Corolla has a point. A book entitled Generation Me written by psychology professor Jean Twenge does a far better job of elucidating this trend and understanding it’s manifestations than Corolla’s crass bullying, but his attack and extrapolation that the Occupy Movement is simply about young people “throwing shit at another person’s car” is pervasively misguided.

The conservative breakdown of the Occupy Movement uses a simple formula to discredit protesters and follows a single trajectory, “If you do not have a job and you are not financially secure, it is your own fault. Do not blame others for your own shortcomings.” What this argument fails to grasp is that there are systemic issues at play that go far beyond a single person’s or single group’s shortcomings.

Take for example this graph from The Atlantic. In it you can see some stark statistics about the rate of unemployment in Eurozone countries such as Greece and Spain. Both these countries are facing unemployment levels hovering near 20%. In Spain nearly 50% of youth under 25 are unemployed. In case Adam Corolla wasn’t aware, tens of thousands of people took part in Occupy Madrid protests in Puerta del Sol Square over the past weeks. This is NOT just an American movement.

So does that mean that nearly half of Spain’s youth are self-entitled monsters who don’t want to work and would rather scream and whine than get a job? As much as I hate self-entitled rich kids, I cannot bring myself to believe that every other Spanish person is simply not competitive or not good enough to survive. In fact it is categorically untrue as I have met many young Spanish people, fleeing the economic turmoil in their homeland, who have found productive and financially secure employment in Beijing.

These kinds of generalizations are dangerous because they follow the same logic that dehumanizes minorities as being uneducated criminals who have only themselves to blame for their economic woes. It’s based on crude stereotypes that may apply to some, but are utterly irreconcilable with reality.

One point I will cede to Mr. Corolla is that capitalism is the “best system” we have, but it is far from fair. And when free markets require regulation, there needs to be someone there to correct its failures. What the Occupy Movement is fighting for is a level playing field, not equality of results. Let the wealthy CEOs have their Bentleys, but don’t let them gamble with the rest of America (and the world’s) money and then bail them out when they go belly up.

Few articles have riled me up as much as this one, which exemplifies the misguided conventional thinking regarding China. It is a microcosm of the wishful thinking that permeates the global community at the moment. Here are a few reasons why Paul Kane is wrong.

Geo-political
Taiwan is an old, old ally of the United States, with strong political and cultural ties. Taiwan sends a significant portion of its youth to be educated in the United States. To “ditch” them, as Kane suggests so casually, would severely damage U.S. credibility in Asia. Our other allies—Thailand, Japan, Korea—could not help but wonder that if they would be next. The U.S. is already witnessing a careful realignment of Asia as China flexes its muscles and other countries seek to balance China’s power. To ditch Taiwan would be to irrevocably damage U.S. standing internationally. We would be giving a sovereign, democratically elected government up to an autocratic totalitarian state. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Kane makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that writing off Taiwan “could pressure Beijing to end its political and economic support for pariah states” like Iran or North Korea. China’s firmly stated position is that domestic affairs are domestic affairs, and that no country has the right to interfere in another country’s internal affairs. As far as China is concerned, Taiwan is rogue province, not a country. That means that Taiwan is an internal affair, and not subject to international pressure. To them, the U.S. selling arms to Taiwan is like China giving missiles to Texas.

Ditching Taiwan would merely be an affirmation of China’s position that the international community has no right to interfere in other countries’ affairs. That would give them even more cover to deny, obfuscate, and stonewall on aid to Iran and North Korea. This is a position that they have held since the joint communique that opened China, and one that they have firmly held to since in vetoing intervention in Sudan, Syria, and other countries.

Economic
Let’s start with a few basic numbers. The U.S. debt is approximately 15 trillion dollars. Kane points out that China holds 1.14 trillion of U.S. debt. Guess who holds more than that? We do. As in, the Federal Reserve. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Federal Reserve Banks hold about 1.6 trillion dollars of U.S. debt. In essence, the government is paying itself to loan itself money. Sound screwy? Absolutely. While the normally fringe Ron Paul is crazy about a lot of things, one of the best ideas I’ve heard from him is to have the U.S. government forgive itself its own loans. So, in essence, we could reduce the deficit by more than that without having to throw anyone to the lions.

In addition, Europe holds more in U.S. treasuries, and Japan almost as much.

What’s more, if you adjust for inflation, the yield for 5- and 7-year treasures is negative. In essence, people are paying the U.S. to hold their money for them. If you want to talk about balance sheets, think about that. By having China purchase more U.S. debt, they would essentially be transferring their wealth to our balance sheets.

Thirdly, while much has been made about the supposed “power” that China yields over the United States due to its large holdings of U.S. bonds, that power is shaky at best. While some make comments about how disastrous it could be if China suddenly dumped all their treasuries on the market at once, that fails to account for how much damage that would cause to China’s balance sheet as well. Already, due to a sinking dollar and rising RMB, the real value of China’s dollar holdings have been dropping. So why does China continue to buy treasuries? Because there is nowhere else even remotely safe to park that much money.

Fourthly, Kane describes Taiwan’s growing economic ties with China and states that “the island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable.” If economic ties meant that absorption was inevitable, Canada would be the 51st state. Taiwan is socially, politically, and economically distinct from mainland China. While integration is possible, it is in no way “inevitable.”

Military
Kane makes a point of talking about the power of the hard-line militarists, and argues that removing Taiwan as a wedge issue would reduce their power and influence. While he is indeed correct in estimating the influence of Taiwan, he misses the larger picture. Taiwan is a proxy issue where China sees its military interests most directly opposed with the U.S. However, the Chinese military sees all of Asia and the Pacific as its rightful sphere of influence. A withdrawal from Taiwan would merely shift the conflict centers to Korea, Japan, and Thailand in the east, and Pakistan and India in the west. There is absolutely no evidence to support the assumption that a concession on Taiwan would reduce Chinese military spending.

China is building a stealth fighter and an aircraft carrier. Taiwan is less than 100 miles away from China at the narrowest point. You do not need an aircraft carrier to militarily dominate Taiwan from the mainland. Nor do you need the world’s largest submarine fleet with ICMBs capable of reaching the West Coast. These projects would proceed unabated even if the U.S. were to abrogate its defense treaty with Taiwan because the goal is not Taiwan—it is to match U.S. capabilities.

Kane calls the U.S. Navy “China’s greatest military asset” because it helps keep the sea lane safe for shipping, a description that is hardly in keeping with the military expenditures I’ve pointed out above. Rather, China recognizes that the U.S. Navy is one of America’s greatest assets, and they want to be able to match it. Hence the enormous submarine fleet.

For me, the clincher to Kane’s ignorance on China is his statement that Taiwan is China’s “unspoken” top priority. For any veteran China watcher, that claim is absurd. China’s emphasis on Taiwan is broadly proclaimed and widely disseminated.

America’s national debt is a long-term problem, not a short-term problem. But betraying Taiwan will do little to help the national debt, and will only destabilize America’s position in the years to come.

I bought a ticket for Two Dogs’ Opinions on Life on a whim. The Kennedy Center website described the show as “an avant-garde contemporary theatre piece”; an “improvisational comedy.” Whatever that meant. Putting my theatre major to work, I decided to approach the experience as an academic exercise, and with notebook in hand I took my seat between a young Chinese couple and a pair of old white ladies.

The audience was predominantly Asian (presumably Chinese) couples and families, with the remainder consisting of older Kennedy Center regulars and a few young, would-be aesthetes like myself. I dutifully sketched out a floor-plan of the set: TVs here, oil drums there, a door frame, a short armchair, two off-beat painted drops in black and white, instruments and seating for a four-piece rock band. One of the old ladies wondered aloud if this was supposed to be the Chinese version of Second City. I didn’t know what to expect, but I had a pretty good idea it wasn’t that.

When the band took their seats and started playing a low riff and our two actors stepped on the drab, junk-laden stage wearing cargo shorts, ragged blazers, and Kanye glasses—looking like the swag, hipster cast of Waiting for Godot—I knew this was going to be my kind of show.

Two Dogs’ Opinions on Life is the picaresque saga, written and directed by Meng Jinghui, of two dogs, Wang Cai (Liu Xioaye) and Lai Fu (Han Pengyi), brothers, who leave their hometown to pursue life in the big city. They are imprisoned, operated on, and beaten up; they find themselves living in a cushy urban flat, competing on a pop-idol show, and working for public security. At one point, while Wang Cai, the younger brother, is busy rising to power over a rough pack of prison inmates, Lai Fu enjoys cappuccinos and pondering his own existence.

I wondered how translating a Chinese “improvisational comedy” would be handled for an American audience. Unsurprisingly, they went with supertitles, and when the actors did improvise the supertitle screen displayed the extremely helpful translation: [Improvisation]. Granted, that critical clue was only provided for the parts of the play that had been planned as improvisation. Offhand comments, clever reactions to the hysterical giggling of children, and anything they actually said during [Improvisation] remained one of the mysteries of evening; not to mention that whoever was running the supertitles seemed to have an extremely difficult time keeping up with our two actors throughout the show.

However, what the show lost in translation, it made up in performance. Two Dogs is surely everything Brecht imagined when he established the concepts of epic and dialectical theatre. It was like Epic Theatre Bingo: they had gestus, the design scheme employed selective realism and a minimalist style that obstructed any kind of “theatrical illusion” beyond the acting capabilities of our two performers, the events were fragmented and episodic, there were songs, each scene was prefaced with a descriptive title indicating the events that were about to take place, comedy was used as a means of detachment that would then allow the audience to view the events critically, the characters/performers were self-aware and frequently interacted directly with the audience—I could go on! And they managed to achieve all of this while being very Chinese and very contemporary. The dialectical nature of the production was (or at least seemed) completely organic. What I would point out as gestus are actually physical expressions and postures that have their origins in traditional forms of Chinese theatre. The music hall or vaudevillian style of comedy that Brecht was so fond of, in this case, derives from the Chinese tradition of “crosstalk”. It’s no wonder that’s Brecht’s personal library is littered with texts on Chinese theatre.

Of course, Two Dogs owes no small part of its success two the actors playing the two dogs. Han Pengyi is a master of physical expression and Liu Xiaoye posses a chameleon-like ability to transform into any character or personality. Both performers acted with remarkable precision, detail, and utter commitment to every word and gesture, no matter how complex or outlandish.

After the brothers share a brief stint in the military, Lai Fu goes insane and commits suicide leaving Wang Cai alone. Wang Cai takes out his mother’s letter one last time and remembers a song from his childhood. “In the town where I was born lived a man who sailed to sea, and he told us of his life in the land of submarines…” And the band begins to play while images of Wang Cai and Lai Fu in urban China flash behind them.

Two Dogs’ Opinions on Life ended with a performance of The Stooges’ “I Wanna Be Your Dog”—a song that has been covered by The Sex Pistols, David Bowie, Nirvana, Slayer, and the White Stripes, to name a few.  It seemed apropos for this rock heirloom to find its way into this performance.  Based on the punk rock cover of the red song “Walking Into a New Era” (走进新时代) that served as an encore, whatever first inspired the iconically subversive spirit of Iggy Pop and his peers could very well belong to China now.

As a line in a movie goes, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded, and photographs of spontaneous crowds around the White House and Ground Zero filled us with a rare joy.  Those that say bin Laden was a specter that has haunted America since that fateful September morning are right.  9/11 was the defining moment in our adolescence and in the decade since, bin Laden has become the symbol of recalcitrant evil and a world slipping toward fanaticism.  Thus his death is also symbolic.  For those around the world who abhor violence and the sacrifice of innocent life in pursuit of a hateful ideology, his death represents the triumph of imperfect but eventual justice.

However, we must remember that 10 years ago as the twin towers crumbled, there were also crowds cheering.  To them, America was and still is the enemy.  We must not be fooled—9/11 is not a story that has an ending.  The death of a criminal might avenge the crime but does not erase it.  No one can ever get back what they lost that morning—neither the people they loved nor their past way of life.

When the jubilation dies down, we have to remember to ask the tough questions.  Was the Pakistani military more involved with bin Laden’s capture or his safety?  Who, if anyone, will take his place as the nominal head of al-Qaeda?  But perhaps the most important question is: what now?  Does stopping this terrorist bring us any closer to stopping terrorism?  Bin Laden and his cohorts are a product of abuse, ignorance, and misguided faith.  They have been wronged so they seek to wrong others.  But they are also the product of shortsighted American foreign policy that seems to create enemies even as it attempts to destroy them.

We must try to treat the disease, not spend another decade eliminating one of its symptoms.  Islamic radicalism is the manifestation of the epidemic of poverty, dissipation, and desperation that has gripped the modern Middle East.  These problems cannot be solved by blunt force—they require a rethinking and retooling of American foreign policy and a sober accounting of her involvement in world politics.

It is a morbid thing, to cheer death.  But as long as there exist people in the world who betray morality and human decency, there will always be cause for celebration.

- The Staff

In a lecture he gave to a group of journalism students last month, a top official at Xinhua, the state news agency, said that the [Shenzhou 5] mission was not so picture-perfect. The official, Xia Lin, described how a design flaw had exposed the astronaut to excessive G-force pressure during re-entry, splitting his lip and drenching his face in blood. Startled but undaunted by Mr. Yang’s appearance, the workers quickly mopped up the blood, strapped him back in his seat and shut the door. Then, with the cameras rolling, the cabin door swung open again, revealing an unblemished moment of triumph for all the world to see.

- New York Times

It’s difficult for me to judge just how Orwellian China’s carefully groomed, state-run news coverage is: in America, coverage of the news is centered around the image of the news program or network; not the state.  I do follow the BBC, therefore state-run media is not entirely out of my experience; but the BBC news website has not reported this story…

Jacobs’ article finishes with what is meant to be a hopeful note: perhaps those who leaked the lecture and have kept it on the Internet despite the government’s best efforts are China’s hope for journalistic integrity.  Unfortunately, I find their point to be smug at best.  Granted, the New York Times is not some sort of Hearstian conglomerate, rife with sensationalism and personal politics; however, it’s no secret that the past 5 years have been very difficult for the Times financially.  Their most recent financial report showed a profit, but they are hardly out of the woods.  Is fighting the good fight a losing battle?

What about the rest of American news—the media that does seem to follow the infamous designs of Mr. Hearst (who inspired Citizen Kane and supposedly the character Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead).  News networks may not employ textbook Yellow Journalism (except Fox News and their weepy demagogue Glenn Beck), but they essentially take a day’s worth of attention-grabbing news and filter it through a variety of different personalities.  The news is tailored to various demographics, and each network has a different image: MSNBC, “the leader in breaking news,” provide news for people who want today’s news yesterday; CNN, “the worldwide leader in news,” is for the people who appreciate the weight and the legacy of CNN as a world news “leader”; Fox News is “fair and balanced” for people who think the other news networks have a far-left bias.  American news is not run by the state—it is run by the bottom line.  The news citizens need takes a back seat to the news citizens will buy, and the news the program’s/network’s advertisers and corporate sponsors will buy.

Journalistic integrity is important.  I hope this leaked lecture inspires Chinese journalists to want to expose the truth and fight ignorance in their country no matter what.  And maybe it will rub off on American news media.

Korean pop star BoA recently tried to make waves in America with her English single "Eat You Up". It was not a success.

There is a well-oiled pop machine in South Korea. It seeks out obscure Asian teenagers from across the globe, signs them into draconian 8 year contracts, and cultivates them in rigorous training camps. After years of intense dance and vocal lessons, language education, and exacting physical exercise, these “trainees”, the future Rains and BoAs, are unleashed upon Asian markets as superbly packaged solo or group pop products. Their “debut” is a momentous occasion; it signifies the moment they begin to recoup the record label’s lengthy investment. The journey takes years, is extremely stressful (12 hour work days, 7 days a week), and is more akin to joining the South Korean army than polishing artistic skill sets. The process favors uniformity, not individuality. It’s regimented, orderly, and predictable—traits which are extremely important in Asian cultures.

Who are the Willy Wonkas of this musical bubblegum factory? Record labels JYP Entertainment, SM Entertainment, and YG Entertainment are the largest and most influential. They’ve been responsible for the majority of Korean pop megastars in the last decade: Se7en, Girls Generation, Rain, H.O.T., and TVXQ to name a few. The equation is nothing new. Pre-packaged pop makes money. Lou Pearlman, creator of uber successes like the Backstreet Boys and ‘N Sync, practically wrote the book on factory-fitted boy bands in America (that is, before he was convicted of conspiracy and money laundering in 2008).

But the question of K-pop, and to a certain extent C-pop and J-pop, takes on a very distinct form as it evolves to fit a global market of hormone-heavy teens. More and more, the musical products of these countries have to consider their role as GLOBAL megastars, specifically in Asia and North America. The average K-pop star usually speaks three or four different languages and is often culled from a milieu of various different countries (and continents for that matter).

"Thai Prince" Nichkhun Horvejkul, a Thai-Chinese-American who just happens to sing in one of the most famous Korean boy bands at the moment, 2PM.

Take Exhibit A: 2PM. The six-member boy band based out of Seoul found half of their members outside of Korea. Taecyeon, the twenty-year-old rapper of the group, was born in Seoul but immigrated to Bedford, Massachusetts at the age of seven. Park Jaebeom, the front man and leader, is a Korean-American born and raised in Seattle. Nichkhun Buck Horvejkul, the “Thai Prince”, isn’t even Korean at all! The half-Thai-half-Chinese pretty boy hails from Rancho Cucamonga, California and was scouted by a JYP talent agent at a Korean festival in the southland. How was he expected to sing in a Korean boy band if he doesn’t even speak the language? More likely than not, he was chosen as a way to tap the large and lucrative emerging Thai market. The fact that he’s American probably doesn’t hurt either.

Jessica, one of the nine members in Girls Generation, was born and raised in San Francisco.

This trend shows no sign of stopping. SM Entertainment recently announced the debut of their hot new five-member girl group F(x) (function of x? really?! Actually, it’s pronounced “effects”). A follow-up group to their wildly successful nine member band Girls Generation which debuted in 2007. F(x) consists of three Koreans, one Chinese model, and a Chinese-American rapper. Between the fourteen girls in Girls Generation and F(x), four are Americans.

Yes, Americans. Sure, they are ethnically Asian, but they were born and/or raised in America. And that makes them at times more culturally American than Asian. Though this cultural rift can cause problems, the general strategy has paid off in spades. What we have here is a human farm that seeks Asian-American talent, sends them off to Korea for training, and debuts them to the Asian markets as Asian pop products. The equation seems to work. Asian-Americans seem to be wildly popular—but only in Asia.

If we take a look at the American pop music landscape we find that Asian and Asian-American artists are few and far between. There are a variety of explanations why. The New York Times proffers a compelling argument by Oliver Wang, a professor at California State University Long Beach:

Making up only 4 percent of the country’s population, they are too small a market, and too fragmented in language and nationalities, to offer a solid springboard for its aspiring stars the way other ethnic groups have done.

Quest Crew, America’s Best Dance Crew. Wait… they’re all Asian!

This indeed may be the case. So why then haven’t American talent agencies, which are becoming increasingly global, taken advantage of the international marketability of Asian-American pop kids? Instead of CAA jumping on JYP’s talent after the fact, why not lock in these Asian-American singers and dancers themselves when they’re young and cheap? Why doesn’t someone create a boutique agency that specifically hustles Asian-American talent to Asian record labels? Then, if SM, JYP, YG or anyone else wants to exploit Asian-America’s God-given sexy dance moves, you’ve got to go through them.

As it stands, lack of attention from American media machines force many talented Asian-Americans to relegate themselves to independent venues: YouTube, high schools, and Yogurtlands all over the southland. They can do better. And for anyone that can think of a way to exploit them, they could be rich beyond Asia’s wildest dreams. So let’s all put our minds together and think of a way for Asian-Americans not to be exploited Asians, but by Asian-Americans.

Unfortunately the development of this hydroelectric plant will result in massive flooding in the El Chaparral region. Indigenous habitat, wildlife, and agriculture will be destroyed and local citizens will be displaced and forced to relocate.

On Wednesday, July 22^nd citizens of San Antonio del Mosco, San Luis de La Reina, and Sesori participated in protests against the construction of the dam. Two hundred people demanded that President Funes end the construction project. Óscar Luna, the Human Rights Ombudsman for the area was present and signaled to the government and local populations that he was “open to the two parties meeting and looking for a solution to the problem.”

The project was initiated before President Funes’ election and is being financed through a $156 million loan from the Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE) and $56 million from the Salvadoran government. Many believe the hesitation to stop the project springs from the government’s current fiscal inability to repay the $156 million loan.

Others criticize Funes’ support as a political play, stemming from campaign contributions he received from Nicolás Salume, president of Executive Hydroelectric Commission of the Lempa River (CEL). CEL is the autonomous state-owned electricity company of El Salvador and the developer of the Chaparral Dam.

Voices on the Border reports that proponents of the dam, such as Ministry of Environment (MARN) official Hermán Rosa Chávez, claim:

“…the dam is in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol and has the potential to provide electricity to two hundred thousand families in El Salvador. Other touted benefits would include new economic opportunities in agriculture, fishing, and tourism.”

But many locals are hesitant to believe such sublime rhetoric. History in the region would indicate that benefits would go straight into the pockets of the government and large corporate investors, not the people. Those who will lose land were assured by contractors and government officials that they will be compensated and provided a place to live. Parish priest José Antonio Confesor, of the community of San Antonio del Mosco, claims the majority of his town does not support the construction. Others say they were deceived by CEL concerning the purchase of lands.

According to MARN’s technical summary, the project was designed by Intertechne Consultores Associados, a Brazilian firm, along with the help of consultants from J-Power, a Japanese company. In October 2008, Italian construction firm Astaldi, announced they had won the $220 million contract to build the dam.

The dam is part of a sweeping effort by the Salvadoran government to reduce their energy deficit, diversify, and find cleaner sources of energy. Because of El Salvador’s small geographic size alternative energy initiatives were historically difficult to implement and only minimally beneficial. El Salvador does not have ample farmland to support ethanol production on a large independent scale. Hydroelectric plants in the past have done little for the indigenous population as these groups did not significantly need additional sources of energy. Displaced communities subsequently lost homes and desperately needed farmland without any compensation. In the 1950’s many of these disgruntled farmers joined guerilla movements against the government.

Proponents of the dam argue that increased generating capacity is necessary to attract investment and keep businesses functioning. Opponents argue that the shortfall is overstated and that the country’s energy needs could be met more cheaply and effectively through conservation efforts.

Voices on the Border reports:

“Projects such as El Chaparral are not necessarily built with the Salvadoran population in mind. The government’s more immediate concerns in the energy sector is producing energy that can be exported abroad. This exporting of energy may indeed be beneficial for the economic situation of El Salvador in some ways, but it also deepens international debt since El Chaparral and similar projects are being financed by international loans.”

The struggle of development versus environment is a universal one. Progress and industrialization create casualties that permeate many aspects of a nation. Some, like El Chaparral, are more pronounced than others. But the ongoing debate of what is right for a nation is not as simple as the powerful versus the powerless. Growing pains are an indelible part of the evolution of a country.

In the mid-1960s 550 Native Americans of the Allegany Seneca Tribe were forced out of their homes to make way for a 179 foot dam sponsored by the U.S. government. Last year the Three Gorges Dam, the largest electricity generating plant in the world, was completed along the Yangtze River in Hubei China. An estimated 1.24 million people were forcibly displaced. The consequences of these developments are apparent. But the ongoing benefits become more and more difficult to quantify each year.

In Central America, a representative for COPINH, an organization that supports the empowerment of indigenous peoples, had the following to say:

“This development was not designed for us.  They want to move us off our lands in order to build the dams. We will be displaced. The electricity is not for our communities, it is for the big companies. If they wanted to generate electricity for our communities, they would do so in other ways, not with these mega projects. Our children and our grandchildren will inherit nothing if we lose our lands. And we would be foolish to think that the government would take care of us. On the contrary, the government is trying to get rid of indigenous people by displacing us.

They want us to stop farming and go to work in their factories. If there are new jobs like these, they may help some people for a while, but what happens in the long term if we give up our land? What will our children do?”

If there are more intelligent and thoughtful ways to address El Salvador’s energy issues then I hope the government can recognize and support them. Hopefully there are examples other than the U.S. and China that they can look to.

Flooding in the Lempa River in 2008

]]> http://www.thehypermodern.com/2009/08/25/el-salvador%e2%80%99s-growing-pains-what-about-the-locals/feed/ 0