I saw all the stuff on Drudge over the weekend about the big New York Times feature that was supposed to shake Rupert Murdoch's media empire to its core. This article is apparently part of it, and deals with Murdoch's efforts to cultivate a market in China for his TV channels and satellite services. In a nutshell, Murdoch's been sucking up to a bunch of ChiComs for years to make money in the potentially enormous Chinese satellite TV market. Predictably, to do so, Murdoch's had to agree to all sorts of censorship-type things, such as removing BBC News from his Chinese satellite network after the Brits showed some uncomfortable footage from Tiananmen Square, and speaking poorly of the Dalai Lama.
While I understand the knee-jerk reaction to participating in ChiCom censorship and propaganda (it's bad), I think Murdoch may actually be on to something very good. I grant that supporting totalitarian regimes that repress freedom is something to be avoided. However, it's important to "play the long game" (credit to my friend Jason for that phrase) and not forget what we hope to accomplish thirty years from now.
By giving the Chinese leadership the concessions they want, Murdoch is doing something that our pure idealism will never do: reaching the ears of systematically oppressed people. At this point, the West is not going to get free journalism to the Chinese people. However, we might get a sanitized version of our way of life onto their television sets, and that's not a bad thing. Any television controlled by an entity other than the Chinese communist party is a step forward, even if censored.
By courting the favor of the Chinese power structure, Murdoch is doing more than making inroads for his business interests. He's laying the groundwork for liberalized media in a society that has no such thing. If that media starts out with the sanction of the country's leaders, we can expect many in the country to soon have access. In other words, lots of Chinese will be able to watch Murdoch's satellite TV. At first, they'll get news and culture carefully filtered for political reasons. Over time, however, as the system becomes entrenched (imagine how ubiquitous cable TV is for us), it will be increasingly difficult for the communist party to control the content.
In a country as large as China, a satellite TV system with several tens of millions of subscribers would seemingly be impossible to shut down. First, the technology is such that the government couldn't physically shut down the source, but would instead have to confiscate individual dishes from end users. Second, popular sentiment might not prevent censorship, but would be against losing services the people became accustomed to having. Finally, if Murdoch is smart (and he must be), he'll make sure the government gets its share of the profits, and consequently won't be quick to pull the plug on a lucrative high-tech business.
I don't like supporting communism, but sometimes the good fight involves laying with dirty bedfellows. If the only way to reach the oppressed people of China is to play ball with their government, that's the path we have to take. I hope that's where Murdoch's venture goes.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Frightening Ignorance
Apparently Cameron Diaz recently showed up at Machu Picchu in Peru carrying a purse decorated in a Chinese communist motif, complete with red star and 'Serve the People' emblazoned on the side. This is highly offensive to many Peruvians who watched the local communist guerillas, Shining Path, terrorize their countryside during the late 20th century. The nutcases in that organization based their particular brand of communism in part on Maoism, and their leadership publicly rejected the idea of human rights (see Wikipedia article for citations).
I don't expect better from Madame Diaz, whose attempts at political discourse in the past have included:
Women have so much to lose... I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. If you think rape should be legal then don't vote. But if you think you have a right to your body and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote. (see Wikipedia for citation)
Hear that ladies? If you don't vote, you must think rape should be legal. Not even worth commenting on.
However, the communist style thing is pretty scary. Several times in college, I saw people on campus wearing 'USSR' shirts. I wonder whether those folks or dear Cameron would like a bag emblazoned with a swastika and Deutschland ueber alles? After all, the Nazis killed far fewer people than Mao's communists.
I'm just shocked that anyone who went to public school in my country could think that the symbols of a murderous ideology are high fashion. I'm willing to write off the fad as mere ignorance of reality, but it's still scary. American journalism (which, by the way, gives to Democrats 9-to-1 over Republicans) has done a good job of painting opposition to communism as 'McCarthyism' or warmongering, but there's still no excuse for making murder glamorous.
I don't expect better from Madame Diaz, whose attempts at political discourse in the past have included:
Women have so much to lose... I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. If you think rape should be legal then don't vote. But if you think you have a right to your body and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote. (see Wikipedia for citation)
Hear that ladies? If you don't vote, you must think rape should be legal. Not even worth commenting on.
However, the communist style thing is pretty scary. Several times in college, I saw people on campus wearing 'USSR' shirts. I wonder whether those folks or dear Cameron would like a bag emblazoned with a swastika and Deutschland ueber alles? After all, the Nazis killed far fewer people than Mao's communists.
I'm just shocked that anyone who went to public school in my country could think that the symbols of a murderous ideology are high fashion. I'm willing to write off the fad as mere ignorance of reality, but it's still scary. American journalism (which, by the way, gives to Democrats 9-to-1 over Republicans) has done a good job of painting opposition to communism as 'McCarthyism' or warmongering, but there's still no excuse for making murder glamorous.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Never thought I'd say this...
... but thank God for the Eastern Europeans! This editorial in the Financial Times, written by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, is right on point in the global warming debate. Klaus suggests that the greatest threat to free people is not climate change, but climate-change politics. This man, who lived most of his life behind the Iron Curtain, fears environmentalism more than communism. I agree with him.
This interests me because I've believed for years that the modern environmental movement is little more than a safe haven for anti-free-market types. Without suggesting there is a conspiracy cooked up in some smoke-filled room in Moscow, I believe that western Marxists have collectively realized in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union that they cannot be honest with the public about their desires, and have taken refuge behind a cloak of environmentalism. Because the Soviet system failed, outright collectivism doesn't sell in the West anymore. However, tree-hugging still does.
Klaus's astute description of modern political correctness (there is "only one permitted truth" and "everything else is denounced"), coming from an Eastern European politician, gives me hope that the newly-freed countries of that region haven't yet fallen victim to the worst parts of modern liberalism, which is seductive but misguided. True or classical liberals (which included many of the men who signed our Constitution) should protest loudly the suggestion that a "scientific consensus" on a theory developed in the past decade is sufficient to roll back personal and economic liberties throughout the free world.
Perhaps people who lived under the tyranny of post-WWII communism in Eastern Europe remember more vividly how quickly the masses will give up their freedom in exchange for protection against mythical hobgoblins created by those seeking power. Authoritarian features of East German communism, notably the Berlin Wall, were ostensibly necessary to defend against facist aggression. In reality, of course, the aggressors were already on the eastern side of the wall.
I don't mean to suggest that global warming is unworthy of consideration as an international issue. On the contrary, I believe that addressing the problem, if indeed it exists, is a unique opportunity for the free people of the West to show the superiority of our systems of government. I think Klaus understands this.
Al Gore's documentary, despite its name, was an argument on one side of the debate. There are many prescient arguments on the other side. Our philosophical tradition would have us settle the dispute in the public forum, with all sides allowed to throw in their two cents. Unfortunately, a tactic incompatible with the philosophical underpinnings of western government has grown strong roots in recent years, and has been employed most notably by the environmental movement. As Klaus implies, environmentalists often don't want to convince you they're right; instead, they aim to use the power of political correctness to deny everyone else a rebuttal. Don't believe me? Read how they argue:
Ellen Goodman - Denying global warming is like denying the Holocaust
Al Gore - Global warming is a moral, not political, problem
MSNBC report - Head of NASA forced to retreat from statements skeptical of global warming
U.N. special envoy on climate change - "Completely immoral" to question the reports currently published on the subject, or to question the issue itself, or to question whether immediate action must be taken
That last one would be very scary if it came from an organization other than the U.N. The point remains, however. Environmentalists don't want to be bothered with a debate, or criticism, or reevaluation (all part of the scientific method, a real scientific consensus). This is simply not the way western republics should work. Our freedoms and way of life should only be sacrificed if the electorate is fairly convinced that there is no other way.*
I hope that Klaus's editorial is representative of a widely-held understanding in the new republics of Eastern Europe. Because many of these people have first-hand knowledge of how totalitarianism works, they may understand through practical experience what I, as an American, can only understand in the abstract. The environmental movement, possibly the modern home of Marxist ideology, seeks insidiously to use political correctness, a not-so-distant cousin of totalitarian propaganda, to circumvent the protections of individual liberty that are part of the western democratic process and convince us to give up our economic freedom in exchange for protection from the scary monster under the bed: global warming.
* "Fairly" means that no viewpoint is completely denied a forum. Modern political correctness often denies controversial viewpoints a voice through different means but to the same ends as totalitarian propaganda; the Nazis simply arrested or killed those with opposing views to silence them and leave government propaganda as the only viewpoint, while the PC police destroy careers and reputations, also to achieve their silence, leaving only politically correct viewpoints available. I would also qualify "electorate" as including countermajoritarian protections such as judicial review, not just a simple majority of the voters.
This interests me because I've believed for years that the modern environmental movement is little more than a safe haven for anti-free-market types. Without suggesting there is a conspiracy cooked up in some smoke-filled room in Moscow, I believe that western Marxists have collectively realized in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union that they cannot be honest with the public about their desires, and have taken refuge behind a cloak of environmentalism. Because the Soviet system failed, outright collectivism doesn't sell in the West anymore. However, tree-hugging still does.
Klaus's astute description of modern political correctness (there is "only one permitted truth" and "everything else is denounced"), coming from an Eastern European politician, gives me hope that the newly-freed countries of that region haven't yet fallen victim to the worst parts of modern liberalism, which is seductive but misguided. True or classical liberals (which included many of the men who signed our Constitution) should protest loudly the suggestion that a "scientific consensus" on a theory developed in the past decade is sufficient to roll back personal and economic liberties throughout the free world.
Perhaps people who lived under the tyranny of post-WWII communism in Eastern Europe remember more vividly how quickly the masses will give up their freedom in exchange for protection against mythical hobgoblins created by those seeking power. Authoritarian features of East German communism, notably the Berlin Wall, were ostensibly necessary to defend against facist aggression. In reality, of course, the aggressors were already on the eastern side of the wall.
I don't mean to suggest that global warming is unworthy of consideration as an international issue. On the contrary, I believe that addressing the problem, if indeed it exists, is a unique opportunity for the free people of the West to show the superiority of our systems of government. I think Klaus understands this.
Al Gore's documentary, despite its name, was an argument on one side of the debate. There are many prescient arguments on the other side. Our philosophical tradition would have us settle the dispute in the public forum, with all sides allowed to throw in their two cents. Unfortunately, a tactic incompatible with the philosophical underpinnings of western government has grown strong roots in recent years, and has been employed most notably by the environmental movement. As Klaus implies, environmentalists often don't want to convince you they're right; instead, they aim to use the power of political correctness to deny everyone else a rebuttal. Don't believe me? Read how they argue:
Ellen Goodman - Denying global warming is like denying the Holocaust
Al Gore - Global warming is a moral, not political, problem
MSNBC report - Head of NASA forced to retreat from statements skeptical of global warming
U.N. special envoy on climate change - "Completely immoral" to question the reports currently published on the subject, or to question the issue itself, or to question whether immediate action must be taken
That last one would be very scary if it came from an organization other than the U.N. The point remains, however. Environmentalists don't want to be bothered with a debate, or criticism, or reevaluation (all part of the scientific method, a real scientific consensus). This is simply not the way western republics should work. Our freedoms and way of life should only be sacrificed if the electorate is fairly convinced that there is no other way.*
I hope that Klaus's editorial is representative of a widely-held understanding in the new republics of Eastern Europe. Because many of these people have first-hand knowledge of how totalitarianism works, they may understand through practical experience what I, as an American, can only understand in the abstract. The environmental movement, possibly the modern home of Marxist ideology, seeks insidiously to use political correctness, a not-so-distant cousin of totalitarian propaganda, to circumvent the protections of individual liberty that are part of the western democratic process and convince us to give up our economic freedom in exchange for protection from the scary monster under the bed: global warming.
* "Fairly" means that no viewpoint is completely denied a forum. Modern political correctness often denies controversial viewpoints a voice through different means but to the same ends as totalitarian propaganda; the Nazis simply arrested or killed those with opposing views to silence them and leave government propaganda as the only viewpoint, while the PC police destroy careers and reputations, also to achieve their silence, leaving only politically correct viewpoints available. I would also qualify "electorate" as including countermajoritarian protections such as judicial review, not just a simple majority of the voters.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Welcome
As the Old World excitedly awaits my return later this month, I've decided to make my Euro-blog idea a reality. Within this little corner of cyberspace you will soon find a riveting, day-by-day account of my summer study abroad.*
Because I'm a veteran of only two cross-Atlantic adventures totalling just six weeks away from free (American) soil, this trip initially provided me with an exciting opportunity to test a couple of ideas I've been toying with for a while. I'm gonna spell out these ideas in detail on this blog before leaving, then evaluate them as I go.
First, I'm not flying with a big airline. I saved $300 over a comparable Delta itinerary with IcelandAir. I fly from Orlando, Florida to Reykjavik, Iceland, then on to Amsterdam. In addition to the cost savings, I think avoiding big airports (New York's JFK is miserable) and breaking up the long flight will make the trip more pleasant. Because the transatlantic great circle route nearly passes over Iceland anyway, the flight time is about the same. We'll see whether the stress of changing planes is worth it.
Second, I'm packing very light. The content of my scholastic program in the Netherlands and Germany requires business attire (suit and tie), so I'm forced to lug a garment bag halfway 'round the world. Other than that, I'm going with a bookbag and a prayer; no suitcase or duffel bag. Based on the advice of travel guide Rick Steves and my jet-setting rock star friend, I'm taking just five days of clothes. I think the light load will outweigh the inconvenience of doing laundry, and buying clothes as souvenirs has served me well in the past.
* For the law-trained reader, "riveting" and "day-by-day" are mere sales talk intended to create no warranty of quality. The reader should not rely on any of the author's assertions as to the frequency or coherence of the postings to this blog.
Because I'm a veteran of only two cross-Atlantic adventures totalling just six weeks away from free (American) soil, this trip initially provided me with an exciting opportunity to test a couple of ideas I've been toying with for a while. I'm gonna spell out these ideas in detail on this blog before leaving, then evaluate them as I go.
First, I'm not flying with a big airline. I saved $300 over a comparable Delta itinerary with IcelandAir. I fly from Orlando, Florida to Reykjavik, Iceland, then on to Amsterdam. In addition to the cost savings, I think avoiding big airports (New York's JFK is miserable) and breaking up the long flight will make the trip more pleasant. Because the transatlantic great circle route nearly passes over Iceland anyway, the flight time is about the same. We'll see whether the stress of changing planes is worth it.
Second, I'm packing very light. The content of my scholastic program in the Netherlands and Germany requires business attire (suit and tie), so I'm forced to lug a garment bag halfway 'round the world. Other than that, I'm going with a bookbag and a prayer; no suitcase or duffel bag. Based on the advice of travel guide Rick Steves and my jet-setting rock star friend, I'm taking just five days of clothes. I think the light load will outweigh the inconvenience of doing laundry, and buying clothes as souvenirs has served me well in the past.
* For the law-trained reader, "riveting" and "day-by-day" are mere sales talk intended to create no warranty of quality. The reader should not rely on any of the author's assertions as to the frequency or coherence of the postings to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)