Distortions of a Chinese Education

My wife and I have recently begun acting as liaisons for foreign students studying at Emory University, and last weekend we had our newest student over for a dinner party. Most of the students in this program are older and already have doctorates but are pursuing post-doc studies in a certain very specific area. Our student, who I will call “Jin” for privacy—and in admittedly annoying fashion will refrain from using pronouns for Jin in order to shield gender references throughout this blog post—was no exception, already having an advanced biology degree and pursuing advanced disease-related research at Emory.

First, I have to say that Jin reinforced the notion that I have held for a long time that if all the myriad people in the world could simply meet face-to-face, we would not have the kinds of catastrophic conflicts that exist today. Putting a face to “China” makes invective ring hollow. Jin was a very nice, polite, and possessed an extremely refined culinary palate (as anyone who praises the results of my food preparation will be identified in this blog). However, when we discussed politics and the differences between our two countries, the failures of Jin’s education and the extent to which Chinese orthodoxy reigns were clear.

Let’s just take three examples. First, one of the company assembled that evening mentioned Tibet and what Jin thought about the independence movement there. Jin seemed genuinely surprised about the topic and pointed out that the people of Tibet love Chinese control and involvement because of all the “free healthcare and services” the government provides. Jin also seemed to consider the Dalai Lama a radical crazy person, though we did not delve too much into that issue.

Second, we briefly discussed free speech and voting rights. Jin told us that Jin did not care for either McCain or Obama. Jin was also very happy and “glad” that Jin did not have to “worry” about voting. A committee chose the next leader of the country—or as Jin put it, Mao Zedung chose Deng Xiaoping, Deng Xiaoping chose Jiang Zemin, and Jiang Zemin chose the current leader, Hu Jintao. Jin considered it a burden that we here in America must vote.

Finally, Jin’s view of the protests and subsequent massacre at Tienamen Square in 1989 were that they were necessary to prevent disorder and the destruction of the country—though it was “sad.”

These beliefs were genuine. There was also no reason for Jin to worry about compatriots informing on Jin, because none were there, so there was no peer pressure from Jin’s countrymen.

I do not think I need to say much about the apparent efficacy of Chinese propaganda. Clearly, the party line is well thought out and calculated to present rationality for each abuse of human rights or power mongering. The thing that struck me so strongly was Jin’s disinterest and almost boredom in critically examining the government, its motives, and societal issues in general. They were mere facts, and uncomplicated ones at that.

I believe that this is not only due to the power of the Chinese government to tamp down such behavior, but also due to the Chinese government’s emphasis on a highly technical education. From an early age, Chinese children are pushed to learn science and mathematics and only exposed to humanities/liberal arts in a very factual sense (i.e., this happened, then this happened, etc.). The result of such an education is the devaluation of self-examination, philosophy, government, economics, and other soft sciences. The genius of such an education from the government’s point of view is that propaganda becomes inculcated and self-acting. The government need not work so hard to persuade what its people already are predisposed to. This is exemplified in the product, Jin.

Now, obviously, there are other factors at play. The traditional view of the clash between Western and Eastern cultures centers around individual rights versus collective rights. The recent (in historical terms, which can span centuries) Chinese government’s propaganda surely pales in comparison to the development of a certain cultural attitude developed over millenia.

I occasionally see examples of similar behavior among certain graduates of purely technical institutions in this country. Viz., a lack of social context due to a lack of education about non-technical fields of study. But that is a blog post for another time...

Drilling Delusions

"Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production."
-President George W. Bush, June 18, 2008

"Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less."- Petition campaign led by American Solutions for Winning the Future, an organization founded by Newt Gingrich

"I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans."- Petition circulated to other members of Congress by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia's 3rd District

With the recent increase in gas prices, many have begun calling for more domestic oil exploration and production, the thought being that an increase in supply of oil will bring prices down. This idea seems to make sense, and the policy has gained a large degree of support.

But is it true?

There are at least two problems with the idea that drilling will lower gas prices. The first is that any new domestic oil projects will take years to start producing. Even advocates of drilling readily admit this.

The second, more significant problem, however, is that those projects, even if all of them are pursued, are unlikely to bring prices down significantly, if at all.

There are three major areas where new oil development is proposed.

1. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. An analysis performed by the Energy Information Administration, an agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that, if this area were opened to oil production tomorrow, oil would not begin flowing for at least ten years, that even at peak production the area would supply less than a million barrels per day, and that production would lower the world price of oil by at most $1.44 per barrel. See an analysis here

2. Offshore Drilling. Again, any offshore drilling projects awould take years to start producing. A New York times article cites a 2007 DOE study that says it would be 2030 before offshore projects started adding to domestic production. Current estimates are that ANWR and offshore projects together probably would not produce more than 2 million barrels per day, and this level would not be reached until sometime after 2020.

3. Oil Shale. Ignoring the manifold environmental problems this type of production would cause, the fact is that oil shale could not significantly impact U.S. oil production for 20 years. The RAND Corporation, hardly a mouthpiece for environmentalists, estimates that it would take this long for oil shale production to supply 1 million barrels of oil per day.

While the amounts of described above are not insignificant, they are not huge. The world currently consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day, so all of the projects above together, if they were producing today, would supply only about 5% of world demand. Any effect that increased domestic production would have on the price of oil (and therefore gas) is very likely to be swamped by other factors in the long term, including declines in the production of existing oil fields, increasing demand from the developing world, and moves by OPEC to prop up the price of oil by moderating its own production. More domestic production might dampen further increases in gas prices but is very unlikely to overcome these other factors and actually reduce gas prices.

The current drive by Republicans for more drilling therefore misleads by playing on the current hardship that we are experiencing at the pump. Of course, using current fears and misleading information in order to promote a policy that (a) is near and dear to conservatives but (b) does not actually address the cause of the fear has been a successful tactic of conservatives in recent years (costly, tragic and unsuccessful Middle Eastern war, I am thinking of you).

When one compares the fervor with which drilling is promoted with the lip service paid to other measures such as energy-efficiency and renewable energy sources, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Republican strategy is a political ploy. Renewable energy and efficiency measures have the potential to permanently reduce our need for oil, whether domestic or foreign, but one looks in vain for conservative petitions and Rose Garden speeches. Westmoreland has stated repeatedly that we need to conserve and to develop wind and solar energy, but he voted against a measure that would have extended tax breaks for efficiency and renewables projects. He also voted against the bill raising fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles.

There are good reasons to consider domestic oil projects. We do need to reduce our reliance on foreign, insecure supplies. And the transition to a different energy economy is itself going to take a lot of energy, much of which must necessarily come from fossil fuels. There are good reasons not to drill as well- feeding our "oil addiction" may distract us from developing other energy sources, and oil projects, particularly oil shale, do produce environmental problems.

But when deception works, why bother with honest debate?

Barack Obama Comes to Georgia... and is immediately Vernonized!

Just a quick note to my many viewers all over the world out there:

Sensing that the state may be contestable, Barack Obama came to town yesterday to campaign. Interestingly, he staged an event in virtually all-white and very Republican Cobb County. For those who do not know, Cobb County contains a number of the most affluent suburbs of Atlanta. I know this upfront and very personally, because I spent a large part of my childhood and went to high school there. (This might give you an idea of the county's political leaning: In what I view in hindsight after legal training as a terrible conflict of interest and abuse of the state-- and what I felt in my gut was wrong as a teenager when it occurred-- my high school jazz band was compelled to attend and play at a re-election campaign event for Newt Gingrich. I initially refused to play but was told in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be if I didn't: dismissal). What makes this interesting is that Obama was clearly attempting to reach out to more conservative voters. This was partially foiled by the large number of Obama admirers who came in from the city to see him speak. Still, it is fun-- and oh so refreshingly different-- to at least consider the possibility that our state may be "in play" as the politicos say.

Obama got a taste of what all of us Dekalb County residents have been witnessing over the last few years, though. Vernon Jones, the CEO of Dekalb County (a position akin to the mayor of a city), took the opportunity to campaign nearby for the Democratic nomination for Senate. This would not have been all that bad but for the fact that his campaign began distributing a flyer showing Obama and Jones apparently standing together, with the slogan "Yes We Can" printed in the background. The image was apparently photoshopped. (You can see the flyer and read about this story here: http://www.ajc.com/cherokee/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/07/08/jones_obama.html)
Those of us who live in Dekalb County are used to Jones' shenanigans, which have included hiring a posse of unnecessary bodyguards, pretty much constant fracases with the law (charges and allegations of sexual harassment, assault, etc.), allegations of discrimination (e.g., his pursuit of a "darker administration" of the county according to a federal lawsuit-- he was allegedly referring to race, not the Force), and ego battles with the county commissioners (one even made it to Youtube level! We're so proud!).

Barack Obama made it clear that he has not and "does not" endorse Vernon Jones. He also compared Jones' tactics to Southside Chicago politics.

I wouldn't be waiting on that endorsement from Obama, Mr. Jones.

I always wanted a blog, Ma

I have always wanted a blog. Even when there weren't blogs, I wanted one. In fact, I started one, even though I didn't know the proper label for it, back in 1999 when I created a very rudimentary website and posted "political ramblings" on a special page. Emails between me and G. Morris, one of the future posters to this blog, formed the basis for those posts. Their subjects are lost in the hazy past of the internet bubble stock market crash and disastrous election of "w" but my interest in political dialogue persisted and, now, finds a forum.

Except perhaps for criticizing my hometown Atlanta Hawks' draft choices-- seriously, Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams???-- nothing tends to agitate and inflame me more than political discussion. Some of this is due to a strong innate feeling of justice and rights; thus, when my own Southern senator abrasively dismisses a person's right to marry and work without discrimination based on sexual orientation, I get upset, angry, and confrontational. Likewise, when an African American makes the same comments, I cannot hold back from pointing out that she is diametrically opposed to the teachings of MLK, Jr. Another reason for my passion for political discussion is a fundamental respect for accuracy, truth, and logic. The powers-that-be so obviously engage in-- to borrow a word from Scott McClellan-- propoganda, and the main stream media seem to lap it up like sweet heavy cream, or at least actually report it, which is sometimes bad enough (Swift Boat anyone?). Nowhere is this more evident than on the many, many news shows where "two views" are presented, in a show of balance or fairness; but it's not balance if on one side you have someone who is a nutcase (e.g., Ann Coulter) and on the other you have a legitimate presenter of an opinion. But they do it anyway.

The falsity and blatant self-promotion stun me. And make me mad. Hence, this blog.

I will not pretend that I do not have an opinion or a view, and I will certainly try to convince you that my view is the right one. But you can count on me to make an honest presentation of the facts. (Also, while my wife might disagree, I will admit when I am wrong).