The U.S. Department of State released the 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practice yesterday. This annual report publishes the human rights conditions in all countries around the world except U.S.A. China has often been criticized in the report for its violation of human rights. So, not to be outdone, China publishes a similar report called the Human Rights Record of the U.S. usually a day later to report on the U.S. record of human rights.

3/10/2006 12:19:00 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [2]

Politics

As most people know, I am a moderate when it comes to politics. I don't like to be labeled as either a liberal or a conservative. I also don't want to be neither a Democrat or a Republican. I think that America is too diverse to be represented by just 2 parties. That's why what Camille said yesterday during lunch made a lot of sense to me. He observed that when the political views of the people in this country are represented by only 2 parties it makes it easy for politicians from either party to take a stance on an issue and blindly advocate their solution to be absolutely right while sneering at the views of their opponents. It becomes easy for either party to spin any political discourse as being good vs. evil or conservative vs. liberal. However, the issues that politicians are tackling with are by nature ambiguous and framing the issues under the context of drawing to either side of a set of binary views become unproductive and even misguided. I think that any political discourse has to be based on a platform that brings people to the center with common actions. So is having more political parties a solution to forming a more centrist government? Having more political parties can provoke better discussions and offer more choices. On the other hand, having too many parties can slow the political process and suppress efficiency. So what is a good model? Also, should government always strive for moderate political agenda or policies?

2/4/2006 5:40:42 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [1]

Politics

I listened to a public radio news program yesterday where Rob Gifford, a China correspondent for NPR for 6 years, was interviewed. It was a very insightful and thought-provoking show. Here are some of the highlights from the show:

• Actually, the central Chinese government is keen on addressing problems, especially the younger bureaucrats. The curse of the Chinese civilization, as it has always been, isn't the officials in Beijing, but the local officials. The problem is in the provincial government, they have the tendency to cover up. Furthermore, most of the corruption in government happens at the local level. (Very true).
• China is still 1-party and can still be a police state if it wants to. But ideologically, communism doesn't exist in China anymore. No one in China believes in communism anymore. Also, the Chinese economic model is clearly a capitalist one. The question is: What is going to replace communism in China? The big thing that seems to be emerging is nationalism.
• China was the middle kingdom, the most advanced civilization in the ancient times. After the 1700's, they were humiliated by Western powers and Japan. For 150 years, they have been playing catch-up and have been getting it wrong time after time. Now they are hungry, they are close to catching up to the rest of the world.
• Westerners may say that the Chinese system is a socialist system without true democracy. The Chinese are going to say: so what, call it whatever you want. As long as we are better off now than we were years ago.
• Here's the paradox of a 1-party state. The 1-party state can push through some terrible policies. But a 1-party state can also push through good economic policies with such vigor and efficiency that multi-party states can't do.

11/17/2005 1:44:37 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [6]

Politics

2 days after I wrote about yet another sober view of the state of competitiveness and education in America, I saw this interesting article about the erosion of U.S. science on Slashdot.

10/13/2005 5:19:48 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [2]

Politics

Here's an interesting commentary that I heard on The Marketplace Radio a few nights ago. I will try my best to reproduce what was said on air:

"You would think that times and pump prices being what they are, that all the oil and gas that are produced in this country would stay in this country. The more we keep you would think, the lower price it would be. It's supply and demand, and all that. Don't look now, but a part of supply is on its way overseas. Refineries make the residential oil that the warms your home. Part of the reason why home heating oil is skyrocketing is there are barely enough refineries meet demand. Oil companies like it that way. A scare commodity keeps their prices and profits high. So the push on in Washington to increase American refinery capacity. There is one catch though. If you want to see prices fall, oil companies have sell their oil and petroleum products here in America, not in Singapore or Chile. You see, right now in the period of peak demand and limited supply, oil companies are exporting our home heating oil all across the globe. That has created shortage right here, at home and driving up the price. The department of Energy data show that oil companies have exported 1 1/2 billions more gallons of liquid heating products in the first 7 months of 2005 than during the period last year. That amounts to about 20 times greater than the size of the entire Northeast Strategic Reserve for Heating Oil. At the same time, the department of Energy numbers show that imports are falling. With a severe Winter warning, that's a recipe for big profits for oil companies and impossible choices for consumers. The poorest has to choose between food and keeping their family warm. It's a choice that no family has to make in America. Legislation had passed in the House of Representatives last week gave new subsidies to oil companies that build refineries but the bill gave no new restrictions on where the petroleum products could be sent. In other words, it's all carrots but no stick."

10/13/2005 5:13:11 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [1]

Politics

Living in Boston, I always perceive the Big Dig as the epitome of government waste. But the upcoming Gravina Bridge project, with its $315 million government budget, is staled to overtake the Big Dig in terms of wasteful spending of taxpayers' money. Check it out from various sources:

1. Taxpayer.net
2. Yahoo! News
3. South Alaska Conservation Council
4. Alaska Wilderness League

8/10/2005 1:48:48 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Comments [2]

Politics