The funny thing about crowd psychology that most people miss is the concept of diffusion of responsibility. Basically, it means that the more people there are, the less responsibility each of them feels for what is going on. It’s a simple but powerful theory that helps to explain behavior that might otherwise signify the end of morality—most notably the murder of Kitty Genovese. Thus, individually, each rioter feels little responsibility for the actions of their neighbors or for their own actions. After all, if you are just one of a dozen people taking things from a shop, and you weren’t the first to take it, then it’s not really your fault. Besides, if you don’t take it, someone else will.

The other extremely useful theory in explaining this phenomenon is the broken windows theory of policing. Simply put, it says that if one window on a building is already broken, then people do not feel that bad about breaking another, and another.

William Bratton, the American consultant brought in at the behest of David Cameron in the wake of the riots, is the most famous proponent of the broken windows theory. Using ideas garnered from this idea, he is credited with helping to make New York City safe in the 1990s by simply policing fare jumpers and graffiti.

You can see test this for yourself. Find a crosswalk where everyone is waiting politely for the light, then cross the street while it is still red. Most likely, people will start to follow you, even though the circumstances have not changed.

I think that the entirety of the London riots can be explained without recourse to moral explanations involving anarchism or consumerism. I find nothing mysterious about young people with good jobs and no prior criminal activity taking things from shops that have already been broken into.

I find the quote from the forensic psychologist Kay Nooney most apropos:

These people aren’t interested in tuition fees. In constituency, it’s most similar to a prison riot: what will happen is that, usually in the segregation unit, nobody will ever know exactly, but a rumour will emanate that someone has been hurt in some way. There will be some form of moral outrage that takes its expression in self-interested revenge. There is no higher purpose, you just have a high volume of people with a history of impulsive behaviour, having a giant adventure.

When a group of outraged people gather together, all it takes is a small incident to provoke violent behavior. The more people there are, the easier it is for that to occur. As much as you complain about the lack of moral education, as we see from the background of many of the rioters, many of the looters are not your typical consumption-obsessed poor youth.

There is, of course, a separate distinction to be made regarding the causes of the riot itself. Riot behavior is nothing new and easily explainable. However, the societal ills that she speaks about—cuts in social services, unemployment, etc.—are real. In truth, they are definitely contributors to the riot, but not in the way people normally think. The best way to prevent riots is to keep citizens satisfied enough so that there won’t be a large group of disaffected and angry people all gathered in one place. Because once they assemble, your options are limited.

The point is not how to keep people from looting once a riot starts.  The point is how to keep a riot from starting in the first place.  While many people are deploring the harsh sentences handed out willy nilly (like six months for stealing bottled water), they have one benefit that people are overlooking.

If the shield of anonymity is no longer there, then responsibility no longer diffuses.  The whole reason why countries like Japan behave so orderly even in the wake of such a massive disaster as Fukushima is the notion of collective responsibility held by the Japanese.  Holding as many people responsible as they can for these riots will do a great deal to ensure that in the future, people will think twice about taking something out of a broken store window.

In her piece Williams describes the riots as lacking “political motivation” and quotes a Hackney local caught on YouTube trying to remind rioters that all this fuss was meant to be about a man who was shot in Tottenham. “I’m shamed to be a Hackney person. Because we’re not all gathering together and fighting for a cause. We’re running out of Footlocker and thieving shoes.” In a similar vein The Age quoted Twitter user Arneybolt who dryly commented, “Youths in the middle-east fighting/rioting for freedom and human rights, youths of london rioting for plasma screens & 4Ones [mobile phones]!”

Williams goes on to dismiss any nihilistic readings of these riots:

How can you cease to believe in law and order, a moral universe, co-operation, the purpose of existence, and yet still believe in sportswear? How can you despise culture but still want the flatscreen TV from the bookies?

I would argue that we’re looking at a different kind of nihilism. Not one that leads to anarchism, but one in which the moral vacuum is filled with ecstasy-inducing consumption. She continues later in the piece:

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don’t have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can’t afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: “Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you’re dealing with a lot of people who don’t have the last two, that contract doesn’t work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they’re rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can’t afford it.

The Chinese media reports of an Anhui youth who went behind his parents back to sell his kidney for 20,000RMB ($3,100US) too shocked the nation. While there are many poor people in China, and countless stories of self-sacrifice, this seemed to indicate a bizarre turning point. He wasn’t doing this for a father suffering from a terminal illness, or to send a younger sister to university. He was doing this for an iPad 2.

The choice of product has significance. As Christina Larson in Foreign Policy points out, in contrast to Apple’s “rebellious” image in the West (the underdog challenging tech behemoths like IBM and Microsoft), in China Apple is a luxury brand. Apple does appear to be the choice of “top white-collar professionals” here, and as one shopper—a sales manager for an international food distributor—in Larson’s piece puts it, “I like to show off my Apple identity.”

For your average Chinese person, Apple products are prohibitively expensive and hence haven’t achieved the ubiquity they have in countries like the U.S., U.K. or Australia. However, as Larson writes, the barrier to entry has been slightly lowered by the introduction of goods like the iPhone and iPad which cost a lot less than a laptop. I’d argue that this increases a consumer’s willingness to do what it takes to procure one. The exclusivity and glamour that hovers around Apple products like a sweet perfume no longer exists in the high realms of impossibility. It lives just a few floors up—it is just one kidney away.

In my piece about Guo Meimei, the 20-year-old microblogger blasted for bragging about her Maserati and designer handbags whilst listing herself as the business manager of a prominent Chinese charity organisation, I take a bigger look at the consumerism that has invaded sex relations in China. It turns out that Guo Meimei, who only two years ago was living modestly, is currently the girlfriend of a wealthy businessman.

With society seemingly fracturing into two distinct camps – the haves, and the have-nots – many young women are disinclined to find themselves on the wrong side of the line. It has created a new culture of cynical materialism that manifests itself most clearly in the rules of romance. A couple of years ago Ma Nuo, a contestant of an extremely popular Chinese dating show caused a mini-scandal on air. In rebuffing an unemployed suitor who had invited her for a bicycle ride, she responded with the killer line: “I’d rather sit and cry in the back of a BMW.” Ma Nuo came to personify the modern Chinese woman, or at least the worst of her qualities: obsessed with wealth, and cunningly ready to do what it takes to marry into it.

Desperate bachelors unable to land a woman because they don’t own a car and house regularly pop up in news on China. As do stories and comments widely condemning another despised group of women: Er Nai (二 奶) or second wives. Second wives resemble modern-day concubines. In exchange for being a “kept woman,” they expect to be lavished with thousands of dollars in cash, designer clothes, fancy meals, overseas trips, and, in some cases, their own apartment. These secret girlfriends may be young university students from modest backgrounds who struggle to pay for their tuition fees, or girls who simply feel that in dog-eat-dog China a girl has to utilize every advantage she has.

An ernai‘s willingness to sacrifice her not only body, but her youth, her values, even her concept of romance, in order to buy into a high-end luxury life, is yet another example of extreme consumerism at work.

The stories from China and the London riots represent two points on the same line. China is in the honeymoon period of capitalism, reeling from double digits growth and rags-to-riches tales. Greed is still good. While there are grumblings about “second generation poor” and “second generation rich” that become louder by the day, on the whole the country is rightfully optimistic about the near future. The U.K., however, is at a different stage in life: prolonged recession, high unemployment—a country too long divided along class and cultural fault lines. Perhaps what we’re seeing in London, at least in part, is a sort of implosion. It is theend point of an unsustainable system. The unrest in the U.K. is not atypical; it is something that may befall other other capitalist countries that find themselves in decline or burdened with an unbridgeable wealth gap. It is a warning that China would do well to heed.

Monica Tan is a Beijing-based writer, originally from Sydney. Like any good journalist, she blogs and tweets.

There is a battle raging in Hollywood, and it’s getting ugly. The explosive growth of the Netflix customer base, which now has more than 24 million subscribers (more than any individual cable channel), has seen the Los Gatos, CA based company morph, in last ten years, from an under-the-radar DVD rental service into the distributor of movies online.

Netflix’s rise has come at Hollywood’s expense as cable and other traditional distribution windows have refused to buy titles that have hit Netflix, claiming that Netflix’s online on-demand streaming platform robs the cable companies of the ability to sell ads for the same content. In addition to a loss in licensing revenue from cable companies, Netflix has contributed to the decline in DVD sales across the board, as customers opt to rent and stream instead of own and buy. Essentially, Netflix’s model encourages customers to avoid more profitable viewing options for cheaper, online streaming content.

Continue reading at Penn-Olson.

Well, according to my own research—and keep in mind this is nowhere near as journalistic or scientific as either website’s investigation—of actually trying to access the site from a computer connected to the Chinese Internet and finding that it loads slow as shit, it seems that Penn Olson is right. In fact, the Guardian article contains an even more blatant mistake:

Google’s main URL, google.com, has been blocked inside China since the company decided to withdraw from the mainland in 2010 in protest at what it saw as government-inspired hacking.

According to the Great Firewall site, its Chinese version, google.cn, is also blocked while that of China-sanctioned Baidu is not.

Contrary to all human understanding, www.google.com loads in China.

Indeed, according to their links, google.cn is blocked, and yet it loads quite swiftly when I access it from my Chrome browser, as does google.com. Just Ping also shows both www.google.cn and www.google.com loading in Shanghai (granted, sometimes it returns a connection error). So wait, The Guardian used both sites to confirm that Google+ had been blocked but DECLINED TO DO THE SAME THING when it came to an even more outlandish and controversial claim?

But you know what, forget all that. The best thing they could have done was to CALL SOMEONE WHO FUCKING LIVES IN CHINA. I imagine such a publication must know at least ONE INDIVIDUAL living here. That person could have taken the ten seconds it just took me to type “www.google.com” into my browser and load the page. Not that I needed to, as I’ve been using Google this entire time to research this piece.

Of course, this is not the first time a major newspaper has misreported information regarding censorship in China. A few months back, The New York Times claimed that the Chinese government was monitoring phone conversations after a telephone conversation between two expats was cut off after one uttered the word “protest.” After the story was thoroughly debunked, the editor appended a note which equivocated without offering a correction.

The day after Penn Olson published their investgation of Google+ in China, there was still a bit of uncertainty. International Business Times New York ran a story entitled, “Google+ Threatens Facebook, China and Google: True or False?” Oddly enough, they had already answered that question nearly 5 hours earlier when their United Kingdom branch published an article entitled: “Google+ Service Not Banned in China: Early Reports False.”

So why this act? Why report these stories that any of the billion-plus people who live in China can disprove in an instant? The cynical answer would be that these news outlets want a story, any story, and one that taps into people’s subconscious fear by combining the words “China” and “censorship” does nicely. It’s almost like they want websites to be banned and activists to disappear just so they’ll have something to print until the next royal wedding. They want a story so badly that some perform what I’d like to call journalistic premature ejaculation. Sure, Google+ will probably be banned here one day, but try not to blow your load until then.

Part of it is human—a case of people seeing what they want to see and wanting to be right so badly that they discard contrary evidence. That’s forgivable, but if these publications are purposefully misleading their readers in order to sell more papers or advance an agenda, then they are guilty of the gravest editorial sin. Jonathan Ansfield, who contributed to The New York Times article claiming that China was monitoring phone conversations, left this comment on Shanghai Scrap, which tested the article’s claims and found no evidence of surveillance: “for the record, the contributing reporter’s own tests comport with yours. regrettably his input on the story made little difference.” This seems to imply that facts were ignored in order to advance the familiar image of China as an Orwellian police state. Add the fact that the author of the article is the wife of the China bureau chief of the paper, and you have the beginnings of an argument the Chinese media can use to discredit Western news outlets.

The plain, unadorned truth is this: the government has not banned Google+, or should we say, they have not gotten around to it yet; instead they are using an underhanded tactic to discourage Chinese users from using the service. I don’t know if that is more or less disgusting than blocking the service outright. Similarly, I’m not sure if it’s worse for the Chinese government to actually block websites or for Western news outlets to publish articles about blocking websites that are poorly fact-checked. It may be hard for someone in London to understand, but for those of us who live here, a site being blocked affects our life—it impacts our work, which VPN we buy, whether or not we continue to use a website. It means more to us than a cheap headline and a few page clicks.

Sex and politics have always gone hand and hand in American history and, to a larger extent, world history. But these transcripts shine an even harsher and more unflattering light on how irresponsible and stupid public officials can be. I am appalled at the audacity and recklessness of Anthony Weiner’s behavior. I also find myself asking, when a sex scandal happens in China, does it surprise or shock?

Chinese citizens seem to distrust government officials in a more institutionalized and concerted fashion than Americans do. Bribery, corruption, and nepotism are tacitly accepted as an inextricable part of Chinese politics. American citizens also believe that corruption exists; they know that politicians can be shady. But it never seems to color the entire governing body the way it does in China. Perhaps it is naive for Americans to believe that their politicians should, or can, hold themselves to a higher standard. Perhaps it is also a little arrogant. To Americans our politicians should embody an ideal which is inextricably linked with our basic beliefs in freedom and democracy. We expect them to, for example, fight for democracy around the world, to cry out against human rights violations, to spearhead aid efforts. True, we also expect others to follow our example. But we are America, we are the best, we should be better than the rest.

Though the transcript is lewd and offensive I think it’s important for people to read. We should not shy from offensive or shocking information, the cold and raw truth will serve us far better in gauging the moral fiber of a person than a journalist or news anchor’s report. As Americans we often have an ideal of the perfect politician: a family man, charismatic, successful, driven, and principled. But I think we confuse the concepts of “moral goodness” with “material success.” I think we need to stop assuming that simply because a person is smart, driven, successful, or otherwise “good,” this in turn automatically equates to a moral goodness and strength of character. Too often I feel we confuse one with the other.

Perhaps in business or politics the exact opposite is true. To be successful, men are taught to be confident and aggressive, to behave with bluster and bravado. The men that are inherently good at these traits are often the exact same kinds of alpha males that will hunt out a sleazy Facebook tryst. These are the personalities that believe they can get away with anything, and that are ultimately arrogant and audacious enough to try.

And without further delay here are some excerpts from the cringe-worthy Facebook texts heard round America!

—

Bold text is from Rep. Weiner

Normal text is from Ms. Weiss

March 16th 2011

u on here?

hello lisa

hi baby! sent you a message the other day, but i think it went on instant chat for some odd reason

i missed it. sorry sweetie

no prob…i was so psyched to see u on colbert! you were so funny

you watch it naked?

haha! of course! u need to let me know when your are going to be on tv! i keep missing you

you don’t get my twitter feed?

<= feelings hurt

i do! and I’m still waiting 4 ur barmitva pics! but I don’t get on twitter everyday, so i don’t always get to catch your hot face on all your shows

ah i ran the bar mitzvah pics btw

ooohhh..i can’t wait to see it! I will go there before bed! you are sooo awesome when you yell at those fox news f***s! that clip was awesome

i’m glad you like

are you as passionate in the sack as u are about politics? I’m getting bored of my f*** friend

baby you’d be crawling for the door to prevent me from f***ing you silly

nice, just what I’m looking for. I want to bang the future mayor of nyc!

making me h**d

I love that you are always h**d when I talk to you

I’m horny a lot. sorry

me too! u have that affect on me

he make you c**?

sometimes..but he’s not as hot as you. he tells me I’m too wild for him…he can’t handle me..i bet u can handle anything

I want to feel you c** with my fat c*** in you

Oooohhhh I want that so bad…I am so attracted to you I would probably c** in like 5 minutes

when am I gonna get some lisa pics to j**k off too?

he wanted to take some the other day and I was gonna sent them 2 u but it was too dark and they didn’t show up..I was actually drunk enough to let someone take naked pics of me

go into the bathroom mirror now. I’m like a rock

you know I got no camera. I would..touch your giant c*** for me

It needs your p**** juice

I have lots of it for you

off to the shower this thing is bobbing up and down

aahh…wish I was in the shower with you to help

you give good h**d?

i’ve been told really good…I love doing it

wow a jewish girl who sucks c***! this thing is ready to do damage

and swallows every drop. god damn how do I get you here to f*** me?

<= thinking about gagging your hot mouth with my c***

the anticipation of f****** you is driving me crazy! come to vegas so I can suck your c*** for an hour. you must be in the shower…i am getting very nice visual before bed. I’ll probably have some filthy dreams about you (again!)”

clean. but still h**d

that was fast…you didn’t take care of that h**d on for me? I want to hear you c** so bad

i’m pretty chatty/noisy in bed

me too. that is such a turn on to me.

i’ll be telling you what dirty things I’m thinking

i love that. I talk like a filthy wh**e in bed…even though i am such a nice wholesome jewish girl (haha). i love when a guy j**ks off on the phone for me…that is so hot..I at least need to hear your voice when u c**

you will surely make noise when I take you deep. i will tell you how tight your p**** feels

yes I will…and it is very tight..i hope I can handle that big c*** of yours..I will be sore for days

ridiculous bulge in my shorts now. wanna see?

yea. can u send a pic? I want to sit on your c*** so bad right now

jeez. i’m rushing. let me take a quick pic

awesome…how do I get it? right on here? how are you going to work with a raging h**d on?

it won’t go away, and now I’m taking pics of it, making me ha**er still.”

so hot! u are making me w*t again

jeez I have to go. i’ll hit you later

awwww…u better

Last Friday, an American girl who attends UCLA posted an angry anti-Asian rant on YouTube. In the video, political science student Alexandra Wallace lists off a number of complaints against Asian UCLA students, beginning with their use of cell phones in the library.

Currently many students at the prestigious Los Angeles university are busy studying for final exams, and they spend many of their hours inside the numerous campus libraries. There are currently 9,712 Asian undergraduates at UCLA, making up 37.12% of the undergrad population, which is greater than any other ethnicity.

Throughout the rant the self-described “polite, nice American girl” derides Asians for their lack of “American manners” and their inability to fend for themselves; she complains that these “hordes of Asian people” bring their family members onto campus to do housework and buy groceries. She also remarks that finding out news about the recent tsunami is no excuse for talking on the phone in the library.

Wallace quickly took down the video but copies of it have been re-uploaded to YouTube by other users. The video has gone viral, spreading quickly amongst an angry UCLA population and wider Asian community.

In a statement Sunday evening UCLA spokesman Phil Hampton called the video “repugnant.” On Monday UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block issued a statement condemning the video, where he acknowledged that it had “caused a lot of pain” and was not reflective of the UCLA community as a whole. The administration has remained silent about the possibility of disciplinary action against Wallace.

The Internet backlash has been fierce and quick, ranging from benign insults and jokes to circulating personal information and bikini photographs of Wallace. On Monday evening Wallace issued a statement to the UCLA newspaper The Daily Bruin apologizing for her remarks:

Clearly the original video posted by me was inappropriate. I cannot explain what possessed me to approach the subject as I did, and if I could undo it, I would. I’d like to offer my apology to the entire UCLA campus. For those who cannot find it within them to accept my apology, I understand.

Her video, translated into Chinese, is posted below. Chinese netizens, what is your reaction?

UPDATE: Alexandra Wallace has decided to withdraw from UCLA after receiving multiple death threats and “being ostracized from an entire community.” A UCLA spokesman said that although the sentiments in the video were offensive, the school will not pursue disciplinary action against Wallace.

All you need to know to ruin your children's lives.

The Amy Chua parenting phenomenon goes international! The Wall Street Journal, originators of all this insanity, reports that a Chinese translation of Chua’s book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” has been released in China. The title in Chinese is “Being a Mom in America” and on the jacket flap below Chua’s picture are the words, “This story proves: when it comes to parenting, Eastern parents are more successful than Western parents.” For reasons why this is in violation of any and all logic, please refer to my previous post about Chua.

The book’s packaging does what Chua does best: incite and mislead. (It is unclear whether she chose this title. The provocative WSJ headline, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,” was not chosen by her.) No reports on how this book is doing in China but some suppose that there is no interest in this kind of hard-line parenting anymore. After seeing their children put through the meat grinder of the educational system, all for a single test that determines where you go to college, many Chinese parents are lamenting that their children don’t have more freedom. It’s part of the reason why so many Chinese parents want their children to study abroad. That being said, I’m sure many conservative Chinese parents would smile at seeing these time-tested “Chinese” parenting strategies applied in the United States.

Domestically, there is talk of a possible movie being made of the parenting memoir. The Hollywood Reporter writes that two producers from The Joy Luck Club “have expressed strong interest in seeing Chua’s book brought to the screen.” Of course it’s too early to say anything about the film but I have my fingers crossed that it will rot in pre-production hell. Ron Bass, co-writer and co-producer of The Joy Luck Club, says, “Not only is there a movie here, I definitely think it’s more than one movie.” I think it might work best as a trilogy: the first part follows a Chinese mother’s borderline-abusive treatment of her child; the second, a la Godfather II, goes back and details how the mother was raised in the same way; and the third follows mother and daughter through therapy. And if you thought a movie about an overbearing mother forcing her children to play piano for hours would be too much fun and distracting for your own children whom you are training to be chess grandmasters, don’t worry, Bass can promise that “it wouldn’t be a comedy.” Well that’s a relief.

Yes, We Can Do It!

Obama’s town hall in Shanghai pleased me greatly. His silver tongue was on full display in appeasing the Chinese with conciliatory praise and refined humility. Humility, a word I would rarely associate with American politicians, is an extremely important trait in Asian cultures. He was not forceful, he was not arrogant, and he was the first to point out America’s hypocrisies. I think that this was something the Chinese wanted and needed to hear from an American leader.

Past U.S. presidents have taken a hard line with China: criticizing them for human rights violations, scrutinizing their currency manipulation, decrying domestic territorial disputes. Though I, and I think most Americans, would agree with the criticisms, the message that ends up coming across is infuriating to the Chinese: arrogant white Americans yelling at China for sins they themselves committed in the past. They did not take the time to hear China’s side of the story; they did not respect the country. “What gives America the right to tell China how to act? Mind your own damn business!”

What Obama is doing is befriending the Chinese. And friendship is the first step towards progress. Instead of telling China they need to treat their women better, he points out that the U.S. also has some antiquated views on women’s rights. Instead of telling China to reduce greenhouse gases, he challenges both our countries to improve. This is diplomacy 101.

Obama, in wax form.

An antagonistic attitude breeds resentment and halts discourse. A conciliatory approach shows respect, patience, and diligence. This time around the Chinese are thinking: “Obama is humble. As he should be. He recognizes that America does not have all the answers. The U.S. does have a larger carbon footprint per capita than China, but maybe we can work together to solve our problems.”

It remains to be seen whether such an approach will prove fruitful. It is true that Obama risks appearing weak, even losing face, by kowtowing to China. The forum was censored throughout the country, reached a small percentage of the population, and was largely staged. But I think that by bringing up issues, not through attacks on Chinese policy but by grouping the U.S. and China as allies, Obama has a much greater chance of influencing China’s leaders.

The Premier in Bermuda, a British protectorate, agreed to accept the Uighurs without consulting the Foreign Ministry in the U.K. This unilateral move led to large protests across the island calling for his resignation that coincided with the arrival of the Uighurs. 13 other Uighurs have been moved to Palau. None of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay who have been cleared of the charges against them has been released into the United States.

I doubt that any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will ever be released into the U.S. The reason for this is fear. After eight years of scaremongering by the Bush Administration, Americans have become convinced that releasing any of these innocent men into America—or placing any of the actual threats into a maximum security facility—would undermine our national security. The theory is that even if some of these individuals did not pose a threat to the U.S. when we arrested them, they do now because of their extended stays at Gitmo. Since they are too dangerous for us to take in, we are asking/prodding/bullying our allies into accepting people who are too dangerous to be part of our society.

Pushing our allies to accept all of the individuals at Guantanamo Bay without leading by example and resettling some of them in the US is a strategy that is bound to fail and, ironically, undermine our national security. The inability of the Bush Administration to conduct a successful unilateral foreign policy demonstrated that the U.S. needs allies in order to conduct a foreign policy that promotes human rights and our national interest. By refusing to take in any of the detainees in Gitmo, we look hypocritical in the eyes of our allies, weaken our moral legitimacy, and decrease our “soft power.” Refusing to send Uighurs to China where they might be tortured is noble, but we’re unwilling to take the next step and actually stand up for what we believe in by allowing those who were wrongly held by our government a shot at a better life here in America. If we don’t want them to be tortured, why don’t we resettle them somewhere that actually wants them and where we can ensure that they won’t be tortured, like Northern Virginia?

The fact that no one in Congress is willing to step forward and offer to relocate some of the detainees who do not pose a threat to our national security in their districts and states shows a lack of moral courage. Such a move might put their chances of reelection in danger, but at some point Congress needs to show some leadership and help take ownership of the solution to a problem that we created. We cannot be considered a good ally if we ask our friends to clean up the mess we made at Gitmo by accepting all of the detainees that we held in the face of strident opposition from those same allies.

The Obama Administration needs to work with Congress to achieve the President’s pledge to shut down Guantanamo within a year. A solution that shirks any responsibility for the detainees beyond flying them to their new homes overseas is cowardly and counterproductive. The President has said that he is willing to tell the American people hard truths. It is time that he explained why the U.S. must make a good faith effort to relocate some of the people formerly held in Gitmo to the United States. If Obama wants to bring change, he needs to work on replacing an air of fear with one of understanding, commitment and, yes, a little bit of sacrifice at home.

Beijing has dismissed her message, saying: “The statement from the United States ignores the facts and makes groundless accusations against the Chinese government… We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition. We urge the United States to forsake its prejudices, correct its erroneous ways and avoid obstructing and damaging China-U.S. relations.”  Though the first part is a blatant lie, the Chinese government is right to ask America to reconsider its own position before dispensing unwanted advice to another country.  How would Americans react if France or Russia issued memos on the anniversaries of Iran-Contra or the My Lai Massacre?  What’s more, Clinton’s admonition was issued while President Barack Obama was in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two countries with extensive human rights abuses.  Why are there no messages on the anniversaries of public beheadings or the Six Day War?

The point is, finger-pointing gets us nowhere.  Every country in the history of civilization has done abhorrent things that it justifies or covers up or lies about.  You can argue about the level of depravity or mendacity but it’s semantics.  Perhaps the questions we should be finding the answers to are why do these things keep happening and when, if ever, will we learn from our mistakes?

I understand why Secretary of State Clinton issued that memo.  Identifying injustice, even if you do not do anything about it, is (marginally) better than keeping silent. As a Chinese individual, I hope that China takes her suggestion, but, as an American citizen, I have to ask: why would they listen to us?

Maybe we are right and China should heed our advice, but why would they want to?  What kind of an example have we set for the world?  The global financial slowdown was caused by deception and subterfuge on every tier of the American economic system—from executives lying in public press releases to lenders falsifying information and giving mortgages to people who they know will not be able to pay them.  America has invaded two countries to fight two neverending wars, one based on false intelligence, all the while denouncing imperialism and acts of aggression.  Let’s not forget Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret memorandums on torture that prove high-ranking officials knowingly lied to the American public.  Finally, America’s version of democracy has devolved into partisan bickering and political gridlock that resists change until it’s too late, then tries to patch the problems up after the fact (usually by throwing money at it).

Meanwhile, the China is investing heavily in infrastructure and insulating itself from the financial crisis (though China, to be sure, has been affected).  They can do this quickly because the decision-making process of the Chinese government is much… shall we say, simpler.  So why would they want to follow in America’s footsteps?  America once represented the conviction that liberty, equality, and democracy could create a better life for human beings.  That was the message we used to spread throughout the world, whether by influence or force.  And, for the most part, countries took to it.  But today America represents the grim but logical conclusion of unrestrained capitalist greed, decadence, and human selfishness and narcissism.

Last week, in a speech in El Salvador, Clinton said, “We have to recognize that our country is not perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not paying enough attention.”  A similar statement would go a long way with the Chinese.

Ironically, if what America wants from China is openness and reform, the best course of action might be to placate the Chinese government and help increase stability.  After all, not everyone in China supports the government.  Many people in big cities with access to the Internet and Western media sources ignore or even distrust the government, but they are a vast minority.  Less than half of China’s population lives in urban areas, and a portion of those who do are migrants.  Even those that wish the government would change recognize that currently, the government’s goals and their own hopes largely align.  Life for most Chinese is better today than it was yesterday, and that’s enough, given the turbulence of the last hundred years.  But in some parts of China, people still struggle to survive.  As I’ve written before: only when people fulfill their physical needs will they worry about spiritual ones.  So as the Chinese government lifts its people out of poverty, empowering them (and itself), it is sowing the seeds of inevitable change because the best catalyst for democratization and political reform is precisely what the government is offering: prosperity.