Golfing for Democracy

So my title is a little misleading, sue me.  But I came across an interesting story from the AFP as I perused through news items a few minutes ago--"China closes 66 'illegal' golf courses".  Apparently, golfing is western in ideology and sociology and therefore not the best way to maintain your Marxist control over a country with a growing middle class that might be demanding more sociopolitical freedom (of course, that would also require changes to the various dialects of Chinese as the word freedom does not exist).  

For my two cents, lets go hit a bucket of balls (I haven't golfed in 16 years, cuts into the budget for fishing, hunting, shooting, and all the other good redneck habits I have developed over 40+ years of existence).  I noticed that the PRC government did not shut down the foreign vehicle showrooms (you can still buy your Maserati, Ferrari, etc.), but they'll be dammed to Marxist hell if they allow too many of their citizens to play an individualistic sport with high costs (I quit to buy more fishing gear and firearms).  Bet the legal courses are reserved for the government functionaries and military leaders--maybe a few of the well to do financial elites in Shanghai as well.
. 

Thoughts on Lee Kuan Yew's Passing

At a conference in spring 1999 I presented a paper discussing variations in democracy among ASEAN states.  I freely admit now, 16 years later, that the paper was somewhat underthought and possibly naive in assigning democratic status to some ASEAN members.  I will also never forget the comment by the discussant--"you can not call it an apple if it is really a pear and you can not call Singapore a peculiarly Asian form of democracy when it is not a democracy."  I have continued throughout my academic career to follow political development in Southeast Asia, particularly as related to questions of security and development in the South China Sea.  While I do not claim to be an expert on politics in Singapore, I have followed and somewhat digested the same information available to the rest of the world regarding the development of Singapore into a highly respected economic entity and well regarded member of the international community in general.  And the man responsible for founding this rise to respectability and economic well-being is now dead.  At 91 years of age, Lee Kuan Yew passed away yesterday.

For my two cents, the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew must properly be considered of mixed quality.  Lee's guidance of Singapore from a British colony to part of the Malay Union to an independent city-state helped transform a mid-size port city into a global trade center.  And, Lee did step aside without being forced out in 1990.  Lee leaves as a legacy efficient government, successful public housing and utility development, low business tax rates, quality educational institutions, a clean city, and very low crime rates.

I will, however, stop short of the praise given by President Obama, who called Lee "a visionary" and "a giant of history".  I am also left wondering about whether or not it is good that "No small number of this and past generations of world leaders have sought his advise on governance and development," (President Obama).  Why am I doubtful--Lee Kuan Yew was also a--what is that favority word of mine for power mongering, dictatorial leaders?  Not that being one of these is always a bad thing, again I am waffling about Lee because of the good he did, but the rest of the story needs the light as well.

Lee oversaw restriction of free speech, social engineering programs, limits on public protest, entrenchment of a one party system, etc.  Lee arrested and held without trial political opponents, some of them for decades.  Lee even stated, "The Japanese demanded total obedience, and got it from nearly all.  My appreciation of governments, mu understanding of power as the vehicle for revolutionary change, would not have been gained without this experience."*   He was basically arguing that he learned how to wield power from the Japanese during the occupation of Singapore during WWII--fascinating at the least, mostly disheartening.

In 1987 Lee stated, "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think." (The Straits Times, April 20, 1987) So, there are two sides to the Lee Kuan Yew story.  Lee the state builder, Lee the nation-builder vs. Lee the dictator.

*Wright, Stephen.  2015.  "Lee Kuan Yew, Founder of Modern Singapore Dies at 91," AP March 22. 

         Archived at: http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=12QpjS8O

When Israel Has to Choose

I read several blogs, academic blogs, personal blogs by academics weekly.  Of course, one of these is my mentor Steve Saideman's blog.  Today, Steve blogged about a comment by Benjamin Netanyahu about his opponents drawing in Arab Israeli votes being a bad thing.  Below is a section from Steve's blog:

If Israeli politicians actually had to appear to Arabs, it might offset the power of other minorities, the ultra orthodox, as well as strengthen the hands of the less irredentistly inclinded.  The statements by Netanyahu in his desperate bid to stay in power reveal that some trends are pushing against him and his party--that if the Arab vote turns out, more moderate forces may be able to govern with the support of parties presenting the Arab community.

Of course, this speaks to a larger challenge down the road--but much closer than it used to be--when Israel has to choose to be democratic or be Jewish.  The one-state non-solution that Netanyahu favors these days would drive the country directly at this fork in the road.  Demonizing one part of the electorate to stay in power is a perfectly democratic thing to do in the sense that it happens in most democracies (see voterfraudfraud in the US for a similar example), but it is pretty hostile to the idea and practice of democracy.

For my two cents, the most important line in Steve's blog is the first line of the second paragraph above.  If a state chooses to be theocratic, by design, technically, the state cannot be democratic.  By definition a theocracy does not separate church from state.  Priests, Pastors, etc. serve as both the spiritual leaders and leaders of state.  Tenants of state, laws and legal practices, offices, penalties for breach of rules of state, etc. are determined by the teachings of the particular religion.  (Quick Question:  Does this mean that any state where the legal system is determined by the primary religion of the state is non-democratic?)  What I am not certain of by definition is that citizenship and rights of citizenship are denied to those who are not adherents of the religion that is the state.  However, if the religion determines the state, then the population through mechanisms of democratic organization will not have a voice in determining the state and its tenants to be certain--which means democracy is lost.

As a Christian who has not worked out all the details on understanding the particular future role of a Jewish state on the eschatalogical terminus of the faith, I am not sure how I feel about the particular question of Israel reaching a fork in the road and determining whether or not to be Jewish or a democratic country.  What I do believe at the moment is that the current status of Israel is democracy with both socialist and theological overtones.  Israel is a complex political entity and a decision to move down either fork, if indeed these are the only choices, will mean a less complex state to understand, but also a new set of complex religious and political issues will follow. 

Cyber Bullying or Just Cyber Stupid?

If you did not hear by now, obviously you have not turned on an electronic device other than your coffee pot, razor, etc. today, Curt Schilling has received some really nasty comments responding to his tweet to his daughter congratulating her on accepting an offer to attend Salve Regina University.  Another example of social media abuse run amok.  My wife and I do not allow my sons to use social media (beyond my oldest sending text messages) and some people say I am too restrictive.  The major reason I do not allow my sons to use social media is because I want to ensure that they are responsible young men before they start posting stuff all over the cyber universe (I believe it is the parental responsibility to raise responsible children and when they move to adulthood, they will make you proud).  Apparently some parents did not ensure that their sons (or daughters, since cyber identity is somewhat anonymous) were responsible young adults before they began posting in the cyber realm, instead allowing their children to behave poorly, reflecting negatively on the child and the parent.

I tire of reading petitions, etc. requesting that cyber media be shut down because of "cyber bullying".  I find that most of these types of requests are a reflection of a society that thinks saying anything negative or mean or rude or derogatory is bullying--a reflection of crusading against anything we find offensive to ourselves regardless of the actual harm of the action.  We have redefined bullying these days to include everything, thus making the term bullying almost universally applicable and thus almost universally meaningless.  This position laid out, please read on about my thoughts.

The remarks of people regarding Curt Schilling's congratulations to his daughter are highly offensive, they are not bullying.  Mr. Schilling in his own blog talks about the issue and that the lack of responsibility exhibited by these people using the cyber realm does not relieve them of the consequences of their actions (please be aware that Mr. Schilling did not edit out the highly offensive content of tweets responding to his congratulations of his daughter).    

For my two cents, Mr. Schilling if you want to deal with these idiots directly, As a father I understand and agree.  The comments made by these imbiciles are beyond the pale and a lesson needs to be taught that apparently their own parents did not teach them as children, hence they still act like irresponsible brats.  You are right Mr. Schilling, they are behaving as children, not as adults.  Seems to me that back in the day children were spanked or given some other form of capital punishment to teach them the consequences of irresponsible behavior.  Want to dish out some corporal punishment to these brats, I agree with you.  Want to deal harshly/heavily with people saying vile things (not just negative things, but really unacceptable things) about/to your child, where do the like-minded sign up to help.  If my sons, when they are allowed to engage in social media communication ever say something like these idiots said about Mr. Schilling's congratulations to his daughter, my sons will likely receive a dose of corporal punishment from their dad, and I do not care what their age is at that time.  Young men do not say such vile things and children must be taught not to say such things.

Thoughts on Israeli Security

Netanyahu has spoken, pissed off the Democratic Party elite, made Republican Party elite smile, and really said what to anyone who listened?  Israeli intelligence analysts and academics who study terrorism and Israel security in general (a closely related thing in Israel) are convinced that should Iran be given any leeway in developing a nuclear program it will be used for offensive weapon development purposes.  Therefore, any deal with Iran that allows Iran to continue development of nuclear technology/power is dangerous for Israel, a likely target of Iranian aggression given statements of the religious leaders of Iran--who control political action to some extent and control social activity in Iran to a great extent.

Perspective Sauce is needed here (thanks Steve Saideman for this wisdom, I know I am applying your idea a little differently, but that is what I do with theory/idea, I bend it or break it) for the U.S. public/government.  For the U.S. Iran gaining in nuclear technology/power and potentially gaining nuclear weapons is no big deal, or at least so I have argued for a few years.  Why?  Because delivery technology precludes Iran's ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to a location where grave damage to U.S. security would occur, note I do not say damage to U.S. interests, just U.S. security.  U.S. interests and U.S. security do diverge on occassion (but I digress, as this post is not about U.S. foreign policy, or maybe not totally).  My point, for Israel Iran is inextricably linked to efforts to deny Israel the right to exist.  If you allow such a state to have nuclear weapons you see that state as a greater threat than it is currently.  Israel wants to deal with the current threat, not a greater threat (the delivery vehicles exist already for Iran to strike Israel).

In addition to having been a major part of several military efforts to destroy Israel, Iran is the primary support mechanism for Hamas.  Israel ties its efforts at securing the present and the future not just to secure borders, but to security internally.  For Israelis there is no separation of Iran from Hamas from Syria from Hezbollah and so forth.  Israelis live daily with threats to the existence of their state and their own lives from outside and within the borders of their country.  I have spoken with Israelis (outside of their academic/analyst community) and their concerns were repeatedly the same--Islamic/Palestinian extremist terrorists and Arab states that they feel do not want Israel to exist as a Jewish state.  News flash, Israel is a Jewish state and we have no more right to expect them not to be Jewish than we have to expect Saudi Arabia not to be Muslim.  

Israel as a response to being surrounded by often hostile states and dealing with a partially hostile population (Palestinians do not like living in a Jewish state) has developed a fortification mentality. While the western world has dithered and talked about a two-state solution or how Israel should control its expansion and be nicer, gentler, kinder to Palestinians, what has Iran done--fund Hamas.  What has Russia done--help Iran overtly and covertly with the development of their nuclear program.  Israelis are living in fear of their existence today at the level held in the mid 1980s.  Efforts to fix the problems have failed (does anyone reading this blog believe that Oslo did not fail?).  I keep hearing Israelis being asked what they are willing to give up for lasting peace, but I do not hear anyone asking Palestinians/Arabs what they are willing to give up for lasting peace.  In fact the last I heard directly from a member of Hamas was they would never be willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state period, end of discussion.  

For my two cents, Israel has to be concerned for its own security/existence.  Israelis hope their long standing ally will support their security efforts.  Israel sees U.S. acceptance of any deal that allows Iran to develop nuclear technology further as a threat to their security.  I do not believe Israel sees the possible deal as a threat to their political relationship with the U.S.  Why anyone is angered over Israel's position and Netanyahu voicing that position is beyond me--what the heck did we expect Israel to say about Iran further developing their nuclear program?  Did we really expect that Israel would say "oh thank you, thank you, thank you" that a state who's leaders repeatedly tell their population that Israel should be destroyed  is receiving blessings and some support for development of nuclear technology in exchange for a potentially unverifiable temporary agreement to not develop nuclear weapons?  If you are that dense, I have property (bridges and beaches) for sale.  

Also we must ask ourselves, is the security of Israel cheaper for Israel to provide, or is security of Israel on the dime of others possible?  The Israeli perspective is to use whatever allies it can use to help promote its own security (balancing, bandwaggoning, buck passing anyone).  Israel is, therefore, making its plea to its biggest ally to do something it believe will promote the greatest security for Israel.  The U.S. public/government must now decide whether it is in our best interest to take actions that directly promote Israeli security or promote our own security/interests.  One potential choice is that Israeli security is of greater value to us than peaceful Iranian nuclear development and better relations with Iran.  This choice is favored by Israel, and thus Netanyahu jumped at the opportunity to speak in front of Congress and attempt to discredit the possibility of a deal with Iran.  Why are people angry?  Since when are opinions other than our own offensive simply by their existence?