solution to the gay marriage debate lies in redefining the government's role in sanctioning personal relationships. Legally, there should only be one option available to everyone. It would be called something like a civil union. If for religious reasons a couple decides that they would like to enter into some extra special god sanctioned relationship through their priest or robot overlord that would still be allowed. However, it would have no bearing on their legal relationship with the state.

This has two benefits:
1. It helps to further separate the government from religious activity and sanction which in my opinion would be good. This helps to kill the religious argument that gay marriage somehow dilutes the far superior hetero-marriages by treating them equally. Because 'marriage' would now be a private affair, it would be left up to individual churches and other community organizations to decide if they would like to offer the gift of marriage to all or not.
2. It makes it more obvious that those who are against gay marriage are against it for sinister homophobic motives, rather than moral "pro-family" reasons that they like to hide behind.

It should be noted that a number of mainstream churches and temples already perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.


This issue of equality also creates a better society in my opinion. If two people of the same sex love each other what harm does do anyone else if their relationship is codified in the law like any other? In fact, if marriage is such a good thing for society how does precluding homosexuals from the practice harm society? They already live together, and if anything legal marriage would only help to bring them into mainstream society. A gay friend of mine once mentioned how hurtful it would be to her that I could marry anyone tomorrow regardless of love and she wouldn't be able to marry the love of her life, possibly ever. I don't plan to marry anytime soon but I can't argue with the point. From my perspective any marrage I enter into would be more legitimate and not less if she were allowed to marry as well. I hope the path of history is on her side. I fear otherwise.

These happy days

We (possibly just me until I build a readership) now have the first executive orders from Obama to scrutinize. The freeze on Bush's midnight regulations and trials in Guantanamo while they undergo legal review is good. But what about the freeze on White House staffers pay? I have always felt that the low pay offered to state and federal workers is the primary reason that there is a revolving door between Government and corporate lobbying. Why should someone who could make $500,000 a year working in compliance for an investment bank be forced to make only $60k for a boss (Obama) who is worth million of dollars.
This low pay seems to lead to more insidious results as well, with pay relatively low for people of the skill and ability that a White House job demands, two kinds of people will be especially drawn to these jobs: Those who crave power, and those who are already rich. That's a shame

On the inauguration:
While Rick Warren wasn't a bright spot, I can accept a large portion of American's follow and respect him. One redeeming factor is that the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson gave the invocation at the lincoln memorial. Too bad HBO censored it out of the broadcast.

First Post

One is forced to wonder why Blago, thought he had a chance to survive in office after this scandal broke.  Certainly, pissing off the Democratic leadership of the Illinois legislature, United States Senate, and the President-elect would not fit into my plan for helping Blago keep his job.  Of course this sort of behavior isn't very unique.  Just look ant how Ted Stevens and Kwame Kilpatrick have acted in the past 4 months.  
I would think that self-preservation would overtake these politicians egos once they have been caught, maybe after successfully holding power and abusing for so long they lose sight of their own vulnerability.  It should be noted that Eliot Spitzer had the class presence of mind to resign after his significantly more minor scandal broke out.