1. This is I think the best article I've seen so far on the Tea Parties - it's not hyperbolic in its denunciations or in its praise. Sure, sure, these things were astroturfed to all hell and Fox News more or less sponsored the whole project, but it's important to note that people showed up at these things who aren't a) Brooks-Brothers-riot types b) Bircher throwbacks. Some people are genuinely scared and angry that so much money has been spent in so short a time, and those are valid concerns - Obama should feel some political pressure to keep the spending sane, or at least justifiable. It's not that I disagree with the various stimulatin' that's been going down, I just think that these protests, like any protests, mixed real grievances or fears with crazy ones.
2. This is an interesting take on the breakdown of the North Korea six-party talks. I wrote a bit about this a while ago, basically making the point that North Korea acts like a crazy person not because it is a crazy person, but because it is the best way to ensure a) its own survival and b) the maintenance of the various aid and energy agreements it is part of. Since I wrote that post, North Korea went ahead and launched the missile, a spectacular failure that nonetheless wet the pants of every neoconservative in DC, and is now backing away from the negotiating table completely (as well as threatening to restart its nuclear program).
There is probably a lively debate to be had about why, exactly, North Korea chose this point to back off, but I am less informed than would be necessary to wade into this debate. Suffice it to say that I think North Korea is a weak state in a weak international environment with a weak leader and an intense fear of being invaded, and it doesn't want anyone to forget that it (might) have nukes. What I wanted to point out, here, is that the Robert Farley post makes a very interesting (and very realist) point about international affairs in general: namely, that some problems can't be "solved". Sometimes, as with North Korea, the "solution" is either unreachable or far too costly, and so foreign policy should be designed to manage these problems rather than fix them. Farley mentions piracy, which is a very good example as pirates have been around longer than modern nation-states, and seem to have no interest in giving up anytime soon.
3. Ladies and gentlemen, Jackie Chan:
Jackie Chan believes that the Chinese people need to be controlled! He's beffudled about democracy. He doesn't know about freedom.I don't know too much about Chinese class relations (Lion? pitch in?), but the guy who wrote the post on this seems to think that Jackie is just saying what everyone's thinking: a Chinese person with democracy is a little like a mule with a spinning-wheel. Obviously, Jackie Chan's opinions on civil rights are not as well-thought out as his opinions on ladder fights, but I am interested in reading more about the upper class-lower class divide in China that this is supposed to be highlighting. Anyone seen anything else like this lately?
Speaking at the Boao Forum in southern China, Chan said this: "I'm not sure if it is good to have freedom or not. I'm really confused now. If you are too free, you are like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."
And this: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
The Chinese audience loved it.
No comments:
Post a Comment