Bengfort.com

So I figured out how to combine two of my New Years’ Resolutions; read more, and blog more, thus- a book review blog! I felt for a while like my ideas were stagnating because living in DC doesn’t have as many cultural quirks as living in Italy did (I’m pretty sure we’re all familiar with the American culture) so I decided that my blog needed a theme. Thus, I’m going to review a few of the things I read, and maybe throw in a movie or two if I’m impressed (or entirely unimpressed).

The first book up is World on Fire by Amy Chua.

World on Fire by Amy Chua

In World on Fire, Amy Chua contends that the two main forces of globalization aggressively pursued by Western countries, namely, market liberalization and democratization, contribute to and in some cases bring about serious ethnic conflict and global instability. This is due to the two policies’ simultaneous effect of increasing inequality and subsequently hatred for market-dominant ethnic minorities, while at the same time empowering the poor majority to react, often resulting in violence or severe oppression of the minority. Chua explains it thus, “The global spread of free market democracy has thus been a principal, aggravating cause of ethnic instability and violence through the non-Western world. In country after country outside the West laissez-faire markets have magnified the often astounding wealth and economic prominence of an ‘outsider’ minority, generating great reservoirs of ethnic envy and resentment among the impoverished ‘indigenous’ majority…democratization, by increasing the political voice and power of the ‘indigenous’ majority, has fostered the emergence of demagogues who opportunistically whip up mass hatred against the resented minority. As a result, in its raw, for-export form, the pursuit of free market democracy outside the West has repeatedly led not to widespread peace and prosperity, but to ethnic confiscation, authoritarian backlash, and mass killing.” (187-88) Chua proceeds to describe a series of examples in which a program of market liberalization in combination with democratization, usually backed by the West, has led to either severe ethnic conflict or political backlash. From the Philippines and Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany and even Anti-Americanism, Chua applies her framework to conflicts both past and present.

In a purely informational sense, Chua’s book is an enjoyable, interesting and pleasant read.  After an emotional and attention-grabbing introduction describing the death of a beloved Aunt, purportedly due to the consequences her thesis describes, Chua segues into the deeper context of her argument. Her first two sections come across as a sort of history lesson through a series of descriptions, references and loose figures. Like a good history textbook, Chua begins her chapters with a humorous or enlightening anecdote, followed by some background information, a brief description of the current setting, and finally a reiteration of the issues. The book continues this way both throughout the globe and throughout time, her arguments getting progressively less robust, increasingly more flexible and even extrapolating to places that have only one or two of the three characteristics her thesis describes (market dominant ethnic minorities, economic liberalization, and democratization). In this way, her third section seems like the tagline for an infomercial- “But wait, there’s more!”- as she attempts to reconcile her thesis with intra-city conflicts in the United States, anti-Americanism, Nazism, and the current crisis in the Middle East. What Chua doesn’t realize is that the further she extrapolates and attempts to convince readers of her argument’s global (and national, in the case of the United States) relevance, the further she alienates those who were sold to her argument in the first place.

This argument by itself seems simplistic and logical. It makes sense that in countries where the vast majority of the population live in dire poverty, and those that do hold most of the wealth are of a noticeably different skin color, culture or ethnicity, ethnic conflict would result. It also makes sense that the greater the inequality between these peoples the more conflict and hatred there would be, and if free markets do in fact exacerbate these inequalities it might even be a direct consequence. While it is much less obvious, it also makes sense that a form of government that empowers the angry majority without protecting the rights of the minority can and often does lead to civil conflict or oppressive majoritarian policies. The way Amy Chua frames her book it seems like she is simply trying to describe a phenomenon rather than prove a thesis, much as a history book might say what happened in a particular era and offer several plausible suggestions as to why this might have occurred. The anecdotal and descriptive style of writing leaves no room for alternative interpretations; each example is specifically framed for her argument, and there are no competing explanations or variables that she is including or comparing against. If the point of the book is that she is simply trying to prove that these effects of occur, the lack of scientific methodology severely undermines her claim. A better approach might be to gather a set of recent conflicts or transition governments and see how the variables of market-dominant minorities, the gini coefficient, perceived ethnocentrism, and democratization (including the various levels of democratization, considering that “democracy” is debatable in many of the examples she gives) affect the outcome. This would make her results much more scientifically robust and offer solid proof.

It seems, however, that instead of trying to prove her thesis she is merely trying to describe a phenomenon that is the most likely explanation for several events throughout the world. She transitions easily from example to example, reiterating her point of view and showing how each scenario fits in the context of her argument. Given that her information is accurate, her conclusions seem logical, and aside from a few very interesting history lessons it seems no major ideological breakthroughs are made. Perhaps it is simply the mark of a great writer, but Chua’s observations and conclusions seem obvious. She is not trying to prove a hypothesis as much as she is saying something is true and providing anecdotal examples as supporting evidence. The question then becomes what the point of her writing this is. If it is not to methodologically prove the relationship between free market democracy and ethnic conflict for sheer academic value, then what is it? To raise awareness? To explore possible solutions? To disprove prior theories?

That question is exactly what the reader has in mind after two hundred pages of this message being reinforced. In logical terms, it seems that she spends her entire book defending a premise without drawing a conclusion.  In fact, some of the logical conclusions that could be drawn she rather obviously avoids discussing, even in the most narrow of terms. It seems that in her avoidance of drawing judgments from her work, either because of her reluctance to make broad claims or timidity in saying anything controversial, she discredits or completely diminishes the value of her work. Even one of her most obvious answers, that the United States should stop promoting simultaneous intense market reform and immediate democratization in countries with market-dominant ethnic minorities, she refuses to say directly. Instead, she states, “First, the best economic hope for developing and post-socialist countries lies in some form of market-generated growth. Second, the best political hope for these countries lies in some form of democracy, with constitutional constraints, tailored to local realities. And third, avoiding ethnic oppression and bloodshed must be a constant priority. But if these goals are to be achieved- if global free market democracy is to be peaceably sustainable- then the problem of market-dominant minorities, however unsettling, must be confronted head-on.” (263-264) She then goes on to state feeble policy recommendations that may help remedy these problems, most on the part of the corrupt and often unstable governments that have very limited incentive to do so. By the end it almost feels as if she herself does not believe there is a good solution, and just spent the entire book discussing the problem.

In the end, Amy Chua’s book is a delightfully informative, logically sound (for the most part) and enlightening read. Like many other books, it does well in debunking the neoclassical myth that free market democracy in the purest sense is the answer to all the world’s problems and an invincible catchall policy. This, however, is not a new concept, and in the absence of any further conclusion or salient recommendation Chua’s book fails to be anything but mildly thought-provoking.

Piggybacking on Ben’s post about how the Obama administration may change information technology policy, I had a revelation yesterday of just how strong an impact new technology has had on my political involvement and engagement in the past year. For one, I have made several comments on political blogs, especially those dealing with China issues, and I’ve even wrote to website administers to take down comments that I thought were highly offensive. During the Tibet turmoil last Spring, I even sent a few strongly worded facebook messages to Chinese friends from Dickinson who I thought were extremely out of line in attacking the United States when their freedom to do so was something they took for granted. I’ve never really given voice to my political opinions before, but now its something that comes naturally in the age of twitter and blog comment sections.

Also I wouldn’t have been able to watch (listen rather) to the inauguration speech without new technology. Of course CCTV didn’t give a rat’s ass about the incoming president and didn’t have a single station even partially covering the inauguration. We thought that CCTV9 would at least show the speech, but no, the only thing on was a report on “When will Obama close Guantanamo?” Not having cable, HBO, or any premium channels, nor having internet that was fast enough for live streaming, Andy, I and the girls came up with a bootleg solution: listen to NPR’s full coverage online (which occurred in real time) while watching halting clips from CNN’s live streaming (muted of course) by connecting my lap top to the big screen. The video of course froze every five seconds and then re-buffered, but at least we got to see what Michelle Obama was wearing (so important).

All in all, I have to admit that I wouldn’t be as politically involved, especially in light of the fact that I live in a communist country that doesn’t condone the democratic process, without the use of new technology such as blogging, twitter and social networking sites.

It’s true these things make a difference!

Amidst all the fanfare of the inauguration of the 44th president, I’m sure that the same things on my mind are very similar to those on America’s: how is the new President going to implement or change Information Technology policy in the White House? After all, the White House has been a significant vehicle for change in the way society deals with IT ever since the founding fathers forgot to include freedom of the Internet in the constitution. Instead they left it to our first President to declare a Proclamation of [Network] Neutrality in 1793 to stop Europe from embroiling America in its [standardization] wars. From the Pony Express and the Telegraph to Email and Twitter, the administration’s most important decisions have always revolved around the creation and influence of information policy.

But with this historic election, America now has its first Google president, breaking the glass ceiling that has left social networks as second rate applications. Now any child, anywhere in this great country can grow up thinking to themselves: “I too can become president, if I leverage the Internet to provide a campaign strategy that is inclusive of all”. Ok- maybe that’s not what America is thinking about, but it is certainly one aspect of this inauguration that can’t be ignored.

Take for instance a widely reported news item concerning the inauguration: cell phone providers had to set up mobile towers in order to ensure network availability to the large crowds in the mall. This seemingly innocuous tidbit that is really meant to highlight the size of the crowd in D.C. really serves as a reminder at the importance of technology in the Obama campaign from start to president elect. YouTube presidential addresses, Twitter election results accurately predicting outcomes in states, 25% of Obama voters belonging to one of the many Obama social networks, Blackberries in the White House- what does this all mean? It means, that for the first time, America has an administration that can effectively use the tools of the Internet for social and political means, and hopefully that will bring an increased focus to the need for policy that governs the Internet.

Right now the Internet is the wild wild west. Its a great place, full of new and exciting things, and pioneers are flocking to the Gold Rush of millions of users and instant connectivity. The Internet has provided a platform of opportunity that is unprecedented in America, and it embodies the American dream- anyone can come, from nothing, and make something of themselves on the Internet. Unfortunately there are also bandits that make the Internet unsafe: privacy invasion, internet crime, and all manner of lowlife from spyware to spam. There are even inequalities and injustices that occur on the Internet: censorship, data gathering, and all manner of discrimination from bandwidth restrictions to the high entry costs of being connected. We now have a President who appears to understand these things, and we need the U.S. Marshals to come and create peace (but not the U.S. Army Cavalry!)

As the first 100 days begin, here is a list of the few things that I would like to see happen with Internet Policy:

The Emancipation Proclamation of the Internet:

The Internet should be free from ownership by anyone. Certainly it shouldn’t be controlled by any one company, and it shouldn’t be censored by any government.

Peace in the Middle East’s DNS Server:

Secretary Clinton: There is no UN commission on the Internet, but it brings the world closer than ever before; if freedom of speech is an unalienable human right, then so is the freedom to use the Internet.

Bandwidth for All:

In the 1920s there was the rural electrification project to bring electricity to the whole of America, now we need a rural connectivication project to ensure that everyone has high bandwidth access to the internet

An IEC: Internet Exchanges Commission:

We need to regulate wall street- we also need to regulate network providers, so that dirty dealing doesn’t hurt the little guy trapped in a two year contract…

The 11th Right: The Right to Privacy

Obviously this is a philosophical point that needs much discussion, and probably several supreme court cases, but there would be no such cases if we weren’t constitutionally given the right to privacy.

Specific Laws for Internet Crime:

Right now if you commit a crime on the Internet, it is usually a “misuse of computers”. We need to define exactly what is criminal on the Internet, child pornography should not be charged as simply child abuse, it is worse, but we don’t have the means to define what is done on the Internet as crimes. Also, who has jurisdiction, and where? Important questions that need to be answered.

These are just a few things that highlight just how much thought we must put into our use of computers in the future. We have a President who has proved his familiarity with these problems, and I’m looking forward to being tweeted with his solutions!

To read the news today is to wobble between two competing emotions — undeniable hope and overwhelming fear. We feel certain that the promise of America remains, but unsure as to how we might contribute.

Such a time calls for us to embrace powerful ideas and turn them into realities that are an investment in the future of our country. One such idea is the U.S. Public Service Academy. The Public Service Academy would, like the military academies, focus on producing graduates dedicated to service.

Rather than preparing its students for a military career, however, the Public Service Academy would prepare students for work in health care, law enforcement, emergency management and other public service careers at all levels of government.

As a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, I know firsthand the power such an institution has to bring together Americans of a variety of backgrounds and beliefs and give them the tools to lead with creativity and intelligence. As a Truman Scholar, I know firsthand the strength of conviction of my generation and its dedication to the ideal of public service. This is an idea whose time has come.

The academy is more than just an idea, however—bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress. Currently, there are 24 co-sponsors of the bill in the Senate and 123 in the House, drawn from both parties and excited enough to state publicly their support for a national institution dedicated to producing the next generation of civic leaders.

I urge all North Dakotans to write or call Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Conrad, and Rep. Pomeroy to encourage them to join together in support of the U.S. Public Service Academy. For more information, visit www.uspublicserviceacademy.org.

On our way to Yin bar at 6 pm. Yin bar is off Chang’an Road, where the Forbidden City and Tiananmen are located, but conveniently, the entire road was closed, as was the 2nd Ring road. We got out of our cab here and decided to walk to the subway. You will notice the caravan of white vans on the other side of the road driving the wrong way. Gotta love a totalitarian government that puts its needs before its citizens.
Walking to the subway. This 15 foot bridge had 10 policeman guarding it. The road it was next to was closed, so there were nor cars. What were they gaurding? 3) The subway at 6 pm on a Friday evening, normally the busiest subway time, is eerily empty. 4) Olympic “volunteers” man the streets at 5o ft. intervals. I don’t really know what they are volunteering to do, because they refused to help me take a picture. I guess there only job description is to stand on the street and wear an armband.
There was a lot of Olympic spirit on the streets. These girls in a van shout to us and wave flags. We responds with a cheery “Happy Olympics!” 6) This Chinese man loves the Olympics. 7) We take a picture with him, no thanks to the “volunteer” on the side of the street who refused to take the picture for me. We got a fellow Olympics lover to help us.
At Yin Bar, We enjoy our free champagne. Although the TV screens were as not as big as we would have liked, we did get to meet the designer of the Olympic Medals, and the designer of the Olympic torch. We even got to take a picture with the torch!
After staying at Yin for an hour, we decided to go to another party at our friend’s house, who had a projector and a ten foot screen. American colors and flags were everywhere, as the party consisted of mostly Americans, with three Canadians, two Irish, and two Inner Mongolians in the mix. When the American team marched out onto the field, we cranked up an American song extremely loud and simply went crazy. Dancing, chanting, and yells of “America, F*** yeah!” filled the air for a good 5 minutes.

Intermittent Boos could also be heard whenever the camera panned to our 所谓 president. But immediately reverted back to cheering when the camera panned back to the athletes. I believe Putin was also heavily booed for some reason. When the Chinese team came on, we started chanting “Inner Mongolia, Let’s Go,” to the delight of our two inner Mongolian friends. The Candadians and the Irish did their best to cheer with the same enthusiam as the Americans, but to no avail.

As the camera panned from the waving athletes parading their colors at the Olympic Open Ceremony to their respective nation’s leaders sitting in the stands, it was clear that the joy of one world coming together and engaging in friendly competition was not a sentiment equally shared by the world’s top leaders, at least according to their facial expressions.

As the camera panned from the waving athletes parading their colors at the Olympic Open Ceremony to their respective nation’s leaders sitting in the stands, it was clear that the joy of one world coming together and engaging in friendly competition was not a sentiment equally shared by the world’s top leaders, at least according to their facial expressions.
When the British team entered the stadium, the camera shot to Gordon Brown, who smiled reservedly and waved. President Bush and wife gave their classic, well-rehearsed wave and bemused smile that they display at every public event, which at least imparted a small sense of enthusiasm and joy of attendance. Russia’s Vladimir Putin didn’t even crack a smile when his compatriots paraded in, and instead remained rather grim, as did the elderly Chinese woman sitting by his side (Who was she?) But his grimness was no match for the Chinese statesmen, who despite all the hype, media attention, BILLIONS of dollars spent, countless international battles to save the “face of the nation,” extraordinary economic policies and pollution measures, and 7 -count them, 7- years of waiting, their faces did not show the slightest trace of pride, joy or enthusiasm. Instead, they were stoic, blank, even hostile looking, as they watched, as we Americans joked, for any one of the thousands of performers to mess up and then order him jailed for “subverting state power.”
I guess the Chinese government has always been above the law it dictates and the slogans it spews, including the sartorial slogan, “Volunteer’s Smile, Beijing’s Image.” I guess in it’s efforts to clean up Beijing’s “image,” the Capital Spiritual Civilization Construction Commission missed the country’s leaders. Hu was not smiling, and was probably even wearing white socks with black shoes (gasp! what an uncivilized country this is!).
However, in truth Hu’s dour face was an anomaly amongst the super excited Chinese people within the stands and out on the streets of Beijing. In the two hours leading up to 8:08 on 8/08/08, even babies were proudly displaying their Olympic spirit with flags stuck into their hats, in their pockets, taped onto their shirts, and fake tatooed on their faces. Having had the day off, the atmosphere reflected that of a holiday. It was like Christmas. We even began shouting “Happy Olympics!”

(奥运节快乐！）with the same cheer as one would say Merry Christmas or Happy Birthday. The volunteers and even the policemen were in a good mood. Earlier that day I even had a nice chat with a policeman and helped him help lost foreign tourists. Everyone, except Hu, was in a good mood and showed it openly.
Even the goverenment’s idiocy in closing off an entire ring road (way to convenience your citizens and tourists there government) was not enough to really dampen our mood in the beginning. It was hot and we walked 1 mile to our destination after the subway could only take us so far. However, we finally got to the Emperor Hotel and sat on the roof of Yin bar, drinking free champagne as we watched the first half of the Opening Ceremony. The ceremony was truly incredible. Zhang Yimou does know how to put on a good show, although it is interesting to note that many of his films are banned by the government, and now he is a tool of the state. I guess times change.
Many more Olympic posts to follow!