Archive for the ‘America’ Category

Stop China Bashing

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
This entry is part 6 of 6 in the series China

A Guest Commentary by Patrick Mattimore

U.S. President Barack Obama told Zhang Yesui, China’s new Ambassador to the U.S., that the President is determined to improve his country’s relationship with China. Despite some warming of relations between the two countries in recent days, President Obama should start by reviewing just how nasty and unfounded U.S. rhetoric towards China has become.

A good place for America’s President to begin his inquiry is with some of the editorial pages from America’s leading newspapers. The top five newspapers according to circulation numbers are: “The Wall Street Journal, (WSJ)” “USA Today,” (USAT) “The New York Times, (NYT)” the “Los Angeles Times,” (LAT) and the “Washington Post,” (WP).

Those newspapers consistently bash China. Even a recent story about the economic success of China’s Hainan Island, which appeared in The NYT, characterized the “success” as being emblematic of China’s excesses.

Here are some of the other nuggets the newspapers are throwing out lately.

China has an undervalued currency which threatens the world’s economy. This recurrent drumbeat is apparently meant to deflect attention from the fact that America’s policies precipitated the world’s worst financial crisis in seventy years.

China’s aid to foreign countries is characterized as a means by which China can exert its influence elsewhere. Whether or not that is so, American foreign aid always comes with strings attached. (more…)

Share This Post

Was It Corporate Ethics Or Politics?

Thursday, March 25th, 2010
This entry is part 5 of 6 in the series China

Old Codger

The Old Codger

Google has found many supporters in America with its decision to move its search engine from mainland China to Hong Kong.  More often than not, it is being hailed as a savvy, corporate hero for having the gonads to stand up to Beijing in a row over Internet censorship.  Taking all the commentaries together, the general consensus seems to be that perhaps Google has wedged open the door for democratic reform in China.

With great acumen, Google has refrained from saying much of anything throughout the entire debacle.  No one at Google is making any comments of substance.  It says it does not wish to politicize the issues or points of contention.  Beijing is saying the same thing, in as few words as possible. Google of course, wishes to continue doing business in China, though on a more limited basis than in the past, thus a good reason for its diplomacy.

It is not surprising that this fiasco has given significant numbers of Americans numerous opportunities to ratchet up their anti-China rhetoric.  The majority of Americans believe strongly that the entire Chinese government is abominable at the very least.  They want to see China adopt American freedoms.  Many are now also bringing into the argument the trade imbalances, the undervalued Yuan and other economic factors, and blaming China for the economic woes America is now facing.  China becomes a scape goat.

Whether Google has acted out of conscience solely about the censorship issue, or for political favor in America is the question.  The entire fiasco began after China took a firm stand when Obama visited China in November 2009.   Many in America believed that Beijing was out of line for standing up to Washington and saying “no” very firmly.  Beijing, after years of kowtowing to Washington finally stood up.  That of course is totally unacceptable to Americans.

Google, in explaining its seemingly sudden epiphany about censorship in China, blamed Chinese hackers for trying to hack into its servers and some dissidents e-mail accounts.  What Google does not disclose is that there are continual hacking attempts from around the world on their servers and people’s e-mail accounts.  Could it be that Google, after four years of providing censored Internet search results in compliance with Chinese law with few complaints, felt a surge of American patriotism in light of China snubbing Washington?

With some, there is speculation that Washington may have been complicit in Google’s decision.  Conspiracy theories are interesting, but this one would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to prove, so it must be completely ignored as it involves only speculation that could be harmful to American interests.

Google of course is content to stand on its new position as being viewed as a responsible corporate entity in regards to censorship and free speech, and thus a strong proponent of human rights.   It has received strong kudos from the White House and Congress, which certainly cannot harm Google in the future when it is scrutinized on any number of different issues such as acquisitions which might appear to create a monopoly, or on copyright issues.

Google regularly censors search engine results in numerous countries around the world including in Europe, Australia and Thailand.  From a parochial standpoint, it would seem that if Google is truly opposed to censorship, it would cease all censorship throughout the world. Many countries also censor access to web sites on their own so that if Google does not censor an entry, a questionable  website may be blocked anyway. (more…)

Share This Post

The Consequeces of Health Care Reform

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

Americans are clamoring for health care reform.  Driving the demand for reform is the belief that health care is too expensive and is costing the taxpayer too much money.  The cost to the taxpayer is attributed to the estimated 40 million uninsured people in the country.  Economical issues, as opposed to ethical and moral issues, fuel the debate between liberals and conservatives on the issue.

Progressives in particular, are pushing hard and heavy for a “single payer option” which would essentially make private insurance companies redundant in the relative near future.  They argue that private insurance companies are making too much money and not living up to their duties to provide coverage for their customers.  In making the arguments, they trot out what they consider to be egregious examples of abuse of insured people.  People being denied treatments recommended by their physicians.

Conservatives argue against the single payer system under the belief that the government is incapable of effectively and efficiently providing responsible medical care to the public.  They also object to the fact that the middle class and above will end up footing the majority of the health care reform bills.  To that argument, the Progressives argue that the savings will more than off set the costs.  Both side use comprehensive confusing statistics and figures to attempt to make their points.

Missing from the arguments is one important thing:  A definition of what constitutes health care.  In short, everyone is discussing health care and there is not a clearly defined and accepted definition of what constitutes “health care” anyplace on the table. (more…)

Share This Post