The Wondering Mind

It’s still touch and go whether the pollution in Beijing will be cleared before the games. Then yesterday, there were reports that journalists had trouble accessing some websites on the Internet from the press centre in Beijing. Officials suggested that the problem was with the particular sites themselves, saying,

There are some problems with a lot of websites themselves that makes it not easy to view them in China.

The only “problems” most observers saw with the sites was the unflattering things they had to say about the Chinese authorities. Although the Olympic officials promised to look into it, they were already setting the stage to make lame excuses.

All of these things are a concern and we’ll investigate them but our preoccupation is that the media are able to report on the Games as they did in previous Games.

Previous Games like the one in Mexico City, when students and protesters were massacred days before the Games began? Apparently, yes.

Today, we got the truth. The Chinese will block any and all sites they don’t like and they’re not even apologising for it.

The embarrassment for the IOC is not helped by the apparent confusion within the organisation.

A senior international Olympic official called the move disappointing.

But International Olympic Committee press commission chairman Kevan Gosper confirmed that officials had been aware of it.

We actually got more honesty out of the Chinese, even if inadvertently.

During the Olympic Games we will provide reporters with sufficient and convenient Internet access so the Olympic Games will not be affected.

Read: “We just want you to report on how many medals people win, not about anything embarrassing about China.”

On top of all the regressive, and repressive, measures China has been taking since the Sichuan earthquakes, these policies are promising to turn this year’s Olympics into the worst political farce since the Nazis hosted it in 1936. And this is even before the doping scandals have started.

So, let the Games begin!

This article in the NY Times a while back got me thinking about the median voter theorem. And then this article popped up today illustrating my point.

Watching the U.S. presidential elections is pretty close to seeing the median voter theorem in practice. As each candidate fights the primaries, they try to get to the middle of their party’s political spectrum. After they win the primaries, they quickly move to the center of American politics. As we see, this can result in unhappy supporters.

Thing is, this is all rather foolish, or should be. Several conditions would have to exist for these tactics to work in practice and it is not at all clear that they do.

First, it is not at all clear that the electorate have a single-peaked preference. For example, there appears to be a much more conservative wing of the Republican Party whose preference peaks to the right of the rest of the party. The numbers of people may be such that you have more than one peak of preference within the party. You can make similar arguments for the Democrats and even more so for the electorate as a whole.

Second, although this country effectively has a two-party system, third-party options do exist. They are usually dismissed because they have no hope of being elected. Not only that, they may take away voted from the candidate closer to your view, resulting in a victory for the guy you wanted the least. This is what many claimed Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.

But this assumes that people have uniform preferences. That is, once a candidate gets too far away from your own preference, you may perceive little to no difference between candidates. For example, who is worse: Hitler or Stalin? In my mind, they are both so despicable that I don’t know if I can make a differentiation.

Something similar may happen with candidates who are so far from your own preference that you don’t care who gets elected. Under those circumstances, you may get more utility from voting for a candidate you believe in, even if you know they won’t win, than from voting for a candidate you dislike but who may keep out the guy who, in your eyes, is barely worse.

Finally, the candidates always seem to try to have it both ways. As they rush to the middle for the general election, they claim that they are not as liberal/conservative as the country may think; they just had to pretend to win the primaries. At the same time, they throw a wink and a nod to their party supporters, saying, “You know I’m your man (that part of American presidential elections still hasn’t changed). I have to pretend for the masses so that I can get into office and enact all the policies that you guys really like.”

They do this because they are making the two assumptions listed above; that you don’t have more than the two choices and you will always prefer the guy closest to your preference. But they’re also counting on the electorate being so disinterested and jaded that they won’t object to the rampant cynicism and outright lying. They are counting on honesty being the last thing the people will care about

The sad thing is that so far, they seem to be right.

So Hasbro is finally going after Scrabulous for copyright infringement. And this has affected users of the application on Facebook, to their consternation.

Now I understand that many users are practically addicted and cannot go a day without Scrabulous, and they are understandably not amused at having their favourite pastime yanked. But the reaction of many seems muddled, as well as over the top.

Even in an age of rampant copying over the Internet, property rights do exist in most countries. And a good thing too, unless you have no problem with a stranger taking all your stuff. Hasbro is simply exercising that right,  as would I if someone stole my car. Especially when the inventors of Scrabulous are making money off of their product, why wouldn’t Hasbro go after them? They are a private enterprise whose sole purpose is to make money!

I also don’t see Scrabulous offering to give up the product to Hasbro for the sake of the users, nor are users demanding anything like that. Why is Hasbro greedy for protecting its property rights, but Scrabulous isn’t for stealing someone else’s property and using it for financial gain?

Chances are now that this has gone to litigation, the parties will come to some agreement which will almost certainly result in the consumers getting royally screwed, as usual. I’m all for scorning corporate greed, but in this case, it is somewhat misplaced.

It’s bizarre why British politicians of just about every party insist on treating the country like a colony of the United States. Especially so when the U.S. keeps adopting thuggish laws and behaviours which the British used so unsuccessfully in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Case in point is of Gary McKinnon, a rather foolish man who hacked into various U.S. military networks looking for evidence of UFOs. Despite what it sounds like, he’s not crazy, although clearly misguided. We won’t comment on the clear over-reaction of the U.S., which appears to be making a fuss more to hide their embarrassment at being hacked in this way rather than because of any real threat or damage done.

This is not the only time that the U.S. has acted in ways that should give everyone pause, but especially foreigners. First they arrested the head of Internet gambling companies visiting the U.S. Then BAE executives were arrested over an investigation.

What’s disturbing about these cases is that the U.S. authorities apparently made the arrests using the requirement of airlines to furnish a flight manifesto to authorities beforehand so that the passengers could be screened against a list of known terrorists. Let’s skip the fact that this list is a joke. What’s worrying is that this list, like many of the new law enforcement powers enacted after 9/11, was supposed to be used exclusively to fight terrorism, not for law enforcement. What else are the FBI, CIA, and other agencies doing with their new powers?

So U.S. authorities are acting like thugs. Big deal. If extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo didn’t already let you know that, you just aren’t paying attention. But what’s that got to so with Britain being the 51st State, you ask?

Well, it’s the treaty Mr. McKinnon is referring to in the audio interview, under which he is being extradited. The treaty is the UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003. The requirements of the treaty are curiously lopsided. This is not the only instance of such arrangements, as the CIA is apparently given a level of access to British intelligence which far outstrips what the British get from the Americans. Why do the politicians believe that Britain needs such an unhealthy relationship of dependency?

If the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have proved anything, it is that there is no reason for the U.K. to so slavishly follow the U.S. in all things. And not just because it is not always (some might even say often) in Britain’s self-interest. If Britain is truly a friend to the U.S., it needs to stand up to the U.S. on those occasions when the U.S. is making a complete ass of itself and try to stop its friend from doing things which are self-destructive and which it will regret later. The last thing Britain should do is to encourage the silly behaviour and join in.

It’s hard to argue with results. It’s even harder when the results are saving lives. But you have to admit you feel a little uneasy reading such articles. Yes, you’re grateful about these people saving your life by getting you to wash your hands, but are you still grateful knowing you were manipulated into it? You begin to wonder if that road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

The article, however, misses the most obvious question: why are we only uneasy when these techniques are used to help us and not when used to sell Febreze? I mean, if the methods are questionable when they are used to help us, shouldn’t they be outright reprehensible when used to sell us things we don’t need, or would not otherwise want?

The only substantive difference here seems to be that in one situation we are trying to enact policy, while in the other we are trying to make a profit. And clearly society at large feels that you are allowed more latitude if you’re trying to make a buck versus trying to do something to affect the world, without any profit motive.

The point here isn’t that it’s OK to do these things to save lives or enact other policies you feel is worthy. (Who made you king and, more importantly, who made your judgement the right one?) If we’re talking policy, in an open society we should debate it openly first. The point is the lack of scrutiny of big business trying to sell us things and the methods they use, except in news articles examining similar behaviour in “public servants”.

The recent filing of an indictment of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan for genocide has raised objections from the usual quarters concerned about setting a precedent on the how the world may react against their own domestic misdeeds. Objections from some quarters in Sudan have, however, concentrated on the potential destabilising effect of the indictment. Even some Western diplomats seem to be defending Bashir, saying that,

“The government is brutal, untrustworthy and bloodthirsty, but the reality is that most of the violence in Darfur today is not caused by them. Is there a genocide in Darfur right at this moment? No, there isn’t.”

This appears to stem from the fact that many people agree that the potential alternatives to a Bashir led government is much worse than the current state of affairs. While justice is all well and good in theory, is it worth the lives of thousands more?

When put like that, the indictments do appear to be somewhat Quixotic, maybe even callous. Who can support an effort to put just one man in jail, only to spur hundreds and thousands more men to even greater violence?

On a banal level, we can quote Benjamin Franklin.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

But instead of blindly quoting Franklin, let us actually think about what he said.

If we sacrifice the most fundamental rights for security or peace, how long can we have either? If sacrificing justice for peace was such a good idea, why do we expend so much effort and resources on fighting organised crime? It would be much better for everyone to come to an understanding to simply minimise the criminals’ violence perpetrated on the general public. But we don’t.

We don’t because there is not true peace when compromising with evil men. We know that there is no true and lasting  security or peace when it is bargained from such men. That is why we fight crime and that is why this crime must be fought as well, in the courts and elsewhere.

And that’s not all. How can you hope to rebuild a country and to establish peace when murderers and rapists, and those who instigated and directed them, roam free? How do you build a peaceful society on the back of murderous violence? How do criminals establish a just society? How can the people, especially the survivors of this violence, live and prosper in such a world?

Of course, the ideal situation would be for Sudan to find its own justice, as South Africa did after the end of Apartheid. If all the people can come together and agree on a settlement, no matter how imperfect, then it really would be an internal matter for Sudan and there could be true peace. But as long as South Africa continues to be the only example of such peace, and as long as justice continues to be such a foreign concept on Sudanese soil, the international community cannot stand idly by.

We made a solemn promise after the Holocaust. And again after Rwanda. We have yet to live up to our word.